Note: Transcripts may contain errors. If you wish to re-use all, or part of, a transcript, please contact CBC for permission. Please check the corresponding audio before quoting in print. Copyright © CBC 2016

The Current Transcript for February 19, 2016

Host: Anna Maria Tremonti

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Listen to the full episode

Prologue

SOUNDCLIP

[singing the alphabet in French]

ROBYN BRESNAHAN: Starting soon, Kindergarten-age kids in the nation's capital will be learning their A-B-Cs both in English, and en Français. Mandatory 50/50 French immersion will set a base level of bilingual skills for Ottawa’s children. And while it's the kind of program parents elsewhere in the country might envy, there's been a backlash over the changes in Ottawa. We'll hear about the program and why not everyone is greeting it avec plaisir. That's First up today. Then…

SOUNDCLIP

To think that Apple won’t allow us to get into her cell phone, who do they think they are?

RB: As the Donald says, Apple is refusing to comply with orders to help make an iPhone’s encrypted contents available to law enforcement. This would happen to be the iPhone that belonged to one of the San Bernardino killers. But the company says: to create a backdoor for one investigation… would mean the door would never be closed again…for anyone. We will weigh the delicate balance between security and privacy, in half an hour. And finally…

SOUNDCLIP

If we're going to attract Millennials to public service, public service has to become less bureaucratic more meritocratic, less partisan, and more open.

Transforming a bureaucratic beast. Scott Brison, president of the Treasury Board says the public service needs fresh blood. But how to attract millennials, who say it is not creative enough and has a stodgy reputation? We will discuss what it will take to bring back a golden age of Canada's public service. I'm Robyn Bresnahan…and this is Friday edition of The Current.

Ottawa's mandatory French immersion worries parents of special needs kids

Guests: Jennifer Adams, Jessica Hetherington, Fred Genesee

SOUNDCLIP

[children speaking French]

RB: Across the country, French immersion programs are in high demand. Parents will line up to get their kids into the schools that will give their kids a bilingual edge. But, last Tuesday, Ottawa’s English school board announced that all kindergarten children - both junior and senior - will be taught half in English, and half in French. It seems like a practical idea, especially in a city like Ottawa. But not everyone is pleased about the change. We will talk more about that in a moment. But first, let's hear more about why the board made this mandatory. Jennifer Adams is Director of Education for the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board, and she is in our Ottawa studio. Hello Jennifer.

JENNIFER ADAMS: Good morning Robyn.

RB: Just briefly explain the change that's happening in kindergarten classes, how exactly will language be taught in September?

JENNIFER ADAMS: Starting in September Robyn, we will have a fully bilingual program for all of our children in our two-year kindergarten program. So, 50 percent of the day will be taught in English and 50 percent of the day will be taught in French.

RB: So in grade one then, parents can choose whether to continue to keep their kids in French immersion or whether to put them into an English stream?

JENNIFER ADAMS: Absolutely Robin. Choice, parental choice is very important in our school district and our entry point for early French immersion will move from senior kindergarten up to Grade one. So, it'll be a common program for all children in the two kindergarten years. And then at grade one, parents will still have that choice and their choice will be either to continue on with an early French immersion program that starts with 80 percent French in grade one or, they can choose the English stream that has 40 minutes of core French per day.

RB: It's interesting to hear you say that parental choice is important because that's exactly one of the things that your school board is being criticized for, is taking away that choice of parents. Many parents are saying…what is an English school board doing mandating French for kindergarten-aged kids?

JENNIFER ADAMS: We've always had French in kindergarten. Ottawa is one of the districts; ODSB is one of the districts that has always offered French instruction from junior kindergarten to grade three for all of our students. The Ministry requirement is that that starts in grade four but our parents throat a number of reviews over the number of years both our English parents and our French immersion parents have said very clearly that in a place like Ottawa, French instruction is very important. So the choice is still there, the only difference is that it has shifted by a year. One of the things that we've received back from parents that are very supportive of this concept is it really gives them a longer period of time to watch their child as they function in a French environment and an English environment before they have to make that choice moving into that very structured program in Grade one. So we've had lots and lots of positive feedback as well.

RB: Your school board does get more money from the province per student if they are in the French immersion program. How much did that additional financial gain play into the decision to make this program mandatory?

JENNIFER ADAMS: We began FSL reviews many years ago, far before it had any reflection on a budget situation right now. We did our first review in 2007, where we made changes to our programs from grades one to eight. In 2009 we made changes for high school, and this was the very last piece Robyn, the reason why this last piece was, was because we had deferred any changes to kindergarten because we knew that full-day kindergarten was coming into play, and that there would be a new kindergarten two-year curriculum. So we waited until now to make those changes and we're really excited to be moving forward with them.

RB: Just want to play you something here. We spoke to Peter Giuliani, President of the Ottawa-Carleton Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario…he's very concerned about this change. Just take a listen to what he had to say:

SOUNDCLIP

We are concerned about the lack of personnel and resources to do this properly. It's being implemented immediately across the entire system as a pilot. There are not enough French early childhood educators to work within the program, which means the teachers will be trying to deliver the program without a second adult in the room who is conversant in the language we’re delivering. We’re concerned about the lack of resources because it's difficult enough to get French resources as it is, and you know you can't find the personnel. So, the system itself currently is flawed. And now you're adding this other layer.

RB: Just very briefly Jennifer, how do you respond to what he's just said there?

JENNIFER ADAMS: We know that we have to work with our teachers’ union to make sure this is a seamless implementation. One of the things that we're doing, of course, is making sure that any of the changes that took place, made sure that we were not losing English teaching jobs and that we were able to have enough French speaking teachers to be able to do this work. We’re very pleased with that, we know the professional learning will continue to take place. We are in the process of purchasing resources and will continue with professional learning for teachers. So this is the kind of work that we always do and we're moving into some program changes and we're well on board with that. One of the things that we will be doing Robyn is putting together an implementation committee as we always do when we make these kinds of changes. And teachers, kindergarten teachers and French immersion teachers will be right at that table helping to make sure that this implementation takes place smoothly.

RB: Okay, I want to bring in another element to this discussion but do stay on the line Jennifer, if you can. Much of the opposition to mandatory French immersion in kindergarten is coming from parents who do not think this is a good option for all kids and they resent that they will not have the choice of English only in kindergarten. This is especially the case for those who have kids with special needs. Jessica Hetherington is in that situation. She's also on the line from Ottawa. Hello Jessica.

JESSICA HETHERINGTON: Hi Robin.

RB: You say that your son is going to be negatively impacted by this change. Can you just start out by telling us a little bit about him?

JESSICA HETHERINGTON: My son Grey will be going into junior kindergarten in September, and he has a severe motor speech disorder, which means that it is extremely difficult for him to speak in English. He speaks about 1/10 of the amount of words that a child of his age should be able to speak, and it is a disconnect between the brain and the muscles in his mouth, so he really has to physically work hard to be able to communicate.

