More than once in this space I’ve advocated for a comprehensive all-of-government review to find and eliminate waste and corruption. So it’s about time I set finger to keyboard and started mapping out how such a review might unfold.
Why is it just this moment in history that finds me so passionate about reviews?
Canada’s government spends more money than it receives. I know that’s hardly breaking news, but Ottawa’s reckless and frenzied race to max out every credit card in the known universe has driven the federal debt to $1.24 trillion. That’s 42.1 percent of GDP.¹
Among the biggest expenses? Employment growth in the federal civil service. Parliament employed 276,367 people in 2015 but by 2023 that had exploded to 370,368. That 94,001 increase amounts to a jump of 34 percent. For context, Canada’s overall population during that time increased by just 12 percent.
Given that the average weekly earnings for individuals employed in federal government public administration was $1,779 in 2023, just covering salaries for those extra 94,001 workers cost us $8.7 billion through that year.
But workers cost us much more than just their salaries. There are pension and CPP contributions, EI premiums, health and dental benefits, and indirect costs like office accommodations and training. All that could easily add another $50,000 per employee. Multiply that by all the new hires, and the total cost of those extra 94,001 workers has ballooned to $13.4 billion. That would be nearly a quarter of the deficit from the 2024 $61.9 billion fall update.² (Chrystia Freeland may not have been the one to officially announce that number, but she and her boss were the ones who got us there.)
Of course using a lottery to select, say, two out of every five bureaucrats for firing won’t give us the result we’re after. We want to improve government, not cripple it. (Although, to be completely honest, I find the idea of random mass firings way more attractive than I should.)
A successful review will identify programs that aren’t delivering cost-effective value to the people of Canada. Some of those programs will need changes and others should disappear altogether. For some, appropriate next-steps will come to light only through full audits.
But success will also require creating an organizational culture that earns the respect and buy-in of department insiders, stakeholders, and the general public.
The rest of this post will present some foundational principles that can make all that attainable. I should note that this post was greatly enhanced from input using the invaluable experience of a number of The Audit subscribers.
Use Transparent and Well-Defined Goals
Consensus should always be the ideal, but clarity is non-negotiable. Program advocates must be prepared to convincingly explain what they’re trying to achieve, including setting clear metrics for success and failure. Saving taxpayer funds to avoid economic catastrophe is obviously a primary goal. But more effective governance and more professional service delivery also rank pretty high.
Questions to ask and answer before, during, and after review operations:
Does the program under review fall within the constitutional and operational scope of the federal government?
Is there overlap with other programs or other levels of government?
Are the original policy goals that inspired the program still relevant?
Is the program in its current form the most effective and economical way of achieving those goals?
Are the changes you’re proposing sustainable or will they sink back into the swamp and disappear as soon as no one’s looking?
Perhaps the most important goal of them all should be getting the job done in our lifetimes. We’ve all seen commissions, working groups, and subcommittees that drag on through multiple years and millions of dollars. You don’t want to make dumb mistakes, but that doesn’t mean you can’t adopt new tools or methodologies (like Agile) to speed things up.
Transparency is a fundamental requirement for public and institutional buy-in. That means publishing program goals and processes along with regular updates. It also means being responsive to reasonable requests for information. Fortunately, someone (Al Gore?) invented the internet, so it should be possible to throw together an interactive browser-based dashboard that keeps the rest of us in the loop and allows for feedback.
Over the years, I’ve personally built nice(ish) websites in minutes, even sites that use pipelines for dynamically pulling data from third-party sources. This isn’t rocket science – especially when you’re not dealing with sensitive private data.
Be Non-Partisan
Going to war against the complexity, toxic politics, incompetence, institutional inertia, NIMBY-ism, and sheer scope of government waste is not for the faint of heart. But setting yourself up as the Righteous Redeemer of only 40 percent of Canadians will make things infinitely more difficult.
