Upholding Democracy, Serving Canadians: Understanding Our Role as Public Servants (FON3-V09)

Transcript: Upholding Democracy, Serving Canadians: Understanding Our Role as Public Servants

[00:00:00 CSPS title page. Text on screen: What Unites Us, Defines Us; Values and Ethics in Today's Federal Public Service.]

[00:00:08 Nathalie Laviades Jodouin appears full screen and addresses the audience from a lectern. Text on screen: Nathalie Laviades Jodouin, Vice-President, Canada School of Public Service.]

Nathalie Laviades Jodouin: Welcome back, everyone, to the second day of our event. Good to see folks back. And for those of you who may be joining us today only, I just want to reintroduce myself. I'm Nathalie Laviades Jodouin. I'm the Senior Vice-President at the Canada School of Public Service, and I'll also be your moderator for today.

We have another full agenda for you today, but first I want to take a moment to acknowledge and recognize some of our regional events. As you know, the public service is spread across Canada and abroad, and we wanted to allow as many people as possible to join us, like we're doing here today. Deputy heads and other senior officials are hosting events in every province and territory, bringing together local public servants from a range of departments and agencies. I'm going to be naming a few.

In Atlantic Canada, we have Michael Vandergrift hosting Fredericton public servants at the NRCan Forestry Center; Arianne Reza and Laura Lee Langley are with public servants in Moncton; Harpreet Kochhar and Christine McDowell are in Halifax; Paul Ledwell and Lawrence Hanson are in Charlottetown; and Annette Gibbons and Dave Boland are in St. John's.

We also have events in the Quebec and Ontario regions. Many thanks to Isabelle Mondou and Jean-Frédéric Lafaille, who are hosting civil servants in Montréal to reflect on values and ethics; Kaili Levesque and Jean-Françoi Fortin, who are leading an informal discussion with colleagues in Quebec. And Arun Thangaraj and Nancy Gardner, who are each hosting events in Toronto. In the north, welcome to public servants in Iqaluit who are gathered with CanNor President Jimi Onalik, and other federal executives. Beyond these whole of government regional events, individual departments are also showcasing what values and ethics mean in their own specific contexts. We have Anne Kelly hosting Correctional Services Canada employees today at Beaver Creek Institution in Gravenhurst; Natasha Kim and Major-General Paul Prévost are hosting employees at Canadian Forces base Kingston; Bob Hamilton is in Sudbury with CRA employees; Sandra McCardell is in Washington today with federal public servants there; and Christopher McLellan and Rob Stewart are hosting events at other missions abroad later in the month. So, this is just a sample. There are many other events taking place within and across teams throughout the public service, and it's really great to see that we're reaching public servants where they are.

Send us a photo of you or your team watching the webcast and let us know where you're participating in the Values and Ethics event from. Go to wooclap.com and enter the code vephoto or scan the QR code to share your photo and your location. The photo wall will be on display at the in-person event here in Ottawa and included in the event webcast, and it might be shared on social media..

So, with that, we're going to continue with the day. Yesterday, we heard from our leaders about their journeys and the lessons they've learned in relation to values and ethics, and about the Call to Action on Anti-racism, Equity and Inclusion. We heard from some powerful speakers who have shown not only how to raise the bar that we set for ourselves on anti-racism; on Reconciliation; on inclusion of persons with disabilities; but also, on how to hold ourselves accountable for living up to those standards.

Public servants on the front lines shared valuable insights into how they apply values and ethics in their operational contexts across the country and beyond. We also heard about the critical role of building trust and respect, not only with the public, but also within our organizations and our teams, as a foundation for driving progress on the Call to Action in Advancing Equity, Diversity, Accessibility and Inclusion within the public service. Today, we're going to continue with those conversations by examining how our values and ethics help us public servants navigate the challenges and opportunities in our evolving landscape.

One rapidly evolving area is artificial intelligence. AI is highly relevant to public service because of its impact on service excellence and resource stewardship. We'll delve deeper into how AI is shaping our work, the opportunities that it presents, but also the responsibilities that come with its use.

But before we move on to the next segment, let's take a look at another video in our series, highlighting how public servants bring their values to life. This video focuses on respect for democracy and integrity.

[00:05:19 Video opens with title page. Text on screen: Reflections on Our Values: Stewardship.

[00:05:25 Video alternates between Winona Embuldeniya, aerial images of the National Capital Region, and a ceremonial smudging an Indigenous flag. Text on screen: Winona Embuldeniya, Women and Gender Equality Canada, Winnipeg, MB.]

Winona Embuldeniya: Respect for democracy means upholding the principles of our parliamentary system, respecting its democratic process, and then being nonpartisan. But to me, it's also meant upholding the honour of the crown. And it's also meant, for me, working inside the system to ensure that Indigenous voices are heard.

Rajiv Gupta: I mean, democracy is under threat. I'm seeing that it's something that needs to be protected, and it's really the responsibility of every Canadian, but even more so, those that actually serve in the public service. So, certainly something that's very much of interest to me.

[00:05:45 Video alternates between Heidi Robertson, and colleagues interacting on a whiteboard. Text on screen: Heidi Robertson, Department of National Defence, Ottawa, ON.]

Heidi Robertson: Every day I'm contemplating ethical questions like, are we going too far politically? That we're allowing people to participate fully in democracy? So, as long as you just do what you're supposed to do in those situations, that's how you make it better for everybody.

[00:06:12 Video shows symposium title page. Text on screen: Reflections on Our Values: Integrity.]

[00:06:17 Video alternates between Daniel Drouin, and views of the National Capital Region. Text on screen: Daniel Drouin, Employment and Social Development, Ottawa, ON.]

Daniel Drouin: For me, the two key words are keeping the employers trust, but also keeping the public's trust. Because as far as we're concerned, we're paid by the taxpayers, which, for me, is very, very important.

[00:06:28 Khadaja Elsibai appears full screen. Text on screen: Indigenous Services Canada, Toronto, ON.]

Khadaja Elsibai: It's really up to us as public servants to be clear on our role. To always think about what is in the public interest; what is going to help us maintain the integrity of our regulatory regimes.

[00:06:40 Justin Mathews appears full screen. Text on screen: Justin Mathews, Privy Council Office, Ottawa, ON.]

Justin Mathews: There are no easy answers, never has been. So, at the very least you could do is, when in doubt, ask.

[00:06:48 Video ends with symposium title page. Text on screen: What Unites Us, Defines Us; Values and Ethics in Today's Federal Public Service.]

[00:06:52 Nathalie Laviades Jodouin appears full screen.]

Nathalie Laviades Jodouin: This video is yet another reminder that our values and ethics code guides everything we do. But values aren't just words on paper. They come to life through our actions and the examples we set.

Before I introduce our first guest, let's take a quick survey to help set the stage for the themes we'll be discussing shortly.

[00:7:20 Split Screen: Nathalie Laviades Jodouin, and wooclap QR code, and then survey results.]

Nathalie Laviades Jodouin: Please go to wooclap.com and enter the code VEOCT in the top banner to access the survey and answer our question. What is one word that describes what it means to you to be a public servant? What is one word that describes what it means to you to be a public servant?

We'll take a moment and look at what's coming through. Pride; responsible; duty; support; serving Canadians; responsibility; services; excellence; support; integrity. Service coming through loud and clear. Integrity. Excellent. Let's keep those coming. Accessibility; representation; leadership; building Canada. Thank you. Thank you for your participation.

[00:08:20 Nathalie Laviades Jodouin appears full screen.]

Nathalie Laviades Jodouin: When we think about what it means to be a public servant, we are essentially reflecting not only on how we embody our values at work, but also on the unique role we play in achieving the shared goals of the public service. We discussed this topic yesterday and will explore it further today in discussions with our speakers.

I would now like to welcome our first speaker, Professor Ian Stedman, who joins the Canada School of Public Service as a Visiting Scholar through the Jocelyne Bourgon Visiting Scholar Initiative that was launched in 2021. As an associate professor of Canadian public law and governance, and the graduate program director in the School of Public Policy Administration at York University, Professor Stedman is a leading expert in public sector ethics and accountability.

Prior to joining York University, Professor Stedman held the inaugural research fellowship in artificial intelligence law and ethics at Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children and then a post doctoral fellowship at York University where he researched the governance of artificial intelligence in healthcare. In his role as a visiting scholar, Professor Stedman will support the School in advancing activities related to public service values and ethics. This will include participating in School events and other learning initiatives in partnership with departments across the public service. We are really fortunate to have the benefit of Professor Stedman's extensive experience as a professor, an advisor in the Office of the Integrity Commissioner of Ontario, and a researcher focused on the challenges and opportunities of our digital world.

Please join me in welcoming Professor Stedman.

[00:10:16 Professor Ian Stedman takes the stage and then appears full screen. Text on screen: Ian Stedman, Visiting Scholar, Canada School of Public Service, Associate Professor, York University.]

Professor Ian Stedman: Good morning, everyone. Thank you, Nathalie. It's an absolute pleasure to be here and to take in all these wonderful discussions and to reflect on what we've heard so far. As an outsider, I can say that. I have to say it's really quite inspiring to see the depth of engagement that we've seen yesterday, and I'm sure we'll see more today.

