daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 31,764
- 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:
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.
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.
