ICYMI: A Future Government Blueprint or Return to Yesteryear? [Lynch & Mitchell]

2025/12/17 Leave a comment

Good critique by David McLaughlin. As usual, most of these types of articles are strong in the diagnostique but weak on the how:

This might hold the bitter truth of whether our relentlessly mediocre system of governance will ever be changed. The authors note the importance of leadership in actually changing anything. Their first recommendation for implementing renewal is for the PM “to release a public statement (via a Speech from the Throne) committing the government to a major program of reform and renewal”. The reality is that unless the PM and Clerk of the Privy Council, Cabinet Secretary, and Head of the Public Service invest serious political capital in such an initiative, big necessary change will not occur. 

The authors plant their flag firmly in the terrain of big change, now. “Incrementalism is Not the Answer”, they write in their final chapter heading. “Business-as-usual is not a viable strategy for success in a world of rampant change”. No disagreement here. But good stewardship is grounded in guardian institutions with a guardian mindset. Incrementalism is a feature, not a bug, of such a system and culture. This is what governance reformers are up against as much as anything else. Incrementalism may be the only means to regime change on offer. 

If so, then this governance blueprint, or any other, requires a second layer of engineering and technical schematics as to how to get there. Credit to Lynch and Mitchell for erecting the scaffolding.

Here’s how the book’s two dozen recommendations stack up:

  • Restore Cabinet Government – 4 recommendations
    • make Cabinet the central place for collective decision-making
    • reduce the size of Cabinet by at least a third
    • return authority and accountability to ministers
    • reintroduce an operations committee to manage key files and keep government on track
  • Reverse the Centralization of Power in the PMO – 5 recommendations
    • counter the creeping ‘presidentialization’ of our Westminster system of government
    • restore the proper role and accountability between public servants and political staff
    • empower parliamentary committee with more independence, staff, and resources and fewer committees with broad mandates
    • right-size government with less spending, fewer agencies, fewer small departments, and simpler governmental organization. 
    • create an appropriate rules and accountability regime for political staff
  • Modernize Core Government Institutions – 11 recommendations
    • modernize and strengthen the public service for tomorrow
    • downsize federal employment by about 17 percent to unwind excessive growth
    • re-mandate the Treasury Board and the Public Service Commission 
    • Establish forward-looking, sophisticated planning and risk management capacity in the public service
    • rebuild a cutlure of purpose, pride, and accomplishment for results in the public service
    • simplify, reduce, and refocus government oversight mechanisms 
    • transform the RCMP into a modern national police force
    • resource, rebuild, and re-equip the Canadian Armed Forces
    • set out focused, longer-term priorities for foreign policy with the resources and capacity to execute
    • establish clear protocols for the distribution and use of intelligence
    • Focus on improving productivity, both in the private and public sectors
  • Implement the Reforms – 4 recommendations
    • release a public statement by the PM committing the government to a major program of reform and renewal
    • create a National Productivity Commission
    • Create a PM’s Advisory Council on the Public Service
    • Create an expert panel on public sector productivity

Source: A Future Government Blueprint or Return to Yesteryear?

Filed under Government Tagged with , ,

Lynch, Cappe and Mitchell: This is no time for ambitious federal projects

2025/03/04 Leave a comment

Good and needed commentary on Liberal over reach:

…Normally, in the period between the calling of an election and the swearing in of a government afterwards, the government of the day is supposed to refrain from making major discretionary decisions or announcements. The routine business of government carries on, as it must, but it is an important convention of our Westminster system that the government does not take the opportunity of the period between one sdministration and another to announce big decisions. This is called the “caretaker convention.” It’s a norm, a governing convention, not a law. But that doesn’t make it any less important.

Technically, we are not in a caretaker situation. While a federal election has not yet been called, it’s obvious that the circumstances today are far from a normal. Parliament has been prorogued in order that the governing Party can have the free time required to select a new prime minister. Yet however useful prorogation may have been in political or practical terms, it does impose upon the prime minister a duty of care, a duty of respect for the institutions in his charge. Making big decisions of a discretionary nature violates the spirit of the caretaker convention.

