Publication Mail Registration Number: 40052410 THE MAGAZINE FOR PUBLIC SECTOR DECISION MAKERS JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2022 VOLUME 28 | NUMBER 1 0 9 01 61399 70471 $5.00 Display until June 10 HOUSING AFFORDABILITY IN CANADA www.canadiangovernmentexecutive.ca INSIDE: PROPOSED ARTICLE ON ANNUAL STATE OF PERFORMANCE CHAMPION LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT HYBRID INNOVATION & BUILDING INCLUSION INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS AND
Meet the highest cloud security and compliance standards with ThinkOn, the only Canadian sovereign cloud provider approved for government workloads and designated VMware Sovereign Cloud partner. That’s our guarantee as a Canadian owned and operated company. www.ThinkOn.com Compliant, certified infrastructure—powered by VMware Keep Canadian data safe at home.
January/February 2022 // Canadian Government Executive / 3 CONTENTS 6 Housing in Canada: A Hot Potato Policy Issue Intergovernmental Relations By Beth Clinton 11 Reimagining Citizen Services with Cloud By IBM 12 Proposed Article on Annual State of Performance By Michael Miner 16 Intergovernmental Relations and Housing Affordability in Canada By Felicia Parr 20 Champion Leadership Development By John Wilkins 22 Delivering Greater Value to Constituents and Communities with Digitized Payment Solutions By Michelle Brick and Amy Sagan 24 Hybrid Innovation & Building Inclusion By Jeffrey Roy 26 IBM Builds Technology Platform to Help NGOs Manage Afghan Refugee Information By Lori Turnbull 30 The Conservative Party of Canada Is Kicking Off a New Leadership Selection Contest By Lori Turnbull 24 Hybrid Innovation & Building Inclusion CGE ONLINE: Letters We welcome feedback on articles and story ideas. Email marcello@promotivemedia.ca About the Cover Intergovernmental Relations and Housing Affordability in Canada It’s in the Archives Missed an issue? Misplaced an article? Visit www.canadiangovernmentexecutive.ca for a full archive of past CGE issues, as well as online extras from our many contributors.
OUR MISSION IS TO CONTRIBUTE TO EXCELLENCE IN PUBLIC SERVICE MANAGEMENT EDITORIAL DEPUTY EDITOR | LORI TURNBULL lori@promotivemedia.ca MANAGING EDITOR | TERRI PAVELIC terri@promotivemedia.ca COLUMNISTS | JEFFREY ROY HARVEY SCHACHTER JOHN WILKINS EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD DENISE AMYOT, PENNY BALLANTYNE, JIM CONNELL, MICHAEL FENN, LANA LOUGHEED, JOHN MILLOY, VIC PAKALNIS, ROBERT SHEPHERD, ANDREW TREUSCH, DAVID ZUSSMAN SALES & EVENTS DIRECTOR, CONTENT & BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT | DAVID BLONDEAU 905-727-3875 david@promotivemedia.ca ART & PRODUCTION ART DIRECTOR | ELENA PANKOVA elena@promotivemedia.ca SUBSCRIPTIONS AND ADDRESS CHANGES CIRCULATION SERVICES | circulation@promotivemedia.ca GENERAL INQUIRIES 21374, 2nd Concession Rd, East Gwillimbury, ON, L9N 0H7 Phone 905-727-3875 Fax 905-727-4428 www.canadiangovernmentexecutive.ca CORPORATE GROUP PUBLISHER | J. RICHARD JONES john@promotivemedia.ca Publisher’s Mail Agreement: 40052410 ISSN 1203-7893 Canadian Government Executive magazine is published 6 times per year by Navatar Press. All opinions expressed herein are those of the contributors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher or any person or organization associated with the magazine. Letters, submissions, comments and suggested topics are welcome, and should be sent to lori@promotivemedia.ca REPRINT INFORMATION Reproduction or photocopying is prohibited without the publisher’s prior written consent. High quality reprints of articles and additional copies of the magazine are available through circulation@promotivemedia.ca. Privacy Policy: We do not sell our mailing list or share any confidential information on our subscribers. We acknowledge the financial support of the Government of Canada through the Canada Periodical Fund (CPF) for our publishing activities. www.canadiangovernmentexecutive.ca 4 / Canadian Government Executive // January/February 2022 WEB Thank you very much for picking up this edition of Canadian Government Executive magazine. We have covered a lot of ground in this issue. We’re very excited to bring you two pieces that offer a critical, objective analysis of the affordable housing challenge in Canada. This is a complex issue that requires collaboration from all orders of government and we trust that the analysis we’ve brought forward here, complete with recommendations, will add much to the ongoing dialogue on the housing situation in Canada. Also in this issue, we bring you: a piece on evidence-based performance management at CBSA; the evergreen topic of leadership management in the public sector; the value of digitized payment solutions; innovations in hybrid work; and, a special interview piece in which representatives from IBM Consulting Canada, ONE9 Capability Labs, and NGO Aman Lara tell the story of partnership and innovation in the management of information in relation to the Afghan refugee crisis. It is our goal, with every issue of the magazine, to speak to the key challenges facing the public sector and to shine a light on best practices across departments and sectors. We are always open to suggestions for topics that are of key interest to readers. We want to be analytical in our approach so that the magazine’s content is positioned to have impact on policymaking and service delivery across jurisdictions. While our focus is on the public sector, we are attentive to the political world and well and will devote time and space in each issue to discuss the key issues facing ministers and parliamentarians. As this issue goes to publication, both online and in print, the global political order is in crisis as Russia invades Ukraine and NATO partners work to help Ukraine defend itself and choke off Russia’s ability to wage war. These are particularly challenging times that could result in, among other things, a reconsideration of Canada’s approach to defence spending and military readiness. In a recent interview with CBC, Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Wayne Eyre said that “the world is getting more dangerous every day and we need to be ready for it.”1 The next days and weeks will be critical in determining how global peace can be restored. This daunting responsibility exists along the need to manage inflation and high-cost social programs. The federal budget, expected in early April, will give us a sense of how the government will finance its priorities for the year ahead. We will devote special attention to the federal budget in our next issue. My best, Dr. Lori Turnbull Deputy Editor, Canadian Government Executive Reference: 1. Burke, Ashley. 2022. “Military readiness ‘one of the things that keeps me awake at night’, says Canada’s top soldier.” CBC News. Available at: https:// www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-military-state-of-readyness-1.6380922 EDITOR’S NOTE
