IN OPPOSITION, the Conservatives tended to look at Canada’s federal bureaucracy as a den of Liberals, so indoctrinated after 13 years of Liberal government that they were hopelessly biased against Conservative policies.
For many Conservative ministers sworn into office last February, one of the great surprises was how accommodating, competent and neutral their support officials were.
In truth, on the other side there also was relief. The political wars between Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin took their toll on the policy development process. The “all things to all people” approach of the Martin government meant for bureaucrats that everything was a priority and therefore nothing was. There was policy paralysis.
Read Also
Crop insurance’s ability to help producers has its limitations
Farmers enrolled in crop insurance can do just as well financially when they have a horrible crop or no crop at all, compared to when they have a below average crop
Enter the Conservatives, with strong views, clear policy directions and emphatic instructions to bureaucrats, and they went to work. Agree or disagree with the policy demands, at least they knew what they were supposed to do.
Within the halls of Agriculture Canada headquarters, there has been particular relief. After several “reign of terror” waves from demanding upper echelon figures in recent years, the laid back combination of deputy minister Len Edwards and minister Chuck Strahl has brought smiles to faces once tense with worry about when the next ninth floor temper tantrum would erupt.
That context made an internal message sent to Agriculture Canada employees in the early days of the Strahl ministership a fun read.
Unearthed by access-to-information researcher Ken Rubin, it was a mid-March missive from an uneasy bureaucrat trying to make sure departmental communications reflected the nuances of this exotic new creature, a Conservative minister.
It was part of an internal debate about how to write a message from the minister about the future of agricultural support policies.
The author of the e-mail cautioned his colleagues to keep departmental messages in tune with Conservative priorities.
“The material about reviewing and adjusting business risk management programs is not consistent with the government’s plans and priorities,” he wrote.
And elsewhere, a Conservative promise to increase sector support, invest in biofuel and end the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly were not mentioned in the draft document for the minister, he noted.
In fact, the letter drafted for the minister’s signature dwelt more on the Liberal-designed agricultural policy framework.
“A quick read of the Conservative party platform and recent public statements by the minister suggest that these (Conservative priorities) are more deserving of notice in this letter than the national food policy framework,” he wrote.
The overall view about the draft being circulated for Strahl’s signature was that “this text could better reflect the actual priorities of the current government.”
This glimpse into the internal fretting of bureaucrats to serve the priorities of the government of the day is refreshing.
In a healthy democracy, the bureaucracy is there to serve a government and not a party. Adjustments have to be made when the colours change. So far, the Ottawa bureau
newscracy seems to have done a decent job of that.
Love them or hate them, the Tories and the bureaucrats have to learn to live together. Canada isn’t about them.