RB: So how do you think that going into French immersion in kindergarten, how do you think that would affect him?

JESSICA HETHERINGTON: I think it would affect him quite negatively. This is a little boy who understands everything that's being said to him but is struggling at an extreme level to be able to communicate and be understood. This level of frustration exists in one language, in learning one language. To expect him to be able to learn in two would be unfair to him and would increase the amount of frustration, would increase the negative impact on his self-esteem, and would then potentially get in the way of, in my opinion, of learning, of becoming successful in learning to speak English.

RB: Jessica you've actually gone as far as using the words cruel. It would be cruel for Grey to be introduced to French next fall. What do you say that?

JESSICA HETHERINGTON: Because of the two key pieces around frustration and self-esteem. When you're putting a child into learning situation, it's already going to be difficult for him, as I've explained. This is a child who needs intensive speech therapy. He's in speech therapy twice a week. This is going to go on for years for him to learn to speak properly. When you put him in a situation where you're expecting something of him, that he isn't even able to do in his mother tongue, that's cruel, because you're asking more of him than he is capable of doing at this point.

RB: In a way, I mean I know he's your son, so I don't want to take that away from you. But how do you know that he will not be able to adapt to French Immersion?

JESSICA HETHERINGTON: I don't know what the future will hold. But we're talking about in a few months from now, him going into school. The year after that, it's going to take years for him to learn to speak properly. The outcome is uncertain whether he ever will speak fully in English. At this point it certainly is not the right choice for him.

RB: What angered you most about this proposal?

JESSICA HETHERINGTON: I would say it's the fact; there's two pieces. One is that the removing the option of English with core French for parents like myself, and of course my son is only one of many children with special needs for whom bilingual kindergarten is not appropriate. But also the way it's been rushed, the lack of consultation, and until very recently, there was absolutely nothing being said in the in the proposed changes now voted in, speaking specifically to how they’re going to accommodate children with special needs, especially how they're going to accommodate the children for whom this choice is not appropriate.

RB: What are you going to do? Are you going to pull him out of school, will you home school him? Will you move? What are you thinking?

JESSICA HETHERINGTON: Well, my husband and I are fortunate that we have a few options. We’re looking at it. We're going to be meeting with the principal soon to talk about options and we’re considering everything from keeping him home from for the French portion, to keeping him home completely, to looking into private schools. But these are options that many parents don't have either or both parents work, the financial resources are not there for private options, and so what ends up happening is that children like my son won't be given the full range of educational choices that are being available to other children.

RB: Jessica when we last spoke in Ottawa, as you were leaving the studio you told me that you're not the type to get up and stand up and really voice your…fight for things. Why have you decided to fight now? Yes it's for my son.

JESSICA HETHERINGTON: Yes it’s for my son, and I have other children with special needs as well, so this is something we have to do. I'm also thinking of the other children, the other children in the board, who are facing these kinds of issues. I'm thinking of the children who are to come. You know, it's the job of parents to advocate for their children, to advocate for their needs. It's my job to make sure he gets the best education possible. I want that for him. And I want that for every child in Canada.

RB: Jessica thanks very much for joining us this morning.

JESSICA HETHERINGTON: Thank you for having me.

RB: That was Jessica Hetherington, her son Gray will be entering kindergarten in September. Jennifer Adams is still on the line from the Ottawa-Carlton District School Board. Jennifer, you've been listening to what Jessica has been saying, what do you say about her concerns and to other parents who are really worried about how their kids will adapt to a program like this?

JENNIFER ADAMS: Well first of all, we certainly know that moms know their children very well and dads of course as well. And one of the things that we do in the school district certainly especially with children with special needs is there’s that contact before children are coming into the kindergarten program to make sure that we know their special learning needs. Our kindergarten teachers are wonderful. Our early childhood educators meet with parents before their children come. Sometimes they meet with child care givers to get a real sense of what the special needs of children are. We already have French instruction in our JK program. What's different about this is that there's going to be more of that instruction. The kinds of accommodations that we'll be putting in place for children with special needs are the exact same, in the English part of the program and in the French part of the program.

RB: Will let you offer kids with special needs an opt out of those mandatory French immersion?

JENNIFER ADAMS: They will be having accommodations that are put in place like they are right now. So the exact same types of things that we do to help those types of children be successful in the programs will be offered both in the English part of the day and in the French part of the day.

RB: Okay, so it's not an opt out, but it is extra supports, is that what you're saying?

JENNIFER ADAMS: Exactly. One of the things when we moved to a 50/50 program, 70 percent of our children in senior kindergartner in this program right now, and those children in that program have a full range of learning needs including the types of needs that the parent that was speaking, has for her son. And we have an early learning team from special education that is made up of speech pathologists and educational assistants and they developed resources for children with communication disorders, to really be able to help support them in a bilingual environment. Those resources are being expanded to be made sure that to make sure that we have them available in all of our schools. And the number of people on that team is being expanded to ensure that in schools that have children that have these types of needs, these people can be coming in and helping the teaching staff to make sure that they are accommodating for these types of children in our schools. We already have that. And it will be expanded next year.

BR: Jennifer Adams, thank you very much for joining us this morning.

JENNIFER ADAMS: Thank you.

BR: That’s Jennifer Adams the director of education for the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board she was in Ottawa. Well, we wanted to learn a little bit more about how kids learn language and how the kind of kindergarten age immersion that we're hearing about might work. And so we have contacted Fred Genesee. He is the language acquisition expert at Montreal's McGill University and today we've reached him in London England. Thanks very much for being with us Fred. What do you think of this idea of making all kindergarten classrooms bilingual?

FRED GENESEE: Well good afternoon and thank you for including me in this discussion. There are two sides to this issue. Clearly there's a political side and there's also a more scientific side and I'm much more comfortable and competent to speak to the scientific side. That's really the issue of…are there limits on the suitability of immersion for students who might have special learning needs. Which, is really the concern that we've heard from both the school district and parent, and I'm sure other parents are concerned. There has been research on children in immersion programs in other kinds of bilingual programs who have special needs, developmental disorders, language impairment, reading impairment. There's not as much of this research as we would like and there's not research on certain kinds of difficulties. But for the most part the research that has been done, has shown that children who have learning difficulties, related to language learning or reading acquisition and attention and so forth and so on, that these children, generally do as well in immersion programs or bilingual programs, as comparable children in an English only program. The fear is, as you heard from the parent, and it's an understandable concern that children with language learning difficulties will be greater risk in a bilingual program than a monolingual one. But so far, the research that's there, it's not complete as I said. But the research we have suggests that even children with these kinds of difficulties can become bilingual within the limits of their special needs.

RB: But presumably they would still need some extra support?

FRED GENESEE: Yes, definitely. It's incumbent on any school district that offers immersion, even if it's just optional, let alone compulsory, that the special needs of the students are being met by specialists.