Let’s rethink how the world works. Businesses and communities around the world are in various stages of reopening. As they do, changing how they work isn’t a consideration for tomorrow—it’s an imperative for today. Perhaps this isn’t a restart. It’s a rethink. A time to reimagine how business and society work. A time to reinforce the viability of our companies and the health of our workforces. A time to reconsider how we can solve today’s problems—and actually thrive in the years to come. At IBM, we believe that when people and technology work together, our world can emerge in a way that’s more resilient. Stronger. Smarter than ever before. ibm.biz/thinkcanada IBM and the IBM logo are trademarks of International Business Machines Corporation, registered in many jurisdictions worldwide. Other product and service names might be trademarks of IBM or other companies. A current list of IBM trademarks is available at ibm.com/ trademark. ©International Business Machines Corp. 2021. B34317
Housing in Canada: While housing may appear to be an issue that would distinctly fall to provinces and municipalities, it is a complex intertwining of responsibilities and programs that involves all levels of government, non-profits, and economic markets. It is an area that affects all Canadians and concerns far ranging ideals like equity, dignity and human rights. Canada’s current housing system is a result of policies and actions of all layers of government. It is a ‘system’ rather than the housing market (economics) or housing policy (programs for low-income and the homeless population) because all of these things contribute to governments’ role in supply and distributing housing to its citizens (Hulchanski, 2006). This paper outlines challenges, concerns and multi-government issues of cooperation and contention with housing policy in Canada and provides some recommendations for policy directions. BY BETH CLINTON A HOT POTATO POLICY ISSUE INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS 6 / Canadian Government Executive // January/February 2022 AFFORDABLE HOUSING
January/February 2022 // Canadian Government Executive / 7 AFFORDABLE HOUSING KEY ISSUES AND CHALLENGES Home Ownership One of the main issues in the area of housing policy is that the federal government housing policies are largely aimed at market mechanisms that incentivize home ownership above other forms of housing (rental or social need) (Hulchanski, 2006). Some examples include, the 2009 first-time home buyers tax credit which allows for a non-refundable federal income tax credit for the principal residence for first time buyers, and the Home Buyers’ Plan that allows first time buyers to withdraw money from RRSP’s, tax-free, to assist with home ownership. Of course, the largest and most expensive federal housing subsidy is the non-taxation of capital gains on Canadians’ principal homes (Chisholm and Hulchanski, 2019). While it was mainly federal policies that encouraged home ownership, provincial and municipal policies in the 1990’s, like weak rent control and exclusionary zoning, discouraged renters (Rozworski, 2019). Additionally, the provincial legislation in the 1970’s that allowed condominiums as a form of home ownership contributed to a lack of rental housing. Previously, high and medium density zoned residential areas were exclusively rental properties. As condominiums are more profitable than rental properties, condo developers easily purchased and developed more of these zoned areas (Hulchanski, 2006). While there is nothing inherently wrong with incentivizing home ownership, current financial and housing market circumstances are increasingly making this goal infeasible and it fails to ensure fair and adequate distribution of housing. For the last decade, as housing prices have increased, there has been a corresponding increase in housing inequality. Globalization has led to a more national and international housing market as opposed to former local markets. Increasing speculation and investment in real estate (without actual residence) have escalated the problem (Chisholm & Holchanski, 2019). This disparity can be seen in the numbers. In Canada, 40% of households own 2% of the available real estate, and the top income of 20% of these households own 63% of real estate. Even with incentives, home ownership is not keeping pace. Home ownership had grown 9% in the years from 1971-2011. Since the 2018 financial crisis, ownership has remained stagnant at around 68%. This can be described as the ‘paradox of the housing crisis’, a situation where current home owners have the wealth and the value of their homes increase while many others struggle to keep themselves housed (Rozworski, 2019). This emphasis has affected how Canadians view housing. Home ownership is prized in a way that is not familiar to people in places like New York or European cities. An illustration is the emotions expressed over a property developer’s plan to purchase thousands of single family homes, renovate and rent them out as two units. Planning experts agreed that the developer’s plan was what the crowded cities needed but the general population was outraged and accused the company of profit mongering. As one op-ed piece pointed out: “Whether you call it ‘mongering’ or something that sounds nicer, earning a profit is at the indispensable heart of creating housing in Canada” (Pittis, 2021). This highlights two troubling aspects of the government’s support for home ownership: it has been mainly left to the market, and