I've been given five minutes, so I better not be-labour this. I'd like to take that time to tell you a little bit about myself, why I'm here, what I hope we can accomplish together. So, as you heard, I started my career as a lawyer north of Toronto, and then I quickly moved into a role at the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, working for the Office of the Integrity Commissioner. My job there was primarily to give advice to the elected MPPs, but also to help out with lobbying registration administration, and then advice to public servants under the Ontario Public Service Act.

When I was at that office, though, one of the things that I realized, that stuck out to me, was that almost nobody really understood the rules. Some of them, in particular the gift rule, a little bit too complex. And, to almost everyone who came into the office, it was a nightmare to try to explain these things. Politicians barely understood what the rules were. The public absolutely didn't understand what the rules were. And as a person in that office, picking up the newspaper – we had physical newspapers back then, it was not all digital – I would see that even journalists didn't have anyone who could help them really make those things accessible. And so, from the inside, pulling my hair out, looking outside, thinking, why is this stuff so hard? Why does no one get it? It really struck me.

It was never my intention to become an academic, but I just didn't see too many people actively engaging with these topics in a critical and thoughtful way outside of government. And I truly think that we need that. We need that very much. We need people on the outside looking in, asking questions. We need people pointing fingers and saying, why aren't you doing this or that? That's what makes a healthy democracy. But more importantly, I think that's what can help drive innovation and progress. People who aren't on the inside looking at what's happening and asking questions.

You know, academia and academics sometimes suffer from the criticism that we stand on the outside looking in and pointing fingers, and that we really don't know what it means to be a politician, or a public servant, on the ground, having to make real decisions about complex issues under incredible pressure. That's not an unfair criticism most of the time, but academics are also the ones who often take the time to look at what is being done and to ask whether it meets the standards that have been set, and to talk to people and to try to understand the why. Then they can help suggest solutions and maybe even do it in a way that puts pressure on those who have the power to make things happen.

Now, I don't mean to suggest by my remarks today that I think there's something broken. Far from it. But the Deputy Minister's report to the Clerk drew our attention to the fact that public servants are being confronted with new challenges that they don't think are reflected in the Code of Values and Ethics. And some of you also noted that you don't think the code helps you navigate those issues when you confront them. For example, we heard yesterday about the idea that aspects of a person's identity can become the subject of politics. And that living through this can make it very difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile your humanity against your duty to uphold public service values. And I can also tell you that I hear over and over again that remote work and virtual work make it hard, or at least a little bit harder, to build a culture around values and ethics in the same way as has been done before in the past. Something has changed. There's less water cooler chit-chat where you can have these little conversations about the minutiae of what it means to do your job on a day-to-day basis. And I'm sure you've all heard this, too.

But let me say something really quickly about artificial intelligence as well. I know we're going to talk about it today. You heard it's a part of my background and what I do. It isn't just a public sector challenge. We all need real leadership helping us understand when and how to use these tools, not only because they're complicated and under regulated, there's the academic in me, but because they need data. And as I'm sure we'll talk about today; our data can be dirty. Dirty because we've only just started to have conversations and to speak openly and actively about who has the power when it comes to AI and how they exercise it, but also about whose voices have been included and excluded when we make policy. Policy, data being reused to glean new insights. That data could be filled with bias.

So, to try to gain new insights from that potentially biased data that we haven't really interrogated, it may feel challenging for a public servant to do that and say, how am I still acting in the public interest? How is what I'm doing having and showing respect for democracy? How are we going to reconcile what AI is and what we don't know about it with those values that we've been talking so much about? These are real problems. These are real questions that we need to grapple with in order to make our public service one that is welcoming of diversity of voices and experiences, and one that is welcoming of a diversity of ways of knowing and doing. We need to grapple with these challenges so that we can build the public service we want, as we move forward into this complex, virtual, and I would dare to say, oftentimes impersonal world that the authors of the code may not have imagined was forthcoming.

I don't have enough time to dig into it today, but you should know that these conversations are also being had in other jurisdictions all around the world. Things have changed, and we all need to make sense of what that means. It's not just a matter of navigating the day to day, either. At the international level, organizations like the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD, have also been having these conversations for years. They've been writing for years about the important role that public sector ethics and values plays in good governance overall. So, we're doing the right thing by having this conversation and asking these questions.

Let me end by saying this. I'm just a visiting scholar. But, like Daniel said yesterday, I'm here at a time when you, the public service, are having a conversation about things that we rarely talk openly about. And I think we're having this conversation at the right time. The Canada School of Public Service thinks so, too, because they've given me this opportunity. And I want you to know that I, like each of you, care about this conversation. I want to learn what matters to you; what works and what doesn't work. I want to hear the whys and I want to think through the whats and the hows. We all, each of us, wants to do good work, and we all want to leave this place better than we found it. So please, I would say to you, feel free to connect with me, to reach out to me, to send me an email, send me an anonymous email if you want. Start a Twitter account – it doesn't make any sense to send me an anonymous Twitter message – I don't care what it is. Reach out to me. Tell me the things that you think I should hear so that I can spend my time here doing meaningful work that can help push the envelope a bit. Please.

And with that, it now gives me great pleasure to introduce the man who needs no introduction because he's the reason we've had this opportunity to come together. He has an incredibly impressive career in the public service, working in more roles than I can wrap my head around, as a lowly academic, worked in human rights, in trade and foreign affairs, as an assistant secretary to the cabinet, as a deputy minister in different portfolios, and even as an ambassador to Norway. He's seen the public service through many different lenses and at many different levels. And he stands here, I think, from my days with you, steadfast and committed to seeing that this public service continues to evolve. So, his remarks today will help us focus on what it means to be a public servant so we can continue to sharpen our understanding of our engagement with our values as we continue to learn how to operationalize them amongst all the challenges that we're facing.

So, with that, I cede the floor to Clerk Hannaford, and thank you for your time.

[00:18:47 John Hannaford takes the stage and then appears full screen. Text on screen: John Hannaford, Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet. ]

John Hannaford: Thanks very much, Ian. I think that set the tone for today very nicely and for the work that that we have been doing and will continue to do over the course of the next period of time.

This is the second day, obviously, of a symposium that I think has been really quite inspiring to me. There has been a depth to this conversation which is, I think, reflective of an appetite for us to grapple with some of the core issues that we are confronting as a community and some of the things that define us as a profession. And that, in and of itself, I think, is, as I say, it is inspiring to me personally. It's inspiring of the vibrancy of this group. It's inspiring in the sense that I think we are grappling with things that matter, and that's to the strength of us as an institution and the future of this body.

[00:19:48 Split screen: John Hannaford, and symposium title page. Text on screen: What it means to be a public servant.]

John Hannaford: I want to start by saying, though, that we are gathered on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people. And the importance of statements like this link us back to the discussions we've been having. Values and ethics are rooted in the respect for people, and respect for people is rooted in the work that we are doing towards Reconciliation. So, wherever you are today, whether it's in the National Capital Region, or across Canada, or abroad, I encourage you to learn the history of the area you find yourselves in, and to learn from the Indigenous peoples. As has been evident from the conversations we've been having, we learn enormously from those around us. About a year ago, we launched this dialogue on values and ethics.

[00:20:37 John Hannaford appears full screen.]

John Hannaford: And I was struck by the enthusiasm with which public servants entered into this dialogue. I enjoyed engaging with public servants at all levels and getting a new perspective on what we're doing on behalf of Canadians.

Many of the conversations have really centred around the theme of what it is to be a public servant. You're all going to have different answers to that question based on your own experiences; the job you do; the institution you serve; and the way that you serve Canadians. For my own part, the service of democracy is one of the most inspiring aspects of the work that we perform together. We are a central pillar of our democratic system. And the democratic system is a central pillar of our society, so we make a very direct contribution to something that is really fundamental to the society that we serve.

And I want every public servant across our organization to feel proud, not just of their individual achievements, or the achievements of their team or department, but in being a public servant. And I must say, I found it enormously gratifying to watch the words flash up on the screen earlier. Service should be enormously prominent, as should be pride. And I hope this conversation reinforces that pride in who we are. Our work is essential to our democracy, as it is for our country and to Canadians as well. We defend the system's integrity and credibility, and we respect the democratic will of the Canadian people. This is a profoundly important role to play. Each of us is part of something bigger.

[00:22:39 Split screen: John Hannaford, and symposium title page. Text on screen: Each of us is part of something bigger.]

John Hannaford: For me, that realization crystallized very early on in my career. As a newly minted lawyer, I was given an opportunity in 1995 to play a role in a dispute that we were having with Spain on our east coast fisheries.

[00:22:53 John Hannaford appears full screen.]

John Hannaford: That dispute found its way in front of the International Court of Justice, and I was part of a small team that was asked to present our defence in that context. And I realized, as I was working on our presentation of Canada's case, that this really wasn't about me. It was about Canada. The consequences that we would have, as a result of our success or failure, would be felt by our country. It would relate to our waters and our relationship with an ally. Work I was doing really wasn't about me. It was about our country.

And that same feeling has followed me throughout my career as I was given the responsibility of being a deputy minister and leading an institution of public servants who impress me daily with the quality of the work they did and their commitment and the depth of their expertise. It's followed me when I've had the opportunity to travel with prime ministers to areas near conflict zones where you see our people in uniform, who serve and sacrifice for the ideals that our country holds dear.

