The future of the public service is one of the key policy issues of our time in both Canada and the United States.
Since the beginning of President Donald Trump’s second term, Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) have launched a large-scale, misguided attack on the U.S. federal public service, indiscriminately firing thousands of workers before rehiring some of them because they are essential to nuclear weapons security and other key issues.
There has been pushback from the courts, unions, Democrats and even some Republicans but overall Trumpism has turned bureaucrats into political targets, branding them as part of a “deep state” working against Republican interests.
In a similar vein, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre’s rhetoric about the public service has been generally negative. For example, his approach mirrors right-wing populist movements in the U.S., framing public servants not just as inefficient but as an entrenched elite wasting taxpayer dollars and actively working against the agenda of right-of-centre elected leaders.
This signals a departure from the Trudeau government’s approach, which saw a 40-per-cent increase in the number of public service employees between 2015-24
This is a little more nuances when you also note that the population increased by 15% from 2015 to 2024. Whether or not you think this population increase is a good idea (I personally do support it for full disclosure), fact show it was driven by immigration, and I think we can all agree new residents require more services that existing ones. Given these facts, did Canada require 40% more staff to keep the same level of service?
I’m not sure that “to keep the same level of service” is a good metric. Some parts of the country are chronically underserved when it comes to government services, and the nature of required services may also shift over time. The need for government workers in areas like environmental oversight and fighting cybercrime has risen a lot in the past few decades.
Interestingly, neither Carney’s nor Poilievre’s perspectives acknowledge that higher program spending and larger headcounts has not led to significant improvement in public service delivery, as shown by a recent analysis by Jennifer Robson, one of our co-authors.
I disagree with this take. My interpretation of Carney’s plan is that it’s squarely aimed at improving productivity of the public sector. This speaks directly to this point — we need our public sector to be focused on delivering results. The main cost is headcount so the cost-efficiency without layoffs that is Carney’s plan will require improvements to delivery.
So it’s far from a done deal and I largely agree with the author about this being the important thing to work on. I just also think that what is being described is already the plan.
