As a prior government employee (not federal), a LOT of ‘inefficiency’ is due to political unwillingness to upgrade necessary systems. Nobody wants to pay for a new accounting system or to upgrade IT systems but that wastes more time and effort in the long run. Just one example.
Any employee on the front lines can tell you where the issues are. Stop bringing in consultants and listen to workers who deal with this every day.
As for audits, we already have an Auditor General. Let them do the work. That’s what they’re paid for.
No! Stay away from any DOGE concept as far as possible. DOGE is based on a couple of falsehoods:
- The bureaucracy is filled with Liberal leaning people who will refuse to implement the government of day’s policies.
-The bureaucracy is lazy and nobody will notice if it is reduced by x %.
- Government systems are unnecessarily complex, all it takes is a couple of outsiders to streamline it.
- Civil servants are leeches and don’t deserve any respect.
We have a body that does audits. The auditor general does this very well (just read one of the reports). I would increase the funding for this body and broaden their mandate to analyze efficiency in particular through shorter reports that can be generated quicker.
EDIT: I am actually surprised that you suggest that (former) politicians should be tasked to find efficiencies. Former politicians are probably the least capable in finding efficiencies. While ministers are responsible for the department they are in charge of, they have little or no knowledge of the actual day-to-day business of the department. It is much more likely that these former politicians get into political grandstanding, much like Musk is doing right now.
Actually the far majority of the recommendations are implemented. And the auditor general does issue multiple reports per year. They are not hard to find.
Two things. Thing 1 re: a Canadian DOGE. Program reform & consolidation was conducted under the Mulroney government in the 80s & 90s. Were there some savings? Yes. Were 'turkey' programs eliminated? Somewhat. Was the civil service reduced? Yes, however the folks who left were ones who were able to transition to the private sector fairly easily. The problem was the govt had no transition plan, no knowledge transfer plan and subsequently lost a whack of institutional knowledge as it walked out the door. Any DOGE-like plan in Canada needs to look to what was done in California under Schwarzenneger (California Performance Review) versus what is being done in Washington. A tripartite approach might work but frankly, I don't put a whole lot of faith in it. Maybe some annual budget exercises using a Zero Based Budgeting approach in selected departments might be a better start.
Thing 2 re: 'aging systems'. Just one word - Phoenix. The cost & schedule over-runs experienced by that doon-boggle alone should be enough for anyone to understand that replacing core govt systems that deliver national social & other programs need to be carefully planned. That means understanding the business problem and associated processing & data architectures that a system is addressing before even thinking about issuing a RFP for a replacement. I recently had an exchange on Xcrement where someone suggested replacing US systems dealing with social security using javascript. That statement was literally the stupidest Xcretion I'd read in months. The issue is, however, that is how modern "software engineers" think. But hey, if you want to see national systems fail, have at it.
I can see a commission to conduct an analysis on federal spending that goes deeper than what the Auditor General can do. However, there needs to be s framework to ensure that it’s not run by people with a hidden agenda and/or just plain incompetence as Musk and his Mini-Me staffers have demonstrated.
I’ve read your post, and the replies, what concerns me is so many policy folk and commentators assuming there are so many “efficiencies” when really that is a myth.
We have internal auditors in each department and we have constant cost benefit analysis going on, and we have the AG’s many reports.
Thing is that Governments have certain constitutional and institutional responsibilities that no private company ever has to worry about or think about.
Like DOGE destroying the National Parks Department or firing firefighters….they have no clue that citizens and tourists use those and YES expect them to be safe, maintained, and expect people to be rescued and searched for.
And even when there are no fires and fewer winter visitors, the people who work there have to exist to do grounds maintenance and be on the lookout for smoke or issues with animals attacking people or farms. Just being on the lookout for falling snow pack.
Like firing people at NOAA, for weather service, and the Pacific earthquake and Tsunami services or nuclear warhead staff who aren’t military, yes, critical people work in other departments and it’s not always obvious what they do or why they do it until you learn more about it.
I mean, how many plane crashes are worth it if you fire half the air traffic controllers?
Turns out that air traffic controllers need rest, need breaks, and people have to be paid to be on call and replace others, and that all the anti- DEI moaning and groaning was stupid because they hadn’t lowered standards for air traffic controllers at all.
Instead they had hired ex-military air traffic controllers & retrained pilots who perhaps had their legs shot off in service to their country, but were still excellent as air traffic control.
Or after years of hiring only white guys, they also hired some fully qualified black people, men & women…who all had to pass the exact same set of tests and qualifications.
Or they hired the developmental disabled man to help empty waste paper baskets and mop floors, maintain the grounds.
But instead Elon fired them. And now they are on disability or unemployment.
And he is desperate to rehire some retired people….
