Canada News
Chrystia Freeland’s resignation points to final breakdown of cabinet government
Freeland denounced the government’s “costly political gimmicks” in her bombshell resignation letter. (File Photo: Chrystia Freeland/Facebook)
OTTAWA – The sensational resignation of Chrystia Freeland highlights a growing crisis in Canada’s democratic institutions, where a powerful Prime Minister’s Office undermines the cabinet system and weakens the public service built to support it. It’s a breakdown that Donald Savoie has been warning about for decades.
Savoie, one of Canada’s leading scholars on public administration, argues that the system’s rupture has been clearly exposed by the fact a plan to spend over $6 billion on a Christmas GST/HST holiday and $250 payments was announced without first being presented to cabinet or caucus. Freeland denounced the government’s “costly political gimmicks” in her bombshell resignation letter.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has shuffled his cabinet but the Freeland resignation and the long-term trend of diminishing power for ministers raise real questions about whether the positions have become more symbolic than key government leadership jobs. With all main opposition parties poised to take down the wounded government at the next opportunity, they are likely also to be short-lived.
Governing from the centre has become entrenched as the way Ottawa makes decisions and wields power, but this episode “is over the top,” said Savoie. “Such an important package announced without cabinet being involved? This is not cabinet government. This is presidential government.”
“And, frankly, I don’t think any future prime minister can take it further than this other than to say, ‘I will have no cabinet. I will run government on my own, with my own office.’ That’s the only further place left.”
The big question, however, is whether Freeland’s resignation could be a catalyst for reform beyond the current political crisis.
“This could be helpful and make a strong case for the next government that this model is highly risky politically and highly risky if you care about implementation,” said a former deputy minister. “Trying to micromanage everything from the centre doesn’t actually work.”
Financial pressures and a Trump presidency are pushing Canada to recalibrate its fiscal, economic, and international priorities. This could also be a rare chance to align a new policy agenda with major public-service reform.
Savoie has for decades been sounding alarms about the concentration of power and the politicization of the public service. His 1999 book Governing from the Centre earned him the ire of then-prime minister Jean Chrétien.
Savoie revisited the issue during the Harper era with Court Government and Collapse of Accountability in Canada and the United Kingdom, arguing that Canada is run more like a kingdom or a court, where decision-making is centralized among a small circle of advisers surrounding the prime minister. This coterie often sidelined ministers, Parliament, and the public service – but with room for a few trusted figures in the mix.
And this year, he turned the spotlight on the struggles of the public service, much criticized as bloated, inefficient and even broken, with his book Speaking Truth to Canadians About their Public Service.
Over the decades, successive prime ministers have steadily tightened their grip on decision-making, policy direction, and the messaging surrounding them – a trend that has marched in lockstep with the advent of the 24/7 news cycle and the rise of social media.
Centralization of power was first introduced by former prime minister Pierre Trudeau, but Savoie argues his son has taken it to the extreme. It’s a long way from his declaration in 2015 as he formed his first cabinet: “Government by cabinet is back,” he said, promising that ministers would have significant independence with their files.
Instead, the reins grew even tighter, with the real power held by what reports described as a “triumvirate” of Trudeau, his chief of staff, Katie Telford, and Freeland.
In Canada’s Westminster system, authority belongs to ministers, but power resides with the prime minister. When ministers cannot or will not exercise their authority, and defer to the prime minister, the system falters – and the public service, built to support it, struggles to work like it should.
When cabinet doesn’t even debate $6 billion in spending, you have to question whether cabinet ministers have any authority or role, Savoie said. “Governing from the centre is bad for ministers, but it’s not good for public servants, either.”
It has been an open secret that Finance bureaucrats thought the $6-billion package was bad policy.
It’s not unusual for tensions to rise between prime ministers, finance ministers, and bureaucrats. But former public servants argue the PMO’s hand has become more overt. It contributed to Bill Morneau’s resignation as finance minister and the replacement of a long-serving deputy with outsider Michael Sabia – a deliberate shift from Finance’s traditional fiscal orthodoxy.
Several bureaucrats contend the moves were part of a broader effort to centralize power. By replacing both the minister and deputy with figures more aligned with the PMO’s agenda, Finance was destabilized, ensuring key decisions flowed increasingly through the Prime Minister’s Office.
But detractors of Savoie have dismissed his concerns as alarmist or overly fixated on one part of the relationship between parts of the government.
