Canadian Government Executive - Volume 23 - Issue 07

Governing Digitally October 2017 // Canadian Government Executive / 23 New political and operational mechanisms await invention: integrative Ministerial Councils, for example, could serve as task forces to pursue specific policy and service innovation agendas. by Herman Bakvis and Luc Juillet, not surprisingly, is the para- mount importance of political leadership if vertical inertia is to be meaningfully challenged. More recently, the Privy Council Office (PCO) has embraced Blueprint 2020 as an important paradigm for governance renewal within the federal apparatus (an initiative that began under the Harper Government and is now in reformation). Since the 2015 election, moreover, PCO has recruited a number of leading minds within its ranks, and has also partnered with the Public Policy Fo- rum to create a set of Prime Ministerial Fellows – promising pub- lic servants researching innovative themes in their chosen fields. As important as such steps are in signaling new directions, they can amount to little in terms of systemic renewal if the overlying political apparatus remains unchanged - which is why the politi- cal restructuring of Indigenous Affairs marks an important mo- ment. Unfortunately, however, another Cabinet change announced simultaneously by the federal government tempers any sense of optimism. The appointment of a new Minister for Public Services and Procurement Canada is both insufficient and unfortunate. The problem is not the new Minister, however capable she may be – but rather the unreasonably and ultimately counter-produc- tive notion that any one person can possibly oversee such a vast and antiquated portfolio, especially at a time of accumulated cri- ses with the Phoenix payroll system, Shared Services Canada, and large-scale procurement. At the very least, this portfolio cries out for Ministerial sepa- ration between the public service and procurement dimensions. Beyond such dissection - and the obviously urgent matter of prop- erly compensating employees, other networked realities present themselves. On the public services side, innovative governance renewal invariably involves central agencies and other line de- partments. With respect to procurement, effective working rela- tionships with line departments are fundamental. Cutting across both realms is technological complexity and efforts to create government-wide digital architectures, the mandate of a new and struggling agency, Shared Services Canada (overseen by its own Chief Executive Officer). In short, if new and more effective governance arrangements are to be forged, the Westminster doctrine of centralized and siloed political authority must adapt to shifting societal realities: working across Ministerial boundaries must gradually become the norm rather than the exception. Barriers to working horizontally within the current system are well known. Echoing many of the findings of Bakvis and Juillet, a 2016 report prepared by the Government of South Australia (Working Together: A Joined-Up Policy Guide) summarizes the major barriers presenting themselves: a lack of shared vision; limited contacts; organizational (and political) culture; limited authority; and limited capacity. In order to overcome such barriers, the report presents a strategic governance triangle encompassing three inter-relat- ed dimensions (each with its own set of determinants): public value; legitimacy and support; and operational capacity. Situat- ing horizontal governance mainly within the latter dimension, the report provides a detailed blueprint for pursuing collective action beginning with a fundamental enabler: ‘Formalising the structures for collaboration and ensuring leadership endorse- ment’ (p.9) Despite its utility on many levels, the report fails to address the need for wider political innovation at the Cabinet level (a critical aspect of public value and legitimacy and support), undoubtedly for many of the same reasons constraining Canadian initiatives such as Blueprint 2020. Central agencies prefer to control – and politicians most often prefer to govern within the familiar con- fines of traditionalism rather than risk wider and untested forms of transformation. How should Cabinet structures adapt? In 2010, I made the mod- est suggestion of opening up Cabinet Committees: few outside of government know of their existence much less whether or not they shape performance. Cabinet committees could become a modest basis for communicating to citizens and stakeholders the need for integrative solutions around specific policy and service delivery agendas. The usage of deliverology targets – applied to subsets of government actors (i.e. sub-groupings of Ministers), rather than individual Ministries as is largely the present norm, might begin to cultivate a degree of integrative thinking across various Ministerial domains. Yet much deeper reforms are required. New political and op- erational mechanisms await invention: integrative Ministerial Councils, for example, could serve as task forces to pursue specific policy and service innovation agendas. Such Councils would re- quire pooled resources budgeted through an integrative mecha- nism that would bind both Ministers and officials and hold such a body to account as a single, networked entity. As importantly, this new integrative mechanism would be tasked with the very sort of outward consultation and relationship building that will now sorely test the capacities of Ministers Philpott and Bennett. As with the example of Indigenous Affairs, the risk of creating new governance mechanisms stems from the ensuing uncertainty – and the very real possibility that new bureaucratic layers shall merely stifle what little innovation remains. Yet this is arguably the unhelpful state of affairs inside of government today: hori- zontality and collaborative experimentation emerges informally, only to be snuffed out by an underlying inertia of incremental- ism and control. As the Trudeau Government has recognized in at least one key domain, there is an urgent need to do better. Nine- teenth century political structures cannot suffice: a refurbished, more open, and more collaborative Cabinet apparatus is both es- sential and long overdue. J effrey R oy is professor in the School of Public Administration at Dalhousie University (roy@dal.ca ).