Five questions for the federal public service

As the outcome of the federal election is digested, the public service is preparing for a new government. This long-established tradition is well-known and well-practised. However, there are powerful forces at play that require the public service to rethink its role in both providing “fearless advice and loyal implementation” to politicians and serving Canadians. For while Canadians have just voted for a government, at the same time they are losing faith in its ability to meet their needs. The numbers are sobering. According to an Ipsos study, 60 per cent of Canadians have no, or not very much, confidence in government. The decreasing citizen trust in our public institutions is not a partisan issue. It speaks to the public sector’s inability to deal with the accelerated pace of change, the complex issues citizens face and their concern for the future. This is a wake-up call for the public service. With a new government imminent, there is an opportunity to step up to the plate and put forward a plan so that the public service truly adapts to the challenges of the 21st century and, quite simply, remains relevant. According to the Clerk of the Privy Council’s 26th Annual Report, the federal public service has more than 273,000 employees. While the caricature is that federal public servants sit behind desks and dream up expensive policy ideas, the fact is that many do front line work such as policing, border control, air traffic safety, social benefits, food and drug regulation, and the like. The same report brags that the federal public service is “recognized internationally as being one of the most effective public services” in the world, referencing the U.K. Institute for Government’s International Civil Service Effectiveness Index (InCiSE) that puts Canada as the best of 10 top countries on “civil service effectiveness." Yet this is the same public service that cannot figure out how to pay its own employees, thanks to the Phoenix debacle that the auditor general of Canada called “an incomprehensible failure of project management and oversight." There has been no shortage of initiatives designed to fix the public service. The longest-running, Blueprint 2020, was launched in June 2013 by the then-clerk of the Privy Council. Broadly speaking, it aimed to modernize the public service. This was to occur with new technologies as well as a revitalization of the bureaucratic culture through a “whole-of-government approach” and the development of “a capable, confident and high-performing workforce." Process took over. Departments engaged staff, set priorities and launched exciting new initiatives like innovation labs. The most recent initiative, Beyond 2020, continues in the same vein. Its stated goals are to develop a public service that is agile, inclusive, and equipped. This is not enough. We need to rethink what it means to be a relevant public service in the 21st century. Here are five critical questions to be asked about the institution and its role today. First, what is the public policy role of a 21st century public service? Public servants like to say that they provide “fearless advice” to governments of all stripes. Yet this is being tested; some governments simply do not want it. If the public service is no longer the sole source of expert information, thanks to instantaneous Google and countless think tanks, what exactly is its value proposition when it comes to public policy? Second, how can a 21st century public service support the public interest? In a world of political polarization and wedge solutions that target specific interests and groups, it is becoming harder to find the elusive middle ground critical to addressing complex problems. How can the public service help politicians and citizens find common ground in an increasingly diverse environment? How can it drive decision-making that serves the broad public interest? Third, how much effort should a 21st century public service put into issues management? Increasingly, the senior ranks of the public service find themselves managing the system so that it “loyally implements” and keeps the government out of trouble. Does this role justify the investment in the public service and its senior ranks? Fourth, how should risk be defined in a 21st century public service? The public service’s approach to risk is so culturally skewed that it over-manages some risks and under-manages others. Rules are followed even if they make no sense; projects are stopped before they get started; a Phoenix is not stopped when it should be; innovation is stifled; ossified, hierarchical decision-making is perpetuated. Fifth, how will a 21st century public service convince Canadians and politicians that it matters? Border security, defence, social security, regulation: Canadians need to be better informed about the public service’s critical roles so they can push back against inappropriate cost-cutting. The public service faces the challenge of operating in a post-industrial economy with institutions, structures and processes still rooted in the industrial age. There is an opportunity now to develop, with a new government, the new “Golden Age” of 21st century public service. Its laser focus should be to rebuild citizen trust in our public institutions by addressing with political leaders the key issues Canadians care about. Toby Fyfe is president of the Institute on Governance, a not-for-profit charity based in Ottawa. The Hill Times