Source: Lynch, Cappe and Mitchell: This is no time for ambitious federal projects

Filed under Government Tagged with , , ,

Non-Jewish community leaders should stand up against antisemitism too

2024/08/27 Leave a comment

More calls to action. How effective these calls are on the ground remains to be seen:

In response to more than 100 Jewish institutions across Canada receiving identical bomb threats, Deborah Lyons, Canada’s Special Envoy on Preserving Holocaust Remembrance and Combatting Antisemitism, wrote, “These threats against the Jewish community are intended to intimidate and sow fear. The vast silent majority of Canadians finds the harassment and intimidation of the Jewish community of Canada vile and unacceptable. It is past time to stand up and say NO MORE.” 

While largely silent today, we have seen courageous acts of leadership from the non-Jewish community in the past. In 1947, a broad-based coalition of allies came together to form the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews — an organization whose mission was to push back against antisemitism and religious-based hate. With chapters across Canada, it became the leading forum for dialogue and understanding between Christians and Jews.

In 2004, in the wake of antisemitic incidents in Toronto and Montreal, then-Bank of Montreal President and CEO Tony Comper and his late wife, Elizabeth, formed a coalition called Fighting Antisemitism Together or FAST. It was pointedly made up exclusively of non-Jewish business leaders. The CEOs of Canada’s leading corporations lent their own names and their companies’ names to full page ads that ran in major Canadian newspapers.

The October 7th terrorist attacks by Hamas and the increase in antisemitism have brought back painful memories from the horrors of the Holocaust and millennia of dangerous demonization and discrimination. Today, Canada urgently needs a whole-of-society commitment to denouncing and eradicating antisemitism, and that takes courageous leadership.

Our business leaders need to speak up and push back. The chamber movement can play a critical role through its local chapters across Canada. Our national business organizations should be speaking up too.  

Our university leaders especially need to push back. Every Jewish student needs to feel safe from harassment and violence on and off campus. And all students, and their professors, must demonstrate tolerance for, and even curiosity about, the views and cultures of others. That’s, arguably, the core mission of universities. At the moment, too many of our universities are failing in that regard.

Municipal leaders need to ensure that their police forces have the resources they need to uphold and enforce our laws.

Our provincial political leaders need to follow the lead of Ontario and British Columbia and ensure that teaching curriculums provide facts and context about antisemitism and the Holocaust.

Federal leaders need to communicate clearly that antisemitism is antithetical to Canadian values, and it is an affront to democratic norms and freedoms everywhere. So too do our senior public servants.

Faith leaders from across the spectrum need to use their pulpits to promote unity and understanding across all peoples of faith.

Canada has been deeply enriched by its Jewish community, which has made tremendous contributions to every aspect of our society. Our leading universities, hospitals, and research institutes have also benefitted incredibly from cooperation, collaboration, and people-to-people exchanges with their counterparts in Israel.

Every Jew in Canada should feel safe, protected, proud and unhindered from religious practice, welcomed and supported by their classmates, colleagues and community. Simply put, there is no place in Canada for antisemitism.

The poem First They Came by Pastor Martin Niemöller should be a cautionary note to all minorities in Canada. Where antisemitism flourishes, so too do other forms of hate and intolerance. It threatens not just the Jewish community, but all of us and our social fabric.

As non-Jews, we believe this is no time to be a bystander. It’s time for non-Jewish leaders from all walks of life to speak up and push back against antisemitism as they have in the past. As Tony Comper told the Empire Club two decades ago, “Non-Jews must join the battle against what has been described sadly, but accurately, as the oldest and longest of hatreds.”

All Canadians need to communicate clearly to their Jewish neighbors, classmates, and colleagues that they are not alone: Canadians stand with the Jewish community and have their backs against antisemitism.

