MacDougall: The government of the future doesn’t need these departments | Opinion
2025/12/06 Leave a comment
Raises some valid questions but as we know, cuts to programs are hard to sell. The current expenditure review is not asking these fundamental questions; hopefully next year’s budget will be more ambitious in terms of asking these difficult questions and even more difficult decisions:
…But perhaps the prime minister should have a think about the proper role of government, because the direction of travel in the advanced western economies is for shrinking working-age populations and ballooning spending. Unless we act now, countries like Canada could soon be in a position where a harsh rationalization of government function is necessary.
Reframing the challenge: What does a federal government *need* to do (versus what might be *nice* for it to do)? Moreover, what if governments can’t maintain current borrowing levels, and central banks can’t serially print money and/or buy up private debt in an attempt to smother the markets’ booms and busts? What bits of government activity would we choose to keep in that more financially restrictive world? If humans have a ‘hierarchy of needs’ – as advanced by psychologist Abraham Maslow – what would our core needs be from a slimmed-down government?
Maslow famously articulated five human needs and ordered them into a pyramid. The base layer is physiological needs: food, water, warmth and sleep. Without these things, humans can’t thrive. This suggests the government should help to ensure a safe and secure supply of food, water, energy, and housing. Add to that the defence of the realm and the administration of justice, and the base layers of the pyramid are covered. And then we’d need the ability to collect the tax needed to fund it.
And this relatively narrow collection of tasks is just about what the federal government looked like in the pre-WW2, pre-Baby Boom era. There were a dozen or so ministries and a small civil service to deliver the work. A lot of the government that’s come since is the governmental equivalent of Maslow’s latter stages, i.e. geared toward societal self-expression. A lot of it could go without compromising the provision of core needs.
For example, the government of yesteryear didn’t have any regional economic development agencies. Nor did it have the CBC, Canadian Heritage, Canada Council for the Arts, Canadian Commercial Corporation, or the Business Development Bank of Canada. All of this spending isn’t foundational. These bodies provide some value, but on a tighter budget, it is more Disney+ subscription than home heating bill.
Other bits of the expanded post-war state are essential. A society without a system of social support programs is a heartless one. We don’t want a return to the workhouse. The health system also needs to be there for people who need it. That said, we must acknowledge that social supports and health care systems designed decades ago face fresh challenges in an aging society in which people also live substantially longer. A country with nearly eight workers to every retiree (as Canada had in 1966) can afford to make different choices than one that will have a three-to-one ratio by 2030. Maslow’s government would benefit from a system of compulsory health insurance, as is done in Switzerland.
Ultimately, what would mitigate the need for a bare-minimum, Maslow-style government is the return of a vigorous civil society. Much of what families, friends, community groups and congregations used to provide is now delivered by the government. The atomization of society has left voids that governments have felt obliged to fill. And even if we now belatedly reclaim some of that territory, the bill for government will still have to go down….
Source: The government of the future doesn’t need these departments | Opinion
Multicultural Meanderings 