Faced with the likelihood of a majority Conservative government in the foreseeable future, Canada’s federal public service should seriously heed the warning of Stephen Harper’s former communications director, Andrew MacDougall, that “the hangman is coming.”

Over 40 per cent of federal public servants have only worked under the Trudeau government, and after nearly a decade in power, many public servants may have internalized Liberal perspectives.

A Conservative majority would signal public desire for change, and the public service, like it or not, will have to support a different and arguably sharper ideological agenda.

While the Clerk of the Privy Council and deputy ministers will provide high-level direction along with transition briefing books, many of the challenges will affect mid-level executives. Looking back at my experience under the Harper government, as detailed in my book Policy Arrogance or Innocent Bias: Resetting Citizenship and Multiculturalism, the following lessons may be helpful.

These reflect the specific policy areas I was responsible for (citizenship and multiculturalism at the federal departments of Canadian Heritage and then Citizenship and Immigration), working under the activist and effective minister Jason Kenney, in what was arguably a less polarized political and social media environment. History seldom repeats itself, but hopefully these reflections will still provide some guidance for public servants beyond the usual transition planning.

• Assume that Conservative ministers, MPs and staffers are skeptical of public service neutrality. Don’t take it personally, but this is to be expected after years of observing public servants loyally implementing Liberal priorities. Conservatives have a different ideological compass and are generally suspicious of life-long public servants. Moreover, Conservatives have an institutional memory of perceived stonewalling on behalf of the Liberal government in parliamentary committees, as well as specific incidents such as Global Affairs staff applauding then newly elected Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

• Be mindful of one’s own implicit biases and preferences (know thyself). Expect these to be challenged in meetings with ministers and their political staffers, especially during shifts in foreign, economic, culture and diversity policies to name but a few. Young staffers will be significantly different from the university crowd of “woke” Liberal staffers. Be prepared to be challenged, and listen openly with a view to understanding where they are coming from. I found Daniel Kahneman’s Thinking, Fast and Slow useful in forcing me to reflect on how I often would make assumptions or jump to conclusions without shifting to the “thinking slow” mode.

• Ensure that you are exposed to a diversity of perspectives. The public service benefits from a wide variety of media summaries, including legacy, social and ethnic media. The media landscape has changed drastically since my time in government, with more alternate platforms and less mainstream media. Understanding the discussions in right-leaning media like The Hub, The Line or True North can help understand where Conservatives may be coming from, along with the impacts of US influences.

• Be prepared for alternate evidence, frequently anecdotal. Ministers and their staffers often use anecdotes to bolster their arguments and advocacy. A personal experience can be more powerful than impersonal evidence. Accept that these anecdotes form part of evidence-based policy, albeit selective and incomplete, and recognize the limitations of available data. Strengthen your own advice by illustrating existing evidence with anecdotes. For example, Conservative contacts from within Canada’s Chinese community once revealed that there was a mnemonic rhyme with the answers on the citizenship knowledge test, allowing them to pass the test despite not having substantive knowledge. As a result, multiple versions of the test were introduced to address this fraud.

• Don’t be dismissive or come across as a “know it all.” Resist the temptation to say, “it’s complicated.” This will come across as arrogance to ministers and staffers. Find a way to impart the complexity in a constructive, non-dismissive manner. Humility and a willingness to genuinely listen and learn provide a basis for understanding, and for building working relationships that provide space for more candid advice in the future. Not easy, but necessary. In my experience of developing Discover Canada, we agreed that the key staffer should prepare a draft that recognized the government’s perspective and priorities. This facilitated the process — and the trust — tremendously.

• Understand that risk perceptions will differ. Public servants typically have a longer-term perspective than the political level which, even when formulating longer-term policies, is largely focused on their current mandate and the electoral cycle. In formulating risk assessments, recognize this difference and address both shorter- and longer-term considerations for informed discussion. For example, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada “warned the government two years ago that large increases to immigration could affect housing affordability and services,” and of course was correct. On the other hand, the public service sometimes fails to pay attention to longer-term thinking, as when the Public Health Agency of Canada neglected the Global Public Health Intelligence Network due to cost pressures — shortly before the arrival of COVID in 2020.

