Drummond, a highly regarded economist, was hand-picked by the premier to steer him through the shoals of deficit-cutting at a time of weak growth and global uncertainty.
He warned McGuinty to avoid three tactics “that sound useful but are often harmful.”
The first was a temporary wage freeze for public employees. It might improve the balance sheet for a couple of years, but the moment the freeze ended, there would be a surge of pent-up demand making it harder than ever to put spending on a sustainable track.
The second was legislated wage settlements. They would poison labour relations and make it harder to achieve lasting gains.
The third was across-the-board cuts, which Drummond he called an “abdication of the government’s responsibility” to make tough choices.
These traditional quick fixes have been deployed repeatedly, the economist noted, drawing on his 23 years in the federal government. If Ontario takes that route, “it will continue to find itself in the same situation in the end.”
McGuinty ignored his advice. He made across-the-boards in every department except health and education. He imposed a wage settlement on Ontario’s public school teachers before they had even taken a strike vote. And he left overstaffed agencies and costly election commitments intact.
Following Drummond’s recommendations would have been politically painful, as he was the first to acknowledge. But if McGuinty had taken the path of reasoned restraint — even with a few detours — he could have explained where he was going, why it made sense and what his final destination was.
Right now, most Ontarians haven’t a clue. They see the turmoil in their kids’ schools. They hear threats from the province’s public sector unions. They know they’re supposed to lower their expectations.
But they don’t see how any of this is going to make things better. And they can’t reconcile McGuinty’s words — “we’re doing this because we know it’s the right thing to do” — with his actions: withholding government documents; blaming his ministers for following his directions; spending billions of taxpayers’ dollars to extricate his government from deals that would have cost it seats in last year’s election.
This kind of ad hoc cost-cutting is exactly what Drummond feared. He tried to guard against it by laying out the “critical ingredients of success” in his report.
• The objectives must be explained clearly and transparently.
• The reforms must make sense to citizens, officials and politicians.
• The process must deliver the desired outcome.
Drummond’s report was denounced by the same teachers’ federations and public service unions that are crying foul today. But for the rest of the population, it provided clear rationale for restraint and identified the down-the-road paybacks: better value for taxpayers’ dollars and sustainable public finances. It also made sense against the backdrop of a shrinking manufacturing sector and an aging population.
McGuinty’s tried-and-true approach has worked in the past, as he reminded fellow Liberals at the party’s annual meeting in Ottawa. He imposed an unpopular health tax in 2004 and a harmonized sales tax (HST) in 2010. In both cases, he survived at the ballot box.
“We’re going to get that goodwill back,” he assured delegates, as protestors berated him outside the convention centre and the Liberals languished in third place in the public opinion polls.
What weakens the premier’s argument this time is that he is suppressing — not solving — problems. Ontarians don’t see an end point. They’re not sure there is one.
Asking voters to sacrifice is a high-risk proposition for any politician. But it helps to have a credible plan and the courage to follow it.
Original Article
Source: the star
Author: Carol Goar
No comments:
Post a Comment