text:
Tag Archives: Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC)
Governments need to tell us when and how they're using AI (artificial intelligence) algorithms to make decisions
I have two items and an exploration of the Canadian scene all three of which feature governments, artificial intelligence, and responsibility.
Special issue of Information Polity edited by Dutch academics,
A December 14, 2020 IOS Press press release (also on EurekAlert) announces a special issue of Information Polity focused on algorithmic transparency in government,
Amsterdam, NL – The use of algorithms in government is transforming the way bureaucrats work and make decisions in different areas, such as healthcare or criminal justice. Experts address the transparency challenges of using algorithms in decision-making procedures at the macro-, meso-, and micro-levels in this special issue of Information Polity.
Machine-learning algorithms hold huge potential to make government services fairer and more effective and have the potential of "freeing" decision-making from human subjectivity, according to recent research. Algorithms are used in many public service contexts. For example, within the legal system it has been demonstrated that algorithms can predict recidivism better than criminal court judges. At the same time, critics highlight several dangers of algorithmic decision-making, such as racial bias and lack of transparency.
Some scholars have argued that the introduction of algorithms in decision-making procedures may cause profound shifts in the way bureaucrats make decisions and that algorithms may affect broader organizational routines and structures. This special issue on algorithm transparency presents six contributions to sharpen our conceptual and empirical understanding of the use of algorithms in government.
"There has been a surge in criticism towards the 'black box' of algorithmic decision-making in government," explain Guest Editors Sarah Giest (Leiden University) and Stephan Grimmelikhuijsen (Utrecht University). "In this special issue collection, we show that it is not enough to unpack the technical details of algorithms, but also look at institutional, organizational, and individual context within which these algorithms operate to truly understand how we can achieve transparent and responsible algorithms in government. For example, regulations may enable transparency mechanisms, yet organizations create new policies on how algorithms should be used, and individual public servants create new professional repertoires. All these levels interact and affect algorithmic transparency in public organizations."
The transparency challenges for the use of algorithms transcend different levels of government – from European level to individual public bureaucrats. These challenges can also take different forms; transparency can be enabled or limited by technical tools as well as regulatory guidelines or organizational policies. Articles in this issue address transparency challenges of algorithm use at the macro-, meso-, and micro-level. The macro level describes phenomena from an institutional perspective – which national systems, regulations and cultures play a role in algorithmic decision-making. The meso-level primarily pays attention to the organizational and team level, while the micro-level focuses on individual attributes, such as beliefs, motivation, interactions, and behaviors.
"Calls to 'keep humans in the loop' may be moot points if we fail to understand how algorithms impact human decision-making and how algorithmic design impacts the practical possibilities for transparency and human discretion," notes Rik Peeters, research professor of Public Administration at the Centre for Research and Teaching in Economics (CIDE) in Mexico City. In a review of recent academic literature on the micro-level dynamics of algorithmic systems, he discusses three design variables that determine the preconditions for human transparency and discretion and identifies four main sources of variation in "human-algorithm interaction."
The article draws two major conclusions: First, human agents are rarely fully "out of the loop," and levels of oversight and override designed into algorithms should be understood as a continuum. The second pertains to bounded rationality, satisficing behavior, automation bias, and frontline coping mechanisms that play a crucial role in the way humans use algorithms in decision-making processes.
For future research Dr. Peeters suggests taking a closer look at the behavioral mechanisms in combination with identifying relevant skills of bureaucrats in dealing with algorithms. "Without a basic understanding of the algorithms that screen- and street-level bureaucrats have to work with, it is difficult to imagine how they can properly use their discretion and critically assess algorithmic procedures and outcomes. Professionals should have sufficient training to supervise the algorithms with which they are working."
At the macro-level, algorithms can be an important tool for enabling institutional transparency, writes Alex Ingrams, PhD, Governance and Global Affairs, Institute of Public Administration, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands. This study evaluates a machine-learning approach to open public comments for policymaking to increase institutional transparency of public commenting in a law-making process in the United States. The article applies an unsupervised machine learning analysis of thousands of public comments submitted to the United States Transport Security Administration on a 2013 proposed regulation for the use of new full body imaging scanners in airports. The algorithm highlights salient topic clusters in the public comments that could help policymakers understand open public comments processes. "Algorithms should not only be subject to transparency but can also be used as tool for transparency in government decision-making," comments Dr. Ingrams.
"Regulatory certainty in combination with organizational and managerial capacity will drive the way the technology is developed and used and what transparency mechanisms are in place for each step," note the Guest Editors. "On its own these are larger issues to tackle in terms of developing and passing laws or providing training and guidance for public managers and bureaucrats. The fact that they are linked further complicates this process. Highlighting these linkages is a first step towards seeing the bigger picture of why transparency mechanisms are put in place in some scenarios and not in others and opens the door to comparative analyses for future research and new insights for policymakers. To advocate the responsible and transparent use of algorithms, future research should look into the interplay between micro-, meso-, and macro-level dynamics."
"We are proud to present this special issue, the 100th issue of Information Polity. Its focus on the governance of AI demonstrates our continued desire to tackle contemporary issues in eGovernment and the importance of showcasing excellent research and the insights offered by information polity perspectives," add Professor Albert Meijer (Utrecht University) and Professor William Webster (University of Stirling), Editors-in-Chief.
This image illustrates the interplay between the various level dynamics,
Caption: Studying algorithms and algorithmic transparency from multiple levels of analyses. Credit: Information Polity.
Here's a link, to and a citation for the special issue,
Algorithmic Transparency in Government: Towards a Multi-Level Perspective
Guest Editors: Sarah Giest, PhD, and Stephan Grimmelikhuijsen, PhD
Information Polity, Volume 25, Issue 4 (December 2020), published by IOS Press
The issue is open access for three months, Dec. 14, 2020 – March 14, 2021.
Two articles from the special were featured in the press release,
"The agency of algorithms: Understanding human-algorithm interaction in administrative decision-making," by Rik Peeters, PhD (https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-200253)
"A machine learning approach to open public comments for policymaking," by Alex Ingrams, PhD (https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-200256)
An AI governance publication from the US's Wilson Center
Within one week of the release of a special issue of Information Polity on AI and governments, a Wilson Center (Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars) December 21, 2020 news release (received via email) announces a new publication,
Governing AI: Understanding the Limits, Possibilities, and Risks of AI in an Era of Intelligent Tools and Systems by John Zysman & Mark Nitzberg
In debates about artificial intelligence (AI), imaginations often run wild. Policy-makers, opinion leaders, and the public tend to believe that AI is already an immensely powerful universal technology, limitless in its possibilities. However, while machine learning (ML), the principal computer science tool underlying today's AI breakthroughs, is indeed powerful, ML is fundamentally a form of context-dependent statistical inference and as such has its limits. Specifically, because ML relies on correlations between inputs and outputs or emergent clustering in training data, today's AI systems can only be applied in well- specified problem domains, still lacking the context sensitivity of a typical toddler or house-pet. Consequently, instead of constructing policies to govern artificial general intelligence (AGI), decision- makers should focus on the distinctive and powerful problems posed by narrow AI, including misconceived benefits and the distribution of benefits, autonomous weapons, and bias in algorithms. AI governance, at least for now, is about managing those who create and deploy AI systems, and supporting the safe and beneficial application of AI to narrow, well-defined problem domains. Specific implications of our discussion are as follows:
AI applications are part of a suite of intelligent tools and systems and must ultimately be regulated as a set. Digital platforms, for example, generate the pools of big data on which AI tools operate and hence, the regulation of digital platforms and big data is part of the challenge of governing AI. Many of the platform offerings are, in fact, deployments of AI tools. Hence, focusing on AI alone distorts the governance problem.
Simply declaring objectives—be they assuring digital privacy and transparency, or avoiding bias—is not sufficient. We must decide what the goals actually will be in operational terms.
The issues and choices will differ by sector. For example, the consequences of bias and error will differ from a medical domain or a criminal justice domain to one of retail sales.
The application of AI tools in public policy decision making, in transportation design or waste disposal or policing among a whole variety of domains, requires great care. There is a substantial risk of focusing on efficiency when the public debate about what the goals should be in the first place is in fact required. Indeed, public values evolve as part of social and political conflict.
The economic implications of AI applications are easily exaggerated. Should public investment concentrate on advancing basic research or on diffusing the tools, user interfaces, and training needed to implement them?
As difficult as it will be to decide on goals and a strategy to implement the goals of one community, let alone regional or international communities, any agreement that goes beyond simple objective statements is very unlikely.
Unfortunately, I haven't been able to successfully download the working paper/report from the Wilson Center's Governing AI: Understanding the Limits, Possibilities, and Risks of AI in an Era of Intelligent Tools and Systems webpage.
However, I have found a draft version of the report (Working Paper) published August 26, 2020 on the Social Science Research Network. This paper originated at the University of California at Berkeley as part of a series from the Berkeley Roundtable on the International Economy (BRIE). 'Governing AI: Understanding the Limits, Possibility, and Risks of AI in an Era of Intelligent Tools and Systems' is also known as the BRIE Working Paper 2020-5.
Canadian government and AI
The special issue on AI and governance and the the paper published by the Wilson Center stimulated my interest in the Canadian government's approach to governance, responsibility, transparency, and AI.
There is information out there but it's scattered across various government initiatives and ministries. Above all, it is not easy to find, open communication. Whether that's by design or the blindness and/or ineptitude to be found in all organizations I leave that to wiser judges. (I've worked in small companies and they too have the problem. In colloquial terms, 'the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing'.)
Responsible use? Maybe not after 2019
First there's a government of Canada webpage, Responsible use of artificial intelligence (AI). Other than a note at the bottom of the page "Date modified: 2020-07-28," all of the information dates from 2016 up to March 2019 (which you'll find on 'Our Timeline'). Is nothing new happening?
For anyone interested in responsible use, there are two sections "Our guiding principles" and "Directive on Automated Decision-Making" that answer some questions. I found the 'Directive' to be more informative with its definitions, objectives, and, even, consequences. Sadly, you need to keep clicking to find consequences and you'll end up on The Framework for the Management of Compliance. Interestingly, deputy heads are assumed in charge of managing non-compliance. I wonder how employees deal with a non-compliant deputy head?
What about the government's digital service?
You might think Canadian Digital Service (CDS) might also have some information about responsible use. CDS was launched in 2017, according to Luke Simon's July 19, 2017 article on Medium,
In case you missed it, there was some exciting digital government news in Canada Tuesday. The Canadian Digital Service (CDS) launched, meaning Canada has joined other nations, including the US and the UK, that have a federal department dedicated to digital.
At the time, Simon was Director of Outreach at Code for Canada.
Presumably, CDS, from an organizational perspective, is somehow attached to the Minister of Digital Government (it's a position with virtually no governmental infrastructure as opposed to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development who is responsible for many departments and agencies). The current minister is Joyce Murray whose government profile offers almost no information about her work on digital services. Perhaps there's a more informative profile of the Minister of Digital Government somewhere on a government website.
Meanwhile, they are friendly folks at CDS but they don't offer much substantive information. From the CDS homepage,
Our aim is to make services easier for government to deliver. We collaborate with people who work in government to address service delivery problems. We test with people who need government services to find design solutions that are easy to use.
After clicking on Learn more, I found this,
At the Canadian Digital Service (CDS), we partner up with federal departments to design, test and build simple, easy to use services. Our goal is to improve the experience – for people who deliver government services and people who use those services.
We work with our partners in the open, regularly sharing progress via public platforms. This creates a culture of learning and fosters best practices. It means non-partner departments can apply our work and use our resources to develop their own services.
