Thank you for drawing attention to Ian Shugart and his characteristically understated, concise, and wise advice to today's policy-makers. Enormous contributor. First met him when he was helping Henry Friesen engineer the transformation of MRC into CIHR. As ADM, he was the Sherpa for the National Advisory Committee on SARS & Public Health and the machinery that flowed from it. Stayed in touch sporadically during his DM incarnations and then often during the darker days of COVID-19 when he was Clerk of the Privy Council and so clearly a voice of reason in Ottawa. That's the little I know -- one person's tip of the Shugart iceberg. A remarkable public servant and a great Canadian. And yes, a man who then as now, preached and practised reasoned restraint. What worries me is how old-fashioned those virtues seem in the endemic craziness of our time.
I have always been grateful to know Ian Shugart as a friend and colleague, ever since we were ADMs together and, as he would probably hasten to recall, we had to attend monthly 8:00 am meetings with PCO and a passel of other ADMs to debate how many angels could dance on the head of a pin called the Precautionary Principle.
But for me the true measure of Ian Shugart as a human being was seen when he was newly arrived as DM at ESDC in 2010. A senior ADM in the department had just died very suddenly and unexpectedly. Ian flew to Cape Breton to meet his family and represent the public service at his funeral, and then convened an all NCR staff memorial in Gatineau where he spoke with the perfect blend of anecdote, respect and hommage of someone for whom he felt a deep institutional responsibility.
I keep him in my thoughts and hope he regains all his strength.
(I’ll disclose a couple of things. Al and I went to high school together. Debate team partners. We should all be blessed to have smart friends. I am blessed. Ian was our DM for most of the tour at Environment. I first knew him as a member of a superstar staff in Epp’s office. Smart, smart people. I heard his voice when I read the word ‘restraint’. So grant me some restraint to the next part.)
At some point in 2004 (?) it began to become clear to politicos that majority math was different.
Pierre Trudeau majorities were Quebec sweeps. Chrétien majorities were Ontario sweeps. Mulroney’s ‘84 & ‘88 wins were the only two ‘National’ majorities. Since neither party can accomplish a sweep of Ontario or Quebec and there are underlying regional weaknesses in both, you need to get there some other way. You don’t campaign in the national interest, you campaign for incremental interest.
20 years later, incremental interest has run its course. It is now everything and everything is it. And it is the lousy place to do policy and to do policy in the national interest.
Maybe it started when MP statements were hijacked by the leader’s office. It doesn’t matter. Because now it means that Ministers are not told when vile murders are potentially in for a better quality of life. Or another says he didn’t read what he should have read and presume that this is the standard of care we want from a Minister.
So enough. These are not incompetent people. Their control is clear and absolute. If Ministers look incompetent, no big deal. Others are available to serve. Op-eds to be written. And now fewer media to report the stories (even though we conferred real market value to BCE under broadcast reform, we didn’t actually ask them for undertakings on news.)
We may have a couple more dreary cycles of this ahead before it ends.
I pray someone will decide that the real political opportunity is to pledge not to be the way this government is when it comes to controlling everything.
The sooner the better. Before the rot sets into the foundation, some nation building might be in order.
Goodness knows, a nation that is growing but not building strength will not endure. And I don’t think anyone signed up for that.
A note about “meeting agendas” – they are NOT a reflection of policy, but rather the surfacing of issues previously flagged by all parties that need discussion and resolution.
Meeting agendas are always subject to the hijacking by issues that one or more attendees believes has greater merit.
It’s not that Covid issues were thought to be insignificant by government, just that the functionaries responsible for formulating the “meeting agenda”, were doing their job of tabling old business, with the full expectation that attendees would table whatever new business they saw fit, at the meeting itself.
Yes, the optics could have been better managed, if one takes the position that business meetings are PR opportunities first and foremost.