BR: Is there any research Fred, out there that says what exactly is the ideal age for kids to learn a second language?

FRED GENESEE: Well what is pretty clear is that, well anybody can actually become bilingual at any age. Even folks like you and me could become bilingual if we worked at hard enough. But, it's pretty clear from research around the world, and certainly a lot of this is done in Canada, that the younger children are, the easier it is for them to acquire a second because they acquire it quite naturally without having to have a lot of formal instruction.

BR: Some parents fear that teaching a child, and I'm sure you've heard this before living in Montreal, two languages means that they're not going to speak either language as proficiently as if they were just taught one. Is that a valid concern?

FRED GENESEE: No, that's clearly wrong. There's been 50 years of research in Canada, and as much research around the world looking at children who either grow up bilingually or children who are educated bilingually that shows that children in these situations acquire the same level of competence in their native languages monolingual children. In fact, when there are differences between children in bilingual homes or bilingual schools, the differences favour the kids who are bilingual. We have research from Montreal that shows that children in early total immersion programs, in the long run they do significantly better in language development than similar children in the English only program. And there's a growing body of research in Canada, but around the world it shows that in many cases there are certain cognitive benefits. So, this fear that because two languages is more than one language it's harder, it just simply does not hold up to scientific scrutiny.

RB: What about a difference between how boys and girls learn French? Is there a difference?

FRED GENESEE: This research on gender differences been done mainly in monolingual children. The differences that have been exposed have really been in very young learners. In the final analysis there are a few gender differences, although, if you're talking about language learning in school, then you're also talking about gender differences in relationship to schooling. And there, as we all know, boys tend to be doing less well than girls. That may not be though, related to their abilities. But it may be much more related to things like motivation and other kinds of factors. There's no reason to think that boys in the long run are any less competent than girls and learning language, but in a school context you have other factors that start to influence how successful children are.

RB: Fred, just lastly, you say that you would tell a parent that the biggest risk is the parents’ own attitude towards French immersion. What do you mean by that?

FRED GENESEE: Children around the world grow up learning any language and many children around the world probably learn more than one language. Immigrant children come to Canada all the time, we have an influx of refugees. All of those children are going to learn French and or English and probably maintain their own language, Arabic I guess in many cases. When there's a strong motivation on the part of the children and their parents, then they take it is as natural that they will acquire an additional language. I think where young children can run into difficulties learning another language is when their attitude or motivation or that of their parents, is not favorable towards that situation.

RB: Interesting conversation, Fred thanks very much for joining us.

FRED GENESEE: My pleasure.

RB: That is Fred Genesee. He's a language acquisition expert in the Department of Psychology at Montreal's in McGill University and he was in London England today. Well what do you think, is mandatory French immersion in kindergarten a good way to introduce more children to a second language? Would that be a good choice for your kids? You can share your experience on Twitter we are @thecurrentcbc or you can send us an e-mail through our website cbc.ca/thecurrent.

Apple and FBI encryption battle pits privacy against security

Guests: David Skillicorn, Jen Evans

RB: An extraordinary case of security versus privacy.

SOUNDCLIP

I want to make sure, as they do, that people's privacy is protected. I don't want anyone willy-nilly going through my phone or looking at my pictures of my children. But I also don't want to live in a country where the bad guys know that there's a way for them to be absolutely beyond the law.

RB: The director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the FBI, wields a lot of power, but as James Comey revealed in that interview with 60 Minutes even he cannot crack into an iPhone which is a problem because the FBI wants to access Syed Farook’s iPhone. He is one of the attackers who killed 14 people in San Bernardino, California last December. The FBI wants to examine the iPhone to determine whether Mr. Faroook and his wife had planned the shooting directly with the Islamic State. But the problem is the phone is locked with a four-digit security code and even with the search warrants the FBI cannot crack it. In fact, it's so strongly encrypted that even the manufacturer Apple says it can't break in. And when a federal judge ordered the tech giant to comply this week its CEO Tim Cook drew a line in the sand arguing that its customers should know that their data is private and secure. Cook said allowing access, even in this one case, would have far reaching implications. But White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest disagreed.

SOUNDCLIP

We’re not asking Apple to redesign its products or to create a new backdoor to its products. You know, this is a much more specific request that the Department of Justice has put forward.

RB: Well, for more on the standoff between privacy and public security I'm joined by two guests. David Skillicorn is a professor of computing at Queen's University and the author of Knowledge Discovery for Counterterrorism and Law Enforcement. He joins us from Kingston, Ontario. And Jen Evans is President of B2B News Network. It's a site for business-to-business news. She is with me here in our Toronto studio. Hello to you both.

DAVID SKILLICORN: Good morning.

JEN EVANS: Good morning.

RB: Jen, let's start with you. What exactly is the FBI asking Apple to do?

JEN EVANS: So the FBI is asking Apple to install a piece of software on this specific iPhone that would allow them to essentially run a password cracker. It's basically a brute force way of getting unlimited tries at that password and eventually they would crack it. And so their rationale is that this is only intended to be used on this single device in order to access the information about any activities that the terrorists may have been conducting.

RB: How important is the encryption currently in use in the iPhone.

JEN EVANS: Well, it's critical. I mean it's really the only-- It's the barrier between privacy and access. And it's extremely effective encryption for that very reason. We don't want people to access anything on our phones. We’ve certainly seen the impact that happens when things like iCloud have been accessed for pictures, etc. And that was a real clarion call, I think, that privacy on these devices absolutely critical to consumers. And it's become so good that now Apple can't crack it themselves.

RB: What is stopping the FBI from trying on its own to break the code without Apple’s help?

JEN EVANS: Very little except the technology itself. It would be very difficult for them to achieve it. If Apple can't do it, the FBI is going to have a hard time. And so the solution they've come up with is this – and they characterize it as not a back door - but in fact it technically is a back door. They're calling it a front door. But it essentially performs the same function. It will allow access to the device so that it bypasses the security mechanism so that they can actually act access the password mechanism and break it.

RB: What worries you most about what the FBI is asking Apple to do here?

JEN EVANS: Well, this is a very compelling case for obvious reasons. Anybody can see why it would be very useful to have the information on the phone, to see if any other activities have been organized and the connections to larger terrorist groups, however it's that slippery slope argument. If this single piece of software is developed, the likelihood is that it will not stay in the FBI. It will get on the open market very quickly. And then it becomes a tool that can be used by anyone to access any Apple device and I think the implications of that are pretty, fairly obvious.

RB: David Skillicorn, what do you think? Should Apple comply?

DAVID SKILLICORN: Well, I think they're being very disingenuous about what they're being asked to do and what the implications of it are. They are really sort of two layers of protection for devices like this. One is the core encryption itself and the FBI can’t burn through that and nor can Apple. And in some ways Apple should be talking up the fact that it's so robust. But what they're asking for is that the out level of protection of protection there, which has to do with how many tries of the password you can make and how long you have to wait between those tries. And so they're asking Apple to provide software help with that part of the job. I think the FBI could probably do it themselves with one tiny exception. But they think it neater and I think in the end the evidence might be available in court more cleanly if Apple did it for them.

