Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Frontier Centre for Public Policy

Federal government’s bloated bureaucracy needs an immediate overhaul

Published

7 minute read

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By David Leis

I recently had the pleasure of speaking with the Honourable Preston Manning about the ever-growing size of Canada’s federal bureaucracy. Manning, a seasoned politician with an impressive legacy of public service, recently wrote a compelling column urging the next government to rein in the federal bureaucracy.

Our conversation highlighted the need for a strategic approach to managing the state’s size and ensuring efficient and effective government operations and democratic accountability. This issue is relevant to Canadians as the size of government in Canada continues to increase at historic levels and acts as a major impediment to our nation’s productivity, standard of living and quality of life.

The size of the state has also led to a change in our culture. Some assume that the government will do everything, which, of course, has never worked.

During our conversation, Manning highlighted the dramatic growth of the federal civil service, which has nearly doubled during the Trudeau years. This expansion, he said, poses a significant challenge for any new government trying to control this vast machinery by elected representatives. His central argument was clear: a new government must be prepared with a solid plan to manage and, where necessary, reduce the federal bureaucracy’s size to ensure its effectiveness and that it serves the needs of Canadians.

One of his primary suggestions was a return to merit-based hiring. The current emphasis on diversity, equity, and inclusion, he pointed out, sometimes comes at the expense of efficiency and effectiveness. While acknowledging the importance of a diverse workforce, Manning stressed that competence and capability, not ideology, should be the core criteria for hiring civil servants. This approach, he said, would ensure that the government is staffed by professionals who can deliver high-quality public services.

Privatization also came up as a key theme in our conversation. Manning pointed out that certain government functions could be better managed by the private sector. He said that by contracting out services that the private sector can deliver more cost-effectively, the government can reduce its size and focus on its core responsibilities. This shift would not only decrease public expenditure but also enhance the efficiency of service delivery to the public.

We also discussed the issue of federal encroachment into provincial jurisdictions and the need for it to focus on its own responsibilities, many of which are underperforming. The Trudeau government has been overstepping its constitutional boundaries in areas like healthcare, natural resources, and municipal governance. By respecting provincial jurisdictions, the federal government could reduce its role and the size of its bureaucracy while empowering those levels of government closer to the people. This decentralization would enable the provincial governments to manage their affairs more effectively, leading to a more balanced and efficient federation.

Building public support for reducing the size of the government was another crucial point in our conversation as Canadians struggle with high taxation and affordability. Survey after survey suggests a low level of trust in government as they witness high levels of deficits and debt as their standard of living continues to fall. Manning pointed out that, during the formation of the Reform Party, there was initially little public support for balancing the budget. However, through persistent efforts, public awareness and support for fiscal responsibility significantly increased. Similar efforts are needed today, he said, to educate the public about the importance of controlling government size and spending to serve Canadians better.

Our conversation also delved into the rule of law and the need for greater transparency to the public to ensure stronger accountability. Canada has one of the most secretive approaches to handling government documents in the Western world. Many documents are held indefinitely when they should be released publicly. Ironically, this secrecy has created a challenge for historians who seek to research past government decisions and can find few original documents because they are not public.

Manning also recommended periodically reviewing programs and either renewing or discontinuing them based on their effectiveness. This approach, he said, would enhance accountability and prevent the perpetuation of ineffective programs that no longer serve any purpose.

A particularly striking part of our discussion was the concept of a vertical political culture, where an elite class wields significant power, often at the expense of ordinary citizens. Manning argued that this description of elites and power is more relevant today than the traditional left-right political spectrum. The public must elect representatives committed to empowering citizens rather than perpetuating elite control, particularly within a massive, complex state bureaucracy.

Manning urged voters to ask candidates specific questions about how they plan to reduce the size of the federal civil service and manage public spending. By holding elected officials accountable, citizens can ensure that their concerns are addressed and that the government remains responsive to their needs, he said.