the policies have left many Canadians focusing on home ownership to the exclusion of other forms of housing. This emphasis on ownership support has created a system where federal government support of low income households who have a ‘social need’ for housing is a secondary concern (Hulchanski, 2007). The federal government did have some programs addressing this need with subsidies for public housing between 1949 and the early 1990’s, but only 12,000 units had been created by the early 1960’s (Hulchanski, 2007 ). The 1993 federal budget ended the funding for the construction of social housing, a move that “only accelerated the transformation of housing from human necessity into investment good, to be supplied almost exclusively by the private sector” (Rozworski, 2019). With the 2017 release of the National Housing Strategy (NHS) discussed below, the federal government is trying to address this secondary, non-market housing population. Importance of housing Another issue that affects all levels of government but weighs most heavily on the federal government is the recognition of the importance of housing. At the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna in 1993, adequate housing was affirmed by the international community as a human right. While the federal government had been involved in ensuring adequate and affordable housing off and on since the post-war years, the release of the 2017 National Housing One of the main issues in the area of housing policy is that the federal government housing policies are largely aimed at market mechanisms that incentivize home ownership above other forms of housing (rental or social need) (Hulchanski, 2006).
8 / Canadian Government Executive // January/February 2022 AFFORDABLE HOUSING Strategy (NHS) signaled “a meaningful reengagement by the federal government in housing. It is a key element of our Government’s plan to help strengthen the middle class, promote growth for everyone, and lift more Canadians out of poverty” (National Housing Strategy, 2017). The NHS has been billed as the ‘first ever’ such strategy. With this strategy the federal government is creating legislation that will be a human-rights based approach to housing to ensure all Canadians can access safe housing within their means. The initiative outlines several clear targets and deliverables that cover areas such as community housing, housing benefits, support for provinces, cooperation with municipalities and non-profit groups, and (as always) improving home ownership (NHS, 2017). While the NHS has made it clear that the federal government is re-embracing a role in housing, the COVID-19 pandemic has underlined the need to address the issue of Canadians experiencing homelessness. With stay-at-home orders, curfews and the closing of public parks to contain the spread of the virus, the need to create housing became very immediate. In response, the federal government launched the 2020 Rapid Housing initiative as the newest program to come out of the NHS. With this initiative, the Canadian government offered money (through an application process) to governments, both municipal and provincial, non-profit and Indigenous organizations to create affordable housing through conversion of existing structures or through modular home construction. The housing is to be made available within 12 months of receiving the funds (CMHC, 2020). As well as being a response to the pandemic, this program corresponds to the priorities of various groups like the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, and the Canadian Alliance to End Homelessness (CMHC, 2020). So after being in and out of the policy housing arena, the current government is back in and promoting a new era of cooperation with other levels of government and organizations. Municipal Issue—Short Term Rentals A growing policy challenge for municipal governments is short term rentals (STRs), such as those provided by Airbnb and VRBO. While the COVID-19 pandemic has eased this pressure in the short term, it will continue to be an issue that affects housing. As demand for STRs for tourists and visitors increases, it can lead landlords and investors to either evict long-term tenants in order to gain more revenue or to convert properties into apartments specifically for STRs rather than long term rentals. The effect of STRs on housing prices is still not clear, and there is not enough data to unequivocally link them to increased prices. Studies in different cities have produced conflicting results about property values (Di Natale, 2018). However, there is anecdotal belief for this cause and effect and for the idea that STRs lead to reduced rentals (Zou, 2019). One small city has studied the effects of STRs on the long term rental market. As a tourism destination, STRs represent a growing market in PEI. Landlords, primary householders and those with second homes can gain revenue from renting out space to tourists. This trend is growing against the background of an extreme housing shortage in PEI with residential vacancy rates as low as 1.2% in the capital city of Charlottetown (Neatby, 2021). A commissioned report on STRs in Charlottetown analyzed listings on Airbnb and Homeaway and came up with estimates of the effect on the local rental market. The report found the following as a snapshot of the STR situation on September 1, 2019—135 housing units in Charlottetown were dedicated STRs and 111 of these were entire home listings while 24 were private room listings in the same housing unit. Additional findings from this report include a 9% increase in STRs from the previous year and that 318 housing units were converted to full-time STRs between 2017-19. Additionally, in the 3 years leading up to the study, STRs lost from the housing market had grown faster than the entire STR market (Wachsmuth, 2019). INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION & CONFLICT The main area of contention between governments in housing policy is jurisdiction. While encouraging home ownership is almost fully in the federal sphere, the provision of social housing is not. The federal government has fallen in and out of both provision and funding with the provinces occasionally involved and municipalities bearing a large burden. In the early post-war years, housing was provided mainly by municipal governments with federal assistance. While municipal governments have been hampered by provincial control of their actions and limited revenue generating capacity, there has been a long history of federal-municipal cooperation in funding housing. While provinces might not appreciate being by-passed, it would be impolitic for them to block municipal access to funds. From 1944-1964 the federal government provided funds to cities under the National Housing Act. In 1964, the provinces created housing authorities so they could be involved and disburse the federal money to municipalities. The federal