No private company is happy to take on these jobs, like firefighting or air traffic controllers, not this kind of liability, or required security clearances, and the companies who do, like for cleaning, inevitably charge the government more, and pay people much lower wages, no benefits.
Private isn’t better
Like when Canadian DOJ outsources lawyers to defend lawsuits against government. They charge us an absolute fortune, because the free market says they can. We have very few staff lawyers for civil suits anymore because someone added in benefits and pensions and thought private lawyers must be cheaper…except nope.
While I agree that government policy/program delivery is different from the private sector (and I have worked in both) there are always instances where programs that are considered to be "different" end up serving the same community. That is where deeper analysis to determine which agency should have full responsibility for program delivery will improve both the efficiency and effectiveness of government as a whole.
There is no question that the DOGE approach is not the right way to address these types of issues. But the need to understand program outlays and eliminate duplication not only reduces the dollars spent, it also reduces unnecessary bureaucracy and frees up resources for other things government should address.
Let's keep in mind, IT coders are not efficiency sleuths. And I must suggest there is a lot of software that does work.
2nd: Government services are put in place by Government Policy - 'what is to be achieved' - the goal. Politicians do this. Then strategies are drafted, reviewed and cost estimates generated, staffing expertise determined etc. etc. This is what civil servants do - not politicians. Different skill sets. ... and as many commenters have noted, the Auditor General has a very expert office. (I had the pleasure of going through a program audit with them.) Provinces also have Audit Offices separate from government. So, whatever DOGE is up to in the US has no relevance to Canada. And, governments are frequently loath to investing in personal & tools for improved service delivery - and that does include our military.
Oh, good Lord. We already have an Auditor General with a perfectly good team that operates independently and reports publicly to Parliament, as do the government departments and agencies that have to publicly table their witten responses to her recommendations. The AG then follows up in susequent years to see if recommendations are acted on and publicly reports her findings to Parliament.
Granted the AG has to pick and choose what to review so, if you need a more cross-cutting structural review of programs and expenditures, the federal government’s Program Review of the late 1990’s did a very good job at this broader task, utilizing the elected government leaders of the day and the full expertise of the civil service, all of whom were doing their job — making the most effective use of public resources to meet the needs of Canadians and ensure the future sustainability of key public services.
Any bureaucracy, public or private, can be inefficient and thus would benefit from ongoing and detailed effort to reduce ineffective use of resources. The fear though is that you start such exercises, especially in the current climate, with a false sense of the nature and degree of the problem. Most Canadians take for granted public services which are well or even just reasonably-well delivered. Media reports, for example, about the few instances of outright corruption or self-dealing tend to leave many with a belief that the public services has rot everywhere. You simply could not have the country we live in without a long history of effective public service. And that remains true even in the current circumstances where we are dealing with serious issues such the housing affordability crisis.
But when we pull your Commission together, make certain it has former auditors general in the mix, along with retired senior public servants. Include as well the willingness to explain to Canadians what its pubic servants do for them. And include messaging that each time we see a story that shows or contends there is inefficiency and waste that we do not jump to the conclusion that everything is broken or that pubic servants are lazy. Your article makes references to recent problems in getting passports. Government rightly was criticized for not anticipating the strong demand post-pandemic and this led to long waits. However, it actually wasn’t that long when the system was back to delivering passports within service standards, but many writers continued to argue that passport issuance was inefficient. Journalists also continued to write emotional stories about people unable to get passports in time for weddings, vacations, etc., but failed to enquire about the responsibility of the applicants to submit within a reasonable time period.
I love how DOGE is going after waste from 3% of the money supply but the other 97% is left unchecked and the opposition doesn't even point this out. If there is waste to go then fine but as long as we are having an honest conversation about waste but we are not.
Tri-partisan commission sounds nice but feels gimmicky. However I agree if this issue is left to the Conservatives they’ll beat Luberals over the head with it.
Nah! We don’t want or need a DOGE in Canada. Let the Trudeau/Freeland/Carney Liberals continue to spend and fund the UN, WEF, WHO, DEI, The Clinton Foundation, Eurasia group, Greenpeace, and Ukraine so they can win another election. 👍
Yah, that's just what we need, former politicians criticizing current politicians. You need people who have no connection whatsoever to the programs they are reviewing. As a staring point, it would be helpful if those programs had specified what the program was meant to achieve in a prescribed timeframe and required cancellation if they did not achieve those goals. Your prescription like a lot of government programs is to keep doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
As a prior government employee (not federal), a LOT of ‘inefficiency’ is due to political unwillingness to upgrade necessary systems. Nobody wants to pay for a new accounting system or to upgrade IT systems but that wastes more time and effort in the long run. Just one example.
