Cuts will impact women and racialized public servants disproportionately, new analysis says

2025/10/21 Leave a comment

Likely but excessive growth in public service had to be curbed. Uses a departmental frame rather than an age frame. Annual EE reports will indicate extent of change:

Prime Minister Mark Carney’s coming cuts to the federal public service are expected to disproportionately impact female, Indigenous, racialized and disabled workers, according to a new analysis.

The analysis, published by the left-leaning Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives on Oct. 20, estimated that 59 per cent of the employees whose jobs will be cut will be women, 5.5 per cent will be Indigenous people, 26 per cent will likely be racialized and 8.3 per cent will have a disability.

The analysis found that this outsized impact on these groups would largely be due to the fact that the departments and agencies facing the deepest reductions have some of the most diverse workforces in the federal government. And the organizations expected to see smaller cuts have less diverse employees.

“Depending on how the cuts play out, we can expect wider employment gaps, wider pay gaps and the erosion of access to critical employment benefits,” economists David Macdonald and Katherine Scott wrote in the analysis.

Early in July, Carney’s government announced a spending review asking most departments and agencies to cut 15 per cent of their operational budgets over three years.

The total job losses across the federal government from the spending review could amount to around 57,000 job losses, according to a previous analysis from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

As Carney has promised to boost spending on defence and beefing up with border with the United States, the Department of National Defence (DND), Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) and the RCMP will only see a cut of 2 per cent cut to their operational budgets over those three years. The analysis characterized these organizations as  “equity laggards.”x

Forty-three per cent of the civilian arm of DND are women and CBSA is staffed by around 47 per cent women.

In contrast, the workforce of Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) is around 67 per cent women. Macdonald and Scott estimate around 3,915 women could lose their jobs at that department in the coming spending review.

Indigenous Services Canada (ISC), the Department of Justice and Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) are all around 70 per cent women, and could see estimated 918, 604 and 935 women lose their jobs respectively.

In the federal public sector, Scott said women often don’t have to settle for lower paying jobs and are “not questioned if they’re leaving the office at five o’clock to pick up the kids from childcare.”

“You see massive wage gaps in the private sector,” Scott said.

When it comes to Indigenous workers, Scott and Macdonald estimated that around 5.5 per cent of jobs lost will be those of Indigenous workers, outpacing their current share in the public service at 5.3 per cent.

ISC (with a 27 per cent Indigenous workforce), Crown-Indigenous Relations (18 per cent Indigenous) and Correctional Service Canada (11 per cent Indigenous) will lose the most Indigenous jobs, according to Macdonald and Scott. These organizations could see an estimated 359, 84 and 318 Indigenous workers losing their jobs respectively.

Racialized workers make up 31 per cent of ESDC’s workforce and 41 per cent of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, two departments expected to see high job loss as the spending review launches.

Source: Cuts will impact women and racialized public servants disproportionately, new analysis says

Filed under Government, Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Boisvert: La moronisation des États-Unis

2025/09/03 Leave a comment

Sadly accurate:

« Nous aurons une annonce en septembre tel que promis, a-t-il dit dans une séance publique du cabinet Trump. Nous avons découvert que des interventions, certaines interventions causent clairement presque certainement l’autisme. »

Ce n’est pas une mince déclaration. L’autisme fait l’objet de recherches depuis des dizaines d’années. Les causes, disent les chercheurs, sont multiples. Génétiques, environnementales…

Et voilà qu’en cinq mois, des « recherches » commandées par Kennedy seraient parvenues à une percée spectaculaire.

On sait que Kennedy a déjà comparé la vaccination des enfants aux expériences menées par les nazis. On l’a vu souvent prétendre faussement que l’autisme est causé par les vaccins. On peut donc parier que les « interventions » dont il parle, et qui causent « clairement presque certainement » l’autisme, seront… les vaccins.

Le « chercheur » à l’origine de la théorie des vaccins causant l’autisme, le médecin britannique Andrew Wakefield, a été radié de son ordre professionnel. Hélas, son « étude » frauduleuse a été publiée dans The Lancet, et continue à circuler chez les antivax.

La preuve a depuis été faite et refaite qu’il n’y a aucun lien entre la vaccination et l’autisme.

Quand RFK était une simple célébrité, il causait déjà beaucoup de tort en répandant des faussetés scientifiques, de la pseudoscience et des théories du complot.