Hon. Paul Tellier was Clerk of the Privy Council and president and chief executive officer of CN and Bombardier, Hon. Kevin Lynch was Clerk of the Privy Council and vice chair of BMO Financial Group, Andrew Molson is Chair of AVENIR Global, Paul Deegan is CEO of Deegan Public Strategies

Source: Non-Jewish community leaders should stand up against antisemitism too

Filed under Antisemitism, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

It’s Time for Corporate Canada to Take Action on Antisemitism

2024/07/15 Leave a comment

Of note with similar need for anti-Muslim bias:

…Geist’s poignant entreaty that “Canadians simply believe us” underscores that Canada needs a new forum for Jews and non-Jews to come together to combat this ancient hatred. This is an issue for non-Jews to address, as Comper wisely noted some twenty years ago, and business leadership can be crucial to progress. With the scourge of antisemitism on the rise, it’s time for today’s generation of CEOs to step up and show real leadership and allyship – not just in their own workplaces, but in the broader community – to ensure that the Jewish community feels not just believed, but supported.

Hon. Kevin Lynch was Clerk of the Privy Council and vice chair of BMO Financial Group. Paul Deegan is CEO of Deegan Public Strategies and was a public affairs executive at BMO and CN.  

Source: It’s Time for Corporate Canada to Take Action on Antisemitism

Filed under Antisemitism, Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

Lynch and Mitchell: Six areas to address for a better federal public service

2023/12/15 Leave a comment

As always, the general diagnostique is easier than concrete implementation, a common failing of these high level commentaries:

The non-partisan Public Service of Canada is an essential national institution, responsible for delivering government services to Canadians and providing policy advice to the government. It has played an outsized role in helping build this country.

But these days it seems to be constantly under the spotlight in the media and in Parliament, as a steady stream of intelligence leaks, contracting fiascos, procurement bottlenecks, workplace harassment incidents and service delivery snafus grab public attention.

This drip-drip of shortcomings is not good for public trust in a vital national institution, nor is it good for morale among public servants themselves.

We can do better. A high-performing public service is what taxpayers deserve and the country needs, and no one wants this more than today’s public servants. They are as troubled by these shortcomings as anyone else. But they are equally aware that they work in an institution burdened with serious impediments to nimble decision-making, innovative ideas, clarity on priorities and meaningful accountability. Indeed, responding to recent problems with yet more rules and regulations rather than solutions would only exacerbate things. So, what can be done?

What is needed is not a years-long Royal Commission but rather a common-sense approach to fixing how government operates. Here are six key problem areas, solutions to which would yield a more engaged public service and  improve services to Canadians.

• The starting point is realizing that government has become too complex to manage effectively. Today, the federal government is composed of 22 regular departments and more than 80 departmental agencies and corporations. This is in addition to 34 Crown corporations, the RCMP and the military.

No private sector firm, no matter how large, would ever set up such a byzantine organizational structure and expect to operate efficiently. The proliferation of entities makes alignment and cohesion of programs across government difficult, creates overlap and duplication, and increases administrative overhead costs.

• Second, and related, the public service is too large to operate effectively. Today it numbers almost 360,000 employees — an increase of 95,000, or 36 per cent, over the last decade. But why?

The Canadian population has expanded by 14 per cent over the same period and the Canadian economy grew just shy of 20 per cent, suggesting public sector productivity has deteriorated. A smaller public service, with less duplication of functions and leaner management structures, would be more efficient and less costly.

• Third, oversight is too diffuse to be effective. Responsibility for oversight spans the Treasury Board, the Privy Council Office, the Public Service Commission, the Auditor General, departmental audit and evaluation committees, and a host of parliamentary agents as well as Parliament itself.

These oversight bodies attempt to enforce a bewildering morass of rules, regulations and red tape that stifle healthy risk-taking but perversely create incentives to work around the rules, as we have seen recently in procurement. Fewer and clearer rules, and clarity about who is responsible for oversight, makes a lot of operational sense.

• Fourth, accountability is too opaque. No organization functions well with fuzzy accountabilities. Clear accountability is not just about who is responsible when things go wrong, but also about who is responsible for making sure they go right.

The accountability problem is exacerbated today by the increasing involvement of political staff in both controlling advice to ministers and implementing policy decisions. Restoring clarity on the respective roles of PMO, political staff and public servants is essential to a responsible, accountable and high-functioning public service.

• Fifth, scant attention is paid to measuring or managing public sector productivity. Rather, governments typically report on inputs and activities, not outcomes and results. The broken procurement system is a logical place to start a focus on productivity and results, after the horror shows of the Phoenix pay system, innumerable military procurement failures and the incomparable contracting fiasco around the CBSA ArriveCAN app.