Arguing for the centre
Michael Wernick, a former top bureaucrat, argues concerns about centralization are overstated. Government is vast, issues are complex, fast-moving and span too many departments to function without a firm hand and strong governance from the centre. He said the Liberals’ big problem is an “ineffective PMO that has lost its ability to keep things moving.”
The large expansion of what’s now called the political service over the past 40 years has had a big impact on public servants. Today, there are up to 800 political staffers and advisers – almost as many as the number of bureaucrats in the Finance Department – who function like a parallel institution.
Bulking up the Privy Council Office isn’t the solution to what ails the public service
Government communications under Trudeau
Deconstructing Canada’s ballooning $67-billion federal bureaucracy
As Alasdair Roberts explains in his book, their role has shifted from simply helping ministers to actively challenging public servants’ advice and pushing bureaucrats to align with ministerial direction – further consolidating power within the PMO.
Their growth began under the Mulroney government, which was wary of public servants. It introduced chief-of-staff positions – starting in the PMO. These roles came with greater influence and higher salaries, establishing them as key political advisers.
Today, ministers’ chiefs of staff and many policy advisers are appointed by the PMO. They navigate the space between elected officials and bureaucrats, driving PMO-approved policies.
“This isn’t each minister is getting some extra help. This is the governing party extending its reach across the whole system. That is very different. They’re selected because of their connection to the governing party,” said one longtime senior bureaucrat.
As a result, deputy ministers, once the ministers’ primary advisers, are often sidelined. Their advice is sought too late, not considered thoroughly, or bypassed entirely. This leaves deputy ministers and ministers, both accountable, defending decisions they didn’t make.
Traditionally, the best policy decisions come when policy ideas and how to implement them are made together but “delinking them leads to failures…and we have a long list of failed policy and failed implementation in recent years,” said one senior official.
In a lecture, Jocelyne Bourgon, a former clerk of the Privy Council and president emeritus of the Canada School of Public Service, called the growth and influence of political advisers “dangerous layers of unaccountability.”
“It used to be very small and, therefore, probably not significant, but it is growing fast. And as it is growing, we have to ask ourselves, how does it fit in? And if it is going to continue to grow, then we need to design a system that builds the accountability for that tranche as well,” she said.
Too many poets, not enough plumbers
With the rise of political staff has come the growth of what Savoie calls “the poets,” further upending the balance between policy ideas and implementation.
Poets are public servants working in policy, analysis, communications and work mostly in Ottawa-Gatineau – where nearly half of the public service is based. In contrast, the “plumbers” are the frontline workers who deliver programs and services: issuing cheques, managing borders, and inspecting plants.
“The poets know how to deal with the media, with the politicians and with Parliament. That is very important for the prime minister,” said Savoie.
Preparing for a Conservative government in the public service
The role of deputy prime minister is not as powerful as most think
At the same time, the public service has grown top-heavy, with over 9,000 executives – mostly poets – and a surge in new senior and associate positions, further widening the gap between policy-making and hands-on implementation.
On top of the growing numbers, senior executives – especially deputy ministers – move too frequently, some staying in a role for less than two years. This constant churn leaves little incentive to fix problems. “It’s like driving a car with failing brakes,” said one bureaucrat. “They know something’s wrong but won’t act until it completely breaks down.”
A host of other challenges are piling on top of each other. The erosion of merit, the hollowing out of the Public Service Commission, hybrid work, Treasury Board’s diminished role as a budget office; ineffective leadership, outdated technology; rules, structures and a human-resources regime rooted in a bygone era. The list goes on.
Many point out the government’s biggest failures – Phoenix, ArriveCAN, and massive passport and immigration backlogs – were the result of the public service’s mismanagement, not political interference.
As validated as he feels today, Savoie sometimes wishes he had never written the book, which became a staple on many student reading lists. He recalls visiting Stephen Harper’s office and spotting a well-thumbed copy marked with orange sticky notes.
“We use it as a manual,” a staffer told him.
He never imagined his critique would become an Ottawa playbook.
“It reinforced governing from the centre because people saw it as, ‘This is how Ottawa works,’ and I feel a responsibility for that,” Savoie said. “Sometimes I think it made the situation worse.”
This article was produced with support from the Accenture Fellowship on the Future of the Public Service. Read more of Kathryn’s articles.
This article first appeared on Policy Options and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.