Any climate considerations at all are long-termism of the highest order. Even the economic benefits are two decades away, the climate benefits decades past that. You often get long-termism after a disaster. The Titanic is on minds today, and nearly 30 years back I wrote an essay about how it changed all safety rules: double hulls, ice patrols, enough lifeboats for everybody aboard.
Calgary had a flood in 2005 that did some damage, really scared us. When Water Services managers went up to politicians and asked for support and spending, we got it, and 8 years later had an exemplary response to the huge 2013 flood, though it was a 1-in-100-year thing like the pandemic, where nature often finds us caught unprepared.
I hope civil servants push up what we need for the next pandemic, through the champions like Shugart, whom we depend upon to NOT soften every warning at little more as it goes through the levels up the chain. Whom we depend upon to get the message through to the top that some spending is not optional: the bill WILL come due, just at an unknown day.
Having your own vaccine factories is long-termism. Being prepared for the supply chain to be politically unreliable (China, India) is long-termism. Having more than enough hospital beds for the worst day in a year is long-termism, (I'm sorry to say). Civil servants love long-termism so we can sleep at night, because its our job to know risks.
Covid showed that governments could keep power without things like competence, dialogue, or the rule of law. Propaganda, controlled media, and brazen defiance of all restrictions are sufficient. It showed that the bureaucracy was immune to challenge, and that no amount of failure would affect its position.
The Liberals understand this. The Conservatives may, which is why they are running a campaign of inconsistent promises are puffery. Some journalists apparently don't, and talk about how Canada is broken. It isn't: this is the new normal.
Very happy to see Ian Shugart in print. He is a very wise man. As to the public service, it is burdened with rules upon rules. In my view, it should allow greater latitude for managers to manage (making it faster to staff, for example) *but* — using a risk-based audit system — punish managers who have not used the new latitude responsibly.
Senator Shugart also has an amazing sense of humour and can deliver a line deadpan that will have you in uncontrollable stitches for the rest of the day. A remarkable Canadian. Where is the next generation of Shugarts and have we lost the ability to produce them?
On Roberts piece, bravo for amplifying the conversation Mr Wells. His prescriptions are worth some “ink” if you are looking for additional articles....
On the issue of program review / spending cuts / governments living within their means, sustainably, over the long term...an observation, if I may...
I have come to believe that the only political party capable of instituting deep reforms leading to real restraint and more efficient, affordable government is the Liberal Party.
I know, I know. Please, hear me out.
When Conservatives offer up restraint, Liberals howl. It's their opportunity to paint Conservatives as Neanderthals with calculators for hearts. Egged-on by sympathetic media outlets (hello Torstar / CBC) and countless special interest groups that live off government largess, the outrage is overwhelming and non-stop. Nobody who supports the government gets air time, let alone shows up on Parliament Hill with supportive placards.
However, when Liberals institute deep cuts (as Martin and Chretien did) the Conservatives say things like "too little, too late" and "what took you so long?" Hardly the stuff of screaming headlines.
The NDP howl, but they're always wanting to spend more, so most people dismiss their outrage.
As for the Liberals, their opposition is all internal. Caucus grumbles. Cabinet gets antsy. But it all happens in-house. It's Simpson's "discipline of power" thing at work. Liberals like power, so they suck it up.
As for friendly media types, the opposition is perfunctory. I forget the precise headline in the Ottawa Citizen the day of Paul Martin's big budget, but not the sentiment..."Ottawa PS to be OK under Budget".
Unlike when evil Conservatives reduce government, when Liberals do it, there is some reporting, but virtually no outraged columns or editorials.
As for the special interests, they generally seem to fall in line, typically as a result of a nudge-nudge, wink-wink exchange with some cabinet / caucus worthies about playing along, and playing for time.
So...for all who crave long term thinking, affordable government, and an end to short term-ism, I have some bad news. The party that seems to be the enemy of those things might just be our only hope to achieve them.