Mais maintenant, le président a nommé ce « sceptique » des vaccins, pour ne pas dire cet antivax, à la tête de la Santé. Le Sénat a confirmé sa nomination. Ce ne sont plus des opinions, qu’il émet. Ce sont des décisions.

Et parmi celles-ci, il y a le congédiement mercredi de la Dre Susan Monarez, qui venait tout juste d’être confirmée dans ses fonctions de directrice de la Santé publique, à la tête des Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Le motif ? « Insubordination ». La Dre Monarez avait simplement rappelé à RFK que les nouvelles directives sur la vaccination ne correspondaient pas aux données scientifiques. Le secrétaire a en effet décidé qu’il n’y aurait de vaccination contre la COVID-19 que pour les personnes âgées. Basé sur quoi ? Ses propres avis. Car en juin, Kennedy a foutu à la porte tous les membres du comité de consultation sur la vaccination.

De fait, les CDC ont perdu « des milliers » d’employés et la moitié de leur budget. Certains de leurs meilleurs experts en matière de maladies contagieuses sont partis.

Les États-Unis ont aussi coupé les ponts avec l’Organisation mondiale de la santé. Annulé des contrats de recherche à hauteur de 500 millions sur la technologie de l’ARN messager. En plus de comprimer massivement les budgets de recherche et les fonds universitaires. Ce n’est pas pour rien que 75 % des chercheurs américains (sondage de Nature) disent vouloir trouver du boulot à l’étranger.

Ça ne change rien pour l’instant. Mais la capacité du pays à faire face à une épidémie, une pandémie, une crise sanitaire est sérieusement affectée. Comme les États-Unis ont été un leader mondial en la matière, cela touche le monde entier. Sans parler des risques de contagion idéologique et de contagion tout court.

Ça ne change rien pour l’instant, mais il y aura des morts.

Le démantèlement de la Santé publique américaine s’ajoute à toutes les attaques frontales contre la science. Et jusqu’à la collecte de données.

La destruction volontaire de deux satellites parfaitement fonctionnels qui mesurent le taux de CO2 dans l’atmosphère s’inscrit dans le même superbe projet de rendre aux États-Unis sa grandeur par l’accroissement de l’ignorance.

Quand il a écrit The Assault on Reason (La raison assiégée), en 2007, Al Gore se plaignait de la dégradation du débat public, dominé par des émotions aux dépens des faits. Il n’avait pas imaginé qu’un jour, un président congédierait la patronne du bureau des statistiques du travail parce qu’il n’aimait pas ses données.

Même les plus grands pourfendeurs républicains du « gros gouvernement » n’ont pas voulu éradiquer les données ou nommer volontairement des super-incompétents dans des postes clés.

Le plus consternant est évidemment l’aplaventrisme du Congrès. Le sénateur républicain Bill Cassidy a déclaré jeudi qu’il veut maintenant « superviser » les CDC, vu le bordel actuel.

Ce même sénateur, un médecin, avait fait semblant d’hésiter à confirmer la nomination de RFK à la santé, vu ses déclarations sur les vaccins. Il a longuement expliqué à quel point les vaccins sauvent des vies. Mais à la fin, bien entendu, il a voté pour sa confirmation. Si une personne aurait dû savoir ce qui se tramait, c’est bien lui. Et pourtant, il a ouvert toutes grandes les portes du labo aux idéologues de RFK pour qu’ils le saccagent.

Ce n’est même plus au nom d’une volonté de « réforme » des institutions scientifiques que tout cela est entrepris. Les CDC comme les universités comme tout le gouvernement méritent des réformes et des ménages périodiques, bien entendu.

Ce à quoi on assiste, c’est carrément la destruction de ces institutions qui ont été des références d’excellence en sciences de la santé, en sciences naturelles, en économie, etc.

On a déjà prétendu que John F. Kennedy s’était entouré des meilleurs. « The Best and the Brightest. »

Aujourd’hui, c’est à la moronisation de ce grand pays qu’on assiste.

Source: La moronisation des États-Unis

“We will have an announcement in September as promised,” he said in a public session of the Trump cabinet. We have discovered that interventions, certain interventions clearly almost certainly cause autism. ”

This is not a small statement. Autism has been the subject of research for decades. The causes, the researchers say, are multiple. Genetic, environmental…

And now in five months, “research” commissioned by Kennedy would have reached a spectacular breakthrough.

