Canada Cannot Build a New Future With an Unreformed Public Service

by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East Canada has entered a period in which infrastructure and national security can no longer be treated as separate policy files. Ports, railways, energy systems, critical minerals, communications networks and defence production all affect our ability to protect our sovereignty and sustain our prosperity. Political leaders can recognize this reality and announce ambitious plans. However, announcements will accomplish little unless the public service is equipped, organized and expected to deliver them. The federal government has created a Major Projects Office to coordinate projects of national importance and improve the speed of decisions. It has also launched a Defence Industrial Strategy intended to strengthen domestic production and accelerate procurement. These are welcome signs of urgency. They also raise a harder question: can the machinery of government carry out the transformation that ministers are promising? Consider what it takes to build a strategic port. The project may require federal and provincial approvals, Indigenous consultation, environmental assessment, financing, rail connections, labour, electricity and security planning. Each issue deserves serious attention. Yet when responsibility is divided among many offices, a project can spend years moving between them without anyone being accountable for the whole result. The same problem affects defence. A government may decide that Canada needs new equipment or a stronger industrial base. The armed forces must define the requirement; procurement officials must run the competition; industry must have confidence that orders will materialize; and equipment must eventually reach personnel who can use and maintain it. If these steps are disconnected, increased spending will not necessarily produce increased readiness. Public-service reform is therefore a condition of effective political change. It should begin with a simple principle: every major national priority needs a person with the authority, expertise and duty to see it through. That leader must be able to bring departments together, resolve disputes promptly and report honestly when a deadline or budget is at risk. Ministers remain answerable to Parliament, but the public needs to know who is responsible for delivery. Reform also requires restoring technical capacity inside government. Canada needs experienced engineers, project managers, procurement specialists, scientists, digital experts and people who understand the industries with which government works. Consultants can provide useful advice, but the state cannot make sound long-term decisions if it lacks the knowledge to evaluate that advice. A government that wants to build must understand construction, operations, maintenance and risk. This is particularly important in defence procurement. Buying equipment is more than signing a contract. It involves training, spare parts, upgrades, domestic production and the ability to keep a system working in a crisis. Procurement officials should be judged on the capability delivered over time, alongside fair competition and prudent use of public funds. Canada’s new Defence Industrial Strategy acknowledges the need to connect military requirements with industrial capacity. Public-service practices must now make that connection real. Approval processes need reform as well. Faster decisions should come from clearer requirements, coordinated reviews and firm timelines. Indigenous rights, environmental protection and public accountability are essential. Agencies should identify concerns early, work through them together and give proponents a dependable path to a decision. An approval that takes years because government offices cannot coordinate does not serve the public interest. There is also a cultural challenge. Public servants are often rewarded for avoiding mistakes within their own area of responsibility. Major projects require people to identify risks, make judgments and solve problems across departmental boundaries. Leaders must permit well-founded decisions, including decisions that may attract criticism. They must also distinguish an honest error from negligence. If every difficult choice is passed upward or deferred indefinitely, no organizational chart will create momentum. At the same time, reform cannot be reduced to cutting positions. The federal government is pursuing a broad expenditure review intended to reduce duplication and spending. Efficiency matters, but a smaller public service is not automatically a more capable one. Eliminating a vacant technical post may save money on paper while delaying a project worth billions. The test should be whether Canadians receive better decisions and measurable results. Parliament has a role in changing those incentives. For major infrastructure and defence programs, the government should publish realistic milestones, estimated costs, responsible officials and regular progress reports. When a project slips, the explanation should identify the obstacle and the proposed remedy. Public reporting would make it harder to conceal delay behind optimistic announcements and easier to recognize teams that solve difficult problems. Federalism must also be part of the solution. Provinces, territories, municipalities and Indigenous governments have their own authority and legitimate interests. Ottawa cannot simply order a railway, transmission line or port into existence. It can, however, convene partners early, negotiate practical agreements and coordinate its own decisions. Respect for jurisdiction should encourage disciplined cooperation, not become an excuse for years of drift. Canada faces a strategic choice. We can continue to announce nation-building projects while accepting the administrative habits that prevent them from being built. Or we can match political ambition with a public service designed for execution: technically competent, transparent, accountable and able to act across institutional boundaries. That reform would honour the many capable public servants who already want to deliver. It would give them clearer mandates and the tools to do their jobs. More importantly, it would give Canadians something they have been promised too often and shown too rarely: completed infrastructure, stronger security and a government whose actions keep pace with its words.