ICYMI: A Future Government Blueprint or Return to Yesteryear? [Lynch & Mitchell]

2025/12/17 Leave a comment

Good critique by David McLaughlin. As usual, most of these types of articles are strong in the diagnostique but weak on the how:

This might hold the bitter truth of whether our relentlessly mediocre system of governance will ever be changed. The authors note the importance of leadership in actually changing anything. Their first recommendation for implementing renewal is for the PM “to release a public statement (via a Speech from the Throne) committing the government to a major program of reform and renewal”. The reality is that unless the PM and Clerk of the Privy Council, Cabinet Secretary, and Head of the Public Service invest serious political capital in such an initiative, big necessary change will not occur. 

The authors plant their flag firmly in the terrain of big change, now. “Incrementalism is Not the Answer”, they write in their final chapter heading. “Business-as-usual is not a viable strategy for success in a world of rampant change”. No disagreement here. But good stewardship is grounded in guardian institutions with a guardian mindset. Incrementalism is a feature, not a bug, of such a system and culture. This is what governance reformers are up against as much as anything else. Incrementalism may be the only means to regime change on offer. 

If so, then this governance blueprint, or any other, requires a second layer of engineering and technical schematics as to how to get there. Credit to Lynch and Mitchell for erecting the scaffolding.

Here’s how the book’s two dozen recommendations stack up:

  • Restore Cabinet Government – 4 recommendations
    • make Cabinet the central place for collective decision-making
    • reduce the size of Cabinet by at least a third
    • return authority and accountability to ministers
    • reintroduce an operations committee to manage key files and keep government on track
  • Reverse the Centralization of Power in the PMO – 5 recommendations
    • counter the creeping ‘presidentialization’ of our Westminster system of government
    • restore the proper role and accountability between public servants and political staff
    • empower parliamentary committee with more independence, staff, and resources and fewer committees with broad mandates
    • right-size government with less spending, fewer agencies, fewer small departments, and simpler governmental organization. 
    • create an appropriate rules and accountability regime for political staff
  • Modernize Core Government Institutions – 11 recommendations
    • modernize and strengthen the public service for tomorrow
    • downsize federal employment by about 17 percent to unwind excessive growth
    • re-mandate the Treasury Board and the Public Service Commission 
    • Establish forward-looking, sophisticated planning and risk management capacity in the public service
    • rebuild a cutlure of purpose, pride, and accomplishment for results in the public service
    • simplify, reduce, and refocus government oversight mechanisms 
    • transform the RCMP into a modern national police force
    • resource, rebuild, and re-equip the Canadian Armed Forces
    • set out focused, longer-term priorities for foreign policy with the resources and capacity to execute
    • establish clear protocols for the distribution and use of intelligence
    • Focus on improving productivity, both in the private and public sectors
  • Implement the Reforms – 4 recommendations
    • release a public statement by the PM committing the government to a major program of reform and renewal
    • create a National Productivity Commission
    • Create a PM’s Advisory Council on the Public Service
    • Create an expert panel on public sector productivity

Source: A Future Government Blueprint or Return to Yesteryear?

Filed under Government Tagged with , ,

Two contrasting views on national service

2025/08/25 Leave a comment

Starting with David McLaughlin advocating, followed by Paul Kershaw noting how youth are already providing “national service” through a variety of means:

Building Citizenship Through National Service

…So Canada has many models from which to choose. Mandatory service with a choice between military, civil defence and community services

Canada has a modest form of national service now, actually, called the Canada Service Corps. But it is entirely voluntary and will benefit only 20,000 young people over three years. There are over five and a half million Canadians aged 16 to 29 today. A much bigger national service initiative is required.

Prime Minister Mark Carney says Canada is at a hinge moment in its history. Our economic sovereignty is threatened by the United States. Our international security is threatened by war, conflict and rising global tensions. Our national unity is threatened by political polarization, disinformation and regional economic disparities. And our national cohesion is under threat by domestic tensions imported from external conflicts and past immigration and refugee intakes that did not sufficiently account for our capacity to successfully integrate newcomers to our country.

