Tag Archives: public policy

Netneutrality.ca back up

Leave a reply

Good news! Netneutrality.ca is back up and running after a long, legally imposed, hiatus.

What does net neutrality mean? In short net neutrality is the principle that consumers should control what content, services and applications they use on the Internet. That this use should not be mediated, manipulated or impeded by your internet service provider. Essentially, the cable and phone companies want to charge content providers (e.g. webpages) a premium for preferred access. Sites that pay the premium would load faster than those that don’t and/or would have access to more bandwidth.

Kevin McArthur – the previous owner of the site posted the following note on Facebook explaining why the site was down and why he has handed it over to Michael Geist.

“So most of you know that I had to shut down the neutrality.ca site 6 weeks ago due to a cryptic ‘increasing legal concerns’ reason. Well, I still can’t talk about why exactly I had to do this but there are a few things we can learn.

First, defamation law is fundamentally broken in Canada. Not only are you guilty until proven innocent, but you are expected to mount a 6 figure defense to any filed allegation if you expect to win. This technique is known as a SLAPP lawsuit, and no longer must the agressors actually file papers, as the threat is sufficient enough to make any activist ponder principle or bankruptcy.

I made my choice, [ I really like my MINI cooper ], but others have chosen to stand and fight. Dr. Michael Geist [michaelgeist.ca] who holds the Canada Research Chair of Internet and E-Commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, is one such person. He’s stood up for Canadians, and is now being sued by Wayne Crookes in an separate but strikingly similar case to which I was to be subject.

I decided that he was just the right person to stand up for Net Neutrality and that he had the best chance of keeping the site going. As a result, I gave him the Neutrality.ca site, which when shut down was receiving about 20,000 visitors a month.

I’m sure he’ll take the site where I never could, and hopefully we’ll all get Net Neutrality in Canada.

The fight is far from over though, and I need each and every one of you reading this post to tell at least 3 people about Net Neutrality. Blog it. Put banners on your site. Scream it from the rooftops. It doesn’t matter so long as people know about it.

Failure to act on this issue will mean that the Internet as we know it will simply cease to exist, and a commercial medium devoid of non-commercial interests will emerge. Just like Radio and TV before it.

So stand up, take notice, and sign the petition on http://www.neutrality.ca !

Replacing Junkets with Junkets?

Leave a reply

In yesterday’s post I berated the Globe and Mail for slamming MPs over increasing their international travel budgets. I thought it would end there. But then yesterday’s Globe and Mail published this editorial arguing that MPs should retire their junkets.

Now in the editorial the “junkets” the G&M refers to are international trips paid for by third parties. The Globe argues that “If a trip is important, the Commons has a budget allocations for such ventures… senators and MPS recently added another $1.2 -million a year to their $3-million annual federal allotment.”

Interesting. So to prevent undue influence peddling the government should cover the costs of relevant and important trips. That sounds like a sensible solution.

However, last Thursday, when the $1.2-million increase was announced to enable MPs to attend interparliamentary association meetings, the Globe described this solutions as a “secretly approved… extra $1.2-million a year for junkets and other perks that come with their global network of interparliamentary committees.”

Yesterday’s scandal is today’s editorial solution. I love the consistency.

Vision Vancouver Policy Conference

Leave a reply

For those living in Vancouver and interested in progressive politics at the municipal level, Vision Vancouver is hosting a day long policy conference on Saturday June 9th at BCIT’s downtown campus.

The plan is to have three panels, one on “A Liveable City,” one on “Housing Affordability,” and one on “Cultural Communities.” Vision councilors will be on hand through out the day and available for some formal Q&A at the end of the day. In addition, I will be giving a short lunchtime talk on the challenges of progressive politics in the 21st century.

If you are interested in reserve a spot (and free lunch) RSVP at conference@votevision.ca

Public Service Reform: Starting at the Apex

7 Replies

So I’ve just sent APEX a copy of my speech – I actually never write out my speeches so I literally had to go back through it in my head – anyway I will post here soon as well.

