Foreword
Since the Second World War, the Government of Canada and its
associated Crown enterprises have played an increasingly significant
role in the lives of Canadians. The growing demands of the citizenry and
the response by its government have had far-reaching effects on the way
in which our society recognizes and responds to particular problems. The
program innovations introduced by government during the forties and
fifties significantly increased the scope of government, and as its
scope has continued to expand so has its size. Government has taken on
an activist function in the creation of policy, and has
institutionalized elaborate policy-making structures to support the
function. During the last twenty years a new style of public service has
evolved both to staff the policy-making structures and to administer the
complex programs that they produce. A distinct species of policy
"co-ordinators" and others concerned with interdepartmental
relations has been developed. New structures have grown up to help to
channel the flow of initiatives; and more change has occurred in the way
the government orders its machinery for getting things done, and in the
variety and pervasiveness of the programs it delivers, than in any
comparable period in our administrative and social history.
Ten years ago a number of steps were taken in an attempt to modernize
government so that it might cope with its rapidly changing and always
more onerous burdens. Apart from major structural changes, such as the
establishment of a separate minister in charge of the Treasury Board and
the elaboration of the Treasury Board’s central management role, a
major effort was made to bring order to the process of
government. Borrowing from the disciplines of science and technology,
government endeavoured to introduce procedures built upon systems
theory for organizing the flow of business, measuring
productivity, and determining the value of its activities. It was an
article of faith, evangelized by some and subscribed to by many, that
structure and process held the keys to the solution of complex problems.
A decade has elapsed during which this theory has been applied in
such diverse areas as the budgetary process, the role and use of the cabinet, the elaboration of a professional planning establishment,
and the development of institutionalized mechanisms for
"horizontal" coordination. Each has had a degree of success,
but not all have fulfilled the expectations attendant at their creation,
and some have induced unforeseen side-effects. On the whole, however,
given the scope and size of governmental operations, orderly process has
been beneficial in smoothing the passage of complex problems and
proposals. But looking back it is apparent that process can also
obscure the identification and resolution of problems, and that applied
indiscriminately or mechanically it is inefficacious.
Important changes have also taken place in the basic institutions of
parliamentary and cabinet government. The complexity and size of
government, the development of modern communications, and the organized
involvement of the community in political action have made it more
difficult for Parliament to remain the central focus of national
affairs. Ministers have found their burden increasingly heavy, the
search for solutions more time-consuming, and the process of resolution
more difficult to relate to political concerns. Similarly, not only has
the composition of the public service changed, but, because of the
complexity of the process, public servants have found it
increasingly difficult to relate their particular functions to those of
the government as a whole.
It is now more than thirty years since the current role played by
government began to take hold of the federal establishment. As we enter
its fourth decade, it is apparent that the problems caused by size and
complexity will not recede. It is also clear that although a more
scientific method sometimes helps both in problem solving and in
organization, system piled upon system tends to make complexity more
complex. The constitutional responsibility that lies at the heart
of parliamentary government is, however, elemental. If understood and
applied sensibly, it should ensure not only that our governmental
institutions are representative but that they can cope adequately with
the changing needs of society.
Canadians live in a political democracy. Government is representative
in character. It is, therefore, human, and must respond to the differing
views and needs of the electorate, organized and unorganized, in all
parts of the country. System and logic cannot always provide the most
appropriate response by government to those whom it serves, and we have
learned that the complex rationality of government differs significantly
from the precise rationality of systems analysis.
The most important aspect of our government is that it is
representative. Indeed, parliamentary and cabinet government is a system
of representative and therefore responsible government. Looking back
over all that has happened to government and society since the war, and
more particularly during the last twenty years, it is apparent that our
efforts to make government better able to meet the needs of society have
not always been made with a clear understanding of the principles for
the responsible use of power that underpin all of our constitutional
arrangements. We have elaborated programs to meet perceived needs and
internal management systems to control the consequent increase in
governmental activity. Unfortunately, the combined effect of all these
changes has militated against the clear exercise of constitutional
responsibility, and has to a degree diffused both the beneficial value
of power and accountability for its use. It is ironic that in
consequence the system is widely perceived to be unresponsive, and
although power continues to be exercised responsibly, there is concern
that it is held in check not by the principles of responsibility but by
the complexity of bureaucratic process.
This paper has three objectives: first, it seeks to peel away the
layers of complexity and expose the essentials of parliamentary
government as a system for controlling the exercise of the power of the
state; second, it describes the constitutional system within which
ministerial government operates and in relation to which solutions to
particular discontents should be sought; third, it explains the nature
of the personal responsibility and accountability of ministers
and senior public servants, and the importance of their accountability
to the successful functioning of parliamentary government.
The Privy Council Office
August, 1977
[Table of Contents]
[Next]
|
