Commission on the Reform of Ontario's Public Services

4. Do not recommend privatization of health care or education.
We interpret this to mean that health care must be kept within the public payer model. We do
not interpret it as denying opportunities for private-sector delivery of services, if that is more
efficient. Education is somewhat different, since tuition fees account for 40 per cent of
university revenues. So in the case of education, we interpret our mandate to mean that we
will not advocate any shift to educational institutions that are predominantly financed from
private revenue.
5. Do not recommend tax increases.
We interpret this to mean that we cannot recommend tax rate increases or an expansion of the
core tax bases. However, we examine whether more revenue could be generated from
existing tax structures without adjusting tax rates. We also examine some tax preferences that
for all intents and purposes operate as substitutes for spending programs. Nevertheless, most
of the actions we recommend to achieve budget balance fall on the program spending side.
Of course, the government can always pursue tax options, but the <strong>Commission</strong> does not
address this avenue, in line with our mandate.
Broad Guidelines for Actions Aimed at Balancing the Budget
Generally, the government should work to change a culture in which broad-based efforts to
improve efficiency occur mainly as part of a major budget restraint exercise and are either
discarded or forgotten when stronger revenue growth returns. Since we do not believe that the
customary rates of revenue growth will return any time soon, this cycle of restraint and laxity
must end. Simply put, government ministries and agencies should strive for efficiency gains at
all times. This goal should apply not just to the Ontario Public Service, the core of the
provincial government, but also to the broader public sector, which includes municipalities,
universities, colleges, school boards, hospitals, long-term care facilities, community care
access centres and Children’s Aid Societies. Aside from episodes of overall budget restraint,
inefficiencies appear to be tackled only when unearthed by the Auditor General or exposed by
a spending scandal. Unfortunately, the resulting Opposition party attacks and intense media
attention too often provoke an overkill response that in the end impairs efficiency.
All governments have faced this problem and many have tried unsuccessfully to implement
systems that encourage continuous efficiency improvements, so this goal may be impossibly
idealistic. Even so, the norm surely should be that ministers and officials and their ministries
and agencies are always careful with the public’s money, always seeking ways of doing things
more effectively and efficiently, and always looking for programs or tax expenditures that are
outdated (and should therefore be scrapped) or not working as well as they should.
Government organizations should be able to exercise such discipline not just in hard times, but
also in normal and good times.
124