• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

For Canada’s public servants, blind loyalty is not good enough

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Dinosaur
Reaction score
31,044
Points
1,160
As if we needed a report...



The clerk of the Privy Council’s report of the Task Team on Values and Ethics in the federal public service was released in December 2023 with limited public attention. It may seem like a wonky, bureaucratic exercise. But it was an important opportunity to think fundamentally about the ideas and values that underpin Canada’s public service. From my perspective, as a long-time public servant, it was a missed opportunity.

The report followed several months of consultations by a task force of deputy heads (who conducted over 90 conversations with public servants and external stakeholders) and was positioned as a “prologue to a broader dialogue on values and ethics in the public service.” Its highlights included concerns with real or perceived issues associated with political influence inside the public service, the promotion and deployment of “bad people,” double standards in the application of values and ethics, and concerns with accountability. Notably, “the higher up the food chain you go, the less accountability seems to exist.”

There was one theme, however, that truly unsettled me. That theme was that the values the federal public service supposedly aspires to are not truly respected anymore, nor—and more importantly—are they rewarded inside the federal public service. This view was summed up with the following comment:

Scott, we need to start telling ourselves the truth. What matters inside the public service today is not respect for core values such as integrity, stewardship, excellence, and respect for democracy. What matters is blind loyalty to the political agenda, regardless of whether taxpayers are getting good policy, programs, or results.
I was gob-smacked by the comment, and not because it didn’t resonate. In fact, it did. And then I wondered: Is it true? Is it more true today than in the past? Has the public service indeed drifted this far from its core values? And, if so, why?

In pondering these questions (as a former public servant with more than 30 years experience), it is certainly debatable whether “blind loyalty to the political agenda of the day” outweighs core values, and whether it is more or less true today than in the past. Regardless of where one lands on these questions, there is significant evidence to suggest that focusing solely on the political agenda of the day at the expense of the fundamentals of good management is not good enough for taxpayers.

The clerk of the Privy Council’s report of the Task Team on Values and Ethics in the federal public service was released in December 2023 with limited public attention. It may seem like a wonky, bureaucratic exercise. But it was an important opportunity to think fundamentally about the ideas and values that underpin Canada’s public service. From my perspective, as a long-time public servant, it was a missed opportunity.

The report followed several months of consultations by a task force of deputy heads (who conducted over 90 conversations with public servants and external stakeholders) and was positioned as a “prologue to a broader dialogue on values and ethics in the public service.” Its highlights included concerns with real or perceived issues associated with political influence inside the public service, the promotion and deployment of “bad people,” double standards in the application of values and ethics, and concerns with accountability. Notably, “the higher up the food chain you go, the less accountability seems to exist.”

Reactions to the report were somewhat muted or polite. Former clerk of the Privy Council Michael Wernick observed that “it’s oddly lacking a point of view or position or a stance on anything.” He added, for example, that the report “identifies a problem with the incursions of political staff, but there’s no advice on what to do about it.”

At the time of the report’s release, I was newly retired and encouraged by several former colleagues “not to be too critical.” I jotted a few thoughts down and then watched the spring of scandals and auditor general reports for 2024 unfold. I also took the time to consult my network inside the public service on what middle management and the “rank and file” of the federal public service actually thought.

The results were not good. Of those I consulted, most wrote off the report as meaningless (which is a profound statement in and of itself). Many saw it as a missed opportunity to substantively address a growing list of issues and concerns, particularly with respect to the erosion of accountability across the system, with too many weak, fluffy recommendations.

 
Sir Humphrey Appleby:
What's the matter, Bernard?

Bernard Woolley:
Oh nothing really, Sir Humphrey.

Sir Humphrey Appleby:
You look unhappy.

Bernard Woolley:
Well, I was just wondering if the minister was right, actually.

Sir Humphrey Appleby:
Very unlikely. What about?

Bernard Woolley:
About ends and means. I mean, will I end up as a moral vacuum too?

Sir Humphrey Appleby:
Oh, I hope so, Bernard. If you work hard enough.

Bernard Woolley:
I actually feel rather downcast. If it's our job to carry out government policies, shouldn't we believe in them?

Sir Humphrey Appleby:
Huh, what an extraordinary idea.

Bernard Woolley:
Why?