January/February 2022 // Canadian Government Executive / 9 AFFORDABLE HOUSING government moved to funding non-profit organizations and provided direct funding from 1973-1993—allowing credit for housing support to accrue to the federal government (Hulchanski, 2006). On the provincial-municipal front, starting in the mid-1980’s when the federal government was decreasing transfer payments, the provinces passed along this austerity to municipalities and sometimes also passed along expensive service areas like housing. Once again, lots of service areas, coupled with little revenue generating avenues, had created huge problems for cities. This mounting pressure resulted in new federal money for municipalities for housing and infrastructure improvements in 2004 and 2005 budgets (Hulchanski, 2006). In spite of the federal government’s initial enthusiasm in the post war and baby boom years, housing was slated to be turned over exclusively to the provinces in the constitutional negotiations of 1992. The 1992 Charlottetown Accord failed to be ratified, but the federal government had made clear its wish to extricate itself from the social housing arena. In 1993, the federal government stopped all funding and removed itself from housing (Hulchanski, 2006). After 1993, the public housing previously created by the federal government devolved to the provinces and a minor federal affordable housing program was undertaken instead. An initiative ”that seems to produce more press releases than housing units” (Chisholm and Hulchanski, 2019). RECOMMENDATIONS Federal A group of housing policy and economics scholars created a report based on international research and a widespread knowledge exchange between policy experts, academics and front line organizations in Australia, Britain and Canada. This report contains recommendations for future directions for housing policy. Using some of these recommendations as benchmarks, the federal government is taking steps in the right direction with the creation of the National Housing Strategy (NHS) described above. For example, the report discusses that while the federal government must play a part in housing, it is imperative that the provision of housing be collaborative, but also focused on a municipal level. Housing should involve all governments and sectors to ensure open and effective governance, and financial resources as well as cooperation must be on offer (MacLennan, 2019). The NHS evidences both this cooperation and a municipal focus in the announcement of a partnership between the Canadian government, the City of London, and London & Middlesex Community Housing. The $40 million in federal funding will provide 2,082 housing units that will be under the umbrella of the LMCH. (CMHC, 2021). This represents a collaboration of a non-profit/community group, and two levels of government—municipal and federal, with the necessary financial resources. Another principle discussed in this report is that housing policies need to be ‘intelligent’ and based on logical actions to solve goals. Governments need to ‘apply appropriate instruments to real (not ideal) housing systems’ (MacLennan, 2019). Echoing part of this sentiment the NHS includes a section on the need for more and better information about current housing statistics, policy research and expertise. There is money and actions in the strategy to address these issues. However, the federal government should also take heed of the ‘real (not ideal)’ portion of that statement. The NHS still contains some of the traditional support for homeownership while striving for ‘stable and competitive housing markets’ (NHS, 2017). It appears the government is still chasing the ideal of home ownership rather than the real need to supply housing to all and this may be a policy direction that is already being well served by currently running programs. Provincial Provinces should work with the federal government to achieve the goals of the NHS as much as possible. The federal government has made financial commitments for housing initiatives and programs with an expectation of some matching of funds by the provinces (NHS, 2017). As indicated by housing policy experts, all levels of government need to work together to ensure housing needs are met and encourages governments to work to create fairness in allocating and supporting housing (MacLennan, 2020). While the provinces may see housing as falling under their umbrella, it is clear that the federal government would like to direct housing initiatives. If working in collaboration is what is required to access the funds necessary to meet this essential need then provinces should do so. To assist with non-market housing, provinces could encourage renting through stronger tenant protection, especially to assist with issues created by STRs and evictions related to conversion to STRs. Provinces should institute stronger tenant protection and rent controls. This should be accompanied by a program of education and information for both landlords and tenants. Municipal Municipal governments, especially cities should institute and enforce policies regarding short term rentals (STRs). Two particular avenues are worth exploring. The first is instituting some form of lodging tax that would be levied upon any renters and used to fund the cost of regulating STRs. The secThe main area of contention between governments in housing policy is jurisdiction. While encouraging home ownership is almost fully in the federal sphere, the provision of social housing is not.