Together, we form a team that follows the 'Agile software development methodology'. This means we begin with an intensive 'Discovery' research phase to explore user needs and possible solutions to meeting those needs. After that, we move into a prototyping 'Alpha' phase to find and test ways to meet user needs. Next comes the 'Beta' phase, where we release the solution to the public and intensively test it. Lastly, there is a 'Live' phase, where the service is fully released and continues to be monitored and improved upon.
Between the Beta and Live phases, our team members step back from the service, and the partner team in the department continues the maintenance and development. We can help partners recruit their service team from both internal and external sources.
Before each phase begins, CDS and the partner sign a partnership agreement which outlines the goal and outcomes for the coming phase, how we'll get there, and a commitment to get them done.
As you can see, there's not a lot of detail and they don't seem to have included anything about artificial intelligence as part of their operation. (I'll come back to the government's implementation of artificial intelligence and information technology later.)
Does the Treasury Board of Canada have charge of responsible AI use?
I think so but there are government departments/ministries that also have some responsibilities for AI and I haven't seen any links back to the Treasury Board documentation.
For anyone not familiar with the Treasury Board or even if you are, December 14, 2009 article (Treasury Board of Canada: History, Organization and Issues) on Maple Leaf Web is quite informative,
The Treasury Board of Canada represent a key entity within the federal government. As an important cabinet committee and central agency, they play an important role in financial and personnel administration. Even though the Treasury Board plays a significant role in government decision making, the general public tends to know little about its operation and activities. [emphasis mine] The following article provides an introduction to the Treasury Board, with a focus on its history, responsibilities, organization, and key issues.
It seems the Minister of Digital Government, Joyce Murray is part of the Treasury Board and the Treasury Board is the source for the Digital Operations Strategic Plan: 2018-2022,
I haven't read the entire document but the table of contents doesn't include a heading for artificial intelligence and there wasn't any mention of it in the opening comments.
But isn't there a Chief Information Officer for Canada?
Herein lies a tale (I doubt I'll ever get the real story) but the answer is a qualified 'no'. The Chief Information Officer for Canada, Alex Benay (there is an AI aspect) stepped down in September 2019 to join a startup company according to an August 6, 2019 article by Mia Hunt for Global Government Forum,
Alex Benay has announced he will step down as Canada's chief information officer next month to "take on new challenge" at tech start-up MindBridge.
"It is with mixed emotions that I am announcing my departure from the Government of Canada," he said on Wednesday in a statement posted on social media, describing his time as CIO as "one heck of a ride".
He said he is proud of the work the public service has accomplished in moving the national digital agenda forward. Among these achievements, he listed the adoption of public Cloud across government; delivering the "world's first" ethical AI management framework; [emphasis mine] renewing decades-old policies to bring them into the digital age; and "solidifying Canada's position as a global leader in open government".
He also led the introduction of new digital standards in the workplace, and provided "a clear path for moving off" Canada's failed Phoenix pay system. [emphasis mine]
I cannot find a current Chief Information of Canada despite searches but I did find this List of chief information officers (CIO) by institution. Where there was one, there are now many.
Since September 2019, Mr. Benay has moved again according to a November 7, 2019 article by Meagan Simpson on the BetaKit,website (Note: Links have been removed),
Alex Benay, the former CIO [Chief Information Officer] of Canada, has left his role at Ottawa-based Mindbridge after a short few months stint.
The news came Thursday, when KPMG announced that Benay was joining the accounting and professional services organization as partner of digital and government solutions. Benay originally announced that he was joining Mindbridge in August, after spending almost two and a half years as the CIO for the Government of Canada.
Benay joined the AI startup as its chief client officer and, at the time, was set to officially take on the role on September 3rd. According to Benay's LinkedIn, he joined Mindbridge in August, but if the September 3rd start date is correct, Benay would have only been at Mindbridge for around three months. The former CIO of Canada was meant to be responsible for Mindbridge's global growth as the company looked to prepare for an IPO in 2021.
Benay told The Globe and Mail that his decision to leave Mindbridge was not a question of fit, or that he considered the move a mistake. He attributed his decision to leave to conversations with Mindbridge customer KPMG, over a period of three weeks. Benay told The Globe that he was drawn to the KPMG opportunity to lead its digital and government solutions practice, something that was more familiar to him given his previous role.
Mindbridge has not completely lost what was touted as a start hire, though, as Benay will be staying on as an advisor to the startup. "This isn't a cutting the cord and moving on to something else completely," Benay told The Globe. "It's a win-win for everybody."
Via Mr. Benay, I've re-introduced artificial intelligence and introduced the Phoenix Pay system and now I'm linking them to government implementation of information technology in a specific case and speculating about implementation of artificial intelligence algorithms in government.
Phoenix Pay System Debacle (things are looking up), a harbinger for responsible use of artificial intelligence?
I'm happy to hear that the situation where government employees had no certainty about their paycheques is becoming better. After the 'new' Phoenix Pay System was implemented in early 2016, government employees found they might get the correct amount on their paycheque or might find significantly less than they were entitled to or might find huge increases.
The instability alone would be distressing but adding to it with the inability to get the problem fixed must have been devastating. Almost five years later, the problems are being resolved and people are getting paid appropriately, more often.
The estimated cost for fixing the problems was, as I recall, over $1B; I think that was a little optimistic. James Bagnall's July 28, 2020 article for the Ottawa Citizen provides more detail, although not about the current cost, and is the source of my measured optimism,
Something odd has happened to the Phoenix Pay file of late. After four years of spitting out errors at a furious rate, the federal government's new pay system has gone quiet.
And no, it's not because of the even larger drama written by the coronavirus. In fact, there's been very real progress at Public Services and Procurement Canada [PSPC; emphasis mine], the department in charge of pay operations.
Since January 2018, the peak of the madness, the backlog of all pay transactions requiring action has dropped by about half to 230,000 as of late June. Many of these involve basic queries for information about promotions, overtime and rules. The part of the backlog involving money — too little or too much pay, incorrect deductions, pay not received — has shrunk by two-thirds to 125,000.
These are still very large numbers but the underlying story here is one of long-delayed hope. The government is processing the pay of more than 330,000 employees every two weeks while simultaneously fixing large batches of past mistakes.
While officials with two of the largest government unions — Public Service Alliance of Canada [PSAC] and the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada [PPSC] — disagree the pay system has worked out its kinks, they acknowledge it's considerably better than it was. New pay transactions are being processed "with increased timeliness and accuracy," the PSAC official noted.
Neither union is happy with the progress being made on historical mistakes. PIPSC president Debi Daviau told this newspaper that many of her nearly 60,000 members have been waiting for years to receive salary adjustments stemming from earlier promotions or transfers, to name two of the more prominent sources of pay errors.
Even so, the sharp improvement in Phoenix Pay's performance will soon force the government to confront an interesting choice: Should it continue with plans to replace the system?
Treasury Board, the government's employer, two years ago launched the process to do just that. Last March, SAP Canada — whose technology underpins the pay system still in use at Canada Revenue Agency — won a competition to run a pilot project. Government insiders believe SAP Canada is on track to build the full system starting sometime in 2023.
When Public Services set out the business case in 2009 for building Phoenix Pay, it noted the pay system would have to accommodate 150 collective agreements that contained thousands of business rules and applied to dozens of federal departments and agencies. The technical challenge has since intensified.
Under the original plan, Phoenix Pay was to save $70 million annually by eliminating 1,200 compensation advisors across government and centralizing a key part of the operation at the pay centre in Miramichi, N.B., where 550 would manage a more automated system.
Instead, the Phoenix Pay system currently employs about 2,300. This includes 1,600 at Miramichi and five regional pay offices, along with 350 each at a client contact centre (which deals with relatively minor pay issues) and client service bureau (which handles the more complex, longstanding pay errors). This has naturally driven up the average cost of managing each pay account — 55 per cent higher than the government's former pay system according to last fall's estimate by the Parliamentary Budget Officer.
… As the backlog shrinks, the need for regional pay offices and emergency staffing will diminish. Public Services is also working with a number of high-tech firms to develop ways of accurately automating employee pay using artificial intelligence [emphasis mine].
Given the Phoenix Pay System debacle, it might be nice to see a little information about how the government is planning to integrate more sophisticated algorithms (artificial intelligence) in their operations.
I found this on a Treasury Board webpage, all 1 minute and 29 seconds of it,
The blonde model or actress mentions that companies applying to Public Services and Procurement Canada for placement on the list must use AI responsibly. Her script does not include a definition or guidelines, which, as previously noted, as on the Treasury Board website.
As for Public Services and Procurement Canada, they have an Artificial intelligence source list,
Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) is putting into operation the Artificial intelligence source list to facilitate the procurement of Canada's requirements for Artificial intelligence (AI).
After research and consultation with industry, academia, and civil society, Canada identified 3 AI categories and business outcomes to inform this method of supply:
Insights and predictive modelling
Machine interactions
Cognitive automation
PSPC is focused only on procuring AI. If there are guidelines on their website for its use, I did not find them.
I found one more government agency that might have some information about artificial intelligence and guidelines for its use, Shared Services Canada,
Shared Services Canada (SSC) delivers digital services to Government of Canada organizations. We provide modern, secure and reliable IT services so federal organizations can deliver digital programs and services that meet Canadians needs.
Since the Minister of Digital Government, Joyce Murray, is listed on the homepage, I was hopeful that I could find out more about AI and governance and whether or not the Canadian Digital Service was associated with this government ministry/agency. I was frustrated on both counts.
To sum up, there is no information that I could find after March 2019 about Canada, it's government and plans for AI, especially responsible management/governance and AI on a Canadian government website although I have found guidelines, expectations, and consequences for non-compliance. (Should anyone know which government agency has up-to-date information on its responsible use of AI, please let me know in the Comments.
Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CIFAR)
The first mention of the Pan-Canadian Artificial Intelligence Strategy is in my analysis of the Canadian federal budget in a March 24, 2017 posting. Briefly, CIFAR received a big chunk of that money. Here's more about the strategy from the CIFAR Pan-Canadian AI Strategy homepage,
In 2017, the Government of Canada appointed CIFAR to develop and lead a $125 million Pan-Canadian Artificial Intelligence Strategy, the world's first national AI strategy.
CIFAR works in close collaboration with Canada's three national AI Institutes — Amii in Edmonton, Mila in Montreal, and the Vector Institute in Toronto, as well as universities, hospitals and organizations across the country.
The objectives of the strategy are to:
Attract and retain world-class AI researchers by increasing the number of outstanding AI researchers and skilled graduates in Canada.
Foster a collaborative AI ecosystem by establishing interconnected nodes of scientific excellence in Canada's three major centres for AI: Edmonton, Montreal, and Toronto.
Advance national AI initiatives by supporting a national research community on AI through training programs, workshops, and other collaborative opportunities.
Understand the societal implications of AI by developing global thought leadership on the economic, ethical, policy, and legal implications [emphasis mine] of advances in AI.
Responsible AI at CIFAR
You can find Responsible AI in a webspace devoted to what they have called, AI & Society. Here's more from the homepage,
CIFAR is leading global conversations about AI's impact on society.
The AI & Society program, one of the objectives of the CIFAR Pan-Canadian AI Strategy, develops global thought leadership on the economic, ethical, political, and legal implications of advances in AI. These dialogues deliver new ways of thinking about issues, and drive positive change in the development and deployment of responsible AI.
Solution Networks
AI Futures Policy Labs
AI & Society Workshops
Building an AI World
Under the category of building an AI World I found this (from CIFAR's AI & Society homepage),
Explore the landscape of global AI strategies.
Canada was the first country in the world to announce a federally-funded national AI strategy, prompting many other nations to follow suit. CIFAR published two reports detailing the global landscape of AI strategies.
I skimmed through the second report and it seems more like a comparative study of various country's AI strategies than a overview of responsible use of AI.
Final comments about Responsible AI in Canada and the new reports
I'm glad to see there's interest in Responsible AI but based on my adventures searching the Canadian government websites and the Pan-Canadian AI Strategy webspace, I'm left feeling hungry for more.
I didn't find any details about how AI is being integrated into government departments and for what uses. I'd like to know and I'd like to have some say about how it's used and how the inevitable mistakes will be dealh with.