It is known that Kennedy has already compared the vaccination of children to the experiments conducted by the Nazis. We have often seen him falsely claim that autism is caused by vaccines. We can therefore bet that the “interventions” he is talking about, and which “clearly almost certainly” cause autism, will be… vaccines.

The “researcher” behind the theory of autism-causing vaccines, British physician Andrew Wakefield, has been removed from his professional order. Alas, his fraudulent “study” was published in The Lancet, and continues to circulate among anti-vax.

Proof has since been made and redone that there is no link between vaccination and autism.

When RFK was a simple celebrity, he was already causing a lot of harm by spreading scientific falsehoods, pseudoscience and conspiracy theories.

But now, the president has named this “skeptic” of vaccines, not to say this anti-vax, at the head of Health. The Senate confirmed his appointment. These are no longer opinions, which he expresses. These are decisions.

And among these is the dismissal on Wednesday of Dr. Susan Monarez, who had just been confirmed as Director of Public Health, at the head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The reason? “Insubordination”. Dr. Monarez had simply reminded RFK that the new vaccination guidelines did not correspond to the scientific data. The secretary has indeed decided that there would only be vaccination against COVID-19 for the elderly. Based on what? His own opinions. Because in June, Kennedy kicked out all the members of the vaccination consultation committee.

In fact, the CDC has lost “thousands” of employees and half of their budget. Some of their best infectious disease experts are gone.

The United States has also cut ties with the World Health Organization. Cancelled 500 million research contracts on messenger RNA technology. In addition to massively compressing research budgets and university funds. It is not for nothing that 75% of American researchers (Nature survey) say they want to find a job abroad.

It doesn’t change anything for now. But the country’s ability to deal with an epidemic, a pandemic, a health crisis is seriously affected. As the United States has been a world leader in this area, it affects the whole world. Not to mention the risks of ideological contagion and contagion altogether.

It doesn’t change anything for now, but there will be deaths.

The dismantling of American Public Health is in addition to all the frontal attacks against science. And up to data collection.

The voluntary destruction of two perfectly functional satellites that measure the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is part of the same superb project to restore the greatness to the United States by increasing ignorance.

When he wrote The Assault on Reason, in 2007, Al Gore complained of the degradation of public debate, dominated by emotions at the expense of facts. He had not imagined that one day a president would fire the boss of the labor statistics office because he did not like her data.

Even the biggest Republican slitters of the “big government” did not want to eradicate the data or voluntarily appoint super-incompetents in key positions.

The most appalling thing is obviously the aplaventrism of the Congress. Republican Senator Bill Cassidy said Thursday that he now wants to “supervise” the CDC, given the current mess.

This same senator, a doctor, had pretended to be hesitant to confirm the appointment of RFK to health, given his statements on vaccines. He explained at length how vaccines save lives. But in the end, of course, he voted for his confirmation. If a person should have known what was brewing, it was him. And yet, he opened the doors of the laboratory wide to RFK ideologists so that they could vandalish him.

It is no longer even in the name of a desire to “reform” scientific institutions that all this is undertaken. The CDC as well as the universities as the whole government deserve reforms and periodic households, of course.

What we are witnessing is the destruction of these institutions that have been references of excellence in health sciences, natural sciences, economics, etc.

It has already been claimed that John F. Kennedy had surrounded himself with the best. “The Best and the Brightest. ”

Today, we are witnessing the moronization of this great country.

Filed under Government, Trump administration Tagged with ,

May: The Functionary on PBO expenditure review recommendations

2025/08/30 Leave a comment

Good discussion of the PBO recommendations:

…WHY IT MATTERS
It’s about measurement and accountability

It introduces a methodology to track personnel spending using more frequent pay data. It separates projections for civilian and non-civilian staffing (military/RCMP included). It distinguishes head counts (actual people) from FTEs (work equivalent). This is critical because past cuts reduced head counts while FTEs actually rose.

It’s a baseline for expenditure review. It sets clear starting points for measuring cuts, which didn’t exist before. It allows tracking of whether the public service is truly shrinking under the expenditure review. It provides capacity for twice-yearly updates so parliamentarians can monitor progress.

