A public servant's freedom of expression

Fearless advice, loyal implementation.

This is the unofficial motto of federal public servants.

In the current climate of forced return to the office, many of us have publicly expressed our disagreement, sometimes forcefully.

I have asked myself: what are the limits to our freedom of expression? What can we say publicly? What can’t we say?

Here are the fruits of my reflection.

Official policies

Code of values and ethics

First, the document that must guide our actions is the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector.

According to this code, we are required to respect the following values

• respect for democracy
• respect for people
• integrity
• stewardship
• excellence

When we speak, whether in public or not, we must be inspired by these values. It is our duty, among other things, to try to improve the public service, to use public funds wisely, and to do everything possible to better serve the public.

Duty of loyalty

Second, we have a duty of loyalty to our employer. This duty includes the obligation not to publicly criticize the government, with some exceptions.

If we can’t publicly criticize government decisions, can we still discuss them?

If we think a decision or practice is undermining the quality of services, do we have a duty to speak out, or an obligation to remain silent?

Working in the open

Finally, the Digital Standards direct us to “work in the open by default.”

We are encouraged to share with our colleagues and the public our ways of doing things, our research, and our thoughts.

Such openness, in my opinion, requires being comfortable with contradictions, discomforts and differences of opinion. Being ok with having a public debate, in short. We don’t all see things the same way, and that’s a good thing. Some perspectives are dominant, others less so.

If we really want to work in the open, we need to allow a variety of voices to be heard, including dissenting, minority, racialized or marginalized voices.

To summarize, official policies send us in several directions: we have a duty of loyalty, but we also have a duty to work to make things better, in an open, transparent and inclusive way.

Serving the public

Who I work for

Officially, my employer is the government. But in my heart and mind, my employer is the public. Government is all of us - or at least it should be. In theory, the government of the day is the expression of the will of the people - in the end, it is the public that we serve.

I won’t get into a debate about the legitimacy of our democratic institutions; but in my context as a public servant, my job is to try to get people what they need from their government. It may be a service, a benefit, some information, help or protection - no matter where I am in government, my job is to carry out the mission of the state, for the people.

The public interest comes first

When it comes to freedom of speech for public servants, to me the overriding principle should be the public interest.

If a decision, approach, or procedure impairs our ability to serve the public, we have a responsibility to speak out, openly and transparently, and to help make things better.

My personal guidelines

Based on these reflections, here are my personal guidelines for this publishing space and for other places where I speak publicly.

Political, but never partisan

Whenever we talk about public services, living standards or barriers to access, we are in the political arena. We sometimes talk about these ideas as if they were self-evident, but they are indeed choices that are discussed publicly.

As public servants, we are still real people: we have a world vision, hopes for the future, and individual values. And these ideas shape the way we view our work.

What we cannot do, however, is be partisan. We have a duty of impartiality, and we must implement the government’s vision, regardless of which party is in power. We cannot publicly associate ourselves with one political party or another.

So: political in the broadest sense, but never partisan.

A focus on making things better

Why do we speak out? In my opinion, it must be with the aim of improving something. The goal cannot be “criticism for criticism’s sake”. Debate, discussion and questioning, yes, but with the aim of achieving something better

This must obviously be done in a matter that respects the people and institutions involved - there is no room for vilification. But I sincerely believe that it is possible to discuss everything publicly if the intention is to improve the situation.

Honest, but humble

We all have different visions. Some people (I am one of them!) express themselves more forcefully than others. The temptation is sometimes strong to listen to the loudest person in the room.

I am a 40-something, white, bilingual, heterosexual, cisgender male living in the National Capital Region: I know full well that my voice is among the most privileged. For me, that doesn’t mean I have to be silent - it just means I have to make room for other voices, listen to them, and amplify them.

Humility is necessary. My view is not the only valid one, and I may very well be wrong. For me, working and discussing in an open way is also about that: dialogue, clash of ideas and debate can only lead to improvements if it is done in a respectful, humble, and benevolent way.

In conclusion

Speaking publicly as a public servant carries its share of risk. You expose yourself to reprisals. You can be labeled as “difficult”.

But for my part, I believe it’s worth the risk: if we don’t share our thoughts outside of our small teams, how can we improve the government machine? By talking openly, respectfully, and with good intentions, we can work to truly improve the public service.

The public deserves it.