Jim Flaherty claims that the public service cuts he is making are moderate. He argues that the Harper government is simply demonstrating prudent financial management. But, Susan Riley notes, the cuts present a textbook case on how not to downsize. Worse still, it's becoming more and more apparent that, under the guise of "moderation," the Harperites are getting rid of agencies they despise.
Riley quotes Linda Duxbury, a business professor at Carleton, whose area of expertise is organizational health:
When it comes to layoffs, Duxbury says, “it is more merciful to say ‘you’re losing your job,’ than sending letters to thousands saying ‘you might lose your job’.” That only creates insecurity across the system, and “turbulence and chaos for those left.” They suffer a form of “survivor syndrome,” a debilitating mixture of guilt and relief.
If anything, the F35 debacle proves that these impostors couldn't run a 7-11. But they are very good at destroying the people and the organizations which don't fit their Social Darwinist paradigm. Rights and Democracy died because, when it looked at the Middle East, it saw more than the state of Israel. The CBC is outside the paradigm because it is a "public broadcaster."
And yesterday, Carol Goar reports, the "prudent" managers of Canada's finances threw the National Council on Welfare "on the scrap heap:"
Since 1962, the National Council of Welfare had held up a mirror to the nation, highlighting the pockets of poverty and warning policy-makers of the consequences of neglecting those in need. It gave non-profit groups the facts they needed to speak credibly about hardship in a land of plenty. It tracked the emergence and growth of a crack in society between the comfortably well-off and the struggling. And it brought together social policy thinkers to find solutions to poverty — or at least keep the debate alive.
Dr. Kellie Leitch -- who remained silent as her colleagues continued to ship asbestos to the Third World -- claims that the government is simply rationalizing its resources. She says organizations like Campaign 2000 and Canada Without Poverty are duplicating the Council's mandate. Goar writes:
Actually they don’t. They don’t have a government mandate “to advise the (human resources) minister on matters concerning poverty and the realities of low-income Canadians.” They don’t have the resources to buy Statistics Canada’s unpublished data. They don’t have the statutory authority to create opportunities for the poor to participate in the national decision-making process.
There was another reason for the death of NCW:
Everybody working in the field knew the real reason the Conservatives dumped the agency was that it was an unwanted piece of Liberal baggage. They hadn’t listened to it in years. They didn’t want to be nagged about poverty, inequality or social responsibility.
Under the smokescreen of fiscal responsibility, the Harperites are eliminating their enemies.