INTERVIEW 22 / Canadian Government Executive // WINTER 2025 what it costs. Here, it’s easy to blame the previous government for “not knowing the mess we were inheriting.” But if you had that information, you’d have to propose reasonable solutions. FLACK: Exactly. Knowing the fiscal outlook and the true cost of implementing your platform is important. Even more powerful, though, is being able to say, “We’re thinking about doing this—what’s your advice?” That kind of back-and-forth at the front end, like in any successful organization, influences the final decision. Q: McLAUGHLIN: Shifting back to public service resilience: there’s an old saying that the spirit is willing, but the body is weak. What do you think the government—as an institution— needs to focus on to make itself more resilient? FLACK: A concrete example from the pandemic relates to productivity. Productivity is generated by capital inputs and innovation combined with human capital. At ESDC, we had to develop 13 different benefits for Canadians in a short time—on platforms built in the 1970s. Literally, the code that runs old age security is about three years away from qualifying for that benefit itself. Although it looked seamless to the public, the staff had to perform miracles with ancient technology—very high risk, and labour-intensive in a short time. We never want to be in that position again, crisis or no crisis. When the next government comes in and says, “We want a new program,” we shouldn’t have to say, “That’s going to take a long time, and we have to hire more people because we can’t automate.” So that’s where the resilience piece comes in: modernizing core systems to make us nimbler in normal times and more able to respond in a crisis. So, for me, the lesson from the crisis is we never want to be in a position, not only in a crisis, but in peacetime where we require that level of risk taking that level of human effort to accomplish what should be more straightforward things. That’s a concrete example of how with the right investments to put us on modern platforms and those have started, but they need to be accelerated. You can dramatically increase the cadence with which you can do change safely, easily and without adding human capital. So, you get much more efficiency and productivity. Q: TURNBULL: Two thoughts on that. First, if a party campaigns on that sort of modernization, people might say it’s going to take forever and cost a fortune—so it’s not exactly a winning platform promise. Second, do parties just soft-pedal it, or do they have to be upfront? FLACK: I think you’re right. In a world where parties believe they have X dollars to spend on policy outcomes, they tend to exhaust that entire envelope on policy rather than capital investments. That slows down everything else because you’re operating on old systems. So, while I don’t expect to see a big campaign plank on IT modernization, I do think governments need to understand these investments allow them to deliver public services at lower cost with fewer people and pivot more quickly. Take old age security. If you want to raise it across the board, that’s a two-week change. But if you want to differentiate for those 75plus, the 60-year-old system has no “age differentiation” field. Instead, it’s built on “eligible or no longer living.” So, you have to delve into ancient code in a risky, 18-month process. Under our new benefits delivery platform, that would be a two-week change. Big difference. That’s why we need these investments, even though they’re hard, expensive and risky. Q: TURNBULL: Are the provinces farther ahead on this? FLACK: In many cases, yes. Fifty years ago, systems were all built from scratch. Now people often buy a commercial off-the-shelf system—like the “Excel” of benefits delivery—and then tweak the rules. For instance, Ontario uses a modern solution for benefits. The major risk is migrating all the old data, but once you’re up and running, the efficiency gains can be significant. Q: McLAUGHLIN: There’s a growing view that the federal government and the public service are too big and grew faster than anticipated. If you create more efficient back-office systems, you could in theory run the same programs with fewer people. But another viewpoint is that a new government might choose not to spend on technology but give tax cuts instead. How do you navigate these two issues? FLACK: I’ve heard the argument that the public service “just grew.” But it has grown precisely as much as the government decided to implement the new programs it was putting in place. There has been a growth in government that is a deliberate decision of political actors to add new programs and those new programs. The way they’re designed has consequences in terms of not just spending, but also in the number of public So that’s where the resilience piece comes in: modernizing core systems to make us nimbler in normal times and more able to respond in a crisis.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NDI0Mzg=