LA RELÈVE, OUR GREATEST CHALLENGE

Notes for an Address by 
Jocelyne Bourgon 
Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet

HRDC Conference Human Resources Development Canada
Cornwall, Ontario 
November 6, 1996

INTRODUCTION

• Good evening and thank you for your invitation.
• I would like to do three things this evening:
• • First, I want to review the progress we have made over the last two years to redefine the role of government and reduce the level of indebtedness. I think that we have made remarkable progress over a very short period of time.
  • Second, I would like to build on the base of what we have accomplished to discuss the emerging public sector and to give you a sense of some of the changes that I foresee.
  • Third, I want to talk about La Relève - that is, the challenge of building a modern and vibrant institution and leaving behind for those who will follow a better institution than the one we inherited.

THE CHANGING ROLE OF GOVERNMENT - PROGRESS TO DATE

• For the first time in a long time, there is light at the end of the tunnel. I do not say that lightly. I thought about it long and hard before I said it the first time. And today, I am more convinced than ever that the statement is true.
• Over the past two years, we have collectively contributed to helping this country regain its fiscal sovereignty.
• This is a remarkable turnaround. Ministers have made the difficult decisions. Public servants who put forward ambitious proposals and ensured their careful and professional implementation also made a major contribution.
• Let me try to convey the sense of what we have accomplished, not with economics and statistics, but in a way that is immediately evident.
• The generation of Canadians now serving in public office and in the Public Service will be the group of men and women who will have changed the course of events:
• • They will have ensured that the next generation will not inherit a legacy of ever-growing debt.
  • They will have regained for this country the ability to invest in the future.
• And this is important. How can we govern this country if we cannot make choices, if we cannot set priorities, if we cannot pay our bills, and if we cannot invest in the future? That is what governing a country is all about, after all. To have achieved these changes over such a short period of time is quite remarkable.
• This turnaround was not achieved without pain or difficulty, but it was achieved peacefully and without the civil unrest experienced by other countries.
• In Canada, we did it in the Canadian way - smoothly, competently, professionally, peacefully. It is a remarkable success. It is a huge irony that the United Nations sends delegations one after the other to study how we are doing it. The only group not yet celebrating the achievement is us.
• I would suggest that we should acknowledge that what we have done is remarkable. It is at the very heart of the notion of what it is to be in public service, and to look after the public interest.

A NEW PUBLIC SECTOR HAS STARTED TO EMERGE

• So, we have written an exceptional chapter in Canadian history.
• While governments were making decisions to redefine their roles and achieve balanced budgets, they were at the same time bringing about profound change in Canadian society.
• Canadians have not yet fully realized the extent of the change that is occurring. Through the thousands and thousands of decisions taken by governments, a new public sector has started to take shape. The change involves:
•  
  • Forging a new relationship among governments,
  • Laying the basis for partnerships,
  • Changing the relationship between government and citizens.
• Let me try to clarify what this means.
• • New relationship among governments
  • • You will recall that concerns about overlap and duplication among governments and government inefficiency dominated public debate for many years. In fact, it was Atop of mind for First Ministers during the Charlottetown negotiations only five years ago. It was driving the public agenda, it was driving the media attention, and it was driving the concerns of elected officials.
    • In my view, overlap and duplication are issues of the past. The public debate is now lagging behind reality. Those issues have either been resolved or are on the way to being resolved.
    • Governments are now realizing that no amount of streamlining, no redefinition of roles and responsibilities, is ever going to replace the need for governments to work together. The notion of airtight compartments is a vision of the past. It is not going to assist us in managing this country in the future.
    • Governments must learn to manage their interdependence. They must forge new relationships. They must set priorities together. They must make decisions together. They must understand that the actions of one impact on all the others.
  • New partnerships
  • • As we have been realigning the role of government, we have also recognized that governments do not have the exclusive prerogative of looking after the public good. Indeed, the private sector, the not-for-profit organizations, the voluntary associations, and all citizens have a role to play and can make a contribution to the public good.
    • For governments to play a modern role, they must understand and encourage the contribution of others. They must recognize the strength of others and build on them. They must provide guidance. This means that we must learn about partnership.
    • Partnership comes with responsibility. Partners need to exist on their own, otherwise they are not partners. Partners are not each other's agent. Partnership is neither a merger, nor a takeover. Partners come together freely because together they can do things which exceed what any one of them, individually, could achieve. They act together in some cases and separately in others.
  • A new relationship between government and citizens
  • • Canadians have been remarkably supportive of efforts by governments to achieve balanced budgets and regain fiscal sovereignty.
    • They have accepted the sacrifices associated with achieving these goals but they demand something in return. They demand better government. And they have the right to demand better government.
    • This means they want services organized around their needs, not the convenience of those supplying the service. And they want service organized around the totality of their needs. They have no tolerance for turf protection, federal-provincial or interdepartmental wrangling. They do not want to be told to go back to the telephone book and call the next number and go to the next organization.
    • They are reminding us that government services are first and foremost about citizens. They demand an integrated approach to service delivery.
• So that is what we have done. We have been part of the team that wrote a great chapter in Canadian history, a chapter about Canada regaining its fiscal sovereignty. And in so doing, we have prepared the basis for the next chapter. This chapter will be about a more modern relationship among governments, partnership with others to serve the public good and a modern relationship between government and citizens.

