Canadian Government Executive - Volume 22 - Issue 5

4 / 32

Our mission is to contribute to excellence in public service management
Editorial
Editor-in-Chief: Patrice Dutil
Associate Editor: Nestor Arellano
Editorial Advisory Board
Vic Pakalnis, Mirarco, Laurentian University; Denise Amyot,
CEO, ACCC; Lisa Sullivan, Federal Youth Network; Jodi LeBlanc,
Veterans Affairs; Guy Gordon, Manitoba; Shelley Pelkey,
Institute of Internal Audit; Peter Jones, OCADU; Murray
Kronick, Interis Consulting
sales
Director, Content & Business Development: José Labao
905-727-4091, x231
Vice President, Sales: Terri Pavelic
905-727-4091 x225
Events
Director, Social Content & Events: Laskey S. Hart
905-727-4091, x235
art & production
Art Director: Elena Pankova
Subscriptions and Address Changes
Circulation Director: Mary Labao
905-841-7389
General Inquiries
23-4 Vata Court, Aurora, ON, L4G 4B6
Phone 905-727 4091 Fax 905-727-4428
corporate
Group Publisher: John Jones
Publisher’s Mail Agreement: 41132537 ISSN 1203-7893
Canadian Government Executive magazine is published 10 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
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
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.
4 / Canadian Government Executive // May 2016
Over the past forty years, ministers have grown remarkably more media-sensitive and
government affairs more complex (World War II was actually far more complicated,
but we’re not dealing with the same thing; you know what I mean). At the same time,
they have come to rely on personal assistants (call them political aides or, as they say in
Ottawa, exempt staff). Until then, it was a matter of a few people, perhaps a press aide
and then maybe someone to help digest the thinking on policy. Since the 1980s, how-
ever, some ministerial offices have been staffed with the equivalent of hockey teams.
It’s been an issue. Public servants found it hard sometimes to cope with the incessant
demands of people who were much younger and often far less trained than they were.
Political staff responded likewise: the resented what sometimes seemed like willful
short-circuiting of ministerial initiatives by a stubborn bureaucracy. Even politicians
themselves complained that unelected staffers seemed to wield more power than they
did. Complaints aside, the system worked well most of the time.
This was typical of Westminster systems around the world. Similar controversies
around the presumed authority of staffers erupted in the United Kingdom and in
Australia, and in Canadian provinces. Within two weeks of the Phase II report of the
Gomery Commission in February 2006, I organized an event in Toronto that brought
together former deputy ministers and ministerial staff to talk about the relationship.
Justice Gomery had recommended that political staff be denied any opportunity to be
hired in the public service, that a code of conduct be created and that political staff be
required to undergo some sort of training program.
The roundtable rejected the first idea, but considered the code for ministerial aides that
was adopted in the United Kingdom in 2003 and saw it as something worth importing to
Canada, however modified it would have to be in order to fit our political culture. Follow-
ing Justice Gomery, the new government did indeed pass legislation that denied political
staff the opportunity to join the public service until they had parted company with min-
isterial offices for at least three years. The other recommendations were ignored.
I think the British code of conduct is still a worthy document. The Code of Conduct
for Special Advisers was again updated last October (it is easily found on the www.gov.
uk website) and it lays out in a few pages what exactly the roles are. It prescribes what
these aides can do, and what they cannot do. It describes boundaries, and defines status
and behaviours regarding the bureaucracy and media. It emphasizes transparency. It
lays out rules for leaving the civil service, and reminds political advisers of their duties
to keep confidential things…confidential.
Ottawa and the provincial capitals have been lucky in attracting high quality, dedicated
men and women to work the impossible hours required in serving premiers, prime min-
isters and ministers. In this issue, Jonathan Craft describes the role of the policy advisers
and his analysis demands that the status of ministerial aides be again reexamined.
I think he’s right, and I’d go further: I think we need to give these people a fair shake.
At that roundtable of a decade ago, a former ministerial assistant invoked a striking
metaphor to illustrate the different visions of the political and the administrative. The
politicians, he said, see themselves in the cappuccino business, while the bureaucracy
sees itself in the coffee business. The difference is in the froth (as a politic-added value)
and many in the bureaucracy don’t understand the importance of the added ingredient.
Very often, it is the political aides who’ve done the fancy steaming. They need to be ap-
preciated for what they contribute.
Here’s the deal I propose: give them a code to live up to, and if they do, then let them
join the bureaucracy if they want and if they are able. If the boundaries of what they
can and cannot do are clearly laid out so that we can all see when people step out-
of-bounds, there will be no question of their aptitude. Good quality people—people
who have merit, not just a convenient label—should be allowed to continue to make a
contribution.
A New Deal for Political Advisers?
editor’s note Patrice Dutil
web