It’s an operating split vs. a capital budget split. The government plans to balance the operating budget while splitting expenditures into operating and capital budgets.It creates an incentive to shift operating expenses into capital (childcare transfers, immigration programs, infrastructure) to make balancing easier. Without clear definitions, departments may label operating expenses as “productivity investments” and put them under capital.

There are risks for public-service managers. Operating budgets face greater restraint since balancing that budget is Carney’s fiscal anchor. There is uncertainty over what counts as operating vs. capital. There’s a need to deliver the same services with fewer resources. Previous cuts show departments often hire more permanent staff to maintain service despite headcount reductions.

POST-GIROUX
Whoever takes over, it will be temporary

Giroux’s term ends Sept. 2, five days after departments’ Aug. 28 deadline for proposed 15-per-cent spending reductions that will shape the next federal budget in October. He leaves with another 20 or so reports in the pipeline for his successor.

I wrote in July about the unknowns surrounding Giroux’s fate and the huge impacthe’s had on the office. At the time, the Privy Council Office said it was committed to appointing a “highly qualified individual” and noted the Parliament of Canada Actallows for an interim appointment in the event of a vacancy.

This week, it offered no timeline other than in to say “due course.” It didn’t say whether the position will be filled before the budget.

The only option now is a temporary appointment until the House and Senate return. A formal appointment requires approval from both chambers. Some suggest the government would prefer an interim watchdog rather than have its moves scrutinized by someone with Giroux’s experience and track record.

Source: The Functionary

Filed under Government Tagged with , ,

Globe editorial: Ottawa’s AI push must translate into savings [translation]

2025/08/21 Leave a comment

Other areas ripe for AI use are the overhead functions of HR and Finance:

…That is a good thing. Translators are no strangers to machines; they’ve been using computer tools for decades. But they have often warned that the programs are imperfect and nowhere near good enough to replace them. “At times, a ChatGPT translation will make sense,” Joachim Lépine, co-founder of LION Translation Academy in Sherbrooke, Que. wrote in a LinkedIn post this month. But “’sometimes useful’ is not good enough for high-stakes situations. Only humans have professional judgment. Period.”

However, new generative AI tools are rapidly improving in quality and are good enough to competently handle routine translations of mundane texts such as policy documents, press releases or memos. The more the programs learn from the language fed into them, the better they should become – although more critical documents such as laws and court rulings should continue to be handled by humans.

A centrepiece of the bureau’s rethink is its AI project, a program called PSPC Translate, which draws from the government’s data and language storehouse. It could serve as a bellwether for further government efficiencies and savings using AI. True success would be if the initiative translated into real savings and allowed government to slash the size of the bureau. 

Source: Ottawa’s AI push must translate into savings

Filed under Government Tagged with , ,

McLaughlin: This DOGE Won’t Hunt: A Canada-U.S. Comparison

2025/08/08 Leave a comment

Good analysis and recommendations on how to curb government expenditures:

“DOGE is not for Canada. Here’s why:

  • First, a DOGE-style, top-down process can only exist in presidential forms of government like America’s not parliamentary forms of government like Canada’s. Despite his ‘First Buddy’ status at the time, even the limited cabinet-style meetings Trump held with Elon Musk in the room degenerated into tense public disputes between Musk and cabinet secretaries.⁸ It must have been worse behind the scenes with shoving altercations being reported.⁹ Prime ministers strive to avoid that spectacle at all costs. It is the surest way to lose authority both with the public and within the government and caucus. [How many British prime ministers were there exactly in 2022?] DOGE would be a skin graft that would and should be be rejected by our system of governance. 
  • Second, DOGE was rushed and forced. It did not take into account vital missions or mandates of governing agencies. Witness the subsequent rehires to ensure key health or safety activities continued. It tried to squeeze in too much in too short a timeframe. Chaos resulted.
  • Third, DOGE evaded the law. DOGE-inspired lawsuits have made the process and results anything but orderly or complete. Judges have stayed some decisions requiring complete rehires of staff while others have proceeded. The result is a legal quagmire of confusion.
  • Fourth, it was talent-agnostic. It took little to no account, as far as can be seen, in retaining top-tier talent. It was ‘billboard budgeting’, announcing big across-the-board cuts in both funding and personnel without thinking through expertise or performance. Probationary hires, for example, were the first to go because they were the least protected by civil service rules and could account for early ‘wins’. But real skepticism exists as to whether it actually produced results.¹⁰
  • Fifth, it was run by a big personality and a bunch of tech nerds with no actual government experience and with no realistic, definable goals. At first, Musk said it would cut $2 trillion from the $7 trillion federal budget. Then, it became $1 trillion. Finally, he said DOGE would save $150 billion. In truth, the biggest cuts Elon made were to his own ambitions. Here’s what they say they have saved (as of time of this post). As you can see, the definition of “savings” is an elastic mouthful:

What Should Canada’s Approach Be Instead?

