This op-ed intends to show that first ministers (1) have the obligation to know and exercise reasonable management control and (2) can install adequate public explanation as an obligation of their ministers and the senior civil service, and thus save themselves time an effort in damage control caused by their ministers by saying to the minister who did not account publicly, fully and fairly, “Gee, I’m sorry, but it’s the law. What can I do? I’m afraid you’ll have to fall on your own sword.”

Norman Spector (April 30) argues that federal deputy ministers should be directly accountable to Parliament (accountability being the obligation to answer for the discharge of one’s responsibilities, and responsibility being the obligation to act). Deputies already account, for example when they are called to meetings of the Public Accounts Committee to explain what they are doing about important problems in their departments. The problem is the “crossover” issue — knowing which of minister or deputy minister is logically responsible for what in the department. The simple distinction is that ministers are accountable to the House of Commons and the public for fairness decisions (i.e., political policy) and civil servants are accountable to their ministers and the House for efficiency and economy in carrying out policy. But ministers, as the ultimate authority in our executive governments, remain responsible and accountable for how well the deputies do their jobs.

Spector rightly points out that deputy ministers too often anticipate and serve ministers’ wants (which can run counter to compliance with the law and the public interest) while saying to themselves that they are simply doing their civil service duty in carrying out orders. That thinking contributed to the deaths and wrecked lives across Canada from the 1980s lethally-contaminated blood, the Westray and Walkerton deaths in the 1990s and the egregious money-wasting in the federal HRDC and sponsorship programs over the past several years. All these disgraces had in common the absence of adequate management control, which means causing to happen that which should, and causing not to happen that which shouldn’t. Responsibility and accountability for the adequacy of departmental management control lies with the minister. But there is no evidence in any of these cases that the deputies told their ministers what their ministers’ statutory and commensense control duties were, or were ever asked to do so, either by law or by the ministers.

The usual excuse for ministers is that their department is too big for them to know what’s going on. Since our parliamentary system rightly holds ministers accountable to the legislature for what goes on in their departments, it is the ministers’ collective responsibility to have deputies in place whose ability and motivation serve the public interest and help protect ministers from themselves. But MPs have not made clear their expectations for ministers’ and deputy ministers’ responsibilities and accountabilities.

The current federal Public Accounts Committee has a mandate to report to the House what it thinks those responsibilities and accountabilities should be. But from the time he took office, Prime Minister Martin has had the opportunity to take steps himself to stop federal assembly lines of waste and harm, and thus help build public trust in his executive government, without waiting for reports and inquiries.

It has been open to the PM, as the ultimate boss in the federal government and considering that “enough is enough”, to tell Canadians that he is deciding what in his view are the respective control responsibilities of his ministers and deputy ministers, and what their public accountabilities are for those responsibilities. For example, ministers and deputies must be made to report publicly how well they have informed themselves for their control duties and to have their assertions audited, and not be able to plead “plausible denial” (“I didn’t know”). In none of the above cases were the ministers and deputies made to do this. The Prime Minister can then declare to Canadians that he will not only install those responsibilities and accountabilities within the executive government but also ask Parliament to buttress them in the law.

Publicly stating his intentions will show Canadians how serious the PM is in preventing further disgraces, and show Canadians how able and motivated their MPs are in assessing the adequacy of the PM’s intentions.