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR THE PUBLIC SECTOR?

• What does all this mean for the public sector and the way we will do things? It means that we are about to move to a rich new phase in the life of the public sector:
• • We are about to move from reinventing the role of government to reinventing the way we serve.
• The public sector overall must move towards integrated service delivery and integrated policy development.
• This will have a profound impact on the public sector.
• We will continue to respect our core values and we will continue to carry out our core functions, service delivery and policy development. These are not changing.
• But we will need to do things differently:
•  
  • By putting the public interest ahead of any single individual or departmental interest - in management practices, in service delivery and in policy development;
  • By practicing partnership and teamwork;
  • By focusing service delivery on the needs of citizens and relentlessly pursuing improvements in service quality;
  • By focusing policy development on the needs of the duly elected representatives of Canadians and addressing collegially the cross-cutting and longer-term policy issues that governments must confront now and in the future.
• So what are the impediments to integrated service delivery and integrated policy development? Some of the impediments are in our minds:
• • We have been trained to think "department" instead of thinking "government";
  • We have been trained to think "program" instead of thinking "public interest";
  • We have been trained to think "unit" instead of thinking "country".
• What we have to do - every one of us - is to focus on country, citizen, Government of Canada, public interest, and, in that context, fulfil the mandate of our department, organization, unit and job. This is a profound change.
• Sometimes that will mean not achieving all we might want from our more narrow departmental or unit perspective on a particular policy point of view, or a particular service delivery option, because to do so would mean that we negate a greater good.
• It means that we must come to the table from the point of view of asking: "What is the best thing we can do for the country, and therefore, how much do I need to achieve, in that context, to fulfil the mandate of my department or my unit?" It is a different mindset.
• So, I would argue that the first challenge is cultural change. No amount of restructuring will give us the answer. What has to change is not the structure but the way we work. It will require that we:
• • Broaden the diversity of our experience - we need to be exposed to a broad cross section of issues;
  • Think global, horizontal and whole;
  • Become experts at teamwork and partnership;
  • Learn, teach, lead and work with others.
• This is the future.
• So what does this mean for us as public servants? Before we move to that, we have to acknowledge what we have been going through. Unless we share a common assessment, it is hard to come up with a prescription that is connected to reality.