National service will not automatically fix this. National service would help build a shared Canadian identity necessary for our continued unity and prosperity. It would help bridge regional and civic alienation. It would reinforce common Canadians experiences for diverse communities. It is the best riposte possible to the dubious claim by our previous prime minister that we are the first post-national state with “no core identity, no mainstream.” National service speaks directly to the inherent pressures faced by a multicultural, pluralist society like Canada.

As Canadians, we are proud of the personal liberties guaranteed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But rights come with responsibilities. Just as parents and schools strive to instill personal responsibility with our children, national service obligations would emphasize this as they come of age.

National service would mark an important down payment to creating a stronger Canadian democracy around stronger Canadian citizenship. After all, it is never too early to learn about the importance of giving back.

Source: Building Citizenship Through National Service

Gen Z doesn’t need a year of national service. They’re already drafted into decades of service for older Canadians

…It therefore feels dissonant for older Canadians to endorse yet another form of mandatory service for the young when, in truth, we already conscript younger Canadians into decades of obligations that advantage their elders. Service doesn’t just happen when young adults don a uniform in health care, fire protection or a climate corps. It happens every day when they absorb inflated housing costs, heavier taxes and mounting environmental debts so their elders don’t have to.

Older Canadians now owe it to younger generations to revisit whether our governments do enough to leave a proud legacy. That may mean adjusting housing policy so affordability becomes a bigger priority than asset protection. It should mean reforming Old Age Security so retirees with six-figure incomes lighten the load for their children’s generations. And it absolutely means taking responsibility for today’s pollution, rather than expecting our kids to pay more dearly for it later.

I’m not dismissing the value of civic programs that help young people contribute to their country. But until we acknowledge that millennials and Gen Z already perform critical national service on behalf of the aging population, it is misguided to demand even more. Young Canadians don’t need to give another year of national service. They need recognition – and reciprocity from older generations.

Dr. Paul Kershaw is a policy professor at UBC and founder of Generation Squeeze, Canada’s leading voice for generational fairness. You can follow Gen Squeeze on X, Facebook, Blueskyand Instagram, as well as subscribe to Paul’s Hard Truths podcast.

Source: Gen Z doesn’t need a year of national service. They’re already drafted into decades of service for older Canadians

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with , ,

McLaughlin: On Being a Deputy Minister

2025/08/22 Leave a comment

More practical focus than the Michael Sabia’s general message to the public service, focussing on deputies, from former Manitoba clerk:

…My core expectations of you to ensure your success as a deputy minister flow from these statements of my roles.

First, no surprises. Government works best when it is informed and advised of issues as early as possible. My expectation is that you ensure your minister and I are made aware of significant and sensitive issues in a timely way.

Second, give your best advice, not just the expected or desired advice.You are there to lead your department in the development and application of sound, evidence-based public policy.

Third, bring solutions not just problems. You are charged with finding ways forward even in the most challenging of circumstances and issues, befitting your overall responsibility for the department you lead.

Fourth, act for today but think about tomorrow. Challenge your departments to think ahead and think differently about where we need to be, not just where we are now. For a government to be preoccupied with the issues of today is understandable; for a government to be unaware of the issues of the future is unforgivable.

Fifth, contribute to the whole-of-government, not just your part of it. You are, in a phrase, ‘corporate officers of the whole government of Manitoba’ not just custodians of your department of that government. Your personal and professional cross-government collaboration as a member of the DMC team or supporting a minister of the Cabinet is essential for this to occur…

Source: On Being a Deputy Minister

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with

McLaughlin: This DOGE Won’t Hunt: A Canada-U.S. Comparison

2025/08/08 Leave a comment

Good analysis and recommendations on how to curb government expenditures:

“DOGE is not for Canada. Here’s why:

  • First, a DOGE-style, top-down process can only exist in presidential forms of government like America’s not parliamentary forms of government like Canada’s. Despite his ‘First Buddy’ status at the time, even the limited cabinet-style meetings Trump held with Elon Musk in the room degenerated into tense public disputes between Musk and cabinet secretaries.⁸ It must have been worse behind the scenes with shoving altercations being reported.⁹ Prime ministers strive to avoid that spectacle at all costs. It is the surest way to lose authority both with the public and within the government and caucus. [How many British prime ministers were there exactly in 2022?] DOGE would be a skin graft that would and should be be rejected by our system of governance. 
  • Second, DOGE was rushed and forced. It did not take into account vital missions or mandates of governing agencies. Witness the subsequent rehires to ensure key health or safety activities continued. It tried to squeeze in too much in too short a timeframe. Chaos resulted.
  • Third, DOGE evaded the law. DOGE-inspired lawsuits have made the process and results anything but orderly or complete. Judges have stayed some decisions requiring complete rehires of staff while others have proceeded. The result is a legal quagmire of confusion.
  • Fourth, it was talent-agnostic. It took little to no account, as far as can be seen, in retaining top-tier talent. It was ‘billboard budgeting’, announcing big across-the-board cuts in both funding and personnel without thinking through expertise or performance. Probationary hires, for example, were the first to go because they were the least protected by civil service rules and could account for early ‘wins’. But real skepticism exists as to whether it actually produced results.¹⁰
  • Fifth, it was run by a big personality and a bunch of tech nerds with no actual government experience and with no realistic, definable goals. At first, Musk said it would cut $2 trillion from the $7 trillion federal budget. Then, it became $1 trillion. Finally, he said DOGE would save $150 billion. In truth, the biggest cuts Elon made were to his own ambitions. Here’s what they say they have saved (as of time of this post). As you can see, the definition of “savings” is an elastic mouthful:

What Should Canada’s Approach Be Instead?

Here’s my list:

  1. Don’t try to do it all at once. Do it over time. A judicious application of time-limited hiring freezes for some public service classifications and employee attrition will get the headcount down. 
  2. Apply across-the-board cuts to get some results early, show seriousness, and secure political buy-in internally and externally that this is fair and not aimed at any one constituency. But don’t rely on these alone.
  3. Get out of actual program areas by making real choices about what is the role of the federal government in certain areas. Shrink government’s cost by shrinking government’s footprint.
  4. Resist starting up new boutique initiatives for headlines and stakeholders. They cost money and require more public servants.
  5. Combine public service reductions with deliberate productivity enhancements through AI and digital technologies.
  6. Conduct a root-and-branch customer service delivery assessment of programs to find efficiencies now. Ask these two questions: 1. What is the unit cost of delivering a particular service? 2. How many people, across how many departments, touch a service delivery or operational decision by the government?
  7. Bear in mind that new, different skill sets are needed in the public service and some hiring must still occur to enhance its overall performance.
  8. Set measurable goals for success that are both financial (balancing the operational budget, a stated government priority), and non-financial (better citizen service delivery results, improved labour productivity, etc).
  9. Create a process to do this that can be sustained between and over budget cycles, so it leads to a permanent reduction in the public service headcount. 
  10. Finally, hold ministers and deputy ministers accountable – politically for the former and financially for the latter – for results. That should get their attention!

Here endeth the lesson!“

Source: This DOGE Won’t Hunt: A Canada-U.S. Comparison

Filed under Government Tagged with , ,

McLaughlin: There’s a troubling amount of churn at the top of Canada’s public service

2024/07/19 Leave a comment

Valid commentary.

Perhaps the recent example of Christiane Fox, who spent less than two years at IRCC, implemented a major reorganization at IRCC, and then left for PCO without having to live through the implementation nor see whether it was successful, provides an illustration:

…Fresh perspective on a task or mission is always useful, and promoting people into senior ranks is necessary for talent-building. But rampant shuffling has consequences. It commodifies deputy ministers. It devalues subject matter expertise and institutional wisdom in favour of management and system conformity. It weakens the crucial minister-deputy relationship that comes from longer periods of working together, and it does the same for the extensive stakeholder and delivery apparatus that surrounds modern government. It undermines the institutional memory and corporate knowledge that underpins the whole ethos of an independent, permanent public service.

