By Don Booth

June 26, 2026

It has been 30 years since the Chrétien government published the Tait Report on civil service values and ethics. The product of broad and deliberate consultation, it has provided the frame for virtually all discussions and dialogue on federal public service ethics for the past three decades.

Yet, while the principles and touchstones it identified are timeless (who can argue against “excellence”, “rigour” or “respect and compassion”?) there appears to be a growing dissonance between the aspirational rhetoric of values and ethics codes and the day-to-day experience of public servants in the workplace.

This should worry anyone who cares about the institution.

The last decade has seen a flood of new hires in Canada’s public service. This has driven concern in some circles that, given COVID and working from home, many may not have been adequately inculcated to the unique culture of the institution and the values that go with it.

It was partly with this in mind that former Clerk of the Privy Council John Hannaford launched consultations on ethics in 2023. Committees were set up, panel discussions and town halls held, and a report commissioned. But ultimately it all fell a bit flat (due more to his regrettable departure from office than a lack of commitment to the cause).

The initiative’s interim report, which was informed by over 90 conversations inside the public service, was telling. Not surprisingly, people didn’t seem particularly concerned about existential or lofty issues around “speaking truth to the Minister” (after all, only the smallest representation of a department would ever even see their minister). What many wanted, instead, was an explanation as to why their bosses never seemed to be held accountable for anything.

Ultimately, the preoccupations of the “average public servant” seemed a bit at odds with the discussion that senior management was hoping to have.

The culture of the public service must be a collective, unifying force that instills a sense of common purpose among its hundreds of thousands of employees. In an increasingly individualistic society, joining the public service comes with some conscious sacrifices.

By “taking The King’s shilling” one accepts certain reasonable limitations on personal freedom, such as the right to express one’s political views without reservation, as well as a professional life largely out of public view. One embraces the frustrations inherent in a hierarchical organization where good ideas and good work often become collective property. As Hannaford himself recognized, the public service is not for everyone.

Accepting this fact, however, does not mean blindly embracing the status quo.

Some, notably public administration scholar Donald Savoie, have called for a royal commission to be struck on the future of the public service. There is some merit in this suggestion. It is, however, the proverbial “nuclear option” – such undertakings are inevitably expensive, time consuming and too often yield diminishing returns for the considerable investment. And with everything else going on in the county it is unlikely to find the necessary political champion.

The culture of the public service must be a collective, unifying force that instills a sense of common purpose among its hundreds of thousands of employees.

A more modest, though targeted, approach is needed. All the lofty discussions about values and ethics ring entirely hollow if the workforce intuitively suspects that the standards regime is applied arbitrarily or not at all for some. Personal and institutional accountability are the bedrock of ethics.

Rather than engage in an existential discussion as to whether the public service is a “vocation” (which would be intellectually fascinating) consideration should be given to overhauling performance management and examining how the public service and its leadership are held to account.

This isn’t a call for a renewed Federal Accountability Act – while it increased oversight, it also had the unintended consequence of reinforcing the bureaucracy’s worst instincts. Instead, it is time to evaluate the mechanisms that reward exceptional work and sanction misdeeds. Ultimately, how an organization responds to good and bad performance speaks more loudly about its values than any mission statement.

Where to start? Ideas abound. Task the Treasury Board Secretariat with updating the cumbersome Performance Management Program for Executives. Consider incorporating more objective outside assessment into the determination of senior executive performance pay rather than having senior public servants deciding how much their colleagues (and friends) should make. Use departmental external audit committees more strategically. Promote the conspicuously meritorious and fire the underperforming more frequently.

None of this is easy – to pretend otherwise would be naïve. Any reform of Canada’s public service culture takes place against a backdrop of complex labour laws and often tense collective bargaining.

But what message are young public servants supposed to take when ethical breaches (particularly among senior management) are met with a collective shrug by the departmental deputy and everybody down the line? Or when an executive is whisked away to a new department to shield them from the dumpster fire they created at their old one.

This isn’t an advocation for ruthless and punitive dismissal – only for there to be commensurate consequences to actions. At a minimum, it might be time to simply encourage people to stand up and say “sorry – my fault” every once in a while.

Such demonstrations of humility and personal courage are currently all too rare and would go a long way toward bolstering public trust and repairing depleted morale.

Don Booth recently retired, having spent the past 12 years as a senior executive in the Privy Council Office, including, since 2019, as Canadian Secretary to the King.