We're all part of something bigger. When a Canadian asks for help with their tax return, signs up for online programs and goes through [24:19 inaudible], the experience they have shapes their perception of the public service and the government. Public servants who work at a call centre, create web content or review applications identifying eligibility requirements for a program are part of something bigger. Those who work with the public are not the only ones involved. Everyone who works behind the scenes to support our institutions—I'm thinking of, for example, human resources, administration and information technology, who contribute to our success.

When public servants at every level deliver excellence and demonstrate integrity and exercise sound stewardship of the taxpayer dollars that builds trust and confidence. It's not just what we do, it's how we do it. And as we face an operating environment that's ever changing and increasingly complex, these conversations about how we do our work, how we embrace our core values, how we adapt to continue to deliver excellence in the future, are essential. So, how should we proceed?

[00:25:48 Split screen: John Hannaford, and symposium title page. Text on screen: We deliver excellence as a team.]

John Hannaford: Well, guided by shared purpose, with a strong understanding of who we are as an organization. And that's what our Code of Values and Ethics provides. A professional, nonpartisan public service is an essential part of our democracy. We provide the government with options and then put the government's decisions into practice in the service of Canada. Our advice is based on science, evidence, knowledge and experience. We are honest and forthright about challenges and provide solid options to address them.

[00:26:24 John Hannaford appears full screen.]

John Hannaford: Ultimately, it's up to ministers to make decisions on behalf of our country and, whatever our personal beliefs, we have a professional duty to support our democracy by serving our clients, the government, and Canadians to the best of our ability. We do this with courage, with candour, with transparency and openness, and with respect. I talked about respect earlier, how it is a big part of Reconciliation, learning and listening to Indigenous peoples, respecting their knowledge, their stories, their identities, and their experiences. As we discussed yesterday afternoon, we also bring our values to life by making meaningful progress on the Call to Action on Anti-racism, Equity and Inclusion, and by making our workplaces accessible to all. By promoting a healthy culture, our ability to innovate and solve problems comes from teamwork, which happens when people feel valued and included.

We need to have candid conversations about mental health and safe work spaces, as well as seek out different points of view, reflect on them, and communicate the decisions made and their rationale. We also need to be agile and resilient in the face of change. The reality of our work and the world we live in is that change is constant. Whether this change is as global as a pandemic or as local as a change in priorities, we must accept it and empower ourselves to succeed. There are many things we can prepare for; we can analyze trends and predict different scenarios for a year or five years ahead. We need to be comfortable with the unknown unknowns. There will always be surprises, and it's up to us to respond effectively. We've seen extraordinary examples of this, including our responses during the COVID pandemic and to the wildfires across the country. To manage risks, adapt to new circumstances, and make the most of opportunities to innovate.

Now, we know that there is a fixed election date in October of 2025, and as a professional and nonpartisan public service, we support democracy and carry out the business of government. For those of you who have joined the public service in recent years, you will not have had the experience of our role during an electoral period, and I strongly encourage leaders across our system to discuss that role during the election time. And I encourage us all to embrace our role. The public service offers continuity for Canadians and for the duly elected government. It is the strength of our system.

Now, in all we do, we must strive for excellence, and achieving excellence is no easy feat. We are, after all, only human. Sometimes we can feel like we're hitting roadblocks, and it can be hard if our advice doesn't make it to the final cut. But take this to heart. Our service matters, our work matters at every level and in every part of the country. Ultimately, I hope you come to see yourselves as I see you, part of an essential whole, contributing to an organization that has great meaning and profound purpose. An organization whose core principles have stood the test of time. An organization that will continue to evolve to meet the current and future needs of Canadians. This is why this conference is so important. This is why it's important to continue the dialogue after the conference. We want public servants to come away from this conference better equipped to meet the challenges of the future.

Now, as we look at what comes next, I think there are some key areas we can provide new direction that will make a real difference. This afternoon's panel is going to be a discussion on guidelines for how we responsibly use artificial intelligence in our work. It's also been very clear over the course of the conversations we've had in the last year that guidance with respect to the use of social media would be welcome and important. Yesterday we heard of the work that TBS has initiated in this regard, and I'm grateful for that because I think it provides a really sound foundation.

[00:31:24 Split screen: John Hannaford, and symposium title page. Text on screen: We serve democracy – a purpose that has stood the test of time.]

John Hannaford: But it also requires further development and discussion given the evolution of social media on a minute-by-minute basis. So, I've asked Deputy Clerk Fox to continue these efforts, working closely with Jackie Bogden, the Chief Human Resources Officer, to continue this dialogue.

[00:31:41 John Hannaford appears full screen.]

John Hannaford: And to refine the social media guidance by the spring of next year in a way that will reflect national and international best practices. Similarly, we don't want to lose the accomplishments we've had to date on our conversations on values and ethics, and I've asked Taki Sarantakis, President of the School, to establish a permanent Values and Ethics Visiting Scholar, which will be operational by 2025. And it will be named after my friend and mentor, Ian Shugart, who was an inspirational colleague and mentor, former Clerk of the Privy Council, and Senator who loved this country. He epitomized what we aspire to as public servants: committed to excellence in serving the public and supporting democracy with integrity, openness and respect. Taki will provide some further details on this, but broadly speaking, the new role will be an annual rotating appointment, with the scholar focusing on the development and implementation of values and ethics courses; research on ethics and governance; promoting the importance of ethical leadership; and ensuring diversity, equity and inclusion are fully integrated in our values of excellence, integrity, stewardship, respect for democracy and respect for people.

Lastly, I would ask that the deputy ministers continue the momentum we have gained, by focusing their efforts within their organizations on the following: updating the organizational code of conduct, and preparing a departmental report on the disclosure of wrongdoing and misconduct. Require employees to submit annual conflict of interest declarations and incorporate substantial accountability for progress in implementing the Call to Action.

We are, together, the public service. We are the public service at this moment in time in the history of our country, all of us. We have a responsibility in that regard to live up the values of our organization. We have a responsibility to our society to serve to the best of our ability, and we have a responsibility to hold ourselves to high standards. It's a very high calling. It's a critical role that we play. I am deeply proud of this institution, and I really look forward to continuing this conversation in this format and going forward. And I look forward to the panel we're going to have right now. And I want to thank you all for participating in today's event. Thank you. Miigwech Merci.

[00:34:32 Nathalie Laviades Jodouin appears full screen.]

Nathalie Laviades Jodouin: Thank you very much, Clerk Hannaford, for taking the time for being with us here today and sharing your thoughtful insights. So, as you take a seat, just letting everyone know, we are going to get ready for our next panel discussion, which Clerk Hannaford will be moderating.

[00:35:00 Camera alternates between Nathalie Laviades Jodouin, the panelists taking their seats on stage, and the panelists participating virtually.]

Nathalie Laviades Jodouin: So, with that, I'm going to be inviting our panelists to come join us on the stage, starting with Melissa Dorian, who's a manager at Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, as well as Nathalie Morin, Director General at Environment and Climate Change Canada. And I would also like to invite participants who are joining us virtually, starting with Ayesha Zafar, who's an Assistant Deputy Minister at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, as well as Raoul Antwali, an Issues Manager at Canada Revenue Agency. Just a reminder for everyone to go to wooclap.com and enter the code VEOCT in order to submit your questions. And with that, Clerk Hannaford, the stage is yours.

[00:35:40 Split screen: John Hannaford and panelists on stage, and panelists participating virtually.]

John Hannaford: Excellent. Well, look, it's a pleasure to get a chance to chat with all of you. And my hope in this session is really, we can have a bit of an exchange. This is an opportunity to hear from your experiences, hear from your perspectives, and to share with everyone who's participating,

[00:35:55 Split screen: John Hannaford, and panelists participating virtually.]

John Hannaford: all 15,000 of you, the insights that you've gained from the perspectives that you have. It was mentioned yesterday that we all come at the role of the public service from our very specific perspectives. I want to hear about that, but I also want to hear about some of the sort of transcending experiences [that] you've had. In other words, how you see yourself contributing the broader whole, how you see values playing into that. And maybe Raoul, it's a little unfair, but maybe we'll start with you. I think you're the newest of the public servants on this panel, so I'm kind of interested in your experience to date, how you view the conversation we've had about values and ethics and your reflections on the way forward.

[00:36:36 Split screen: John Hannaford and panelists on stage, and panelists participating virtually.]

Raoul Ntwali: Of course. Thank you so much. Hi everybody. Thank you very much for having me. I would have really liked to be there with you today, but I'm very grateful to still be able to join you virtually and participate in this conversation. Clerk Hannaford, I want to thank you, too, for bringing back this important discussion on values and ethics and for advancing the Call to Action on Anti-racism, Equity and Inclusion across Canada. The work you've done since taking office has truly been inspirational, and I want to congratulate you.

[00:37:13 Raoul Ntwali appears full screen. Text on screen: Raoul Ntwali, Issues Manager, Canada Revenue Agency.]

Raoul Ntwali: Also, a big thank you to the teams of the Privy Council Office and the Canada School of Public Service for putting this symposium together. Special shout out to Martin, to Catherine, Danica, Aman. There are many people behind the scenes, who've been working very hard to make sure that they can happen. Many thanks to all of you.

