When politicians take aim at civil servants

The 45th Parliament rose Thursday to take its annual Christmas break. They need it from each other, and we need it from them.

Today’s state of Parliament is rapidly emulating the “state of nature” as described by English philosopher Thomas Hobbes. He called life without government as a “war of all against all.” It’s the height of irony that the House of Commons, as the vital centre of our form of government, has come to resemble that remark. Warring parties persist in toxic commentary — unserious behaviour and political theatre are now the norm.

This parliamentary state of nature is due to the emergence of what’s called the “permanent campaign.” We live in a 24-7 news and social media cycle and, accordingly, politics does too. Much of what occurs for governing and opposing — the two foundations of our system of responsible government — takes place in a META-outlook of ever-spiralling political competition characterized by tearing down one’s opponent first and foremost.

Exacerbating this competition is something else. We now have essentially a permanent governing party and permanent opposition party in Parliament. The META (most effective tactics available) that each party exhibits has become ingrained. Liberal governments dissemble, evade and prevaricate to avoid accountability for their actions, while Conservative oppositions mislead, misrepresent and distort to characterize their opponent’s actions.

Question period, the focal point of the House of Commons, is centre stage for these performances. Famously called “bullshit theatre” by Liberal Opposition leader John Turner in the mid 1980s for its spectacle-inducing behaviour, it hasn’t improved. But one part of Parliament’s work, committees, was supposed to be immune from this phenomenon.

House committees are where much of the real work of Parliament occur. Government bills are examined, financial estimates are dissected and ministers and departments are held to account. Until now, committees have been mostly immune to the creeping exhibitionism of question period. The sessions are longer, there is more question-and-answer time and witnesses are often not partisan politicians, but neutral public servants called to explain government decisions. Increasingly, they are caught in the crossfire of political combat.

This month saw a remarkable exchange of duelling letters between the deputy minister of immigration, refugees, and citizenship Canada, Harpreet Kochhar, and the shadow critic, Michelle Rempel Garner, over the committee’s treatment of public servants at committee. The deputy minister wrote to the Liberal committee chair saying, “It is troubling to see individuals facing intimidation and harassment … (stemming) … from short, decontextualized clips of committee appearances by public servants being posted on social media by members of Parliament or their staff.” He called for a “change in approach” by committee members “… so that public servants can fulfil their duties without fear of retribution.”

Rempel Garner was having none of it. She wrote to the minister calling the deputy minister’s letter “rogue,” saying “it is the committee’s job to hold you to account for your decisions, and we will not be censored.” That includes “asking questions of department officials who taxpayers pay to execute said decisions.” Rogue comment notwithstanding, she is right in her characterization of the opposition’s role and expectations. But the deputy minister had a point too.

Ministers are accountable to Parliament for their decisions and the decisions of their departments. Public servants are not. They must “answer” to Parliament, but that is not the same thing as being directly accountable to it. As employees of the executive branch — government — they are not accountable to the legislative branch. Public servants have no constitutional responsibility to Parliament. Nor do they share in that of ministers. But they have a duty to assist MPs as they carry out their scrutiny function of government, an essential part of Parliament’s role. That means recognizing and treating officials differently than ministers, always.

The posting of testimony clips on social media by MPs has blurred this line. Now a regular occurrence, it casts public servants used to working outside of the public eye into the middle of it. It makes them the face of government to aggrieved citizens.

How politicians treat public servants depends too much on which side of the partisan aisle they happen to sit. The ethics commissioner, for example, will be viewed as Joan of Arc by government members, but a Salem witch by Opposition members. But acting like this, so unabashedly, both sides fail in their responsibilities.

Transparency by government breeds trust in government. A better-functioning Parliament, truly accountable to voters, would see MPs spend less time on theatrics and more time on the grunt work of legislating and scrutinizing. Public servants should be allowed and able to answer questions from MPs as fully and completely as official confidentiality allows, without having to worry about repercussions and ingratitude from their superiors including ministers. In doing so, they should expect to be exempt from partisan personal attacks including misrepresentation of their testimony.

Hobbes also said that life without government would be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short”.

Public servants shouldn’t worry that their next committee appearance, through no fault of their own, will resemble that remark too.

David McLaughlin is a former clerk of the executive council and cabinet secretary in the Manitoba government.