10 / Canadian Government Executive // January/February 2022 AFFORDABLE HOUSING ond is to ensure that only primary residences are made available for STRs. This will curb the issue of long-term accommodations being turned in to short-term rentals, thus impacting the available housing in a city. As an example, the City of Toronto has instituted both to these measures (City of Toronto, 2020). Like the provinces, it will also be important for municipalities to collaborate with the federal and provincial governments to access as many funds and programs as possible. Working with local non-profits that have on the ground experience assisting people with housing issues would help to create and administer practical, effective programs. Conclusion All levels of government would benefit from working together and with non-profit and social agencies to achieve the goals of the NHS. However, for meeting housing needs in a stable, long term way, more strategic work is needed. A more effective direction would be to come to a consensus about who is responsible for the various aspects of housing—both actual provision and funding. If this was more concrete and even enshrined in legislation, it would avoid the housing hot potato game that is played when budgets become overwhelming and leadership changes hands. References: 1. Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation. (11 March, 2021). Government of Canada provides affordable housing for over 2000 families in London. https://www. newswire.ca/news-releases/ government-of-canada-provides-affordable-housing-forover-2000-families-in-london-877000074.html 2. Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation (21 September, 2020). Rapid Housing Initiative. https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/ en/professionals/project-funding-and-mortgage-financing/ funding-programs/all-fundingprograms/rapid-housing 3. Chisholm, S., & Hulchanski, D. (March, 2019). Canada’s housing story. In Shaping futures: Changing the housing story: Final Report (pp. 21-28). https://cityfutures.be.unsw.edu.au/research/ projects/shaping-futures-changing-housing-story/ 4. City of Toronto. (25 August, 2020). City of Toronto registration of short-term rentals to launch September 10. https:// www.toronto.ca/news/city-of-toronto-registration-of-short-termrentals-to-launch-september-10/ 5. DiNatale, S., Lewis, R., & Parker, R. (4 September, 2018). Shortterm rentals in small cities in Oregon: Impacts and regulations. Land Use Policy, 79, 407-423. https://doi.org/10.1016.jlandusepol.2018.08.023 4. Government of Canada. (2017). Canada’s National Housing Strategy: A place to call home. https://assets.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/sf/ project/placetocallhome/pdfs/ canada-national-housing-strategy.pdf?rev=97491935-2a97-405fbd38-decf72266ee9 5. Hulchanski, D. (2006). What factors shape Canadian housing policy?: The intergovernmental role in Canada’s housing system. In R. Young and C. Leuprecht (Eds.), Canada: The state of the federation 2004. (pp. 221-251). The Institute of Intergovernmental Relations. https:// shapingfutures.gla.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/14.6_2006Hulchanski-What-Factors-ShapeCdn-Housing-Policy-Book-chap.pdf 6. MacLennan, D. (March, 2019). Conclusions: Shaping futures: Towards real housing policy. In Shaping futures: Changing the housing story: Final Report (pp. 109-114). https://cityfutures. be.unsw.edu.au/research/projects/shaping-futures-changinghousing-story/ 7. Neatby, S. (28 January, 2021). PEI rental market no longer worst in Canada. The Guardian: https:// www.theguardian.pe.ca/news/ local/pei-rental-shortage-nolonger-worst-in-canada-546326/ 8. Pittis, D. (18 June, 2021). Outrage over developer’s plan to buy single-family homes reveals a Canadian fixation. CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/core-home-ownership-column-don-pittis-1.6069021 9. Wachsmuth, D., Basalaev-Binder, R., Belot, C., Bolt, A., & Seltz, L. (February 2020). Short-term rentals in Charlottetown: Market overview, housing impacts and regulatory modelling: A report prepared for the Planning and Heritage Department, City of Charlottetown, by the Urban Politics and Governance research group, School of Urban Planning, McGill University. https:// www.charlottetown.ca/UserFiles/ Servers/Server_10500298/File/ Mayor%20and%20Council/Council%20Meetings/Short-term%20 rentals%20in%20Charlottetown%20-%20UPG%20McGill,.pdf 10.Zou, Z. (3 December, 2019). Examining the impact of shortterm rentals on housing prices in Washington, DC: Implications for housing policy and equity. Housing Policy Debate, 30(2), 269-90. https://doi.org/10.1080.10511482.201 9.1681016 To assist with non-market housing, provinces could encourage renting through stronger tenant protection, especially to assist with issues created by STRs and evictions related to conversion to STRs.
The CMC uses the IBM Garage method for cloud, where IT leaders work collaboratively with IBM consultants to fast-track innovation using a ‘minimum viable product’ approach that enables essential application development to happen quickly and iteratively. It’s a new day. We can’t go back to the old way of doing things. Governments are accelerating toward a digital future and they have an unparalleled opportunity to reap the rewards with cloud-first digital transformation. Tech modernization is an urgent priority for the Canadian government. Business and government IT leaders polled in a new IBM Canada survey overwhelmingly agreed that an effective cloud modernization strategy is a necessity for strengthening cybersecurity, protecting citizens’ personal data, and enabling government to deliver services faster and more efficiently – all while reducing costs. To address these expectations, public sector departments and businesses must work together to prepare for a digital future. Even before COVID-19 exposed the limitations of Canada’s existing IT infrastructure to handle unprecedented demand for government services, the Government of Canada made a public commitment to a cloud-first approach to IT modernization to achieve new levels of performance, security, innovation, agility, and scalability. Post-pandemic, there’s no turning back. Canadian governments recognize the crucial need to build a digital path forward that will transform service delivery, reimagine operations and simplify workforce management. The newly launched IBM Cloud Modernization Centre (CMC) in Ottawa-Gatineau is perfectly positioned to tackle the government’s cloud-first mandate. Strategically located in Gatineau’s fast-growing Zibi neighbourhood, the CMC is helping government leaders achieve their cloud modernization goals. Maxime Pedneaud-Jobin, Mayor of Gatineau