The federal government has delivered a deflating response to calls for measuring the productivity of Canada's public service: it simply won't do it. This decision, which contradicts the advice of its own expert task force, has sparked criticism that Prime Minister Mark Carney is failing to apply his economic expertise to the government he leads.
Ignoring Expert Advice
Instead of heeding recommendations, Mark Carney the politician has chosen to ignore a key proposal from his government's task force. The group advised collecting data to measure productivity across the entire public sector. By rejecting this, Carney has undermined his credibility as a rational, business-minded leader, critics argue. This move also renders the ongoing debate about the productivity of working from home versus in the office somewhat meaningless. Without measurement, how can anyone truly know what is more effective?
The Core of the Productivity Problem
Improving productivity fundamentally means achieving more output with the same or fewer inputs. While Carney has announced plans to shrink the size of the public service—suggesting a move toward the "fewer people" model—there is no visible strategy for ensuring the remaining workforce becomes more productive. Enhancing government productivity is not something individual public servants can control alone. It requires clear goals from leadership, the right technological tools, and a system that holds people accountable for performance, all of which were highlighted in the task force's recommendations.
In his mandate letters to cabinet ministers, Carney himself identified weak productivity as a "generational challenge" for Canada. This makes his exemption of the federal government—a massive $223 billion-a-year enterprise under his direct control—from this same scrutiny particularly puzzling. Observers suggest the phrase "generational challenge" might be interpreted as a problem that will take a generation to even begin addressing.
Why Avoid Measurement?
The reason for rejecting productivity measurement requires only a moderate level of cynicism to discern, commentators note. The task force's report provides a significant clue, stating: "Without reliable data, it is difficult to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of government services or identify areas for improvement."
For taxpayers, this lack of data is a problem that obscures where their money is going and how well it is being used. For the government itself, however, it can be an ideal situation. Assessing performance carries political risk; setting a clear goal and failing to meet it creates a visible failure. It is often easier to keep objectives vague and focus discussions on the volume of money being spent, rather than on the tangible results being achieved.
The limited reporting the government does conduct on its own performance illustrates the pitfalls of transparency. A recent Treasury Board report revealed that in the 2024-25 fiscal year, departments responsible for high-volume services fell woefully short of their performance expectations. This example highlights what can happen when the government's effectiveness is actually measured—and why some might prefer to avoid such measurements altogether.