Most importantly, it divorces senior officials from results. Individual responsibility for seeing things through is diminished when you know it will be your successor who will be carrying the can. This accountability serves as a form of collective protectionism – a kind of omerta – for the public service system as a whole.

Post-pandemic, Canadians are expecting that the institutions of government perform better. Right now, that is wanting. From procurement to service delivery to appointments, there are obvious institutional failures.

As voters increasingly clamour for change and accountability at the highest political levels, now is the time for the highest public service levels to adopt this same attitude as their own. Arresting the churn at the top should be at the top of that list.

Source: There’s a troubling amount of churn at the top of Canada’s public service

Filed under Government Tagged with , , ,

The sole premier to stand up against Bill 21

2019/12/03 Leave a comment

Indeed:

As Canada’s premiers gather Monday in Toronto, there will be no shortage of topics to discuss. But one topic, Quebec’s Bill 21, which bans the wearing of religious symbols by designated public-sector workers such as teachers and police, has been banned from the formal agenda.

Based on the principle of separation of church and state, Bill 21 would prohibit a person from wearing a crucifix necklace or a headscarf on the job.

Only one premier, Brian Pallister of Manitoba, has spoken out strongly and consistently against Bill 21. He introduced a motion in the legislature, passed unanimously, affirming the opposition of all MLAs to “any law that seeks to unjustifiably limit the religious freedoms of citizens, including passing a law that unjustifiably denies an individual’s right to wear religious clothing or symbols of one’s choice.”

Last week, that opposition gained national notoriety with the placement of pointed French language ads in Quebec daily newspapers by Manitoba citing “21 reasons to feel at home in Manitoba,” featuring a photo of a Muslim woman wearing a hijab. Quebec Premier François Legault responded tartly, suggesting Mr. Pallister spend the ad money on French-language services and, by the way, keep a Winnipeg Jets hockey player in Manitoba, before you start asking Quebeckers to move there.

Premier Pallister was unrepentant. “If you are not willing to defend others’ rights and freedoms, do not expect them to defend yours.” he stated in the legislature. “Something ugly and unjust is happening right now in Quebec.”

Manitoba’s Progressive Conservative premiers have had a mixed history when it comes to Charter rights and Quebec. Sterling Lyon was a long holdout against a Charter of Rights and Freedoms during the constitutional negotiations of the early 1980s, citing the supremacy of legislatures. Gary Filmon was a public skeptic of recognizing Quebec as a “distinct society” throughout the Meech Lake negotiations of the late 1980s.

Mr. Pallister’s opposition is grounded in neither of these shibboleths. It is an unapologetic defence of individual rights and freedoms and how they reinforce Canadian unity. It springs from a unique Prairie conservatism that combines libertarian individualism with progressive societal values of community. Turns out, he is one of the few – maybe only – practising proponents of this active progressive conservatism in the Canadian conservative movement.

Neither federal Conservative Party Leader Andrew Scheer, nor Alberta Premier Jason Kenney, has expressed anything close to Mr. Pallister’s level of criticism. Mr. Scheer was hunting seats in Quebec in the federal election and Mr. Kenney hopes to get a pipeline through the province. Meanwhile, Premier Doug Ford hastened to assure Premier Legault that a unanimous motion in the Ontario Legislature criticizing Bill 21 sprung from the opposition side and not his government.

Quebec’s political clout in the federation is, well, distinct. Its outsized influence has shaped Canada from Confederation. The key to a majority government only works in the Quebec door.

But premiers in the rest of Canada don’t have to win votes in Quebec. The cavilling of federal politicians is understandable if unsightly; but premiers?