What I've found is high minded, but, as far as I can tell, there's absolutely no interest in talking to the 'great unwashed'. Those of us who are not experts are being left out of these earlier stage conversations.
I'm sure we'll be consulted at some point but it will be long past the time when are our opinions and insights could have impact and help us avoid the problems that experts tend not to see. What we'll be left with is protest and anger on our part and, finally, grudging admissions and corrections of errors on the government's part.
Let's take this for an example. The Phoenix Pay System was implemented in its first phase on Feb. 24, 2016. As I recall, problems develop almost immediately. The second phase of implementation starts April 21, 2016. In May 2016 the government hires consultants to fix the problems. November 29, 2016 the government minister, Judy Foote, admits a mistake has been made. February 2017 the government hires consultants to establish what lessons they might learn. February 15, 2018 the pay problems backlog amounts to 633,000. Source: James Bagnall, Feb. 23, 2018 'timeline' for Ottawa Citizen
Do take a look at the timeline, there's more to it than what I've written here and I'm sure there's more to the Phoenix Pay System debacle than a failure to listen to warnings from those who would be directly affected. It's fascinating though how often a failure to listen presages far deeper problems with a project.
The Canadian government, both a conservative and a liberal government, contributed to the Phoenix Debacle but it seems the gravest concern is with senior government bureaucrats. You might think things have changed since this recounting of the affair in a June 14, 2018 article by Michelle Zilio for the Globe and Mail,
The three public servants blamed by the Auditor-General for the Phoenix pay system problems were not fired for mismanagement of the massive technology project that botched the pay of tens of thousands of public servants for more than two years.
Marie Lemay, deputy minister for Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC), said two of the three Phoenix executives were shuffled out of their senior posts in pay administration and did not receive performance bonuses for their handling of the system. Those two employees still work for the department, she said. Ms. Lemay, who refused to identify the individuals, said the third Phoenix executive retired.
In a scathing report last month, Auditor-General Michael Ferguson blamed three "executives" – senior public servants at PSPC, which is responsible for Phoenix − for the pay system's "incomprehensible failure." [emphasis mine] He said the executives did not tell the then-deputy minister about the known problems with Phoenix, leading the department to launch the pay system despite clear warnings it was not ready.
Speaking to a parliamentary committee on Thursday, Ms. Lemay said the individuals did not act with "ill intent," noting that the development and implementation of the Phoenix project were flawed. She encouraged critics to look at the "bigger picture" to learn from all of Phoenix's failures.
Mr. Ferguson, whose office spoke with the three Phoenix executives as a part of its reporting, said the officials prioritized some aspects of the pay-system rollout, such as schedule and budget, over functionality. He said they also cancelled a pilot implementation project with one department that would have helped it detect problems indicating the system was not ready.
Mr. Ferguson's report warned the Phoenix problems are indicative of "pervasive cultural problems" [emphasis mine] in the civil service, which he said is fearful of making mistakes, taking risks and conveying "hard truths."
Speaking to the same parliamentary committee on Tuesday, Privy Council Clerk [emphasis mine] Michael Wernick challenged Mr. Ferguson's assertions, saying his chapter on the federal government's cultural issues is an "opinion piece" containing "sweeping generalizations."
The Privy Council Clerk is the top level bureaucrat (and there is only one such clerk) in the civil/public service and I think his quotes are quite telling of "pervasive cultural problems." There's a new Privy Council Clerk but from what I can tell he was well trained by his predecessor.
Do* we really need senior government bureaucrats?
I now have an example of bureaucratic interference, specifically with the Global Public Health Information Network (GPHIN) where it would seem that not much has changed, from a December 26, 2020 article by Grant Robertson for the Globe & Mail,
When Canada unplugged support for its pandemic alert system [GPHIN] last year, it was a symptom of bigger problems inside the Public Health Agency. Experienced scientists were pushed aside, expertise was eroded, and internal warnings went unheeded, which hindered the department's response to COVID-19
As a global pandemic began to take root in February, China held a series of backchannel conversations with Canada, lobbying the federal government to keep its borders open.
With the virus already taking a deadly toll in Asia, Heng Xiaojun, the Minister Counsellor for the Chinese embassy, requested a call with senior Transport Canada officials. Over the course of the conversation, the Chinese representatives communicated Beijing's desire that flights between the two countries not be stopped because it was unnecessary.
"The Chinese position on the continuation of flights was reiterated," say official notes taken from the call. "Mr. Heng conveyed that China is taking comprehensive measures to combat the coronavirus."
Canadian officials seemed to agree, since no steps were taken to restrict or prohibit travel. To the federal government, China appeared to have the situation under control and the risk to Canada was low. Before ending the call, Mr. Heng thanked Ottawa for its "science and fact-based approach."
It was a critical moment in the looming pandemic, but the Canadian government lacked the full picture, instead relying heavily on what Beijing was choosing to disclose to the World Health Organization (WHO). Ottawa's ability to independently know what was going on in China – on the ground and inside hospitals – had been greatly diminished in recent years.
Canada once operated a robust pandemic early warning system and employed a public-health doctor based in China who could report back on emerging problems. But it had largely abandoned those international strategies over the past five years, and was no longer as plugged-in.
By late February [2020], Ottawa seemed to be taking the official reports from China at their word, stating often in its own internal risk assessments that the threat to Canada remained low. But inside the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC), rank-and-file doctors and epidemiologists were growing increasingly alarmed at how the department and the government were responding.
"The team was outraged," one public-health scientist told a colleague in early April, in an internal e-mail obtained by The Globe and Mail, criticizing the lack of urgency shown by Canada's response during January, February and early March. "We knew this was going to be around for a long time, and it's serious."
China had locked down cities and restricted travel within its borders. Staff inside the Public Health Agency believed Beijing wasn't disclosing the whole truth about the danger of the virus and how easily it was transmitted. "The agency was just too slow to respond," the scientist said. "A sane person would know China was lying."
It would later be revealed that China's infection and mortality rates were played down in official records, along with key details about how the virus was spreading.
But the Public Health Agency, which was created after the 2003 SARS crisis to bolster the country against emerging disease threats, had been stripped of much of its capacity to gather outbreak intelligence and provide advance warning by the time the pandemic hit.
The Global Public Health Intelligence Network, an early warning system known as GPHIN that was once considered a cornerstone of Canada's preparedness strategy, had been scaled back over the past several years, with resources shifted into projects that didn't involve outbreak surveillance.
However, a series of documents obtained by The Globe during the past four months, from inside the department and through numerous Access to Information requests, show the problems that weakened Canada's pandemic readiness run deeper than originally thought. Pleas from the international health community for Canada to take outbreak detection and surveillance much more seriously were ignored by mid-level managers [emphasis mine] inside the department. A new federal pandemic preparedness plan – key to gauging the country's readiness for an emergency – was never fully tested. And on the global stage, the agency stopped sending experts [emphasis mine] to international meetings on pandemic preparedness, instead choosing senior civil servants with little or no public-health background [emphasis mine] to represent Canada at high-level talks, The Globe found.
The curtailing of GPHIN and allegations that scientists had become marginalized within the Public Health Agency, detailed in a Globe investigation this past July [2020], are now the subject of two federal probes – an examination by the Auditor-General of Canada and an independent federal review, ordered by the Minister of Health.
Those processes will undoubtedly reshape GPHIN and may well lead to an overhaul of how the agency functions in some areas. The first steps will be identifying and fixing what went wrong. With the country now topping 535,000 cases of COVID-19 and more than 14,700 dead, there will be lessons learned from the pandemic.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has said he is unsure what role added intelligence [emphasis mine] could have played in the government's pandemic response, though he regrets not bolstering Canada's critical supplies of personal protective equipment sooner. But providing the intelligence to make those decisions early is exactly what GPHIN was created to do – and did in previous outbreaks.
Epidemiologists have described in detail to The Globe how vital it is to move quickly and decisively in a pandemic. Acting sooner, even by a few days or weeks in the early going, and throughout, can have an exponential impact on an outbreak, including deaths. Countries such as South Korea, Australia and New Zealand, which have fared much better than Canada, appear to have acted faster in key tactical areas, some using early warning information they gathered. As Canada prepares itself in the wake of COVID-19 for the next major health threat, building back a better system becomes paramount.
If you have time, do take a look at Robertson's December 26, 2020 article and the July 2020 Globe investigation. As both articles make clear, senior bureaucrats whose chief attribute seems to have been longevity took over, reallocated resources, drove out experts, and crippled the few remaining experts in the system with a series of bureaucratic demands while taking trips to attend meetings (in desirable locations) for which they had no significant or useful input.
The Phoenix and GPHIN debacles bear a resemblance in that senior bureaucrats took over and in a state of blissful ignorance made a series of disastrous decisions bolstered by politicians who seem to neither understand nor care much about the outcomes.
If you think I'm being harsh watch Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) reporter Rosemary Barton interview Prime Minister Trudeau for a 2020 year-end interview, Note: There are some commercials. Then, pay special attention to the Trudeau's answer to the first question,
Responsible AI, eh?
Based on the massive mishandling of the Phoenix Pay System implementation where top bureaucrats did not follow basic and well established information services procedures and the Global Public Health Information Network mismanagement by top level bureaucrats, I'm not sure I have a lot of confidence in any Canadian government claims about a responsible approach to using artificial intelligence.
Unfortunately, it doesn't matter as implementation is most likely already taking place here in Canada.
Enough with the pessimism. I feel it's necessary to end this on a mildly positive note. Hurray to the government employees who worked through the Phoenix Pay System debacle, the current and former GPHIN experts who continued to sound warnings, and all those people striving to make true the principles of 'Peace, Order, and Good Government', the bedrock principles of the Canadian Parliament.
A lot of mistakes have been made but we also do make a lot of good decisions.
*'Doe' changed to 'Do' on May 14, 2021.
This entry was posted in robots, science policy and tagged A machine learning approach to open public comments for policymaking, Albert Meijer, Alex Benay, Alex Ingrams, algorithmic decision-making, Algorithmic Transparency in Government: Towards a Multi-Level Perspective, Amii, artificial intelligence (AI), Board of Canada: History Organization and Issues, Canadian Digital Service (CDS), Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CIFAR), Chief Information Officer for Canada, COVID-19, Debi Daviau, eGovernment, Global Public Health Information Network (GPHIN), Governing AI: Understanding the Limits Possibilities and Risks of AI in an Era of Intelligent Tools and Systems, Grant Robertson, Heng Xiaojun, James Bagnall, Jay Macarenko, John Zysman, Joyce Murray, Justin Trudeau, KPMG, Leiden University, Luke Simon, machine learning algorithms, Marie Lemay, Mark Nitzberg, Meagan Simpson, Mia Hunt, Michael Ferguson, Michael Wernick, Michelle Zilio, Mila, MindBridge, Pan-Canadian Artificial Intelligence Strategy, Phoenix executives, Phoenix payroll system, Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC), Public Administration at the Centre for Research and Teaching in Economics (CIDE), Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC), Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC), Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC), Responsible use of artificial intelligence (AI), Rik Peeters, Rosemary Barton, Sarah Giest, Stephan Grimmelikhuijsen, The agency of algorithms: Understanding human-algorithm interaction in administrative decision-making, Treasury Board of Canada, Utrecht University, Vector Institute, Wilson Center, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, World Health Organization (WHO) on December 29, 2020 by Maryse de la Giroday.
Science and technology, the 2019 Canadian federal government, and the Phoenix Pay System
This posting will focus on science, technology, the tragic consequence of bureaucratic and political bungling (the technology disaster that is is the Phoenix payroll system), and the puzzling lack of concern about some of the biggest upcoming technological and scientific changes in government and society in decades or more.
After getting enough Liberal party members elected to the Canadian Parliament's House of Commons to form a minority government in October 2019, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced a new cabinet and some changes to the 'science' portfolios in November 2019. You can read more about the overall cabinet announcement in this November 20, 2019 news item by Peter Zimonjic on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) website, my focus will be the science and technology. (Note: For those who don't know, there is already much discussion about how long this Liberal minority government will last. All i takes is a 'loss of confidence' motion and a majority of the official opposition and other parties to vote 'no confidence' and Canada will back into the throes of an election. Mitigating against a speedy new federal election,, the Conservative party [official opposition] needs to choose a new leader and the other parties may not have the financial resources for another federal election so soon after the last one.)
