3 minute read

By: Jeff Kinder, Executive Director, Science & Innovation and Rhonda Moore, Practice Lead, Science & Innovation

—

After the last four years of relentless “alternative facts,” evidence-free policies, and major assaults on science, President Biden has much work ahead to restore the place of science in public policy and decision-making.

Although the word “science” did not appear in President Biden’s Inaugural Address, he is sending clear signals of its role in his agenda. As he stood on the steps of the Capitol, President Biden highlighted challenges such as attacks on democracy and truth, a raging virus, growing economic inequity, systemic racism, and a climate in crisis. Science will help address each of these.

In recent days, President Biden has also announced major players on his science team. First, he selected geneticist Eric Lander as his chief science advisor. For the first time in American history, President Biden has placed this position inside Cabinet, giving science a seat at the table during the Administration’s deliberations. Since the early Cold War when the position was first created, almost all Presidential Science Advisors have been drawn from the physical sciences, usually physics. Biden’s choice to select Lander further signals the importance of the life sciences, to address the pandemic and in what many suggest will be the Century of Biology. As science advisor, Lander directs the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) that coordinates science and technology efforts across the federal departments and agencies.

President Biden selected sociologist Alondra Nelson, president of the Social Science Research Council and Harold F Linder Professor at the Institute for Advanced Study, for a new position at OSTP that will focus on the intersection of science and society. As a woman of color in a field long dominated by white men, Nelson brings diversity and an unprecedented focus on the social sciences and racial equity to the OSTP.

The President has chosen Frances Arnold and Maria Zuber to co-chair President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). Arnold was the first woman to pull a hat trick by being elected to all three of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. Zuber is a planetary geophysicist and vice-president of research at MIT. Another first for American science policy, this is the first time that two women will co-chair the U.S. government’s top external science advisory body. PCAST was created during the G.H.W. Bush administration in 1989 but had precursors dating back to the Eisenhower Administration in the 1950s. In Canada, where scientific advisory mechanisms routinely come and go with no staying power, analysts can only dream of having such institutionalized science policy machinery at the top of government.

In Lander’s appointment letter, Biden pointed to the recent 75^thanniversary of Science – The Endless Frontier, the famous report written by President Roosevelt’s science advisor, Vannevar Bush, at the end of the Second World War. Roosevelt sought Dr. Bush’s advice on how the nation could continue to benefit from the mobilization of science during peacetime, as it had during the war. The report provided the postwar blueprint for U.S. science policy but now, seventy-five years on, many of its basic tenets are under strain. In his letter to Lander, Biden wrote: “I believe it is essential that we refresh and reinvigorate our national science and technology strategy to set us on a strong course for the next 75 years, so that our children and grandchildren may inhabit a healthier, safer, more just, peaceful, and prosperous world.”

Although much of the detail of Biden’s science agenda is yet to be announced, he is clearly assembling a strong leadership team that will guide the nation’s science enterprise and ensure key policy decisions are informed by the best scientific evidence.

The IOG’s Science and Innovation team will monitor and report on developments over the first 100 days. We also invite you to learn about our major new research initiative – Beyond Endless Frontiers: Renewing the Social Contract between Science and Society. For more information, please contact Jeff Kinder, Executive Director, Science & Innovation, jkinder@iog.ca.

2 minute read

In his first day on the job, President Biden signed 17 executive orders to advance his agenda, including rejoining the Paris Agreement and the World Health Organization, lifting the restrictions on immigration from Muslim-majority countries, expanding protections for the LGBTQ community, stopping the construction of the border wall, extending a moratorium on evictions for certain renters, and extending a freeze on federal student loan payments.

These executive orders are aggressive moves to implement an ambitious agenda. But what alternative exists if President Biden wants to undo so much of the work of the previous administration? Executive orders are not without precedent, as we have seen in recent years. They are also an aggressive means by which to exercise the executive power of the Office, despite President Biden’s stated preference to work with both parties in Congress to accomplish his goals, and not make unilateral decisions.

The battle to regain the trust of the nation will have to be fought on multiple fronts.

