When A Public Servant Can't Stay Quiet

Asked to implement a decision that contravenes everything his department represents, former StatsCan head Munir Sheikh had no choice but to resign.

The recent high-profile cancellation of the mandatory long-form census by the federal government has created plenty of interest and concern from a wide range of organizations and individuals. This debate continues.

That Munir Sheikh, formerly the country's chief statistician, felt the need to resign over the decision raises another series of questions regarding the independence of government departments and their leaders, questions that are not easy to answer.

The Canadian federal public service is meant to be non-partisan and unbiased, allowing it to equally serve any elected government. Some governments (Mulroney’s and Harper’s for example) have been suspicious of this impartiality. This concern is unfounded, however, as there are many checks and balances in the system to ensure that the advice of the civil service is based only on the best information available.

For federal departments such as Statistics Canada, the Governor in Council appoints the deputy minister based on a recommendation of cabinet. The cabinet would receive that recommendation from the clerk of the Privy Council. In essence, the deputy minister serves at the pleasure of the government and can be removed from that post if necessary. Period. (Appointments made “during good behaviour,” such as those to administrative tribunals for a specific period of time, are different. Such appointees can be removed only for cause. Of course, in my case, fighting the government on my removal meant tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees.)

A deputy minister makes recommendations to the minister, but must implement the minister's decision once it is made, as long as it is legal. If, however, a deputy minister does not believe that a decision is in the best interests of the country and its people, I believe that he or she must act. Most of these problems can be resolved by a discussion with the minister or, failing that, with the clerk of the Privy Council.

The Statistics Canada case therefore, raises a number of questions. What did the clerk do or not do to help the situation? Why is the Statistics Council only commenting on alternatives now? Were they not consulted earlier? Why would a deputy minister feel the need to resign? Indeed, many deputy ministers are generalists without any long-term involvement with a department or a profession and would not have made that decision. Many would just shrug their shoulders and go about implementing the government’s decision despite any misgivings.

Things are different, however, when the department has a long-term scientific or economic basis for its work, an international reputation for excellence, and highly qualified staff, many of whom work according to professional requirements for ethics, as is the case with Statistics Canada (and other agencies such as the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, of which I used to be president).

It is impossible, I believe, to look the other way when a decision made by a minister goes against the code of quality and ethics held by staff and the department. There is no way that any leader with ethical and professional standards could remain under such conditions. The deputy minister would know that if you do not stick up for the quality of the work and for your staff, you cannot lead.

So the question is, who could possibly be appointed to lead Statistics Canada now? No economist or statistician of reputation would agree to lead this organization – its reputation with peers and clients, both nationally and internationally, is gone. Everyone will believe that the quality of the data has been undermined by political considerations.

I am sure that the former chief statisticians are sad over the future prospects of Statistics Canada. I certainly was when the reputation of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission worsened after my removal as president, not for myself but for the organization.

Unfortunately, this may not end with Statistics Canada. The government has clearly demonstrated through its actions over the last three years that it cares little for the reputation of the public service, and the last two clerks of the Privy Council have proven incapable of defending the federal departments and their leaders.