|
Speech by
the Honorable Lucienne Robillard,
President of the Treasury Board, and
Member of Parliament for Westmount-Ville-Marie
Montreal
December 2, 2003
Check Against Delivery
Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. It is a pleasure to join you for today's discussions on management
modernization and public sector renewal.
Let me start by saying how delighted I am that the organizers of the conference have asked me to focus my comments
specifically on the values and ethics side of management. Too frequently, when we get together like this to discuss
management issues, the emphasis falls squarely on questions of process - on the mechanisms we need to bring about
greater efficiencies or to improve service standards. Don't get me wrong these are important issues that should be
addressed. But we should not lose sight of the bigger picture. We need to take some time to consider some of the more
fundamental questions at the heart of modern management: not just what we are trying to accomplish but why and how.
What our efforts say about ourselves, our relationship to each other and to the people we serve.
I recognize that talk of values often makes some people in management circles a little nervous because the subject
itself can, at times, be a little nebulous - a little subjective. They lack the stark black and white simplicity of
audited financial statements. After all, when we speak about values, there are rarely absolute truths. While we all
share certain common beliefs, when it comes to articulating those beliefs one often needs to be very nuanced.
That said, let me start my comments today by making a few unnuanced, unequivocal statements.
A Question of Trust
I believe that, as Canadians, we are fortunate to be served by a public sector that is overwhelmingly honest and
professional. I believe that the troubling reports that we have seen in the media lately about activities at the Office
of the Privacy Commissioner and elsewhere in no way reflect the behavior of the wider public service. I believe that,
when confronted with ethical dilemmas, public servants unfailing take the right road.
In short, I believe in the Public Service of Canada. And it upsets me greatly that the reputation of this
institution has suffered recently because of the actions of a small number of people.
In the end, however, I recognize that it is not enough for the President of the Treasury Board to stand up and say
that government is ethical. It is not enough for the Government to say to Canadians, our intentions are good. And it is
certainly not enough to simply say, "trust us".
We need to demonstrate that trust is justified day after day. We need to operate in a manner that holds up to the
most intense scrutiny. Our actions, at every level of the organization from the minister and deputy minister to the
front-line worker, must be consistent with our words.
I think that it is safe to say that governments around the world have not been doing a particularly good job at
building this trust. Research conducted in countries of the OECD over the past 30 years has revealed a steady decline
in citizens' regard for and deference towards their governments. Canada has not been an exception. A study released by
Ekos in June of this year showed that over 60 per cent of Canadians had only a moderate or low level of trust in
government.
This should be troubling to each and every one of us as Canadians. Mistrust of government has serious potential
repercussions.
At a purely operational point of view, it undermines our ability to attract the people we need. Who wants to work
for an organization that is viewed with suspicion? The Economist magazine last month in a special feature on corporate
governance identified ten commandments for successful leaders. The first was having a sound ethical compass. As the
magazine said: "If the boss' values are undemanding, the company's will also be wobbly. That may not put it out of
business, but it means the company will have to pay a premium for talent. Good people do not like working for
organizations whose values they mistrust".
At a broader level, a loss in confidence in governmental institutions weakens the foundation of our democracy, as
citizens become more and more disillusioned and less and less interested in participating in the governing process. We
have too often seen evidence of this in many jurisdictions through low voter turnout in elections - the most
fundamental exercise of democratic rights.
Clearly, many today feel that government has lost its way. That it has strayed from the basics: courteous service,
transparency, prudent resource management. Of course, the public sector is not alone in this.
We should be clear. There has also been a rapidly growing cynicism towards the private sector as well. Stories of
wrongdoing by Enron, WorldCom, Arthur Andersen, mutual fund managers and various Wall Street - and Bay Street -
companies have generated a significant deterioration in public faith in corporate leaders. It is one of the reasons
that issues of basic corporate governance are such a common subject these days around corporate boardrooms.
So, in this climate of pervasive scepticism, the pressing question becomes how do we reverse this trend? As the
country's largest employer, how does the federal government convincingly refute public concerns about its integrity?
How do we re-engage the public?
I offer no quick fix solutions this afternoon because there is no simple panacea. Re-building trust takes time. We
need to act across a broad front. We need to improve performance and there needs to be better management practises. We
need the right rules and frameworks to promote accountability. We need leaders to hold people responsible for their
actions. We need to discipline those who betray public trust and do so quickly but fairly. We need the right people in
place - individuals who are guided by a strong ethical compass. We need business processes that encourage transparency
and prudent stewardship. And we need to find ways to bring the public closer to government. The importance of this last
element must not be under-estimated. As long as government is abstract and removed from the citizens it serves, there can
never be true trust.