Getting back to now and the most recent Cabinet announcements, it seems this time around, there's significantly less interest in science. Concerns about this were noted in a November 22, 2019 article by Ivan Semeniuk for the Globe and Mail,
Canadian researchers are raising concerns that the loss of a dedicated science minister signals a reduced voice for their agenda around the federal cabinet table.
"People are wondering if the government thinks its science agenda is done," said Marie Franquin, a doctoral student in neuroscience and co-president of Science and Policy Exchange, a student-led research-advocacy group. "There's still a lot of work to do."
While not a powerful player within cabinet, Ms. Duncan [Kirsty Duncan] proved to be an ardent booster of Canada's research community and engaged with its issues, including the muzzling of federal scientists by the former Harper government and the need to improve gender equity in the research ecosystem.
Among Ms. Duncan's accomplishments was the appointment of a federal chief science adviser [sic] and the commissioning of a landmark review of Ottawa's support for fundamental research, chaired by former University of Toronto president David Naylor
… He [Andre Albinati, managing principal with Earnscliffe Strategy Group] added the role of science in government is now further bolstered by chief science adviser [sic] Mona Nemer and a growing network of departmental science advisers [sic]. .
Mehrdad Hariri, president of the Canadian Science Policy Centre …, cautioned that the chief science adviser's [sic] role was best described as "science for policy," meaning the use of science advice in decision-making. He added that the government still needed a separate role like that filled by Ms. Duncan … to champion "policy for science," meaning decisions that optimize Canada's research enterprise.
There's one other commentary (by CresoSá) but I'm saving it for later.
The science minister disappears
There is no longer a separate position for Science. Kirsty Duncan was moved from her 'junior' position as Minister of Science (and Sport) to Deputy Leader of the government. Duncan's science portfolio has been moved over to Navdeep Bains whose portfolio evolved from Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development (yes, there were two 'ministers of science') to Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry. (It doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Sadly, nobody from the Prime Minister's team called to ask for my input on the matter.)
Science (and technology) have to be found elsewhere
There's the Natural Resources (i.e., energy, minerals and metals, forests, earth sciences, mapping, etc.) portfolio which was led by Catherine McKenna who's been moved over to Infrastructure and Communities. There have been mumblings that she was considered 'too combative' in her efforts. Her replacement in Natural Resources is Seamus O'Regan. No word yet on whether or not, he might also be 'too combative'. Of course, it's much easier if you're female to gain that label. (You can read about the spray-painted slurs found on the windows of McKenna's campaign offices after she was successfully re-elected. See: Mike Blanchfield's October 24, 2019 article for Huffington Post and Brigitte Pellerin's October 31, 2019 article for the Ottawa Citizen.)
There are other portfolios which can also be said to include science such as Environment and Climate Change which welcomes a new minister, Jonathan Wilkinson moving over from his previous science portfolio, Fisheries, Oceans, and Canadian Coast Guard where Bernadette Jordan has moved into place. Patti Hajdu takes over at Heath Canada (which despite all of the talk about science muzzles being lifted still has its muzzle in place). While it's not typically considered a 'science' portfolio in Canada, the military establishment regardless of country has long been considered a source of science innovation; Harjit Sajjan has retained his Minister of National Defence portfolio.
Plus there are at least half a dozen other portfolios that can be described as having significant science and/or technology elements folded into their portfolios, e.g., Transport Canada, Agriculture and Agri-Food, Safety and Emergency Preparedness, etc.
As I tend to focus on emerging science and technology, most of these portfolios are not ones I follow even on an irregular basis meaning I have nothing more to add about them in this posting. Mixing science and technology together in this posting is a reflection of how tightly the two are linked together. For example, university research into artificial intelligence is taking place on theoretical levels (science) and as applied in business and government (technology). Apologies to the mathematicians but this explanation is already complicated and I don't think I can do justice to their importance.
Moving onto technology with a strong science link, this next portfolio received even less attention than the 'science' portfolios and I believe that's undeserved.
The Minister of Digital Government and a bureaucratic débacle
These days people tend to take the digital nature of daily life for granted and that may be why this portfolio has escaped much notice. When the ministerial posting was first introduced, it was an addition to Scott Brison's responsibilities as head of the Treasury Board. It continued to be linked to the Treasury Board when Joyce Murray* inherited Brison's position, after his departure from politics. As of the latest announcement in November 2019, Digital Government and the Treasury Board are no longer tended to by the same cabinet member.
The new head of the Treasury Board is Jean-Yves Duclos while Joyce Murray has held on to the Minister of Digital Government designation. I'm not sure if the separation from the Treasury Board is indicative of the esteem the Prime Minister has for digital government or if this has been done to appease someone or some group, which means the digital government portfolio could well disappear in the future just as the 'junior' science portfolio did.
Regardless, here's some evidence as to why I think 'digital government' is unfairly overlooked, from the minister's December 13, 2019 Mandate Letter from the Prime Minister (Note: All of the emphases are mine],
I will expect you to work with your colleagues and through established legislative, regulatory and Cabinet processes to deliver on your top priorities. In particular, you will:
Lead work across government to transition to a more digital government in order to improve citizen service.
Oversee the Chief Information Officer and the Canadian Digital Service as they work with departments to develop solutions that will benefit Canadians and enhance the capacity to use modern tools and methodologies across Government.
Lead work to analyze and improve the delivery of information technology (IT) within government. This work will include identifying all core and at-risk IT systems and platforms. You will lead the renewal of SSC [Shared Services Canada which provides 'modern, secure and reliable IT services so federal organizations can deliver digital programs and services to meet Canadians' needs'] so that it is properly resourced and aligned to deliver common IT infrastructure that is reliable and secure.
Lead work to create a centre of expertise that brings together the necessary skills to effectively implement major transformation projects across government, including technical, procurement and legal expertise.
Support the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry in continuing work on the ethical use of data and digital tools like artificial intelligence for better government.
With the support of the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, accelerate progress on a new Government of Canada service strategy that aims to create a single online window for all government services with new performance standards.
Support the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development in expanding and improving the services provided by Service Canada.
Support the Minister of National Revenue on additional steps required to meaningfully improve the satisfaction of Canadians with the quality, timeliness and accuracy of services they receive from the Canada Revenue Agency.
Support the Minister of Public Services and Procurement in eliminating the backlog of outstanding pay issues for public servants as a result of the Phoenix Pay System.
Lead work on the Next Generation Human Resources and Pay System to replace the Phoenix Pay System and support the President of the Treasury Board as he actively engages Canada's major public sector unions.
Support the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development and the Minister of National Revenue to implement a voluntary, real-time e-payroll system with an initial focus on small businesses.
Fully implement lessons learned from previous information technology project challenges and failures [e,g, the Phoenix Payroll System], particularly around sunk costs and major multi-year contracts. Act transparently by sharing identified successes and difficulties within government, with the aim of constantly improving the delivery of projects large and small.
Encourage the use and development of open source products and open data, allowing for experimentation within existing policy directives and building an inventory of validated and secure applications that can be used by government to share knowledge and expertise to support innovation.
To be clear, the Minister of Digital Government is responsible (more or less) for helping to clean up a débacle, i.e., the implementation of the federal government's Phoenix Payroll System and drive even more digitization and modernization of government data and processes.
They've been trying to fix the Phoenix problems since the day it was implemented in early 2016.That's right, it will be four years in Spring 2020 when the Liberal government chose to implement a digital payroll system that had been largely untested and despite its supplier's concerns.
The Phoenix Pay System and a great sadness
The Public Service Alliance of Canada (the largest union for federal employees; PSAC) has a separate space for Phoneix on its website, which features this video,
That video was posted on September 24, 2018 (on YouTube) and, to my knowledge, the situation has not changed appreciably. A November 8, 2019 article by Tom Spears for the Ottawa Citizen details a very personal story about what can only be described as a failure on just about every level you can imagine,
Linda Deschâtelets's death by suicide might have been prevented if the flawed Phoenix pay system hadn't led her to emotional and financial ruin, a Quebec coroner has found.
Deschâtelets died in December of 2017, at age 52. At the time she was struggling with chronic pain and massive mortgage payments.
The fear of losing her home weighed heavily on her. In her final text message to one of her sons she said she had run out of energy and wanted to die before she lost her house in Val des Monts.
But Deschâtelets might have lived, says a report from coroner Pascale Boulay, if her employer, the Canada Revenue Agency, had shown a little empathy.
"During the final months before her death, she experienced serious financial troubles linked to the federal government's pay system, Phoenix, which cut off her pay in a significant way, making her fear she would lose her house," said Boulay's report.
"A thorough analysis of this case strongly suggests that this death could have been avoided if a search for a solution to the current financial, psychological and medical situation had been made."
Boulay found "there is no indication that management sought to meet Ms. Deschâtelets to offer her options. In addition, the lack of prompt follow-up in the processing of requests for information indicates a distressing lack of empathy for an employee who is experiencing real financial insecurity."
Pay records "indeed show that she was living through serious financial problems and that she received irregular payments since the beginning of October 2017," the coroner wrote.
As well, "her numerous online applications using the form for a compensation problem, in which she expresses her fear of not being able to make her mortgage payments and says that she wants a detailed statement of account, remain unanswered."
On top of that, she had chronic back pain and sciatica and had been missing work. She was scheduled to get an ergonomically designed work area, but this change was never made even though she waited for months.
Money troubles kept getting worse.
She ran out of paid sick leave, and her department sent her an email to explain that she had automatically been docked pay for taking sick days. "In this same email, she was also advised that in the event that she missed additional days, other amounts would be deducted. No further follow-up with her was done," the coroner wrote.
That email came eight days before her death.
Deschâtelets was also taking cocaine but this did not alter the fact that she genuinely risked losing her home over her financial problems, the coroner wrote.
"Given the circumstances, it is highly likely that Ms. Deschâtelets felt trapped" and ended her life "because of her belief that she would lose the house anyway. It was only a matter of time."
The situation is "even more sad" because CRA had advisers on site who dealt with Phoenix issues, and could meet with employees, Boulay wrote.
"The federal government does a lot of promotion of workplace wellness. Surprisingly, these wellness measures are silent on the subject of financial insecurity at work," Boulay wrote.
I feel sad for the family and indignant that there doesn't seem to have been enough done to mitigate the hardships due to an astoundingly ill-advised decision to implement an untested payroll system for the federal government's 280,000 or more civil servants.
Canada's Senate reports back on Phoenix
I'm highlighting the Senate report here although there are also two reports from the Auditor General should you care to chase them down. From an August 1, 2018 article by Brian Jackson for IT World Canada,
In February 2016, in anticipation of the start of the Phoenix system rolling out, the government laid off 2,700 payroll clerks serving 120,000 employees. [I'm guessing the discrepancy in numbers of employees may be due to how the clerks were laid off, i.e., if they were load off in groups scheduled to be made redundant at different intervals.]
As soon as Phoenix was launched, problems began. By May 2018 there were 60,000 pay requests backlogged. Now the government has dedicated resources to explaining to affected employees the best way to avoid pay-related problems, and to file grievances related to the system.
"The causes of the failure are multiple, including, failing to manage the pay system in an integrated fashion with human resources processes, not conducting a pilot project, removing essential processing functions to stay on budget, laying off experienced compensation advisors, and implementing a pay system that wasn't ready," the Senate report states. "We are dismayed that this project proceeded with minimal independent oversight, including from central agencies, and that no one has accepted responsibility for the failure of Phoenix or has been held to account. We believe that there is an underlying cultural problem that needs to be addressed. The government needs to move away from a culture that plays down bad news and avoids responsibility, [emphasis mine] to one that encourages employee engagement, feedback and collaboration."
