Report

SUN COLUMN: Why Government Employees May Want To Ask For A Pay Cut

Play Video

SecondStreet.org recently asked governments across the country a simple question – when was the last time you cut pay for your employees?

The question followed many news stories in Canada about businesses struggling during the pandemic and having no choice but to cut employee pay – movie chain Cineplex, the Winnipeg Free Press, Chrysler, Canadian Football League teams, energy giant Cenovus and countless others.

But why weren’t there any headlines about government employees taking a pay cut?

Aren’t we all supposed to be “in this together”?

In fact, a pay cut would actually be in the best interests of government employees (more on that in a moment).

SecondStreet.org posed the pay cut question to the federal government, all ten provinces and 13 major cities. Incredibly, their responses ranged from decades ago to never.

The federal government informed SecondStreet.org they have no data or any information that indicates that there has ever been a negotiated pay reduction.”

Quite the opposite has occurred. Research from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation shows over 312,000 federal employees actually received pay increases since the pandemic began. Some of those increases were even negotiated after the pandemic began.

Provincially, it has been decades since government employees took a pay cut. While many provincial governments cut employee pay, or reduced their hours during the 1990s, such measures have been almost non-existent over the past two decades.

The only major example of governments reducing employee earnings occurred in Manitoba in 2020 when the government required employees to take five unpaid days off. However, had Manitoba implemented a true pay cut the employees would have worked the same number of hours, but for a lower pay rate.

At the city level, we haven’t been able to locate any evidence of governments cutting pay. Ever.

Consider Calgary, a city that has struggled immensely for over the past five years. Data provided by the city dates back to the 1970s – no pay cuts over the past 50 years.

In Mississauga, four library positions will see a reduction in pay. The catch is that current employees aren’t affected – future hires for those positions will simply start at a lower amount.

To recap, millions of government employees were covered by our requests, no pay cuts.

So why on earth should government employees support a pay cut? Because a pay cut is better than being laid off.

Note that the federal government, and provincial governments right across Canada, are spending more than they’re taking in right now in revenues. Cities are facing financial pressures too. The status quo is simply not sustainable. Something has to give.

Typically, governments either address these situations by raising taxes or cutting services to address their financial shortcomings.

More tax increases right now would be toxic – countless businesses and families are already struggling. Tax increases would drive up unemployment and cause all kinds of social problems.

That brings us to service cuts – a measure which inevitably includes layoffs. Do government employees really want to face layoffs during such uncertain times?

Taking a 5 or 10 per cent pay reduction is far more appealing than the alternative – no income. Just ask those outside of government who have been laid off.


Colin Craig is the President of SecondStreet.org, a new Canadian think tank. You can reach him at
colin@secondstreet.org or follow him on Twitter (@colincraig1).

This column was published by Sun newspapers (Toronto, Ottawa, Winnipeg, Calgary and Edmonton) on October 15, 2021.

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter

You can help us continue to research and tell stories about this issue by making a donation or sharing this content with your friends. Be sure to sign up for our updates too!

Prevention – reduce demand in the first place

If Canadians lived healthier lives, we could reduce demand for emergency services, orthopaedic surgeries, primary care and more. 

For instance, if you visit the Canadian Cancer Society’s website, you’ll read that “about four in ten” cancer cases are preventable. The Heart and Stroke Foundation notes that “almost 80 percent of premature heart disease and stroke can be prevented through healthy behaviours.” A similar number of Diabetes cases are also preventable. 

Many joint replacements and visits to ERs and walk-in clinics could also be avoided through healthy living. 

To be sure, not all health problems can be avoided through healthy living – everyday the system treats Canadians with genetic conditions, helps those injured in unavoidable accidents and more.  

But there is an opportunity to reduce pressure on the health care system through Canadians shifting to healthier lifestyles – better diets, more exercise, etc. 

To learn more, watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or see this column. 

Partner with non-profits and for-profit clinics

European countries will partner with anyone who can help patients. 

It doesn’t matter if it’s a non-profit, a government entity or a private clinic. What matters is that patients receive quality treatment, in a timely manner and for a competitive price.  

In Canada, governments often delivery services using government-run hospitals instead of seeing if non-profit or private clinics could deliver the services more effectively. 

When governments have partnered with non-profit and private clinics, the results have often been quite good – Saskatchewan, Ontario and British Columbia are just a few examples of where partnerships have worked well. 

Canada should pursue more of these partnerships to reduce wait times and increase the volume of services provided to patients.  

To learn more, watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or see the links above. 

Make cross border care more accessible

In Canada, citizens pay high taxes each year and we’re promised universal health care services in return. The problem is, wait times are often extremely long in our health system – sometimes patients have to wait years to see a specialist or receive surgery. 

If patients don’t want to wait long periods, they often have to reach into their own pocket and pay for treatment outside the province or country. 

Throughout the European Union, we also find universal health care systems. But a key difference is that EU patients have the right to go to other EU countries, pay for surgery and then be reimbursed by their home government. Reimbursements cover up to what the patient’s home government would have spent to provide the treatment locally. 

If Canada copied this approach, a patient waiting a year to get their hip operation could instead receive treatment next week in one of thousands of surgical clinics throughout the developed world. 

Governments benefit too as the patient is now back on their feet and avoiding complications that sometimes come with long wait times – meaning the government doesn’t have to treat those complications on top of the initial health problem. 

To learn more, watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or this shorter video. 

Legalize access to non-government providers

Canada is the only country in the world that puts up barriers, or outright bans patients from paying for health services locally. 

For instance, a patient in Toronto cannot pay for a hip operation at a private clinic in Toronto. Their only option is to wait for the government to eventually provide treatment or leave the province and pay elsewhere. 

Countries with better-performing universal health care systems do not have such bans. They allow patients a choice – use the public system or pay privately for treatment. Sweden, France, Australia and more – they all allow choice. 

Why? One reason is that allowing choice means some patients will decide to pay privately. This takes pressure off the public system. For instance, in Sweden, 87% of patients use the public system, but 13% purchase private health insurance. 

Ultimately, more choice improves access for patients. 

To learn more, watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or watch this short clip on this topic. 

Shift to funding services for patients, not bureaucracies

In Canada, most hospitals receive a cheque from the government each year and are then asked to do their best to help patients. This approach is known as “block funding”. 

Under this model, a patient walking in the door represents a drain on the hospital’s budget. Over the course of a year, hospital administrators have to make sure the budget stretches out so services are rationed. This is why you might have to wait until next year or the year after for a hip operation, knee operation, etc. 

In better-performing universal health systems, they take the opposite approach – hospitals receive money from the government each time they help a patient. If a hospital completes a knee operation, it might receive, say, $10,000. If it completes a knee operation on another patient, it receives another $10,000. 

This model incentivizes hospitals to help more patients – to help more patients with knee operations, cataract surgery, etc. This approach also incentivizes hospitals to spend money on expenses that help patients (e.g. more doctors, nurses, equipment, etc.) rather than using the money on expenses that don’t help patients (e.g. more admin staff). 

To learn more about this policy option, please watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or see this post by MEI.