They either quietly agree with Mr. Legault or they silently concur with his right to act as he is doing. Despite its billing as an instrument “to strengthen the Canadian federation,” the Council of the Federation has morphed into a forum where internal differences are muted in favour of securing consensus demands upon the federal government.

Bill 21 falls squarely into this category. It is a distraction to presenting a united front to Ottawa. More to the point: Why alienate Quebec when your own provincial alienation demands attention?

Such is politics but it also illustrates an emerging provincial force in the federation: autonomy. “Going it alone” through a more muscular exercising of provincial powers and authorities, as Alberta and Saskatchewan are currently contemplating, is the sister covenant to “distinct society.” Chastising Quebec on Bill 21 would contradict the autonomous impulse every province and premier cherishes to justify its unique circumstances now or in the future.

But the premiers’ collective silence on Bill 21 reflects something much more uncomfortable to Mr. Pallister: a potential erosion of rights requiring the notwithstanding clause of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by Quebec to allow it to proceed and protect it from legal challenge.

But that too is no longer taboo. New Brunswick is invoking it on a provaccination bill and Ontario threatened to use it for legislation to upend Toronto City Council elections and cut the size of council by half. The notwithstanding clause is proving the autonomists’ tool of choice.

Standing alone has never been a barrier to Mr. Pallister’s exercise of his conception of Canadian unity and protection of rights and freedoms. He sees Bill 21 as a threat to both. It is as much a national unity issue as Western alienation and an overreaching federal government.

With federal leaders, premiers and Conservatives mostly silent and provincial autonomy demands growing, Manitobans and Canadians can expect to hear more from this premier, not less.

Source: The sole premier to stand up against Bill 21: David McLaughlin

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

Why Atlantic Canada risks losing its seat on the Supreme Court bench

2016/08/05 Leave a comment

David McLaughlin’s concerns on regional representation, where the comparative lack of diversity among Atlantic judges comes up against overall objectives for a more diverse Supreme Court):

The requirement that the Atlantic provinces have a guaranteed Supreme Court seat is a clear matter of convention, custom, practice, and tradition. How do we know? Because it has been the case since Canada existed. It is not an explicit legal obligation. A convention, with higher legal consequence, is not a custom, which may simply be a long-standing practice or tradition. A convention is not sacrosanct. Political actors can change it. That is how societies evolve.

Under the failed 1992 Charlottetown accord, the federal government would have been required to name judges from lists submitted by provinces and territories. This was a contemporary recognition of what might be termed the “regionalization” requirement of Supreme Court representation. It hewed closely to the original precepts of Confederation. The accord also called for formal consultation by provinces and territories with aboriginal peoples in the preparation of such lists.

Mr. Trudeau’s process inserts a more explicit “diversification” requirement for Supreme Court representation. The court should mirror Canadian society more visibly and directly as it pronounces on law that affects people.

This is all to the good. Except when it is not. This new process contemplates a clear tradeoff between historic convention and contemporary correctness. Since this convention is well known and established, there is no question that Mr. Trudeau is being deliberate, if not exactly forthright, about his intentions.

Justice Cromwell has not yet been replaced. Another judge from Atlantic Canada may yet be named. But this is no longer guaranteed. And that should exercise residents and governments in those four provinces.

Source: Why Atlantic Canada risks losing its seat on the Supreme Court bench – The Globe and Mail

And Konrad Yakabuski notes, I think correctly, that diversity is likely not to include much ideological or philosophical diversity (although I would not characterize it in the dark tones he does – really, seeing discrimination “lurking in every crevice of society”):

Canadians are lucky that, in Jody Wilson-Raybould, Mr. Trudeau has the most qualified Justice Minister in recent memory. As an aboriginal and former adviser to the B.C. Treaty Commission overseeing treaty negotiations between First Nations and the Crown, she is sensitive to the balancing act involved in governing and not prone to political pandering. She can be counted on to recommend judges of the highest calibre, regardless of their origins.