THE SITUATION TODAY

• The reality is that we have been managing downsizing for a very long period of time. Our workforce is being reduced by 55,000 in four years. This is a huge challenge and it is not over yet.
• No organization, public or private, could manage downsizing of the magnitude that we have managed and not suffer some consequences. And not to accept and recognize the consequences would be a fundamental error.
• Downsizing does many things to an organization and its people. For those who are leaving, there is the uncertainty and fear about the future. For those who remain, it is a period of tremendous stress, with a growing workload, increasing demands and more pressure.
• It has made our commitment to the public interest more fragile. We begin to ask:
• • Do I have the energy and the drive to continue?
  • Why should I put in the long hours for the lack of recognition, the lack of public support and respect?
  • Why should I continue to maintain my commitment to the organization?
• This is part of our current reality. Any organization would be fragile if it were managing downsizing of that scope. It is unbelievable that we are as energized as we are, and still finding new and better ways to serve our clients.
• Just to make matters worse, at the same time that we have individually and collectively had to deal with the question "Why should I reaffirm my commitment to serve the public interest?" things have been changing around us as well:
• • Public servants, no matter who they are, where they are and what they do, are more attractive today to the private sector than they have ever been before. This is because the private sector has changed, not so much because we have changed.
  • The private sector used to be in production; we were in the management of information. They were in manufacturing; we were managing networks. They were in processing; we were managing strategic alliances and consensus building. Today, they are in the service sector. They are in information management. They are managing networks. They are managing conflicting objectives. We have always been doing those things. We are the best trained work force in the country for dealing with issues of that type.
  • We have tremendous value in the private sector. There is no doubt about it. Just when we are most fragile, others would like to retain our services.
  • At the same time, the private sector's ability to pay is outstripping our ability to pay. Wage disparities have been growing for many occupational groups and for executives. The public sector will have difficulty, not so much in attracting, but in retaining skilled resources with five or 10 years experience in the public sector.
  • As the diversity of the Canadian population continues to increase, limited outside recruitment has meant that there is a growing gap between who we are and who we serve.
• And the world inside the Public Service is also changing:
• • Just when we most need people with diverse experience and who have been exposed to a broad cross section of issues, interdepartmental mobility is at an all-time low. For those of us who really think that the reward of a career in the public service is to be given the chance to serve, to learn, to try different things, the opportunities were taken away.
  • And, because we have been downsizing, there has been very limited upward mobility. Senior level professionals and managers have been staying longer and longer in their jobs because there is limited opportunity for promotion and advancement.
  • Salaries have been frozen since 1991.
• But the news is not all bad. There has been some progress. The wage freeze is ending, pay increments are back, performance bonuses are back and we are back to collective bargaining.
• But there is a very real issue and some important questions:
• • What are the modern reasons for people to reaffirm their commitment to pursue a career in the public service?
  • How can we fulfil our duty to ensure that, in the future, Canadians and those who are elected to represent them will be able to continue to rely on one of the best public services in the world?

