Taking a Complexity Perspective on Canada’s Challenges, Part VI: Parting Thoughts on Our Public Service and Wrap-Up

Returning to the Public Service

Before closing this series, I want to return to the federal government’s spending review initiated by the Prime Minister. He has urged the Public Service to focus, simplify, and become more accountable. Deputies have been asked to identify significant cuts to the bureaucracy, even as the PM signals both austerity and investment in the coming budget.

I do not believe this review will generate enough savings to avoid the need for a wealth or minimum tax—or to balance the budget. Too often, such reviews are non-strategic and performative, designed to play into the neoliberal narrative that undermines government. Any short-term savings often disappear within a few years, while the damage to employee motivation and effectiveness can persist for much longer.

This is not to say that urgent changes aren’t needed in the federal government. They are. But this review is unlikely to deliver them. More likely, it will distract and demotivate the very public servants we need for the “heavy lift” the Prime Minister has called for.

The Public Service Under Strain

Public administration scholar Donald Savoie, in *Speaking Truth to Canadians About Their Public Service*, offers a critical assessment of the federal bureaucracy. He describes it as:

– Top-heavy
– Excessively process-driven
– Risk averse
– Inconsistent in its ability to implement

I believe there is much that is good in our federal government and that many bureaucrats sincerely care about making Canada better. I do however agree with much of Savoie’s analysis.

Neoliberalism and Our Institutions

To understand what must change, we must ask Doug Griffin’s key question: *Who has the federal public service become?*

The answer lies in how neoliberalism has shaped our institutions.

As outlined in Part II, neoliberalism emphasizes:

– Privatization of public services
– Deregulation of markets
– Reduced government intervention
– Tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations

It replaces a concern for the common good with the financialization of everything and a hyper-individualistic worldview.

This ideology has weakened trust and eroded social infrastructure, including universities, health care, and government bureaucracies. The irony is striking: neoliberalism demands smaller government, yet its impact on inequality creates greater demand for government intervention to manage the resulting crises—from health to housing to social mobility.

The Myth of “Running Government Like a Business”

Perhaps the most damaging neoliberal import is the idea that government should be managed like a business.

Over recent decades, private-sector management techniques have seeped into the public service, shaping governance, incentives, and career paths. But government is far more complex than business. It must navigate competing values, political sensitivities, unintended consequences, and global interdependencies—factors that defy simplistic efficiency models.

Whereas Milton Friedman argued that businesses exist only to maximize shareholder profit, government exists to safeguard the commons, today and for future generations. To equate the two is not just misguided—it is dangerous.

A strong democracy requires a strong, capable public service. Yet decades of neoliberal denigration and the rise of managerialism have weakened it, even as talented bureaucrats continue to serve under increasingly demoralizing conditions.

The Downside of Managerialism

Managerialism, treating government as though it were a corporation, has had serious consequences:

– More counting, less doing: Investment often flows into auditors and evaluators rather than frontline services.
– Performance management theatre: Systems are costly, time-consuming, ineffective and often just as small ‘p’ political as some of the other options.
– Extrinsic over intrinsic motivation: Performance pay ignores research showing that public servants are best motivated by purpose, not bonuses.
– Accountability distortions: In complex systems, no one actor controls outcomes, yet accountability frameworks punish individuals for systemic problems—leading to risk aversion, siloed behaviour, and conformity.

The Phoenix pay system disaster illustrates the accountability problem. Political decisions to underfund the project left public servants with an impossible task. Yet blame fell disproportionately on the bureaucracy rather than those who set it up to fail.

Loss of Capacity in the Public Service

Managerialism and neoliberalism have diminished the capacity of the Canadian public service:

– Reduced policy capacity: Neoliberal dogma narrows debate, sidelining important research (e.g., on income inequality) from serious policy discussion.
– Loss of practical knowledge: Rapid churn of senior managers erodes institutional memory and practical expertise.
– Over-reliance on quantification: A bias toward “right answers” and linear cause-effect thinking discourages reflection and nuanced analysis.
– Growing dependence on consultants: Outsourcing may at times reduce costs in the short term but its overuse has been costly. It does however deprive the public service of learning opportunities and long-term capacity.

A New Approach Is Needed

The problems of government cannot be solved by austerity reviews or the latest management fad. Nor will AI rescue us from inefficient processes or spur innovation.

What we need is a new approach—one that builds trust, strengthens public institutions, fosters innovation, and resists neoliberal habits of privatization and austerity.

Wrapping Up the Series

This series has used complexity science to frame Canada’s challenges. The key insight is that society is shaped by the patterns of our interactions—patterns that influence what we value, how we govern, and what futures we can imagine.

The entrenched patterning of neoliberalism has weakened our democracy, our economy, and our institutions. Yet because these patterns are always evolving, we have the power to change course—if we act now.

If we continue to comply with neoliberal dogmas, inequality and division will deepen. In this case we may find that PM Carney is merely a reprieve from a MAGA like world. If instead we emphasize cooperation, community, and shared prosperity, we can rebuild trust and create a stronger, fairer, and more sustainable Canada.

Planting the Seeds of the Future

An old Greek proverb says: “A society thrives when old men plant trees whose shade they know they will never sit in.”

We are all responsible for planting those trees—for shaping the Canada of tomorrow. That means rejecting austerity dogma, rebuilding trust, reducing inequality, strengthening public institutions, and confronting the climate emergency.

Life, and the future of our country, is a participation sport. We cannot delegate it to political leaders alone.

Parting Shots

Canada must also reckon with its place in the world. The U.S.—increasingly authoritarian and unreliable—is not the ally it once was. We need to act with caution, confidence, and independence, building alliances with countries that share our values and aspirations.

We must have the courage to chart our own path, to step away from the neoliberal dogma that has failed us, and to ask again the question posed in Part IV: Who are we becoming?

The answer depends not just on our leaders, but on all of us.