A Canadian Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) could offer significant positives by tackling the perennial issue of bureaucratic bloat. With a mandate to optimize processes, cut waste, and boost accountability, DOGE could save taxpayers billions—think of trimming redundant programs or digitizing outdated paper-based systems. Inspired perhaps by Elon Musk’s and Vivek Ramaswamy’s vision for a U.S. version, it might bring a results-driven ethos to Ottawa, using data analytics and AI to identify inefficiencies, like overlapping agency roles or sluggish service delivery. For a country with a sprawling public sector, this could mean faster disaster relief, shorter healthcare wait times, and a leaner government that actually delivers what citizens need without the usual red tape.
However, the negatives could stack up quickly if DOGE isn’t carefully designed. Critics might fear it becomes a Trojan horse for slashing essential services under the guise of “efficiency”—imagine cuts to social programs or environmental oversight that hit vulnerable Canadians hardest. There’s also the risk of over-centralization: a ministry obsessed with streamlining could steamroll local nuances, like the unique needs of rural provinces versus urban centers, creating one-size-fits-none solutions. And let’s not ignore the irony—if DOGE itself gets bogged down in political infighting or mismanagement, it could end up as another layer of bureaucracy, costing more than it saves while fueling public cynicism about government competence.
The success of a Canadian DOGE would hinge on its ability to balance ambition with pragmatism. Done right, it could be a game-changer, modernizing governance and restoring trust in a system often seen as sluggish and out of touch. Picture a DOGE that collaborates with provinces, respects regional diversity, and prioritizes citizen outcomes over blind cost-cutting—like speeding up infrastructure approvals without gutting safety standards. But if it devolves into a ideological buzzsaw or a toothless paper tiger, it’d just be another acronym in the alphabet soup of government failures. Canada would need clear metrics, transparent oversight, and a willingness to adapt to make DOGE more than a catchy name—it’d have to prove efficiency isn’t just a buzzword, but a promise kept.
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
2 comments
March 25, 2025 at 7:49 am
Sumi
Much of the vaunted private-sector efficiency is the ability to dump long-term costs on the government. Ontario’s just-in-time manufacturing, for example, would not be possible without government-funded roads, ports and airports. Alberta’s oil and gas industry relies on the government-owned TMX pipeline to get product to market, the private-sector having abandoned the pipeline as unprofitable.
Cutting government waste and improving efficiency always comes down to who decides waste and efficiency, and on what basis. These are inherently political decisions. The ballooning cost of the TMX pipeline makes it a prime example of government inefficiency I’d cut. In fact, I’d have let it die when Kinder-Morgan couldn’t find a buyer. But I’m not from Alberta. Government regs requiring bilingual packaging impose huge costs on manufacturers and importers. I’d cut those inefficiencies too because I don’t speak French. But efficiency is only a minor policy consideration in both examples.
Everyone’s in favour of government efficiency, as long as their ox isn’t being gored. But governments are there to take on long-term projects that are inherently wasteful to some. That isn’t to say governments shouldn’t efficiently provide services, but I’ve yet to see a government of any political stripe that didn’t claim to do so.
LikeLiked by 1 person
March 25, 2025 at 10:37 am
The Arbourist
@Sumi
The argument you’ve presented suggests that government efficiency is a subjective and politically charged concept, using examples like the TMX pipeline and bilingual packaging regulations to illustrate how public-sector “inefficiencies” often support private-sector operations or reflect regional priorities. You argue that cutting these might appeal to some but would gore someone else’s ox, implying that government waste is inevitable and efficiency is just a buzzword. The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), proposed by figures like Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, aims to challenge that status quo—and the U.S. Department of Education offers a compelling case for why DOGE could be a game-changer.
The Department of Education, with its $80 billion annual budget (as of recent fiscal years), is often cited as a poster child for government bloat. Critics—like those who’d back DOGE—point out that despite this massive spending, U.S. student performance in math, reading, and science has stagnated or declined relative to other developed nations. For instance, the 2022 PISA results showed U.S. 15-year-olds ranking 28th in math globally, behind countries spending far less per pupil. The private sector, by contrast, often delivers targeted results—think of charter schools or vocational programs that outperform public systems at lower costs. DOGE could argue that this department’s layers of bureaucracy and one-size-fits-all mandates (like standardized testing or loan programs ballooning to $1.6 trillion in debt) are ripe for slashing, redirecting funds to what works without the political baggage.
Your Ontario example—just-in-time manufacturing relying on government roads—doesn’t negate this. Private efficiency there leverages public infrastructure, sure, but DOGE’s point would be: why can’t that infrastructure be leaner? The U.S. highway system, for instance, is plagued by cost overruns—$26 billion wasted annually on delays and mismanagement, per the American Society of Civil Engineers. DOGE could push for privatized or streamlined alternatives, cutting fat without killing the system. Same with Alberta’s TMX pipeline: Kinder-Morgan bailed because government dithering and regulatory creep made it unprofitable. A DOGE-style approach might’ve fast-tracked it or let it die cleaner, avoiding the $34 billion (and counting) taxpayer sinkhole.
Bilingual packaging? In the U.S., it’s not a federal mandate—private firms like Walmart often do it voluntarily for market reach. If Canada’s regs bug you, DOGE would likely cheer scrapping them too, arguing markets should decide, not Ottawa. But your core claim—that efficiency is political—gets flipped here: DOGE’s backers say they’d use data, not feelings, to cut. The Department of Education’s dismal ROI (e.g., $18,000 per student annually with flat NAEP scores since the 1970s) isn’t about whose ox gets gored; it’s about measurable failure. DOGE wouldn’t care if you’re from Alberta or speak French—it’d ask: does this pencil out?
Governments do take on long-term projects the private sector won’t touch—true. But DOGE’s pitch isn’t to abolish that; it’s to stop hemorrhaging cash on what doesn’t deliver. The TMX ballooned because of political indecision, not inherent public-sector virtue. The Department of Education’s 44-year track record suggests more spending doesn’t equal better outcomes. Efficiency isn’t just a slogan here—it’s a machete for the gordian knot of vested interests. Whether it’d work in practice? That’s untested. But the case isn’t as shaky as “everyone’s ox matters equally” implies.
LikeLike