So a long held belief by many is that government is employee fat.
Given in the last number of years private business has often opted to improve the bottom line by trimming staff positions saving those wages and off loading responsibilities to others, or to better system and technology the general assumption is that it should work for government too.
That is likely at least party accurate.
The way government programs come and go, and the general direction of various departments change on the whim of public opinion and the winds of politics the likelihood of job redundancy and overlap certainly exists.
So when we hear government is looking to trim staff within a particular department the general response is a nod of approval tempered with the hope the cuts are real and not simply the shuffling of ‘paper positions’.
So one might look at an announcement that in the next three years, Agriculture Canada will eliminate about 665 positions as a good move.
Trimming some government spending is in principle a good idea.
But, in the case of cuts within Agriculture Canada it warrants a deeper dive into who is likely to go off the payroll.
It is being suggested the vast majority – roughly 500 — will be in the department’s science and innovation branch.
Suddenly what at first glance appeared highly favourable in terms of trimming government spending looks very different.
The future of agriculture lies in science and innovation.
Whether you are looking at how the sector continues to produce to feed a growing world population, how it remains internationally competitive in terms of trade, how it protects the land so it remains productive for future generations, or how it deals with changes to climate and the environment, it will rely heavily on innovation and scientific advancement.
Trimming public investment in such critical areas to save some dollars today is poorly targeted in terms of saving money today and the risk to the Canadian ag sector’s future.
Some will suggest the private sector will move to fill gaps created by the cuts, but the private sector is first and foremost mandated by profit.
Publicly-funded science should have a broader vision which encompasses advancement for all, not just for the ones who can afford the advancements for profit.
Government cuts will remain a generally good idea but those cuts needs to be carefully considered before the axe falls, and rare will that review suggest cuts in innovation and science are wise when factoring in our future. •
— By Calvin Daniels