And so, yes, thank you for the question, Clerk Hannaford. Maybe I'll start with a little bit of background. So, yes, I started my journey in the public service at the Canada Revenue Agency in 2019. I have to say my onboarding experience was very different from what many younger public servants went through during the pandemic. I had the privilege of working closely with my colleagues every day, and we worked in person. I shadowed them. I bombarded them with a bunch of questions. Those poor guys. And they were incredibly, incredibly patient and understanding with me. And they were very supportive. They practically held my hand until I felt confident enough to take on my own responsibilities independently.

And this kind of in-person experience really helped me understand the core values that guide us in the public service. Values like respect for democracy, values for respect for people, integrity and excellence. It really shaped my understanding of what it means to be a public servant and how we serve Canadians with accountability and respect. And for those who were onboarded during the pandemic, the experience was understandably very different. They didn't have the same in-person support, but they were part of something new and something important. These younger public servants were pioneers in the virtual onboarding, and through their feedback and adaptability, they helped us improve this process.

I remember when I moved into my second role at the CRA during the pandemic. My entire onboarding was done virtually. My mentor and I would spend long hours, sometimes entire days on MS teams, on calls, working through files, one at a time. And it wasn't the same as being in person, but it showed me that with the right support, values like stewardship and excellence can still be upheld, even in a virtual environment. And this transition has also opened up opportunities to bring in amazing talent from across the country, not just locally. So, I think we need to embrace this new reality and keep improving, ensuring that no matter where someone is located, they can feel connected to our shared commitment and values in ethics.

And for younger public servants, I have to say I think values and ethics are central to how we see our roles in the public service. Younger public servants really care deeply about fairness and equity, and they want to see respect for people in every aspect of their work. They expect integrity, not just in the task they perform, but in the leadership and the decision making around them. And that's why it's so important to keep talking about these values, not just as ideals, but as practical, everyday actions.  You talked about the resources that were shared by TBS yesterday. The Chief Human Resources Officer spoke to us about resources that have been created for us, and it's a great way to keep those conversations going. I believe these resources provide practical tools to help connect core values to our day-to-day work, whether we're working in the office or remotely.

And one of the best ways we can help younger public servants understand what it means to be a public servant is by involving them in this conversation, like I am here today, participating in this conversation. You know, I've had the great privilege of serving one of the largest employee networks in the public service, the CRA YPN which is a professional growth network. I am also an active member of the Federal Youth Network, and these are all examples of spaces that were designed to give you younger employees a platform to share their ideas. Their voices help shape how we apply values like respect for people and integrity in today's evolving workplace. And when young public servants are actively involved in these discussions, they feel a stronger connection to the values that guide our public service. And similar to you, Clerk Hannaford, when you were a young lawyer participating in that dispute, you felt a stronger connection to the values and you realized that, you're part of something bigger.

And when I talk about this approach, it's not something theoretical. We've seen it in practice. For example, the new social media guidelines were developed with input from public servants—public servants from all departments and levels across Canada. This is a testament to the value of integrity through transparency and inclusiveness. And this kind of collaboration shows that when we work together, we can create policies that represent a wide range of experiences and needs. And it reminds us that respect for democracy and respect for people go hand in hand with the need to ensure that every voice is heard.

So, in the end, values and ethics come to life through the stories we share. At the CRA YPN, we have something called success through failure, which is a series of events where we open a platform for people to talk about their failures. We encourage them to talk openly about their experiences, both their successes, their failures, but especially those failures and challenges, because they break down barriers. And they remind us that we're all constantly learning and we're all human. And by sharing these stories, we make values like integrity, like stewardship, personal and practical, not just something that is written in the code, but something that we live every day.

So, I guess my message today is to keep the conversation going, to keep learning from one another, and to ensure that values, respect for democracy, respect for people, integrity, stewardship, and excellence, continue to guide us as we serve Canadians. So, I'll stop there and turn it back over to you, Mr. Hannaford.

[00:43:00 Split screen: John Hannaford, and panelists participating virtually.]

John Hannaford: Those were great points, Raoul, and I must say, one of the reasons why I thought it was important for us to initiate this conversation, was a personal experience. I have a daughter who started her career during the pandemic, and it was a less-than-perfect experience, to be honest. She started working for a big organization. It was not the public service, but she'd moved to Toronto. She started her career working at her kitchen table in a very small apartment. And her experience, as I kind of talked through it with her, was so different from mine when I started 30 years ago, where I had the opportunity, as you did, Raoul, to be chatting with people who were much more experienced. And sometimes finding that what I was watching, I didn't think was actually great practice. But in many instances, just by kind of imbibing what was going on around me, I had that opportunity to kind of take in the rules of the organization and the culture of the organization. And I have felt that through the pandemic, we lost the edge on some of that. And I thought it was really important for us to invigorate this conversation, in part because a substantial number of people have joined since that period, and that was their initiation to this profession.

And maybe we can turn it over to those on my right for your thoughts and experiences. We'll start with you.

[00:44:34 Split screen: Melissa Dorian, and panelists participating virtually.]

Melissa Dorian: Well, as a manager in the public service, we're often squished between two layers of implementing direction and providing fearless advice up the chain of command. But there's a lot that managers can do to empower and equip employees within their teams to really feel like they're living the values and ethics in their everyday lives.

And it's funny, before coming here, I did reach out to colleagues in other departments in different lines of work and ask them what they felt about the values and ethics as a practice in their everyday. And for the most part, people really saw the respect for people coming out in their work and in their day to day. And I think in no small part because of the hard work that's been done across the public service when it comes to mental health and well being; the 13 psycho psychological factors for a healthy workplace, but also the work on the Call to Action and EDI and Accessibility. But it was clear that people had a harder time identifying the piece around democracy, the value of an ethic around democracy in their day-to-day work. And I think when the conversation shifts a little from the word democracy, and maybe using the old adage that many of us are familiar with, with fearless advice, loyal implementation, it resonated a little more.

And I think that's what managers can bring back into their teams, is bringing these conversations and inviting conversation around, how do you provide fearless advice?

[00:45:48 Melissa Dorian appears full screen. Text on screen: Melissa Dorian, Manager, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada.]

Melissa Dorian: How do you loyally implement? And for those who are in the position for decision making, how do you make unbiased decisions? And it can be small things. So, in your team meetings, we're very good at saying, what are the barriers for moving forward a particular project or designing something.

But there's a different set of questions we can add in there. And it's those questions around, is there something that happened throughout the week for which you felt conflicted? Or for which you felt uncertainty? And oftentimes when it's framed that way, people will start sharing information. And those are those moments where the values and ethics really need to be leaned into. And we can use different language, but really it comes back to the values and ethics around providing fearless advice and loyal implementation. And what will happen is if you, as a manager, can foster within your team a curiosity and a comfort with challenging each other, you will start building courage within your team members.

So, we hear this a lot. I'm very fortunate to be a chair of the ISED managers community, and we poll our members. And on a regular basis, what's come out over the years is we need to strengthen our sense of courage. And when we unpack that a little more through conversations, what we're hearing is that individuals aren't always sure how to package information and how to send it up in a way where they really are providing fulsome information, and where they are checking themselves so that they're not tailoring it just to get buy-in. They're not tailoring it just because they know that it's something someone wants to hear. And it takes courage to do that because people worry, oh, well, if it's not what someone wants to hear, is this going to reflect badly on me? Will this affect my PMA? But if you can create an environment within your team where you encourage members to challenge each other in professional ways, and a challenge doesn't mean confrontation. Just voice different opinions, bring different opinions to the table, and encourage them to challenge you as a manager. Make it safe, build that confidence and that reflex in your employees. That way, as they move up the chain, they're also going to exhibit that courage. And they can model it. They can see you modelling it.

Now, the second piece to this, the loyal implementation. Oftentimes when you go back to ask that question to your teammates again, what is it that maybe made you feel conflicted or uncertain? The other part that often comes out is, well, my personal opinion or my personal preference isn't really well aligned with what I'm being asked to implement. And that's a real feeling, and that's something we can't ignore. And particularly in this day and age, where our opinions are something so tied with our identity and that are so out there and encouraged to be out there in social media, and it's something that people are rewarded for with instant likes. Share your opinion, instant like. But then you come to work, and you're asked to park it. Park your opinion, park your personal preference. But that's critical for our work. But it does require managers to then lean into their employees and help them be okay with that, because it's not an instinct that people come with. And it requires letting people be humbled in their opinion and holding back their opinion at certain moments in time. But with the recognition that the decision that's been made, it may not benefit you personally, but it's at someone's benefit within Canada. The people within Canada need that decision right now. And most public servants, I think, would very happily, loyally implement when they know that. I think where it becomes a bit tricky is that idea of loyal implementation requires trust in the process.

So, we've talked about the people of Canada trusting the public service, but there's also a notion of public servants trusting the process, the internal process. And this is where there's like a feedback loop that starts to build. Because if an employee, for example, doesn't have the courage to provide fulsome recommendations designed in their program, designed in the service, if they feel that maybe their own internal bias has been built into a process, into a recommendation, then it becomes harder to trust the process because you think, well, maybe someone else has too. Maybe the decision makers haven't been provided with unbiased information on which to make their decision.