Another productivity destroyer is long lists of policy priorities set out in mandate letters, with public servants expected to deliver on all of them. Yet the sheer number and lack of prioritization means lots of activity but few priorities actually delivered.

• The sixth is a hesitant management culture. The public service needs to rethink the required skills for working effectively in a 21st-century, data-driven and uber-connected economy and society. Like the private sector, government should be bulking up on data scientists, AI experts, IT specialists and project managers rather than relying on consultants.

High-performing organizations deal promptly with ineffective managers, because they hurt productivity and morale, and with bad apples who undermine the credibility and culture of institutions. More proactive management would yield better service delivery to the public and better morale and engagement by public servants.

Thoughtful people inside and outside government have been writing about these concerns for some time. Now is the time to do something, and that will take leadership and courage. The best way to deal with these issues is not to talk endlessly about them, but to act, to take the tough decisions that will make the public service a more productive organization, geared for success in the 21st century.

It’s only common sense.

Kevin Lynch was the Clerk of the Privy Council and is former Vice Chair of BMO. Jim Mitchell is an Adjunct Professor at Carleton University and a former Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet in the Privy Council Office.

Source: Lynch and Mitchell: Six areas to address for a better federal public service

Filed under Government Tagged with , ,

Lynch and Mitchell: Instead of adding new programs, Ottawa should focus on proper delivery of the ones it has

2023/02/14 Leave a comment

Likely a perennial refrain among officials having to respond to political-level demands but valid nevertheless as capacity limits of the public service in areas such as passports, immigration and others have become painfully apparent post-pandemic.

Of course, one of the ironies of former DMs and ADMs raising these issues is that the vast majority rose up through the policy ranks, helping governments introduce new programs, rather than in service or delivery!

And one should not underestimate the difficulty of briefing the political level against a particular initiative or program based on service delivery grounds:

Most Canadians expect value for money in their spending, especially in these uncertain and inflationary times. With worker shortages, empty offices, supply chain woes, high energy prices, soaring inflation and painful accommodation costs, Canadian consumers are worried about their financial health.

But what about governments? Are they delivering value for Canadians’ hard-earned tax dollars? For anyone seeking a passport or visa, lining up for airport security screening, trying to get a Nexus card, waiting for a routine medical procedure or watching government procurement systems that cannot deliver payroll, the answer is unambiguously negative.

Core government services are not being delivered well today, and this not only erodes confidence in government as an institution – it also undermines productivity and competitiveness in the Canadian economy.

What are the causes? While there is no single answer, it is clearly not due to a shortage of spending, public servants, consultants or debt. At the federal level from 2015 to 2022, the size of the public service grew by 30 per cent, the use of consultants shot up 40 per cent, government spending skyrocketed by 66 per cent and government debt almost doubled. In short, the size of government expanded, considerably, while the efficiency of government declined, noticeably – not a good combination.

In fact, the stratospheric and scattered spending is one root cause of the delivery problem.

Before, during and since the pandemic, the federal government has unleashed a vast array of new programs. New program delivery is complex and time-consuming work, requiring highly capable, experienced and empowered public servants. Indeed, “delivery” is the nuts and bolts of policy implementation and program operations – it encompasses the design of new programs, the stress testing of the design to avoid unintended consequences, ensuring robust IT and data systems to support the program, the hiring and training of staff, establishing quality control and compliance systems, and communicating to the intended beneficiaries how the program works.

There is a risk of moral hazard here – as governments try to do more and more, they may end up achieving less and less. The problem arises from the scale, scope and speed of new spending. Too many new programs, with too little prioritization, that are too quickly rushed to the “press release stage” is a recipe for delivery problems, not only of the new programs but also related existing programs on common platforms.

Today’s reality of government not being particularly good at actually delivering things – both core services and new programs – should be a matter of concern well beyond the Ottawa bubble. If you believe what government does matters to Canadian society and the economy, as we do, then less-than-stellar delivery of government services neither serves the public interest nor bolsters the public’s trust in our institutions of government.

What can be done? Like any complex problem, there is no single solution, but four possible actions deserve serious consideration.