JEN EVANS: And the likelihood is this is also some kind of a precedent that they're trying to set around how this information can be used and I did read somewhere that the data that they want is available on the iCloud which technically they can access. But they've chosen to go this route instead.

DAVID SKILLICORN: Yeah. It's not clear to me that there's any follow on from this to any other device, but what they want to do is to install software on this particular device and that software can be made so that it only works on this particular device. So there's no huge leakage that could happen just from this one event as far as I can tell. I think Apple's concern is the difference between a conceptual hack and a real hack. That is, everyone understands this could be done but until it's actually been done there's a lot less pressure on Apple from, say, another government to say, oh, we have a phone we'd like you to break into. Why don’t you it for us as well.

RB: David, I'm curious you use the word disingenuous there. If you think that Apple is being disingenuous here, what do you think its motivation is then in pushing back against the FBI?

David Skillicorn: I think they’re doing a Robin Hood thing, right. We're standing up as the little guy to the federal government. And this takes place in the middle of a big discussion in the US government about the back doors, the real back doors to encryption. What they want is they want every device to provide a way to break its encryption. And that would be a disaster. And I think everyone with any technical knowledge realizes that. And so Apple is using this is a stick to fight back against that deeper problem.

RB: It hardly seems like the little guy against the government. It's almost like a Goliath versus Goliath situation, is it not?

DAVID SKILLICORN: That’s the card they're playing though, isn’t it. The courts are forcing us to do something we don’t want to do.

RB: Jen, what do you think about that?

JEN EVANS: Well, there's a certain irony that a private company is now being put in the position of being responsible for people's privacy against the government. I mean, that's a very unusual place to be and it's gotten to that point because, I mean, this is by far the not the first incident where the government has been asking to access records. Historically, It's been telcos that have pretty much rolled over and given that data the government when they wanted it. This is quite a different situation where the manufacturer itself is being asked to provide the information and the precedent it could set could be very harmful to personal privacy down the road, if it is something the government allows.

RB: Jen, I want to bring in your argument that if this was the year 2002, you do not think that Apple would be taking the same stance that it is now. Why do you say that?

JEN EVANS: The political climate after 9/11 was completely different. There's a wave of public support around anything to do with fighting terrorism in the wake of an incident. And so if this request had been made back then, I think the political pressure and just the social pressure on Apple to comply would have been enormous. I think, as well, the understanding back then of what the privacy implications around this kind of technology we were not nearly as sophisticated, the technology itself wasn’t as sophisticated. A lot of people today literally live off of their phones. It contains all of their personal information in their lives. So anything that has any hint of compromising that people are going to start taking very personally.

JB: David, it’s interesting because the FBI is asking for the use of the All Writs Act, which was written in 1789, to justify their requests. Tell us a little bit about that.

DAVID SKILLICORN: Well, I think that-- I mean, Apple certainly has a reason for responding and saying the government shouldn't be forcing us to do some actual work for them. But I don't see why they couldn't be contracted to do the work and paid for it, if that's the way the FBI wanted to go. So I just think that's a bit of a muddle there as well. On the point of privacy, the funny thing is, of course, that Apple and companies like Google know far more about us than the government could ever know and yet people never seem uncomfortable about that loss of privacy, at least in North America, whereas in Europe, it's the other way around, of course. They are desperately concerned about businesses knowing about them and they don't mind so much the government does.

RB: It seems like you agree on that, Jen.

JEN EVANS: Oh, definitely. The amount of consumer information that's collected on us and on American citizens in particular is voluminous and terrifying. What that information is being used for, who can access it, that is pretty much open season. There are very large data vendors that will get any information they can on you and sell them people who are interested in taking one of the consumer looking at you for a loan or any kind of financial venture of some kind. The implications of that are very significant. It's something that I don't think is completely disconnected from this. The difference is that one is being used for the use of a government and the other is being used for ostensibly private purposes. That doesn't mean that I don't think there should be some regulation on how that data is used. But it is a very different set of circumstances.

RB: When we talk about those implications for you and for me, I mean, what are the implications of all of this beyond Apple and the FBI? I don't think we know. What's been really fascinating to watch is the shifting attitude of people and consumers towards their own privacy. Back In the early days of Facebook, Facebook introduced a function where suddenly after your status updates would be private and then they indicate they introduce something that would allow status updates to go to your entire circle of friends. And initially there was a really big backlash against that because people said I don't want Facebook broadcasting a news feed essentially to all of my contacts. Well, we know where that ended up, in a news feed. So you've been able to see the progressive decay or decline of our focus and emphasis on privacy. But I don't really know where that ends up. There's always a higher tolerance for lack of privacy when you're younger. There are implications when you're older that you don't think about when you're a teenager or in your early 20s. And I liken it a little bit to the old analogy of the frog in the pot of boiling water. The heat is turning up and you don't necessarily know that it's turned up until it's too late. So I think this is something-- The amount of data out there that we're grappling with is going to be an ongoing challenge. How we ourselves manage it and how it's used by others is going to be an increasingly large issue as data becomes more complex.

RB: David does public security trump privacy for you?

DAVID SKILLICORN: Well, I think that's an issue that where there's an ongoing discussion and I don't think we've reached the end of that discussion yet. Snowden notwithstanding, it's true that government access to information about us at a personal level is still pretty fenced around, whereas if you look in the commercial space not only is there—It’s the wild west, but people seem very happy to hand over all the personal information in return for some trivial benefit. And so my concern really focuses on the commercial space because I think it's so much more dangerous. I mean, people say, oh, a government could put you in jail on the basis of what they know about you. Yeah, but if Google cuts you off, then you can live a life in Western countries. Certainly in the sort of work I do because you need access to their tools. And so the power that these people hold over us is really quite substantial.

RB: Jen, what do you say to the argument that this is a matter of national security and that does have to trump privacy?

JEN EVANS: Well, again, there’s a balance to security and privacy in any environment and that balance is usually dictated by the political climate. We absolutely cannot keep ourselves completely open and we need access to information, obviously, to defend ourselves, however, when that starts to affect the public citizenry to an extent that their own privacy is compromised when they have absolutely no role in anything related to public security, that's when I think we start to see an issue. And with the technology that the FBI is asking Apple to use, it's very, very likely that that would immediately fall into hands of others, hackers, etc., who would want to use it for other reasons and without assurance that that couldn't happen we’re in very challenging circumstances.

RB: But, David, you seem to disagree with that.

DAVID SKILLICORN: Yeah, I don't think that the thing that the FBI is currently asking for is a very big ask in terms of what Apple can do and I think it's probably true that the FBI could find somebody else to do it for them without very much difficulty. This is not-- I mean, Apple has more or less come out and admitted this is possible. So once people know that it's possible then somebody can do it, if they want to. But this device has its own particular code and that's the only place where Apple really has to step up, is that they can code the software for this one device which the FBI can't do. So in fact if the FBI built it itself, it's probably worse.

