May: The Day of [Budget] Sacrifice

Good piece:

….The budget, he [Daniel Quan-Watson] says, also marks a sharp philosophical turn. For a decade, the public service operated on a “do everything” instinct – fix every injustice, chase every big ambition, launch every initiative.
 
That era is over.
 
“It’s not that yesterday’s priorities don’t matter,” he says. “It’s that some things matter even more today. You ask, ‘Where are the injustices?’ You get one – maybe six, but it isn’t 22.”
 
“We’re not going for stars now – we’re going for low-orbit satellites. And if you catch one, you’ll be lucky.”
 
This is the moment to lead. As Anil Arora, Canada’s former chief statistician puts it, the public service needs doers, not more talkers.
 
“For too long, leadership has been about coming up with ideas, putting them out there and walking away. That won’t cut it anymore. The country doesn’t just need policy – it needs people who can implement and deliver. This is real. This is our moment. Step up when the country needs you.”

The warning signs of decline. All this comes against a backdrop of a public service – while still among the world’s best – is showing cracks. Jocelyne Bourgon is a former clerk. She is one of the architects of the 1995 program review and has advised governments around the world. She’s taken a hard look at how Canada’s public service stacks up globally. Her conclusion: it’s slipping.

The warning signs are there. Morale is down. Fewer public servants feel valued. Citizens report declining satisfaction with government services – from health care and passports to Phoenix pay, digital procurement, and CRA call centres. Canada’s e-government ranking tells the same story: we were third in the world in 2010. Now we’re 47th.
 
Bourgon (above) calls this an inflection point – a moment to act before the decline deepens. And with the Carney government signalling major downsizing and operational shifts in the budget, the public service is about to face that challenge head-on.

Source: The Day of Sacrifice

This CSPS is a very good reference document. Have highlighted the lessons learned but a must read for those interested in governance and program reviews. Found the tech observation particularly of interest:

Lessons from Past Spending Reviews

• Lesson 1: Review impacts are not well tracked or understood.
• Lesson 2: Spending reviews have not presented detailed analysis of the service-level impacts to Canadians.
• Lesson 3: It is generally difficult to determine the impact of spending reviews on services to different populations in Canada.
• Lesson 4: Program reductions tend to be undone over time.
• Lesson 5: Spending reviews affect the federal workforce through job losses, expected productivity gains, uncertainty around change, and other morale-related considerations.
• Lesson 6: Several second-order observations from this review have implications for how future spending restraint may be carried out.

These observations are not directly related to the mechanics of reviews, but could constrain fiscal or other policy in a way that changes the shape or importance of spending reviews. The following observations fall into this category.

• Lesson 7: Canada is unlikely to further increase free trade in the same dramatic manner as with the 1991 launch of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
• Lesson 8: Raising consumption taxes (i.e. HST) remains a broad-based option for increasing revenue.
• Lesson 9: Canada’s public service uses roughly the same labour mix to run its programs as it has since 1946.

Technological developments during the past 80 years, if not the past 30 years, should have reduced the labour requirement. Computers, digital automation, and internet communications have made direct services easier to provide to Canadians. Forms and databases automate many tasks with higher accuracy, e.g. security checks, benefit applications, tax returns. Yet, the same number of Canadians is served by each public servant after decades of efficiency measures in spending restraint. Why is this? An un-nuanced early result appears to be that programs are more complex, as is the work to deliver them, even while the inflation-adjusted value delivered to each Canadian has not changed much in the last fifty years. However, some of this complexity may be unnecessary.

• Lesson 10: Federal operations have legislative or policy barriers that reduce the full benefit of technological advances and maintain or increase complexity.

Source: CSPS: Canada’s Federal Spending Reviews – Lessons