A lot of red meat in the piece Paul, thank you. In attempting to draw a thread between your three topics in one post, and at that a simplistic thread becoming dare I posit, a theme, it is one of leadership in government: govern for tomorrow through today’s policy choices, with reason, reflection, and yes, restraint. Well done on your end, a pleasure to read.
I love these insights. I was fortunate to have Al Roberts as a prof when I studied public administration and to have Ian Shugart as a mentor when I was a public servant.
I don’t expect this comment to be newsworthy, but I find that there is a massive disconnect between administration and politics. There are public servants in Indigenous governments, municipalities, provinces, territories and federal institutions focused on the long term. More of these people than an auditor could count, I’d bet. I’d also bet that they are all committed professionals.
But, their work struggles for traction at the political level.
Can we diagnose the causes of this disconnect? Is it worse in Canada than other democracies? Is it worse at the federal level? Is the disconnect driven by politicians or administrators?
I’m not expecting an answer, just sharing some thoughts triggered by a great post.
"One suspects they’d say that when they make huge investments in programs, compensation and consultation in Indigenous communities, they’re engaging in precisely the sort of long-term thinking Roberts wants."
Just in like the last two weeks, the government has resolved two historical grievances of indigenous groups that predate Confederation, and for which they've been actively seeking restitution for like a generation. There's been probably a dozen comparable settlements in the last two years. Theres a moral and legal obligation to resolve these issues, for sure, but it's also a choice. These can just as easily be kicked down the road 5 years and the hundreds of millions diverted to something "short term". In fact, past governments have done so for 30-40 years.
This is not to disagree with Roberts. Or praise the government per se. Just to agree with the line above that someone else's long-termism might just be reflecting different priorities than yours.
I note most of the comments on your column relate to Ian Shugart. Well done. Maybe there are few if any comments on the two other texts you refer to because their authors just spoke about things that you felt important to tell us you had already written about …
Thank you for drawing attention to Ian Shugart and his characteristically understated, concise, and wise advice to today's policy-makers. Enormous contributor. First met him when he was helping Henry Friesen engineer the transformation of MRC into CIHR. As ADM, he was the Sherpa for the National Advisory Committee on SARS & Public Health and the machinery that flowed from it. Stayed in touch sporadically during his DM incarnations and then often during the darker days of COVID-19 when he was Clerk of the Privy Council and so clearly a voice of reason in Ottawa. That's the little I know -- one person's tip of the Shugart iceberg. A remarkable public servant and a great Canadian. And yes, a man who then as now, preached and practised reasoned restraint. What worries me is how old-fashioned those virtues seem in the endemic craziness of our time.
I have always been grateful to know Ian Shugart as a friend and colleague, ever since we were ADMs together and, as he would probably hasten to recall, we had to attend monthly 8:00 am meetings with PCO and a passel of other ADMs to debate how many angels could dance on the head of a pin called the Precautionary Principle.
But for me the true measure of Ian Shugart as a human being was seen when he was newly arrived as DM at ESDC in 2010. A senior ADM in the department had just died very suddenly and unexpectedly. Ian flew to Cape Breton to meet his family and represent the public service at his funeral, and then convened an all NCR staff memorial in Gatineau where he spoke with the perfect blend of anecdote, respect and hommage of someone for whom he felt a deep institutional responsibility.
I keep him in my thoughts and hope he regains all his strength.
(I’ll disclose a couple of things. Al and I went to high school together. Debate team partners. We should all be blessed to have smart friends. I am blessed. Ian was our DM for most of the tour at Environment. I first knew him as a member of a superstar staff in Epp’s office. Smart, smart people. I heard his voice when I read the word ‘restraint’. So grant me some restraint to the next part.)
At some point in 2004 (?) it began to become clear to politicos that majority math was different.
Pierre Trudeau majorities were Quebec sweeps. Chrétien majorities were Ontario sweeps. Mulroney’s ‘84 & ‘88 wins were the only two ‘National’ majorities. Since neither party can accomplish a sweep of Ontario or Quebec and there are underlying regional weaknesses in both, you need to get there some other way. You don’t campaign in the national interest, you campaign for incremental interest.