is “excited about what this means for the Region, having IBM Canada expanding its investment locally by establishing a centre of cloud expertise and a home for the incredible talent that exists on both sides of the river.” Skills needed for the ambitious migration to cloud In the aftermath of COVID-19, the public sector is accelerating its cloud-first mindset with the creation of advanced digital platforms. Secure, hybrid cloud solutions will provide the agility and speed required to improve workplace and service efficiency. However, faced with a critical shortage of internal capabilities to support their ambitious migration to cloud, government CIOs are looking for a partner to provide the skills needed to manage the cost and complexity of modernizing their IT infrastructures. The IBM CMC is helping the public sector achieve operational resiliency, access to information, speed, and scalability with flexible services and solutions delivered by a team of highly skilled, security-cleared, cloud-focused consultants who work in both of Canada’s official languages. The CMC is expanding its capabilities with the announcement of 50 available positions for government security-cleared cloud and AI experts. Hubert Bolduc, President of Investissement Québec International believes the IBM Cloud Modernization Centre “will enhance the Outaouais region’s technology ecosystem and generate significant local and regional economic spinoffs.” The fast track to IT modernization Governments across Canada are accelerating their digital transformation, simply and cost-effectively, with hybrid, multi cloud solutions from technology partners like IBM. Whether on site or virtually, the IBM CMC offers clients fast and agile service delivery across the full gamut of business strategy, design, architecture, and agile development – while tapping into the latest advancements in AI, automation, blockchain, security and more. REIMAGINING CITIZEN SERVICES WITH CLOUD January/February 2022 // Canadian Government Executive / 11 Sponsored Content PERSPECTIVE • Focused on hybrid, multi cloud solutions, infrastructure and application modernization • A full lifecycle partner who can help create an open, secure platform while maintaining Canadian data sovereignty • IBM Cloud’s Protected-B status offers secure management of sensitive data and applications • Services for Federal, Provincial, Municipal, and Crown corporations IBM CMC in Ottawa-Gatineau now open for business IBM Cloud Modernization Centre (CMC)
BY MICHAEL MINER LIKE MANY PUBLIC ORGANIZATIONS, THE CANADIAN BORDER SECURITY AGENCY (CBSA) HAS BEEN WORKING ON HOW TO PROMOTE MEASUREMENT OF RESULTS AS PART OF ITS EVOLVING CULTURE OF EVIDENCE-BASED DECISION-MAKING. 12 / Canadian Government Executive // January/February 2022 PERFORMANCE This article describes the approach taken at CBSA as part of an overall Performance Information Profiles (PIPs) review of its 17 programs which began in November, 2020 and ended in June, 2021. Many lessons learned and recommendations that emerged from this process can inform, not only senior management, but also those who are working to improve their program’s results and overall decision-making going forward. This report may also have implications for processes used and overall Agency renewal and transformation. As we know, improving performance and delivering on results, not to mention lessons learned to improve program design and decision-making, are central to the core mandates of all government departments under the Policy on Results (July, 2016). This reflects the current emphasis on results promoted by CBSA Senior Management in its quest to comply with the Policy. PIPs describe their programs using 10 elements: logic models, program narratives, key performance indicators, and performance measurement frameworks (PMFs). Stakeholders include: the Minister, President and Executive Committee of CBSA, Performance Measurement and Evaluation Committee (PMEC), Head of Performance Measurement, Head of Evaluation, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Information Officer, Directors Working Group on Performance Measurement (DWGPM), Director Generals and other Program officials in each of the 17 Programs implementing and improving program PIPs and working towards their maturity. CBSA created a Maturity Model (see Annex 1 - Annual State of Performance Measurement Report) in December 1, 2020). The Model has 6 dimensions: Governance, Capacity, Data Integrity, Communication and Culture. These are pictured at 5 levels of ANNUAL STATE OF PERFORMANCE
January/February 2022 // Canadian Government Executive / 13 CRITERIA Practices and structures through which decisionmaking authority is exercised are defined and implemented PM practices are defined, implemented, monitored and adjusted Agency employees have the knowledge, skills and training to fulfill policy requirements Agility at maintaining and assuring the accuracy and consistency of data over a life-cycle Key performance information is cascaded through the Agency and employees understand its significance and their role in achieving expected results Adoption of PM values and practices SNAPSHOT OF CURRENT STATUS BASED ON LEVEL OF MATURITY The governance structure for PIPs is: PMEC (to which each PIP was presented), Corporate Planning and Management Committee (CPMC) which advises VPs and the EC. To this in Feb 2021, a new Directors Working Group on Performance Measurement (DWGPM) was created to provide input and allow joint collaborative discussion of gaps, challenges and opportunities prior to presentation at PMEC. The above PIPs improvement governance structure was supported by EMPU (Enterprise Management Performance Unit) Management and Senior Analysts meeting on a 1 to 1 basis with representatives of programs to assist them to improve the quality of the LMs, Narratives and PMFs. A dashboard and narrative describing each programs’ progress was provided with speaking notes to the EVP for PMEC. This process was also supported by initial assessments of PIPs which included comments on LMs, Narratives and PMFs. Some programs have a high level of knowledge, skills and training on performance measurement while others have less. Most programs however have benefitted from support provided by EPMU throughout the PIP improvement process. This is evidenced by improved pre and post PIPs assessment scores. A common theme emerged on virtually all programs, namely, issues related to availability of sufficient data. Whether data access, integrity or reliability was the key issue, data was mentioned by almost all programs reviewed by EPMU. Although there has been improved communication and understanding and high-level support for PIPs improvement and performance