LA RELÈVE - OUR GREATEST CHALLENGE

• Neither of these two questions has an obvious answer. But, I believe the answer lies in the sum of what I call La Relève.
• La Relève is a challenge - that is, the challenge of building a modern and vibrant institution which is focussed on people, and leaving behind for those who will follow a better institution than the one we inherited.
• La Relève is a commitment, a commitment by each and every one of us, to do everything in our power, individually and collectively, to ensure that we have a modern and vibrant organization for the future.
• La Relève is the duty that we have to those coming after us, to receive from us, as the caretaker and as the guardians of the institution, an organization which is staffed with people as qualified and competent as possible.
• La Relève is: What can you do and what can I do? And how can we be mutually supportive and helpful to one another? It is everybody's responsibility. And it needs everyone's commitment.
• This is La Relève - it is not a master plan, it is not a list. If you wait for a report to be tabled in Parliament, and a script to follow, it will not happen. We do not need more study, more analysis. We need a bias in favour of action, pragmatic and practical action.
• It may seem old fashioned, but I believe there is no greater motivation than the chance to make a contribution, the opportunity to make a difference. And there is no greater incentive to a career in the Public Service than the breadth and diversity of issues one is exposed to. It is a career like no other.
• I believe that a highly motivated and highly skilled workforce is achievable if we can:
• • Remove the uncertainty. As I said before, for the first time in a long while there is light at the end of the tunnel. That is part of removing uncertainty. That is important in achieving a more stable environment.
  • Promote diversity of experience and interdepartmental mobility. We must focus on how we will obtain the diversity of experience and the competencies that will be needed in the Public Service of the future, a Public Service that provides integrated services and integrated policy development.
• How are we going to achieve that?
• We will need to strike a new balance between corporate responsibility and individual responsibility. It is unfair to leave the responsibility of renewing the public service to the individual alone. There is a corporate responsibility. And each and every department has a role to play. Each department must assume its responsibility.
• • Departments
  • • La Relève is everybody's responsibility and it needs everyone's commitment. Each department, organization and unit needs to develop its own plan for how it will prepare for the future and meet the needs of its employees.
    • Every department needs to understand its own human resource situation, its people, the strengths and weaknesses of its organization, its needs for the future and how it can best meet those needs. What are you going to do to advance the diversity of your people? How can you move them around? How can you give them new challenges?
    • I really believe that it helps us to renew our commitment to the institution if we know that people know about us, care about us, and want to help us learn and grow. I think there is no greater reward for a public servant than to be given the chance to serve and there is no greater reward than to be presented with the full breadth of diversity of the institution in which we work.
    • I think it is exciting. But it requires that everyone go back to their unit, their organization, their department and develop their plan of action. As they do that, they will be preparing La Relève.
    • As you do it, I would suggest three things:
    • • Do not wait for anyone - be pragmatic and do what is in your power to do.
      • Do not move problems upward that you can resolve yourself.
      • Do not ask permission if you already have the authority to do something.
    • It is often a mistake that we make in the public sector to want to wait for one another, as if there was only one way of doing things. Waiting for the one right way of doing things is a recipe for paralysis. We need to learn that diversity is acceptable and is valued. We need to learn that action speaks louder than statements and speeches. We need to learn that action is better than cynicism and criticism as to why it will never work. We need to have a bias for progress, pragmatism and action. That is La Relève.
• What is the corporate contribution to La Relève? You are entitled to ask: "What will be the contribution of the Public Service Commission, the Treasury Board Secretariat, the Canadian Centre for Management Development and the Privy Council Office as they work together?"
• I think that, corporately, we have to do the following for you:
• • Competency Profile
  • • The Public Service needs to produce a renewed profile of the competencies that will be needed for the future. This is something that many departments have already started to do. Why is this important?
    • Because:
    • • It gives us a great advantage if we know what values, skills and competencies are required in an organization.
      • It gives us the ability to take charge of our own development, because we know what the organization values.
      • It gives us a base from which to guide the staffing and training of our employees.
      • It gives us the base from which to make staffing decisions.
  • Interdepartmental Mobility
  • • We need to move urgently to promote interdepartmental mobility and provide for the diversity of experience that will be required to provide integrated services and horizontal policy development. It cannot be achieved if it is left to us as individuals working on our own.
    • I believe we need to act quickly in regard to three groups. I am worried about the Assistant Deputy Ministers, about the EX community, and about the policy community. These, in my view, are the cases of most pressing need, the first two because they are the leaders of the institution, the latter because of the very nature of the work they do. I would underline that this list is just a start. I am worried about the whole Public Service.
    • In the past, when the institution was growing, it gave many of us plenty of opportunity for a diversity of experience. But, because of downsizing, it has not given the same opportunity to those serving today. Therefore, the organization as a whole has a responsibility to do something to correct this situation.
  • Assistant Deputy Ministers
  • • • Deputy Ministers and Associate Deputy Ministers are already a corporate resource. This means corporate assessment and feedback, rotations, sabbaticals and training.
    • I believe that Assistant Deputy Ministers should also be a corporate resource and should be corporately managed. I know there is not unanimity on this point, but it is my view that the public sector as a whole must take on more responsibility, corporate responsibility, for the management of the Assistant Deputy Minister community.
    • I would suggest that we move to appointment to level for new Assistant Deputy Minister appointees. Let me tell you why. The system that we have now, the system that served most of us very well in a period of growth, the system in which every man and woman is on their own, is not giving us the mobility we need in a period of downsizing.
    • I would like to suggest that we have to change the "every man and woman for himself or herself" system. We need to right the balance, ever so slightly, so that people are entitled to receive corporate feedback, corporate assessment, corporate support, and corporate plans for assignment and reassignment.