Here’s my list:

  1. Don’t try to do it all at once. Do it over time. A judicious application of time-limited hiring freezes for some public service classifications and employee attrition will get the headcount down. 
  2. Apply across-the-board cuts to get some results early, show seriousness, and secure political buy-in internally and externally that this is fair and not aimed at any one constituency. But don’t rely on these alone.
  3. Get out of actual program areas by making real choices about what is the role of the federal government in certain areas. Shrink government’s cost by shrinking government’s footprint.
  4. Resist starting up new boutique initiatives for headlines and stakeholders. They cost money and require more public servants.
  5. Combine public service reductions with deliberate productivity enhancements through AI and digital technologies.
  6. Conduct a root-and-branch customer service delivery assessment of programs to find efficiencies now. Ask these two questions: 1. What is the unit cost of delivering a particular service? 2. How many people, across how many departments, touch a service delivery or operational decision by the government?
  7. Bear in mind that new, different skill sets are needed in the public service and some hiring must still occur to enhance its overall performance.
  8. Set measurable goals for success that are both financial (balancing the operational budget, a stated government priority), and non-financial (better citizen service delivery results, improved labour productivity, etc).
  9. Create a process to do this that can be sustained between and over budget cycles, so it leads to a permanent reduction in the public service headcount. 
  10. Finally, hold ministers and deputy ministers accountable – politically for the former and financially for the latter – for results. That should get their attention!

Here endeth the lesson!“

Source: This DOGE Won’t Hunt: A Canada-U.S. Comparison

Filed under Government Tagged with , ,

Derek Burney: Serious government downsizing should start at the top

2025/08/07 Leave a comment

A mixture of some I agree with, some that he should know better given his time in government and heading the Harper transition team and others that are grounded in his ideological perspective. And while greater private sector perspectives and interchanges needed, not sure that previous experience justifies such confidence (without the extreme Musk/DOGE example):

“…Here are some practical suggestions:

1. As the government’s Chief Human Resources Officer has attested, there are too many senior executives in the public service, slowing productivity and creating workplace conflicts. Sharp cuts are needed to excessive ADM (Assistant Deputy Minister) positions and the government should consider eliminating one complete level of senior management — the position of Directors General. Superfluous positions like “Deputy” Director or “Associate” Deputy Minister — extra baggage causing sluggish performance — should be removed.

2. The Treasury Board Secretariat, ostensibly responsible for program management and controlling growth, has failed abysmally at its fundamental role and should be revamped and headed by an external business executive with a proven track record for efficient results.

3. All woke-induced prescriptions like DEI should be dropped, giving more exclusive value to meritocracy with clear descriptions of achievement goals and accountability for all senior public service positions.

4. The government’s faint-hearted effort to recognize the importance of artificial intelligence was to designate a minister with the responsibility but with few specific duties or resources. AI is the most significant technological innovation in more than a century. Implemented with appropriate guard rails to prevent misuse, Artificial Intelligence can reduce waste in government, sharpen technological innovation, improve productivity and expedite decision-making. It will require substantial investments in energy to serve new data centres, to update our electricity grid and develop new technologies. The Americans are moving at warp speed to maintain their global lead. Canada cannot afford to stand pat.

5. The military cannot be spared especially with the massive increase in spending it will belatedly receive. As the ranks were reduced in the past two decades, the ratio of enlisted personnel to officers rose substantially to 2.8:1 whereas the U.S. Marines is at 7.1:1. That trend undermines any notion that more funds will produce better performance. The current model of procurement is flawed with overlapping responsibilities among different departments and ever-lengthening overruns on delivery. The system should be outsourced to an independent tribunal with knowledge and experience relating to current technologies. Australia may offer a compelling model.

