Donald Savoie is Canada Research Chair in public administration and governance at the Université de Moncton
Developments, often unforeseen, remind us of the importance of constitutional conventions in managing the affairs of state. An Ottawa judge did just that recently, when he lifted a sealing order on a heavily redacted RCMP affidavit that alleged Vice-Admiral Mark Norman shared cabinet secrets with the chief executive of a Quebec-based shipyard. The affidavit not only sheds light on how relations between permanent officials and politicians should work, but also why cabinet secrecy goes to the heart of responsible government.
Cabinet secrecy goes hand in hand with our Westminster system of government, as it is tied to the collective responsibility of ministers to the House of Commons. Doing away with cabinet secrecy could well compromise our ability to make responsible government work. In the incessant calls for greater transparency, we all too often forget this important constitutional convention.
It is no exaggeration to write that cabinet secrecy is at the heart of collective cabinet responsibility. It protects both the opinions of ministers and the process by which cabinet arrives at decisions. Because of it, the opposition in Parliament cannot establish which ministers supported a decision and which ones opposed it and attempt to exploit divisions in cabinet, thereby threatening the confidence the House of Commons has in the government.
It is well known that if the government loses the confidence of the Commons, it must resign. In addition, unless ministers are able to express views, however controversial, to cabinet colleagues without fear of seeing them exploited by the opposition in Parliament and the media, they may well decide to hold back important arguments. In brief, the Westminster system of government insists on collective ministerial responsibility to Parliament and the public while cabinet secrecy enables ministers to present a united front to make the system work. Doing away with cabinet secrecy is the surest way to put the final nail in cabinet government and turn cabinet into nothing more than a focus group for the prime minister.
Senior public servants know or should know this convention well. It is part of the bargain between them and the government of the day. They are loyal to the government of the day, not as sycophants, but in their willingness to offer advice without fear or favour and under the cover of anonymity. The role of public servants is to advance loyally the agenda of the day without compromising their non-partisan status. The theory goes that public servants provide candid and professional advice but that democratically elected ministers must have the final say. They are collectively responsible for their decisions.
A senior public servant who plays fast and loose with cabinet confidence to promote his or her agenda is putting in peril how our system of government functions and the bargain that should guide relations between the government of the day and the public service. Cabinet has every right to make decisions in confidence, including ones that some senior public servants may consider misguided.
Public servants, given the nature of their work, not only have access to their ministers, but also to debriefs to appreciate how cabinet views issues and how it decides. They need to know how cabinet views issues on which they are working in order to produce the best possible advice. However, the constitutional convention requires that public servants respect that cabinet carries out its deliberations in confidence and that they implement the cabinet's orders.
Public servants and bureaucracies are being challenged throughout the Western world. Some political leaders and their advisers are musing about the need to deconstruct the administrative state. A senior public servant deciding that he or she can break cabinet confidence to advance an agenda not only violates an important constitutional convention but also risks hurting the very institution he or she is being asked to serve. If ever there was a time to promote mutual respect between the government of the day and the permanent public service, it is now.
If public servants cannot be loyal to the government of the day, to whom could they possibly be loyal? Setting out to take matters into their own hands turns them into visible political actors with an agenda. They lose the cover of anonymity and the ability to serve without fear or favour.
There are signs that the public service does not have the level of confidence it once enjoyed with politicians and Canadians. There are a number of reasons for this. Strengthening the bond between public servants, politicians and Canadians must start by respecting the most basic of our constitutional conventions that underpin our Westminster system of government.