OTTAWA — The federal government is dressing up its deficit-reduction review as an opportunity to transform and “renew” the public service and the way it delivers services to Canadians.It’s a message that Treasury Board President Tony Clement has been pitching of late while the Privy Council Office is sending similar messages for deputy ministers to bring to their employees as they wait to find out where the axe will fall in the upcoming budget.
“We are in effect, laying the foundation for the public service workforce of the future,” Clement said in a speech last week.
“This is, to me, an opportunity; an opportunity to ensure that what the government is doing is being done as effectively and efficiently as possible. This is also our chance to modernize our government. “
But Gary Corbett, president of the Professional Institute of the Public Service, said putting the best face on job losses and reduced services won’t change the “doom and gloom” many workers feel before the budget.
“You can put lipstick on a pig and it’s still a pig. Dress it up, however, you want. It still means they are reducing the public sector and service to Canadians,” Corbett.
Departments are suppose to appeal to their employees to “think about the long-term interest of the country and the institution.” A document being circulated, called “Key Messages on Deficit Reduction and Renewal of the Public Service,” says the public service that emerges from the review should be stronger, streamlined, higher-performing, and focused on its core business. There will be fewer rules, less hierarchy, more efficient processes and fulfilling jobs.
“Given the current financial environment globally, within Canada and within government, it makes good sense to step back, recalibrate and set a new direction,” said the document.
“Deficit reduction is an opportunity for renewal and transformation. We need to take advantage of this opportunity to take a hard look at ourselves to find better ways to do things: seek efficiencies, develop seamless service delivery and respond better to Canadians expectations.”
The document also says employees affected by the cuts should be treated fairly and with respect and every effort made to find them other work “but the reality is that there are going to be fewer jobs.” It also stressed supporting those who remain because “they are the future.”
The signals that departments are being forced to rethink what government does and eliminate programs sparks fears in an already jittery workforce of another program review like the Liberals implemented to cut 55,000 jobs in the 1990s. Clement told MPs at a Commons committee last week entire programs could be cut if they’re “deemed not useful to Canadians.”
“Our government is taking a serious and responsible look at all government spending - if a program is no longer achieving its goals or is not serving the needs of Canadians then how can taxpayers be asked to continue to fund it?” said Sean Osmar, Clement’s press secretary, in an email.
The government wants to cut $4 billion from operating budgets to help tackle the deficit by 2014-2015. Departments were told to deliver two scenarios – one for reductions of five per cent and another for 10 per cent.
With a global economic crisis, the prevailing view among bureaucrats is that five-per-cent cuts aren’t an option and departments will be facing at least 10 per cent reductions.
A cabinet committee headed by Clement is reviewing all the plans over the fall and winter and will make decisions that won’t be announced until the budget.
Some bureaucrats say the government is turning up the positive ‘messages’ because some departments won’t be able to manage the reductions with attrition like the government initially indicated. This means workers will have to be laid off or declared surplus.
The problem is the latest spending review comes after years of steady cuts that have chipped away at department budgets - the Liberals’ expenditure review, reductions from procurement reforms that never materialized; the Conservatives strategic reviews. Add to that, operating budget freezes, which forced departments to absorb wage increases, inflationary costs, and most feel they’ve been cut to the bone. As one senior bureaucrat said all that’s left for some departments is to cut its lowest performing programs to reach their 10 per cent targets.
“They have been masters at doing more with less and now we are at a critical stage and whittling them down another 10 per cent they can’t do anything without cutting programs,” said Corbett.
Some say less money can force innovation in operations and the way services are delivered rather than just photo-reducing the bureaucracy with all its flaws and lumbering systems. Clement is a big advocate of technology to drive that turnaround.
With an attrition rate of five per cent a year, departments could on paper absorb five-and 10-per-cent spending cuts over a three-year period, but that assumes everyone who leaves doesn’t have to be replaced. The big challenge is the right mix of employees and keeping the people with the skills you need.
The attrition rate has also slowed because some workers are deciding to work longer or stick around in case buyouts are offered.
Eliminating hiring and stop replacing retirees would yield the largest, most immediate savings but that creates too many operational nightmares and can’t be sustained. Cutting programs takes longer but the savings are permanent.
The Public Service Alliance of Canada argues the government shouldn’t be secretly deciding what programs and jobs to cut. It argues Canadians have a right to know and comment on the reductions the government is considering before the budget.
With a global economic crisis, the prevailing view among bureaucrats is that five-per-cent cuts aren’t an option and departments will be facing at least 10 per cent reductions.
A cabinet committee headed by Clement is reviewing all the plans over the fall and winter and will make decisions that won’t be announced until the budget.
Some bureaucrats say the government is turning up the positive ‘messages’ because some departments won’t be able to manage the reductions with attrition like the government initially indicated. This means workers will have to be laid off or declared surplus.
The problem is the latest spending review comes after years of steady cuts that have chipped away at department budgets - the Liberals’ expenditure review, reductions from procurement reforms that never materialized; the Conservatives strategic reviews. Add to that, operating budget freezes, which forced departments to absorb wage increases, inflationary costs, and most feel they’ve been cut to the bone. As one senior bureaucrat said all that’s left for some departments is to cut its lowest performing programs to reach their 10 per cent targets.
“They have been masters at doing more with less and now we are at a critical stage and whittling them down another 10 per cent they can’t do anything without cutting programs,” said Corbett.
Some say less money can force innovation in operations and the way services are delivered rather than just photo-reducing the bureaucracy with all its flaws and lumbering systems. Clement is a big advocate of technology to drive that turnaround.
With an attrition rate of five per cent a year, departments could on paper absorb five-and 10-per-cent spending cuts over a three-year period, but that assumes everyone who leaves doesn’t have to be replaced. The big challenge is the right mix of employees and keeping the people with the skills you need.
The attrition rate has also slowed because some workers are deciding to work longer or stick around in case buyouts are offered.
Eliminating hiring and stop replacing retirees would yield the largest, most immediate savings but that creates too many operational nightmares and can’t be sustained. Cutting programs takes longer but the savings are permanent.
The Public Service Alliance of Canada argues the government shouldn’t be secretly deciding what programs and jobs to cut. It argues Canadians have a right to know and comment on the reductions the government is considering before the budget.
Origin
Source: Ottawa Citizen
No comments:
Post a Comment