Federal Government & Politics II

[acottawa]

I think the scale is going to be much larger. Even if the Tories think half of the 100k positions Trudeau added are necessary (probably a high estimate) then they are looking at 3x program review.

[Acajack]

Didn't DRAP under Harper cut over 30,000 PS positions?

[jonny24]

Followup: Lest there be any fear of bias, I wanted to go back and also present the biggest reductions.

By Percentage:

All at 100%:


Farm Products Council of Canada............................................-19
Security Intelligence Review Committee...................................-18
Canadian Polar Commission....................................................-14
Indian Residential Schools Truth and Reconciliation Commission...-9
Office of the Prime Minister.......................................................-1

(Okay, not very useful)

Still existing departments, by percentage:

Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada ...-53% (-2480) (more than offset by Indigenous Services as discussed)
Indian Oil and Gas Canada .............................................-6% (-5)
National Film Board .......................................................-3% (-11)
Transportation Safety Board of Canada .............................-2% (-4)
Library and Archives Canada ...........................................-1% (-13)

By absolute numbers.... well, just reorder the above. Only those 5 still exist and had reductions since 2015.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Didn't DRAP under Harper cut over 30,000 PS positions?

25k between 2010 and 2015,

[niwell]

I don’t remember the specifics but weren’t the DRAP cuts largely through attrition and hiring freezes? On top of some outright redundancies of course. I still think significant cuts are possible over a similar timeline without using slash and burn techniques. Talented people in positions made redundant could still have opportunities to find other positions in the public service. I’ve seen that happen in person at the OPS. I imagine more savvy areas see the writing on the wall and will begin leaving positions vacant as people leave.

Though obviously there will be losers in any reduction scheme. Ottawa as a city may be in a rough spot - it’s already suffering and a massive reduction in workforce won’t help things. Of course also dependent on the location of specific cuts.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I think the scale is going to be much larger. Even if the Tories think half of the 100k positions Trudeau added are necessary (probably a high estimate) then they are looking at 3x program review.

I think they will want to go beyond getting rid of unnecessary and into the realm of making cuts below that. They might try for the 2015 number. That would be very aggressive and require some changes in how things are done but I think the PS has no idea the incoming pain they will see.

[Acajack]

Since the size of the federal public service has ballooned significantly under Justin Trudeau, it's not hard to imagine that Pierre Poilievre is likely to make cuts similar to what Stephen Harper imposed under DRAP.

The level of pain will likely be variable and uneven, as it likely was back then as well.

Another thing I believe they did under DRAP is they allowed people to switch positions, i.e. if someone wants to stay but their job is getting axed, they could switch "job boxes" with someone with a similar position who wanted to leave government (mostly retirements of course). So the first person got to keep their job. I think people were even allowed to do this across government departments and were not limited to switching with someone in the one they worked for.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Since the size of the federal public service has ballooned significantly under Justin Trudeau, it's not hard to imagine that Pierre Poilievre is likely to make cuts similar to what Stephen Harper imposed under DRAP.

The level of pain will likely be variable and uneven, as it likely was back then as well.

Another thing I believe they did under DRAP is they allowed people to switch positions, i.e. if someone wants to stay but their job is getting axed, they could switch "job boxes" with someone with a similar position who wanted to leave government (mostly retirements of course). So the first person got to keep their job. I think people were even allowed to do this across government departments and were not limited to switching with someone in the one they worked for.

I know you are in Ottawa and that's a common view. I find it delusional to be honest. If the over under is ACOttawa's 3X estimate I will take the over and give odds and bet any amount a majority Con government cuts more than 3X in their first mandate.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

I know you are in Ottawa and that's a common view. I find it delusional to be honest. If the over under is ACOttawa's 3X estimate I will take the over and give odds and bet any amount a majority Con government cuts more than 3X in their first mandate.

Not being delusional. I'd take the "over" as well. I've been looking and DRAP in the final analysis may have been closer to 30,000 as opposed to 25,000.

This chop could be closer to 50,000. Don't disagree. Keeping in mind the public service has 100,000 more workers than it had in 2012. (357,000 vs 257,000).

