Introduction

In 2014, Liberal Party Leader Justin Trudeau said, “You can't run a government from one single person. What matters instead is that leadership be about gathering extraordinary individuals and getting the best out of them” (Bryden, 2014). Trudeau was responding to journalists’ questions about federal scientists who felt muzzled, and the need to improve policy capacity, open up government to evidence, and recreate the conditions of trust between citizens and government. The Liberals created expectations that the federal policy function would be called upon to be actively engaged, and used more than had been experienced under the previous Conservative government. In a 2016 interview, Clerk of the Privy Council Michael Wernick raised similar expectations: “All the important issues facing Canada are multifaceted that require collaboration, and we have to get better working across silos internally. One of the real challenges and opportunities the prime minister has given us is a lot more space to collaborate with people outside the public service” (May, 2016). Promises of public service mobilization, engagement, access to new tools and approaches, and greater openness have fuelled internal change toward enhancing the relevance of the policy community for decision-makers, the foundations for which were established over several governments.

Significant changes are occurring within the federal Public Service with respect to the conditions under which policy is developed, implemented and assessed. It is challenging to get a sense of these changes, however, because the scope, depth and breadth of federal policy activities are diverse and expansive. The federal government has had to be nimble, strategic and smarter about its use of resources to address public problems (Klassen et al., 2017; Meier & Hill, 2007), and has had to adapt to a policy environment that is increasingly complex, connected and focused on governance rather than government (Frederickson, 2007). The complicated and disconnected, centrally orchestrated and one-time public management reform initiatives such as the Glassco Commission appear to be less attractive federally. Instead, there has been a shift to more targeted and discrete new public management (NPM) initiatives aimed at specific and incremental changes (Zussman, 2015).