Last Monday Brant asked public servants to prove their value for dollar.
That’s not an insult. It’s a basic performance question.
Every organization—public or private—should be able to show what outcomes it generates for the resources it consumes.
Spending more doesn’t mean delivering better
From 2015 to 2025, federal government direct program spending grew at an average rate of roughly 8% annually.
Over the full period from 2015-16 to 2023-24, total federal spending increased by 58%.
For context, during that same period:
- Canadian GDP growth averaged 2.3% annually
- Population growth averaged 1.2% annually
- Inflation averaged 2.1% annually
Government spending grew faster than the economy, the population, and the cost of living.
What did Canadians receive for that increased spending?
Service quality metrics tell a different story than spending trends.
Passport processing times, which were 10 business days in 2019, extended to 40+ business days by 2022. Immigration application backlogs grew from 80,000 cases in 2015 to over 2.1 million by 2023. Veterans Affairs faced a backlog of 46,000 disability benefit applications as of 2024.
These aren’t anomalies. They’re patterns.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer noted in multiple reports that “despite significant increases in departmental budgets, service delivery outcomes have not improved proportionally.”
This creates a fundamental question: if spending increased 58% over the period, why didn’t service quality increase proportionally?
The most common explanation is that money went to different priorities—pandemic response, new programs, wage increases, compliance costs.
That may be accurate. But it reinforces the member’s point: taxpayers cannot see the connection between money spent and value received.
The “refocusing” myth
In November 2025, the Carney government announced it would “refocus” $4.8 billion in annual spending by 2026-27.
News coverage presented this as spending cuts. It’s not.
“Refocusing” means moving money from one category to another. The government takes funding previously allocated to Department A and reallocates it to Department B.
Total spending doesn’t decrease. It shifts.
The budget document confirms this: “reallocating… to current government priorities.”
The government also announced it would “slow spending growth from 8% to under 1%.”
This sounds like restraint. But slowing growth is not the same as cutting spending.
Here’s a clean analogy: if your household spending increases $800 every month, and you slow that growth to $80 per month, you’re still spending more every month. Just less faster.
That’s not reduction. That’s deceleration.
For 2025-26, total federal spending is $480.5 billion. Even with growth slowed to 1%, spending next year will exceed $485 billion.
The government proposes cutting 40,000 public service positions over several years, which would save approximately $5 billion annually.
Simultaneously, it proposes $51 billion over 10 years for the Build Communities Strong Fund.
The arithmetic: $5 billion saved annually. $5.1 billion added annually through new programs.
Net change: essentially flat.
This doesn’t mean the new spending is wrong. It means calling this “cutting spending” is inaccurate.
Bureaucracy math
From 2015 to 2023, the federal government added approximately 108,000 employees.
The public service grew from 257,000 to 365,000—a 42% increase.
During that same period, Canada’s population grew 11%.
To put this in density terms: in 2015, there were 7.2 federal public servants per 1,000 Canadians. By 2023, that ratio had increased to 8.9 per 1,000.
If public service growth had matched population growth, the government would have added approximately 35,500 positions instead of 108,000.
That’s a difference of 72,500 positions.
Average compensation for federal public servants is currently $125,300 annually. This includes salary, benefits, and pension contributions. The Parliamentary Budget Officer projects this will rise to $172,000 per employee by 2030.
Using current compensation levels: 72,500 positions × $125,300 = approximately $9.1 billion annually.
What would that mean for the Martinez family?
$9.1 billion divided by 19.4 million tax filers = $469 per taxpayer annually.
For the Martinez family filing jointly, that’s $938 per year.
This doesn’t mean those 72,500 positions provide no value. It means their value should be measurable.
The member asked: what value are these positions bringing to taxpayers?
The government hasn’t provided a systematic answer.
Between 2015 and 2024, the federal government paid approximately $1.5 billion in performance bonuses to public servants.
During that period, departments met their overall performance targets in only one year, according to government performance reporting.
The logic question: if performance targets aren’t consistently met, why are performance bonuses consistently paid?
The answer typically given: bonuses are negotiated in collective agreements and are difficult to remove.
That may be accurate. But it illustrates a structural problem: compensation isn’t clearly linked to measured outcomes.
Crown corporation performance
Three major Crown corporations—CBC, Canada Post, and VIA Rail—collectively consume over $5 billion annually in taxpayer funding to cover losses and operations.
CBC receives approximately $1.2 billion annually from taxpayers. Canada Post reported losses of $541 million in a single quarter of 2025 and is considered effectively insolvent without major restructuring. VIA Rail requested $1.3 billion in 2025-26 estimates to cover operating costs and fleet renewal.
These organizations serve different purposes. Broadcasting, postal service, and passenger rail each have unique policy rationales.
Operating at a loss may be justified by public policy. Operating without clear performance benchmarks is harder to justify.
But the member’s question applies equally: what value per dollar are taxpayers receiving?
For the Martinez family contributing $12,000 in federal taxes annually, approximately $300 goes to these three Crown corporations.
Whether that represents good value depends on outcomes:
- How many Canadians use these services?
- What would private sector alternatives cost?
- What policy objectives do these corporations achieve?
- How do their costs compare to international benchmarks?
Currently, no systematic public reporting answers these questions.
Value for dollar isn’t ideological
The member’s memo didn’t argue these programs should be eliminated. It argued they should be measured.
Value for dollar is an operational concept, not a political one.
Private sector organizations measure cost per customer, revenue per employee, and outcome per dollar invested. These aren’t ideological metrics. They’re management tools.
Public sector organizations can measure similar indicators:
- Cost per passport processed
- Cost per citizenship application completed
- Cost per veteran benefit claim resolved
- Taxpayer subsidy per passenger on VIA Rail
- Operating cost per hour of CBC programming
These measurements don’t tell you whether a program should exist. They tell you whether it’s delivering efficiently.
In low-trust environments, organizations that cannot demonstrate value per dollar lose public support—even when their missions are important.
In low-trust environments, performance without proof isn’t sustainable.
The Martinez family pays $12,000 annually in federal taxes. They don’t object to paying taxes for services they value.
They object to not knowing whether they’re receiving $12,000 worth of value.
Wednesday, we’ll examine why government intervention in the economy—from corporate subsidies to industry bailouts—follows the same pattern: distributions made without measurement, promises made without follow-up, and costs that fall on families who never consented to the investment.