Key project positions have to be filled by the most capable individuals from anywhere on the political spectrum. And proposals for cuts should rise above political gamesmanship. It may be unreasonable to expect friendly cross-the-aisle collaboration, but the value of the eventual results should be so self-evident that they’re impossible to oppose in good faith.
Frankly, if you’d ask me, any government that managed to miraculously rise above partisan silliness and genuinely put the country’s needs first would probably guarantee itself reelection for a generation.
It’ll be important to know who really controls the levers of power within government. So make sure you’ve got members of key insider organizations like the Privy Council Office and the Committee of Senior Officials on speed dial.
Also, incorporate forward-thinking elements into new programs by including sunset clauses, real-time monitoring, and ongoing mini reviews. To keep things moving fast, implement promising auditing and analysis ideas early as pilot programs. If they work, great. Expand. If they don’t work, bury ‘em. No harm done.
AI-driven insights can probably speed up early steps of the review process. For instance, before you even book your first meeting with the dreaded Assistant Deputy Minister, feed the department’s program spending and outcomes data to an AI model and tell it to look for evidence-based inefficiencies and redundancy. The results can set the agenda for the conversation you eventually do have.
You can similarly build simple software models that search for optimal spending balances across the whole government. Complex multivariate calculations that once required weeks of hard math can now be done in seconds.
A friend who administrates a private high school recently tasked ChatGPT with calculating the optimal teaching calendar for the coming school year. After a few seconds, the perfect schedule showed up on-screen. The woman who, in previous years, had spent countless hours on the task, literally laughed with excitement. “What are you so happy about?” My friend asked. “This thing just took your job.”
Consult the Civil Service (and the public)
I know exactly what you’re thinking: is there a better way to destroy any process than burying it under endless rounds of public consultations (followed by years of report writing)? Trust me, I feel your pain.
But it’s 2025. Things can be different now. In fact, contrary to the way it might look to many good people inside the public sector, things can be a lot better.
This consultation would be 100 percent digital and its main stage need last no longer than 60 days. Here’s how it’ll go:
Build a website, make a lot of noise to attract attention, and invite all Canadians – with a particular focus on current and former civil servants.
Require login that includes a physical address and (perhaps) a government-issued ID. This will prevent interest groups from gaming the system.
Use AI tools to identify boilerplate cut-and-paste submissions and flag them for reduced relevance.
Encourage (but don’t require) participants to identify themselves by their background and employment to permit useful data segmentation. This will make it easier to identify expert submissions.
Provide ongoing full public access to all submissions. Private information would be redacted, of course. And whistle blowers could have specialized, extra-secure access.
Use traditional software analytics to flag especially interesting submissions and analyze all submissions using AI models to produce deeper summaries and analyses.
Publish ongoing overviews of the results.
[Other stuff…]
Pick out a nice suit/dress for your Order of Canada investiture ceremony.
There’s absolutely nothing revolutionary about any of this (except the Order of Canada bit). The City of Toronto has been doing most of it for years.
1 Which is besides the “net financial worth” debt load of provinces and territories ($347 billion) and local governments ($62 billion).
2 Besides the costs of internal staffing, we shouldn’t ignore government work done through external contracts. Federal contracts designated as “services” came to more than $20 billion in 2023.
Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.
“So we’re going to have an order on that pretty soon – we can’t do that to our farmers and leisure too, hotels, we’re going to have to use a lot of common sense on that.”
President Donald Trump said Thursday that changes are coming to his aggressive immigration policies after complaints from farmers and business owners.
“Our great Farmers and people in the Hotel and Leisure business have been stating that our very aggressive policy on immigration is taking very good, long time workers away from them, with those jobs being almost impossible to replace,” Trump wrote in a social media post Thursday morning. “In many cases the Criminals allowed into our Country by the VERY Stupid Biden Open Borders Policy are applying for those jobs. This is not good. We must protect our Farmers, but get the CRIMINALS OUT OF THE USA. Changes are coming!”
Later Thursday, Trump made it clear that businesses need workers.