First, pause the proliferation of new spending and new programs. This is needed to restore operational integrity and program delivery capacity as well as to support fiscal sustainability in a period of high inflation, high interest rates and high debt. And yet, the risk today is a proliferation of new government programs and the scaling up of existing ones ranging from new industrial policies to new energy transition programs, national dental care and pharmacare, new health transfers, increases in defence spending and expanded immigration. Whatever the policy merits of these proposed initiatives, this is simply not the time to expand government. Rather, it’s the time to refocus on meeting the expectations of Canadians for quality and timely delivery of government services.

Second, reverse the extreme centralization of decision-making within government. This is necessary for better governance as well as better program delivery. Too much decision making has been vested in the Prime Minister’s Office at the expense of ministers, cabinet and Parliament. Ministerial accountability and collective decision making, with fearless advice from an empowered, non-partisan public service, are central to our Westminster system of government. The sad fact is we have strayed far from that guiding ideal.

Third, modernize the architecture of compliance and oversight within government. This requires a profound shift from an operating culture of control and risk avoidance to one of innovation, risk taking and delegation. In the name of protecting the taxpayer, there is a compliance morass pervading government today, with overlapping oversight bodies, excessive red tape and needless reporting – all of which impedes getting things done and delivered.

Fourth, invest in the public service. This is not a call for a larger public service but a better equipped one. The public service needs the IT and data systems that allowed the banks to develop online banking and companies like Amazon to revolutionize delivery. It needs the skill sets for a digital world not an analog one, and should engage consultants as the exception not the rule. The public service should be an exciting place to work, empowering public servants to make a difference and attracting the best and brightest – and public servants are up to the challenge.

Better service delivery is in everyone’s interest. These changes would result in a higher-performing, more productive public sector. That should be part of Canada’s competitive advantage in a challenging world.

Kevin Lynch was clerk of the Privy Council and vice-chair of BMO. Jim Mitchell is an adjunct professor at Carleton University and a former assistant secretary to the cabinet.

Source: Instead of adding new programs, Ottawa should focus on proper delivery of the ones it has

Filed under Government Tagged with , ,

Lynch: Federal government must better deliver core services [more interesting would be his reflections on how Service Canada didn’t live up to its promise]

2022/07/20 Leave a comment

Hard to disagree with Kevin’s arguments about what is ailing the federal government nor his prescriptions to address these issues, which reflect a reasonable and, more debatable given the need for political buy-in, approach to addressing these.

However, what he leaves out is any reflection on the creation of Service Canada and how the government and the bureaucracy pulled back on Service Canada’s potential to develop and implement citizen-centred service and reverse, or at least rebalance, towards service delivery compared to policy and program development.

He was the Clerk at the time and his insights on the reasons for the pullback would be more insightful than the more general points he makes.

When Clerk, the aggressive and innovative (but certainly not risk free) Deputy was replaced by a much more cautious Deputy, likely chosen deliberately to engineer the pull-back.

More generally, he is silent on the bias within the public service culture for policy and program development, rather than service delivery. He, of course, as one of the most brilliant policy minds of that period, exemplifies that bias:

What is going on with the delivery of government services?

What do the provision of passports, airport security screening, immigration processing, dealing with refugee claims, military procurement, public service payroll systems, keeping border crossings open, preserving public order in the nation’s capital, handling harassment in the military, responding to the mass casualties in Nova Scotia and enforcing anti-money laundering have in common?

All are core government services and they are not being delivered well at all.

Canadians certainly differ in what they think of the government’s proposed policy initiatives. But the unasked question is, can the government actually deliver on them while maintaining the core public services Canadians expect? Indeed, critics accuse this government of being more about announcements than implementation, that it is not focussed on, or good at, delivery.

Delivering requires complex, exhausting, and time-consuming work by a highly capable and empowered workforce of public servants. That it’s not being done well suggests that the delivery issue is not solely the fault of the politicians, that it also lies in the hands of the public service.

If you believe what government does and how it does it matter, then less-than-quality delivery of public services neither serves the public interest nor bolsters the public’s trust in our institutions of government.

The questions are why is this happening, and what can be done? As with any complex problem, there are multiple reasons, but four stand out.

