Public service is worthwhile and an honour
The following is an excerpt from a speech to be given at the Osgoode Hall Law School today.
I’ve been thinking a lot about poppies lately. Maybe that’s no surprise given the time of year. I’ve been thinking about how the poppy is more hardy, noble and under-appreciated than many of us realize.
The flower’s determination — its urgent rebirth on the battlefields of death — was first observed during the Napoleonic wars. One hundred years later, soldiers in the First World War gazed upon a bloody sea of poppies emerging from the soil of northern France, tilled by combat and destruction.
Last Sunday, as we stood silently together in memorial, poppies reminded us to honour the dead, as we should.
Service to country is therefore both a privilege and a necessity.
In light of our debt to the fallen, I want to speak today of the duty of public service.
Eight years ago, I discovered my own contribution. Then Governor of the Bank of Canada, Mark Carney requested my help with the post-financial crisis challenge of how to ensure that no bank was too big to fail in order to avoid another bailout of bad behaviour.
We were able to persuade the very largest global banks to go along with a form of capital called “bail-in” debt. Because of that, we feel like the world is a more stable place.
After a few years at the Bank of Canada, I applied to be CEO of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I was drawn by the opportunity to continue making a difference by strengthening Canada’s financial system and helping our most vulnerable citizens to have a place to call home.
The highlight of my career has been the privilege of serving Canada. At CMHC, we are unified in seeking housing affordability for everyone living in Canada. We are leading Canada’s first-ever National Housing Strategy — a plan that will transform the future of housing in Canada and help to build a more inclusive country.
I believe that Canada is well served by adding nonbureaucrats to the public service mix. Not only is this diversity of experience invaluable, it offers a catalyst for change, fresh ideas and innovation. Think of the contributions of people like Mark Carney, Louise Arbour and David Johnston. Our ambassadors to the U.S. and France, David MacNaughton and Isabelle Hudon, assumed their roles directly from the private sector and are important interlocutors with two of our closest allies.
I prefer a mostly professional public service. Our senior deputy ministers are terrific, brilliant leaders, as effective as most CEOs. As effective as they are, however, our public servants need a better exchange of ideas and understanding with private sector. We should be more purposeful about secondments between the public and private worlds, and with think tanks. We have too stark a division between government and industry and academia and policy makers.
Yet if serving is worthwhile and an honour, why aren’t more of us doing it? Why do so many avoid it? Why, as my father said, are those smart enough to enter public life too smart to enter public life?
Imagine you get a phone call. You’re asked if you’d accept a challenging post of great value to your country or province. As a patriot, you are tempted. You might even see the chance to make a historic contribution. You’re intrigued, and possibly even inspired.
And then you read the fine print: you’ll take a pay cut, your hourly wage will plummet, and you will have to sacrifice time with your family by moving to Ottawa or your provincial capital. You’ll have to disclose practically everything about your life and transfer your assets to a blind trust. You will be prevented from working in the industry you know for as long as a year after you’re finished, without pay.
You will live under a microscope, your every letter, memo and email subject to an Access to Information request. We must hold public leaders to a high standard. Integrity is these leaders’ only currency. Moreover, as guardians of taxpayer money, we must spend public resources more frugally than our own funds. This aside, our support for public figures is far too capricious.
So what does all of this have to do with poppies, anyway?
“Tall poppy syndrome” refers to the decapitation of flowers that grow taller, that dare to stretch higher. Originating in Ancient Greece with Aristotle, the idea regained notoriety when an Australian politician used the phrase to summarize his egalitarian policies. Tall poppy syndrome has come to be understood as our tendency to resent, tear down, attack, string up or criticize those who are successful.
In Canada, like Australia, we like to strike down the tall poppies. We are making it way too hard in Canada for people to serve our country and that is a shame.