SHRC data
Michael Chambers BIS CCP
of Queens University's faculty of Public Policy to publish the following in
the Globe and Mail....
) 1998
Alasdair Roberts
rob...@qsilver.queensu.ca
MAKING POLICY BEHIND CLOSED DOORS
Toronto Globe and Mail, 27 July 1998, page A11.
For boosters of public service reform, one of the gospel truths is the
idea that governments should "steer, not row." Bureaucrats and
ministers set policy, but the job of executing policy is delegated to
a non-governmental body. Done properly, it's a good way to keep
government focussed on the most important work of setting policy
directions. Done badly, it can undermine government accountability.
Consider the Software Development Worker Pilot Project, a program
begun by the federal government in May 1997. The project allows the
Department of Citizenship and Immigration to fast-track the visa
applications of foreign workers who have certain kinds of job offers
in the Canadian software industry. The authorization for fast-tracking
is given in a letter from the Department of Human Resources
Development (HRD), which says that seven job categories in the
software industry "cannot be readily filled by Canadians and permanent
residents despite reasonable efforts made by employers to hire or
train Canadians or permanent residents for these jobs."(1)
A similar American policy has been hugely controversial. The software
industry says that fast-tracking visa applications is essential to
deal with severe shortages of certain kinds of skilled workers.
Critics claim that the industry is using "panic rhetoric" to justify
the importation of inexpensive labour from India and China.(2) A U.S.
Commerce Department study that justifies the policy has been
criticized for using sloppy methodology that underestimates the
domestic supply of skilled workers.(3)
How did our government decide which foreign workers could have their
visa applications fast-tracked? The short answer is: it didn't. The
list of high-priority job categories was prepared by a private
organization, the Software Human Resource Council.(4) The council says
that the job categories were identified through "informal discussions"
with industry representatives.(5) Government officials reviewed the
list but didn't conduct their own analysis of the labour market.(6)
The Council is one of 27 "sectoral councils" that have been
established with the encouragement of the federal government over the
past 10 years.(7) Its board is composed mainly of individuals
representing the largest industry associations in the
information-technology sector.(8) The council has received over
$12-million from the federal government to administer its programs.(9)
Nevertheless, the Council is a private corporation, so it's difficult
to find out why these seven job categories deserve special treatment.
The council's communications director, Robyn Gordon, says there is no
"publicly releasable" analysis that explains how the council decided
which jobs should be included in the pilot project.(10) Since the
council isn't covered by the federal freedom-of-information law,
citizens don't have a right to inspect its records.(11)
The council says that it has contracted with another private
organization, Ekos Research, to conduct an evaluation of the pilot
project.(12) However, there has been no decision about whether the
evaluation will be made public.(13) Because the council and Ekos are
both non-governmental bodies, there is no assurance under law that the
final report will be publicly accessible.
The effect of these arrangements is to turn the idea of "steering, not
rowing" on its head. In this case, it's the council that's steering,
and two government departments -- HRD and Immigration -- that are
rowing. Furthermore, it's tough for any citizen to make a judgement
about how well the council is steering. Does this policy serve the
public interest, or just the narrow interests of major players in the
information technology industry?
In its own defense, the council points out that this is a short-term
pilot project. But the date for termination of the project has already
been extended twice.(14) The Immigration Department says that there
has been "a good deal of interest" in the project from other
sectors.(15) Ekos has been asked to examine whether the policy can be
expanded to other areas.(16)
This pilot project is part of a much larger trend, in which
governments transfer important responsibilities to industry-managed
organizations that aren't covered by freedom-of-information laws.
Governments say that these are private organizations -- but they often
rely heavily on public money or delegated regulatory powers. In some
cases, such as this, the organizations make critical decisions about
public policy. However, they don't have to meet the same standards of
accountability as government departments.(17)
No one disputes that the software industry deserves to be consulted on
immigration policy. But steps must be taken to ensure that citizens
can understand and question the basis for policy decisions. The
Department of Human Resources Development should make clear that
records relating to projects such as this remain government property,
and are therefore subject to the freedom-of-information law. The
council should be obliged to release a background analysis that
explains how it reached its decisions about high-priority job
categories. And it should be the government, not the council, that
contracts for and receives evaluations of projects like this one.
