Our man in Ottawa
Noted academic Donald Savoie has been drafted by the federal government to offer advice on what ails our troubled public institutions
by Léo Charbonneau
On the very day that Donald Savoie sat down to discuss with a reporter what brings him to Ottawa, just blocks away Alfonso Gagliano was testifying in front of a House of Commons committee on the sponsorship scandal rocking the federal government. Tossing aside the age-old notion of ministerial responsibility, Mr. Gagliano, the former Minister of Public Works, told the committee he had no direct control over what happened in his department and refused to take the blame for the controversial sponsorship program that he oversaw. Mr. Gagliano had elsewhere blamed civil servants and others for the mismanaged and discredited program.
If Dr. Savoie had been looking for a way to illustrate what he feels is wrong with our public institutions, he could scarcely have found a better example. Dr. Savoie contends in his latest book that at least part of the problem lies with the broken relationship between bureaucrats and their political masters, and that the biggest casualty of this is public accountability.
Dr. Savoie, a professor of political science at Université de Moncton for the past 30 years and holder of the university's Clément-Cormier Chair in Economic Development, is a respected commentator and expert on public administration and governance issues. He's a prolific author, having published nearly 40 books. Among them are Governing from the Centre: The Concentration of Power in Canadian Politics (1999) and Breaking the Bargain: Public Servants and Parliament (2003). The latter, required reading in official Ottawa, details the schism between bureaucrats and politicians.
The professor now gets to put into practice what he preaches, having been named this year's Simon Reisman fellow to the Treasury Board of Canada. He'll provide advice to the federal government on measures to improve accountability, strengthen transparency and improve management in the public sector. It is not his first time serving as an adviser to government, but is arguably his most high-profile posting. Dr. Savoie was also Senior Fulbright Scholar at Harvard and Duke universities in 2001-02 and is a senior fellow of the Institute for Research on Public Policy. He spoke to University Affairs about the Reisman fellowship and the issues he'll be tackling.
What was your reaction when you were approached about the Reisman fellowship?
Dr. Savoie: My reaction was that I'm quite happy at the University of Moncton. I have a new chair I'll be taking responsibility for and I love the university life. I really mean that. So when the call came, I hesitated and hoped it would go away. But it's not a permanent thing. I'll be back teaching in January 2005.
When the announcement was made, the media put the spin on it that you were being drafted by the Martin government to "reinvigorate the public service and fix Canada's corroding democratic institutions." That's a tall order.
Dr. Savoie: I don't think there's anybody this side of heaven who would be up to the task. No, I think that's a gross overstatement. I am not arriving as a lone ranger on a white horse trying to save anything. In fact, what I've decided to do, and think is the best approach, is to become part of several teams. There are four major reviews that I'm going to be involved with: the governance of crown corporations, responsibilities and accountabilities of ministers and senior public servants, provisions of the Financial Administration Act, and the expenditure review committee.
Compared to, say 30 years ago, it seems the public has lost confidence, or become disillusioned with, our political institutions. What accounts for that?
Dr. Savoie: I think that a great deal of it is because we know more about government today than we did 30 years ago. There were things that happened inside government [then] that we never knew about, because we didn't have Access to Information legislation or all kinds of tools that we now have. We have an extremely aggressive media. It operates 24 hours a day. That wasn't the case 30 or 40 years ago. These forces have pushed government back on its heels. In response to that, they've opened up their books, they've made themselves quite available, and so we've discovered more of about what goes wrong in government than we used to know.
Secondly, I think there has been a wave of neo-Conservative thinking since 1979 - it started with Margaret Thatcher. We've bought in to the notion that government can't get it right and if you really want efficiencies and to have an impact, look to the private sector.
You've mentioned Access to Information before as a problem. Can you elaborate?
Dr. Savoie: Access to Information has had a tremendous impact, and in my view it hasn't been all good. Here's an example: what I call "speaking truth to power," which is the essence of public service. If a public servant writes a note to his or her minister to say that a particular program makes no sense, or that we've tried that before and it didn't work, there's a good chance it'll be on the front page of the Globe and Mail six months from now. The result is that, in policy terms, we've created a paperless government and inhibited public servants to speak truth to power. There's a price to pay for public servants to write on paper. They'd rather do it now by oral briefing and PowerPoint.
But it's not only that. What a senior manager [in the civil service] has to put up with now is the Financial Administration Act, which is cumbersome; the Official Languages Act, which is demanding; the auditor general; and you never know what kind of broadside you're going to get from elsewhere.
So are our public institutions in trouble?
Dr. Savoie: I think that politicians and senior public servants would readily acknowledge that there's a problem. Nobody that I've come across in recent months would suggest to me that things are fine. That's part of the reason why I think there is an opportunity for change, because there is the consensus that things must change.
I'd like to make two other points. I've worked in Eastern Europe, Latin America and Africa on governance. I can tell you our system of government is pretty good. Second, when your system of government crashes, there's a hell of a price to pay, on every front: security, economic development, stability and so on. Our public institutions are really vital. They're the glue that holds this country together. If they're ailing, then we're all ailing. We've got to stop this bashing of politicians and bureaucrats. It's gone too far.
Where do we start to change our political institutions?
Dr. Savoie: I've reflected on this a great deal and I think you start with the member of parliament. If you're not part of an association or part of a lobbying group, who do you have to speak on your behalf? You have your member of parliament. I think we've ignored that role. We need to clarify where they fit in. They're the only ones that have a mandate to speak on behalf of Canadians, yet they feel like they're a voice in the wind. I don't know if we can sustain that much longer.
You have argued that government has often tinkered with public services, but that there has been little effort to revitalize the political institutions. Why is this?
Dr. Savoie: It's true that we've never hesitated to say the public service is ailing, yet when it comes to parliament and cabinet, we've chosen not to go there. I think public servants could say: "Minister, heal thyself before you try to heal us" and it would be a fair argument. But it's much easier, if you have a four-year mandate, to look at the public service as the problem. From prime ministers on down at the political level there has been a willingness to point the finger at the public service, but never themselves.
The current sponsorship scandal, is it qualitatively any different than other scandals of the past?
Dr. Savoie: I'd like to wait to see what the nature of that scandal really is before I can comment. I need to have more answers.
Does it tell us anything about the broken bargain you've written about? Has the line blurred between bureaucrats and their political masters?
Dr. Savoie: We've blurred the line so much that we've made public servants public actors. That's not how our system of government was designed. In fact, a measure of failure for public servants used to be having your name in the newspapers. I think we have to re-establish this line and define what is partisan politics and what is public administration. We need to give public servants their space. Now it's a free-for-all.
"Bureaucrat" has become a dirty word. What do you think about that?
Dr. Savoie: I can't overstate how sad I feel. It is very, very, very difficult to be a public servant nowadays. Public service now is only for the brave. These people come into work day in, day out, and the great majority of them work hard. They are front-line workers and provide a good service. But they really don't feel that there's any respect out there.
Will there be a book in this, your time here in Ottawa?
Dr. Savoie: There will certainly be a follow-up book. If the bargain is broken, as I argued in my last book, then surely we need a new bargain or rethink the bargain. But, clearly, I won't be working on that over the next several months. I simply won't have the time.