There is at least one estimate that the Phoenix failure will cost $2.2 billion but I'm reasonably certain that figure does not include the costs of suicide, substance abuse, counseling, marriage breakdown, etc. (Of course, how do you really estimate the cost of a suicide or a marriage breakdown or the impact that financial woes have on children?)
Also concerning the Senate report, there is a July 31, 2018 news item on CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) news online,
"We are not confident that this problem has been solved, that the lessons have all been learned," said Sen. André Pratte, deputy chair of the committee. [emphases mine]
I haven't seen much coverage about the Phoenix Pay System recently in the mainstream media but according to a December 4, 2019 PSAC update,
The Parliamentary Budget Officer has said the Phoenix situation could continue until 2023, yet government funding commitments so far have fallen significantly short of what is needed to end the Phoenix nightmare.
PSAC will continue pressing for enough funding and urgent action:
eliminate the over 200,000 cases in the pay issues backlog
compensate workers for their many hardships
stabilize Phoenix
properly develop, test and launch a new pay system
2023 would mean the débacle had a seven year lifespan, assuming everything has been made better by then.
Finally, there seems to be one other minister tasked with the Phoenix Pay System 'fix' (December 13, 2019 mandate letter) and that is the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Anita Anand. She is apparently a rookie MP (member of Parliament), which would make her a 'cabinet rookie' as well. Interesting choice.
More digital for federal workers and the Canadian public
Despite all that has gone before, the government is continuing in its drive to digitize itself as can be seen in the Minister of Digital Government's mandate letter (excerpted above in 'The Minister of Digital Government and some …' subsection) and on the government's Digital Government webspace,
Our digital shift to becoming more agile, open, and user-focused. We're working on tomorrow's Canada today.
I don't find that particularly reassuring in light of the Phoenix Payroll System situation. However, on the plus side, Canada has a Digital Charter with 10 principles which include universal access, safety and security, control and consent, etc. Oddly, it looks like it's the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry who are tasked with enhancing and advancing the charter. Shouldn't this group also include the Minister of Digital Government?
The Minister of Digital Government, Joyce Murray, does not oversee a ministry and I think that makes this a 'junior' position in much the same way the Minister of Science was a junior position. It suggests a mindset where some of the biggest changes to come for both employees and the Canadian public are being overseen by someone without the resources to do the work effectively or the bureaucratic weight and importance to ensure the changes are done properly.
It's all very well to have a section on the Responsible use of artificial intelligence (AI) on your Digital Government webspace but there is no mention of ways and means to fix problems. For example, what happens to people who somehow run into an issue that the AI system can't fix or even respond to because the algorithm wasn't designed that way. Ever gotten caught in an automated telephone system? Or perhaps more saliently, what about the people who died in two different airplane accidents due to the pilots' poor training and an AI system? (For a more informed view of the Boeing 737 Max, AI, and two fatal plane crashes see: a June 2, 2019 article by Rachel Kraus for Mashable.)
The only other minister whose mandate letter includes AI is the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Navdeep Bains (from his December 13, 2019 mandate letter),
With the support of the Minister of Digital Government, continue work on the ethical use of data and digital tools like artificial intelligence for better government.
So, the Minister of Digital Government, Joyce Murray, is supporting the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Navdeep Bains. That would suggest a 'junior' position wouldn't it? If you look closely at the Minister of Digital Services' mandate letter, you'll see the Minister is almost always supporting another minister.
Where the Phoenix Pay System is concerned, the Minister of Digital Services is supporting the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, the previously mentioned rookie MP and rookie Cabinet member, Anita Anand. Interestingly, the employees' union, PSAC, has decided (as of a November 20, 2019 news release) to ramp up its ad campaign regarding the Phoenix Pay System and its bargaining issues by targeting the Prime Minister and the new President of the Treasury Board, Jean-Yves Duclos. Guess whose mandate letter makes no mention of Phoenix (December 13, 2019 mandate letter for the President of the Treasury Board).
Open government, eh?
Putting a gift bow on a pile of manure doesn't turn it into a gift (for most people, anyway) and calling your government open and/or transparent doesn't necessarily make it so even when you amend your Access to Information Act to make it more accessible (August 22, 2019 Digital Government news release by Ruth Naylor).
One of the Liberal government's most heavily publicized 'open' initiatives was the lifting of the muzzles put on federal scientists in the Environment and Natural Resources ministries. Those muzzles were put into place by a Conservative government and the 2015 Liberal government gained a lot of political capital from its actions. No one seemed to remember that Health Canada also had been muzzled. That muzzle had been put into place by one of the Liberal governments preceding the Conservative one. To date there is no word as to whether or not that muzzle has ever been lifted.
However, even in the ministries where the muzzles were lifted, it seems scientists didn't feel free to speak even many months later (from a Feb 21, 2018 article by Brian Owens for Science),
More than half of government scientists in Canada—53%—do not feel they can speak freely to the media about their work, even after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's government eased restrictions on what they can say publicly, according to a survey released today by a union that represents more than 16,000 federal scientists.
That union—the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC) based in Ottawa—conducted the survey last summer, a little more than a year and a half into the Trudeau government. It followed up on a similar survey the union released in 2013 at the height of the controversy over the then-Conservative government's reported muzzling of scientists by preventing media interviews and curtailing travel to scientific conferences. The new survey found the situation much improved—in 2013, 90% of scientists felt unable to speak about their work. But the union says more work needs to be done. "The work needs to be done at the department level," where civil servants may have been slow to implement political directives, PIPSC President Debi Daviau said. "We need a culture change that promotes what we have heard from ministers."
I found this a little chilling (from the PIPSC Defrosting Public Science; a 2017 survey of federal scientists webpage),
To better illustrate this concern, in 2013, The Big Chill revealed that 86% of respondents feared censorship or retaliation from their department or agency if they spoke out about a departmental decision or action that, based on their scientific knowledge, could bring harm to the public interest. In 2017, when asked the same question, 73% of respondents said they would not be able to do so without fear of censorship or retaliation – a mere 13% drop.
It's possible things have improved but while the 2018 Senate report did not focus on scientists, it did highlight issues with the government's openness and transparency or in their words: "… a culture that plays down bad news and avoids responsibility." It seems the Senate is not the only group with concerns about government culture; so do the government's employees (the scientists, anyway).
The other science commentary
I can't find any commentary or editorials about the latest ministerial changes or the mandate letters on the Canadian Science Policy Centre website so was doubly pleased to find this December 6, 2019 commentary by Creso Sá for University Affairs,
The recently announced Liberal cabinet brings what appear to be cosmetic changes to the science file. Former Science Minister Kirsty Duncan is no longer in it, which sparked confusion among casual observers who believed that the elimination of her position signalled the termination of the science ministry or the downgrading of the science agenda. In reality, science was and remains part of the renamed Ministry of Innovation, Science, and (now) Industry (rather than Economic Development), where Minister Navdeep Bains continues at the helm.
Arguably, these reactions show that appearances have been central [emphasis mine] to the modus operandi of this government. Minister Duncan was an active, and generally well-liked, champion for the Trudeau government's science platform. She carried the torch of team science over the last four years, becoming vividly associated with the launch of initiatives such as the Fundamental Science Review, the creation of the chief science advisor position, and the introduction of equity provisions in the Canada Research Chairs program. She talked a good talk, but her role did not in fact give her much authority to change the course of science policy in the country. From the start, her mandate was mostly defined around building bridges with members of cabinet, which was likely good experience for her new role of deputy house leader.
Upon the announcement of the new cabinet, Minister Bains took to Twitter to thank Dr. Duncan for her dedication to placing science in "its rightful place back at the centre of everything our government does." He indicated that he will take over her responsibilities, which he was already formally responsible for. Presumably, he will now make time to place science at the centre of everything the government does.
This kind of sloganeering has been common [emphasis mine] since the 2015 campaign, which seems to be the strategic moment the Liberals can't get out of. Such was the real and perceived hostility of the Harper Conservatives to science that the Liberals embraced the role of enlightened advocates. Perhaps the lowest hanging fruit their predecessors left behind was the sheer absence of any intelligible articulation of where they stood on the science file, which the Liberals seized upon with gusto. Virtue signalling [emphasis mine] became a first line of response.
When asked about her main accomplishments over the past year as chief science advisor at the recent Canadian Science Policy Conference in Ottawa, Mona Nemer started with the creation of a network of science advisors across government departments. Over the past four years, the government has indeed not been shy about increasing the number of appointments with "science" in their job titles. That is not a bad thing. We just do not hear much about how "science is at the centre of everything the government does." Things get much fuzzier when the conversation turns to the bold promises of promoting evidence-based decision making that this government has been vocal about. Queried on how her role has impacted policy making, Dr. Nemer suggested the question should be asked to politicians. [emphasis mine]
I'm tempted to describe the 'Digital Government' existence and portfolio as virtue signalling.
There doesn't seem to be all that much government interest in science or, even, technology for that matter. We have a 'junior' Minister of Science disappear so that science can become part of all the ministries. Frankly, I wish that science were integrated throughout all the ministries but when you consider the government culture, this move more easily lends itself to even less responsibility being taken by anyone. Take another look at the Canada's Chief Science Advisor's comment: "Queried on how her role has impacted policy making, Dr. Nemer suggested the question should be asked to politicians." Meanwhile, we get a 'junior Minister of Digital Government whose portfolio has the potential to affect Canadians of all ages and resident in Canada or not.
A 'junior' minister is not necessarily evil as Sá points out but I would like to see some indication that efforts are being made to shift the civil service culture and the attitude about how the government conducts its business and that the Minister of Digital Government will receive the resources and the respect she needs to do her job. I'd also like to see some understanding of how catastrophic a wrong move has already been and could be in the future along with options for how citizens are going to be making their way through this brave new digital government world and some options for fixing problems, especially the catastrophic ones.
*December 30, 2019 correction: After Scott Brison left his position as President of the Treasury Board and Minister of Digital Government in January 2019, Jane Philpott held the two positions until March 2019 when she left the Liberal Party. Carla Quatrough was acting head from March 4 – March 18, 2019 when Joyce Murray was appointed to the two positions which she held for eight months until November 2019 when, as I've noted, the 'Minister of Digital Government' was split from the 'President of the Treasury Board' appointment.
ETA January 28, 2020: The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) has an update on the Phoenix Pay System situation in a January 28, 2020 posting (supplied by The Canadian Press),
More than 98,000 civil servants may still owe the federal government money after being overpaid through the disastrous Phoenix pay system.
… the problems persist, despite the hiring of hundreds of pay specialists to work through a backlog of system errors.
The public service pay centre was still dealing with a backlog of about 202,000 complaints as of Dec. 24 [2019], down from 214,000 pay transactions that went beyond normal workload in November [2019].
This entry was posted in science policy and tagged (Canada) Access to Information Act, (Canada) Digital Charter, (Canada) Digital Government, (Canada) National Defence, (Canada) Senate, (Canada) Treasury Board, Andre Albinati, André Pratte, Anita Anand, artificial intelligence (AI), Bernadette Jordan, Boeing 737 Max, Brian Jackson, Brian Owens, Brigitte Pellerin, Canada, Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), Canadian House of Commons, Canadian Science Policy Centre (CSPC), Catherine McKenna, Chief Science Advisor, Creso Sá, David Naylor, Defrosting Public Science a 2017 survey of (Canadian) federal scientists, Earnscliffe Strategy Group, Environment Canada, Harjit Sajjan, Health Canada, Ivan Semeniuk, Jean-Yves Duclos, Jonathan Wilkinson, Jouce Murray, Justin Trudeau, Linda Deschâtelets, Marie Franquin, Mehrdad Hariri, Minister of Digital Government, Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Minister of Fisheries Oceans and Canadian Coast Guard, Minister of Health, Minister of Innovation Science and Economic Development, Minister of Innovation Science and Industry, Minister of National Defence, Minister of Natural Resources, Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Mona Nemer, Natural Resources Canada, Navdeep Bains, Pascale Boulay, Patti Hajdu, Peter Zimonjic, Phoenix payroll system, Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC), Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC), Rachel Kraus, Ruth Naylor, Science and Policy Exchange, Scott Brison, Seamus O Regan, Tom Spears, University of Toronto on December 27, 2019 by Maryse de la Giroday.


