As Ottawa braces for significant changes in its public service landscape, Treasury Board President Anita Anand recently announced plans to reduce the number of senior executives across federal departments. This initiative aims to address the growing concern that Canada’s public service has become top-heavy, potentially hindering efficient governance and service delivery to Canadians.
The federal government’s executive ranks have swelled by approximately 21 percent since 2015, according to Treasury Board data. This growth rate significantly outpaces the increase in the overall public service workforce, which expanded by about 12 percent during the same period. Currently, Canada employs roughly 7,700 executives within the federal public service—a figure that has raised eyebrows among both political analysts and taxpayer advocates.
“We’re looking at streamlining our management structure to ensure we’re delivering services to Canadians in the most effective way possible,” said Anand during a press conference at the Sir John A. Macdonald Building. “This isn’t about arbitrary cuts but about building a more responsive and efficient public service.”
The plan reflects a growing recognition within government circles that the current ratio of executives to employees may be unsustainable. In some departments, managers sometimes oversee just a handful of staff—a structure that critics argue creates unnecessary bureaucratic layers and slows decision-making processes.
David Zussman, former public service commissioner and current University of Ottawa professor, believes this initiative was inevitable. “The executive growth has been concerning for some time. When you have too many decision-makers in a chain, it becomes difficult to implement policy effectively or respond quickly to emerging challenges.”
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation has long advocated for such reductions. Their Ottawa director noted, “Taxpayers ultimately foot the bill for these high-salaried positions. If duties are duplicated or roles have become redundant, Canadians deserve a more efficient use of their tax dollars.”
The restructuring will initially focus on natural attrition through retirements, along with carefully targeted reductions in specific departments where executive positions have grown most dramatically. Priority areas identified include administrative services, human resources management, and certain policy shops where multiple executive positions may have overlapping responsibilities.
For Ottawa’s economy, these changes present a mixed outlook. The capital region, where approximately 42% of federal executives are based, will likely feel some impact from these reductions. However, economic analysts suggest the effect may be gradual rather than immediate.
I’ve covered government restructuring efforts for nearly two decades, and what stands out about this particular initiative is its focus on structural efficiency rather than simple cost-cutting. Previous attempts at “delayering” under different administrations often prioritized immediate savings over organizational effectiveness, sometimes creating more problems than they solved.
The Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC), which represents many professionals working under these executives, has cautiously acknowledged the need for review while emphasizing protection for frontline services. “We understand the need for organizational efficiency,” said their president in a statement. “But any restructuring must ensure that Canadians continue receiving the services they depend on without disruption.”
Implementation will occur in phases, with departments required to submit plans for executive structure optimization by early next year. The Treasury Board has established what it calls “span of control” targets—essentially guidelines for how many employees should report to each manager—that vary by department function and operational requirements.
The Public Service Alliance of Canada, representing many non-executive federal employees, has requested consultation throughout the process. “Our members often have the clearest understanding of where management redundancies exist,” their Ottawa regional representative commented. “Their insights should be central to any restructuring effort.”
Critics of the plan question whether reducing executive positions will actually improve government operations. Carleton University public administration professor Katherine Graham points out that “executive bloat is often a symptom of broader organizational issues. Simply cutting positions without addressing underlying structural problems rarely yields the intended results.”
What makes Ottawa’s public service challenge particularly complex is the unique role many executives play in policy development and implementation. Unlike private sector executives who focus primarily on operational efficiency, public service leaders must navigate political, legislative, and public interest considerations simultaneously.
For residents of Ottawa, particularly those connected to the public service, this initiative represents more than an administrative adjustment—it signals an evolving philosophy about how government should structure itself to serve Canadians effectively in the 21st century.
As the process unfolds, the true measure of success won’t be found simply in reduced headcounts but in whether services to Canadians improve as a result. The coming months will reveal whether this initiative delivers on its promise of a more responsive, efficient public service or becomes yet another reorganization that fails to address fundamental challenges in how our government operates.
In a city where government efficiency directly affects both local employment and national service delivery, Ottawa residents will be watching these developments with particular interest. The implementation approach chosen by the Treasury Board will largely determine whether this becomes a model for effective public service modernization or merely another chapter in Canada’s long history of administrative restructuring.