And so again, it comes back to fostering courage within your teams, courage within individual employees, to bring in a diversity of views to challenge each other on, have we examined this from every possible angle, so that the advice you're sending up, the programs you're delivering, really have been well thought out, are reflective of everyone's needs. Decision makers are given the information they need to make unbiased decisions. And at that point you can go with the flow and realize that what you're implementing, it will meet someone's need and you can be proud of what you're accomplishing.

And that word pride, so it did come up in the word cloud. And that's something that's extremely important and something that perhaps we don't lean into enough as managers or we do it in very isolated ways. So, we're so busy maybe fostering a sense of pride in the work that a team is doing. But then the sense of loyalty is to that team and not necessarily to the organization or to the public service. And wow, we have a lot to be proud of as a public service. We're amazing. Canadian public service is always at the top when you look at global indexes of public service, and it has been for years. But we've also heard a lot of bad news about ourselves over the last number of years. And it's something that managers can lean into, is to foster a sense of pride in our team members.

And be conscientious of not just building that loyalty to the team, because we've all been there. At some point in time in your career, a recommendation is going to not gain favour or your program or your initiative is going to change. And if your sense of identity and pride is strictly to that of your team and to your work, it makes you vulnerable. And it makes this idea of democracy vulnerable because you're not as supportive of implementing the decision, because you feel disheartened. But, if you really feel like you're part of a bigger picture, a public service, and have pride in being a member of the public service, not just your team, it's easier to accept the decision and support the decision because you're proud of your colleagues and you're proud of the work that's being done.

And so, there's a lot that managers can do. And as far as what can organizations do for managers, that's a lot of pressure on managers. That's a lot of responsibility. And one thing we hear repeatedly is we want to learn, and we want to network. And by network, I don't mean climb the ladder and shake hands. I mean have connections with peers with whom you can talk through these complex situations. But managers often feel they don't have a lot of time to do that, or they feel the pressure to deliver, to deliver, to deliver. But if we can create some space for them and really model and emphasize the need for folks to take the time out to learn, to take the time out to connect with each other in order to have a network behind the scenes that you can rely on to talk through these notions, that is one of the best things that we can do for managers.

And I could probably go on for days, perhaps I'll wrap it up with that statement. And for the decision makers, again, to help build that trust, communicate how decisions are made. Employees don't have the benefit of having been exposed to what information you are considering. They have to trust in the process. And oftentimes the decisions are filtered through many layers before they get to an employee. And it's not always obvious how the values were reflected in a decision.

And so, whether you're a manager within a team making a decision; an executive within an organization; a deputy administer; a governance table; or a central agency, when you're communicating the decisions, be conscious of the fact that an average employee needs to be able to see the values reflected in that decision. And when they can see that, the loyal implementation piece becomes all that much easier.

[00:54:32 John Hannaford appears full screen.]

John Hannaford: Those are great points. Thank you very much. Your perspectives, on the scientific side of the things, so to speak.

[00:54:38 Nathalie Morin appears full screen. Text on screen: Nathalie Morin, Director General, Environment and Climate Change Canada.

Nathalie Morin: On the scientific side of things, I think there are many points that managers agree on. I think it's really important to understand that the context is changing very quickly. Scientists are still the trusted source of information in Canada. The public still trusts scientists. So that increases the pressure. I think it's clear that trust needs to remain. I think scientists feel the need to maintain that trust. But there's a lot of conflicting messages. Now, we are in evolving mode. AI, we talked about AI. We are talking about speed, the speed of research, the speed of having answers for supporting policy decision, regulatory development. But to do the science and to be thorough and to make sure that we're maintaining that integrity, it comes at conflict at times. So, I think it's very important to recognize that.

And I think this is where the Code of Values and Ethics but also the scientific integrity policy that we have, helps navigate and guide us. And, I think, it's sometimes people are thinking, oh, it's easy, but sometimes it's these small nuances in the day to day that comes and makes a conflict or make you think about it, and you're kind of, oh, let's think about that. Let's pause. And just earlier today I was talking with Melissa, and I was just saying last week a team who is informing me of [an] upcoming article "Going Nature". I'm so excited. As the DG, I'm super happy, I'm proud. I'm like, yes, this is awesome. Then I started reading the abstract and I'm like oh, this is not exactly the type of news that I was expecting. This is against what I was expecting as a result. But then I was in conflict with myself I was like okay, so this means I need to be giving a heads up to my boss and to my boss' boss. I need to engage media. So, this is where I'm like okay, this is interesting news. And it's just that it's in a flash. In a moment I'm like oh, ok, I need to think this one through for one second. But, at the same time, this is where I'm pleased because even if this is not giving the news I was expecting, I know down the road this means that it's going to be thorough and it's also that it's going to force more debate and more conversation.

And I think this is always where some people are afraid of the debate. And I'm like, no, debate is good. You need debate to have strong policy decisions, or even to make sure that this paper, this article is thorough, this is why they're calling it peer reviewed. This is making sure that it can be trusted and be a reference point in the future. But there's a way to do it right. Debate; thorough conversation. It's always about in the respectful, in an open, transparent way. And this is where it goes a long way. And I think that really when we do things while respecting our values, scientific integrity is always there, and really, allows people to be recognized internationally. We have Canadian researchers on the international scene who are truly recognized for their integrity and their way of doing things. So, I think it's really important to continue these debates and these conversations.

[00:58:18 John Hannaford appears full screen.]

John Hannaford: What are the differences, the distinctions between the experience of a government scientist compared to someone in academia, for example?

[00:58:32 Nathalie Morin appears full screen.]

Nathalie Morin: Listen, it's a really interesting question and we often ask ourselves the question: what is the role of a scientist in the federal government versus in universities? We always say that in the federal government, there's a mandate, we have priorities. We can't start researching anything with no connection to our government priorities. I think it's important to recognize that. That said, we must maintain the independence of those researchers to be able to make progress. That said, there's often a lot of collaboration with universities, and even then, it's important that these relationships also respect values, and that there's no interference. So, it's important to manage this properly and recognize this. Universities play a really important role in Canada, and it's very complementary in everything in the field of research, sometimes what we refer to as pure or hard research. Sometimes they even have much more freedom to go in all directions than we have in the federal government.

Obviously, I also do research in the federal government that supports long-term research. We are trying to fund projects that need data over longer periods time. So, these fields are really complementary but also important. I think, when it comes to academics versus us in the federal, I think we have different purpose, but we work really hand in hand with a lot of universities in every domain to make sure that we are supporting each other and not overlapping, of course.

[01:00:04 John Hannaford appears full screen.]

John Hannaford: Excellent. Aisha, maybe we could turn to you, and your perspectives from more of the security community and the sorts of situations you've encountered both in that context and in aligned department.

[01:00:18 Aiesha Zafar appears full screen. Text on screen: Aiesha Zafar, Assistant Deputy Minister, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada.]

Aiesha Zafar: Yes, thanks for that. So, thinking back to when I first started over 20 years ago, I started in counterterrorism intelligence, and so values and ethics has been ingrained in me since day one as a public servant, again, over 20 years ago. But I think the way that I've understood it or connected to it has changed through all of that, and not necessarily because of being in this security environment, but maybe more because of the roles that I've taken, and the vantage points that I've had through it.

So, I was young, fresh out of university, right after 9/11, working in counterterrorism intelligence, as I mentioned. And I'm a Muslim by faith and a Pakistani by heritage. So, we were working very intimately in, what was called in the west, the war on terror. But what it ultimately was, was a multi-pronged war against Islamic extremism. And if you remember back then, what was being relayed in the media, what was happening in our communities, there was misinformation, there was fear, public attacks, and even people in the community who didn't understand how I could be on the side of a fight against Islamic extremism. I mean, I felt all of that.

And so, from an early time in my career, I really had to understand my own identity and my own values and what I was doing, and then what my role was as a public servant. But that work was still very operational. So, maybe it was easier for me back then to separate the politics and the media and everything else that I was seeing, because we were super mission focused. There were bad people doing bad things, and we were trying to stop them from doing that. And I was very proud of my work and the people that I worked with. But then, you fast forward. And I started working in policing. I had left the federal government, started working for the province for a few years, and that was, I would say, my very first real exposure to how government works, because the role that I had before, like I said, was quite operational and mission focused. And so, I didn't need to necessarily think about how government worked at that time. I wasn't writing policy option memos or doing stakeholder engagement for those new policies. I was very focused on a particular national security issue.

So, when I started working for the province, I was already the equivalent of a director and I was working on these public safety initiatives that seemed so simple to me. Do this, people are safer. It's very easy. And we would write these recommendations, and I couldn't understand why they weren't just so easily being implemented by the government. Do this, people are safer. I would get really, really frustrated. And I remember it was my ADM who said to me, he actually had the conversation with me and said, Aiesha, your job is to give the best advice. You're the expert in this area. So, give your recommendations and the implementation options, but your job is not to make the decision. So, give your recommendations and the implementation options, but your job is not to make the decision. That's the job of the people that this province elected to be the government. And you uphold democracy in our democratic institutions by playing your role as a public servant and doing it to the best of your ability. But remember your role. And Melissa talked about democracy, fearless advice and things like that. And what is your role as a public servant in this big machine?

