The last few months have been busy in Ottawa. Since June, Canadians have witnessed a series of events that bring into question the role of the federal government and the evolving status of the public service.
Recently, there have been examples of volatility in the public sector in some of the countries that share many of the characteristics of our own system of government. For example, in the May U.K. election, the country was evenly split between right and left of centre parties leading to a “hung” Parliament, and in Australia the governing party fired its prime minister because it feared losing an upcoming general election. In the U.S., Republicans, who have decided that bi-partisanship will hurt their chances in the upcoming midterm elections, have constantly stymied President Obama.
In all of these countries, governance is undergoing a fundamental transformation and there is confusion in identifying the proper balance for the exercise of the responsibilities and powers of those who govern, including the allocation of responsibilities and accountability for various public sector actors.
Interestingly, it is on Canadian soil that governance issues are achieving almost daily prominence. Since space does not permit a complete listing of the instances that challenge our traditional governance regime, here are some of the most notable events that took place over the summer months.
The heads of our federal agencies, who are normally never seen, are taking centre stage. The head of CSIS, Richard Fadden, was singled out for speaking publicly about some of CSIS’ security concerns and was subsequently accused of having acted inappropriately despite the fact that everything he said was already in the public domain. There is the case of William Elliott, the civilian head of the RCMP, who was appointed by the Prime Minister without any previous experience in policing and is now under attack by his “direct reports” for inappropriate management behaviour. Readers will recall the case of Munir Sheikh, who resigned as the head of Statistics Canada because the government apparently mischaracterized his advice regarding the cancellation of the long form census.
Second, we have witnessed a number of instances where the government has chosen a quick knee jerk reaction to a reported problem that was based on unsubstantiated claims. For example, an arbitrator recently awarded an unprecedented $1.4 million to a former senior public servant at PWGSC based on erroneous newspaper reporting and a hasty (wrongful) dismissal by the government without due process. We have the ongoing saga of a mid-level foreign service officer, Richard Colvin, who has been subjected to the most vicious and personal ad hominem attacks simply because the government does not agree with the observations in his briefing materials about the goings on in Afghanistan. Finally, we have the case of former Cabinet Minister Helena Guergis, who was cleared of all wrongdoing after she was kicked out of Cabinet and caucus when allegations emerged about the activities of her husband.
Third, there have been a number of instances of the government deciding to rethink or refashion current policy on the basis of minimal evidence or analysis. The decision to cancel the long form census is one example and another is the decision of Minister Stockwell Day to do a fundamental review of the federal government’s employment equity policies when he learned that a Conservative party activist had been excluded from a single job competition which was reserved for First Nations’ candidates.
Given the concentrated media attention paid to these events and the significant consequences they have had for our public institutions, one important question is whether they share any common features or similarities that would explain the unprecedented scrutiny being placed on the leadership of some of our most important public institutions such as the Cabinet, Statistics Canada, the RCMP, CSIS and Public Works and Government Services Canada.
Looking at these developments in a Canadian context, there appear to be six factors that might explain why the current system is under so much strain.
As a starting point, it is important to acknowledge the profound impact that information and telecommunications technology is having on the collection and dissemination of news. Since the media mediates most of what we learn about public issues, the Internet has allowed many new players to provide alternative sources of information and interpretation, creating instant experts and unsubstantiated news sources.
Second, one further consequence of the technological revolution is that it is impossible to keep information secret or confidential for very long. As a working principle, officials know that information cannot be destroyed (servers are everywhere) and new transparency and access to information laws have given individuals powerful rights to reach behind government secrecy. The release of more than 90,000 secret documents on Wikileaks in July is only the latest example of this new challenge.
Third, over the past 15 years there has been a steady erosion in the influence of the public service in developing policy. In part, this has been precipitated by the growing importance of political advisors who are more partisan and less knowledgeable than the people they are replacing. As a consequence, in Westminster countries especially, the balance of influence has dramatically shifted in favour of highly partisan advisors who may perceive electoral gain as more important than good policy.
Fourth, in Canada the new Federal Accountability Act and the impact of the Gomery Commission have created a hyper sensitive environment which has personalized accountability and elevated the “name and shame game” to new heights.
Fifth, the Harper government’s penchant for moving on issues without any consultation and public debate has reinforced the perception that government policy need no longer be evidence-based.
Finally, minority government, an ad-hoc policy agenda and the politics of non-compromise have created an environment that has severely challenged the ongoing role of Parliament. Instead, political communications has dominated the policy-making process and how a policy “looks” is more important than its potential effectiveness. Holding onto an unsustainable position that is patently wrong is seen as better politics than admitting to having made a mistake and rectifying the error.
All of these developments are interacting with one another to create a counterproductive political environment in Canada. Unfortunately, the diagnosis is easier to describe than the remedies but in the interest of generating some discussion, here are a few first steps that can be undertaken that might improve the current environment in Canada.
While every government is free to implement its own policy agenda subject to the consent of Parliament, the obsessive reliance on the use of directives and Order-in-Council appointments (often done at the end of the week when few people are monitoring government activities) to implement government policy has circumvented the traditional role of Parliament and undermined the credibility of our parliamentary system.
More damaging has been the government’s recent efforts to circumvent the normal parliamentary system in order to avoid any real conversation and compromise around policy options by bundling policies and forcing the opposition to make it a matter of confidence. The Budget is the most recent use of this approach and it has effectively sidelined the opposition parties and the Senate who have a legitimate role to play in fashioning public policy, especially in a minority government situation. This is a good time to return to first principles and to ask the Speakers of the two Houses of Parliament to look into this issue.
Second, the longstanding Westminster model of the prime minister and ministers being held accountable for their actions as a government is no longer operative. Moreover, the traditional anonymity of senior public servants to advise and to implement government policy has been replaced with a growing trend to hold the public servants accountable for government policies and decisions by placing them in the public eye instead of their ministers. The suggestion that Statistics Canada was comfortable with the government’s decision to cancel the long form census established a low water mark for a minister hiding behind the public service. In the end, an externally led review of the public service in Canada, similar to the one just completed in Australia, might help rebalance the accountabilities.
Third, it is now very apparent that the change in information technology, specifically the Internet, has created serious alternatives to the traditional news sources. In an effort to establish a foothold in the news business, bloggers and alternative news sources have lowered the standards of acceptable news reporting and have forced the traditional news organizations to lower their own to meet the immediacy and headline seeking approach of the competition. Impressionistic and unsubstantiated assertions are now a regular feature on the front pages of our newspapers; they are now having a profound impact on the way in which Canadians learn about their political system, its leadership and our country. As a consequence, those in the industry should be looking for ways to ensure that quality standards apply to all of those who try to influence public opinion.
It should be abundantly clear that the current situation is not sustainable in the long-term. Wedge politics based on narrow interests, the decline in the quality of media reporting exacerbated by uninformed bloggers, and the retreat from parliamentary government to a “name and shame game” represent a dangerous combination of negative factors that will eventually tear our system of government apart.
These developments are particularly dangerous in Canada. Our country is a complex federation with many fracture points and it works best when we work collectively and cooperatively. In these circumstances, the Prime Minister’s current election posturing, sharpened by his minority government situation, runs the risk of creating greater damage.
Perhaps, under these circumstances, we can draw some inspiration from the U.K. where bitter party rivals have left their differences behind and formed a coalition in the interest of the nation.
