Policy analysis in the federal government: conditions and renewal initiatives in the Trudeau era

Abstract

Significant changes are occurring within the federal Public Service with respect to the conditions under which policy is developed, implemented and assessed. There has been a shift to more targeted and discrete new public management (NPM) initiatives aimed at specific and incremental changes. This chapter highlights several important changes, challenges and initiatives in federal policy processes that purport to enhance innovation and creativity, while preserving ministerial responsibility. It concludes that while there is a drive to greater flexibility in policy processes, there remain important systemic and cultural barriers to achieving innovation that will take sustained leadership to overcome, including a stubborn obsession with bureaucratic accountability; shifting policy resources and competencies; adherence to error-free government; an unwillingness to open the policy process to external actors; and increased central coordination of policy priorities.

Suspension, not expungement: Rationalizing misguided policy decisions around cannabis amnesty in Canada

“…The promise of “Real Change” from Trudeau and his Ministers at the outset of their four‐year majority government mandate included a more collaborative, transparent, evidence‐based, and innovative approach to policymaking (Shepherd and Stoney ). Why then, given that other jurisdictions have opted to expunge criminal records in light of evidence that demonstrates the benefits of doing so (Prescott and Starr , ), does Canada stand to fall behind on progressive criminal justice and cannabis policy as the government moves forward with the status quo process outlined in Bill C‐93?…”

Composition, distribution, and change in Canada's federal policy staff

“…This research has involved interviews, surveys, and case studies but to date has not focused on the specific category of public servants who serve in formal policy classifications within the Government of Canada's Core Public Administration (CPA) 1. We recognize that policy work can and likely occurs in variously classified positions like “programs” or “executive” classifications (see Shepherd & Stoney, 2018), however the EC classification is the most formal policy oriented classification. This is well reflected in official government classification materials and with flagship policy recruitment initiatives placing their policy recruits into the EC classifications (see Craft & Daku, 2017; Craft & Harty, 2017; Government of Canada, n.d.; Public Service Commission of Canada, 2019).…”

“…From 2009 to 2013, there was a slight increase from 12 237 to 13 470 staff followed by a small decline from 2011 to 2013 resulting in a total of 12 301. This period of decline is likely attributable to the government of the day's attempt to reduce operating expenditures including the size and cost of the public service via its deficit reduction action plan (Public Service Commission of Canada, 2019; Shepherd & Stoney, 2018; Zussman, 2015). After this decline, a period of uninterrupted growth began.…”

“…The Canadian case is particularly well placed to contribute to the ongoing discussion around policy capacity given the issue has received attention for more than twenty‐five years (see Fellegi, 1996; Hollander & Prince, 1993; Prince, 1979; Prince & Chenier, 1980; Wellstead, 2019). The Government of Canada itself has long recognized its policy capacity challenges and sought to address them through a range of recruitment, staffing, and resource allocation initiatives (Bakvis, 2000; Peters, 1996; Shepherd & Stoney, 2018), and studies have confirmed its uneven or “lumpy” distribution of policy capacity (Baskoy et al, 2011; Howlett & Wellstead, 2011; Howlett et al, 2017; Voyer, 2007). This article complements and extends this research with analysis of the predominant employment classification most formally associated with policy work, the Economics and Social Science (EC) classification.…”

From Fellegi to Fonberg: Canada’s Policy Capacity Groundhog Day?

“…Some 20 years later, under the Harper government, the Clerk of the Privy Council, Janice Charette, charged former Deputy Minister of Defense Robert Fonberg to examine issues of policy capacity deficits. Fonberg’s conclusions echoed Fellegi, stating “that the policy function must be bolstered so that policy analysts could speak truth to power through evidence‐based research” (Shepherd and Stoney : 77). Will this signal a renewed interest in policy capacity research by the next generation of public administration scholars?…”