Sir Humphrey Appleby:
Bernard, I have served eleven governments in the past thirty years. If I had believed in all their policies, I would have been passionately committed to keeping out of the Common Market, and passionately committed to going into it. I would have been utterly convinced of the rightness of nationalising steel. And of denationalising it and renationalising it. On capital punishment, I'd have been a fervent retentionist and an ardent abolishionist. I would've been a Keynesian and a Friedmanite, a grammar school preserver and destroyer, a nationalisation freak and a privatisation maniac; but above all, I would have been a stark, staring, raving schizophrenic.
 
As if we needed a report...



The clerk of the Privy Council’s report of the Task Team on Values and Ethics in the federal public service was released in December 2023 with limited public attention. It may seem like a wonky, bureaucratic exercise. But it was an important opportunity to think fundamentally about the ideas and values that underpin Canada’s public service. From my perspective, as a long-time public servant, it was a missed opportunity.

The report followed several months of consultations by a task force of deputy heads (who conducted over 90 conversations with public servants and external stakeholders) and was positioned as a “prologue to a broader dialogue on values and ethics in the public service.” Its highlights included concerns with real or perceived issues associated with political influence inside the public service, the promotion and deployment of “bad people,” double standards in the application of values and ethics, and concerns with accountability. Notably, “the higher up the food chain you go, the less accountability seems to exist.”

There was one theme, however, that truly unsettled me. That theme was that the values the federal public service supposedly aspires to are not truly respected anymore, nor—and more importantly—are they rewarded inside the federal public service. This view was summed up with the following comment:


I was gob-smacked by the comment, and not because it didn’t resonate. In fact, it did. And then I wondered: Is it true? Is it more true today than in the past? Has the public service indeed drifted this far from its core values? And, if so, why?

In pondering these questions (as a former public servant with more than 30 years experience), it is certainly debatable whether “blind loyalty to the political agenda of the day” outweighs core values, and whether it is more or less true today than in the past. Regardless of where one lands on these questions, there is significant evidence to suggest that focusing solely on the political agenda of the day at the expense of the fundamentals of good management is not good enough for taxpayers.

The clerk of the Privy Council’s report of the Task Team on Values and Ethics in the federal public service was released in December 2023 with limited public attention. It may seem like a wonky, bureaucratic exercise. But it was an important opportunity to think fundamentally about the ideas and values that underpin Canada’s public service. From my perspective, as a long-time public servant, it was a missed opportunity.

The report followed several months of consultations by a task force of deputy heads (who conducted over 90 conversations with public servants and external stakeholders) and was positioned as a “prologue to a broader dialogue on values and ethics in the public service.” Its highlights included concerns with real or perceived issues associated with political influence inside the public service, the promotion and deployment of “bad people,” double standards in the application of values and ethics, and concerns with accountability. Notably, “the higher up the food chain you go, the less accountability seems to exist.”

Reactions to the report were somewhat muted or polite. Former clerk of the Privy Council Michael Wernick observed that “it’s oddly lacking a point of view or position or a stance on anything.” He added, for example, that the report “identifies a problem with the incursions of political staff, but there’s no advice on what to do about it.”

At the time of the report’s release, I was newly retired and encouraged by several former colleagues “not to be too critical.” I jotted a few thoughts down and then watched the spring of scandals and auditor general reports for 2024 unfold. I also took the time to consult my network inside the public service on what middle management and the “rank and file” of the federal public service actually thought.

The results were not good. Of those I consulted, most wrote off the report as meaningless (which is a profound statement in and of itself). Many saw it as a missed opportunity to substantively address a growing list of issues and concerns, particularly with respect to the erosion of accountability across the system, with too many weak, fluffy recommendations.

Shocking!

….well…not really that shocking…
 
Part of the problem is that the senior managers career became in entwined with the government polices of the day. It used to be that the senior Public Servants had worked their way up mostly in the same Department and had both loyalty to it and in-depth knowledge of it's working. They might apply friction to the ideas and desire of the government of the day, based on that knowledge, which slowed change, but also avoided large flip flops. Nowadays, many of the managers have little idea of what their Departments do or any corporate knowledge that can be used to advise the government of the day.
 
