Who should the public service bureaucrats be loyal to?

Not, as James Travers says, the government of the day.

Perhaps it is simply imprecise word choice on his part, or lack of expanding on his statement, but these lines do not help people understand the non-partisan nature of the public service, nor why it is necessary to respect that the public service serves the public, not the elected government:

Certainly the government of the day has every right to expect bureaucrat loyalty.

No, it doesn’t. While it is the duty of the public service to forward government’s will as directed by the Minister in charge (with the exception of the independent agencies who do not have a Minsiter), it is not a question of loyalty. They serve Canada and Canadians, and must fulfill the elected government’s orders within the boundaries of their mandates and as directed by existing legislation which defines the responsibilities of an independent public service.

It would be more accurate to say that the government of the day has every right to expect bureaucrat cooperation and respect for the acts outlining the responsibilities of public servants.

For the public service, it is not at all (and should never be) an issue of loyalty, but of a committment and dedication to following the rules by which they are bound, regardless of who holds the most seats in Parliament. These rules and acts were developed by all of Parliament, over many, many sessions. They are regularly updated and adjusted as public needs change. Never should they be altered to accommodate the goals of a particular party in power.

If the public service was expected to shift loyalties to accommodate elected governments, there would be no stability in the public service and long term planning would be a waste of time.

Travers is also incorrect in what he says about the rights of Prime Ministers when it comes to public servants:

Prime ministers have as much right to set their administration's tone as they have to expect the bureaucracy to execute government's will.

The statement is a little vague, saying that one right is equal to the other, without really defining the range of those rights, but implying that they are considerable.

Yes, the Prime Minister does have some leeway in setting the tone in departments, but once more, existing policies limit that right to safeguard against any PM using public services to forward their own political agendas. We have already seen many cases of abuse of such policies, especially with the harper government - using public service sites to launch attack ads, changing the look of departmental sites so that they appear clones of the CPC ones, ignoring Treasury Board guidelines and introducing terms such as Harper’s Government rather than the Government of Canada.

After all, democracy demands that mandarins advise, ministers decide. Still, enforced silence and reflex compliance are anathemas to the openness and intellectual argy-bargy that are essential to the creation of effective policies that put the nation on the most beneficial course.

Yes. Travers is correct on that point. And by clouding the accountability and the independence of the public service by saying the government of the day has every right to expect (its) loyalty, Travers feeds the very thing he decries: enforced silence and reflex compliance would be the result of loyalty to governments of the day.

Beowulf Award

The Beowulf Award goes to: Marie-France Cloutier, Razmik Panossian and Charles Vallerand
 H/t to Dr. Dawg 


Three senior managers at a government-funded rights agency rocked by allegations of Conservative meddling have been suspended, including one of its longest-serving employees.

The three were among the staff that had earlier declared non-confidence in the Conservative-appointed chairman and two other appointees on the board.
 
We need to support these three, and any others who stand up to the politicization of agencies that are supposed to be non-partisan.  They risk a great deal in defending the principles they were hired to promote and protect.  Every time someone like them speaks out, they are fighting for everyone's right to do so.  We have a responsibility to guard their backs in any way we can.

Blind faith in bad leaders is not patriotism

That diarrhea dispenser Soudas, while in Copenhagen trying to control what Canadians hear, falsely accused Steven Guilbeault, a climate change activist of perpetrating a hoax that embarrassed the Canadian government. When the truth came out, not only did Soudas refuse to apologize to Guilbeault -

Guilbeault said he is also off ended because the Canadian government accused him of being unpatriotic, due to his criticism of its policies. "It's scandalous," said Guilbeault. "It seems like we've lost freedom of speech in Canada."

I’m going to exercise my swiftly eroding right to free speech, now. Anyone who still supports this Harper...regime is either complicit in its corruption, or is a complete fucking idiot.

I’m not saying this of all conservatives, but I am saying it of anyone who supports Steve Harper and his lackeys. If you can sit back and still support that Prop Minister after this comment by Soudas, then not only are you an absolute moron, but you are unpatriotic as well.


No!!!!! We support the TROOPS! you may be screaming. We support our GOVURMENT!!!! Unlike you leftie-commie-pinko-soc’lists who bash 'em!

Well, let’s look at that.

Patriotic: Inspired by patriotism; actuated by love of one's country; zealously and unselfishly devoted to the service of one's country; as, a patriotic statesman, vigilant.

Notice the definition says country, not government. It also includes vigilance as an act of patriotism.

Our democratic system relies on our ability to question, debate, and criticize. That is why there is more than one political party - to represent the differing views, ideologies, and needs of Canadians. So - now listen carefully, I know this is very difficult for some of you - when elected members criticize or question the ruling party, they are helping to make sure that all Canadians have a voice and get to apply the power of that voice in shaping their own country. It is not unpatriotic, it’s their job, their responsibility.

Democracy also relies on individuals’ rights to voice their concerns directly. How else will the government know what they want, and since the government constantly tells us it is working for our welfare, then they need to hear what affects that welfare, and how.

But-but-but- (adscam?)

Hold your tongue and sit down.  I’m not done.

Those of you who say that criticizing the government is unpatriotic, were you unpatriotic when you criticized the Liberals when they were in power, or did you just take a sabbatical from patriotism? See how it works? You love your country, you say, and that’s why you beat on those damn Liberals and Dippers, even when they are in power. And somehow, that’s patriotic. But anyone criticizing Harper and Co. is unpatriotic because he’s in power.

So, you are all fucking idiots.

You are also unpatriotic, because you place a political party above love of country.

You are unpatriotic as well because you are not vigilant: carefully observant or attentive; on the lookout for possible danger; "a policy of open-eyed awareness"

A patriotic person is vigilant, and a vigilant person questions, examines, takes active part in “a policy of open-eyed awareness.”

Many hesitate to question any actions even remotely related to the military, because they fear questioning implies criticism and how can we criticize people who put their lives on the line for their country? I get that. I believe that avoiding questioning in such case is very wrong, but I get it, I understand the unspoken taboo. We are fortunate that our military is a decent enough one, overwhelmingly made up of decent people, I’d say (although there is the odd lying sack of shit) All the more reason to be vigilant, to make sure it is accountable to the country, not to the governing party. There are many examples in history and around the world today of what can happen when a military body serves the government rather than the country and we have only to look at the mess the RCMP finds itself in to understand what happens when we allow agencies to self-regulate and dodge questions from impartial, public panels.

So while I understand why it is difficult for some people to question or criticize anything possibly connected to the military, this accusation by Soudas against Guilbeault is a different beast. Politicians in power do not risk their lives for their country. In fact, they are paid quite well to serve and represent us. That means they should damn well listen to our concerns.

Harper has it backwards, and most of you who follow him do as well. Steve thinks it’s his job to change Canada and Canadians, make them act as he thinks they should, get them to serve who he believes they should serve. A Prime Minister should lead Parliament and make it work for the will of the people. The government should bend to our will, not us to theirs.

A final word on patriotism -
Love of one’s country: we should want it to be healthy. We should want it to function well. We should want it to grow, and to be something we can be proud of. That means paying attention, having the courage to criticize if needed, getting off our lazy butts and learning how our government works, what it’s up to, and whether or not it’s being straight with us.