20 years later, incremental interest has run its course. It is now everything and everything is it. And it is the lousy place to do policy and to do policy in the national interest.
Maybe it started when MP statements were hijacked by the leader’s office. It doesn’t matter. Because now it means that Ministers are not told when vile murders are potentially in for a better quality of life. Or another says he didn’t read what he should have read and presume that this is the standard of care we want from a Minister.
So enough. These are not incompetent people. Their control is clear and absolute. If Ministers look incompetent, no big deal. Others are available to serve. Op-eds to be written. And now fewer media to report the stories (even though we conferred real market value to BCE under broadcast reform, we didn’t actually ask them for undertakings on news.)
We may have a couple more dreary cycles of this ahead before it ends.
I pray someone will decide that the real political opportunity is to pledge not to be the way this government is when it comes to controlling everything.
The sooner the better. Before the rot sets into the foundation, some nation building might be in order.
Goodness knows, a nation that is growing but not building strength will not endure. And I don’t think anyone signed up for that.
A note about “meeting agendas” – they are NOT a reflection of policy, but rather the surfacing of issues previously flagged by all parties that need discussion and resolution.
Meeting agendas are always subject to the hijacking by issues that one or more attendees believes has greater merit.
It’s not that Covid issues were thought to be insignificant by government, just that the functionaries responsible for formulating the “meeting agenda”, were doing their job of tabling old business, with the full expectation that attendees would table whatever new business they saw fit, at the meeting itself.
Yes, the optics could have been better managed, if one takes the position that business meetings are PR opportunities first and foremost.
Any climate considerations at all are long-termism of the highest order. Even the economic benefits are two decades away, the climate benefits decades past that. You often get long-termism after a disaster. The Titanic is on minds today, and nearly 30 years back I wrote an essay about how it changed all safety rules: double hulls, ice patrols, enough lifeboats for everybody aboard.
Calgary had a flood in 2005 that did some damage, really scared us. When Water Services managers went up to politicians and asked for support and spending, we got it, and 8 years later had an exemplary response to the huge 2013 flood, though it was a 1-in-100-year thing like the pandemic, where nature often finds us caught unprepared.
I hope civil servants push up what we need for the next pandemic, through the champions like Shugart, whom we depend upon to NOT soften every warning at little more as it goes through the levels up the chain. Whom we depend upon to get the message through to the top that some spending is not optional: the bill WILL come due, just at an unknown day.
Having your own vaccine factories is long-termism. Being prepared for the supply chain to be politically unreliable (China, India) is long-termism. Having more than enough hospital beds for the worst day in a year is long-termism, (I'm sorry to say). Civil servants love long-termism so we can sleep at night, because its our job to know risks.
Covid showed that governments could keep power without things like competence, dialogue, or the rule of law. Propaganda, controlled media, and brazen defiance of all restrictions are sufficient. It showed that the bureaucracy was immune to challenge, and that no amount of failure would affect its position.
The Liberals understand this. The Conservatives may, which is why they are running a campaign of inconsistent promises are puffery. Some journalists apparently don't, and talk about how Canada is broken. It isn't: this is the new normal.
Very happy to see Ian Shugart in print. He is a very wise man. As to the public service, it is burdened with rules upon rules. In my view, it should allow greater latitude for managers to manage (making it faster to staff, for example) *but* — using a risk-based audit system — punish managers who have not used the new latitude responsibly.
Excellent explanation of short termism . Hoping it is not too late to correct. But who is willing to do it with its attendant risks?
Not optimist about the prospects, despite the need.
Shugie was/is a world-class leader. So sorry to see him looking so frail. Such a decent and wise person.
Senator Shugart also has an amazing sense of humour and can deliver a line deadpan that will have you in uncontrollable stitches for the rest of the day. A remarkable Canadian. Where is the next generation of Shugarts and have we lost the ability to produce them?
