Brandon Persaud

213442611
Thomas R. Klassen
Assignment 5: Deputy Minister Case Study
June 6, 2017

Part A (500 words)

As the deputy minister, I will not grant the $7M to Skills First to purchase the
building and land it occupies because it is a misuse of public funds, non-compliance
of government policy and jeopardizing of a future political career.

Providing the funds will likely increase votes allowing the minister (and deputy minister)
to be re-elected. However, this may have serious implications as follows, and for these
reasons, this request should be denied.

The government policy does not allow funding for the purchase of buildings and land;
hence, this will be a misuse of public money and a breach of policy compliance. Not
providing the funds to Skills First for the purpose of purchasing the building and land it
occupies will avoid public scrutiny. It will demonstrate that elected officials are
transparent and accountable and are not misusing public funds. Trust in the minister will
not be broken; hence, his chance for re-election is better. According to Gregory
Inwood, the ability of the people to hold their elected officials accountable for their
actions is central to any democracy. If the power vested in the government
representatives by citizens is abused or poorly exercised the people have the right to take
it back and give it to someone else. Thus, the government ought to act in a responsible
manner and be accountable to the people or it may lose its reins of power.1

Providing the funds may result in an inquiry by the Auditor General Office. The Auditor
General will look into whether the government spend the authorized amount of money
and for the purposes intended by Parliament2. The inquiry will show that on all
occasions the request for funds were denied but because elections are close, the minister
(and deputy minister) decided to allow the funds, thus pursuing their personal interest in
maintaining office. This will further damage their political career because public
service cannot become too self-seeking and obscure as its every action and inaction is
subject to thorough scrutiny. The community expects public servants to be fair, ethical
and dedicated in administering public policies and programs and public trust and
confidence is assured when public servants are found managing public programs soundly
and are found to be held accountable for their actions.3

The minister can avoid any blame. The deputy minister is designated by the minister to
take action; therefore, he will be responsible for any mistakes resulting from the misuse

1 Gregory Inwood. 2009. Understanding Canadian Public Administration. Pp. 369-373.

2 Gregory Inwood. 2009, p. 386. See also Office of the Auditor General of Canada Code of Values, Ethics,
and Professional Conduct. http://www.oagbvg.gc.ca/internet/English/au_fs_e_8603.html#hd4c
3 Gregory Inwood. 2009. Pp. 369-373.
of funds. Gregory Inwood states that the doctrine of ministerial responsibility allows the
minister to delegate authority and that no minister in Canada has ever resigned because of
a mistake made directly by a subordinate in his or her ministry.4 Therefore any
significant error may result in the deputy ministers resignation.

Part B (200 words)

As deputy minister I will agree that the ministry be the guarantor for the $7M
mortgage for Skills First.

The services provided by this agency help government with the welfare of citizens. It
will be a positive political action to help this agency to secure a permanent location
because it will have long-term benefits to society and simultaneously put the minister in
good standing. If this becomes an issue, the minister (and deputy minister) can provide
justification and protect themselves because according to David Savoie, politicians are
required to be good at avoiding blame and risks and play the game to win the next
election.5 The ministers action can be justified because the private sector will not
provide such services. Donald Savoie states that these problems have no visible
beginning or end. They require investing resources with no assurance that the desired
benefits will be achieved and often without the tools to assess the impact.6 In the long-
term it may be under a different government mandate but at this point it is beneficial to
gain votes without giving up $7M immediately that will raise concerns about the
accountability of public funds.

4 Gregory Inwood. 2009. Understanding Canadian Public Administration. P. 376.

5 https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/what-government-is-good-at-and-how-it-can-improve/article29777522/.
Accessed 5 June 2017
6 Same as footnote 5