• Review evaluation, audit and auditor general reports for vulnerabilities. Beyond the headline reports from the Office of the Auditor General, scrutinize departmental audit and evaluation reports. Staffers often read these as areas for possible cuts or changes, but they can also contain signals of program weakness or failure. For example, the weak outcomes and effectiveness of the Evaluation of the Multiculturalism and Anti-Racism Program and Canada’s Anti-Racism Strategy, 2017-18 to 2021-22, will likely be used to justify the dismantling of many of its aspects, as part of overall cost-cutting and a more critical approach to DEI programs.

• Review the social media feeds and parliamentary interventions that ministers and parliamentary secretaries made prior to their appointments. While feeds and interventions follow the party line, their tone often provides insight into an individual’s character and way of thinking. An example could be MP Jamil Javani’s comments on multiculturalism and DEI initiatives, reflected and echoed in right-leaning commentary. Any public servants working on DEI and related programs should be familiar with these arguments and their underlying principles. Likewise, be prepared for staffers to review the social media commentaries of grant applicants when assessing their eligibility. During my time, the differences between the language in applicants’ formal submissions vs their social media were often striking (and embarrassing). 

• Be aware of policy limits. After almost 10 years under a government that has under appreciated the limits of policy to address social and other issues, the public service will have to adjust to a party that has a natural skepticism of government intervention. This will likely be felt most in the areas of environment (“axe the tax”), foreign affairs, law enforcement (“stop the crime”), DEI, and culture (“defund the CBC”). Providing meaningful evidence, along with anecdotes that clearly demonstrate the pros and cons of proposed policies and programs, may attenuate the political pressures related to these slogans. 
• Remember, policy is only as good as its implementation and service delivery. When providing policy advice, learn from the “deliverology” and implementation failures of the current government. Consider inverting the normal paradigm that policy drives service, and apply a service and implementation lens to policy and program proposals. Focusing on practical implementation issues provides an easier bridge for “fearless advice” to ministers and staffers, but again, avoid giving any impression of being dismissive. When handling new policy and program initiatives, build in feedback mechanisms for catching issues early, and provide advice accordingly. For instance, implementation of the new citizenship guide/test included a pilot phase with Statistics Canada analysis that detected issues for applicants with lower levels of education and less official language fluency.

Public service job cuts loom as Ottawa misses spending and deficit targets

Mulroney’s “pink slips and running shoes” yielded to a trust of the public service

Generation X takes the helm of the public service with John Hannaford

The bottom line: The priority when working with any new government is to build trust that the public service will loyally implement the new policies and programs.

When the Harper government took power in 2006, it was the quick development and implementation of the Federal Accountability Act that was deemed essential to establishing public service credibility. Further back in time, the public service was able to develop trust with the Mulroney government despite its campaign slogan of “pink slips and running shoes” for public servants.

For the coming anticipated transition, one can expect the clerk of the Privy Council and senior deputies to make similar calculations with respect to a new Conservative government’s priorities.

It may be time to retire the phrases “truth to power” and “fearless advice and loyal implementation,” given that presenting policy and program proposals to the political echelon always requires a degree of shading and nuance, particularly at higher levels, where Savoie’s critiques of the public service apply. “Considered” rather than “fearless” advice is probably more tactical. (During the first years of the Harper government, a number of deputies who were more aggressive on “fearless” advice were either moved or they left government.)

An early focus of a Conservative government would likely be to reduce the size of government (“fix the budget”). Structural tasks like this should be straightforward for the public service, given the previous experiences of earlier program reviews and cuts.

More challenging will be advancing policy initiatives that are ideologically driven. For example, on the “axe the [carbon] tax” commitment, advice would not be fearless nor truth to power (“this is a bad idea minister”). A more strategic discourse would be, “here are some additional approaches to consider.” Implementation of course must be loyal.

As noted earlier, this guidance reflects my own experiences from over 10 years ago; the files I worked on; the minister under whom I served; and being at the director general level, which is the interface between substantive expertise and decision processes.

Others will have different takes, but the fact is that when governments change, so does the dynamic surrounding a public service that needs to establish the trust of the new order.