JEN EVANS: And there's dubious claims about whether or not it actually can be restricted to a single device. But does the slippery slope argument not concern you? I mean, at what point would you draw the line?

DAVID SKILLICORN: Well, I don't--I mean, this doesn't seem like a good case to argue about slippery slopes because it's a very much a one-off, where there's a clear benefit to breaking into this one device and it wouldn't be hard to do, I think, without leaking to some larger ecosystem.

RB: But the argument is that it's not going to be a one-off, that once this door opens that who knows--

JEN EVANS: It’s in the ecosystem.

RB: Exactly.

DAVID SKILLICORN: Well, I don't think that's technically accurate. It may be conceptually accurate in the sense that once you point out to several million people that this is possible some other people are going to try it too.

RB: Do you think that this case-- Jen first, do you think that this should make us rethink the kind of information that we are storing on our phones?

JEN EVANS: If this is the first time that we are thinking about the kind of information we're storing on our phones, then we have an issue. I mean, there's been so many instances of breaches and credit card numbers and personal information. It does not seem to discourage people from continuing to store very sensitive information on their phones. Just look at what happened with the Ashley Madison hack. I mean, people were using government email addresses to access that site. Human behaviour is very difficult to predict and understand and I think it's hard to say what could happen.

RB: David?

DAVID SKILLICORN: Yeah, you're talking about Millennials in your next segment and I’ve done some work on Millenials and their attitudes to privacy. And the open question there is, where the Millennials don't realize or don't care that their personal information is widespread, and so we can't really answer the question yet, I don't think, for that group. For older cohorts I think it's probably got more to do with, ‘I didn't realize’ than ‘I don't care. ‘

JB: Do you think that that attitude that Millenials have, do you think that that will come back to bite them?

DAVID SKILLICORN: I think the world is changing and so in some sense they are forcing everyone into a much more open view of the world. I mean, this is the way it was a hundred years ago. If you grew up in the village everyone knew everything about you, but there were social conventions that were developed to protect everyone from the embarrassment that goes along with that. And we haven't developed that social framework for dealing with the fact that if somebody wants to, they can find out just about everything about you online.

JEN EVANS: Yeah, it's really interesting. There's a very big dichotomy between personal privacy in public transparency. And those things, those two things, I think, are starting to come closer and closer in that we are starting to live more public lives. We're also expecting more transparency from our institutions as a result. Where that leads, I think is an unprecedented place that is going to be fascinating for people to study.

RB: Jen, what is the biggest thing here at stake for you?

JEN EVANS: That's a really good question. I think-- This is a little bit of a moment where we look at the amount of control that the public sector actually has over private sector information. I think there's also implications on the commercial side, for Apple and other manufacturers and trust in their devices. So if the government decides that they may take a path where they can access devices there may be a diminished amount of trust from consumers in how those devices are use which could have an effect that we haven't even considered yet. So there are many things to be considered in this case. It will be very fascinating to see how it all unfolds.

RB: It’s interesting to see some of the competitors, Apple's competitors backing them on this.

JEN EVANS: Absolutely and partners. You could consider Twitter, for example, more competitor than it is a –sorry - more of a collaborator than it is a competitor, but Facebook definitely. And it's also fairly unusual to see the giants of Silicon Valley rally together to that extent.

RB: David, you started out saying that you felt like Apple was being disingenuous here. Has Jen said anything to make you change your mind?

DAVID SKILLICORN: No. I think they using this is a PR exercise and I think that's partly why the other companies in Silicon Valley are jumping on the bandwagon. They all get a chance to look like the good guys standing up to the government and protecting individual privacy--

JEN EVANS: And they did just have a bad quarter.

DAVID SKILLICORN: --Despite the fact that, I would say, they are the ones who have the biggest violators of privacy at the moment.

RB: Why are you so sceptical?

DAVID SKILLICORN: I think we have a huge blindspot about how much data about us these organizations are collecting and how much they using it. I mean, it's not just sitting there they really trying to build models of every individual on the planet and we don't know where those models are going to go.

JEN EVANS: Agreed. And, you know, right now there are very sophisticated marketing models and that's really what they're primarily being used for is to understand consumers, to understand human behaviour, become better at selling things. But it doesn't mean that the data isn't there and can't be used for other purposes. And long term that's a threat or an issue we haven't really confronted at all.

RB: Really nice to talk to you both. Interesting discussion and I appreciate you both joining us today. Thanks so much.

DAVID SKILLICORN: My pleasure.

JEN EVANS: Thank you.

RB: That’s David Skillicorn. He is a professor of computing at of computing at Queen's University and the author of Knowledge Discovery for Counterterrorism and Law Enforcement. He was in Kingston, Ontario. And Jen Evans is President of B2B News Network. She was with me here in our Toronto studio. Well, what do you think of Apple's drawing the line on privacy? Are there instances when they should make an exception in the name of national security? You can send us an e-mail with your thoughts by going to our website, cbc.ca/thecurrent and click on the contact link.

[music]

RB: Well, for ten months. French correspondents Nicolas Henin was held captive in Syria, a prisoner of ISIS. One of his captors was the notorious extremist known as Jjihadi John and his fellow captives U.S. reporter James Foley whose brutal beheading was filmed for Islamic State propaganda. Here he is talking to Anna Maria Tremonti about that experience.

SOUNDCLIP

AMT: James Foley was your friend.

NICOLAS HENIN: Yes, he was and one of my best ones, at least during the 10 ten months of captivity. We were for, I guess, seven months together.

AMT: What can you tell me about what he was like?

NICOLAS HENIN: Yes. James Foley has a very high profile, but there were other Americans, other hostages who have been murdered. And I would like to talk about the all of them.

AMT: Okay.

NICOLAS HENIN: Because it would be unfair to just go always about him. So, James Foley, just like Steven Sotloff, [indecipherable], but also the British Citizen who have been murdered, David Haines, Alan Henning. Well, they were all beautiful people. And this is what makes this crime even bigger. People who went to Syria and had been taken hostage by this terror group were all in love with this region. Not one of us went there to make big money. We all went there because we had a story. We had an interest for this country, for this crisis. We thought that we could bring something positive to this crisis, either by reporting on it or by bringing [indecipherable].

RB: Nicholas Henin talks about those terror-filled days in Syria and what he thinks is the best strategy for defeating ISIS. That is coming up on The Current with Anna Maria Tremonti on Monday.

Public Service needs reform to attract millennials, says Scott Brison

Guests: Darren Touch, Scott Brison, Linda Duxbury

ROBYN BRESNAHAN: Hello, I'm Robyn Bresnahan and this is the Friday Edition of The Current.