Any employee on the front lines can tell you where the issues are. Stop bringing in consultants and listen to workers who deal with this every day.
As for audits, we already have an Auditor General. Let them do the work. That’s what they’re paid for.
No! Stay away from any DOGE concept as far as possible. DOGE is based on a couple of falsehoods:
- The bureaucracy is filled with Liberal leaning people who will refuse to implement the government of day’s policies.
-The bureaucracy is lazy and nobody will notice if it is reduced by x %.
- Government systems are unnecessarily complex, all it takes is a couple of outsiders to streamline it.
- Civil servants are leeches and don’t deserve any respect.
We have a body that does audits. The auditor general does this very well (just read one of the reports). I would increase the funding for this body and broaden their mandate to analyze efficiency in particular through shorter reports that can be generated quicker.
EDIT: I am actually surprised that you suggest that (former) politicians should be tasked to find efficiencies. Former politicians are probably the least capable in finding efficiencies. While ministers are responsible for the department they are in charge of, they have little or no knowledge of the actual day-to-day business of the department. It is much more likely that these former politicians get into political grandstanding, much like Musk is doing right now.
Isn’t such auditing what the Auditor General is supposed to be doing? - and, in fact, does!
And exactly what recommendations has the government implemented ever from the auditor general report?
Actually the far majority of the recommendations are implemented. And the auditor general does issue multiple reports per year. They are not hard to find.
Two things. Thing 1 re: a Canadian DOGE. Program reform & consolidation was conducted under the Mulroney government in the 80s & 90s. Were there some savings? Yes. Were 'turkey' programs eliminated? Somewhat. Was the civil service reduced? Yes, however the folks who left were ones who were able to transition to the private sector fairly easily. The problem was the govt had no transition plan, no knowledge transfer plan and subsequently lost a whack of institutional knowledge as it walked out the door. Any DOGE-like plan in Canada needs to look to what was done in California under Schwarzenneger (California Performance Review) versus what is being done in Washington. A tripartite approach might work but frankly, I don't put a whole lot of faith in it. Maybe some annual budget exercises using a Zero Based Budgeting approach in selected departments might be a better start.
Thing 2 re: 'aging systems'. Just one word - Phoenix. The cost & schedule over-runs experienced by that doon-boggle alone should be enough for anyone to understand that replacing core govt systems that deliver national social & other programs need to be carefully planned. That means understanding the business problem and associated processing & data architectures that a system is addressing before even thinking about issuing a RFP for a replacement. I recently had an exchange on Xcrement where someone suggested replacing US systems dealing with social security using javascript. That statement was literally the stupidest Xcretion I'd read in months. The issue is, however, that is how modern "software engineers" think. But hey, if you want to see national systems fail, have at it.
I can see a commission to conduct an analysis on federal spending that goes deeper than what the Auditor General can do. However, there needs to be s framework to ensure that it’s not run by people with a hidden agenda and/or just plain incompetence as Musk and his Mini-Me staffers have demonstrated.
Hell NO look what’s happening south of the border and how that working out for the average American! Seriously 😳
Congrats on not reading the piece in the 90 seconds it’s been up!
I’ve read your post, and the replies, what concerns me is so many policy folk and commentators assuming there are so many “efficiencies” when really that is a myth.
We have internal auditors in each department and we have constant cost benefit analysis going on, and we have the AG’s many reports.
Thing is that Governments have certain constitutional and institutional responsibilities that no private company ever has to worry about or think about.
Like DOGE destroying the National Parks Department or firing firefighters….they have no clue that citizens and tourists use those and YES expect them to be safe, maintained, and expect people to be rescued and searched for.
And even when there are no fires and fewer winter visitors, the people who work there have to exist to do grounds maintenance and be on the lookout for smoke or issues with animals attacking people or farms. Just being on the lookout for falling snow pack.
Like firing people at NOAA, for weather service, and the Pacific earthquake and Tsunami services or nuclear warhead staff who aren’t military, yes, critical people work in other departments and it’s not always obvious what they do or why they do it until you learn more about it.
I mean, how many plane crashes are worth it if you fire half the air traffic controllers?
Turns out that air traffic controllers need rest, need breaks, and people have to be paid to be on call and replace others, and that all the anti- DEI moaning and groaning was stupid because they hadn’t lowered standards for air traffic controllers at all.
Instead they had hired ex-military air traffic controllers & retrained pilots who perhaps had their legs shot off in service to their country, but were still excellent as air traffic control.
Or after years of hiring only white guys, they also hired some fully qualified black people, men & women…who all had to pass the exact same set of tests and qualifications.
Or they hired the developmental disabled man to help empty waste paper baskets and mop floors, maintain the grounds.