President Biden’s team will have to bring Congress around to authorize the trillions required in spending for their priorities, as well as the many other priorities President Biden underlined during his campaign. Such priorities include: raising the minimum wage, funding community health care clinics, creating a national police oversight commission, funneling money for schools to reopen safely, job creation, raising corporate taxes, fighting racism, and supporting climate initiatives. And some initiatives will undoubtedly require much more convincing than others, such as President Biden’s plan to offer aid to the countries of Central America in order to reduce the influx of immigrants from that region. His advisors and administration will have to do some heavy lifting in policy and legislation to reverse the previous administration’s policies in all of the above-mentioned areas and to rebuild an atmosphere and practice of cooperation across parties.

President Biden’s deep knowledge of Congress and his long-time personal relationships with its members give him a strong fighting chance to regain the control of the country’s top institutions. But the President’s team will have a great deal of work ahead of them to rebuild the American public service. Sadly, there is no shortage of reports that recount a hollowing of the public service where experienced career staffers have steadily fled their positions. Sadly, this trend can be traced to a chaotic transition – or lack thereof – initiated by the previous administration. Restoring capacity in the public service will be essential to ensure the effective administration of the country. Until this work is done, it’s unlikely that President Biden’s team will succeed in advancing their policy priorities. After all, one cannot win a race with a lame horse.

The toughest battle will be the one for the hearts and minds of the citizens, among whom tens of millions still adhere to narratives peppered with alternative facts. For many, the new administration’s performance in dealing with a weakened economy during a pandemic will no doubt become an important indicator of their trustworthiness.

The new administration must therefore take full advantage of the goodwill they will most likely enjoy during the “honeymoon period”. However, with images of the insurrection that took place at the Capitol on January 6 still fresh in the minds, it is – ironically – the overall realization by senators, public servants, and citizens alike, of the extent of disunity and fragmentation in their country that may be this administration’s greatest weapon to move forward.

3 minute read

By: Jeff Kinder, Executive Director, Science & Innovation and Rhonda Moore, Practice Lead, Science & Innovation

—

After the last four years of relentless “alternative facts,” evidence-free policies, and major assaults on science, President Biden has much work ahead to restore the place of science in public policy and decision-making.

Although the word “science” did not appear in President Biden’s Inaugural Address, he is sending clear signals of its role in his agenda. As he stood on the steps of the Capitol, President Biden highlighted challenges such as attacks on democracy and truth, a raging virus, growing economic inequity, systemic racism, and a climate in crisis. Science will help address each of these.

In recent days, President Biden has also announced major players on his science team. First, he selected geneticist Eric Lander as his chief science advisor. For the first time in American history, President Biden has placed this position inside Cabinet, giving science a seat at the table during the Administration’s deliberations. Since the early Cold War when the position was first created, almost all Presidential Science Advisors have been drawn from the physical sciences, usually physics. Biden’s choice to select Lander further signals the importance of the life sciences, to address the pandemic and in what many suggest will be the Century of Biology. As science advisor, Lander directs the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) that coordinates science and technology efforts across the federal departments and agencies.

President Biden selected sociologist Alondra Nelson, president of the Social Science Research Council and Harold F Linder Professor at the Institute for Advanced Study, for a new position at OSTP that will focus on the intersection of science and society. As a woman of color in a field long dominated by white men, Nelson brings diversity and an unprecedented focus on the social sciences and racial equity to the OSTP.

The President has chosen Frances Arnold and Maria Zuber to co-chair President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). Arnold was the first woman to pull a hat trick by being elected to all three of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. Zuber is a planetary geophysicist and vice-president of research at MIT. Another first for American science policy, this is the first time that two women will co-chair the U.S. government’s top external science advisory body. PCAST was created during the G.H.W. Bush administration in 1989 but had precursors dating back to the Eisenhower Administration in the 1950s. In Canada, where scientific advisory mechanisms routinely come and go with no staying power, analysts can only dream of having such institutionalized science policy machinery at the top of government.