6. All governments in Canada should stop pandering to Indigenous groups with gratuitous expressions of atonement as in King Charles’ speech from the throne (written by the PMO/PCO), and at major events across Canada. Giving Indigenous communities real partnerships in major, national-interest projects would do much more for their well-being than sanctimonious verbal expressions of regret.

7. It is time to drive a stake through the climate hysteria that has stifled economic development for more than two decades. As Joe Oliver articulated cogently in these columns, public concern about climate change has declined dramatically in Canada. In 2022, 73 per cent of Canadians believed we were confronting a climate emergency. But now only four per cent say climate change is the No. 1 issue facing the country, according to a recent Leger poll. Many favour instead efforts to expedite pipelines to tidewater that “will bring economic growth, employment, energy security and funding for social programs or tax relief.”

Remaining vestiges of climate hypocrisy, including some in the current cabinet, stubbornly support unrealistic EV mandates and inconsistent wind-power farms that blight our physical environment. “Net-zero” targets are patently unrealistic. All are being rejected by the U.S. while it accelerates conventional energy development. Growing climate realism should give Canadian politicians the courage to implement energy projects needed to secure economic growth.

8. For serious downsizing, the government should assign the role to an external panel of five credible business executives with relevant knowledge and experience.

Prime Minister Mark Carney gained a spectacular victory in the April election (due partly to the relatively inept performance by the Opposition Leader and his campaign team.) Carney has about six more months to demonstrate that he can act forcefully on that victory. Otherwise, confidence and trust will evaporate as quickly as it did for his predecessor. The challenge begins in the government itself where he has unfettered control.”

Source: Derek Burney: Serious government downsizing should start at the top

Filed under Government Tagged with

Savoie: Shaving department budgets won’t be enough to rein in federal spending 

2025/07/24 2 Comments

Agree. Full-scale program review, as per Chrétien/Martin, best approach:

…The Ottawa-based bureaucracy is loaded with policy and program evaluation units. One would think that they are always at the ready to identify which programs are failing and those that are long past their best-by date. Program evaluation units, found in all government departments and most agencies, have been missing in action, unwilling or unable to report that programs fail to deliver what they promise, for fear of casting the government in a negative light. 

The units report to the government, not Parliament, as they deal with access to information legislation and other transparency requirements. No minister wants to stand before the House of Commons or the media to explain why departmental programs are missing the mark or should be eliminated. Whatever the reason, the units are still kept busy turning a crank not attached to anything.

Instead of announcing reduction targets from above that generate countless meetings with the objective of identifying possible cuts that stand to cause minimal damage to departments, the Cabinet could go with a different approach, one that would have a longer lasting impact. The government could, for example, eliminate two management layers. There are, at the moment, anywhere between six and nine management layers in the federal government, which are costly, slow down decision making and, all too often, generate non-productive work. The Treasury Board could also eliminate 90 per cent of “associate” positions attached to senior management jobs, which have mushroomed in recent years, in part to get around wage freezes or to award promotions that would not otherwise exist.

The federal government is home to hundreds of organizations and programs. Rather than try to shave a 7.5-, 10- or 15-per-cent cut to existing spending with uncertain success, Cabinet should review all organizations and all programs to see which ones no longer meet expectations or could be eliminated with limited impact on Canadians. 

Government organizations and programs are the product of political decisions and it is incumbent on Cabinet to decide whether they should continue. The exercise would enable Cabinet ministers to ask pointed questions about government programs and operations. Decisions to establish and eliminate organizations and programs belong to politicians, and not to anyone else. If the goal is to restructure the expenditure budget, this is where they need to look.

The Carney government has unveiled new spending commitments to strengthen the national economy, soften the blow of U.S. tariffs and boost defence spending. Mr. Carney’s planned cuts will not generate the required savings to support the various new spending commitments. The government can increase taxes, such as the HST, or it can take a close look at its organizations and programs and decide which ones still square with its policy agenda. This calls for a genuine political review of programs, not a process of trying to shave spending on selected activities which, history shows, only offers temporary savings. 