“Our farmers are being hurt badly. They have very good workers – they’re not citizens, but they’ve turned out to be great. And we’re going to have to do something about that,” the president said.
He added: “We can’t take farmers and take all their people and send them back because they don’t have, maybe, what they’re supposed to have.”
Just how Trump may change his approach to immigration enforcement remains unclear, but he said he wants to help farmers and business owners.
“You go into a farm and you look and people, they’ve been there for 20 or 25 years and they work great and the owner of the farm loves them and you’re supposed to throw them out. You know what happens? They end up hiring the criminals that have come in, the murderers from prisons and everything else,” Trump said.
Trump said changes would be coming soon, but gave little detail on how policies could change.
“So we’re going to have an order on that pretty soon – we can’t do that to our farmers and leisure too, hotels, we’re going to have to use a lot of common sense on that.”
In a later post on Truth Social, Trump said illegal immigration had destroyed American institutions.
“Biden let 21 Million Unvetted, Illegal Aliens flood into the Country from some of the most dangerous and dysfunctional Nations on Earth — Many of them Rapists, Murderers, and Terrorists. This tsunami of Illegals has destroyed Americans’ Public Schools, Hospitals, Parks, Community Resources, and Living Conditions,” the president wrote. “They have stolen American Jobs, consumed BILLIONS OF DOLLARS in Free Welfare, and turned once idyllic Communities, like Springfield, Ohio, into Third World Nightmares.”
He added that deportations would continue: “I campaigned on, and received a Historic Mandate for, the largest Mass Deportation Program in American History. Polling shows overwhelming Public Support for getting the Illegals out, and that is exactly what we will do. As Commander-in-Chief, I will always protect and defend the Heroes of ICE and Border Patrol, whose work has already resulted in the Most Secure Border in American History. Anyone who assaults or attacks an ICE or Border Agent will do hard time in jail. Those who are here illegally should either self deport using the CBP Home App or, ICE will find you and remove you. Saving America is not negotiable!”
For years, Canada’s political class sold us on the idea that carbon taxes were clever policy. Not just a tool to cut emissions, but a fair one – tax the polluters, then cycle the money back to regular folks, especially those with thinner wallets.
It wasn’t a perfect system. The focus-group-tested line embraced for years by the Trudeau Liberals made no sense at all: we’re taxing you so we can put more money back in your pocketbooks. What the hell? If you care so much about my taxes being low, just cut them already. Somehow, it took years and years of this line being repeated for its internal contradiction to become evident to all.
Yet, even many strategic conservative minds could see the thinking had internal logic. You could sell it at a town hall. As an editorial team member at an influential news organization when B.C. got its carbon tax in 2008, I bought into the concept too.
And now? That whole model has been thrown overboard, by the very parties had long defended it with a straight face and an arch tone. In both Ottawa and Victoria in 2025, progressive governments facing political survival abandoned the idea of climate policy as a matter of fairness, opting instead for tactical concessions meant to blunt the momentum of their foes.
The result: lower-income Canadians who had grown accustomed to carbon tax rebates as a dependable backstop are waking up to find the support gone. And higher earners? They just got a tidy little gift from the state.
The betrayal is worse in B.C.
This new chart from economist Ken Peacock tells the story. He shared it last week at the B.C. Chamber of Commerce annual gathering in Nanaimo.
Ken-Peacock- B.C. Chamber of Commerce annual gathering in Nanaimo.
What is shows is that scrapping the carbon tax means the poor are poorer. The treasury is emptier.
What about the rich?
Yup, you guessed it: richer.
Scrubbing the B.C. consumer carbon tax leaves the lowest earning 20 percent of households $830 per year poorer, while the top one-fifth gain $959.
“Climate leader” British Columbia’s approach was supposed to be the gold standard: a revenue-neutral carbon tax, accepted by industry, supported by voters, and engineered to send the right price signal without growing the size of government.
That pact broke somewhere along the way.