measurement overall, there is some distance to go to reach an optimal level within the agency as a whole. To integrate evidence-based decision-making within CBSA, several ongoing phases are recommended to achieve optimal maturity and sustainability. To integrate evidence-based decision-making within CBSA, several ongoing phases are recommended to achieve optimal maturity and sustainability. DIMENSIONS GOVERNANCE PROCESSES CAPACITY DATA INTEGRITY COMMUNICATION CULTURE PERFORMANCE maturity moving towards maturity: • Level 1 – Ad Hoc – Sporadic and casespecific practices; • Level 2 – Reactive – Practices applied inconsistently reacting to events or requests; • Level 3 –Managed – Practices established, aligned, standardized and improved over time; • Level 4 – Integrated – Practices use precise measurement and are controlled; and, • Level 5 – Optimized – Practices yield timely and accurate information to inform decision-making and support continuous improvement. THE WAY FORWARD ON IMPROVING PIPS – RECOMMENDATIONS Phase 1 – Refresh of CBSA PIPs - The initial phase objective in 2019-2020 was to assist all 17 programs to improve the quality of their PIPs and submit them through the Governance structure culminating by each PIP being presented to PMEC. Presentations were groups by business lines (Travelers, Commercial and Trade, Intelligence and Enforcement) and enabling programs (Recourse, Force Generation, Buildings and Equipment, and Field Technology Support). Phase 2 – Improving Quality of PIPs - By addressing individual and systemic Gaps, Phase 2, which began in the fall of 2021, encourages horizontal operational trade-offs and risk management discussions among programs (particularly those clustered on a continuum, e.g., I&E programs and enabling programs require wider understanding to assess specific program results. Phase 3 – Integration of Standardized Practices – Measuring progress against achieving strategic priorities is enabled by growing capacity to use PIPs operationally and strategically. Client compliance becomes measurable with trend analysis and reporting on targets and thresholds tied to a limited number of strong KPIs being tracked and analyzed. Concurrently data integrity improve-
14 / Canadian Government Executive // January/February 2022 PERFORMANCE ments are also in place. (This phase will include benchmarking to compare progress to the World Customs Organization (WCO) and its Working Group on Performance Measurement which is identifying the best indicators to measure progress in customs performance.) Phase 4 – Evidence Based Culture and Decision-making - This level of performance will be observable throughout the Agency (both horizontally and vertically). Senior management is provided with clear and focused evidence-based performance products that contribute to their management decision making. Phase 5 – Optimized culture change – At this final stage, CBSA will be fully compliant with Central Agency policies with respect to PIPs and evidence-based decision-making. Additionally, the reporting burden will be optimized and automated where possible and the Business-lines will be empowered to make decisions within their authority to address gaps and act upon opportunities for integrated enterprise-wide performance reporting. Finally, culture change is part of the optimized stage since a learning organization, enabled by strong performance measures, fosters evidence based decisionmaking and behavior, which in turn facilitates discussion with TBS on business cases for funding and other resourcing such as training, purchase of new equipment, automated data collection systems, etc. In fact, CBSA’s senior executive team “has committed to building a healthier culture as part of transformation” by establishing a team dedicated to culture within the Chief Transformation Officer Branch” (CBSA Cultural Diagnostic, 2019). SUMMARY This article describes what has taken place within CBSA related to the State of Performance in the Agency. It specifically describes the assessment phase and the process of support to improve the quality of PIPs. The article also identifies remaining gaps and opportunities and provides a pathway of actions going forward to move the State of Performance toward Optimized maturity. Included also will be comparisons to the World Customs Organization as part of benchmarking. Finally, the article makes the link between organizational transformation and culture change and performance measurement. This is important since PM is not just an exercise in accountability or learning for its own sake. Rather, PM can help facilitate evidence-based decision-making which, not only assists with better decision-making and business case defense but also supports culture change. Peter Drucker is famously quoted as saying, “Culture eats strategy for breakfast.” This is because culture is the shared beliefs and values established by leaders and is communicated and reinforced by behaviors and understanding which result in the organization’s performance. As the CBSA Cultural Diagnostic points out: “As the Titanic’s captain grasped a little too late on that fateful night in 1912, 90 percent of an iceberg’s mass lies beneath the surface. Culture is similar as it includes observable behaviors (what and the how above the surface) as well as everything underneath – the shared mindsets and beliefs that influence how people in an organization behave. Just like a captain navigating frigid waters, anyone trying to understand an organization’s culture must recognize that most of what matters cannot be readily seen.” Thus, in order to change the culture of an organization, there must be alignment between the desired optimized maturity level and the behaviour of people in the organization. The literature verifies that when these are aligned, transformational organizations perform optimally and are able to report their success in their performance measurement systems (Kroll and Vogel (2014)). References: 1. The above ratings constitute a Likert scale (1-5) used to measure the stages below. 2. CBSA has developed tools and handbooks for capacity building on PIPs and communication including assessment tools, and input tables which describe assessment of elements of PIPs and invite client feedback and participation. Figure 1
R A D I O Our audience is yOur market. they are waiting tO hear frOm yOu. JOIn hOst J. Richard Jones each week for a new podcast of the top stories from the public sector management industry. Find us on itunes by searching for “Canadian Government Executive Radio” Or check it out through our website: www.canadiangovernmentexecutive.ca