My discussion with Preston Manning highlighted the urgent need for strategic planning and public engagement in managing the size of Canada’s federal bureaucracy to ensure democratic control. His call for a return to merit-based hiring, increased privatization, respect for provincial jurisdictions, and greater transparency offers a roadmap for a more efficient and effective government.

As Canada faces increasing fiscal challenges and public dissatisfaction, his insights provide a timely reminder of the importance of prudent governance and active citizenship.

David Leis is the Frontier Centre for Public Policy’s vice president for development and engagement and host of the Leaders on the Frontier podcast.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Frontier Centre for Public Policy

Hungarian Revolution of 1956: A Valiant Effort to Overthrow Communist Rule

Published on

Civilians wave Hungary’s national flag from a captured Soviet tank in Budapest’s main square during the anti-communist uprising of October 1956. AP Photo

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Gerry Bowler

For a time, Moscow seemed willing to accept change in Hungary, but when Nagy announced that his country would leave the Warsaw Pact and become neutral in the Cold War, that was a bridge too far for Khrushchev.

After World War II ended in the summer of 1945, the Soviet Red Army found itself to be in possession of Eastern Europe. In the next few years, the USSR extinguished the young democracies in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, while imposing Stalinist governments on autocracies such as Bulgaria and Hungary. With Marxist regimes taking over in eastern Germany, and Albania and Yugoslavia as well, Winston Churchill spoke truly when he said that “from Stettin the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across the continent.”

In many of these countries, there was considerable resentment over the Russian occupation. In the Baltic republics, Romania, Croatia, Belarus, Poland, and Ukraine, doomed anti-Soviet guerilla movements with names like the “Forest Brothers,” the “Cursed Soldiers,” or “Crusaders,” fought underground wars that\ lasted for years. In June 1953 in East Berlin, workers rose up in protests against their communist masters, sparking a short-lived rebellion that spread to hundreds of towns before being crushed by Russian tanks. The most serious of these insurrections was the Hungarian Revolution of 1956. By 1956, there were stirrings of discontent in the Hungarian People’s Republic. Under the state control of industry, forced agricultural collectivization, and the shipping of produce to the Soviet Union, the economy was in bad shape. The supply of consumer goods was low and standards of living were dropping. Secret police surveillance of the population was harsh, while many Hungarians resented the suppression of religion and the mandatory instruction of the Russian language in schools. As news leaked out about Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev’s denunciation of Stalin in the so-called “Secret Speech,” hopes grew that reform of the communist system was possible.

Marxist intellectuals began to form study circles to discuss a new path for Hungarian socialism, but their cautious proposals were suddenly overtaken by demands for change by young people. On Oct. 22, 1956, students at the Technical University of Budapest drew up a list of demands for change  known as the “Sixteen Points.” They included free elections, a withdrawal of Soviet troops, free speech, and an improvement in economic conditions.

On the afternoon of the next day, these points were read out to a crowd of 20,000 who had gathered at the statue of a leader of the Hungarian rebellion of 1848. By 6 p.m., when the students marched on the Parliament Building, the crowd had grown to around 200,000 people. This alarmed the government, and later that evening Communist Party leader Erno Gero took to the radio to condemn the Sixteen Points. In reaction, mobs tore down an enormous statue of Stalin.

People surround the decapitated head of a huge statue of Josef Stalin in Budapest during the Hungarian Revolution in 1956. Daniel Sego (second L), who cut off the head, is spitting on the statue. Hulton Archive/Getty Images

On the night of Oct. 23, crowds gathered outside the state broadcaster, Radio Budapest, to demand that the Sixteen Points be sent out over the air. The secret police fired on the protesters, killing a number of them. This enraged the demonstrators who set fire to police cars and seized arms from military depots. Army units ordered to support the secret police rebelled and joined the protest. The government floundered; on the one hand, they called Soviet tanks into Budapest; on the other hand, they appointed Imre Nagy, seen as a popular reformer, as prime minister.