Is George Will Un-American or Just an Insufferable Elitist?
In an article/screed today, George Will decries Americans' love affair with denim and blue jeans. He tells the story of Levi Strauss inventing jeans. He also indicates that, in his entire life, he has owned but one pair which he has only worn once to a party which required that everyone be in jeans. Doesn't George know that wearing jeans is one thing that virtually all Americans can agree on? They are uniquely American. Created for our early economic development (use by those prospecting for gold), they now are owned by most men, women and children in the nation. Jeans are generally cheap, comfortable and non-determinative of class, social status, education level or other things. Jeans are truly non-discriminatory. Rich, Poor, Blacks, Whites, Native Americans, Asians, Blue Bloods and Immigrants all wear and enjoy jeans. Why does George have a problem. Is it in some way retaliatory for someone telling him that his use of bow ties is "European"? By his own admission, he has virtually no experience as a jeans wearer or owner. For such a Libertarian type of fellow, it is hypocritical to hear him foisting his anti-denim values on the rest of us. Perhaps he should avoid being an arbiter of good taste and focus on subjects for which he is capable of more inciteful and knowledgeable commentary. George, how about another good book on baseball?


text:
in: Films, 1953 films, Documentaries,
Disney films
1953 shorts
Prowlers of the Everglades
James Algar
Ben Sharpsteen
Studio(s)
RKO Radio Pictures
Bear Country
The Living Desert
Prowlers of the Everglades is a 1953 American short documentary film directed by James Algar. The film was produced by Walt Disney as part of the True-Life Adventures series of nature documentaries.
In the depths of Florida, the Everglades seem timeless. A creature, the alligator, it terrorizes, in fact, historically, many species: birds, turtles, otters and fish. In fact, nothing seems to really combat this fierce predator. But this is not counting on the wisdom of Mother Nature has placed in his path, thieves eggs and other small eaters, such as "frail" raccoon, who are responsible for regulating the species.
Winston Hibler as The Narrator
Poster from the release in Japan, paired with The Sword and the Rose