For me, one of my favourite parts revolved around the APEX logo (APEX is the organization that represents all the executives of the Canadian Federal Public Service). I asked the conference attendees to take off their name badges, look at them, and tell me what they saw. Most saw it right away. The Apex logo.

Symbols matter. So, when you look at this symbol what do you see?

After a day and a half of hearing speaker after speaker talk about creating a public service that was more open, more innovative and less hierarchical, I wanted to draw their attention to the symbol the Public Service Executives use to portray themselves to the world.

Could one imagine a symbol that conveys hierarchy, control, and dominance more effectively? (I love that it is not just a pyramid, but that its angled so you have to look up at it). “Were on top! Guess where you are?”

Do we want a different public service? It will take a lot of work and changing symbols won’t get us there. But it is a start.

At this point I like to briefly say thank you to Michel Smith for inviting me to talk – he invited me to come and speak and I thanked him by dismantling his organizations logo… he deserves better.

So, in that spirit, I’d like to propose an idea based on something the president of Scandinavian Airlines once talked about in an article he wrote (where, I don’t remember). After much reflection he flipped his organizational chart upside down so as to place him at the bottom, understanding that his role was to support everybody above him, so they could, in turn, support the front-line workers who actually touch the customers. Maybe we could flip the APEX logo on its head? Can we imagine a public service executive that thinks the same way?

Now, if only we could come up with a better acronym… Any suggestions? (Remember it has to work in French and English).

First Nations Negotiation Process: …and into the fire

4 Replies

Yesterday I was commenting on Jim Prentices proposed reform to the First Nations treaty negotiation process. Specifically, he is considering giving the Indian Claims Commission (ICC) the authority to make legal rulings and thus settle agreements.

While the details have not all been made clear, it would appear that Prentice’s reform seeks to shift the ICC’s role from that of mediator – where any agreement is determined by the parties themselves rather than being imposed by a third party – to arbitrator – where agreements are imposed by the arbitrator and to which the disagreeing parties agree, in advance, to be bound.

The problem with arbitration is that it may not solve the underlying problems plaguing the process. For example, Prentice sites two shortcomings of the current process – it is too slow, and not perceived to be legitimate.

Arbitration, may increase the speed. However, it may not be any more legitimate, and could actually be less so…

For example, on what basis would arbitrated decisions be made? What would be the guiding principles the arbitrators would reference? Who would establish these principles? Will these be negotiated? If so, by who? All First Nations and the government? Or a representative sub-group? Ultimately, if the principles that guide the arbitration are not perceived by all parties to be fair and legitimate, or if the arbitrators themselves lack the respect of the opposing parties then the process may actually be seen as less legitimate then the current negotiations.

Indeed, this is even more important given the nature of the negotiations. Because the parties are negotiating over sovereignty this process is deeply political. Will Canadians, or First Nation, feel comfortable handing such a sensitive decision over to a third party who has no track record in making these decisions and so, to which the outcomes will be unpredictable?

Another problem with arbitration is that it does little to resolve any relationship/trust/cooperation problems between the parties. By bringing in a third party to resolve the dispute First Nations and the government will establish a problematic precedent: When we don’t agree, bring someone else in to arbitrate.

In many respects, treaty settlements are not the end of the process but the beginning. Treaties form the basis for a new relationships between First Nations and the government. Regardless of the treaty’s specifics, the parties are going to have to learn to work together more effectively going forward. To assume, that once the settlement is out of the way, all the actors will know their jurisdictions and powers and so will get along, is probably a false one. Just ask anyone whose ever worked on Fed-Prov relations…

If Canadians are serious about creating a new relationship with First Nations it feels odd that the first step in establishing this new relationship would be to put a third party between the two groups. Negotiating can be fair, legitimate and (relatively) speedy. The question isn’t about arbitration, it is about whether this (or any) government wants to make it a priority.