And then, when I worked in the deputy's office as the deputy's Chief of Staff, that's where I really saw how complex things actually were. I saw all the things that came to the DM's table. I saw all the things that came to the minister's table. And it wasn't just mine. It wasn't even just our department. It wasn't just our government. And I started to gain a better understanding of the complexity of decision-making and governmental oppression. So, it really helped me put into perspective my role as a public servant, but perhaps even more so, I think it helped me realize that I wish I had understood that sooner when I was in National Security Operations and when I was in a truly operational environment. I think it's really important for every public servant, no matter what industry, sector, field that you're in, to know that we are public servants, and that's what makes us the same. What does that mean in terms of our values and our ethics and our behaviours? But if I can add one more thing, I would say now, in this world, a world with more humanitarian crises, with wars, threats to our democracy, with different perceptions on immigration. I work for IRCC. This is a really fast changing world. And now, as an ADM, I have, again, a different vantage point, and I'm thinking about it differently all over again. It's hard sometimes. I think the conversation of values and ethics is one that you have to have with yourself regularly, and you have to communicate with others as well. I think Melissa also talked about, have those conversations, have that debate. Each of us is in a different role with a different vantage point. We have a different passion or goal or objective, but we have the same values as public servants, and we have to constantly remember, what does that mean in my space?

[01:05:32 John Hannaford appears full screen.]

John Hannaford: Those are just terrific points. Look, there's been a lot of wisdom that's been shared over the course of all four of your comments, so I'm very grateful to you.

I wonder, we will turn to questions from the audience, but before we do, just interested, if very quickly, you could each give me something you are most proud of in being a public servant. Let me start with you, Melissa.

[01:05:54 Split screen: Melissa Dorian, and panelists participating virtually.]

Melissa Dorian: Well, the example that I'm going to share will probably get a groan from the audience. I had been part of the future of work office at ISED and helping to implement the direction for increased on site presence. But why I'm proud of that is because we took a lot of effort, concerted effort, to help employees through it. It's a difficult change for people and it's not an easy sell. And the fact is, this is exactly one of those moments where we have to take our personal perspectives and personal preferences and hold them in check and look at the bigger picture. And that is a very, very, very tricky thing to do.

But I am proud of having been there as a support, to try to help on the change management side of things, to try to help on the communication side of things, to try to encourage my team members and equip them for that change and to bring their best to the workplace every day. And they did the same for me. And that's why I love my team. They're just fantastic individuals. And we've fostered this sense of courage within our team and challenging each other and looking at things from different angles. And that became very pertinent for sustaining us through that period of time. Because it's tricky when you are potentially at odds with colleagues within your organization in trying to implement something that isn't sexy, isn't a fun thing to work on. It's a hard thing to work on.

[01:07:48 Melissa Dorian appears full screen.]

Melissa Dorian: But I'm very proud of how we came together to support employees through that change and try to find the best in the situation, all the while bearing in mind that notion of not taking action in our self interest, but really finding opportunity. And what we did see throughout the pandemic, I think teams actually worked very well virtually, and bonded well virtually, and had a good sense of direction for themselves within their teams. But people ended up working far more in isolation than in any other point of my 18-year career. And it comes back to that cautionary tale I was mentioning before. If your sense of identity is strictly tied to your team, you don't realize the bigger picture of what you're engaged in as a public servant, and everything becomes that much harder.

And so, again, I'm proud of the work that was done. And I think it's one of those moments where all the values and ethics for each of us working in that team are tested every day. But I hope that for employees in the organization, things were made that much better because we genuinely cared, and we genuinely applied the values through that transition.

John Hannaford: Fantastic. Nathalie.

[01:09:59 Nathalie Morin appears full screen.]

Nathalie Morin: I've been really lucky to have been able to carry out great projects, to have made great policies or regulations, things over the years, but what I'm most proud of is really to have helped my teams, to have helped employees to continue, to persevere, to understand how the public service works—because you have to understand how it works—and above all to continue to help them grow in the public service. I think that's what I'm going to remember the most when I retire one day. I think that's really what will stay with me, it's really having been able to work with highly competent and high-quality people. You know, we're really lucky. I think that, Mélissa, you mentioned that we're recognized worldwide for our high-quality public service. And I think it's really because of the people and how much they care. I think it's amazing how people like to help each other through the journey. And I think that's exceptional. So, this is what I'm mostly proud to be part of that game.

[01:10:10 John Hannaford and on-stage panelists appear full screen.]

John Hannaford: We're a community. Aiesha.

Aiesha Zafar: It's going to be such a cheesy answer, Clerk.

John Hannaford: Cheesy is good.

[01:10:20 Aiesha Zafar appears full screen.]

Aiesha Zafar: It's everything I've been able to do, like contributing to keeping people safe and well. Canadians safe and well, in whatever way I can. I get to wake up every day and contribute to Canadians in Canada. And my kids are going to grow up here. They're growing up here. My neighbours, I look at our parks and our communities and our schools, and I want my kids and their kids and my extended family and everybody I know to be able to continue to be well in this country. So, it kind of sounds like that whole national security mission and purpose, but really there is such a purpose in public service and the fact that we are entrusted by Canadians to be able to do that. And it's my way of kind of giving back as well.

[01:11:04 John Hannaford and on-stage panelists appear full screen.]

John Hannaford: Terrific. Raoul.

[01:11:07 Raoul Ntwali appears full screen.]

Raoul Ntwali: There's so much to be proud of. But I think the biggest for me so far has been leading the CRA YPN, the professional growth network that I was talking about. Honestly, I like to say I've worked with the smartest people in the public service through that network. Being able to serve them, being able to help them find their voice and contributing to our agency's development and continued growth through the different events that we did, through the different consultations we did, looking at corporate policy documents, looking at HR procedures and whatnot, and sharing our voice and our opinions as young public servants. And to be able to see that take effect and eventually impact everybody else across the agency is something that is very powerful for me. And I'm very proud of that work that we've done.

[01:11:12 Split screen: John Hannaford and on-stage panelists; Virtual panelists.]

John Hannaford: Madam.

[01:12:04 Nathalie Laviades Jodouin appears full screen.]

Nathalie Laviades Jodouin: Thank you, everyone, to all our panelists. And now we'll move on to the Q and A. So just a reminder, wooclap.com, VEOCT to submit your questions. And we'll do our best to alternate between our virtual participants and those here in the room.

[01:12:04 Nathalie Laviades Jodouin appears full screen.]

Nathalie Laviades Jodouin: Just for those here in the room, we're going to try and get as many questions as possible from everyone. But for those of you who are here in the room, limit to one question. Don't try and get sneaky. I'm not going to let that happen. And use it as an opportunity to practice your concise briefing skills. I will also ask my panel members here to indicate to me if they wish to take a question, in particular, not all of you are required to answer all of the questions.

[01:12:59 Nathalie Laviades Jodouin appears full screen.]

Nathalie Laviades Jodouin: And that way we'll try to get to as many as possible. So, I'm going to start with one that's come in virtually, and it reads,

[01:13:10 Split screen: Nathalie Laviades Jodouin, and virtual panelists.]

Nathalie Laviades Jodouin: Sometimes it can be hard to respond to higher official demands and uphold nonpartisanship, public interest, and also protecting the crown. How do you balance all these things? Who would like to? Yes.

[01:13:23 John Hannaford appears full screen.]

John Hannaford: Look, I think I contest slightly the framing of the question because I think oftentimes if we are responding to demands that is part of the function of a public service, we are here to be providing support for the elected officials, who are often the sources of the sorts of demands that we are responding to.

And so, I think, on the one hand, that sort of level of service is something that we should be mindful of, and that's an opportunity for us to be excellent in the work that we do. I think as we're doing that, we need to be very, very careful about the kinds of functions that we play, that nonpartisanship is inherent in the role we play. Our credibility is based on the fact that we are not partisan. And I should say it's not that there's anything wrong with being partisan. I think our electoral system is premised on people feeling strongly about events, participating in the electoral process, bringing vigour to our public debates. That's all incredibly important, but we have a very specific role within that, and that is different from the broad public.

And our role is to make sure that we, A) are providing the best information, the best support we can to people who have been elected by our fellow citizens. And the second is to make sure that we are doing that in a way that provides confidence that we're not just being driven by whatever the issues of the day are, but we are actually basing our advice on the best expertise we can, the best information we can, and in many instances, the sort of experiences that we have over the course of time.

And I think it's really important to then situate that, we're also not the only voice providing advice to governments, and we shouldn't pretend that we are. There are all sorts of information that exists in our society. Anyone who is elected is going to be drawing off of that information, as they should. But what we have, which is unique, is we have a right to be heard. We participate in a process where we can provide advice to the duly elected government. We are here to do that. And that is an extraordinarily important thing, and it's something that we should be deeply proud of, and we should take extremely seriously. And that's a slightly separate question than if we are facing competing demands on our time. And that is something that obviously is a reality in most workplaces, where you have a bunch of different demands that you need to figure out. And then that becomes an issue of prioritization and how you best decide what's most important together with leadership and with the people who are posing the questions in the first place. And that's kind of a collective responsibility.