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
<?php

namespace PHPExiftool\Driver\Tag\Nikon;

use JMS\Serializer\Annotation\ExclusionPolicy;
use PHPExiftool\Driver\AbstractTag;

/**
 * @ExclusionPolicy("all")
 */
class POILevel extends AbstractTag
{

    protected $Id = 8;

    protected $Name = 'POILevel';

    protected $FullName = 'Nikon::LocationInfo';

    protected $GroupName = 'Nikon';

    protected $g0 = 'MakerNotes';

    protected $g1 = 'Nikon';

    protected $g2 = 'Location';

    protected $Type = 'int8u';

    protected $Writable = true;

    protected $Description = 'POI Level';

    protected $flag_Permanent = true;
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


SCARBEE JAY-BASS is the go-to source for slap and finger bass. This addition to the "powered by KONTAKT" range of instruments is an expertly played and sampled late 70s Jazz bass.
Created by Thomas Skarbye. Based on the Scarbee Red Bass, it makes extensive use of the advanced scripting features introduced with the SCARBEE PRE-BASS. With three pick-up positions and a multitude of playing techniques, SCARBEE JAY-BASS has it all when it comes to slapped and fingered bass sounds.
True-to-life sound is critical for realistic slapped and fingered bass; that's why SCARBEE JAY-BASS is not just a collection of static sound samples. Utilizing recordings of the full strings of a late 70s Jazz bass, this instrument reproduces the timbre changes that occur when you move between low and high frets on the string of a real bass. In this way JAY-BASS delivers contrary "sweet spots" for a rich and vivid sound that's highly natural.
JAY-BASS is so realistic that you can even slide between chords. Recorded through a DI the SCARBEE JAY-BASS is highly adaptable and fits easily in to the mix, with or without additional processing.
The GUI provides more than just a visual aid for string selection, but information on articulations and hand positions that make this a superb tool for learning how to play bass. Under the hood SCARBEE JAY-BASS utilizes sophisticated scripting that automatically takes care of string selection, finger alteration, chord recognition, vibrato, release and much more. Furthermore, the script enables you to configure all settings including EQ, load and store FX presets, and access documentation covering every aspect of the instrument directly through the instrument performance view.
The Scarbee and Native Instruments partnership sees the expert sample house release instrument libraries under the "powered by KONTAKT" banner, for use with the industry-leading sampler KONTAKT or the free KONTAKT PLAYER. With SCARBEE's renowned precision and level of detail applied to the multi award-winning KONTAKT platform, producers can expect a line of premium instruments across the musical spectrum.
Slide mode – play a note legato while holding the sustain pedal pressed to trigger a slide. The velocity will determine a slide speed.


P2P means peer to peer and it is a computer network in which one computer can act as a host for the other computer. This enables people all over the world to send information or share files. P2P enables two computers to send information to one another without the need for a central server. This can cut down on cost for individuals and businesses looking to connect with their friends or co-workers. Also, the ability for these systems to be set up in any home or business with just the internet can eliminate the prices associated with physical servers.
There are many different types of entertainment files that can be shared with P2P VPN. VPN stand for Virtual Private Network. Information is sent through a tunnel. That information that is sent through the tunnel is encrypted. This prevents unauthorized figures from accessing important information. With P2P VPN you will be able to work on a secure network with your co-workers all over the world. Businesses have used these methods for years to cut down on telecommunication expenses. Files sharing can occur and audio, data, video and anything in digital format, can be sent through P2P tunnels safely and securely.
Each person that is connected to a P2P VPN will have equal access. This means that businesses all over the world can share ideas and strategize with the help of P2P VPN communication. This increases the work productivity of many of the top fortune 500 companies in the world. This is the reason why many companies can outsource work and find the best talent in the world and still create a great virtual work environment. Each computer that is connected to a P2P VPN is considered a Node. Each Node can work together to complete a common goal.
P2P VPN is cost effective for businesses and even individuals because two computers connect to each other and can share available resources. These resources could be processing power and disk storage. This is another way businesses save money because they can cut down on the number of physical servers and hardware needed to get the job done. With this model of sharing resources the two respective computer units have a give and take relationship. The two nodes can be both the consumer and supplier of resources. This method is more reliable for businesses then traditional client- server model. The traditional client server model uses the one supplier and one receiver method.
File sharing is the process of distributing digitally stored information. This can be pictures from football games or weddings. Businesses can use file sharing to compare marketing strategies or share analysis on the current market. P2P VPN allows for many other great additions to companies and individuals. Both parties can work on a secure network and avoid intruders. Because intruders are looking to make a quick buck, P2P VPN solutions enable internet users to shares idea with their co-workers and love ones without risking the forfeit of vital information. Check out theTop 5 P2P VPN services at the bottom of this article.