NOTES
(1) "National Validation Letter" from Mr. Richard Courville,
Department of Human Resources Development, to Ms Joan Atkinson,
Department of Citizenship and Immigration, October 24, 1997. An HRDC
official confirms that it is fair to characterize the project as one
that "fast-tracks" certain visa applications.
(2) American Scientists Association, H1-B Petition,
http://www2.ultra.net/~asa/H1B_pet.htm. See also: Marcus Stern, "A
high-tech battle over immigrants," Copley News Service, June 8, 1998.
Stern says that the H1-B controversy could be the "biggest immigration
battle of the year" in the U.S. A more recent report on the
controversy can be found in the July 26, 1998 Washington Post: "Visa
program, high-tech workers exploited, critics say," by William
Branigin, page A1,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1998-07/26/232l-072698-idx
.html.
(3) See U.S. General Accounting Office, Information Technology:
Assessment of the Department of Commerce's Report on Workforce Demand
and Supply, Study GAO/HEHS-98-106R.
http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces160.shtml?/gao/index.html
Some commentators have also expressed doubts about the extent of our
skills shortage. See: Michael Lewis, "Programmers aren't writing own
tickets," Ottawa Citizen, June 11, 1998, page D3; and James Owens,
"High-tech skill shortage: fact or fiction?" Ottawa Citizen, June 10,
19983, page G10.
(4) A memorandum from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration
explains that "SHRC, in consultation with industry, has provided seven
job descriptions outlining the specific skill requirements relative to
software development occupations in shortage in Canada." Operations
Memorandum, "Software Development Workers: Pilot Project," May 5,
1997: http://cicnet.ci.gc.ca/english/visit/software/soft-om.html.
A department newsletter explains: "When the information technology
(IT) industry approached us to discuss its problems dealing with its
shortages of skilled workers, and specifically its need to have
temporary workers (once identified) admitted to Canada as quickly as
possible, we examined the foreign worker process with them to identify
possible ways of speeding the process that would not compromise the
integrity of the program. . . . . We put it to the industry, via the
Software Human Resources Council, to identify the skills that were
most clearly and inarguably in shortage across Canada. They were also
to provide appropriate job descriptions, including wage ranges, for
these positions. HRDC would provide the final opinion (as required by
legislation) that these generic job descriptions were not able to be
filled from within the Canadian labour market." Software Development
Worker Pilot Project, Newsletter Number 1, October 1997:
http://cicnet.ci.gc.ca/english/visit/software/soft-nl1.html.
(5) Correspondence from Council to author, June 25, 1998.
(6) One official explains that government officials checked their
"comfort level" with the Council's list. Another says that officials
in HRD regional offices made a judgement about whether the list seemed
consistent with the experience of HRD field personnel.
(7) See: http://www.councils.org/english.html.
(8) The Council says: "SHRC's Board of Directors is composed mainly of
individuals representing Canada's two largest industry associations in
the information technology (IT) sector - the Canadian Advanced
Technology Association (CATA) and the Information Technology
Association of Canada (ITAC)." See:
http://www.shrc.ca/html/shrc_partners.html.
(9) The Public Accounts of Canada show that the Council received $0.9
million from Human Resources Development in 1994-95; $2.9 million in
1995-96; and $5.3 million in 1996-97. The Council says that it
received $3.3 million from the department for 1997-98. This produces a
total of $12.4 million. Funding for the years 1992-1994 has not been
included in this total.
(10) Conversation with the author, June 22, 1998.
(11) The Council confirms that it is not covered by the federal Access
to Information Act. Correspondence, June 25, 1998.
(12) Correspondence from Council to author, June 25, 1998.
(13) The Council says that "the timing and parameters of the release
of the evaluation of the pilot project" will be determined by the
committee appointed to oversee its completion. Correspondence with
author, June 25, 1998. The chair of the committee says that it has not
yet discussed the issue of releasing the report. Correspondence, June
25, 1998.
(14) The project was originally expected to end on October 31, 1997.
It was extended to March 31, 1998, and then to December 31, 1998. The
Council says that the project was extended "because the Canadian
software industry has indicated it is pleased with this initiative and
wants it to continue": see
http://www.shrc.ca/SoftwareWorkerPilot/English/Intro.html.