SOUNDCLIP

We have a, as do a lot of governments today, we have a demographic reality where more people are retiring from the public service than are joining. And we have what is the most educated, informed and globally connected generation of young people who are somewhat skeptical about public service. We recognize we need to change elements of the public service.

RB: At the World Economic Forum in Davos last month, Scott Brison, president of the Treasury Board of Canada, took part in an important discussion: how to get millennials into the public service? Believe it or not, it's an important question here in Canada. The average age of new hires in Canada's public service right now is 37 years old; older than so-called millennials, the generation born between the early 1980s and the early 2000s. And based on what we know about millennial workers, and what they’re looking for in a job right now, Mr. Brison may have his work cut out for him. I'll be joined by Scott Brison in just a few moments. But first, Darren Touch, a 21-year-old University of Ottawa student who worked as a paid co-op student in the Department of Public Works last year, and Darren Touch is in our Ottawa studios. Hi, Darren.

DARREN TOUCH: Good morning.

RB: Scott Brison says the public service needs to change to attract younger people. What was your experience like, working there?

DARREN TOUCH: When I started working in the public service, I found that there was multiple layers within the government itself. It was complex. I mean, you're sitting in a cube; the work environment is very much different. We're growing up in the generation where we want to work, and work in an environment like Facebook or Google, which is more collaborative and innovative. So it’s very different, not what I expected whatsoever, but it was a great learning experience.

RB: But you could see that working in a Facebook or Google environment, and comparing that to the public service; some people might have a problem with that, saying, well, hang on, what are we as taxpayers doing paying for pinball machines and catered lunches?

DARREN TOUCH: Exactly, and I agree with you for that. There is an approval process that we have to go through, and you have to be cautious of when you are spending taxpayer dollars, but the environment needs to change in a way, because I don't see a lot of young folks, millennials, being interested, because you want to feel valued when you work in the government. Or you want to feel like you're making a meaningful impact. And sometimes, the environment inhibits that.

RB: Did you not feel valued when you were working there?

DARREN TOUCH: I did, but sometimes the decisions that you, the... what you want to do sometimes, it goes through a complete process, and so that makes it difficult.

RB: Give me an idea of what you are looking for, when you go into a workplace.

DARREN TOUCH: Being collaborative is one thing, working together. I found that working in the government sometimes, there is a collaborative nature, but there's also an individualistic one.

RB: So what do you think then needs to change, other than being more collaborative? What are some concrete things that you think needs to change within the public service to make it more attractive to you and your generation?

DARREN TOUCH: Really cutting down on the layers, a lot of decisions move up, so it's very top down approach. But a bottom, grassroot, grassroot movement needs to occur.

RB: What are you hearing from similar people of your age? I mean, is anyone you know, are they talking about going into the public service, or do they have the same reservations you do?

DARREN TOUCH: I think a lot of them do you have the same reservations. They find a really complex in terms of the hiring process, what kind of jobs. The government offers a lot of great jobs. It’s just finding the opportunities and that's frustrating sometimes.

RB: It's interesting, because Scott Brison has said that working for the public service is the best way that young people can really make a difference. Because in the end, if you work in the government, you're the ones who are making the decisions.

DARREN TOUCH: Exactly.

RB: What do you think about that?

DARREN TOUCH: I think he has a great point, for sure. And, you know, you need to find those jobs in the government. Like I said, it's hard finding the jobs, they’re there, the government is a complex organization, there's a job for everyone. But it’s just finding your niche.

RB: What about things that are attractive about the public service? People often point out the pension, the benefits, the job security. How important are those things to you?

DARREN TOUCH: They are important, they are important to consider, for sure. But at the moment of being 21 years old, it's kind of far in terms of what I'm concerned about, but it's definitely something that’s appealing to us.

RB: So what do you think the public service loses when it fails to hire younger people such as

yourself?

DARREN TOUCH: I think my generation, we’re quite connected, and they're losing on that. They’re losing out on how connected we are to the world, and how understanding we are at the same time. You're losing creative ideas and the talent. That's what the government loses out on.

RB: Name two specific things that would lure you back to the public service.

DARREN TOUCH: One thing that would lure me back for sure is supporting creativity, is supporting career mobility, is one thing. You know, being able to move in and out of government easily, I think that's something that would help me for sure.

RB: Move in and out of government easily, so are you saying that starting out in the government, and then going and doing some kind of secondment, for example?

DARREN TOUCH: Just having the opportunity to work for non-profits or whatnot, and just moving, you know, when you work in the private sector, you gain a certain amount of skills and talent. And being able to pull those skills and talent that you learned back into government and making government more innovative.

RB: Do you feel like there is the perception that if you are hired within the public service, that's it. You're locked in there for good.

DARREN TOUCH: Exactly. I feel like you're locked in, and especially within certain departments, too, right. Because when you enter a certain department, it feels like you’re locked to that one department. I feel like Millennials, we don't like that feeling at all. We don't like being trapped. Career mobility is very important to us, and being able to cross from department to department, to sectors through sectors, I think that's super important to us.

RB: Can you afford to be this picky? There's, you know, lots of young people out there are out of work right now, and I wonder, there might be some people saying, hang on, kid. [chuckles] Take what you can get.

DARREN TOUCH: [chuckles] I think we're an optimistic generation, for sure, we’re quite optimistic about it. And you know, it's not being picky, but it's also feeling like you’re making a meaningful impact in life, and I think that's something that we look for.

RB: And just finally, to unpick your, what you said about supporting creativity. Just tell us a little bit more about what you actually mean by that, what would you like to see?

DARREN TOUCH: I’d see more interaction between employees, working together as a group. Having the ability to propose ideas and seeing it actually follow through. Sometimes when you work in the government, you propose an idea, and it may or may not, you know, be followed up upon. I think having that follow up, and making sure things go through, I think that would make the difference we want to see.

RB: You think you'd ever go back to the public service in your career?

DARREN TOUCH: It's a consideration.

RB: [chuckles] Doesn't sound like an emphatic one. All right, Darren thanks very much for joining us.

DARREN TOUCH: Thank you so much.

RB: That’s Darren Touch, he’s a 21-year-old University of Ottawa student who worked as a paid co-op student in the federal Department of Public Works last year, and he was in our Ottawa studio. Our next guest is leading the charge to sell the public service to Millennials. Scott Brison is the President of the Treasury Board of Canada and Liberal MP for Kings-Hants, Nova Scotia. He's also in our Ottawa studio. Hello, Minister.

SCOTT BRISON: Good morning, Robyn.

RB: What's your reaction to what Darren had to say there?