First Nations Negotiation Process: Out of INAC and…

Leave a reply

It is looking increasingly likely that Jim Prentice will reform the First Nations treaty negotiation process. Specifically, he is considering giving the Indian Claims Commission (ICC) the authority to make legal rulings and thus settle agreements.

While the full implications of this decision need to be weighed one part that is a positive development is getting these negotiations out of the hands of INAC. It must be difficult for First Nations to believe that the government is negotiating in good faith when the party they are negotiating with is the same party that provides all their services. This point became the basis for a discussion paper I submitted to the Aboriginal Report to the Liberal Renewal Commission and shared as a post on the Dominion Institute Blog.

“On the one hand, INAC is First Nations’ key partner, essential to ensuring service delivery, representing them and their issues at the cabinet table, and enabling them to raise critical issues in other government ministries. On the other hand, it is also their negotiation counterpart with whom it may be necessary to lock horns and disagree with to ensure a fair and equitable interpretation of their treaty (or in the case of aboriginal groups in British Columbia, to secure a treaty).”

It would appear that even Jim Prentice recognizes the perceived conflict of interest in having his department simultaneously represent First Nations interests within cabinet while negotiating against them… During an interview on Question Period he apparently conceded: “There has been a complaint in this country for 60 years that the government of Canada serves as the defendant and the judge and the jury and the research body. And that it’s too much. And the government of Canada is in conflicting roles. And that’s something that we are trying to get to the heart of.”

Amen.

So moving negotiations out of INAC is a plus. But their remains the question of whether an independent committee like the ICC will be any more legitimate. I’ve argued that the way forward is the establishment of an independent secretariat – with its head reporting directly to cabinet – as the home for these negotiations. Both sides need to represent their interests, handing the process over to a third party probably does not accomplish that. More importantly, an independent may be faster but it is also unclear if it will be more legitimate then the current process. In short, done incorrectly, this may be create as many problems as it solves…

I’ll pick up on this thread tomorrow. For now, Prentice is off to an interesting start. At least he’s thinking new thoughts. However, my fear is that this line of thinking will devolve into: “Out of INAC and into the fire…”

Don't Ban Facebook – Op-ed in today's G&M

5 Replies

You can download the op-ed here.

The Globe and Mail published an op-ed I wrote today on why the government shouldn’t ban face book, but hire it.

The point is that Web 2.0 technologies, properly used, can improve communication and coordination across large organizations and communities. If the government must ban Facebook then it should also hire it to provide a similar service across its various ministries. If not it risks sending a strong message that it wants its employees to stay in your little box.

One thing I didn’t get into in the op-ed is the message this action sends to prospective (younger) employees. Such a ban is a great example of how the government sees its role as manager. Essential the public service is telling its employees “we don’t trust that you will do your job and will waste your (and our) time doing (what we think are) frivolous things. Who wants to work in an environment where there own boss doesn’t trust them? Does that sound like a learning environment? Does it sound like a fun environment?

Probably not.

—–

Facebook Revisited

DAVID EAVES
SPECIAL TO GLOBE AND MAIL
MAY 17, 2007 AT 12:38 AM EDT

Today’s federal and provincial governments talk a good game about public-service renewal, reducing hierarchy, and improving inter-ministry co-operation. But actions speak louder than words, and our bureaucracies’ instincts for secrecy and control still dominate their culture and frame their understanding of technology.

Last week, these instincts revealed themselves again when several public-service bureaucracies — including Parliament Hill and the Ontario Public Service — banned access to Facebook.

To public-service executives, Facebook may appear to be little more than a silly distraction. But it needn’t be. Indeed, it could be the very opposite. These technology platforms increasingly serve as a common space, even a community, a place where public servants could connect, exchange ideas and update one another on their work. Currently, the public service has a different way of achieving those goals: It’s called meetings, or worse, e-mail. Sadly, as anyone who works in a large organizations knows, those two activities can quickly consume a day, pulling one away from actual work. Facebook may “waste time” but it pales in comparison to the time spent in redundant meetings and answering a never-ending stream of e-mails.

An inspired public service shouldn’t ban Facebook, it should hire it.