But I think that issue of a nonpartisan source of information is a huge strength of our system. And if you look at, there's just been a Nobel Prize that was awarded to economists looking at the importance of institutions in successful societies. We shouldn't lose track of that. It really, really matters. And as I say, part of our legitimacy in that broader system is the fact that we don't come at this from a partisan perspective. We come at it from a public service perspective. And that's distinct.

[01:16:43 Nathalie Morin appears full screen.]

Nathalie Morin: Maybe if I can just add just one small thing. Sometimes people are concerned that they will not say what people want to hear. But, over the years, I realize that by saying the right things, you even gain more respect from people because sometimes they don't want to hear what you think they want to hear. So, just providing fearless advice, this is the answer. But then after loyal implementation, of course, but you know, sometimes people respect that also.

[01:17:13 John Hannaford appears full screen.]

John Hannaford: And I think it goes to that question of courage, and that's on us as leaders as well, to create an atmosphere where people can actually have a discussion. Because if we're all just sort of going into a conversation knowing that we're all going to agree at the end of it, then there's not much point in having the conversation. And, I used this phrase somewhere else, we're kind of aggregators of wisdom. We are all coming at this from a whole bunch of different perspectives. And the strength of our system is ultimately because we can have robust exchanges, you can come to better advice, and that collectively is our responsibility. But we have to give ourselves and give our system permission for that to happen in order for us to get that result.

[01:17:59 Nathalie Laviades Jodouin appears full screen.]

Nathalie Laviades Jodouin: Thank you very much. So, I don't know where you are, but there is someone in this room with a question, so I will ask you. Perfect. Thank you. And please feel free to introduce yourself. This is just a reminder that you can also ask your question in the language of your choice. Go ahead.

[01:18:15 Split screen: John Hannaford and on-stage panelists; virtual panelists.]

Audience member: Thank you. Thank you very much. And this is for all of you. I'm from the Public Health Agency of Canada, and as a brand-new public servant, there was a recent change in government, and the area that I worked with tended to have a lot to do with social determinants of health. And the new minister was reported to have said, don't talk to me about social determinants of health, which is odd, but a bit of an issue when you're working in public health, and you want to loyally implement the policies of the government of the day. But that government of the day thing is, I think, important when we start talking about democracy and the value of democracy, because we have to recognize we are a first past the post system.

And so, when I think about the value of democracy, I think about, yes, they're the people who are giving us guidance at the moment, but there's all the other people who didn't vote for us, who are also Canadians that we're supposed to serve. And the people who, for a variety of different reasons, either don't feel that they're represented in the government, don't bother voting, or are otherwise excluded and deserving of equity that they're not getting due to inherent biases and other things.

And the reason why I bring up that particular minister in that particular situation is, not my area, but one of our fellow groups was working in Tuberculosis. And the situation with Tuberculosis in the north is one where social determinants of health is huge. Well, there was an election very shortly thereafter. There was a new minister, Leona Aglukkaq, who came from the north. One of the first things she reportedly did when she ended up in the Minister of Health chair was say, what the heck are you guys doing about Tuberculosis in the north? Fortunately, my colleagues, while not necessarily raising things above the radar, not necessarily saying a heck of a lot because they knew they weren't going to get the traction from the previous minister, were able to say, here's what we've been working on for the last couple of years. Here's the work that we're doing to help support TB in the north.

So, I think that that's one of the things that we as public servants always have to consider is, yes, we have to loyally implement the policies of the government of the day, but that's today's government, and we are here to serve all Canadians at all times, so there does need to be ways of balancing the work that will serve everybody that still has to go on in the background.

So, that's what I'm kind of looking to you, as the Clerk, and others. How do we do that balance?

John Hannaford: So, that's a great question. And it goes to some pretty fundamental points around accountabilities and responsibilities. And I guess I'd take a couple stabs at it, and I'd be very interested in hearing my colleagues as well.

[01:21:12 John Hannaford appears full screen.]

John Hannaford: I think on the one hand, as a deputy minister, I always felt that it was my responsibility to say to my ministers what I understood to be the major problems that we needed to be addressing and to make suggestions as to what kinds of options there were available in order for us to address challenges that were rising. And part of that was to try and draw off of some degree of forecasting as to where you could see problems coming as well. And I felt that was an important role that I have. And the extension then is the department has an accountability to me to be engaging in some degree of foresight and some analysis around the situations that we confront. And that's irrespective of mandate. That's just, I think, the nature of part of what departments should be doing.

At the same time, the way our accountabilities work, I am accountable to a minister. The minister is accountable to parliament and to the prime minister and to the legislature. And that legitimacy is then the expression of our democracy. And that's the strength of our system, is we have that participation that will determine broad direction of our country and our government, and it flows through that series of authorities. And it is entirely within the mandate of an elected government to determine what the priorities should be and how we should be spending our resources. And that then is the faithful implementation piece. But I think, and maybe to go back to an earlier point, there are no bright lines here. This is the nature of a values conversation, is there are no bright lines.

The thing that I have found really gratifying about what I've participated in over the course of the last year is, if it's simple, then you're not having the right conversation. And what's been gratifying has been to see that we frame our conversations more now with respect to our core values, whether this is a respect for democracy, whether it's respect for people, stewardship, integrity, and excellence. And that should be the rubric under which we are having these conversations, recognizing that there probably are going to be differences of views and there's not going to be bright lines.

But I do think what's critically important is that recognition that, A) we have a responsibility to be giving our best advice and to be describing the world as we see it, but to respect that there is a democratic process that's resulted in a set of strategic decisions that have been made. And those strategic decisions are going to have resource consequences, and they're going to have other consequences that we have to respect, because that's the nature of our system. And so, I'd be very grateful for any other thoughts on that.

[01:24:03 John Hannaford and on-stage panelists.]

Nathalie Laviades Jodouin: Maybe I'll invite Aiesha, I saw you nodding quite a bit, so please go ahead.

[01:24:08 Aiesha Zafar appears full screen.]

Aiesha Zafar: I was agreeing with what the Clerk was saying, but sure, I think it is a challenging one. And I think I had this conversation with my team last week, and our advice, as a public service, isn't going to change. If it's fair and objective advice, the advice is the advice. It might be the way that we message it, how we incorporate it in our advice, whether it's implemented now or later, faster, slower, the language we use, et cetera. Like when I hear the minister or the minister's staff say that they don't want to hear about something,

[01:24:48 John Hannaford and on-stage panelists.]

Aiesha Zafar: usually it's because they don't feel that they're being heard on what they want to actually achieve either, or we didn't explain ourselves enough. And so, I actually find that challenge really interesting, where it's like, how do we meet these policy objectives while doing all the things? So, in the immigration space, it's, how do we meet these policy objectives that the government has set out while keeping Canadians safe and reducing the abuse in our systems, improving client service, etcetera.

[01:25:08 Aiesha Zafar appears full screen.]

Aiesha Zafar: So, sometimes it's a matter of messaging it a little bit differently, but really showing the government of the day, okay, I understand you want to achieve these objectives. Here are all the different things we need to consider, and we're going to help you do that. And sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. But sometimes I will say, or I'll have conversations with the teams because we'll look at the advice that we're providing, and we're like, okay, is this truly objective? Is it? Or do we already, in our own heads, think that it's a bad idea and we've written it that way as well? And so, we go back and we're, okay, how can we make this objective and be really clear?

So, there's an art to it. And like I said, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. But at the end of the day, if you are putting that best advice forward in a way that understands what the government is trying to achieve, then you can get to a further part in that conversation.

[01:26:08 Nathalie Laviades Jodouin appears full screen briefly, and then split screen with virtual panelists.]

Nathalie Laviades Jodouin: Thank you so much for that. All right, a question that many will relate to coming in virtually. With tightening budgets, how can the public service make sure that public servants don't take unethical shortcuts in an effort to uphold high expectations and demands?

And if I may, I might direct a this one first to Melissa. In your role as a manager, how would you answer this question?

[01:26:36 Melissa Dorian appears full screen.]

Melissa Dorian: I think part of it is in how we frame our thinking of productivity. And I think Treasury Board, TBS, may be looking into this very shortly, but that notion of there's a lot of emphasis on productivity as being the output, and is the output generated on time and within budget? But there needs to be an equal attention of focus to the how we are producing part of the conversation, because it really does take both. We could just be churning out things on time and churning a lot of it out. But if we're not invested in applying good, proper practices in the development, then what we're producing isn't necessarily meeting the need, it's not necessarily where it's worthwhile putting our effort.

And so, at a team level, at a manager level, again, it comes back to a lot of those same conversations of create space for brainstorming, create space for diversity of views, create space for different voices. And Ian Stedman, in his opening remarks, had made the question around data and questioning, whose voices are represented in this data? And had also made the comment about it's important to ask questions. And while his example was people outside of the public service asking questions of decisions that are being made, though for the same reasons that that is important in building trust, we need to have that as part of our day-to-day way of working within our teams.

And, while you may think I'm straying from the question a bit, the notion is if you invest in good quality development, you may have to sacrifice the amount you're producing at the end of the day. But the impact, the outcome, not just the output, but the outcome of what you're actually delivering to the people in Canada, could be far more meaningful. And so, it does require a rethinking, a redefinition of this concept of productivity, to shift the focus so intensely away from units of production and cogs and machines. And by doing that, again, this comes back to the values and ethics. Because excellence is about innovation. You can't innovate if you don't take the time in the process to really focus on how you are producing and not just how much and what you are producing.