The first is that the sheer volume of new policy initiatives of the Trudeau government is a major impediment to implementation. In either the private or public sector, there is only a limited number of priorities you can manage well, and it’s often said that a government with too many priorities is a government with none. Efficient and timely implementation of policy promises and effective oversight of core government services is the unintended casualty of over-crowded policy agendas.

The second is excessive centralization of power and control in the Prime Minister’s Office. As more and more decision making, on more and more aspects of both policy and operations, as well as communications, is centralized in the PMO, the consequences for effective cabinet governance, ministerial accountability and the role of a professional public service are profound.

The third reason is a compliance regime run amok. In government today there are too many layers of checking, too much reporting and too many different central agencies involved in oversight, all in the name of compliance. This consumes a ridiculous amount of a department’s time and resources, and encourages excessive process, paper work and caution. The end result is risk aversion, not effective risk management.

And fourth is a bureaucracy that spends too much time in reactive mode, too little time on professional advice and getting things done, and is burdened by a proliferation of self-inflicted red tape. The public service has under-invested in hiring the new skills it needs, such as digital operations, data analytics, and project management. Its advice to ministers is too often vetted in advance by political staff rather than discussed when received by ministers. These practices influence public service culture, where today there is reduced emphasis on “speaking truth to power” and taking initiative to “get things done.”

What can be done?

The start would be for the government, and Parliament, to recognize that there is a real and present problem with policy and program delivery. Time will tell whether the Prime Minister’s recent creation of a special ministers’ task force on service delivery will actually move beyond the announcement phase.

The fixing of the problem will take pragmatism, determination, common sense and non-partisanship. Here are some ingredients of a solution.

First, back to basics for ministerial mandate letters. No more lists of 40 to 50 priorities. Instead, focus on the key priorities for ministers and their departments and the expected outcomes and delivery milestones, and abolish the endless reporting back to the PMO. This would re-establish clear accountability for policy and program execution by ministers and departmental officials.

Second, let ministers be Ministers again. Implement the Prime Minister’s promise when he took office in 2015 to move away from excessive centralization of control in the PMO. This is necessary for better governance as well as improved policy and program execution. Ministerial accountability and collective cabinet decision making, not the PMO, are central to our Westminster system of government. Ministers should select their own staff, be responsible for their communications and stand accountable for departmental activities and outcomes.

Third, tackle the compliance morass. This will require eliminating overlap in oversight mechanisms, reducing controls, cutting red tape, stopping needless reporting, and chopping the number of people on the compliance side of government. To do this well, and enhance public trust, an independent external group composed of experts in compliance should provide a clear, focussed and expedited roadmap for reform. In so doing, they could also advise on whether changes to the 15-year-old Accountability Act are needed as well. A further step would be to reform procurement, which has grown complex, risk-averse, and so prone to administrative challenge that it serves no one well.

Fourth, stop the slide toward a reactive “administrative service.” This requires a clear undertaking by the Clerk of the Privy Council to reinforce the core tenets and key capabilities of a proactive, independent public service. Restore the non-partisan voice of the public service to provide frank, unvetted, professional advice to ministers.

And fifth, do something now. What is essential for the credibility of the government is to show it is serious about improving the delivery of core government services and programs. Canadians would prefer better government to bigger government. Fixing the unacceptable problems with passport renewals, airport screening and immigration processing would be good places to start.

Good government is about more than lofty rhetoric. It’s about turning worthy intentions into reality for Canadians through effective and efficient delivery of government programs and services. Canadians invest great responsibility and power in their elected governments; in return, they rightly expect peace, order, and good government.

Source: Lynch: Federal government must better deliver core services

Filed under Government Tagged with

How disruptive technologies are eroding our trust in government – The Globe and Mail

2017/05/02 Leave a comment

Always worth reading, anything by Kevin Lynch. This piece is much stronger on the diagnostic side than policy proscriptions, reflecting the nature of the challenges:

We are in the midst of a fourth industrial revolution, driven by disruptive technological change. These technologies, such as big data, machine learning, artificial intelligence, quantum computing and blockchain are intersecting and combining in extraordinary ways to create a “technology 4.0 world.” Few revolutions unfold without upheaval, uncertainty and swaths of winners and losers, however, and this one is no different. Its impact will be felt well beyond commerce – in how we communicate, interact, date, learn, gather news and govern ourselves.

