David Emerson recently accused the public service of being locked in “the Ottawa bubble”, the Citizen reported. “If all you are doing is relying on StatsCan and other institutional sources of data … then you are missing out on massive amounts of new data now available,” Emerson said.
There is no denying that the public service needs to take advantage of Big Data. But the “bubble” was created by decisions in the Prime Minister’s Office to close off essential dialogue between sectors.
The so-called bubble creates two problems. One is interpretation and knowing what works. The other is choosing the policy action which delivers the best result for society.
First, interpretation. The federal government is not the only policy actor in Canada. The other 13 governments taken together are larger and likely have more impact than Ottawa does. Then there are the big cities, the community service agencies, employers, big and small, plus researchers in universities, colleges, think tanks, industry associations etc. No policy choice should be made without seeking input from the people who know the subject, what solutions have been tried, and whether or not they worked.
Instead, public servants are blocked from interacting with stakeholders. No roundtables with all viewpoints represented at the table. No participation in meetings where researchers and stakeholders work through the evidence. No right to publish in-house research from federal policy units. No right to comment on the work of others. If consultations are held, only the “friendly voices” are invited. The bubble was built by the government, designed to keep insiders in and outsiders out. Perversely, in this respect, it has been quite successful.
Second, choosing the best option. The way things work now, the Prime Minister’s Office decides on the preferred policy action and then asks the public service to advise on damage control. This turns the policy-making process upside down. First, you find out works, then you decide.
The struggle with the Canada Job Grants announced in March, 2013 is a classic example. It’s an old-fashioned shootout on Main Street. Here come the feds with their guns, shooting down established provincial and community programs for training, whether they worked or not. (Some did not, but most did.) Then the feds turn their shot guns on Main Street employers and tell them to ante up one-third of the money needed to pay for the grants. And the workers? Well they were expected to find an employer who will sponsor them for the training they need.
What if they had all sat down before the 2013 federal budget to explore what worked best for their specific region, work force and industrial structure? This is vital information. It’s the way things should work in a modern democracy.
The Canada Job Grant included a great idea — to bring employers into the design, delivery and financing of training. Germany has done that very well. But they did it over decades, by building a culture of shared decision-making involving trade unions, education institutions and the federal and state governments. No shot gun was required. They all had an interest in making the system work.
So it makes no sense to blame federal public servants for “outdated methods, tools and attitudes.” Ministers created the bubble in the first place. The quicker they put down their shot guns and dismantle the bubble the better.
Judith Maxwell is the former Chair of the Economic Council of Canada and the former President of Canadian Policy Research Networks.