But instead Elon fired them. And now they are on disability or unemployment.
And he is desperate to rehire some retired people….
No private company is happy to take on these jobs, like firefighting or air traffic controllers, not this kind of liability, or required security clearances, and the companies who do, like for cleaning, inevitably charge the government more, and pay people much lower wages, no benefits.
Private isn’t better
Like when Canadian DOJ outsources lawyers to defend lawsuits against government. They charge us an absolute fortune, because the free market says they can. We have very few staff lawyers for civil suits anymore because someone added in benefits and pensions and thought private lawyers must be cheaper…except nope.
It goes on and on.
While I agree that government policy/program delivery is different from the private sector (and I have worked in both) there are always instances where programs that are considered to be "different" end up serving the same community. That is where deeper analysis to determine which agency should have full responsibility for program delivery will improve both the efficiency and effectiveness of government as a whole.
There is no question that the DOGE approach is not the right way to address these types of issues. But the need to understand program outlays and eliminate duplication not only reduces the dollars spent, it also reduces unnecessary bureaucracy and frees up resources for other things government should address.
Let's keep in mind, IT coders are not efficiency sleuths. And I must suggest there is a lot of software that does work.
2nd: Government services are put in place by Government Policy - 'what is to be achieved' - the goal. Politicians do this. Then strategies are drafted, reviewed and cost estimates generated, staffing expertise determined etc. etc. This is what civil servants do - not politicians. Different skill sets. ... and as many commenters have noted, the Auditor General has a very expert office. (I had the pleasure of going through a program audit with them.) Provinces also have Audit Offices separate from government. So, whatever DOGE is up to in the US has no relevance to Canada. And, governments are frequently loath to investing in personal & tools for improved service delivery - and that does include our military.
Just a really uninformed idea Evan ...
Oh, good Lord. We already have an Auditor General with a perfectly good team that operates independently and reports publicly to Parliament, as do the government departments and agencies that have to publicly table their witten responses to her recommendations. The AG then follows up in susequent years to see if recommendations are acted on and publicly reports her findings to Parliament.
Granted the AG has to pick and choose what to review so, if you need a more cross-cutting structural review of programs and expenditures, the federal government’s Program Review of the late 1990’s did a very good job at this broader task, utilizing the elected government leaders of the day and the full expertise of the civil service, all of whom were doing their job — making the most effective use of public resources to meet the needs of Canadians and ensure the future sustainability of key public services.
Any bureaucracy, public or private, can be inefficient and thus would benefit from ongoing and detailed effort to reduce ineffective use of resources. The fear though is that you start such exercises, especially in the current climate, with a false sense of the nature and degree of the problem. Most Canadians take for granted public services which are well or even just reasonably-well delivered. Media reports, for example, about the few instances of outright corruption or self-dealing tend to leave many with a belief that the public services has rot everywhere. You simply could not have the country we live in without a long history of effective public service. And that remains true even in the current circumstances where we are dealing with serious issues such the housing affordability crisis.
But when we pull your Commission together, make certain it has former auditors general in the mix, along with retired senior public servants. Include as well the willingness to explain to Canadians what its pubic servants do for them. And include messaging that each time we see a story that shows or contends there is inefficiency and waste that we do not jump to the conclusion that everything is broken or that pubic servants are lazy. Your article makes references to recent problems in getting passports. Government rightly was criticized for not anticipating the strong demand post-pandemic and this led to long waits. However, it actually wasn’t that long when the system was back to delivering passports within service standards, but many writers continued to argue that passport issuance was inefficient. Journalists also continued to write emotional stories about people unable to get passports in time for weddings, vacations, etc., but failed to enquire about the responsibility of the applicants to submit within a reasonable time period.
No thanks.
I love how DOGE is going after waste from 3% of the money supply but the other 97% is left unchecked and the opposition doesn't even point this out. If there is waste to go then fine but as long as we are having an honest conversation about waste but we are not.
Absurd.
Tri-partisan commission sounds nice but feels gimmicky. However I agree if this issue is left to the Conservatives they’ll beat Luberals over the head with it.
Nah! We don’t want or need a DOGE in Canada. Let the Trudeau/Freeland/Carney Liberals continue to spend and fund the UN, WEF, WHO, DEI, The Clinton Foundation, Eurasia group, Greenpeace, and Ukraine so they can win another election. 👍
Yah, that's just what we need, former politicians criticizing current politicians. You need people who have no connection whatsoever to the programs they are reviewing. As a staring point, it would be helpful if those programs had specified what the program was meant to achieve in a prescribed timeframe and required cancellation if they did not achieve those goals. Your prescription like a lot of government programs is to keep doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
You make a great deal of sense, and I have to say that I believe Mark Carney would agree wioth you 100%.