In Lander’s appointment letter, Biden pointed to the recent 75^thanniversary of Science – The Endless Frontier, the famous report written by President Roosevelt’s science advisor, Vannevar Bush, at the end of the Second World War. Roosevelt sought Dr. Bush’s advice on how the nation could continue to benefit from the mobilization of science during peacetime, as it had during the war. The report provided the postwar blueprint for U.S. science policy but now, seventy-five years on, many of its basic tenets are under strain. In his letter to Lander, Biden wrote: “I believe it is essential that we refresh and reinvigorate our national science and technology strategy to set us on a strong course for the next 75 years, so that our children and grandchildren may inhabit a healthier, safer, more just, peaceful, and prosperous world.”

Although much of the detail of Biden’s science agenda is yet to be announced, he is clearly assembling a strong leadership team that will guide the nation’s science enterprise and ensure key policy decisions are informed by the best scientific evidence.

The IOG’s Science and Innovation team will monitor and report on developments over the first 100 days. We also invite you to learn about our major new research initiative – Beyond Endless Frontiers: Renewing the Social Contract between Science and Society. For more information, please contact Jeff Kinder, Executive Director, Science & Innovation, jkinder@iog.ca.

2 minute read

In his first day on the job, President Biden signed 17 executive orders to advance his agenda, including rejoining the Paris Agreement and the World Health Organization, lifting the restrictions on immigration from Muslim-majority countries, expanding protections for the LGBTQ community, stopping the construction of the border wall, extending a moratorium on evictions for certain renters, and extending a freeze on federal student loan payments.

These executive orders are aggressive moves to implement an ambitious agenda. But what alternative exists if President Biden wants to undo so much of the work of the previous administration? Executive orders are not without precedent, as we have seen in recent years. They are also an aggressive means by which to exercise the executive power of the Office, despite President Biden’s stated preference to work with both parties in Congress to accomplish his goals, and not make unilateral decisions.

The battle to regain the trust of the nation will have to be fought on multiple fronts.

President Biden’s team will have to bring Congress around to authorize the trillions required in spending for their priorities, as well as the many other priorities President Biden underlined during his campaign. Such priorities include: raising the minimum wage, funding community health care clinics, creating a national police oversight commission, funneling money for schools to reopen safely, job creation, raising corporate taxes, fighting racism, and supporting climate initiatives. And some initiatives will undoubtedly require much more convincing than others, such as President Biden’s plan to offer aid to the countries of Central America in order to reduce the influx of immigrants from that region. His advisors and administration will have to do some heavy lifting in policy and legislation to reverse the previous administration’s policies in all of the above-mentioned areas and to rebuild an atmosphere and practice of cooperation across parties.

President Biden’s deep knowledge of Congress and his long-time personal relationships with its members give him a strong fighting chance to regain the control of the country’s top institutions. But the President’s team will have a great deal of work ahead of them to rebuild the American public service. Sadly, there is no shortage of reports that recount a hollowing of the public service where experienced career staffers have steadily fled their positions. Sadly, this trend can be traced to a chaotic transition – or lack thereof – initiated by the previous administration. Restoring capacity in the public service will be essential to ensure the effective administration of the country. Until this work is done, it’s unlikely that President Biden’s team will succeed in advancing their policy priorities. After all, one cannot win a race with a lame horse.

The toughest battle will be the one for the hearts and minds of the citizens, among whom tens of millions still adhere to narratives peppered with alternative facts. For many, the new administration’s performance in dealing with a weakened economy during a pandemic will no doubt become an important indicator of their trustworthiness.

The new administration must therefore take full advantage of the goodwill they will most likely enjoy during the “honeymoon period”. However, with images of the insurrection that took place at the Capitol on January 6 still fresh in the minds, it is – ironically – the overall realization by senators, public servants, and citizens alike, of the extent of disunity and fragmentation in their country that may be this administration’s greatest weapon to move forward.

2 minute read

The world is looking for new directions from US President Biden, hoping – among other things – that the credibility and trust in the US as the beacon of democracy in the world is restored.

To begin with, he will need to build trust in government inside the US: for example, 70% of Republicans think the US election was stolen. And recent events – such as the storming of the Capitol – confirm that its institutions of democracy are under threat from the extreme right and from foreign interference. This erosion is accelerated by baseless critiques of electoral legitimacy; wedge politics; the weaponization of the internet through cancel culture; a growing dysfunction in policy-making; economic disparity and a sense of disenfranchisement; and a mainstream press that has no idea how to adjust its ethical commitment to neutrality in the face of toxic, anti-democratic office-holders or their enablers.