Just don’t expect Mr. Trudeau’s definition of diversity on the bench to include ideological or philosophical variety. The process he has put in place pretty much ensures the selection of liberal judges. Three of the advisory body’s seven members are Liberal appointees. Even if you might expect former Progressive Conservative prime minister Kim Campbell to argue for ideological diversity on the court, it’s an argument she’s likely to lose.

To be sure, the Liberal government has an interest in appointing judges that will uphold its laws, including its controversial legislation on assisted dying. But Mr. Trudeau has a greater political interest in naming judges that tick off his diversity boxes.

And with a majority of his advisory body’s members chosen directly by the legal profession – with the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Judicial Council, the Federation of Law Societies of Canada and the Canadian Council of Law Deans each getting to pick a member – the short list of potential top court judges Mr. Trudeau receives will reflect a liberal activist bent that sees discrimination lurking in every crevice of society.

 Diversity yes, but don’t expect big changes on Supreme Court 

Filed under Government Tagged with , , ,

Politics is the only free market that matters to Harper: McLaughlin

2014/10/15 Leave a comment

Cutting piece by David McLaughlin on the “shopping for votes” phenomenon and the Government’s approach to maximizing its electoral advantages:

Voters are consumers, not citizens. We are ‘shopped for votes’ by parties as our attachment to the political process waxes and wanes. Market segmentation slices and dices the electorate into micro-chunks of likely and accessible voters resulting in targeted voters being bombarded with direct appeals for support or money. Once captured in a party’s database, the virtuous cycle is repeated as retaining a committed supporter is ‘job one’ of any party.

The Conservative Party’s goal to get their hands on news video clips of their opponents for political advertising through new copyright rules fits with this dynamic. As the country is splintered into hundreds of mini-campaigns targeting specific voter demographics, using this material to craft electoral and fundraising messaging is simply the new normal.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has been resolute in using incumbency to advance the political dominance of the party he leads and turn the Conservative Party of Canada into the default governing party. He has double-downed year-after-year on a strategy founded first on a core base vote glued by values and, then second, on a relentless string of election rule changes to give his party advantage over his opponents.

Free market capitalism is sold as beneficial for consumers. Healthy competition leads to more choice, lower prices, better service, and innovation.

But free market democracy is no guarantor of equivalent benefits for voters. After all, the end game of ideas and values in a democracy versus products and services in a marketplace are radically different from each other.

Conservatives instinctively favor free markets. It is striking that for all its populist interventionism and regulation as part of its consumer agenda, the most visible manifestation of free market philosophy in action is taking place in the political marketplace.

Politics is the only free market that matters to Harper – The Globe and Mail.

Filed under Government Tagged with , ,

Five ways to renew the public service

2014/08/23 Leave a comment

Good piece by David McLaughlin on what needs to be fixed:

Here’s a five-point checklist for the new Clerk:

First, stop the churn in deputy minister turnover. Fewer and fewer deputies stay in their respective departments for more than a couple of years now. Environment Canada is on its fifth deputy minister in eight years. This erodes corporate memory and expertise at the top, severs the link between responsibility and accountability in a department, and makes deputy ministers more amenable to short-term priorities and thinking.

Second, build back the research capacity for independent, evidence-based decision-making. Access to good, reliable data and information is at the core of sound policy and decisions. Governments are the ultimate knowledge-based institutions. So, why do we insist they operate without it?

Third, think out loud with smart, committed Canadians. Fear of failure is endemic to large bureaucracies, but fear of facing others in case one is challenged over politics is a recipe for idea ossification and policy stasis.

Fourth, build up the Canada School of Government from a management incubator to an idea accelerator. Use it to engage bright and controversial thinkers to challenge and test the public service’s own thinking.

Fifth, heed the maxim I once heard from a Clerk: It is unavoidable that governments get caught up in the short-term, but it is unforgivable that they ignore the long-term. Only governments have the mandate and capacity to think about what the future might bring. Seize that role and share what was learned with us all.

Think of it this way: Good policy is good politics.

Five ways to renew the public service – The Globe and Mail.

Filed under Government Tagged with , , , ,