An autonomous-driving truck carrying a load of beer on an interstate highway; self-driving cars; drones delivering parcels; robots reading X-rays and offering diagnoses; algorithms providing investment advice; artificial intelligence allowing computers to learn, infer and predict – the essence of many middle-class jobs. All are disruptive technologies producing gains in productivity and growth, to be sure, but also the inevitable displacement of jobs – and a looming quandary for policymakers.

Part of this quandary is the growing gap between the scale, scope and speed of these transformations and the capacity of government to implement timely and effective policy changes. Put simply, in today’s dynamic world, last-generation governance and policy processes are a poor match for next-generation disruptive trends, and trust in government is an early casualty.

Let’s drill down on the causes of this governance gap.

First, there is the ever-increasing pace of technical change versus the pace of policymaking, which is static at best. The game Angry Birds went from launch to 50-million customers within 35 days; Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd., the new Indian wireless firm, acquired 100-million customers within six months; Facebook, Snapchat and Google roll out new platform services at astounding speed. Government is simply not wired today to respond at this pace.

Second, the scope of technological change is vast and shifting compared with the scope of government policymaking, which is typically compartmentalized into silos. Few technological innovations mirror departmental boundaries and regulatory powers, and few government departments were designed for the hyper-connected world of technology 4.0.

Third, disruptive innovation by its intrinsic nature is risk-taking, unlike governments, which are typically risk-averse. This clash of risk cultures exacerbates the gap between changing technology and policy making, with both needing to move more to risk-management models and behaviours.

Fourth, disruptive innovations know few borders, unlike governments, whose borders define their sovereignty and within which they are typically loath to share. The global financial crisis amply demonstrated the gap between “new” financial products traded globally and a patchwork quilt of national regulations and regulators with little cross-border co-operation.

Fifth, many of today’s transformative technologies are platform-based, with non-linear scalability and near-zero marginal costs, compared with policy changes in government, which have a bias toward incrementality because it is easier to garner political and public support for tweaking the status quo than embarking on bold new policies.

Sixth, disruptive innovations evolve through trial and error, unlike governments, whose policy ability to respond is hampered by uncertainty – the known unknowns and unknown unknowns are significant in an era of disruption. Too early, policy reactions can impede innovation and competition; too late can allow systemic risks to accumulate.

And seventh, the disruption of traditional media by interactive social-media platforms with enormous scale has allowed the creation of virtual communities of interest and vast arrays of unfiltered commentary, unlike with governments, where governing and considered policy analysis are too often the casualties of the immediacy of Twitter and Facebook.

What can governments do to respond to this growing gap?

In an era of disruption, policy thinking has to move from hindsight to foresight. Governmental structures require more flexibility and fluidity. They need to use social media better, to crowd-source public insights. Policy making must become more risk-tolerant and innovative. Communications should eschew excessive short-termism, and offer a longer-term focus. To regain trust, start today to tackle the big issues that will dominate tomorrow. How do economies and societies handle disruption on this scale? What are the new jobs technological change will create and the skills they will require? What are the models to reskill and retrain the work force? How are the benefits of this technological change and costs of its adjustment going to be shared? All questions the public instinctively gets.

This governance gap poses a broader political problem as well. Workers made redundant by robots and global supply chains, aware of increasing income inequality and decreasing equality of opportunity, are embracing populist tenets ranging from nationalism to protectionism, from distrust of institutions to anger. As history teaches us, bouts of fervent populism seldom end well. So, to respond to the dual challenge of rebuilding growth through innovation and of facilitating adjustment to technological change, we have to get ahead of the disruption curve in our policy analysis and thinking.

Source: How disruptive technologies are eroding our trust in government – The Globe and Mail

Filed under Government Tagged with

ICYMI: Trudeau must clarify ‘unwritten’ PS rules: expert panel

2016/01/05 Leave a comment

Always interesting, the views of Kevin Lynch and others on the panel. Personally, not sure about the proposed solutions but report is raising  the right questions:

For the public service, the first thing to do is clarify the “conventions” or unwritten rules underpinning its role on policy advice, as well as carrying out programs and delivering services, says the panel.

