In a deeply divided, hyper-partisan age, a political stunt as innocuous as a tin of gravy seems almost quaint. But it’s worth actually considering. There is a message there — one more important one than the stunt would imply.
The tin of gravy was delivered to Doug Ford in the legislature, a gift from John Fraser, Liberal MPP. The meaning was twofold. Recent reports have shown that the size of Ford’s office has ballooned in recent years. The Sunshine List, for instance, has revealed that the number of staff earning more than $100,000 a year has more than doubled. And, of course, as has recently been noted, the Ford government, theoretically conservative, is spending vastly more than what was budgeted for during Kathleen Wynne’s last year in office.
So, sure. Lots of gravy. And many readers, probably most, will recall why that term has particular resonance for Ford. The premier’s late brother, Rob, campaigned during his municipal career in Toronto to stop the gravy train. The gravy train, of course, was his way of describing wasteful spending by public officials. He built his profile going on local AM-radio talk shows (I was sometimes hosting them) to lament ridiculous spending by his council colleagues.
It is hard to overstate today how critical that was to Rob Ford’s political rise. To this day, I can still remember Sandra Bussin’s bunny suit. I can barely even remember where my car keys are. I suspect many readers will know exactly what I’m talking about when I mention the suit. Things like that are what got Rob Ford elected. And I don’t think it is in any way a knock on the premier to suggest that much of his political success would never have happened without his brother having cleared the way for him by raging against the gravy train.
So you see why it’s a funny quip. But what question does it actually pose?
Brian Lee Crowley, of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, once remarked that conservatives spend too much time thinking about the size of government. We can look at the size of an office staff that supports a premier or how many people work for the public sector in that jurisdiction. We can look at salaries and benefits, pensions and severances. We can look at government spending as a percentage of GDP. And, generally, conservatives would tell you that lower numbers are better than higher numbers.
But what Brian noted is that, while those metrics tracking the size of government may be useful, the real issue conservatives should be focused on is the scope of government. Is your government focused on the right things? Is it staying out of the things that are either beyond its jurisdiction or, frankly, beyond its control to meaningfully effect? Are the priorities within a government calibrated correctly? Are other orders of government, the free market, and civil-society institutions being allowed to properly focus on the issues that are within their scope of responsibility?
To put this more crudely: Is your government aiming to be good at a few things or mediocre (or worse) at a lot of things?
The important distinction here between size and scope is that the appropriate size of the government depends on the circumstances. A government will spend more on defence during times of war. Likewise, during times of population growth, it would normally be expected to spend more on the infrastructure required to sustain and support that growth (this has proven somewhat aspirational in Canada of late, mind you). Tracking the spending and the number of people on the government payroll isn’t the right metric. We need to know that the money and the people, both finite assets, are on the files where we need them most.
I don’t care how big Doug Ford’s office is. I find the idea of a Sunshine List kind of gross to begin with and the idea of a Sunshine List that is not indexed to inflation absolutely bonkers.
The issue for Ford, and for every other person who will succeed him, is not how much money is being spent but whether or not that money is accomplishing the things the public requires. Is it being spent effectively and on the right things?
If Ford ran a government where the trains were running on time(or opening on time) and the health-care system was humming, and there was not a grinding housing crisis that was threatening to upset our political and social harmony, then no one would really care how big Ford’s staff was. There would be an argument that we were getting value for money. The problem, of course, is that right now we are in a province with major infrastructure deficits, major problems fixing those deficits, a health-care system that seems to be teetering on the brink of literal collapse, and a newly announced housing policy that does not offer any realistic hope of meaningfully addressing the problem. And we’re spending lavishly to get those failures.
I’m a realist about politics. There’s always room for stunts. And, like I said, by the standards of this bizarre, frustrating era we live in, a tin of gravy is a pretty harmless one. (Besides, I’ve long maintained that a tin of gravy is the best bang-for-buck when it comes to quickly punching up a home-cooked meal, so I hope someone at least put the gravy to its intended use and had a wonderful dinner.)
But right now, the problem we have in Ontario is not the size of government. It’s the scope. These guys are not dialed in on the issues that really matter — or at least haven’t figured out solutions to these problems.
Until they do, stunts aren’t going to help us. A tin of gravy goes great with your steak and mashed, but it’s not getting anyone a family doctor or a new fourplex built. We desperately need a government that is focused on the challenges that are in its scope. Ford’s office staff and the political awkwardness it entails ain’t anywhere near the top of that list.
Donate