As barricades were being erected by protesters and shots were being exchanged with secret police units, Nagy was negotiating with the Soviets who agreed that they would withdraw their tanks from the capital. Over the next few days, the rebellion spread; factories were seized, Communist Party newspapers and headquarters were attacked, and known communists and secret police agents were murdered. The new prime minister released political prisoners and promised the establishment of democracy, with freedom of speech and religion.

For a time, Moscow seemed willing to accept change in Hungary, but when Nagy announced that his country would leave the Warsaw Pact and become neutral in the Cold War, that was a bridge too far for Khrushchev. Fearing the collapse of the entire Soviet bloc, he made plans for an invasion of Hungary. By Nov. 3, the Red Army had surrounded Budapest, and the next day heavy fighting erupted as armoured columns entered the city. Some units of the Hungarian army fought back, joined by thousands of civilians, but the end was predictable. After a week of battles, with over 20,000 dead and wounded, resistance crumbled. A new Soviet-approved government under János Kádár purged the army and Communist Party, arrested thousands, and executed rebel leaders including Nagy.

Hundreds of thousands of refugees fled, many of them settling in Canada and the United States. World condemnation of the USSR was strong; critics of the Soviets included many communists in the West who resigned their party membership. Not until the collapse of the Soviet hold on Eastern Europe in 1989 did Hungarians get another taste of freedom.

Published in the Epoch Times.

Gerry Bowler, historian, is a Senior Fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

Continue Reading

Education

Lowering Teacher Education Standards Will Harm Students

Published on

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Michael Zwaagstra

Judging by Manitoba’s growing deficit, math doesn’t appear to be the government’s strong suit. Now the government seems to want all Manitobans to have equally poor math skills.

Last month, the province quietly removed all subject requirements for entry into a Bachelor of Education program. No longer will prospective teachers need to complete a prescribed number of courses in “teachable” subjects; in fact, they won’t even have to take a single math or English course.

This means that a candidate who took a three-year bachelor’s degree in gender studies and then completed a two-year teacher education degree is considered just as qualified to become a teacher as a candidate who completed an honours degree in mathematics, physics, or chemistry. No wonder people are worried.

For example, University of Winnipeg math professor Anna Stokke has long raised the alarm about the declining math skills of Manitoba students. In fact, Stokke played a key role in convincing the previous NDP government to increase the required number of math courses for prospective teachers from one to two in 2015.

Now the current government is moving in the opposite direction by cutting the required math courses from two to zero. I’m no mathematician but that looks like a decrease to me.

Sadly, some education professors are completely on board with this change. Martha Koch, an education professor at the University of Manitoba, publicly claimed that requiring students to complete more undergraduate courses in math “sometimes results in worse teachers in early and middle years mathematics.”

This comment is a prime example of the anti-knowledge bias pervading North American education faculties. The last thing faculties of education want is for teachers to be the primary source of knowledge in the classroom.

That is why we cannot trust education faculties. Having taken many undergraduate and graduate education courses myself, I can safely say that most of them are worse than useless. In fact, you get stupider because of taking them.

Don’t just take my word for it. Ask any teacher how they felt about their Bachelor of Education program. Chances are they will praise their teaching practicum where they worked in real classrooms with real students, but they will dismiss most of their required education courses as useless theories.

I shudder to think about prospective teachers taking undergraduate degrees in narrow and esoteric fields such as gender studies and then completing a Bachelor of Education program with courses that promote all the wrong ideas about how students learn. While those teachers will be ready for social justice activism, they won’t have a foggy clue about how to teach real subjects such as math, science, or history.

The reality is that teachers must know the subjects they teach well. Since there is a high probability that early and middle school teachers will teach math at some point, they should complete at least one or two math courses before they are admitted into a faculty of education.

As for high school teachers, it makes sense to expect them to complete a major and a minor in subjects that are taught in schools. This shouldn’t be too much to ask.

Lowering teacher education standards might get more bodies into school classrooms, but it won’t help raise student achievement.

Michael Zwaagstra is a public high school teacher and a senior fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. 

Continue Reading

Trending

X