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by thewave46

I'm actually curious - has any other organization simply randomly terminated X% of employees as a strategy? Ever?

Twitter when Musk took over. Not sure how that's going.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Not being delusional. I'd take the "over" as well. I've been looking and DRAP in the final analysis may have been closer to 30,000 as opposed to 25,000.

This chop could be closer to 50,000. Don't disagree. Keeping in mind the public service has 100,000 more workers than it had in 2012. (357,000 vs 257,000).

Cutting half the new hires so 50k will be a soft cut that seems very reasonable. There is also a more ideological option where they get back to 2015 number. I think a strong majority and PP will be attracted to that option. Of course with population growth and the baseline being the end of DRAP that would be a deep cut. It would also require real non voluntary cuts.

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

There is also a more ideological option where they get back to 2015 number.

There is a political risk to using a specific number in messaging.

One can frame the objective in a abstract sense (We need to shrink bloated federal government!) without providing specifics.

It lessens the risk by reducing the commitment to get to number 'X'. Failure to do that is measurable, whereas general 'shrinking government employees' is an easier target to hit.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by thewave46

There is a political risk to using a specific number in messaging.

One can frame the objective in a abstract sense (We need to shrink bloated federal government!) without providing specifics.

It lessens the risk by reducing the commitment to get to number 'X'. Failure to do that is measurable, whereas general 'shrinking government employees' is an easier target to hit.

I think it also depends who is saying it. These are post-Harper post-Reform Conservatives. When they say they'll cut the federal public service people, believe them.

If the Trudeau Liberals were to say the same thing, people would be a lot more skeptical and think they just won't replace a lot of retiring staff.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I think it also depends who is saying it. These are post-Harper post-Reform Conservatives. When they say they'll cut the federal public service people, believe them.

If the Trudeau Liberals were to say the same thing, people would be a lot more skeptical and think they just won't replace a lot of retiring staff.

Yes. They'll probably ring fence anything that could bite them like Truenorth's inspectors and savagely cut everything else to achieve whatever target they set. It's not that hard to do. They aren't going to listen to bureaucrats advice on policy so cutting them savagely makes sense.

[Dartguard]

Originally Posted by niwell

I was about to crunch the data as I hadn't seen it before but glad someone else did!

Interesting that much of the growth in raw numbers is in a few areas. While percentage growth of a department like Women and Gender Equality is high it's not actually that many people (though maybe a lot for what they do - not familiar enough though).

Areas I would have assumed to see more growth like Environment and Climate Change are relatively stable.

I think this government though has hid some of the environment numbers in Fisheries and Oceans as a good chunk of their work is environmental survey and other science projects.

The Civilian population of DND has grown while the uniforms are melting away.

How many positions in different departments have been reassigned Gender duties?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Yes. They'll probably ring fence anything that could bite them like Truenorth's inspectors and savagely cut everything else to achieve whatever target they set. It's not that hard to do. They aren't going to listen to bureaucrats advice on policy so cutting them savagely makes sense.

If they are smart that is what they'll do. Nobody should want a federal equivalent of Walkerton.

At some point, though blanket cuts will collide with politics and ideology. For example, growing the defence budget is going to be very difficult without growing the public service side of DND and PSPC. Or even cutting efficiently can be difficult without sufficient staff at Treasury Board. Or decent tax policy design and economic management without enough MPAs and statisticians at Finance Canada.
Etc. Will be interesting to see what they do.

There's some opportunities here. A lot of the hires were for customer facing organizations. A lot of these processes can be made more efficient better days collection and automation. The Liberals have kind of flopped on this. See automatic tax filing. Maybe a more competent government can pull this off.

In any event, good to see that people understand the PS bloat isn't universal. It's really down to a lot of beer specific departments and agencies that are largely driven by ideology or policy. For example, if we substantially change the student visa policy and have far fewer student applicants, we will never fewer immigration officers. Etc.

[Dartguard]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Lower payroll taxes and promote economic growth. Done. Or:

The Disability Inclusion Action Plan (DIAP) will use GBA plus analysis to inform an intersectional approach to serve populations experiencing disability. This means that it will take into account the fact that an individual may identify with more than one social identity. To support the intersectional approach, the department is engaging with National Indigenous Organizations and holders of Modern Treaty and Self-Government Agreements. This is to ensure the specific concerns of Indigenous populations are addressed in a culturally appropriate manner and meet all necessary modern treaty obligations and commitments.

