This page is concerned with the tension between our public institution's conflicting obligations to the public interest, to their political masters and to their administrative self-interest. The goal of effective public policy is often defeated by the means and, in Ottawa, process always trumps objective.

I mean no disrespect here to the vast majority of civil servants who do their job honestly. Rather, I make the observations below having seen how the institution of government stifles so many great individuals who believe in public service. So often 'civil service' is placed ahead of 'public service'.

"Throughout the West, we are led by elected and nonelected elites who do not believe in the public. They cooperate with the established representational systems of democracy. But they do not believe in the value of the public's contribution."

"Any search for the cause of this crisis must focus on our continuing inability to deal with the contradictions between democracy and rational administration -contradictions which have led to the emasculation of the former, whether it be in elected assemblies or in ministerial offices. But the problem is not so simple as is generally suggested. After all, it was a combination of democratic government and rational administration which radically improved the social balance over a period of some two centuries.
In the process, however, this coalition lost any practical sense of why or how it was done. The result has been an inversion of roles. Administration has increasingly become the purpose and democratic leadership has felt obliged to follow. Methodology has replaced direction. Moral value has been attributed to such technical tools as efficiency and speed."


- John Ralston Saul - in Voltaire's Bastards

The examples below highlight situations were 'officialdom' - that professional elite - uses the political and administrative levers of government as an instrument to ensure that their interests are advanced (usually using tax preferences). These programs are usually open-ended with few restrictions.

That done, they then turn their attention to seperate programs developed "on behalf of" the less fortunate, largely without their input. Here the the guiding principles are targetting, (limiting benefits to those most in need), asset limits and regulations. Regulations rob beneficiaries of autonomy, sometimes their dignity and often defeat the purpose of the program.

The words of Paulo Freire below are particularly apt.

"Revolutionary leaders cannot think without the people, nor for the people, but only with the people. The dominant elites, on the other hand, can-and do-think without the people-although they do not permit themselves the luxury of failing to think about the people in order to know them better and thus dominate them more efficiently.
Consequently, any apparent dialogue or communication between the elites and the masses is really the depositing of 'communiques,' whose contents are intended to exercise a domesticating influence."

"It is fear of or lack of faith in the people. But if the people cannot be trusted, there is no reason for liberation; in this case the revolution is not even carried out for the people, but "by" the people for the leaders: a complete self-negation."

"Any situation in which some individuals prevent others from engaging in the process of inquiry is one of violence. The means used are not important; to alienate human beings from their own decision-making is to change them into objects."

Paulo Freire in - Pedagogy of the Oppressed

The exclusion of vulnerable Canadians from policy formation is based on a lack of trust but also an intellectual arrogance.

We, smart guys, design programs on behalf of others who can't be trusted with input into the policy development process.

Examples where the Public Interest was Set-Aside

Oppression of Welfare Recipients
Welfare recipients are forbidden by regulation from doing what many of us do to improve our lot; borrow money, go to university, save for your child's education. Welfare recipients can be punished for doing what many of us are rewarded for doing. That punishment is sometimes enough to be a death sentence.

Now, I'm not a great fan of bingo but here 'officialdom' is just being cruel, making a financially harmful behaviour into one which is punishing.

Felicia was saving $26 per month from her welfare cheque in an education fund for her daughter, but she had been warned by her welfare worker that the fund was near $800 which was the maximum amount that she was allowed to have in savings.

When she got to the asset limit the financial institution which sold her the plan wound up her plan less the salesman's commission ($500) - she lost most of her money and is basically not allowed to save for her daughter.

I was told this story while we sat in a drop-in centre. On top of the story, she told me more unforgetable things.

"I shudder each time my Child Benefit cheque increases because I know that my next welfare cheque is going down."

She showed me the 80 cents that she had in her pocket, which she would make do until her next cheque.

RP has three children - adolescent boys aged 14, 15 and 16 whose father died in 1989. She just recently discovered that the CPP program for survivor benefits included children. These benefits were paid for by the contributions of the boy's father. She applied for the benefit but ran into the HRDC retroactivity limits… under the current legislation HRDC only pays retroactive benefits for 11 months (unless the department made an Administrative Error or the person was incapitated).

I might have thought the department could have taken the position that the boys were not able to apply - being children and paid the full retroactive benefits.

So RP only got about 11 months of back payments for the boys - she took the funds, bought them a pair of shoes and put the rest in an education fund.

UNTILL - her welfare worker found out about this. Her next welfare cheques was reduced by the amounts received from CPP.

She was no further ahead.

To see a deeper analysis of EI coverage see: Measuring UI coverage.