If today’s public service cannot fulfill basic responsibilities, such as issuing passports and handling border controls efficiently, then public trust is lost.
.
The following is offered in response to “Undelivered Promises” by former Privy Council Secretary Kevin Lynch, posted July 19:
Announcement 2
.
In his recent essay on Citizens of Ottawa, Kevin Lynch offers a forceful but necessary critique of federal public service. The time for radical reform to save the public service from itself is long overdue.
In recent months, we have had ample evidence of a public service seemingly floundering and failing in its most basic task: providing professional, timely and accurate service to Canadians. Stories of chaos at airports and passport offices abound. The legacy of the Phoenix payment system fiasco remains with us to this day. Whether it’s procurement or IT services, the federal government seems unable to deliver goods and services on time and on budget.
As Lynch points out, some of the problems are the work of the current government itself. Instead of focusing on a few core initiatives, the Trudeau government has too often sought to be all things to all people, trying to appease all constituents seeking attention and resources. As a consequence, the government has too often appeared scattered and unfocused, offering countless initiatives and failing to implement and follow through.
Announcement 3
.
Other issues, such as the predominant role of the Prime Minister’s Office and the influence, not to mention interference, of political personnel in departmental affairs are longstanding problems that predate the current administration but have worsened over time. The main concern of political officials is optics: how will this or that initiative affect party supporters? How can I position my minister for maximum political effect? Political staffers are rarely, if ever, substantive experts, and naturally they are resented by professional public servants who have spent years in a particular political field.
Policy experience, however, is no excuse for complacency, and here public service today falls short. I began my own career in public service as a summer college student in 1983. I fully subscribed to the ideal of public service as a noble calling. He hoped to follow in the footsteps of the great public servants of the past, like Gordon Robertson. After 30 years of hard work, I retired from public service in 2018, exhausted and discouraged. I didn’t leave because I had to, but because I just couldn’t keep screaming into the wind.
Announcement 4
.
I didn’t leave because I had to, but because I just couldn’t keep screaming into the wind.
Over the years, I have witnessed a public service where innovative thinking gave way to institutional timidity and a culture where contrary thinking was too often seen as unhelpful and unsavory. This is how public service goes from honorable calling to debilitating routine.
I saw various public service “renovation” exercises come and go. However, each of these, either the relay in the 1990s, Public Service 2000 either Beyond 2020 —suffered from the same fatal flaw. They were all internal reviews led by senior managers who are most invested in the status quo, and therefore highly unlikely to challenge that status quo. These “internal” initiatives produced little that was new or innovative on key issues such as recruitment, the loss of corporate memory, the political-public service relationship, accountability, or the role of the public service in generating innovative political initiatives. and tips
ad 5
.
Favor the familiar over the inertia and decadence of the new breeds.
Let’s take the unique topic of remote work. I well remember the hurdles, not to mention the paperwork, that senior managers put in front of staff when it came to what we then called “telecommuting”. Too many managers came in with the mindset that they couldn’t be seen as effective unless their “subordinates” were within arm’s reach. The COVID-19 pandemic ended the excuses associated with remote work, as well as the idea that public servants would not be working as much as in the office. In fact, public servants working remotely have had to juggle work and family responsibilities, while working under the assumption that they are available 24 hours a day.
Remote work was a success, but we already see efforts under the guise of federal “Back to Work” directives involving a desperate effort to get public servants back in their cubicles.
ad 6
.
At first glance, the “back to work” moniker is insulting. Public servants have not been on vacation during the pandemic. They’ve been working harder and longer, in makeshift offices (a kitchen counter, an extra bedroom) and with often outdated and unreliable IT. The notion that public servants are required to return to the inner city to “grow the economy” would be laughable were it not so devoid of reason.
What is to be done? The federal civil service has historically been the object of royal commissions. The Royal Commission on Government Organisation, known as the Glassco Commission — was appointed in 1960 and chaired by businessman J. Grant Glassco. The commission issued a five-volume report in 1962 and 1963. It recommended that government departments be managed in a decentralized manner, that the Treasury Board be reorganized, and that top management rotate between departments.
ad 7
.
More momentous was the Royal Commission on Financial Management and Accountability, established in 1976 and issuing its final report in 1979. Known as the Lambert Commission, it was in part a response to the dire warning issued by the Auditor General of Canada in his 1975-76 Report that “Parliament, and of done by the government — has lost or is about to lose effective control of the public coffers”. The Commission, led by TD Bank executive Allan Lambert, concluded that there had been a failure in the government’s accountability regime, resulting in a lack of coordination in planning, uneven budgeting and accountability. accounts. Many would argue that the situation has not changed.
The common denominator in both royal commissions is that they were led by outsiders and therefore provided extensive research on key public service reform issues that cannot be carried out by those inside the system alone. Such a comprehensive and independent review of the federal public service is long overdue. In fact, it is fundamental in the face of timidity and institutional paralysis.
As the former secretary points out, good governance is about “turning good intentions into reality for Canadians through the effective and efficient delivery of government programs and services.” If today’s public service cannot meet these responsibilities, then public trust is lost. The time for reform is now. I hope the current secretary is listening.
Michael Kaczorowski is a retired federal public servant in Ottawa.