Instead of returning the money, the provincial government slowly transformed the tax into a $2 billion annual cash cow. And when Mark Carney won the federal election, B.C. Premier David Eby, boxed in by his own pledge, scrapped the tax like a man dropping ballast from a sinking balloon. Gone. No replacement. No protections for those who need them most.
Filling the gas tank, on the other hand, is noticeably cheaper. Of course, if you can’t afford a car that might not be apparent.
Spare a thought for the climate activists who spent 15 years flogging this policy, only to watch it get tossed aside like a stack of briefing notes on a Friday afternoon.
Who could not conclude that the environmental left has been played. For a political movement that prides itself on idealism, it’s a brutal lesson in realpolitik: when power’s on the line, principles are negotiable.
But here’s the thing: maybe the carbon tax model deserved a rethink. Maybe it’s time for a grown-up look at what actually works
With B.C. now reviewing its CleanBC policies, here’s a basic question: what’s working, and what’s not?
A lot of emission reductions in this province didn’t come from government fiat. They were the result of business-led innovation: more efficient technology, cleaner fuels, and capital discipline.
That, plus a hefty dose of offshoring. We’ve pushed our industrial emissions onto other jurisdictions, then shipped the finished goods back without attaching any climate cost. This contradiction particularly helped to fuel the push to dump carbon pricing as a failed solution.
The progressives’ choice was made once the anti-tax arguments could no longer be refuted: to limit losses it would be necessary to deep six an unpopular strand of the overall carbon strategy. This, to save the rest. That’s why policies like the federal emissions cap haven’t also been abandoned.
To give another example, it’s also why British Columbia’s aviation sector is in a flap over the issue of sustainable aviation fuel. Despite years of aspirational policy, low emissions jet fuel blends remain more scarce than a long-haul cabin upgrade. The policy’s designers correctly anticipated that refiners would never be able to meet the imposed demand, and so as an alternative they provided a complex carbon credit trading scheme that will make the cost of flying more expensive. For those with a choice, nearby airport hubs in the United States where these policies do not apply will become an attractive alternative, while remote communities that have no choice in the matter will simply have to eat the cost. (Needless to say, if emissions reduction is your goal this policy isn’t needed anyways, since the decisions that matter in reducing global aviation emissions aren’t made in B.C. and never will be.)
I’m not showing up to bash those who have been genuinely trying to figure things out, and found themselves in a world of policy that is more complicated and unpredictable than they realized. Simply put, the chapter is closing on an era of energy policy naïveté.
The brutally honest action by Eby and Carney to eject carbon taxes for their own political survival could be read as a signal that it’s now okay to have an honest public conversation. Let’s insist on that. For years now, debate has been constrained in part by a particular form of linguistic tyranny, awash in terminology designed to cow the questioner into silence. “So you have an issue with clean policies, do you? What kind of dirty reprobate are you?” “Only a monster doesn’t want their aviation fuel to be sustainable.” Etc. Now is the moment to move on from that, and widen the field of discourse.
Ditching bad policy is also a signal that just maybe a better approach is to start by embracing a robust sense of the possibilities for energy to improve lives and empower all of the solutions needed for tomorrow’s problems. Because that’s the only way the conversation will ever get real.
Slogans, wildly aspirational goal setting and the habit of refusing to acknowledge how the world really works have been getting us nowhere. Petroleum products will continue to obey Yergin’s Law: oil always gets to market. China and India will grow their economies using reliable energy they can afford, having recently approved the construction of the most new coal power plants in a decade amid energy security concerns. Japan, which has practically worn itself out pleading for natural gas from Canada, isn’t waiting for the help of last-finishing nice guys to guarantee energy security: today, they are buying 8% of their LNG imports from the evil Putin regime.
Meanwhile, we’re in the worst of both worlds: our courageous carbon tax policy that was positioned as trailblazing not just for B.C. residents but for the world as a whole – climate leadership! – is gone, the poorest are puzzling over why things feel even more expensive, and nobody knows what comes next.
Ken-Peacock- B.C. Chamber of Commerce annual gathering in Nanaimo.
