Civil servants afraid to speak truth to bosses

Bureaucracy has become isolated from Canadians, writes Kathryn May.

Canada's public service leaders have a problem telling the truth to their political bosses.

A new report, Top of Mind, says they feel ill-equipped to gather evidence for policy advice, especially in a world where facts are distorted by disinformation, polarization and hyperpartisan politics.

Worse, they appear afraid to tell their political masters the hard truths when they do find them.

Getting back to the basics in policy-making and execution are among the top worries that senior bureaucrats raised in the new study into the state of the public service in Canada. It was conducted by two think-tanks, the Ottawa-based Institute on Governance (IOG) and the Brian Mulroney Institute of Government at St. Francis Xavier University.

The study was aimed at understanding the challenges these executives face when doing their jobs, which is to provide reliable, well-run services for Canadians, as well as advice to ministers.

It was based on interviews with 42 senior leaders from all levels of government and a survey of 2,355 public servants in the same departments and agencies.

The big worries included falling trust in government; decline in sharing “fearless advice;” a hollowing out of policy capacity; a post-pandemic economic reckoning; conflicts between different levels of government; and the need for public service reform.

The responses raise enough red flags to justify development of a road map for reform, said Stephen Van Dine, IOG'S senior vice-president, public governance.

An impartial public service is a cornerstone of Canada's democracy. Bureaucrats are supposed to speak truth to power. The ethos of “fearless advice and loyal implementation” is its motto, and public servants take an oath to uphold it when hired.

“Do public servants have access to enough truth to give fearless advice?” Van Dine said. “If all their information is coming from above rather than from networks in and outside government, how much truth is there really?”

The responses paint a picture of a bureaucracy that's too isolated from Canadians and not independent from politics, he said.

Over the years, rules restricting travel and hospitality expenses put a damper on public servants' ability to meet with provincial counterparts, industry representatives and civil society. They aren't networking, developing contacts outside of government or educating Canadians about the factors at play in policy-making.

“This has isolated the public service from the outside world and given the outside world the only door into government, which is through the Prime Minister's Office or a minister's office,” Van Dine said.

All of this is affecting a long-strained relationship between public servants and ministers. Two-thirds of respondents said that relationship was “an important challenge that requires more effective management.”

Many respondents said the relationship is being eaten away by the “over-politicization of policy-making and choices, and the lack of opportunity to constructively challenge political direction.”

They are expected to toe the party line and give politicians the advice they want to hear.

It's unclear why. Is it because the deputy ministers aren't encouraging dissent? Are bureaucrats holding back for fear of falling out of favour with their bosses or being seen as disrespectful?

Donald Savoie, a leading public administration expert, has repeatedly warned the concentration of power in the Prime Minister's Office is politicizing the public service.

He likened it to “court government” where senior officials act like courtiers trying to ingratiate themselves, rather than delivering hard truths.

Despite these warnings, little has been done to fix the problem.

The Harper government introduced the Federal Accountability Act in response to the sponsorship scandal, but many experts argue its focus on rules, oversight and compliance made matters worse.

Today's deputy ministers climbed the ranks over the 20 years since the sponsorship scandal, and the Federal Accountability Act is the world they know. Many argue they got to the top because of their skills in dodging risks, following the rules and keeping government out of trouble.

The Top of Mind report makes recommendations that could lead to a top-tobottom overhaul of federal public service.

At the top of the list is a proposal for a joint Senate-commons committee to review the Accountability Act, zeroing in on whether its onerous compliance and reporting requirements stifle innovation and create an obedience culture.

The report also recommends modernizing rules for relationships between bureaucrats and politicians, plus examining what's needed for public servants to create “safe spaces for fearless advice,” so they don't toe the government's party line.