The report by KPMG for Rob Ford could just as easily have been written by the former mayor Ford hates so much
As no doubt you’ve heard, today, the first phase of the Core Services Review carried out by consultants KPMG at the behest of Mayor Rob Ford and city council was made available [PDF]. You’ll read a lot over the coming days—you may have read a lot already—about the debates over the cuts it suggests are possible. But at a glance, the most astonishing thing about it is that it could have been written by the campaign to re-elect David Miller, or by councillors like Shelley Carroll, Gord Perks, Adam Vaugahn and Janet Davis.
That is: the conclusions drawn by the consultants hired by Rob Ford are the same as the talking points of Rob Ford’s opponents: that there is very little inefficiency in Toronto’s government (KPMG says 96% per cent of services in Public Works—the area covered by this phase of the report—are required) and that finding savings for taxpayers will require cutting services.
Seriously, that’s what it says. Rob Ford, of course, campaigned by saying repeatedly that he would lower taxes without cutting services. He said repeatedly that simply making the functioning of government more efficient and eliminating waste would realize huge savings. He said, “we don’t have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.” KPMG, after being paid handsomely by Ford’s city hall, would beg to differ, it seems.
The report does not recommend any cuts, rather it identifies places where cuts might be possible without violating provincial law or abandoning the basic necessities of municipal life. So: we could save money by spending less on cycling infrastructure. We could save money by not fluoridating the water. We could save money by reducing the level of street cleaning or the level of snow removal. All these and more are contained in the report. We could save money by eliminating the green bin program. These items do not necessarily look like waste. The possibilities discussed have nothing to do with efficiency.
The risks of each possibility are noted (for example, KPMG notes the “High” risk of an epidemic of tooth decay that would flow from the “Low” savings of stopping fluoridation). Virtually all of the possibilities will generate a “Low” level of savings, according to the report.
Another interesting thing: the public consultation results released alongside the report today could have been written by the committee to re-elect David Miller, too: they rank quality and consistency of service highly across the board, and rank low taxes as the lowest possible priority.
One further thing, as reported by journalist Jonathan Goldsbie: Mike Del Grand, Rob Ford’s budget chief, today said, in discussing the report, that “We have the lowest taxes in the GTA, with the greatest services provided.” That was a David Miller talking point too. And what it suggests is that Toronto has a revenue problem. And that solving it without raising taxes will mean cutting services. It will be interesting to see if the further phases of the report carry on the theme of proving the entire premise of the Ford campaign wrong.