Source: Shaving department budgets won’t be enough to rein in federal spending

Filed under Government Tagged with , ,

Krauss: Trump’s War on Science

2025/07/17 Leave a comment

Hard not to agree on the medium to long term impact. The age of ignorance…:

…The economic and military interests of the nation are best served by supporting a vibrant research culture in STEM fields like physics and biology. We need materials science and aerospace engineering research to develop new batteries and hardened materials for use in the military, as well as theoretical work in areas like quantum physics—which is vital not just for quantum computing but also for encoding sensitive messages. We need biological research in areas like immunology and genomics to protect against future pandemics. In short, the best and brightest scientists in the country need to be supported and encouraged to conduct curiosity-driven research—which produced almost half the current GDP of the nation within a single generation.

To do all this, we will also need to recruit the brightest minds from all over the world. Instead, the current administration seems bent on disallowing talented foreign scholars and students from studying and working in this country. In the past, many of these students—including Elon Musk—chose to stay in the United States after their studies ended and have created innovative technologies that have bolstered the US economy in myriad ways.

The culture wars in higher education have hurt both teaching and research, but the current policy of dismantling the government–science partnership that has helped drive US leadership in science and technology is worse. Leadership in these fields may soon pass to Europe—or, worse, to China. A great deal of damage has already been done, and it may soon be too late to fix it, as laboratories close down and first-rate researchers either leave their fields or move abroad.

Curiosity-driven science and research are crucial to the economic success of our nation. They must not be made subservient to political goals. It is worth remembering the words of Robert Wilson, the first director of the Fermi National Laboratory, which houses the nation’s largest particle accelerator. In 1969, when Congress asked him whether the particle accelerator would aid in the defence of the nation, Wilson responded, “It has nothing to do directly with defending our country except to make it worth defending.”

Source: Trump’s War on Science

Filed under Government Tagged with , , ,

Carney’s plan to cut tens of billions in spending is tough but doable, experts say

2025/07/16 Leave a comment

Always interesting to listen to the assessments of previous clerks on some of the lessons learned:

….Mel Cappe, who served as clerk of the Privy Council from 1999 to 2002, a position that includes heading up the public service, said meeting those targets will be tough but doable.

“There’s somebody in the public who’s going to be outraged by the cuts,” he said. “This is going to require all ministers holding hands, saying prayers together.”

…But previous clerks of the Privy Council say it will be difficult for the government to avoid cutting staff because wages, benefits and pensions are such a large part of the operating budget.Leaning on attrition

In 2023-24, excluding one-time payments like back pay made after a new collective agreement was signed, the federal government spent $65.3 billion on salaries, pensions and benefits. That was a 10 per cent increase over the previous year.

“In 1995, the wage bill was so high that it was necessary to invest some money to facilitate people to leave by giving them cashouts,” Cappe said.

“If you are going to do that on a massive scale, you have to be prepared to see those costs up front. Because it will save you a lot of money in the long run.”

Michael Wernick — the clerk of the Privy Council from 2016 to 2019 — told CBC News that relying on attrition “doesn’t make any sense as a management strategy.”

“What happens if your absolute key cybersecurity expert retires next week? You’re not going to replace her?” he said. “If your aspiration is a serious compression of the numbers, then you have to be more mindful about it and you have to do layoffs and buyouts.”

Where you cut — rather than how much

One of the ways the prime minister has said his government will cut operating expenses is by looking for ways to employ artificial intelligence and automation.

Wernick says that approach will require investment in training and technology and that, like buyouts for public servants, comes with an upfront cost.

But both former clerks say the Liberal government can hit its targets and they have a suggestion for how it can be done.

“Stop doing some things, rather than an across-the-board cut,” Cappe said.

By going this route, staff no longer carrying out a given function can be moved to work on other government priorities. Wernick says cutting entire lines of business also prevents spending from creeping back up.

“If you don’t kill the program entirely, the pressure to restore it will come in almost immediately from the clients, from the mayors, from the caucus,” Wernick said.

Donald Savoie, an expert in public administration and governance at the Université de Moncton, said the government can be downsized without hurting service delivery.

“Let’s look at programs that we don’t need anymore, let’s look at organizations that we don’t need anymore,” Savoie said.

He said there is also room to cut the use of consultants and outside contractors, but Wernick warned doing so would cut off access to expertise. That can be mitigated, he said, by training public servants — but that comes with an upfront cost.

Trying to emulate Chrétien and Martin’s fiscal success

Savoie said Carney has two things in common with Chrétien that bode well for his cost-cutting ambitions.