A government-run Facebook, one that allowed public servants to list their interests, current area of work, past experiences, contact information and current status, would be indispensable. It would allow public servants across ministries to search out and engage counterparts with specialized knowledge, relevant interests or similar responsibilities. Moreover, it would allow public servants to set up networks, where people from different departments, but working on a similar issue, could keep one another abreast of their work.

In contrast, today’s public servants often find themselves unaware of, and unable to connect with, colleagues in other ministries or other levels of government who work on similar issues. This is not because their masters don’t want them to connect (although this is sometimes the case) but because they lack the technology to identify one another. As a result, public servants drafting policy on interconnected issues — such as the Environment Canada employee working on riverbed erosion and the Fisheries and Oceans employee working on spawning salmon — may not even know the other exists.

One goal of public-sector renewal is to enable better co-operation. Ian Green, the Public Policy Forum chair of Public Service
Governance noted in an on-line Globe and Mail commentary (Ensuring Our Public Service Is A Force For Good In The Lives Of Canadians — May 8) that governments face “increasingly complex and cross-cutting issues … such as environmental and health policy.” If improving co-ordination and the flow of information within and across government ministries is a central challenge, then Facebook isn’t a distraction, it’s an opportunity.

Better still, implementing such a project would be cheap and simple. After all, the computer code that runs Facebook has already been written. More importantly, it works, and, as the government is all too aware, government employees like using it. Why not ask Facebook to create a government version? No expensive scaling or customization would be required. More importantly, by government-IT standards, it would be inexpensive.

It would certainly be an improvement over current government online directories. Anyone familiar with the federal government’s Electronic Directory Services (GEDS) knows it cannot conduct searches based on interests, knowledge or experience. Indeed, searches are only permissible by name, title, telephone and department. Ironically, if you knew any of that information, you probably wouldn’t need the search engine to begin with.

Retired public servants still talk of a time when ministries were smaller, located within walking distance of one another, and where everyone knew everyone else. In their day — 60 years ago — inter-ministerial problems were solved over lunch and coffee in a shared cafeteria or local restaurant. Properly embraced, technologies like Facebook offer an opportunity to recapture the strengths of this era.

By facilitating communication, collaboration and a sense of community, the public services of Canada may discover what their
employees already know: Tools like Facebook are the new cafeterias, where challenges are resolved, colleagues are kept up to date, and inter-ministerial co-operation takes place. Sure, ban Facebook if you must. But also hire it. The job of the public services will be easier and Canadians interests will be more effectively served.

David Eaves is a frequent speaker and consultant on public policy and negotiation. He recently spoke at the Association of Professional Executives conference on Public Service Renewal.

The Day in Print

Leave a reply

Two interesting pieces out today:

Veronica Kitchen and Karthika Sasikumar published an op-ed in today’s Globe and Mail. Entitled Air India’s Lesson for Promoting Security at Home it discusses how human security needs not only to be championed abroad, but is a basic principle that should be used when designing security policy at home.

Also, Peter MacLeod sent me this interesting piece in the Hill Times about the (failed) Liberal Renewal Commission. As many of you know most of the Liberal Renewal Commission reports were never formally published or translated. Several of those on the commission released their reports independently after the fact. I’ve posted links to three of them here.

Government Sponsoring Anti-Abortion March?

25 Replies

So much going on right now – tons to share on the Mozilla debate, the APEX conference, and the government bans on Facebook – will be getting to it all next week. In the meantime, I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts on this:

I was in Ottawa yesterday (May 10th) and ran headlong into the annual March for Life.

Politics around the issue aside (I’m pro-marching for what you believe in – whatever you believe) I was surprised to see that the big 30 foot long “March for Life” banners at the front of the march had the Government of Canada logo on them.

You, know, this logo:

Gov of Can logo

Is the government of Canada sponsoring anti-abortion groups? Normally you use this logo if you receive government funding. Not sure what the rules are around government funding political advocacy groups? Anybody know?