(15) Software Development Worker Pilot Project, Newsletter Number 1,
October 1997:
http://cicnet.ci.gc.ca/english/visit/software/soft-nl1.html.
(16) Software Development Worker Pilot Project, Newsletter Number 2,
December 1997:
http://cicnet.ci.gc.ca/english/visit/software/soft-nl2.html.
(17) This is discussed at length in a study recently completed by the
author: "Limited Access: Assessing the Health of Canada's Freedom of
Information Laws," April 1998. The study can be found at
http://qsilver.queensu.ca/~foi/.
Michael Chambers
excellent idea. My preference is to supply all the raw data, and allow
individuals to draw their own conclusions. As far as I'm concerned, the
only pre-requisit to reviewing the data, is the ability to read. I will
work on a summary, with the preamble that pure data is availble to
anyone on request. I will post this summary to CIPS-L. I have a batch to
get to, so it may take me a week or so, but it will be done. Thanks for
your interest. What a shame CIPS won't get involved.
Mike Chambers
----Original Message Follows----
Michael Chambers
Ontario (a CIPS publication), I offered to engage in a debate with
anyone in CIPS as to the merits of CIPS political and financial suport
of the SHRC/pilot. Although CIPS leadersip is confident enough in the
merits of the SHRC/pilot to loan it CIPS name/logo, and give it our
money, they declined an invitation to debate. I've asked IT Ontario to
publish this fact in their next edition. Will they ? Should they ?
CIPS management in support of the SHRC pilot, eg. Ken Chapman (Past
President of CIPS, now CEO of SHRC), seem to assume that silence will
give consent. Is that OK with you ?
Incidentally, if you want a real laugh, send a note to in...@shrc.ca,
asking what the CEO of SHRC gets paid.....
Some of us can't even remember the first time we sold out.
If SHRC carried out their threat to sue me, a CIPS member and I.S.P.,
over my statements concerning the SHRC/pilot, should CIPS side with me,
or the SHRC ? (for confirmation of this threat, contact m...@cips.ca).
Should CIPS pay my legal bills ? They pay SHRC's legal bills. I guess
given that CIPS was already in bed with SHRC, this would be very
difficult. If you want a real laugh, try phoning the Ontario Medical
Association, feign an irate patient, and threaten to sue a Dr. .... what
do you think they'll say ?
If I had backed down in fear when SHRC threatened to sue me, I would
never have filed my Access to Information Act applications. Would this
have been a good thing for CIPS membership or a bad thing ?
CIPS is NOT a company, and those who think it is, should resign now.
Democracy 101, "vox populi, vox dei".
Lest we forget...
ciao,
Mike
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Michael Chambers
is it simply a given the CIPS will stand by it's policy of mandatory
ignorance and NOT publish it instead. What is CIPS so afraid of ?
Michael Chambers
My apologies to Howlett etc. if I forwarded notes I shouldn't have.
Perhaps it's time, once again, to back off and leave CIPS-L a safe place
for Bluenose supper announcements.
After all, the Globe and Mail has been far more receptive to my concerns
than CIPS has.
bye,
Michael Chambers BIS CCP
I thought I'd resend it for a little deja vu all over again. 365 days
later, nothing has changed, except the "pilot" is still running.
I HAVE BEEN DELUGED with emails and phonecalls concerning the
Access to Information Act data I have on the SHRC/pilot. Too many to
reply to individually, even several offers to provide the resouces
necessary to scan/post these documents to the web. It will take me
some time to get on top of it.
If I can find the time tomorrow I will post to CIPS-L a digest of what
I have. My offer stands to provide snailmailed hardcopies to anyone
interested. PLEASE indulge me and RE-SEND your requests directly
to mik...@interlog.com, providing a full postal address (I'll cut and
past it as an address label). Please mark the subject "SHRC/ATIA". That
way I can put them in a separate folder easily and do them as a batch
later.
My position has been from day one that CIPS should do the right thing, or
CIPS should cease. So far, CIPS has been very much doing the wrong thing.
