The initiative led by Elon Musk in the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has turned out to be a major disaster with not much impact on the federal government’s overall debt. It certainly is an example of what not to do for a planned Canadian government initiative to curt federal government spending and reduce its current debt. Prime Minister Mark Carney has embarked on one of the most ambitious public spending reviews since former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and his finance minister Paul Martin balanced the budget in the 1990s. Carney’s government wants to cut operational spending by 7.5 per cent for the 2026-27 fiscal year, 10 per cent the following year and 15 per cent in 2028-29. According to the CBC, the Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy at the University of Ottawa estimates that, when those areas are carved out, the government is targeting a pot of money that is about $180 to $200 billion of the $570 billion it will spend this fiscal year. Some former senior government officials believe that this is doable, but with some caveats.
First, rather than an arbitrary across-the-board cut, a realistic program review will look at whether the existing program continues to serve a real need, especially when it comes to public services. Secondly, it’s mostly important to first determine where you cut — rather than by how much. Thirdly, there may be means to cut operating expenses by looking for ways to employ new technologies, including those involving artificial intelligence and automation. Fourthly, there is also room to cut the use of consultants and outside contractors, but doing so could cut off access to valuable expertise. In addition, extra replacement training of public servants could occur, but would be an added cost factor.
Interestingly, Carney has said that there will be no cuts to transfers to the provinces for things like health and social programs, nor would he cut individual benefits such as pensions and Old Age Security payments. Key programs rolled out by former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government such as child care, pharmacare and dental care are also spared. These of course are high cost, almost untouchable programs, with a great deal of the electorate’s support.
Unlike in the DOGE exercise, federal public servants in Canada have strong union representation across the public service and will require consultation with union officials during the review process. The unions have already expressed concerns about potential cuts to the workforce, but recognize that the review must address this issue as it will be difficult for the government to avoid cutting staff because wages, benefits and pensions are such a large part of the operating budget. As in past initiatives, some cuts can be made through attrition. However, serious cuts would involve the removal of some positions, moving staff to other programs or retraining for other government jobs. The unions will argue that any program cuts should not be at the expense of certain key services to the public.
Previous program reviews have been undertaken given a government’s mandate to respond to a national crisis, such as the servicing of a growing government debt. Given that the most fundamental issue of the last Canadian election was Donald Trump’s attack on the current U.S.-Canada trade relations and our sovereignty, Canadians are much more open to suffering through cuts then they were five to 10 years ago. Due to the DOGE methodology of arbitrary cuts to departments and agencies, the ramification of those cuts to important public services is just now being felt by Americans. Canada does not want to incur the same public wrath that the Trump administration is and will continue to experience as a result of program and service cuts. As well, serious errors were made in the DOGE accounting process, often overestimating the actual cost savings as a result of government cuts. Canada does not want to repeat such mistakes and must offer an open and accountable process during any program review.
The one most important factor in my view from past experience in federal program reviews is that imposing across-the-board cuts can quickly paralyse the effective delivery of certain important programs, especially those which are regulatory in nature. While a ten percent cut to a program’s budget may not seem to be much, for some agencies this may be enough to hinder or negate its effective program delivery. Agencies and departments which enforce regulatory requirements, such as those in occupational health and safety, transportation, and the environment most likely would be greatly compromised. In some cases, program delivery becomes so ineffective that one could argue that the program is better off simply not existing. This becomes the conundrum that any program must entertain and could endanger public safety.
FROLITICKS 
Leave a comment