Alternatively, maybe the march’s organizing body just grabbed the logo and slapped it on its banners? Is this logo trademarked? Is this a trademark violation? Although I somehow suspect that no one at Justice is getting all that excited about it.

Either way, it is interesting…

Canadian Foreign Policy oriented Job Posting

5 Replies

I’ve recently been asked to sit on the advisory committee for Canada’s World. An emerging project that seeks to facilitate a national dialogue on Canadian Foreign Policy.

Shauna Sylvester, the founder and director has started the process of staffing up the project. Attached below is the notice. Interested parties should contact Shauna.

Job Posting – Online Community Facilitator and Editor

Term: 18 months
Rate: $55,000 to $60,000 based on experience
Location: Vancouver
Ideal Start date: June 11, 2007
Application deadline: May 23, 2007

Canada’s World, a project of the SFU Centre for Dialogue seeks a full-time On-Line Community Facilitator and Editor to join our national team. Canada’s World is a national citizens’ dialogue aimed at creating a new vision for Canadian international policy. Our secretariat offices are based in Vancouver and we work in collaboration with a series of academic and non-profit organizations across the country.

The On-line Community Facilitator and Editor plays a pivotal role in this collaborative initiative. S/he will report to the Director of Canada’s World and work closely with staff, interns, volunteers and advisory committee members in creating a virtual community where citizens can exchange ideas and learn about Canada’s place in the world.

The idea candidate will be an excellent writer, well-organized, and detail-oriented with a passion for and knowledge of international policy issues. S/he will be bilingual (French and English), enjoy working within a dynamic work environment and capable of analyzing complex discussions and distilling them in plain language communications. S/he will be experienced at facilitating on-line forums and blogs, enjoy editing and working with computers and social networking tools. S/he will possess a post-secondary degree in Arts, Social Sciences, Information Management or a related field, enjoy working in a face-paced dynamic environment and have the ability to think creatively.

Canada’s World is an equal opportunity employer. All interested applicants should submit their cover letter, resume and a 200 word response to the following question: What are some of the greatest challenges and opportunities facing Canada internationally in the next twenty years?

to: Shauna Sylvester shaunas@canadasworld.ca, Canada’s World Fellow, SFU Centre for Dialogue, 3303 – 515 West Hastings Street, Vancouver, B.C. V6B 5K3

Job Description

The Online Community Facilitator/Editor is responsible for facilitating the virtual presence of Canada’s World. S/he reports to the Project Director and works with web design staff in ensuring that the on-line components of the initiative are developed and delivered to maximize citizen engagement. Specific duties include:

Communications and Marketing

  • Assisting staff in identifying appropriate modes of marketing the website
  • Inviting community members to use the site, assisting them with access and logistical issues
  • Responding to information requests from community members in a timely manner
  • Developing on-line tools to maximize social networking and outreach to existing and potential community members

Editing and Regulation

  • Overseeing the approval of content across the site and ensuring that quality content is approved and inappropriate content is declined
  • Consulting with appropriate stakeholders when editorial issues arise and addressing them in a sensitive manner
  • Bringing attention to and/or enforcing community norms, rules and procedures
  • Acting as the primary liaison with the web hosting organization, suppliers and licensing bodies

On-line Programming

  • Uploading content onto the site, creating groups and folders and updating web pages
  • Maintaining a daily blog which summarizes the key ideas from the days’ online deliberations
  • Facilitating a daily on-line forum based on the key themes from the citizens’ dialogues
  • Designing and monitoring on-line surveys and developing summary reports of their findings
  • Tracking and monitoring web usage to identify areas for strength and improvement

Planning, Administration, Reporting

  • Providing advice to the Director and web design team on strengthening the on-line dimensions of the initiative
  • Working and supporting interns and volunteers in web-related activities
  • Providing written reports for presentation to funders as necessary
  • Participating in evaluations of the on-line program
  • Participating and representing Canada’s World at external meetings as requested
  • Participate actively on the Canada’s World staff team and share in the administrative duties