Cost Cutting

Posted October 12, 2012

The recent announcement that the federal government was cutting all part-time, non-Christian prison chaplains was offensive in almost every respect. Minister Toews seems to have a special talent for insensitive choices.

But what is evident from this and other federal announcements is that the Conservative government is really serious about its cost cutting commitments. Minister Flaherty’s 2010 budget called for cuts of $4 billion on an expenditure base of $80 billion.

A 5% reduction to be achieved over several years is not severe—by comparison, the British government set out two years ago to eliminate 450,000 civil service positions, and the distressed governments of southern Europe are cutting even more deeply.  Unlike the prison chaplains, most of the choices being made in Canada have been well researched and carefully implemented.

The Nova Scotia government’s approach to the same question has been greater in ambition but entirely lacking in achievement. In his 2010  budget address, Minister Steele said, “We will reduce the civil service by ten per cent by 2013, relying on attrition through retirements and voluntary departures.” That would mean a reduction of about 1,000 positions.

This has not happened. In fact, reported staff numbers have risen slightly from 9,976 in 2009-2010 to 10,096 in 2011-2012.

The “retirement and attrition” formula for pain-free reductions has over the years been prescribed by governments of every political stripe, and it never works. Reductions only happen when governments come to grips with the hard question of which departments will reduce, and by how much.

It is silly to assume that 90% of the employees can do 100% of the work. If a department is to be reduced in size, government must also identify activities that will be reduced or eliminated.

Recent government initiatives may make it more difficult to achieve staff reductions. Very few Fisheries and Aquaculture employees have agreed to follow their jobs to Digby and Shelburne. The same is true for Agriculture employees whose jobs are being transferred to Truro.

It is often difficult to relocate families from Halifax to other parts of Nova Scotia. A spouse who works, for example, in information technology, marketing, or as a university professor, may find it very difficult to find work in his or her field in Digby or Shelburne.

These employees will be kept on the payroll while replacements are hired in the new locations. Many will not have skills that are valuable outside their sectors, but will nevertheless be kept on the payroll.

The potential outsourcing of 110 IT jobs to IBM could have the same effect if those employees choose not to move with the work.

Achievable cuts in civil service numbers would be possible if the government had a well considered plan.

It does not. So the tough choices necessary to balance the budget have been handed to school boards, universities, and hospitals. The cuts to those essential institutions could have been $100 million less severe if government had fulfilled its stated goal for the civil service.

Share

Related Articles

Budget Season + Show all articles Issues + Show all articles

Reference Material

Post a Comment

Most Recent Comments

  • “The awful truth” according to Margaret Wente’s column in the Globe & Mail Oct. 13th is that socialized governments of all stripes have so piled on programs over the years that we are stuck with our heads in debt-sand .
    Considering that paying civil servants must be three quarters of the cost of these programs, (and Wente points out that most of the programs don’t make a difference, except to those employed to deliver the services) it was a ‘responsible’ decision that Graham Steele arrived at when he made his 2010 budget address calling for a 10% reduction in civil servants.
    As you suggest, governments only come to grips with reductions when they have a plan. If the present government’s plan was to reduce by 10% and haven’t done so in three years, then somebody is not doing their job.
    We can stop the debt increase (unlike energy cost increases…) by reducing our expenses. Apparent is that the majority haven’t discovered the “awful truth”.

    gordon stanfield | October 15, 2012

  • Bill – I take some exception with your leading editorial statement. Why should Canadian taxpayers be funding fringe ministries, like “Wican” within the Canadian prision system. Main-stream denominations are one-thing, but these are something else. IMO the feds are doing the right thing here.

    Harold | October 14, 2012

  • Today’s technology should be helping our politicians of every party and every taxpayer be able to “see” what their government does, but it ain’t happening . Go to any government website and look for an organization chart, a list of employees and job classifications, a simple revenue and expense statement , and a simple list of things they have done by year for the last 3 years . Best of luck. Why should the bureaucracy try to help you see their empires. Now Dexter allowed Paris to add more people,more expense to tourism by creating a whole new “agency” . The industry was not consulted , there isn’t a proposal on the table yet the whole operation is in place heading for new digs in Wolfville. All this while they decide to add a 2 % tax to every room night sold on Cape Breton where sales have been falling for years . Good math . So by hiding such proposals , by hiding the organization charts , the true revenue and expenses, the true “output” the politicians and bureaucrats can keep avoiding the issue . Time for transparency !!!!!! It’s your money after all. They like to call you a partner or a stake holder and then treat you like the enemy.

    cabottrail | October 13, 2012

View all comments