Lynch said that clarity should come in a statement from the prime minister. He said the statement should be made in Parliament, with all-party support, and would be the benchmark for future behaviour.

After the sponsorship scandal of the Chrétien era, the Conservative government under Stephen Harper passed legislation that beefed up the role and responsibilities of deputy ministers, making them “accounting officers” responsible for the management of their departments.

The panel wants deputy ministers to also annually attest to measures that ensure regular meetings between the minister and deputy ministers, as well as working relationships between the minister, minister’s office and departmental officials.

Deputies would also have to attest to the “highest levels of integrity and impartiality” in the department on policy advice, program delivery, regulatory administration and departmental communications. They would have to confirm departments have the policy capacity to deliver the government’s agenda and handle the study of long-term issues.

The department would also be expected to consult Canadians and use digital technology to stay abreast of the public’s views when developing policies and programs.

Many argue the existing legislation for “accounting officers” covers much of this territory because deputy ministers are responsible for following all Treasury Board policies and the code of conduct.

Lynch said the panel was intent that its report, published by the Public Policy Forum, not be shelved without debate so it is taking the discussion on the road. He and other members are touring the public policy and management schools at universities across the country to discuss the proposals.

Academics and public management experts have sounded the alarm for years on the deterioration of Canada’s democratic institutions as more power was centralized in the Prime Minister’s Office. Many argue the problems got worse under the Conservative government.

Lynch said the panel is proposing “practical” fixes that could be done quickly without changing the constitution and new legislation.

A big problem for the public service is the mushrooming army of political staffers led by the PMO, the “political service” that has taken over some of the work of the public service.

Politicians began to rely on staffers for ideas and advice, sidelining the public service. As a result, the public service didn’t use, and thus lost, some of its policy capacity, and deputy ministers ended up more connected to the PMO than their ministers.

The panel recommended a new code of conduct for political staff that would clearly spell out the roles and duties of public servants and what political staff can do. It also urged more training and an oversight body for political staff.

Trudeau introduced a new code of conduct for staffers in his updated Guide to Ministers.

But Lynch said “short-termism” and political parties being in “permanent campaign” mode have changed the nature of the work of the public service and its relationship with politicians.

“This is not about going back to the good old days,” said Lynch. “These broad trends are happening regardless and what we have to do is figure out — given that reality — the checks and balances that will ensure (our institutions) work they way they are intended.”

Politicians are racing to keep up with today’s rapid, “technology-driven round-the-clock news cycle.” Parties are seen to be always in campaign mode and focus on short-term issues for political gain rather than long-term policies and strategies. Public servants, however, are supposed to be neutral and have no role in campaigns.

“We have drifted into a period of permanent campaigning, which is an American phenomenon …. which is not a good thing for the role of the public service because it doesn’t have a role in a campaign, said Lynch.

“Political parties operate less as a government and more as a party for re-election so the more we get into permanent campaign modes, it changes the relationships and not necessarily in good ways.”

Lynch argued that once the governance issue is fixed, the next challenge for the public service will be changing the way it does policy in a world driven by big data and analytics. Public servants must learn to manage risk; they will have to become innovative and use more open communications and using social media.

Source: Trudeau must clarify ‘unwritten’ PS rules: expert panel | Ottawa Citizen

Filed under Government Tagged with ,

A modern public service has great expectations to meet: Lynch

2015/12/07 Leave a comment

Kevin Lynch’s (former PCO Clerk) prescriptions for rebuilding the public service:

First, a strong analytic policy capacity that is both broad and deep is a basic necessity of effective governing in an increasingly interconnected, complex and uncertain world….

Second, a risk-management orientation. In a world experiencing a sharp spike in risk and volatility, the smart response by government is proactive – not reactive – risk management….

Third, an innovation focus. In a world where technological innovation is at an inflexion point, disrupting how business is done in sector after sector, government should be at the leading edge of innovation adaptation. It is not.  …

A re-empowered public service can be a magnet for talent and contribute significantly to Canada’s long-term success as a strong economy and vibrant society. It now has great expectations to meet.

Source: A modern public service has great expectations to meet – The Globe and Mail

Filed under Government Tagged with ,

← Older posts