Citation

Hodgetts JE. Can. Public Admin. 2007; 50(4): 525-540.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2007, Institute of Public Administration of Canada, Publisher John Wiley and Sons)

DOI

10.1111/j.1754-7121.2007.tb02205.x

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Reflecting on personal experiences with three royal commissions into the public service of Canada – spanning nearly half a century – the author highlights the varied procedures and contributions of the Royal (Glassco) Commission on Government Organization, the Royal (Lambert) Commission on Financial Management and Accountability, and the (Gomery) Commission of Inquiry into the Sponsorship Program and Advertising Activities, Phase 2. As editorial director for the Glassco Commission, he shepherded twenty-one reports in six volumes to publication, while witnessing the impact of the advent of the management consultancy profession on reforms for the public service. As a member of the Lambert Commission, he observed that the strong emphasis on management was ameliorated by the addition of Parliament's role in preserving responsibility, thereby closing the accountability loop left dangling by Glassco. This commission gave rise to a new word –“accountability”– and the stage was set for a continuous debate on its meaning, which came to a head with the Gomery Commission. The advisory committee for Phase 2 of that inquiry, of which he was a member, sought to help the commissioner with his recommendations for preventing a recurrence of the scandals that had been investigated in Phase 1. Here the focus was on accountability, and it is on the current dispute over “ownership” of its definition and application that these recollections conclude.