Canadian Government Executive - Volume 23 - Issue 07

22 / Canadian Government Executive // October 2017 Governing Digitally Jeffrey Roy T he Trudeau Government’s decision, in August 2017, to split the Indigenous Affairs Ministerial portfolio offers a potentially important inflection point in Canadian West- minster governance. Although skeptics have good rea- sons to be concerned that such a move is mere political window dressing and, worse yet, could yield the creation of two underly- ing and eventually even more dysfunctional bureaucracies where there is now one, allows a more generous view of these changes to present itself. Simply put, the Government has made a mod- est step in recognizing some of today’s new governance realities, and insisted on a dose of political collaboration in an overt and strategic manner. Political collaboration, and collaborative governance approach- es that can follow, are not exactly prominent in the Westminster model. Although Cabinet is theoretically a discursive body and a gathering of equals (since our Constitution recognizes the Min- istry but not the post of Prime Minister) with a whole of govern- ment scope, Ministers nonetheless serve at the pleasure of the Prime Minister (or Premier) and their portfolios are assigned in- dividually; each one underpinned by a separate organizational architecture. What little coordination takes place does so in secret – either at a high and often abstract level via Cabinet or adminis- tratively via central agencies and operational committees. The uphill and often futile battle of working horizontally across resulting Ministerial silos has been well documented and dis- sected by a range of leading Canadian scholars. In 2010, mainly building on their efforts, I wrote my own commentary in Policy Options (The rise of networked governance everywhere but in Westminster) arguing that while collaborative and networked governance had become increasingly prominent across the pri- vate sector and parts of civil society, its’ acceptance had been stunted within Westminster governance due to the traditions and confines of Cabinet structures and central agency controls. From ‘Harperland’ to Trudeau, it would seem that not much has really changed. What’s worse, many Provinces today feature downsized Cabinets with some Ministers assuming multiple portfolios. A network of one is hardly the answer: many public servants in these jurisdictions understandably report that such Ministers have little time to grapple with intricacies, much less entertain novel forms of collaboration. Instead, overall guidance and direction stems from central agencies, reinforcing central- ized tendencies in terms of both information sharing and deci- sion making. The (current) Trudeau era arguably began with a modest change of tone – with promises to empower Ministers to genu- inely lead and with mandate letters that spoke often of specific collaborative responsibilities with Cabinet colleagues. One partic- ularly noteworthy moment came in April 2016 with the introduc- tion of Doctor-assisted dying legislation when both the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Health appeared together in several media outlets to thoughtfully and jointly articulate the Govern- ment’s approach and objectives. Of course, it should not go unno- ticed that then-Justice Minister Jane Philpot would subsequently become the newly created Minister of Indigenous Services. If Ministers Philpott and Bennett collaborate openly and mean- ingfully in the months and years ahead, such a change would represent an important departure from traditional Westminster customs. Nonetheless, for much to be accomplished in bettering Indigenous communities, a myriad of networking relationships must be properly leveraged with stakeholders both within the federal apparatus and outside of it. Although these latter relation- ships are unique and especially complex within the confines of Aboriginal matters (and the promised ‘nation to nation’ approach in pursuing self-governance), such complexity also permeates a range of public interest spheres: climate change, health and well- ness, and public safety are but three prominent examples where it makes little sense to look to a single Minister to orchestrate and oversee workable solutions. Beyond cultivating trust and effective working relations with Aboriginal stakeholders, arguably the largest (and very much re- lated) task confronting Ministers Philpott and Bennett is to create a new set of governance bodies to support their individual and integrative efforts. As many commentators have noted, simply slicing the old Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada into two is a mere recipe for bureaucratic proliferation and escalating turf wars. The ensuing organizational restructuring that awaits could easily deteriorate into turmoil for years to come, dooming any prospects for outward renewal and meaningful change. What is required – both in this specific setting and broadly across government, is a sea change in how Cabinet portfolios are assigned, funded, pursued, and evaluated. Such a notion is hardly novel. Yet since the Canada School of Public Service com- missioned a thoughtful examination of horizontal governance more than a decade ago, not much of political significance has happened. One of the key messages of this 2004 report prepared From Silos to Synergies: Collaboration and Cabinet in a Networked Era