जिज्ञासु:पूज्य गुरुदेव , आत्मीय नमन – वन्दन- चरण वन्दन l 1)जो मनुष्य माँस , शराब , गुटखा , बीडी , तम्बाकू , सिगरेट आदि पदार्थों का सेवन करता है उसे हवन , यज्ञ करने का अधिकार है या नही ? 2)जो यदि ऐसा मनुष्य हवन , यज्ञ करना चाहे तो क्या उसे पहले दृढ़ संकल्प द्वारा इन पदार्थों का त्याग करना पड़ेगा अथवा हवन , यज्ञ करते – करते – करते स्वत: उससे ये बुराइयां छूट जायेंगी?
Swami Ramswarup: Mera ashirwad . Hawan/Yajeyn karne ka adhikar sabko hai kyunki jub koi aisa vyakti hawan/Yajyen shuru karega tub hee weh burai ko chhodega anyatha nahi.
Jo Hawan/Yajyen karne se pehle buraiyon ka tyag karta hai, weh adhik se adhik punnya prapt karta hai.
Shishya: Guruji ke Charnoon main mera koti koti pranam. Guruji in Vedas God only asks disciple to clear their doubts from a rishi for clear understanding. So please I put my doubts here.
For further clarity on the idea of NISHKAM KARMA I read Your Bhagwat Geeta part 4 in more detail. But I still have doubts about Nishkam Karma, Please help me to clear my doubts.
All my doubts are centred from a STUDENT'S PERSPECTIVE.
1.I as a student have an exam in few months and if I study with a target/goal of coming first/giving my 100% in exam and keep reminding myself of my target when ever I become weak, will that be against the philosophy of Nishkam Karma I understand I may come first or not as its in Gods hand but I will have to work thinking and believing that 'I can and will' top in this very exam so as to motivate myself to study hard for success no matter what.
One will have to work like that na. Yahan par phal ki ichha ka na karne ka kya matlab hoga kya main top karne ka ya apna best dene ka nahi sochoon lekin agar main Is saal top karne ka/apna best dena ka nahi soochta hoon to yeah muje lazy bana jata hai. Guruji please explain, I will be very grateful.
2. In Gita part 4 shlok 18/24, word 'Kamepsuna' is explained as karma karne se phele karmaphal ke iccha ka hona. Lekin Guruji mere maan main ek accha Officer bannene ke iccha to hai tabhi main uske liye karam kar raha hoon. To kya yeah ved virudh ho gaya. If it is so please explain how should I think.
3. Please explain what is the meaning of Phal ke iccha na karna. Because as a student I know its my duty to study but what and how I study is dependent on my desire/Goal .Main to officer banne ke iccha aur sath main God ko pane ke iccha har samay rakhta hoon. To kya main kuch galat samaj raha hoon.
4. Guruji Kya having a kamana/pious desire karma phal ki iccha nahi hai. In main kya difference hai. Guruji ke charnoon main mera koti koti pranam.
Swami Ramswarup: My blessings to you. Student has full right to decide to get maximum numbers. After finding the target, he must do hard study according with a prayer that he is doing hard study, desirelessly (nishkaam) leaving the result at the discretion of God, whether he fulfills the target or not.
I have already explained above and before the starting, the deed/hard work, the target should be fixed. But hardworking should be based on Nishkaam Karma as quoted above.


Just a quick look at some period firearms.
Cap and Ball, whom we have met before, shoots an original .58 cal. Springfield rifle-musket. He shows it can shoot quite accurately at a distance, but OTOH he's an experienced shot and has fiddled with it a bit.
Then, a look at the Needham postwar conversion to breech loading. Also pics of the Snider-Enfield conversion and the Trapdoor Springfield. Three solutions to the problem of what to do with all those muzzle loaders that fill your arsenals.
The Dreyse Needle Gun, one of the first service breech loaders and the prototype for the bolt action rifle. Adopted in 1843 it was contemporary with the Late Unpleasantness.
The French answer to the Needle Gun was the Chassepot, which was considerably more advanced and had much superior long range performance, although it still used a paper cartridge much like that of the Sharps. The French were not able to produce enough of them for the Franco-Prussian War and ended up importing substantial number of American rifles, including Rolling Blocks, Henrys, and Spencers.
The last of the service black powder guns was the British Lee-Metford, which was a modern bolt action magazine repeater that still used a black powder cartridge. It worked well enough against the dervishes at the Omdurman, but not so well against the Boers.
And finally, if you're able to get CSPAN3 they are having a wealth of Civil War programs that have included the re-enactment of Lee's surrender, the Grand Review in Washington, and much more. tonight I listened to part of a program by Harold Holzer on his new book about Lincoln and the press.
UPDATE: Couple of more to add to the collection.
The mitrailleuse was an early attempt at a machinegun. Actually it was more of a volley gun but had some unique features of its own. The French, who fielded it in the Franco-Prussian War, intended it to be used as artillery as sort of a long range canister. It was not very successful but is a fascinating piece of machinery. Nice article with videos and animation.
The Palmer breech-loading carbine, which was issued to Federal cavalry in small numbers. It's another weapon that few (myself included) have heard of.


As an attorney, CPA, or other professional advisor, your clients depend on you for guidance and advice. Working with Wells Fargo Private Bank can help you strengthen client relationships and grow your practice.
We work closely with you to give your clients access to a broad range of strategic wealth management resources to help them build, manage, preserve, and transition wealth.
We respect the important role you play in your clients' lives. The Private Bank can serve as a valued resource for your practice by providing access to advice and investment strategies that can complement your existing client services.
Through our team-based approach, we focus on collaborating with you to help your clients address their personal needs and achieve their financial goals.
You'll benefit from our financial specialists' experience, opinions, and best practices. From wealth management trends to coverage of key market events, you and your clients will learn from our perspectives and insights.
Our thought leaders and experienced analysts are available to provide the critical information needed to help grow business or personal wealth.
At The Private Bank, your clients will receive highly customized and personalized service. A local team of our experienced professionals will provide a tailored approach to meet individual wealth management needs.
We take the time to fully understand each client's financial picture and design a custom wealth management plan. A relationship manager, acting as the primary point of contact, will keep you and your clients informed about the plan and progress toward key goals.
The Wells Fargo Legal Specialty Group serves the equity partners who own America's largest law firms. We understand the complex financial dynamics that law firms and partners face and tailor our comprehensive suite of wealth management services toward their goals.
Learn more about our Legal Specialty Group.
Today's investors face complex challenges. That's why we provide a wide range of services designed to help meet diverse wealth management needs, including business advisory services, real estate asset management, and philanthropic services.


In addition to obtaining some redemption, via a monetary award, for victims and families of medical malpractice, sometimes nationwide changes can be made. It is becomming more and more common for plaintiffs to seek more than just money for their injuries. They are seeking sweeping changes to the practices of these negligent hospitals.


This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image. The original image is sized 725x675.
This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image. The original image is sized 718x560.
This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image. The original image is sized 689x610.


This house / villa (architect house) of 500 m² (about 5375 ft²), built in 1976, with a land size of 1,14 ha (about 2,80 acres) contains 10 rooms including 7 bedrooms, 4 bathrooms, 2 shower rooms and 6 toilets. It is equipped with a living room of 115 m² (about 1236 ft²), with a separate kitchen, with a swimming pool, with a terrace, with 2 garages and with 5 parkings. Heating : individual fuel oil. Others : fireplace.


Born 1945, in Hungary; immigrated to Canada; married; wife's name Candace (a photographer and artist); children: Peter.
Author. Has worked a variety of jobs, including boat builder, deckhand, railroad worker, photographer, and book editor.
From a Bare Hull: How to Build a Sailboat (self-published), illustrated by wife, Candace Máté, 1977, revised edition published as From a Bare Hull, Albatross Publishing House (London, England), 1983.
Waterhouses: The Romantic Alternative, Albatross Publishing House (Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada), 1977.
The Finely Fitted Yacht: The Boat Improvement Manual, two volumes, illustrated by Candace Máté, Albatross Publishing House (Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada), 1979.
Best Boats to Build or Buy, Albatross Publishing House (West Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada), 1982.
Shipshape: The Art of Sailboat Maintenance, illustrated by Candace Máté, Albatross Publishing House (New York, NY), 1985.
(And photographer, with Candace Máté) Autumn: A New England Journey, Albatross Publishing House (New York, NY), 1988.
A Reasonable Life: Toward a Simpler, Secure, More Humane Existence, Albatross Publishing House (Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada), 1993.
The Hills of Tuscany: A New Life in an Old Land (memoir), Albatross Publishing House (New York, NY), 1998.
The World's Best Sailboats: A Survey, Albatross Publishing House (New York, NY), Volume 1, 2001, Volume 2, 2003.
Ghost Sea (novel), Albatross Publishing House (New York, NY), 2006.
As a child, Ferenc Máté fled his native Hungary with his mother for Canada when revolution struck his homeland. He grew up in Canada, and became enamored by the sailing life. Along with other jobs, he worked as a boat builder and deckhand, and in 1977 self-published From a Bare Hull: How to Build a Sailboat, which has since become a popular book on the subject. After he married his photographer/artist wife, the couple spent much of their lives living on boats, traveling the world, and writing about and taking pictures of their experiences. Reaching retirement age, Máté and his wife settled in Italy, and he wrote about this experience in his memoir, The Hills of Tuscany: A New Life in an Old Land. The "amusing account," as a Publishers Weekly critic described it, of how the Mátés fell in love with Tuscany, found a home, and acclimated to the people and customs, is filled with "evocative descriptions of the beautiful countryside."
Máté has also completed a novel, Ghost Sea. Critics of the book enjoyed the descriptions of sailing and the native Canadian Kwakiutl tribal culture, but found the plotting and characterizations of the story itself to suffer. A Kirkus Reviews contributor, for example, felt that the tale of a man who sets out to rescue his kidnapped—and married—love obsession using a ketch he has salvaged lacked "credibility." A reviewer for Publishers Weekly, however, felt that that Máté "excels at descriptions of boats and coastal geography."
Máté, Ferenc, The Hills of Tuscany: A New Life in an Old Land, Albatross Publishing House (New York, NY), 1998.
Kirkus Reviews, April 1, 2006, review of Ghost Sea, p. 317.
Library Journal, December, 1998, Nancy R. Ives, review of The Hills of Tuscany, p. 122.
Publishers Weekly, December 28, 1992, review of A Reasonable Life: Toward a Simpler, Secure, More Humane Existence, p. 54; October 5, 1998, review of The Hills of Tuscany, p. 67; March 20, 2006, review of Ghost Sea, p. 35.
"Máté, Ferenc 1945-." Contemporary Authors. . Encyclopedia.com. 19 Apr. 2019 <https://www.encyclopedia.com>.