Housing Affordability in Canada 16 / Canadian Government Executive // January/February 2022 BY FELICIA PARR HOUSING Intergovernmental Relat ions and Access to affordable housing is essential both for citizen health and as a means to economic prosperity. Housing policy in Canada over the last few decades has hindered some levels of government from solving affordability challenges, such as increasing the supply of affordable rental housing, subsidizing the upgrading of old housing stock, and the ability to make housing available to vulnerable populations. Until recently, the federal government played a minor role in the supply of affordable housing, putting pressure on both provincial and municipal governments to solve the affordability issue themselves. To ensure a more efficient approach to affordability moving forward, the federal government needs to continue to provide financial support as well as maintain a leadership role in providing clear policy guidance to provincial and territorial governments. It will also have to promote flexibility with respect to regional needs in housing policy. Municipalities also have an important role to play and are in a unique position to help address the housing affordability challenge with the tools at their disposal. Finally - despite the importance of each individual role of government - cooperation, collaboration, and the sharing of resources is required among all three levels to put the affordability crisis behind us. The Affordability Issue in Canada Housing affordability has become an increasing concern over the last few years. Market-driven forces such as historically low interest rates, high demand, and limited supply have caused housing prices to accelerate, impacting affordability for the average Canadian and increasing inequality. While the price for a home has increased by 69.1% nationally, median household income has only increased by 27.6% between 2007 and 2017 and the gap continues to widen. The COVID-19 pandemic has only exacerbated the issue, with the Bank of Canada reducing interest rates to historic lows, indi-
The main challenges associated with the creation of affordable housing programs are the high development costs, the low profit associated with programs, and the difficulty in funding these programs. January/February 2022 // Canadian Government Executive / 17 HOUSING rectly encouraging speculative home-buying behavior and pushing mortgage debt to a record-high of $1.66 trillion by the end of 2020, leaving individuals and the economy vulnerable to sudden market corrections. Changing demographics also pose a risk to the real estate industry, with stalled population growth and an estimated 60% drop in immigration since the start of the pandemic. In addition, the pandemic has had a disproportionately negative impact on lower-income populations and women, pushing unemployment to more than 9% and making housing affordability out of reach for many. Finally, rising prices have put additional pressure on rental stock and have increased demand for a limited supply of affordable rental units both for middle class to low income families, which in turn decreases affordability. On the supply side, a lack of affordable rental units, housing stock in disrepair, and the failure to support vulnerable populations are just a few of the immediate needs that must be addressed by a revitalized housing policy. In an attempt to solve these supply issues, and after playing a minor role in the affordable housing sector for several decades, the federal government implemented the National Housing Strategy (NHS) in 2017, which commits funding to building affordable housing supply. This program, however, does not currently serve an estimated 12 million households in need of core housing, increasing demands for further action by the federal government. The lack of affordable housing supply has also reached a crisis point in northern territories and rural regions, having a direct impact on Canada’s Indigenous communities. These communities are facing dangerously poor housing conditions, but high construction costs and expensive maintenance make it impossible for these communities to maintain existing housing stock. If the market continues untamed, there is a real risk for a housing bubble that may result in mortgage deferrals and a sudden drop in housing values, putting homeowners and the economy at risk. The Intergovernmental Structure of Housing Policy in Canada In Canada, the federal government controls fiscal and monetary policy to influence interest rates, which have a direct impact on the housing market. It also has several agencies responsible for overseeing housing, such as the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) to perform housing research, provide mortgage insurance, and more recently, to deliver funding for the construction of affordable housing under the National Housing Strategy (NHS) established in 2017. Historically however, the federal government has had varying degrees of involvement in setting and executing housing policy. Following World War II, the federal government began playing a more important role by building war homes and the implementation of social housing programs up until the late 1980s. In the 1990s, however, during a period of extreme austerity, the government’s focus shifted to monetary policy and it tightened the reigns on fiscal policy, which meant abandoning any involvement in the direct supply of housing. The result of less federal involvement meant that the responsibility for housing fell to provincial and territorial governments and, to some extent, the private sector. Today, provincial and territorial governments execute on housing strategy through specific legislation, the regulation of building standards, and landlord-tenant relationships. Consequently, municipal governments, which are creations of their respective provincial governments, have taken on much of the responsibility for housing and overseeing land zoning, housing development, and infrastructure maintenance. Recently, the federal government has once again become more involved in the delivery of housing programs, implementing the country’s first National Housing Strategy (NHS) in 2017. This strategy mandates CMHC to provide over $70B in funding initiatives to increase the supply of non-market, affordable housing to strengthen the middle class. Over the course of the NHS, provinces and territories housing programs will receive $20.5 billion, of which they are expected to cost-match half of the investment. These initiatives and the ever-changing intergovernmental structure has had a number of consequences for all levels of government. Intergovernmental Challenges Measures taken by the federal government in the 1990s has promoted the “financializa-
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NDI0Mzg=