Part of the problem is that the senior managers career became in entwined with the government polices of the day. It used to be that the senior Public Servants had worked their way up mostly in the same Department and had both loyalty to it and in-depth knowledge of it's working. They might apply friction to the ideas and desire of the government of the day, based on that knowledge, which slowed change, but also avoided large flip flops. Nowadays, many of the managers have little idea of what their Departments do or any corporate knowledge that can be used to advise the government of the day.
Corporate memory is a real thing and it should be present at all levels. From the desk clerk to the DM.
 
If you watched ANY one of the Parliamentary Committee hearing, you will observe that the Public Servants being question work in their own box and know nothing else. They NEVER know who the responsible signing authority was.
 
If you watched ANY one of the Parliamentary Committee hearing, you will observe that the Public Servants being question work in their own box and know nothing else. They NEVER know who the responsible signing authority was.
That, my friend, is a feature of the system. Not a bug.

Not a day goes by in my job where questions go unanswered about “no- seriously. Who is the authority for this?”
 
If you watched ANY one of the Parliamentary Committee hearing, you will observe that the Public Servants being question work in their own box and know nothing else. They NEVER know who the responsible signing authority was.
You should have seen the look on the DOJ Lawyers face when they found out that I had delegation to sign the approval for the Site C dam. The authority to move forward with the project was at Cabinet Level, but once that was done, the authority to complete the approval process was mine and for me to sign the approval.
I know that in my office it was clear who had responsible signing authority for what. We also had a delegation document outlining signing authority. Public Servants working in a program not knowing that bit, are not doing their job and neither are their managers.
 
Sir Humphrey Appleby:
What's the matter, Bernard?

Bernard Woolley:
Oh nothing really, Sir Humphrey.

Sir Humphrey Appleby:
You look unhappy.

Bernard Woolley:
Well, I was just wondering if the minister was right, actually.

Sir Humphrey Appleby:
Very unlikely. What about?

Bernard Woolley:
About ends and means. I mean, will I end up as a moral vacuum too?

Sir Humphrey Appleby:
Oh, I hope so, Bernard. If you work hard enough.

Bernard Woolley:
I actually feel rather downcast. If it's our job to carry out government policies, shouldn't we believe in them?

Sir Humphrey Appleby:
Huh, what an extraordinary idea.

Bernard Woolley:
Why?

Sir Humphrey Appleby:
Bernard, I have served eleven governments in the past thirty years. If I had believed in all their policies, I would have been passionately committed to keeping out of the Common Market, and passionately committed to going into it. I would have been utterly convinced of the rightness of nationalising steel. And of denationalising it and renationalising it. On capital punishment, I'd have been a fervent retentionist and an ardent abolishionist. I would've been a Keynesian and a Friedmanite, a grammar school preserver and destroyer, a nationalisation freak and a privatisation maniac; but above all, I would have been a stark, staring, raving schizophrenic.

I rely on my accountants to do those things I wish done. Not to obstruct me or to work against me.

If people appointed by team red cannot be trusted to work diligently for team blue and vice versa then the case is made for turfing administrations and partisan appointments.
 
As if we needed a report...



The clerk of the Privy Council’s report of the Task Team on Values and Ethics in the federal public service was released in December 2023 with limited public attention. It may seem like a wonky, bureaucratic exercise. But it was an important opportunity to think fundamentally about the ideas and values that underpin Canada’s public service. From my perspective, as a long-time public servant, it was a missed opportunity.

The report followed several months of consultations by a task force of deputy heads (who conducted over 90 conversations with public servants and external stakeholders) and was positioned as a “prologue to a broader dialogue on values and ethics in the public service.” Its highlights included concerns with real or perceived issues associated with political influence inside the public service, the promotion and deployment of “bad people,” double standards in the application of values and ethics, and concerns with accountability. Notably, “the higher up the food chain you go, the less accountability seems to exist.”

There was one theme, however, that truly unsettled me. That theme was that the values the federal public service supposedly aspires to are not truly respected anymore, nor—and more importantly—are they rewarded inside the federal public service. This view was summed up with the following comment:


I was gob-smacked by the comment, and not because it didn’t resonate. In fact, it did. And then I wondered: Is it true? Is it more true today than in the past? Has the public service indeed drifted this far from its core values? And, if so, why?