[01:29:10 Nathalie Laviades Jodouin appears full screen.]

Nathalie Laviades Jodouin: Thank you very much. And if I may, Raoul, as a slightly more recent civil servant, I would be curious about your perspective on this question.

[01:29:33 Raoul Ntwali appears full screen.]

Raoul Ntwali: I think the only thing that I'd like to maybe add to what my colleague has just said, is that a lot of departments go through a bunch of exercises to figure out what project should we keep funding, what should we let go for now, just to kind of adjust to this new reality that we're in. I think it's important that we look at the opportunity cost also.

So, for example, you have a project you want to put forward, but there's not enough budget for it. How will this affect Canadians at the end of the day, if we don't put this forward? So, I think that's also something that's important. I know that there are lots of directions coming from above, from below, from everywhere, but it's also important to see what the impact is, how it will affect the population. Is it important to go back and ask for more money sometimes or not? It happens. That's the job of a manager, they understand. So, I think that's something to add. We have to look at every single thing and look at the impact that it provides to Canadians and also see how can we make sure that they can continue benefiting from these programs that we're putting forward. And if there is no budget, what can we do? Also, money is not always the solution. Sometimes there are other ways that we could do things.

For example, at the CRA, we've realized that by involving younger public servants, giving them micro projects, they're so thrilled to contribute and to provide their voice, that projects continue to happen despite the budget not being available. But there are people who are really committed, and they really want to put their voices forward. They want to put their energy towards something that they care about. And I guess that's my message. We have to look at what we can do if there's no money; if there's no money, can we ask for a little more money? I'll stop there. I guess that would be my point of view.

[01:31:26 Split screen: Nathalie Laviades Jodouin, with virtual panelists.]

Nathalie Laviades Jodouin: Great. Merci beaucoup, Raoul. We have another question coming to us virtually. How can we make employers and leaders accountable in making decisions based on the public service values, and in modelling these values?

[01:31:43 Split screen: John Hannaford and on-stage panelists; virtual panelists.]

John Hannaford: I think that may be for me. So, look, I think there are a number of answers to that. The first one is we have conversations like this. We set our expectations for ourselves, for our community. We remind ourselves of what our standards are. As I said in my comments, we are the public service right now. There's no one else. It's us. And we collectively have accountability for this organization. I have particular accountability from where I sit. But this is on all of us to make sure that we are being guided by the values that define us. And there's particularly a role for leadership in that regard.

[01:32:34 Split screen: John Hannaford, and virtual panelists.]

John Hannaford: And there's a technical answer to this question as well. One of my roles is I chair a group of senior officials who do all of the assessment. I'm looking at my friend Donnalyn McClymont, who's the secretary to this group. We do the assessment of all the deputy ministers. And I can tell you that one of the central conversations we have for each deputy minister is not just what was accomplished over the course of the year, but how was it done. And that is a significant part about how people have been treated.

[01:32:58 John Hannaford appears full screen.]

John Hannaford: It's significant part about how the values have been reflected in other ways. Have we actually seen sound stewardship? Have we seen integrity in the way that people have carried out their jobs? Those are all fundamental questions that we should be asking of each leader, and that should then be reflected in the review of PMAs at each departmental level. And when I was in the department, I can assure you that that was a central piece of what we're talking about.

Another piece of this, and this is one of the outcomes of the process that we've just had, is I've asked all of the departments now to follow a practice that was started at Global Affairs of having aggregated accountability reports so that people can see that there's actually been actions taken, because there are constraints as to how we do these kinds of practices. We do need to be respectful of people's privacy, but at the aggregate, we can show that there is actually action taken with respect to breaches of the conduct that we have prescribed.

And so, I think all of those things are super important. But I circle back to the key piece. This is about our culture, and it really is about all of us seeing ourselves as the embodiment of the institution we have carriage of right now. And as I say, absolutely is a question of leadership. But it's not only a question of leadership.

[01:34:16 Split screen: Nathalie Laviades Jodouin, with virtual panelists.]

Nathalie Laviades Jodouin: Thank you. Looking at the time, we have time for. Oh, we've got someone in the room. Go ahead, we'll alternate.

[01:34:31 Split screen: John Hannaford and on-stage panelists; virtual panelists.]

Audience member: Okay. Hello. Good morning, Clerk. John, it's nice to see you. Thank you so much. Laurie Sargent from the Department of Justice. And I do, I must admit, have a bit of a legally informed, shall we say, question to put to you all. But it's one that I, coming from a practice of human rights and Indigenous rights, take very seriously. And that is that if we look at our code, it does speak to the fact that these values are founded, rooted in our constitution. And I wonder if you could speak a little bit to – and what I really like about this conversation is the real talk that we're having about those challenging situations – about when direction coming down from the highest levels does not appear consistent with the constitution. How do we work through that? And this does come from real experience, but it's also drawn from the conversations we've been having about Equity, Diversity and Inclusion, Reconciliation, et cetera, which are very much constitutionally grounded rights and principles.

So, I wanted to launch that easy one out into the ether for some reflection. Thank you.

[01:25:45 John Hannaford appears full screen.]

John Hannaford: And we have about two minutes. I'll start, unless others wish to chime in. Look, I think there's obviously a specific role for justice with respect to the charter, which is prescribed, and that's a critical role to make sure that we're mindful of charter obligations. I was a legal advisor at one point. I think we have, from the legal perspective, a responsibility to be as clear as possible as to where we see legal risks and the sort of management of those kinds of risks in the context of policy development. And that all, to me, goes to having a very early engagement with the lawyers and making sure that we are mindful of the kinds of considerations that should go into policy development. And at the end of the day, we operate within – faithful implementation is not limitless in the sense that we need to be guided by what our legal requirements are. We need to be guided by the constraints that we may have. And those are important things.

And I just want to pick up, because it has been a theme that came up through each stage of this conversation, and it's not quite your question, Laurie, but I'm going to change the topic. The point is the intersection between our personal views and our institutional role. That came up in the conversation that Catherine Blewett led. It's been evident, each conversation that I have had, it's been present over the course of the sessions we've been having the last two days. And it's front and centre in the questions around social media. And I think it does get to the point I was raising earlier, that it's a good thing to have strong views. It's a good thing to have a sense of your own limitations and your own perspectives. Those are all features of us as individuals. But we do have an institutional role here which is constraining, and that's just true. And we have responsibilities that, because we embody this institution, our actions reflect on the institution. And there may be instances where you come to a point where your own values don't coincide with what that institutional role is. And that's okay, too, in the sense that there are all sorts of ways of contributing to the well being of our society.

But if we're in the public service, we are constrained to being nonpartisan. We have to be mindful of the fact that our actions reflect on the institution as a whole. And we have to reflect on the fact that the legitimacy of our system turns on duly elected governments. And that's just the way the system works. And it's important that that's the way the system works. And so, I see that as a feature, not a bug. But the point is that there's an intersection between what our personal views will be and those institutional views. And sometimes there will be tension, and sometimes that's a cause for personal reflection. But it is really, really important that we always be mindful, as we are public servants, in the role that we play in support of our democracy and in a reflection of those democratic values.

[01:39:04 Melissa Dorian appears full screen.]

Melissa Dorian: Can I add something? And it's not directly a response to that question, but I just want to point out, look what's happening here. We have very challenging questions being asked to the Clerk, directly to the Clerk, and no one is being led out of the room, no one's mic is being turned off. Like that is a reflection of the public service we're in. And this is an example of the values and ethics in practice, in work, and something we can have faith in and something we can have pride in.

[01:39:34 Nathalie Laviades Jodouin appears full screen.]

Nathalie Laviades Jodouin: Amazing. So, we've come to time, and I'd like to thank our panelists: Raoul; Aiesha; Nathalie; Melissa, and of course, Clerk Hannaford. So, again, if we could thank them for spending that time with us.

[01:39:34 Split screen: Nathalie Laviades Jodouin, on-stage panelists, and virtual panelists.]

Nathalie Laviades Jodouin: And just a few final comments before we take a quick break. If you haven't visited it yet,

[01:40:1 Split screen: Nathalie Laviades Jodouin, and wooclap QR codes.]

Nathalie Laviades Jodouin: we have a virtual kiosk where you can find a lot of resources that will either support or complement a lot of the topics and conversations that we'll be having, so don't miss out on that. It also includes an onboarding video, actually, from the Clerk, that introduces new public servants to the unique responsibilities and privileges that we all have in serving Canadians. I encourage you to check that out. A reminder that the speaker's corner is available here. Out there in the hall in Ottawa. And that the Privy Council Office's social media team is here on site to interview anyone who's interested on topics related to the symposium. These interviews will be shared on the Privy Council Office's social media accounts. So be sure to it check out. We've received a lot of photos, I understand, so be sure to check out our photo wall as well. But we are now going to take a break. We will see you back here promptly at 1:30 Eastern Standard Time. We're back right at 1:30 pm Eastern Standard Time. Thanks, everyone.

[01:41:21 The CSPS animated logo appears on screen.]

[01:41:26 The Government of Canada wordmark appears and fades to black.]