Canadian civil servants should take note of DOGE and not be complacent about the stability, efficiency, and effectiveness of the Canadian government's delivery of programs and services, writes Ken Polk.

In a few years, the rampant chaos and alleged illegality of Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) activities may become a case study of how not to drive government reform. The agency’s unclear mandate and uncertain statutory authority seem to have the potential to set up something like an administrative civil war within the entire executive branch of the U.S. government.

Even so, Canadian civil servants should take note and not be complacent about the stability, efficiency, and effectiveness of the Canadian government's delivery of programs and services. Musk aside, it seems that whoever is elected prime minister in the next election will face some kind of disruption — though perhaps a quieter, more Canadian kind.

Making the federal civil service function more efficiently and effectively is high on the agendas of Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre and the presumptive leader of the Liberal leadership race, Mark Carney. Both see this as a way of squeezing out cost savings for tax cuts in Poilievre’s case or for reinvestment in Carney’s case.

Moreover, anyone who has either worked for or worked with the federal government will tell you there is vast room for improvement across the federal spectrum, especially in the way that the government regulates, which is a heck of a lot.

Virtually every aspect of Canadian life is regulated by the federal government in one way or another — from trains and cars and ships to drugs and medical devices, from food and stoves to furniture and kids' toys, from cigarettes to vaping products, from pesticides to business competition, and banks. And this is just a very partial list.

Recently the federal government appointed a Fentanyl Czar to oversee a whole-of-government effort to stem the flow of the deadly substance across the Canada-U.S. border. With Canadian businesses looking at 25 per cent across-the-board tariffs as well as significant deregulation south of the border, a similar role might be in order to oversee a top-to-bottom review of how the federal government regulates across sectors.

Much federal regulation is justified by protecting health and safety. Canadians and businesses alike would, for example, support government health and safety oversight of activities in the private sector.

At the same time, the private sector has long been concerned that the Canadian regulatory state is rampant and out of control. For years, they have brought a litany of complaints about the sheer volume, intrusiveness, and burden of meeting regulatory requirements. Complaints fall into key areas:

Complexity: Companies struggle to understand the various layers of compliance requirements, and the language of regulations can often be technical and challenging to interpret.

Administrative burden: Businesses often have to submit numerous forms, reports, and disclosures, which can take considerable time. This is especially hard for small and medium-sized businesses with limited resources.

Erratic enforcement: A practice that has been allowed can suddenly become a violation with little explanation or guidance.

Stifling innovation: Regulations can stifle innovation, limit business flexibility, and hinder businesses' ability to make business decisions. This is especially so in the rapidly evolving tech sector.

Costs: Businesses, especially smaller ones, argue that the financial burden imposed by compliance requirements result in costs that often must be passed on to consumers, and can weaken competition.

Lack of consultation: Many regulated parties feel that the government does not adequately consult with them before implementing new regulations or amending existing ones, resulting in regulations that are not practical, achievable, or beneficial for all parties involved.

Slowness: The slow pace at which government agencies respond to requests, approvals, and applications is often frustrating for businesses trying to move forward with important projects or that need clarification on regulatory matters. This is further aggravated when authority over a regulatory file is shared across agencies and departments with different and sometimes contradictory mandates. (And then there is overlap with provincial and territorial regulations as well!)

As noted above, these are longstanding complaints that some regulatory-heavy departments like Health Canada have made efforts to address in incremental, often ad hoc ways. However, with Trump 2.0, we may be entering a new world in which the federal government may have to start looking at regulation with new eyes.

Recently the federal government appointed a Fentanyl Czar to oversee a whole-of-government effort to stem the flow of the deadly substance across the Canada-U.S. border. With Canadian businesses looking at 25 per cent across-the-board tariffs as well as significant deregulation south of the border, a similar role might be in order to oversee a top-to-bottom review of how the federal government regulates across sectors.

Of course, such a proposal and effort would be massive and complex, likely entailing legislative change in addition to broad new policy direction in implementing existing regulatory frameworks. The protection of health and safety would have to remain paramount.

However, the appointment of a cabinet-level regulatory czar with the mandate to trim the federal regulatory state might be a welcome signal to Canadian businesses, over and above retaliatory tariffs, that the federal government is indeed serious about meeting the threat of Trump 2.0 and safeguarding Canadian prosperity and competitiveness.

This theme of lifting the burden the federal government has on the economy has been echoed this week by Alicia Planincic in The Hub and by the Globe and Mail Editorial Board.