The Black-led Philanthropic Endowment Fund is led by Black Canadians for Black Canadian communities. This helps to increase the autonomy of Black Canadian communities to respond to the challenges they face, including combatting anti-Black racism.

As part of the Indigenous Early Learning and Child Care (IELCC) Initiative, the department will work with First Nations, Inuit and Métis partners to identify disaggregated data that could be collected to create new program indicators. The program indicators would allow for a better understanding of results achieved by the IELCC initiative.

The department will develop a National School Food Policy, informed by engagement with provinces, territories, municipalities, Indigenous partners, stakeholders and Canadians. Once developed, the policy will encourage additional collaboration, coordination and investment, so that more children have access to nutritious food in school.

So yeah cutting there will be a breeze.

Well when everything is Special, nothing is special.

[whatnext]

How clever of them to to do it on the same day the carbon tax gets hiked for the plebes. Qu'ils mangent du gâteau!

On April 1, Canadian MPs will earn world's second-highest salary for elected officials
MPs will get an $8,500 raise on April 1, increasing the base salary to $203,100, ranking only behind the U.S. in political salaries
Author of the article: Bryan Passifiume
Published Mar 28, 2024

OTTAWA — On the same day Canadians will see an increase in the federal carbon tax, MPs will also see a little extra on their pay stubs.

And with that April Fool’s Day pay increase, Canadian parliamentarians will become the second-best paid elected officials in the world after Americans.

According to numbers provided to the National Post by the office of the Speaker of the House of Commons, Canadian members of Parliament will get their customary pay raise on April 1 — resulting in increases of anywhere between $8,500 and $17,000 this year....

https://nationalpost.com/news/on-apr...source=twitter

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Dartguard

The Civilian population of DND has grown while the uniforms are melting away.

How many positions in different departments have been reassigned Gender duties?

You really need to stop talking about DND and the CAF like you understand it, despite not having served.

Look at the data. DND has not grown much at all. And a lot of those positions are absolutely essential and we cannot function without them. Most of them are ex-military too. Taking them out of uniform is a way to retain their skill because they are not getting posted out and not getting replaced. Saves the training cost of having a replacement trained every 3 years. And saves uniformed positions exclusively for work that requires a uniform (and unlimited liability that comes with). Arguably, we should be doing even more of this.

Give you an example. The team that certifies all our air weapons ranges is an army of one. If he got hit by a bus tomorrow, we would be shutting all air weapons training involving anything from throwing out flares to dropping live ordinance from fighters. Can a military guy do his job? Sure. But then that Capt is one less uniform for a unit. And we aren't going to be flying around on uncertified ranges because that means we'll inevitably kill people.

There's a whole lot of DND that is similarly 1-2 deep with a handful of (usually ex-military) public servants holding down the fort. This is routinely why you see reports that say DND can't spend money or is behind on xyz.

Alternatively, we can save quite a few positions if we simply change a lot of procurement rules. We can get warships from South Korea for half the cost in a third of the time, with a third of the public servants involved. And this has certainly been discussed at DND before with a lot of support from the uniformed side. I wonder what folks in Halifax would think about that idea to save money.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by shreddog

1996 says hello!

Canada cuts federal jobs
By BRUCE HICKS

OTTAWA, Jan. 17 -- Canada's government cut nearly 16,000 federal jobs between April and September, officials said Wednesday. The job cuts, representing 6.9 percent of the non-military federal workforce, were part of the Liberal government's goal to trim the number of public employees by as many as 45,000 over three years in order to balance the budget.

...
LINK

Much different time period. They could eliminate a lot more administrative and clerical positions back then. There's not much of that to cut anymore. Most people do their own admin now. So now it comes down to cutting back on certain types of work. Or changing policies which create that work. I gave an example above with military procurement where a change of policy to foreign buying could make some positions redundant. And there's also flat out reduction of service. We can go back to longer service times for a lot of services and save wages that way too.