    • Does that mean that it has to be mandatory in all circumstances? The answer is no. There is no reason, in an organization like ours, to move people outside of their geographic region against their will. That would make no sense. But if there is someone among us who is working in British Columbia and who would like to work in Ottawa to diversify their learning experience, or vice versa, we should be corporately supportive in making that happen.
    • Corporate support to the Assistant Deputy Minister community does not mean that you make decisions in the dark of night or that nobody has any input. Nor would I want to impose a new system retroactively. I do not want to change the rules for anyone currently appointed to a position who wants to continue with this system.
    • But I do suggest that we stop studying appointment to level. We have been studying it for 15 years. Lets try it to see if it works. Who knows? It might!
    • I call on the Assistant Deputy Ministers, those serving today, to help design a system for those who will be appointed in the future, so that we can create a system that works in the interest of people and gives them the support they need and are entitled to from the corporation. That's what I mean by appointment to level.
    • It comes with qualification to a level and not a job, assignment and reassignment, a commitment by the organization as a whole that you
    • will get feedback, training and your next assignment. It means that Assistant Deputy Ministers are not left to themselves to find the next assignment.
    • It also means that every now and then, we have to ask: Are you still part of that rotation system? There were periods in my life when I was certainly not mobile. There were periods in my life when I did not want to move. You have families, you have personal circumstances, and all of that has to be taken into account.
    • So I strongly suggest: Let's try it. Let's learn about it. Let's see how we can make it better for people. And if it is the success that I think it will be, those who are now at the Assistant Deputy Minister level should have the right to say: "Let me join" if they wish to. We should say: "Welcome". To those who say: "It is not for me", we should say: "We respect your choice".
  • The EX Community
  • • My view is that the EX community as a whole would be better served by a similar system. But I honestly believe we cannot do it right now. I do not believe we are ready.
    • We are managing now, corporately, a system of about 50 people - Deputy Ministers and Associate Deputy Ministers. I believe we are doing a great job of it.
    • To add newly appointed Assistant Deputy Ministers means that every year we would be taking on a relatively small number of people. We would proceed incrementally. I know we can do that. I am confident we can make it a great success.
    • But the whole EX community comprises 3,000 people. I do not think we are ready. But if you can tell me otherwise, I will listen hard. Whatever you think we can do, we can try. But my bias is to move pragmatically and in a manner that assures us that we will be successful at every step.
    • In the meantime, we need to open up the system and provide greater opportunity for advancement and diversity of experience on a voluntary basis. We will, therefore, be introducing a program to allow those who are interested to identify themselves for prequalification at the Assistant Deputy Minister level. Successful candidates will form a pool of prequalified candidates for consideration against specific positions as they become available.
    • Second, all Assistant Deputy Minister vacancies are now posted so that all interested candidates among the EX community can self-identify.
    • Third, the Public Service Commission will launch an accelerated developmental program for selected EX1B3 employees early in 1997. This program will allow individuals at the EX level to self-identify and be assessed for accelerated development through assignments and personalized learning programs.
    • The objective of these measures will be to expand the pool of qualified candidates who are prepared to make the personal sacrifice of time and effort to gain the experience and skills they will need to take over the most senior ranks of the public service in the future.
  • Policy Analysts.
  • • Of all people, policy analysts need to be exposed to the broadest range of issues.
    • Policy issues are much more complex today than they used to be. You no longer do policy in one department. For example, 19 departments are involved in trade. And a Memorandum to Cabinet on natural resources could touch on fisheries, on agriculture, on mines, on forestry, on science. It needs to bring together many perspectives. This takes time and practice. Policy development is a difficult skill to acquire.
    • We often put our analysts together and we hope that they will discover teamwork. But, teamwork is something we build. It requires knowledge. It is hard work. It does not come as if by magic. We cannot just preach teamwork. We have to create the conditions to make it happen.
    • So my question is: "What can we do to help our analysts get a broad cross section of experience?"
    • Each time you take on more responsibility, you are also entitled to ask what the whole organization can do. There has to be a balance of action. Is there something that the corporate level could do to enhance the mobility of policy analysts among a cross section of departments? Measures such as departmental assignments, interdepartmental exchanges might help.
  • Human Resource Management Systems
  • • When it comes to La Relève and creating a modern organization, there is an urgent need to simplify what we do. And instead of trying to convince you that we need to simplify, I will just read this extract:
    • We have, in the Public Service of Canada, 72 groups, 106 subgroups, 79 bargaining units, 72 classification plans, 63 collective agreements, more than 80 pay plans, more than 800 payrolls, 150-plus allowances and premiums and 70,000 rules governing pay.
    • I am told that the classification system costs us $50 to $60 million a year.
    • Is it conceivable that we could simplify the system? Is it conceivable that we could make our life simpler, without losing sight of our values, our commitment to the fundamental principles of due process? Is it conceivable?
    • I must admit that my bias is yes. And here again, could we stop studying and take some action?
    • All of that is part of La Relève.
  • Compensation Policy
  • • Finally, we need to deal with compensation policy.
    • I am not naive, I know how complicated this is going to be. It will not be resolved over night.
    • But if La Relève is a commitment to do everything in one's power to give us a modern and vibrant organization, if we are true to the commitment, we have to tackle this one too.
    • And yes, it will take a lot of courage, but we really must tackle the issue. Otherwise, other efforts will not give us the result that we need.

CONCLUSION

• I fundamentally believe that we have written a great chapter in Canadian history, but the next one will be an even more exciting one. The next one is about the way we serve, the way we deal with Canadians, the way we modernize the federation, the way we renew the meaning of public interest.
• It will be about us as an institution. And about us as people. And about how we can all look back and say: In chapter one, I was part of the team that regained Canada's fiscal sovereignty. And, in chapter two, I was part of the team that gave Canadians a united country and ensured that they were served by the best institution in the world.
• Not bad in two chapters. And the first one was done because everybody contributed. The second one can only be done if we do it that way. So let me just repeat: You have my commitment, I'll do my very best.
• But I am under no illusion about what that means when one person is acting alone. I am under no illusion about how much we can do if we can all say: "I'm committed too". So, I need your commitment, as well.
• That is La Relève.
• Thank you all for inviting me.