What are the implications for Canada? After all, one in five Canadians agree that the US election was illegitimate. What does this tell us broadly about the trust that these citizens have in the institutions of democracy to ensure – in this case – a fair election? And why does it matter?

In Canada, it is tempting to be complacent: internationally, Canada is 14th in the Legatum Prosperity Index among 149 countries; top for public service effectiveness and third, behind Norway and Sweden, for the quality of life for women. Yet as Yascha Mounk notes: “…the one prediction that has reliably misled us – the assumption that things will forever remain the way they have always been – remains the most popular, even today.”

Trust is the currency of democratic governments. And like all currencies, it fluctuates. The Edelman Trust Barometer noted in spring, 2020 at the height of the pandemic’s first wave that trust in government, including in Canada, was high. A more recent Edelman Trust Barometer reminds us that trust has fallen back again and that there remains a “trust inequality” in Canada with a 16-point trust gap between the informed public and the mass population, as well as a general lack of confidence (65%) in the system.

A key player in maintaining citizen trust in our democratic institutions is the public service. The OECD lists five government ‘trust indicators’: reliability, responsiveness, openness/inclusiveness, integrity and fairness. One might add relevance, the ability of the public service to respond to the modern, 21^stcentury world it faces in a modern, 21^stcentury fashion with modern, 21^stcentury tools.

Without doubt, in Canada citizenexpectations of the public service have increased. The performance of our public institutions during the pandemic as they responded, connected, generated new programming, implemented new services, undertook speedy and comprehensive vaccine regulatory reviews and continue to grapple with the challenges of mass vaccination has raised the expectation bar.

Now, as Canada plans for an uncertain post-pandemic future, it is the time to ensure ongoing trust by citizens in our democratic institutions by thinking about what Canadians need from a modern public service. The government needs to work closely with the public service to make sure that it learns from this moment, adjusts accordingly, and positions itself for the future.

2 minute read

One cannot overstate the importance of the first 100 days for a new administration. American President Franklin D. Roosevelt was first to coin this period to chart a course for America that became “The New Deal”. Done well, a president establishes the tone, expectations and agenda for their four-year mandate. It’s also one of the core principles of good governance advocated by the Institute on Governance that government should establish clear policy and programme directions publicly to improve both policy coherence (and hence performance) and accountability (because governments are judged on how they’ve delivered against what they’ve said they’ll do).

New administrations are under intense scrutiny by the public, media, and opposition parties to detect any incongruence with actions, platforms, and statements made during the preceding election campaign. While supporters are looking for leaders to keep promises, critics are equally vigilant to throw shade in hopes to slow, destabilize or wound a new, inexperienced government.

Clarity, conviction and competence are the three C’s of an administration’s early success. A new administration is strengthened by its ability to – ideally flawlessly – telegraph its intentions and vision, to reinforce convictions battle-tested during a campaign, and to execute them, thereby cementing their agenda until the next election.

In the United States the inauguration is the “kick-off” to give citizens the first indication of what the next four years will bring. In Canada, we have the swearing in ceremony and soon after the Speech from the Throne.

In 2015, Prime Minister-Elect Justin Trudeau assembled his Cabinet in waiting on Parliament Hill to travel together to the Governor General’s residence for the swearing in ceremony. The imagery was deliberate: A youthful, diverse, and gender-balanced team taking busses to incent team building akin to the life-long bonds children form on their way to summer camp. That day was planned to the last detail and was executed with military-like precision. The symbolism, tone, and contrast with the previous government was dramatic.

President Joseph Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris are also looking to establish clarity, conviction, and competence. Arguably, there are much greater stakes on a global scale. A nation plagued by a pandemic, polarized by racial conflict and socio-economic inequality, submerged in a boiling pot of misinformation and media manipulation sets the scene for either greatness or burning agony during the next four years.

