A working group established to assess productivity within Canada’s federal public service has yet to address the impact of remote work, according to one of its members. Bea Bruske, president of the Canadian Labour Congress and a participant in the seven-member group, stated that remote work has not been a topic of discussion thus far. This omission is notable given the ongoing debate surrounding remote work policies within the public service, particularly following the mandated return to the office for at least three days a week in September. While the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, which commissioned the study, remains tight-lipped about whether remote work will be examined, spokesperson Martin Potvin offered a general statement about the group exploring a wide range of issues. This lack of clarity has sparked concern among some observers, who argue that the impact of remote work on productivity should be a central element of the study.
The decision to exclude remote work from the initial stages of the study has drawn criticism from experts like Maria Gintova, an assistant professor at McMaster University, who specializes in public service research. Gintova emphasizes the integral role remote work plays in any contemporary productivity analysis or human resource planning, particularly given its pervasiveness in the current work landscape. She warns that failing to strategically consider remote work’s impact could have significant repercussions. Gintova’s concerns are echoed by a recent study published in the International Public Management Journal, which revealed that a vast majority of federal and provincial government departments in Canada did not conduct comprehensive analyses of remote work’s effects on productivity, effectiveness, efficiency, or equity before implementing post-pandemic remote work policies.
The working group, which includes former bureaucrats, academics, and researchers, has met twice and plans to hold several more meetings throughout the winter. Their final report, containing advice and recommendations, is due to the president of the Treasury Board by the end of March. Former Treasury Board president Anita Anand initiated the task force last year with a mandate to address issues such as technology utilization, public service size, public-private sector relationships, and the overall decline in productivity. The government’s official website for the initiative states that the study will benchmark productivity measurement practices in other countries, explore potential applications in Canada, identify areas for productivity enhancement within the public service, and seek ways to improve service delivery to Canadians.
While acknowledging the project’s origins in concerns about lagging productivity, Bruske remained guarded about the group’s specifics, stating that they are still grappling with how to quantify productivity and haven’t progressed to developing solutions. She emphasized the group’s comprehensive approach, encompassing the entire public service, including Crown corporations. Bruske stressed her commitment to ensuring that workers’ perspectives are heard throughout the process. This focus on worker representation highlights the complex and multifaceted nature of the productivity challenge, where technological advancements, organizational structures, and employee well-being all play a crucial role.
Meanwhile, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has weighed in on the public service debate, arguing that the location of work, whether at home or in the office, is secondary to the completion of tasks. He expressed concerns about perceived inefficiencies within the federal government, advocating for clear assignments, performance monitoring, and a reduction in the size of the public service. Poilievre’s stance reflects a broader political discourse surrounding public sector efficiency and the role of government bureaucracy, adding another layer of complexity to the ongoing discussion about productivity. His comments underscore the political dimension of the productivity issue, which extends beyond the immediate concerns of the working group and into the realm of public policy and political debate.
The current situation highlights the complex interplay of factors influencing public service productivity, including the evolving role of technology, shifting work models, performance measurement methodologies, and the political landscape. The working group faces the challenging task of navigating these complexities and formulating recommendations that address the government’s productivity concerns while considering the perspectives of various stakeholders. The final report, due in March, is expected to offer insights into potential solutions and provide a roadmap for enhancing public service performance in the years to come. The report’s recommendations will likely shape the future of work within the federal government and influence public discourse on the role and efficiency of the public service in Canada.