The first is that unlike Brian Mulroney, Stephen Harper and Trudeau, both Carney and Chrétien had experience working in government well before securing the country’s highest office.

Savoie said that means Carney, like Chrétien before him, knows which levers to pull.

The other thing both men share is a mandate to respond to a national crisis. In the 1990s, Canada’s federal debt was so large compared to the economy that a third of every dollar collected in tax went just to service its interest payments.

“I think what helped Chrétien immensely in 1994-95 is Canadians were seized with a real crisis,” Savoie said.

“So Canadians said: ‘we got a problem’ and so [Chrétien] could draw on public support. And in the same vein, Carney can draw on public support because Canadians see that dealing with Trump, dealing with tariffs, is very tough and some tough decisions have to be taken.”

For that reason, Savoie said, Canadians will be much more open to suffering through cuts than they were five to 10 years ago, which may be just enough political licence for the expenditure review to bear fruit.

Source: Carney’s plan to cut tens of billions in spending is tough but doable, experts say

Filed under Government Tagged with , , , ,

Clerk letter to Public Service

2025/07/09 Leave a comment

Good letter with three priorities, focus, simplify, accountability. Clear test for both political and official levels:

Dear Colleagues,

Today marks the third time in my career that I have joined the federal public service. The first was a long time ago when I was fresh out of school. More recently, I rejoined about five years ago as the Deputy Minister of Finance. And here I am today, in a new role.

So, you might well ask, why? Why am I here? Of course, the most direct answer is that the Prime Minister asked me to take this on. I am grateful to him for the opportunity to do this job at this point in Canada’s history.

Why does this period present such a compelling opportunity for all of us?

First, the federal public service is one of Canada’s great institutions. I have believed this for decades. It has a long-distinguished history of advising successive governments through challenging periods. And, over time, it has shown its ability to evolve and become more diverse to reflect the country itself. For all those reasons, the public service plays an integral part in our system of government – in our democracy. If we have learned anything from the turbulent world we live in, it should be to never take for granted our democratic system of government, and the institutions that support it and make it work.

Second, I believe that we are at a particular moment in our history. The world is changing fast. And in some fundamental ways. While the changes we are living aren’t easy, they give us, as a country, the opportunity right now to make decisions that will put Canada’s economy on a more resilient path; that will make us a more prosperous and fairer country; and that can strengthen our national unity in the face of an increasingly divided world. That is a tall order. It will only be accomplished with a lot of hard work inside government and across the country. It is an opportunity that we cannot miss.

Third, I am convinced that the public service has an indispensable role to play in ensuring we seize this opportunity. As public servants, if we are to deliver on that goal, we need to keep three words in mind.

· Focus: the Government’s priorities are very clear, as set out in the missions that the Prime Minister has launched. Our job is to be disciplined and concentrate on those. By staying tightly focused on priorities, we can help them become realities faster.

· Simplify: Our internal processes have become quite complicated. When that happens, there is always the risk that following the process is so time-consuming that everything slows down – at a time when we need to speed up because the world is moving as fast as it is. Windows of opportunity open and close. The world waits for no one. When processes get too onerous, they can also obscure what really matters most and why we are all here: to have an impact for the benefit of Canadians. Trying to simplify processes is going to be a priority. I know it is easier said than done. But it has to be addressed.

· Accountability: From the advice we give ministers to the decisions we take in running departments and programs to the services we provide to Canadians – from national defence to issuing a passport – we need to have a sense of personal accountability for what we do. Accountability is about commitment. It is about initiative – it is about taking that extra step that no one may have asked you to take, but that is often needed to make something a success. Successful organizations always have two characteristics. Formal accountabilities have to be clear – it’s the job of senior management to ensure that they are. And people need to feel and act in a personally accountable way. Helping to build those accountabilities and a culture of personal accountability will be key priorities for me.

In my experience, leadership is a lot about listening. Listening to the open and honest debates we need. In these uncertain times, when the standard operating procedures just don’t work anymore, rigorous debate is the best path to the best decisions. In this, our diversity is a continuing source of strength. With diversity comes the differing perspectives that make those debates even more worthwhile.

A final point: be proud. Proud of the work you do. Proud of serving Canada and Canadians.

I look forward to working with all of you.

Michael Sabia

Source: Clerk letter to Public Service

Filed under Government Tagged with , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →