OTTAWA
— There’s growing chatter in senior bureaucratic circles that the new Carney government is exploring a different way to govern – one that could execute plans for the biggest remake of Canada’s economy since the Second World War.
Thrust into office by Trump’s trade war, Prime Minister Mark Carney is trying to turn an economic crisis into a defining moment for the country.
At his first press conference
, he zeroed in on a handful of sweeping
priorities
aimed at making Canada and its economy more resilient and independent. The big question: Can
government actually pull it off?
The former central banker, who positioned himself as a crisis leader and a champion of getting things done, could face his toughest challenge yet – navigating the machinery of government, with its entrenched structures, processes and systems.
The public service, whose job is to implement those plans, is often criticized as bloated, slow, and inefficient. The previous Trudeau government, with more than 750 priorities, was plagued by execution struggles that produced backlogs, delays and failed projects.
But senior bureaucrats are thinking hard about how to fix it. One idea up for discussion is the U.K.’s “mission government” model. Some senior officials travelled to London to assess the approach and whether it could be adapted here.
U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer adopted a “mission government” model,
popularized by economist Mariana Mazzucato.
She argues that missions help break down silos, unite departments, and can rally the public around bold but achievable goals.
Starmer – who
accused
public servants of being “comfortable in the tepid bath of managed decline” –
organized his government around five priorities
with clear targets and ministers accountable for each. His missions: economic growth, health system reform, safer streets, better education, and clean energy.
Starmer has faced an uphill battle, but the goal is to focus government machinery on delivery and accountability, not just ideas.
It’s unclear whether the Carney government is adopting the U.K.’s mission-government model, but it already appears to be embracing the key principles by focusing on a handful of priorities, with ministers organized around them.
“The bottom line is that mission government is an interesting concept. We’re trying to shift from hundreds of priorities to a few that are manageable and focused so we can deliver,” said one senior bureaucrat who is not authorized to talk publicly.
“As a public service, we’re giving advice around limited priorities for departments and ministers that drive these priorities, and with accountability by reporting frequently around progress.”
Many public servants were frustrated by the sheer volume of priorities and new initiatives under the Trudeau government, which left them overworked, overstretched, and pulled in too many directions. With too many competing priorities, the government struggled to focus or hold ministers accountable. Narrowing that list could make progress easier to track and more likely to happen, said several senior officials.
Fixing the government’s execution gap is part of the broader debate today about state capacity, which is the ability of governments to make policy, execute it and deliver results for Canadians. Public service reform would aim to make it more adaptable, agile, innovative and willing to take risks – all of which could improve state capacity.
The erosion of state capacity has become a growing concern in Canada. In analyzing the Liberal election platform,
Sahir Khan
,
executive vice-president of the Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy (ISFD) at the University of Ottawa
, warned that promised savings – whether from program reviews or AI – fail to account for “the challenges of state capacity” and how they could affect the government’s plans.
Starmer set up
“mission boards”
for each of his five priorities, chaired by a lead minister and joined by others with a stake in the plan. They meet regularly to take stock, holding ministers accountable for progress – and what they’ll do to improve.
Mission government shares roots with
deliverology
,
the trendy
management theory pioneered in the U.K. by Sir Tony Blair on the advice of his delivery guru, Michael Barber. The idea was later adapted by the Trudeau Liberals and briefly took Ottawa by storm before fizzling under a flood of competing priorities and bureaucratic pushback.
The idea was simple: identify the government’s top priorities, track progress rigorously, and hold ministers and departments to account. A new results and delivery unit was created inside the Privy Council Office, delivery plans were drafted, and a flurry of performance indicators followed.
But a key problem quickly emerged – everything became a priority –
and public servants viewed it as just another reporting exercise.
Many argued then that the government should have zeroed in on four or five priorities, not hundreds.
Both deliverology and mission government try to tackle the same problem: governments making big promises they often can’t deliver. Deliverology tried to fix that from the top down – tracking progress and measuring performance.
Mission government goes further, aiming to reshape how government works by breaking down silos and getting departments to work together on complex problems that cut across mandates – but with clearer accountability for results.
Take housing. Instead of each department tackling its own narrow slice of housing policy, a mission approach pulls ministers and public servants together, budgets and all, around a single, shared goal, like building more affordable housing. Everyone pulls together with clear deadlines and accountability, instead of working in their own silos and protecting their turf.
Stephen Harper set a precedent before these concepts had names. As prime minister in a minority government, he came in with five clear priorities – accountability, tax cuts, crime, child care, and health care. A powerful plans and priorities cabinet committee tracked them. Departments were expected to fall in line.
Longtime bureaucrats say they’ve seen other versions of this before – tiger teams, super ministers, special cabinet committees – and that mission government is just the latest trendy management brand to fix age-old problems. One noted the government already has many of the tools it needs to fix things. What it takes is political will and strong, focused leadership. Without that, the system reverts to the status quo – and resists change.
“
I’m not sure it really matters how you do it. What you need is the prime minister to say, ‘This needs to get done,’ and a political coordination mechanism to drive it across departments. So, call it mission or whatever.”
Many bureaucrats expect Carney to govern like a CEO focused on priorities, outcomes, and results. Some anticipate he’ll be ruthless if progress stalls. Others question whether his central banking background fully prepares him for the operational demands of governing.
In his first press conference as prime minister, Carney outlined his priorities: meeting with Donald Trump, cutting internal trade barriers, launching nation-building projects, accelerating housing, tightening border security, and toughening bail for some crimes.
Those familiar with early briefings say Carney’s mindset seems clear: “’How quickly can we do this? How do we accelerate? How do we show action?’ There’s a rigor to the way he thinks, and the system will have to adapt to keep up. It’s kind of refreshing to see,” said one senior bureaucrat.
Kathryn May is the Accenture Fellow on the Future of the Public Service, providing coverage and analysis of the complex issues facing Canada’s federal public service for Policy Options, from which this article is reprinted.
