On planned inefficiency

Remember the Cons' plan to rein in government spending by ensuring that resources are used on programs that are "efficient and effective"? Apparently, the Cons are applying a rather unusual definition of those terms:

The new Conservative government has decided to slash spending on Environment Canada programs designed to fight global warming by 80 per cent, and wants cuts of 40 per cent in the budgets devoted to climate change at other ministries, according to cabinet documents obtained by The Globe and Mail...

The documents said that while the Tories are trying to save money by cutting the programs designed to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, they won't cut government staff positions, so most of the money earmarked for climate change will be going to salaries for bureaucrats.

"Only $375-million was approved for climate spending, with most of the dollars covering staff salaries until the new government determines next steps.

"What is clear is that staff will have little to do and that they will have no budgets to spend over the next year and that more cuts are coming."...

The global-warming programs are being eliminated even though a Treasury Board review of government spending found that the vast majority of 166 such programs run by Ottawa were considered cost effective.

Obviously the fact that the Cons are slashing environmental funding is bad enough. But it's doubly so when money is explicitly being put toward bureaucracy whose role has effectively been eliminated due to a complete lack of program funding. And whether the current step is merely an excuse to then eliminate the bureaucracy as well (since in the absence of supported programs it can easily be classified as "wasteful spending"), or reflective of a Con intention to generally ensure that funds are kept away from any useful purpose, it's hard to see how any good can come of the strategy.

Of course, that'll leave a high-profile Environment Minister with plenty of explaining to do. I'll be interested to hear Ambrose try to argue how maintaining a bureaucracy while cutting all program funding can possibly be an "efficient and effective" use of government funds. And if the response is as weak as expected, then Canadians who may have expected something positive based on Ambrose's first few days in the role may not be any more patient with her than the Cons have been with the existing climate change programs.