SCOTT BRISON: Well, I'd like to sit Darren, actually, after hearing that. Because what he what he says he's saying is exactly what we're hearing from millenials when we engage with them to talk about potentially serving in Canada’s public service. We have an exceptional public service in Canada, but we've got a demographic shift and we need to renew our public service. In fact, a lot of the public servants in Canada today who are moving into a retirement age could actually be very important mentors for new recruits. What Darren is telling us is exactly what we're hearing across the board in terms of Millennials. They want to make a difference. They want meaning in their work. But when they look at the public service, or some of them have experienced the public service, they feel there's too rigid hierarchies in the public service. They want to see fewer layers of bureaucracy. They want to see more openness and transparency in terms of decision-making, more collaboration. Intelligent risk-taking and a cultural shift around intelligent risk-taking, more opportunity for continuous learning is something we're hearing, and yes, we're hearing that for young people, they want to, throughout their career and their life cycle, to be able to move in and out of government. From the NGO community and back into government, and also, potentially, into the private sector. And I think that that cross-pollination would be really great for the public service.

RB: Do you think that there is something that the public service can learn from companies such as Google, such as Shopify, which is based in Ottawa?

SCOTT BRISON: I think definitely the way decision making occurs, the less hierarchal approach to issues and opportunities, for certain. But at the end of the day, if you talk to young people about the issues they're really interested in, and when you talk to them about making a difference, in the world and in their country, there are very few places you can do that. Where you can really tackle things like climate change, the global refugee issues, innovation, the future of work and automation, the challenges and opportunities around Indigenous issues, justice and equality issues. These are in the wheelhouse of the public service. So if you really want to move the needle in a big way on the issues that really matter to the future of Canada and the future of the planet, the public service is still the place to do it. Now all that taken into consideration, we've got to change the public service if we're going to succeed at this. But I view it as an imperative. Our prime minister, Prime Minister Trudeau is also Minister of Youth.

RB: Mhm.

SCOTT BRISON: He views this is as being important, but if you look at our cabinet, we've got our youngest minister, Maryam Monsef, who is actually have at the cabinet table making important decisions for the future of Canada as a young person.

RB: But I guess people will want to know concretely what you can do. I was talking to a friend who is in the public service, she's not quite a Millennial, a little bit older than that, last night in preparation for this, and she said, you know, just simple things like we are the Twitter generation and if you want to send a tweet out from the public service, it takes about ten layers of approval before you can actually do that. We are a spontaneous generation, and that is really being quashed.

SCOTT BRISON: I think there's been actually a shift under our new government and the prime minister, in terms of more openness and transparency. We've got a prime minister and ministers doing Google Hangouts today. Our mandate letters as ministers are public. We've unmuzzled scientists. We're pursuing open, transparent and evidence-based decision making. We are making a difference in terms of how we're doing things as a government. We've got to do more, that's clear. And the what, being the issues we're dealing with, the what is actually very engaging to and compelling to young people, in terms of these important issues. It's the how that we're not getting right, and we need to do better. But I do think there has been a shift under the new government and it's just the beginning.

RB: We were talking about using Google and Shopify and some of the hip companies as an example. Could the public service ever be that? I mean, do you foresee a day where catered lunches in the public service, people can bring their dogs to work, they can work from home more often?

SCOTT BRISON: Well, I think that, for instance, flexibility around work and that kind of thing is something that clearly makes a lot of sense, and the private sector is doing increasingly, and the public sector needs to do more. And the capacity to work from home certain times I think makes a lot of sense. I think there has been actually some movement in the public service. I find sometimes when I'm dealing with things in Government, that the hierarchy doesn't make sense. And that there are barriers to the way, to just basic common sensical decision making that simply don't make sense in today's world. I think a lot of people who've spent time in the private sector come into the public sector have the same questions as young people who are looking at this. I think there's been some improvements. I think we can do more. I think, for instance, we're working on building a better Canada internship program that will help in terms of recruiting students and post-secondary graduates and young people who are working in NGOs. Who are working on--

RB: [interposing] But if you have the same managers at the top, and they are not fostering, what Darren’s concern was, they're not being more collaborative, they're not cutting down on the layers, they're not supporting creativity. You can have all the young people in the world there, but if it's not coming down from the top, what will really change?

SCOTT BRISON: We have to change things from the top. And in our case, the prime minister's made this very clear that he's doing things differently. We've got to do that throughout the public service, and this is something, I've had this discussion with senior members of our team at Treasury Board. Treasury Board actually is the employer of the government of Canada, so this is the area that we're engaged in. We’ve got to change and I think, actually, a lot of people who have been in the public service for some time, they’re experienced, professional, skillful, effective public servants. In many cases, they’re are also parents, and they understand Millenials because they live with and want to see Millennials succeed as parts of their family, but part of a generation that is incredibly important to the future of Canada.

RB: I want to pick up on something you said at Davos. You said the public service needs less rigid hierarchies and more merits-based incentives. So let's take vacation days, for example. On a merit-based system, couldn't you offer more vacation as an incentive to do the best performers? I mean, would that be something that you would ever consider, or would you feel like even that, you have your hands tied because of the unions?

SCOTT BRISON: Well first of all, there are issues that are to be discussed at the negotiation tables. In terms of flexibility, in terms of how we compensate people and the kinds of benefits we provide, I think that discussion is something we need to have with young people, and find out, really, what is important. I find flexibility is really important for young people, from what they're telling me. The ability, as Darren said, to move in and out of government, and to cross-pollinate experiences throughout their career and life cycle. But the big thing for a lot of young people is they want meaning in their work, and I think that public service offers that. What's interesting is that often in ministers’ offices and in MP's offices, you attract a lot of young people, and MP's offices are not that hierarchical. And my experience in ministers’ offices is that there's some hierarchy but there's a lot of collaboration, and I think in good ministers’ offices, things aren't too hierarchical. And you see a lot of young people who work long hours, are incredibly enthusiastic about what they do and motivated to make a difference. Sometimes I think on the political side, and as I mentioned, ministers’ offices MP's offices, we may be less hierarchical than the government or the public service structure, and that's something we've got to change on the public service side, if we're really going to succeed here.

RB: Just very briefly, what is at stake if you cannot get younger people to join the public service?

SCOTT BRISON: First of all, we've got to do this. This is an imperative, we can't fail at this, because we've got the most globally connected, educated generation of Canadians in our history who really want to make a difference in the life of our country and the future of the planet. We can't waste this opportunity, so we've got to do it. I won't accept that we can't do it. We can do it. It's just a matter of how, and I know what that this is something that is important to the prime minister, it’s important to our government, because we want to build the best possible government for Canadians. And to do that, we need the voices of young Canadians helping shape the policies and ideas that will drive our country forward.

RB: Minister, thanks very much for your time.

SCOTT BRISON: Thanks, Robyn.

RB: That’s Scott Brison. He’s the President of the Treasury Board of Canada and the Liberal M-P for Kings-Hants, Nova Scotia. And he was in our Ottawa studio. Generational differences in the workplace may not be a new thing, but when it comes to Millennials, they may be more pronounced than in the past. Linda Duxbury studies generational differences at work. She is a Professor at Carleton University's Sprott School of Business, where she also studies career development and work-life balance, and we have reached Linda Duxbury in Ottawa. Hello, Linda.