In pondering these questions (as a former public servant with more than 30 years experience), it is certainly debatable whether “blind loyalty to the political agenda of the day” outweighs core values, and whether it is more or less true today than in the past. Regardless of where one lands on these questions, there is significant evidence to suggest that focusing solely on the political agenda of the day at the expense of the fundamentals of good management is not good enough for taxpayers.

The clerk of the Privy Council’s report of the Task Team on Values and Ethics in the federal public service was released in December 2023 with limited public attention. It may seem like a wonky, bureaucratic exercise. But it was an important opportunity to think fundamentally about the ideas and values that underpin Canada’s public service. From my perspective, as a long-time public servant, it was a missed opportunity.

The report followed several months of consultations by a task force of deputy heads (who conducted over 90 conversations with public servants and external stakeholders) and was positioned as a “prologue to a broader dialogue on values and ethics in the public service.” Its highlights included concerns with real or perceived issues associated with political influence inside the public service, the promotion and deployment of “bad people,” double standards in the application of values and ethics, and concerns with accountability. Notably, “the higher up the food chain you go, the less accountability seems to exist.”

Reactions to the report were somewhat muted or polite. Former clerk of the Privy Council Michael Wernick observed that “it’s oddly lacking a point of view or position or a stance on anything.” He added, for example, that the report “identifies a problem with the incursions of political staff, but there’s no advice on what to do about it.”

At the time of the report’s release, I was newly retired and encouraged by several former colleagues “not to be too critical.” I jotted a few thoughts down and then watched the spring of scandals and auditor general reports for 2024 unfold. I also took the time to consult my network inside the public service on what middle management and the “rank and file” of the federal public service actually thought.

The results were not good. Of those I consulted, most wrote off the report as meaningless (which is a profound statement in and of itself). Many saw it as a missed opportunity to substantively address a growing list of issues and concerns, particularly with respect to the erosion of accountability across the system, with too many weak, fluffy recommendations.

He was not well respected when I worked with him, he was seen as part of the problem.
 
That, my friend, is a feature of the system. Not a bug.

Not a day goes by in my job where questions go unanswered about “no- seriously. Who is the authority for this?”
I’ve been dealing with similar issues.

Where I am at, governance is a an issue being sorted out. At least there is a recognition that it lacking. But there have been significant merging of units and groups and more merging is in the future. So I can see where that has gone awry.
 
When the Clerk of the Privy Council is a G-i-C appointment (read, PM appointment), you can see the whole thing rolling down the hill.

John Hannaford has been entrenched in the LPC for 20 years and was a personal cabinet advisor to the PM; yet is filling a role that is non-partisan. So is our Speaker, but we have seen how well that has been executed by Greg Fergus.

When your the Head of the Public Service of Canada is a dyed in the wool party member, "non-partisan" is a stretch. Everyone else falls into the line if they want to move their files forward. We have seen this within DND and now to a lesser degree the CAF.
 
Frankly, allowing/encouraging EXs to hop between Departments has been disastrous.

As has been pointed out, there is no longer deep institutional knowledge on files, so advice to Government is…lacking.

There is also little to no loyalty downward in a Department nor much understanding of how the day to day business gets transacted, which certainly impacts morale at the coalface.
 
Frankly, allowing/encouraging EXs to hop between Departments has been disastrous.

As has been pointed out, there is no longer deep institutional knowledge on files, so advice to Government is…lacking.

There is also little to no loyalty downward in a Department nor much understanding of how the day to day business gets transacted, which certainly impacts morale at the coalface.
Particularly, when like the CAF does with succession management, the EX is just ticking boxes in various roles to advance. Like when a DG is in the department less than a year before moving on to bigger and better things.
 
Frankly, allowing/encouraging EXs to hop between Departments has been disastrous.

As has been pointed out, there is no longer deep institutional knowledge on files, so advice to Government is…lacking.

There is also little to no loyalty downward in a Department nor much understanding of how the day to day business gets transacted, which certainly impacts morale at the coalface.
I always believed in a 70/30 mix, 70% of the Managers from within and 30% from outside, either Departments or Industry. So you get new ideas and methods being infused in, but with a strong corporate identify and knowledge base to know which ideas will work.
 
Naughty boy...

Former public servant pleads guilty to breach of trust after directing contracts to own company​



He's been a very naughty boy....
life of brian title card GIF
 
Back
Top