I welcome this chance to speak about how we are moving forward in some of these areas. Given our limited time
together, I would like to concentrate primarily in two areas. First, I will talk about some of the frameworks and
policies that I believe we need to promote more ethical government. I will then focus a little more broadly on some of
the cultural changes that I believe need to take place around the management table.
Two Values Paradigms: Exposing Wrongdoing versus Encouraging Rightdoing
There has been a great deal of discussion over the last decade on the "new public management" and the need to move
away from the rigid command and control structures of the past. This means adopting flexible regimes and a more mature
approach to risk management. It means doing a better job at balancing innovation with control and accountability. I
think this shift is both desirable and, in some respects, inevitable. We cannot approach 21st century
problems with outdated and cumbersome structures.
But having a more empowered and values-based regime does not mean abandoning rules and regulations. Focusing on
values is not inconsistent with having a large suite of rules and policies. In fact, it's quite the contrary. You need
clear direction so that people know what is expected. "Empowerment" can be one of the scariest words in the business
world. Because too often it is a euphemism for giving people more responsibility but not telling them how they should
exercise that responsibility. They often end up feeling like they are on a high-wire and you've taken away their safety
net. Before you can empower, you need to establish the parameters for responsible decision-making and ensure that
people have the right tools - including knowledge - to do so.
Even in the most flexible and ethical of workplaces, you need to have certain key touchstones to direct people.
There must be a small number of key policies and regulations to provide a common and clear understanding of what is and
is not appropriate.
Conflict of interest guidelines are a good example of this. You need to spell out what your organizational stand is
on things such as accepting gifts. Harassment is another. You need to make it clear what actions are unprofessional and
what avenues are open to protect people.
Whistleblowing is yet another good case in point. You need to have a strong regime to deal with individuals who
betray the public trust. Equally important, people who have the courage to come forward and expose wrongdoing must be
protected from reprisal.
But while I believe that having appropriate rules to deal with specific situations like these is critical, I worry
sometimes that the dialogue on values is becoming too focused on rules and on the negative side of things. We do a
disservice to the public service as a whole, if we allow the actions of a few individuals to hijack the values and
ethics agenda in government.
When you couch the conversation in purely negative tones, after awhile it becomes easy to believe that the world is
a pretty dreary place. That the public service is awash in corruption. That there is an ethical malaise. That everyone
is looking out for their own interest. We all know that this simply is not true.
My experience in government is that people do the right thing when given a choice. When problems arise, more often
than not, it is the result of inadequate or ineffective oversight or inexperience, not ill-will. Given this fact, as
organizational leaders our first question shouldn't be "how do we catch people and punish them?" but rather "how do we
help people make the right choice?" How do we stop unethical behaviour before it happens?
It comes back to providing guidance and doing so in a positive, affirmative fashion. This is the approach that we
have taken in introducing the new Values and Ethics Code for the Public Service that came into effect last
September.
Our Code of Values and Ethics tells the world what the public service does, where it fits into democratic
government, and what it stands for. It was not imposed from above. It is the product of many years of discussion and
consultation at every level.
The Code provides a strong foundation for public service behavior. It sets out four interwoven and balanced families
of values by which public servants should be guided in their work and professional conduct.
First, there are democratic values - helping Ministers under the law to serve the public interest. We have enshrined
principles such as impartiality and loyalty.
Second, we have professional values. Serving with competence, excellence, efficiency and objectivity.
Third, there are ethical values. The public service commits itself to acting at all times in such a way as to uphold
the public trust. Not just following the letter of the law, but the spirit as well.
Finally, there are people values. The values that we all strive to reflect in our daily lives and interactions with
others. Values such as compassion, fairness and courtesy.
The Code is an important step forward in providing a moral compass for the public service. But it cannot simply be a
statement of principles. It cannot merely be rhetoric. It needs to be a living document that can be operationalized in
the workplace.
That is why we have given it some teeth. The Code is now a condition of employment in the federal public service.
Breaches of its provisions can involve disciplinary measures up to and including dismissal. In addition, public
servants who feel they are being asked to act in a way that is inconsistent with the Code or who wish to report a
breach of the Code can do so, in confidence, to the Public Service Integrity Officer. This is a key element for
rebuilding public confidence in government.
The Code also has other elements, such as stronger conflict of interest and post-employment measures, and strict
guidelines for transparent decision-making about gifts, hospitality and other benefits.
I believe that the Code is a very positive management tool. But one of our great challenges now is ensuring that
public servants are aware of their obligations under the Code and are taking appropriate action to reflect the values
and ethics in their own conduct. In many respects, our implementation plans are nearly as important as the Code itself.
The publication of the Code was just the first step.