The only hope for CIPS in the 21st century is to restore Steve Gallinger
to the Vice President's job. Anything less is unacceptable.
regards,
Mike Chambers CCP ISP(Ontario)
CIPS member (for now)
-----------> ..... plus c'est la meme chose <----------------------------
=========================================================================
Date: 30 October 1997, 07:26:30 EST
From: MCHAMBER at TORVM3
To: tanja at comnet.ca
Cc: CIPS-L at unb.ca,
swinwood at magi.com,
min.labour-travail at hrdc-drhc.gc.ca,
robert.st-laurent at justice.x400.gc.ca
Subject: the seven dirty jobs.....
So the SHRC concludes, and the government agrees, "that there are
seven jobs descriptions that cannot be filled by Canadians". The
job descriptions listed constitute a loophole big enough to drive
a truck through !
Your mandate states......" streamline the process by which foreign
workers with specific high-level, software development skills can enter
Canada on a temporary basis to fill positions WHERE NO QUALIFIED
CANADIANS CAN BE FOUND. This pilot project commences May 5, 1997."
As you make clear however this is NOT the case, and the pilot project
by the way has been extended to March 31 '98. NO CHECK need be made for
qualified Canadians under this "pilot project".... correct ?
Paul Swinwood claims that "there has been no change in policy"....
I fail to see how this "pilot project" does NOT amount to a change
in policy.
Why is MIS management not one of the seven jobs ? If there's such
a glut of supply of MIS management, why does it pay so well ?
Your web materials claim collaboration with CIPS, yet when the
initial annoucement about this pilot project was made in the media, I
contacted CIPS and they were completely unaware of it. Is the SHRC
aware of the fact that CIPS has unemployed members who consider
themselves "MIS programmers" ?
Please explain how this does NOT violate the rights of Candians, making
specific reference to the Constitution Act, 1982, section 6(2)(a).
I would make the case that this "pilot project" is unconstitutional...
and I'm looking forward to an explanation from HRDC as to why they
don't agree, and comments from the Ministry of Justice.
There is, at the moment, a critical shortage of teachers in Ontario, which
could no doubt be filled easily from overseas......
----------------------------------------><---------------------------
From: Tanja Stockmann <ta...@comnet.ca>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "mcha...@vnet.IBM.COM" <mcha...@vnet.IBM.COM>
Subject: Software Development Worker Pilot Project
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Dear Mr. Chambers.
All the available information is on the web site under www.shrc.ca. It
is called the Software Development Worker Pilot Project. In short, the
pilot is testing an approach to streamline the process. the SHRC has
determined through industry consultations that there are 7 job
descriptions that cannot be filled by Canadians. These jobs have been
validated through HRDC.
An employer no longer has to demonstrate to the local HRCC that they
need this person for one of these seven job descriptions and cannot fill
them with a Canadian. In the normal process, an employer must go to the
local HRCC and apply for a validation for the job before they attempt to
hire an overseas individual. If you have further questions please
contact me directly. Thanks.
Tanja Stockmann
-----------------------------------><--------------------------------
URL: http://www.shrc.ca/html/job_descriptions.html
Title: Job Descriptions
1. Senior Animation
Effects Editor
2. Multimedia
Software Designer
3. Embedded Systems
Software Designer
4. MIS Software
Designer
5. Software Products
Developer
6. Telecommunications
Software Designer
7. Software Developer
- Services
Copyright Software Human
Resource Council, 1997
For information, contact
in...@shrc.ca
-----------------------------------><--------------------------------
URL: http://www.shrc.ca/html/sdwppe.html
Title: SDWPPE
Ottawa, May 5, 1997. The Software
Human Resource Council (SHRC), Human
Resources Development Canada (HRDC),
Citizenship and Immigration Canada (
(CIC), and Industry Canada (IC) are
collaborating on a pilot project to
streamline the process by which
foreign workers with specific
high-level, software development
skills can enter Canada on a
temporary basis to fill positions
where no qualified Canadians can be
found. This pilot project commences
May 5, 1997.
Copyright Software Human
Resource Council, 1997
For information, contact
in...@shrc.ca
-----------------------------------><--------------------------------
J A Michael Chambers BIS CCP ISP (mik...@interlog.com)
4936 Yonge Street, Suite 607, North York, Ontario, M2N 6S3 CANADA
tel: 416.490.5444
fax: 416.226.0043