Unlike Canada, which has a Westminster styled, permanent, non-partisan public service at the ready, a good portion of the Biden Administration’s time will be spent recruiting, screening, and appointing its senior public service to provide leadership to deliver on his mandate.

Nevertheless, Canada, the United States closest ally, has a role to play to make sure the first 100 days are successful. Canada needs to assess alignment with agendas and interests.

Major media outlets have written about the common policy interests between Canada and the new Biden Administration, including climate adaptation, building back better, and dealing with increased aggressiveness from China. However, Buy America and the cancelation of the Keystone Pipeline authorization make it clear that there will be “puts and takes” to be factored. Identifying early wins for both countries that align with the clarity of agendas, conviction of constituencies, and competently delivered appears to be in both countries national interest.

The Institute on Governance will be following decisions by the new Administration for clarity, conviction, and competence in its transition, and drawing comparisons to public administration and governance in Canada.

2 minute read

Canadians emerged from a highly sequestered holiday season to learn that many of their elected officials – a mix of federal and provincial parliamentarians, parliamentary secretaries, critics, and ministers – had for various reasons not considered themselves as place-bound as their fellow citizens. Most of these office holders have since apologized (at least after a fashion) and some have resigned from their positions.

Several of these individuals were ministers of the Crown, who didn’t all respond the same way. How does their behaviour align with the doctrine of ministerial responsibility?

There is no objective standard for ministerial resignation. In formal terms, ministers serve at the pleasure of the Governor in Council (i.e., the Governor General or Lieutenant Governor acting on the advice of Cabinet), which in practice means they serve at the discretion of the prime minister (or premier) who may ask for their resignation at any time. Courts have confirmed that this is not an employment relationship and enjoys no security of tenure or procedural constraints.

Ministerial responsibility does not mean that ministers must resign whenever something goes wrong in their portfolios: there is a difference between responsibility and blame. In very broad terms, ministers need to show due diligence in managing their portfolios. The history of ministerial resignations for administrative wrongdoing in Canada is very thin.

Ministers also share in the collective responsibility of Cabinet, which implies the possible need to resign if they can’t publicly abide by Cabinet policies or confidentiality. That usually relates to policy disagreements, but what about behaviour that is unethical, or simply embarrassing?

Unless the minister is personally hell-bent on resignation, this is a matter for a judgement call by the premier, which helps to explain why Ontario’s Minister of Finance resigned while Alberta’s Minister of Municipal Affairs remains in office. The PM/premier may decide that a given minister’s conduct is not helpful to the government, as when it generates bad press and detracts from its credibility or perceived integrity – especially conduct that runs counter to stated government behavioral standards. In such cases the minister may be “asked” for his or her resignation.

In short, if the PM judges that the public’s anger (or the PM’s own) won’t blow over soon enough, the minister is likely to be exiled for at least the time being.

What if a minister refused to politely resign you ask? We’re not aware of such a scenario off the top of our heads, but it wouldn’t be much of a problem given that a minister’s tenure automatically ends when the GG/LG appoints a new minister to the job.

1 minute read

It is our pleasure to announce that Dr. Sara Filbee, Public Servant in Residence in the Dalhousie School of Public Administration, will be the first member of our newly established Fellows Program.

The Fellows Programs was developed during the end of 2020 to enhance our Leading Expertise in the practice of public governance in Canada and abroad. Comprised of recognized leaders in the professional and academic worlds, our team of fellows will work with IOG staff and associates to:

• Originate and collaborate in good governance research and experimentation in their areas of expertise;
• lead and participate in our events and guest lectures; and
• provide advice and counsel on the efficacy and offerings of our programs and services.

Dr. Filbee joins the Fellows Program with a wealth of expertise from her public, non-governmental, and private careers, including Assistant Deputy Minister positions within the Government of Canada, President of the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council, Corporate Commercial Law Partner and Vice-President for astart-up company providing web-enabled human resources tools.

Dr. Filbee will be working with the IOG to advance her research in the area of complexity in institutional decision-making, providing guest lectures and participating in or leading events.

Good luck to Dr. Filbee and welcome to the IOG Community!

—

If you are interested in learning more about our Fellows Program, visit our webpage or contact us at info@iog.ca.