It was partly with this in mind, that we established a new Office of Public Service Values and Ethics in my
organization. One of the key priorities of the Office will be to move forward with a comprehensive and sustained
implementation strategy for the Code.
I should note that the new Office will also be working closely with deputy ministers and departments to ensure they
have in place the necessary infrastructure and management practices to support a strong culture of public service
values and ethics. It will also be a centre of expertise and support for departments and agencies.
Of course, values and ethics are not something that should be compartmentalized into a single office. They cannot be
allocated to a single box on an organization chart. Values and ethics must permeate the organization. Everyone sitting
around the management table should, in their own way, be a values and ethics specialist and should view their work
through a values-based lens. We aren't quite there yet.
Cultural change at the management table
This brings me to the second general theme I want to address this morning - the cultural change that needs to take
place at the management table to truly imbed values into management practices.
We need our management decisions to match our values. I'm not suggesting that people don't make good decisions. They
do. But we need to be more aware of the ethical dimensions of decision-making. I'll give you an example of what I am
talking about.
One major priority for the Treasury Board is improving reporting to Parliament. We want to make more information
available. But there are different ways to approach this challenge, depending on whether or not you truly want people
to know what is going on. First, you can drown them in information and hope that they won't notice the details. Second,
you can talk to them in jargon and acronyms and try to confuse them. Finally, you can treat them with respect and
actually try to tell people what they want to know, in simple and clear language. This last option isn't always easy,
but we need to at least try.
It basically comes down to a question: is our desire for transparency a reflection of a true desire to let
Canadians, in, or merely a grudging acceptance of the provisions of the Access to Information Act? Do we
believe that transparency is a value at the heart of good government? If so, and I think it is, then our management
decisions should reflect this.
Ultimately, we need to find mechanisms that allow managers to lead, but also hold them accountable not only for
individual decisions, but also for their general ethical management across the board. I believe that our new Management
Accountability Framework will help us to do just that.
The Framework is designed to assess how well a department is being managed by looking at 10 key areas such as human
resources, accountability and financial management. The Framework is designed to gauge the health of an organization
from an integrated management perspective. One of the most important aspects of the Framework in my opinion is the fact
that it presents a holistic view of management. A manager might be great at balancing the books, but unable to deal
with staff on a personal level. We need to know that. We need to get the total picture.
The Framework will be used to help determine performance pay for executives, to assist in the allocation of funds to
departments and to determine the leeway given to deputy ministers on how they manage their organization and spend
money.
When we assess people's accountabilities, values and ethics must be at the top of the list. It is a key area now in
our Framework. While we are still working to perfect the appropriate values-related performance indicators, the
Framework will be an important tool to help promote and support the Code. The Code will remain only a statement of good
intentions unless it comes alive through real practice, leadership and example. The Accountability Framework will help
us ensure that it does.
Conclusion: involvement of elected people
Ladies and gentlemen, tools like the Code, the Management Accountability Framework and the various values and
ethics-related policies and regulations are all important mechanisms to promote more ethical decision-making and, in
turn, to restore public confidence in government. But the best tools in the world cannot take us where we need to
go.
There needs to be a willingness to make our actions conform to our words. I can say definitively that there is such
a willingness within the public service.
But public service values and ethics are not shaped in isolation.
It is not enough to have a public service in this country that is guided by high principles and committed to service
with excellence. You also need an executive that shares these commitments. Ministers, Parliament and public servants
all have mutual obligations, toward each other, and toward the public interest. There is an expectation that public
servants will serve their Ministers impartially, fairly and with professionalism. But this relationship is not, and
cannot be, a one-way street. Unless the elected and non-elected elements of government are directed by the same ethical
principles, the government cannot and will not function as it should and as we all want it to.
We shouldn't forget - Canadians do not make a distinction between the actions of ministers and deputy ministers.
Between political staffers and front-line workers. We are all part of the "Government" and when one of us steps out of
line, we are all diminished in the eyes of the public.
For this reason, I believe that a moral contract exists between the elected and non-elected people of the
government.
I hope that, in the days to come, the dialogue on values and ethics will grow and that the public service leadership
and Parliamentarians will explore the implications of this moral contract and how it can be more fully developed in the
service of Canadians.
I sincerely believe that we enter a new era of integrity , as much in the public as in the private sector. And what
this means for politicians and for senior public servants, is that a strong ethical foundation will be sought in our
actions and the decisions we take, and any breach of this foundation will not be accepted or tolerated. This high
standard of conduct, coupled with an increased focus and openness towards transparency, will help us enhance citizens'
confidence in their public institutions.
Ladies and gentlemen, I hope that I have given you some food for thought.
Thank you for your kind attention.
|