LINDA DUXBURY: Hey, Robyn.

RB: What do you think of Scott Brison's plan to attract younger people to the public service? He says it’s imperative.

LINDA DUXBURY: Oh, it's absolutely imperative. But, and I've been listening to all the discussion, and it’s kind of interesting, because there's certain things that are being discussed. Attraction is one thing, but keeping them is another getting them.[laughs] Getting them is one thing, but getting them, and getting the right one is another. And I think the reality is, is that many of the processes in place within the public service right now are going to make that difficult. You know, I wish him all the luck in the world, I think it's really important. But you know, this isn't the first time this discussion has been around. It's probably about the third or fourth that I've been involved in in the last decade. And so, this is not, you don't get this kind of change by talking about it. And you don't get it by becoming Google either, by the way. I mean, the public service is not Google, and it never will be Google, it shouldn't even aspire to be Google. But you get it by focusing on the culture of the workplace, and some of the processes in place that make hiring and treating people very, you know, make hiring people difficult, and treating people well difficult.

RB: So like you say, this is a conversation that has been going on for a while. What would you have liked to have heard from Scott Brison? You've been studying this, what do you think it’s going to take?

LINDA DUXBURY: And I’ve got to admit, while I'm listening to both of them, I was rolling my eyes, and I'm sure a lot of the people who are listening are rolling their eyes. Because they're going, yes, yes we've heard it. And we believe that you believe. But where is the discussion about the hiring process here? Where’s the discussion about the fact that, you know, you talked to a guy who was a student intern. Do you know how many young people work as interns? Do you know how many are on temporary position, temporary position, temporary position? Do you know how many good ones with great skills don't get the job because they don't meet the bilingual requirement? Do you know how much they spend now, they require bilingualism, but they don't support it in any concrete way above entry level. You're expected to have it, and if you don't, your career is stalled. Well, young people go, hello, I can bring a lot to the table, but if you're going to put up these barriers and artificial qualifications that I don't see matter.

RB: But knowing French, being bilingual, surely that's something that would have to stay.

LINDA DUXBURY: I think bilingual is important, but I think the very second you make, and bilingualism is great in the public service if we bring in the best, and then we train and support bilingualism in either language. But right now, by requiring it as entry for a lot of things, and saying you'll never be promoted without it, and saying, but, you know, we don't have the funding for it and we don't have the time to give it to you. A lot of young people, you may question it, they don't question the importance of bilingualism, but they say, you know what, I can get a much more interesting job or as interesting a job much easier where I don't have to have that.

RB: You heard Darren, the 21-year-old student at the beginning say he would appreciate a job that had some flexibility, where you could kind of go in and out and do a secondment. And even Scott Brison said that he would like to change things so that, for instance, if you're working for an NGO and you're very keen on saving the world or whatever you want to do, that you can come into the public service and do a secondment, and then if you want, you can go back and forth. Surely, those are some good sounds.

LINDA DUXBURY: And they're not new sounds. We've heard that one before, too. Like, I'm sorry to sound cynical, I want this to work. But I think we have to recognize that talking about secondments means, at the at the gut level, we have to change hiring process. We have to, it's not just going to be Treasury Board, it's going to be Public Service Commission, it’s going to be the ideas of merit, it's going to be the idea of how do you bring somebody in? How do you run a competition efficiently? So for example, I'm asked all the time to write reference letters for just the kind of students that the public servant says they want. And then I get called, maybe seven, eight, nine, months after the student is asked me for the letter, saying hey, we’d just like to interview you about this student, I said, you know they've been working for eight months? It's not goodwill that is going to solve this problem. It's not good intentions. It's actually making changes to the things that make it happen.

RB: What's one more concrete change that you would recommend?

LINDA DUXBURY: I think that that the whole hiring process needs to be really overhauled. I think if you're going to do the public service survey every year, that you have to make those results very public, and you have to have discussions, and people have to see a link, not just, you know, an optics. But you have to actually see a link between what people are telling you and what you do. And I think the last thing is. is I heard Scott Brison say the government values public service. But if you look, the press beats on the public service, ministers beat on the public service, former government beat on the public service. You know, if you do truly believe they're important, then you've got to stop saying bad things about them and start saying good things. Not just on a radio show, but we have to be proud of our public servants. When Pearson was around, having a public service job was a great job. Now the optic in the press, and a large part of this is because of the public service, is because of how they've been portrayed, is public service is a cost, it's a cost, it's a cost, it's a cost. We have to stop seeing the people who manage our services for our country, who come in and want to do a good job, we have to stop seeing them as a cost, but one of the only assets we've got as a country.

RB: So that golden age of the public service was back in the Pearson days, do you think that in your lifetime you will see another golden age of the public service?

LINDA DUXBURY: Depends how much courage public servants have, public servants and politicians have. We're not going to get this by talking about it, we're going to have to do things pretty significant. So I often say that the culture of the public service is what needs to be addressed, and I work on the concept of organizational culture all the time. It's how the way it really works in an organization, not what the minister says, not what the policy, but how it works on the ground. And the public service of Canada is a fishbowl culture, okay, it's an aquarium. And outside the aquarium you have the newspaper, you have the CBC, You have the citizens, and you have the politicians all peering in going, well, I don't like that one. And who authorized the greenery?

RB: Linda. It sounds like you will continue to shout into the wind. [laughs]

LINDA DUXBURY: I’m really trying, you know? Maybe we'll do this again in five years. [laughs]

RB: All right, good to talk to you. Thanks very much, Linda.

LINDA DUXBURY: Bye, Robyn.

RB: That’s Linda Duxbury, a Professor at Carleton University's Sprott School of Business. She was in Ottawa. Now, if you have thoughts or experiences about working in the public service as a Millennial, we'd love to hear from you. Send us an email by gong to our website, cbc.ca/thecurrent and click on the contact link. That is our program for today. After our conversation about Millennials and the Public Service, we will leave you with part of a Canadian-made video that went viral online a few years ago. It was titled Stuff Bureaucrats Say, and shows a couple of very young actors doing their best to sound like Canadian public servants. I'm Robyn Bresnahan. Thanks for listening to The Friday edition of The Current.

SOUNDCLIP

[young child] What’s our storyline? Think blue sky. You need to think strategy. You need to consult wider. Where’s the docket? It’s in translation. They don’t understand our mandate. Let’s revise our mandate. The director can’t approve this. You’re not supposed to staple that. This is the wrong form. I’m still on hold. I’m an EC4. Are you a PM5? That competition was so unfair. Does she have signing authority? What’s the value added? Is this approved yet? We’ll see after the budget. Finance, PMO, MTR, DND, GOC, transports, RDIMS, ATIP, TW, GWFW… GCWCC.

[keyboard typing sounds]

Provide Transcript Feedback

CBC would like to acknowledge the support of the Broadcasting Accessibility Fund.

Feb. 19, 2016 Episode Transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode