FINANCIAL POST COLUMN: Cities Need to Cut Costs, Not Raise Taxes

Canada is in the middle of an affordability crisis. Grocery bills are way up and food banks are at their limits. Many Canadians are worried about renewing their mortgages at higher interest rates. Some are having to take on second jobs.

Mayors and councillors in many large Canadian cities seem not to care. They’ve been imposing steep hikes in property taxes. Having done the math, they seem to have concluded it’s easier to force taxpayers to pay more than it is to make tough spending decisions at city hall.

Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, HalifaxEdmonton and Calgary have all either approved or are about to approve property tax increases between 4.9 and 10.5 per cent. Politicians on these cities’ councils know your paycheque probably didn’t increase this much. Ho hum! They just don’t seem to care.

Canadians need to know there are plenty of ways to reduce spending and avoid tax increases. And contrary to political dogma, cost savings can happen without cuts in important city services.

Cities could start by addressing the high cost of their labour. It’s well known that government paycheques and benefits are more generous than what’s paid for similar work outside government. Realistically, however, no council is going to cut pay for current employees. Research from SecondStreet.org shows it has been decades since government employees received pay cuts in this country. Government employees are more likely to win the lottery than suffer a pay cut.

What cities could do, however, is phase in lower pay and benefits for new hires. Instead of starting with a salary of $80,000 and a generous pension, clerical workers could earn, say, $73,000 and a more modest pension — defined contribution, not defined benefit. Changes like this could save billions of dollars over the next decade.

Speaking of pensions, a 2019 report by SecondStreet.org found that more than 8,000 city employees in Canada were set to receive multiple pensions upon retirement — generous base pensions plus top-up pension benefits. Calgary had 45 employees who were eligible for three pensions on retirement. (It spent more on double and triple pensions than Edmonton, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Mississauga, Brampton and Halifax combined.)

But it’s not just compensation that deserves a look. While claiming there’s a “climate crisis,” many cities have also been handing out free parking passes to staff. Yes, nothing says “climate crisis” quite like making it easier for people to drive to work. Toronto handed out over 1,267 staff parking passes in 2022 alone. Cities could nix perks like this and rent the parking spaces in question out to the public, bringing in revenue to offset the need for tax increases.

Another revenue-generator is to review city assets and identify land and buildings to sell. For decades Winnipeg sat on 44 acres of riverfront property that was actually located in another municipality. Once that strange arrangement was brought to light, the city sold the land, earning millions to help fund services. Until recently Winnipeg also used valuable land in a booming part of the city for — wait for it — a snow dumping site. Yes, snow is culturally important in Winnipeg but what’s the opportunity cost? Fortunately, the city has since sold the land, which will soon be redeveloped (15 years after a city report first advocated selling it).

Another option is “managed competition,” a tactic Indianapolis pioneered in the 1990s. Instead of just hiring private companies to take over city services like garbage collection and cutting the grass in city parks, Indianapolis encouraged staff who were then doing the work to put in their own bids to try to win contracts and keep doing their jobs. Private companies were often more cost-effective and won but in several instances city employees succeeded.

Pothole repair was one example. City employees won the contract by cutting costs 25 per cent and increasing output 68 per cent. They reorganized patching equipment and shrank their crews from eight workers and two trucks to five workers and one truck.

For decades, clearly, these employees knew how to reduce costs and increase output, but they were never challenged to do so. It wasn’t until their work was subjected to competition that they took action. Overall, the city’s former mayor indicated, managed competition has saved taxpayers over $400 million.

These are just a few examples of how cities could save money instead of imposing large tax increases. But it all starts with councils asking tough questions and making difficult decisions, not taking the path of least resistance and sticking it to taxpayers yet again.

Colin Craig is president of SecondStreet.org, a Canadian think-tank.

This column was originally published in The Financial Post on January 18, 2024.

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.