Prime Minister Mark Carney has indicated a desire for change in the federal public service to deliver on the Liberal government’s Make Canada Strong agenda. He hopes to realign the country’s economic and political relations to respond to new global and North American realities. The question is whether the public service has the capacity to effectively and efficiently execute such an ambitious agenda. Given widespread concerns about declining public trust in government, it is important to assess public service reforms by whether they increase trust in public institutions.

The overarching discourse around public service reform has focused on efficiency and speed. Whether efforts to streamline the public service and make decisions faster will impact overall trust is still unclear. Improved speed and efficiency may increase perceptions of public service competence, but risk decreasing perceptions of benevolence and care, as inevitably some groups will feel their interests and values have not been considered in decision-making.

We must ask whether the public service has the capacity to execute the current government’s mandate, but also whether it has the capacities needed to build trust in the institution. Recent research suggests that the ability of public servants to engage directly with citizens is one such capacity.

Why Does Trust Matter?

Political trust is linked to the public’s belief that political actors and institutions will look after their interests and values when exercising power. Research shows that trust can affect institutional stability, political participation, and the public’s willingness to abide by laws and accept the costs of policy. While Canada generally performs well on indicators of public trust compared to other OECD countries, typically only about half of Canadians say they have a lot of trust in the federal government. Trust in the public servants specifically isn’t high either. The 2026 Confederation of Tomorrow survey, of which the Institute for Research on Public Policy is a partner, found that 61 per cent of respondents were not confident in the ability of public servants to plan ahead by 10 to 20 years.

Populist politics, which rely on anti-government rhetoric and fostering distrust of political institutions, has become more mainstream in Canada in the last five years. This development further threatens political trust in the country. If we are indeed in a hinge moment, with political and economic changes that have not been seen in a generation, then higher levels of trust in political institutions, including the public service, will be necessary to weather disruption.

The Three Pillars of Trust and the Federal Public Service

How can trust be maintained or increased? While the determinants of trust in political institutions are multiple, complex and contestable, a starting point is the three-pillar framework used in organizational psychology, political science and public administration. The framework suggests that trust is determined by competency, the ability or capacity to perform a task; benevolence, caring for and considering others’ interests; and integrity, being honest and following through on commitments.

Where does the public service rate on these pillars and where are opportunities to increase trust? New, yet-to-be-published research from Andrea Lawlor and Marc Bodet, at McMaster University and Université Laval respectively, has begun to unpack what, exactly, the public trusts different political institutions to do. In their 2025 fieldwork, the researchers found that Canadians have higher trust in the public service on competency elements like carrying out its duties well, having the capability to perform its job and being knowledgeable about its work. These all speak to the effectiveness and efficiency of the public service. Where Canadians trust the public service less is on questions of benevolence, whether it acts in the best interest of the public and if it would take advantage of the public. The public had the least trust in the public service’s integrity, whether it delivers on its promises and does what it says it will do (figure 1).

Carney’s approach largely focuses on the public service’s competence in executing policy decisions and delivering services. The Clerk of the Privy Council Michael Sabia’s open letter to the federal public service in July 2025 highlighted the need to focus on fewer priorities, simplify procedures and processes to act faster, and increase accountability for results. Mission-driven government has been the buzzword under Carney. The approach, originating with the U.K. government, focuses on framing priorities as missions to overcome departmental silos and get different parts of government pulling in the same direction.

Former clerks and a chief of staff have largely echoed the need for the public service to move faster. They have offered a range of options including restructuring departments, decreasing the power of the centre, reviewing spending priorities and establishing a Chief Operating Officer. Academics have also been involved, examining capacity and co-ordination issues, assessing digital transformation, service delivery and data management, and considering the impact on employees.

There’s an implicit assumption in these discussions that increased public service competency will lead to greater public trust in government. But evidence on the extent to which performance contributes to citizens’ trust in government is, at best, mixed. Focusing on competency, where the Canadian public service already enjoys higher trust, risks further undermining the pillars that command less confidence, thereby missing the best opportunity to improve trust. A focus on speed and efficiency creates a trade-off with the benevolence pillar, as time is needed to hear and consider competing interests and explain important decisions.

