The House of Commons is poised to unveil the results of its spending review — a review that will mean job cuts in the Parliamentary precinct, iPolitics has learned.
NDP House leader Joe Comartin, spokesman for the powerful Board of Internal Economy — which has been going through Parliament’s spending with a magnifying glass for months — says the strategic and operating review is almost done and could be complete as soon as next Monday. At the latest, it would be the week of March 26 when the House returns after a break.
While Comartin refused to reveal exactly what kinds of cuts the board is contemplating, he confirmed it will mean fewer jobs on Parliament Hill.
“It certainly is inevitable that we’re going to lose staff – there’s no question of that. At this point, we don’t have a grasp of the numbers because of attrition and vacancies that exist.”
How those job cuts are implemented and will be up to the House’s administration, he said.
Comartin said the cuts may be less dramatic than some House of Commons staff have braced themselves for. “It won’t be nearly as significant as some of the fear … in particular when (Government House leader Peter) Van Loan was out talking publicly about 10 per cent across the board. It is going to be much more judiciously applied.
“Some of the fear that was engendered at that time among staff was unwarranted by what in fact is going to happen.”
However, Comartin wouldn’t say what percentage of the Commons’ budget will be slashed. “I know very well what it is, but I can’t tell you.”
Comartin’s comments come as the government is nearing the end of its own Deficit Reduction Action Plan (DRAP), an exercise spearheaded by Treasury Board president Tony Clement to trim government spending by between four and eight billion dollars.
Parliament was not obliged to participate in the government’s cost-cutting plan, also referred to as the strategic and operating review. While it decided to participate voluntarily, it does not have to follow the same process and timetable as government departments.
The results of the government’s action plan will be unveiled in Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s budget March 29. However, it could take months for the exact impact to be known and for it to translate into job cuts.
Comartin said few areas of Parliament’s operations were spared scrutiny.
“We went pretty well right across everything. It wasn’t just the members’ budgets that we were looking at, we were looking at the whole House administration, so it was a wide swath of items to be dealt with, including the members budgets, travel, equipment, capital expenditures, obviously programs — particularly on the administration side. We looked at everything.”
Comartin said the board also found several ways where Parliament could be doing things more efficiently.
“There were a number of areas where it became apparent that by changing processes, there would be reasonably significant savings,” he said. “When you see them, when they come out, they were really quite surprising and really begged the question why those changes hadn’t been made earlier, because they were of relatively minor consequence in terms of impacting services but there were reasonably significant savings.”
The House is also looking at technological changes like an online recruiting tool that will use software to whittle down the number of applications for a job with the Commons staff, he said.
Two areas Comartin said won’t be part of the Commons spending review are MPs’ pensions, which fall under Treasury Board, and merging security services on Parliament Hill.
There are several security services that cover different parts of the Hill. The Commons and the Senate each have their own separate security service, despite the fact they share the same building. Outside, the RCMP oversees security, while once beyond the gates the Ottawa police take over.
“We don’t have the best security here by far because of the silos that have been created. Although there is extensive cooperation, we don’t have it integrated,” said Comartin. “If you don’t have effective integration of a security system, there are always going to be gaps and you’re not going to have the most efficient system.”
Integrating security services would also save money, he said.
The incident when Greenpeace protesters managed to hang a banner from the top of the West Block illustrated some of the problems with the way security is organized on the Hill, Comartin said.
“We had people inside because they got inside the building. We had the RCMP outside. Who was responsible? There was a delay in terms of responding. That one wasn’t a real security issue but it could have been with a different group.”
Comartin said the question has been raised for years, but some progress is finally being made with the Senate.
Meanwhile, Commons Speaker Andrew Scheer endorsed the idea of a single security service earlier in the day when he appeared with Clerk Audrey O’Brien before the procedure and house affairs committee to defend the Commons’ request for $11.7 million in supplementary estimates to bring its 2011-12 budget to $453.4 million.
“It would certainly make sense to do that type of thing,” said Scheer. “We have partners that we have to work with on the Senate side and the RCMP.”
Scheer said the May 2011 election triggered $7.3 million in additional costs for the House of Commons to pay for such things as severance pay for the staff of MPs who weren’t re-elected, resettlement provisions for MPs, costs of winding up MPs’ offices and to move constituency offices to new locations.
Scheer and O’Brien appeared taken by surprise when NDP Whip Chris Charlton asked for details about an “allowance in lieu of residence” being paid to the Speaker and an “allowance in lieu of apartment” paid to the deputy speaker and pledged to provide the committee with answers.
