The teapot tempest surrounding the demise last week of my former organization, the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, and public access to its body of work, will soon pass. The more durable legacy might be in the light it casts on the motives and machinations of Stephen Harper’s Conservative government.
The environmental community cites the round table’s closure as evidence of a manifest indifference to climate change. More simply, and sharply, it may be seen as evidence of a manifest indifference to good governance.
And, in that, Conservatives need to be wary. Once set in the public’s mind, that attitude will inevitably end this government.
Closing the round table was entirely and legitimately a decision for the federal government to take. A creature of the executive branch, its independent status was derived from parliamentary statute, but more importantly, from conventions of good governance.
Advisory bodies are meant to advise, not decide. Governments are then free to take some, all or none of the advice proffered. Some degree of creative tension always ensues on both sides. That goes with the territory. But the true value is larger.
Consumed by the daily demands of governing and politics, governments have long sought outside advice from reputable organizations with the freedom to roam beyond normal bureaucratic strictures and consider issues differently.
The occasional “minus” of controversy over a report or recommendation pales compared to the “plus” of gaining perspective and opinion that look ahead, rally opinion and create consensus. Done well, policy advisory agencies help create the public space for government to act. But that has not been the view of this Conservative government.
The early days of minority government set the tone. Frankly, some of it was necessary.
It is worth remembering that this was not just a new government; this was and is a new political party with different strains of conservative politics at play. Message control and issue management flourished to get through question period and keep focus.
In return, budgets got passed, legislation got through and elections were won. Who’s to argue with political success in the business of politics?
But overpowering discipline is no substitute for a guiding philosophy for governing or governance.
It’s no surprise this was lacking, since the new Conservative party had no experience at governing. But it promised something different.
Notably, the first 13 pages of the 2006 platform were dedicated to accountability and talk of ethics, auditing, conflict of interest, whistleblowers and access to information.
This offered a potentially transformative approach to governance in Ottawa to match the raised expectations of Canadian voters. Indeed, new laws in many of these areas are now in place.
Yet the government’s public persona is fast becoming one of growing indifference, indeed hostility, to the very foundations it put in place and values it mouthed. Derided as Inside Ottawa distractions, fast to flare and quick to burn out, leaving little lasting ash in the mouths of voters, is the contemporary view. The calculus of convenience is the siren song for any government.
It is not that the Conservative government has been ignorant of the ways of Ottawa. It just sees them as an obstacle to its insular form of self-governance.
Conservatives prefer a top-down model where party, policy, message and money intersect.
In that model, public servants and their advice have become secondary. Deputy-minister churn has increased, affecting corporate memory and accountability; public servants are cast aside to protect ministers. Harsh, vehemently personal and political attacks trump explanation.
Meanwhile, a slow but steady diminishing of independent voices and processes meant to inform public policy and enhance good governance occurs. In this, the senior public service bears a visible share of responsibility. If not exactly complicit in this new governance model, these senior public servants have certainly acquiesced.
Yet the way government works matters more to Canadians than official Ottawa recognizes. They know when it isn’t working or something isn’t quite right. Governance is central to good public policy and smart government choices. Ignoring it goes against the most distinct constitutional convention Canada has: peace, order and good government.
Conservatives have been preoccupied with branding the federal government from Day 1. But another brand is in danger of settling in.
That brand is one of clandestine governance, of giving only part of the story and never the full facts, of last-minute announcements of consequential items, of “talking-point government” meant to deflect and disarm, not inform and engage. Left unchecked, it is a brand that will follow the next Conservative leader, for there will be one.
Motives are the true lifeblood of politics; they are how voters ultimately relate to and decide their political choices. After all, voters won’t trust those who don’t trust them.
David McLaughlin has been a federal chief of staff, a New Brunswick deputy minister and most recently president and CEO of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy.