When promises made to the public to secure political support are broken, the integrity pillar is undermined. Of course, competency is required to deliver on promises and ensure integrity as well. In short, the public service must be able to do things right, but it also has a role in ensuring government is doing the right things.

The Major Projects Office: A Test Case

One key area of Carney’s bureaucratic reform agenda is accelerating approvals of major infrastructure projects to grow Canada’s economy and decrease reliance on the United States. This represents a test case for the government’s public service reform approach. The government established the Major Projects Office, headed by Dawn Farrell, a chief executive with significant experience in the private sector, and committed to a streamlined process that leads to project approvals in two years.

Given the length of approval times for projects like the Trans Mountain Pipeline, two years would certainly qualify as an increase in efficiency. But the experience of pipeline review processes in the early 2010s under the Stephen Harper government suggests that trying to move quickly may undermine trust in both the institutions involved and the broader government. This was particularly true among local and Indigenous communities that were directly affected by the projects. Already, Indigenous leaders and environmental groups have expressed concern about the new process and their ability to have their voices heard. Communications from the Major Projects Office have habitually emphasized that Indigenous rights and environmental responsibilities will be honoured. But if these groups are not satisfied, the integrity pillar will be undermined, leading to a further erosion in trust.

Transparency Is Not Enough

A key test will be how the Carney government reforms, focused on speed and efficiency, interact with existing strategies and plans. These include the Government of Canada Trust and Transparency Strategy, and public service reform initiatives like Beyond2020 and the Call to Action on Anti-Racism, Equity and Inclusion in the Federal Public Service. All these strategies, to some extent, suggest increasing public participation, expanding partnerships and collaboration, and empowering diverse voices inside the public service. But they were initiated under prior prime ministers and clerks and predate the seismic shift in Canada’s relations with the United States under the second Trump administration.

It may be enticing for the government to focus on transparency and modernizing access to information legislation as the primary means to secure the public’s trust. Access to information about government activities and decisions is a necessary condition for trust. But it is by no means sufficient, as it is largely a one-way, government-to-public form of interaction. Two-way interaction, where the public can provide feedback and input into decisions, is essential to building trust. A recent OECD report found that the largest gap in trust in the federal government was between Canadians who felt the political system gave them a say and those who felt it did not.

What Should Guide Public Service Reforms?

Public service reforms that will build trust in government must dig deeper than efficiency and speed in decision-making. They must recognize the trade-offs of streamlining processes, including fewer avenues for public deliberation and input. Reforms that do not recognize this trade-off and promise more and better of everything will ultimately undermine the integrity of the public service.

The first step in addressing these trade-offs is thinking of public servants not just as inward-looking administrators, focused on processes and procedures, but also as outward-looking managers. In this second role, public servants seek to create public value by considering the goals and aspirations of people and communities, rather than thinking of them as clients seeking the efficient delivery of a product or service.

Public servants deliver democracy not only by implementing government decisions but also by participating in public discourse and helping define the public interest. My research, published in International Review of Administrative Sciences, highlights that Canadians already recognize this as an important role. In 2021, I surveyed 830 public servants from all levels of government across Canada, nearly 2,000 members of the public and 74 members of Parliament. Majorities in all three groups rejected the idea that public servants should remain anonymous and shielded from public scrutiny. They also agreed that public servants have a responsibility to engage with media and stakeholders about their work (figure 2).

This shift in the role of the public servant is not only desirable but may also be inevitable. Public servants are increasingly losing their anonymity and being scrutinized as individuals in the public space. Recent media coverage of Deputy Minister of National Defence Christiane Fox, as well as her public statement on findings that she breached a provision of the Conflict of Interest Act while working at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, illustrates this trend.  Public servants will not remain anonymous and free from public scrutiny even if they want to.

While competence will likely remain an important pillar of public trust in the public service, in the 21st century, it must be balanced with the public servant’s capacity to engage directly with Canadians. Such engagement demonstrates benevolence and integrity and creates an institution that truly earns the confidence of Canadians.