Original Article
Source: ipolitics
Author: Elizabeth Thompson
NDP House leader Joe Comartin, spokesman for the powerful Board of Internal Economy — which has been going through Parliament’s spending with a magnifying glass for months — says the strategic and operating review is almost done and could be complete as soon as next Monday. At the latest, it would be the week of March 26 when the House returns after a break.
While Comartin refused to reveal exactly what kinds of cuts the board is contemplating, he confirmed it will mean fewer jobs on Parliament Hill.
“It certainly is inevitable that we’re going to lose staff – there’s no question of that. At this point, we don’t have a grasp of the numbers because of attrition and vacancies that exist.”
How those job cuts are implemented and will be up to the House’s administration, he said.
Comartin said the cuts may be less dramatic than some House of Commons staff have braced themselves for. “It won’t be nearly as significant as some of the fear … in particular when (Government House leader Peter) Van Loan was out talking publicly about 10 per cent across the board. It is going to be much more judiciously applied.
“Some of the fear that was engendered at that time among staff was unwarranted by what in fact is going to happen.”
However, Comartin wouldn’t say what percentage of the Commons’ budget will be slashed. “I know very well what it is, but I can’t tell you.”
Comartin’s comments come as the government is nearing the end of its own Deficit Reduction Action Plan (DRAP), an exercise spearheaded by Treasury Board president Tony Clement to trim government spending by between four and eight billion dollars.
Parliament was not obliged to participate in the government’s cost-cutting plan, also referred to as the strategic and operating review. While it decided to participate voluntarily, it does not have to follow the same process and timetable as government departments.
The results of the government’s action plan will be unveiled in Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s budget March 29. However, it could take months for the exact impact to be known and for it to translate into job cuts.
Comartin said few areas of Parliament’s operations were spared scrutiny.
“We went pretty well right across everything. It wasn’t just the members’ budgets that we were looking at, we were looking at the whole House administration, so it was a wide swath of items to be dealt with, including the members budgets, travel, equipment, capital expenditures, obviously programs — particularly on the administration side. We looked at everything.”
Comartin said the board also found several ways where Parliament could be doing things more efficiently.
“There were a number of areas where it became apparent that by changing processes, there would be reasonably significant savings,” he said. “When you see them, when they come out, they were really quite surprising and really begged the question why those changes hadn’t been made earlier, because they were of relatively minor consequence in terms of impacting services but there were reasonably significant savings.”
The House is also looking at technological changes like an online recruiting tool that will use software to whittle down the number of applications for a job with the Commons staff, he said.
Two areas Comartin said won’t be part of the Commons spending review are MPs’ pensions, which fall under Treasury Board, and merging security services on Parliament Hill.
There are several security services that cover different parts of the Hill. The Commons and the Senate each have their own separate security service, despite the fact they share the same building. Outside, the RCMP oversees security, while once beyond the gates the Ottawa police take over.
“We don’t have the best security here by far because of the silos that have been created. Although there is extensive cooperation, we don’t have it integrated,” said Comartin. “If you don’t have effective integration of a security system, there are always going to be gaps and you’re not going to have the most efficient system.”
Integrating security services would also save money, he said.
The incident when Greenpeace protesters managed to hang a banner from the top of the West Block illustrated some of the problems with the way security is organized on the Hill, Comartin said.
“We had people inside because they got inside the building. We had the RCMP outside. Who was responsible? There was a delay in terms of responding. That one wasn’t a real security issue but it could have been with a different group.”
Comartin said the question has been raised for years, but some progress is finally being made with the Senate.
Meanwhile, Commons Speaker Andrew Scheer endorsed the idea of a single security service earlier in the day when he appeared with Clerk Audrey O’Brien before the procedure and house affairs committee to defend the Commons’ request for $11.7 million in supplementary estimates to bring its 2011-12 budget to $453.4 million.
“It would certainly make sense to do that type of thing,” said Scheer. “We have partners that we have to work with on the Senate side and the RCMP.”
Scheer said the May 2011 election triggered $7.3 million in additional costs for the House of Commons to pay for such things as severance pay for the staff of MPs who weren’t re-elected, resettlement provisions for MPs, costs of winding up MPs’ offices and to move constituency offices to new locations.
Scheer and O’Brien appeared taken by surprise when NDP Whip Chris Charlton asked for details about an “allowance in lieu of residence” being paid to the Speaker and an “allowance in lieu of apartment” paid to the deputy speaker and pledged to provide the committee with answers.
Original Article
Source: ipolitics
Author: Elizabeth Thompson
No comments:
Post a Comment