On Roberts piece, bravo for amplifying the conversation Mr Wells. His prescriptions are worth some “ink” if you are looking for additional articles....
Great piece, as usual.
On the issue of program review / spending cuts / governments living within their means, sustainably, over the long term...an observation, if I may...
I have come to believe that the only political party capable of instituting deep reforms leading to real restraint and more efficient, affordable government is the Liberal Party.
I know, I know. Please, hear me out.
When Conservatives offer up restraint, Liberals howl. It's their opportunity to paint Conservatives as Neanderthals with calculators for hearts. Egged-on by sympathetic media outlets (hello Torstar / CBC) and countless special interest groups that live off government largess, the outrage is overwhelming and non-stop. Nobody who supports the government gets air time, let alone shows up on Parliament Hill with supportive placards.
However, when Liberals institute deep cuts (as Martin and Chretien did) the Conservatives say things like "too little, too late" and "what took you so long?" Hardly the stuff of screaming headlines.
The NDP howl, but they're always wanting to spend more, so most people dismiss their outrage.
As for the Liberals, their opposition is all internal. Caucus grumbles. Cabinet gets antsy. But it all happens in-house. It's Simpson's "discipline of power" thing at work. Liberals like power, so they suck it up.
As for friendly media types, the opposition is perfunctory. I forget the precise headline in the Ottawa Citizen the day of Paul Martin's big budget, but not the sentiment..."Ottawa PS to be OK under Budget".
Unlike when evil Conservatives reduce government, when Liberals do it, there is some reporting, but virtually no outraged columns or editorials.
As for the special interests, they generally seem to fall in line, typically as a result of a nudge-nudge, wink-wink exchange with some cabinet / caucus worthies about playing along, and playing for time.
So...for all who crave long term thinking, affordable government, and an end to short term-ism, I have some bad news. The party that seems to be the enemy of those things might just be our only hope to achieve them.
Weird, eh?
A lot of red meat in the piece Paul, thank you. In attempting to draw a thread between your three topics in one post, and at that a simplistic thread becoming dare I posit, a theme, it is one of leadership in government: govern for tomorrow through today’s policy choices, with reason, reflection, and yes, restraint. Well done on your end, a pleasure to read.
I love these insights. I was fortunate to have Al Roberts as a prof when I studied public administration and to have Ian Shugart as a mentor when I was a public servant.
I don’t expect this comment to be newsworthy, but I find that there is a massive disconnect between administration and politics. There are public servants in Indigenous governments, municipalities, provinces, territories and federal institutions focused on the long term. More of these people than an auditor could count, I’d bet. I’d also bet that they are all committed professionals.
But, their work struggles for traction at the political level.
Can we diagnose the causes of this disconnect? Is it worse in Canada than other democracies? Is it worse at the federal level? Is the disconnect driven by politicians or administrators?
I’m not expecting an answer, just sharing some thoughts triggered by a great post.
Thank you.
"One suspects they’d say that when they make huge investments in programs, compensation and consultation in Indigenous communities, they’re engaging in precisely the sort of long-term thinking Roberts wants."
Just in like the last two weeks, the government has resolved two historical grievances of indigenous groups that predate Confederation, and for which they've been actively seeking restitution for like a generation. There's been probably a dozen comparable settlements in the last two years. Theres a moral and legal obligation to resolve these issues, for sure, but it's also a choice. These can just as easily be kicked down the road 5 years and the hundreds of millions diverted to something "short term". In fact, past governments have done so for 30-40 years.
This is not to disagree with Roberts. Or praise the government per se. Just to agree with the line above that someone else's long-termism might just be reflecting different priorities than yours.
I note most of the comments on your column relate to Ian Shugart. Well done. Maybe there are few if any comments on the two other texts you refer to because their authors just spoke about things that you felt important to tell us you had already written about …
Yeah, I'm terrible.