• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Election 2015

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sometimes I wonder if some people in high positions may not fully analyse their actions.  I wonder if this position being taken by PSAC may backfire on them.  If the Public think that there are too many bureaucrats, this campaign by PSAC may have the opposite affect than what they are hoping for:

http://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/psac-launches-second-phase-of-vote-to-stop-the-cuts-campaign-529744461.html

PSAC launches second phase of Vote to Stop the Cuts campaign

OTTAWA, Sept. 28, 2015 /CNW/ - The Public Service Alliance of Canada is today launching the second phase of its Vote to Stop the Cuts campaign.

The campaign provides key information about the Harper Conservatives' cuts to public services and encourages Canadians to take this into account when voting on October 19th.

Vote to Stop the Cuts phase two will include a new video encouraging Canadians to vote on October 19, transit and newspaper ads as well as web and social media content.

The cumulative effect of these cuts by 2015–16 will be more than $14.5 billion a year 

Phase 1 of the Vote to Stop the Cuts campaign garnered widespread media attention as well as engagement on social media. The first campaign video was viewed over 4.1 million times across social media platforms, the campaign content was liked, shared or commented on 226,000 times on Facebook and the campaign website received 436,000 hits.

"We believe our message is resonating with Canadians as we provide facts about the many essential public services that have been threatened by the reckless cuts made by the Harper Conservative government, without regard for the safety and welfare of millions of Canadians," said Robyn Benson, National President of PSAC.

"Our members are on the front lines and see how frustrated Canadians are – waiting weeks to receive Employment Insurance cheques, or finding they can't qualify. They are trying to ensure that Canada's food is safe, that veterans are cared for and that our borders are secure," said Benson. "But government departments have been stripped bare and workers are struggling to maintain crucial services under very difficult circumstances," concluded Benson.

For more information on the campaign, visit votetostopthecuts.ca.

SOURCE Public Service Alliance of Canada

Video with caption: "On October 19, vote to stop the cuts". Video available at: https://youtu.be/lUhVcflB1bM 


For further information: For more information or to book interviews: Ariel Troster (613) 292-8363 , trostea@psac.com; Allison Pilon: (613) 883-0272, pilona@psac.com
 
260,000 people.  Perception is reality.

http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/index.asp?lang=eng&page=clerk-greffier&sub=archives&doc=20090506-eng.htm


Perceptions and Realities of Today's Public Service

Archived Content

This page has been archived for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Archived pages are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats by contacting the Web Service Centre.

Remarks by Kevin G. Lynch

Clerk of the Privy Council, Secretary to the Cabinet and Head of the Public Service
to the Embassy of Canada in Berlin

May 6, 2009
Berlin, Germany

Introduction

I appreciate the opportunity today to share some thoughts on the state of the Public Service of Canada, and hear from you, the staff in one of our larger Canadian embassies around the world, who are both at the implementation edge of Canada's foreign and security policies and, as public servants, a long way from home.

Let me start by quoting Thomas Friedman: "... in the globalization system ... one of the most important and enduring competitive advantages that a country can have today is a lean, effective, honest civil service". He was articulating that there is a strong correlation between a country's competitiveness and prosperity and the quality of its public sector. And, this correlation holds whether the country is developing or developed; whether it is poor or rich.

In short, what public servants do, delivering public services, matters; and how they do it, matters even more. I believe Canada has long been well served by a non-partisan, professional, competent public service.

Yet, today, there seems to be some scepticism towards public service. Criticism of the public service is not new, and it is not always without merit, but when it is based on misperceptions, it cannot go unchallenged.

Today, I would like to share with you both some perceptions and realities of public service in Canada, and highlight several areas where, I believe, there is a gap between perceptions and reality.

First the reality. The reality in Canada is a public service that is certainly not perfect, but is in no way broken. A public service that is strongly rooted in the values of serving the public in a non-partisan, professional manner. A public service that, like the rest of Canada, is under constant pressure to embrace change, not the status quo, to live up to our potential to make a difference. Now some perceptions.

Perceptions and Reality
1. Perception number one is that the public service today is less efficient and effective than it once was, some would say a shadow of its former self.
Many in the public at large, reading negative stories in the press about public officials, elected and non-elected, have very mixed emotions about public service.

The reality is that the public service cannot be error free, no large organization can. We will make mistakes, be accountable for them and learn from them. But the truth of the matter is that most of the time, we will provide good public services, day in and day out, to millions of Canadians, and occasionally do amazing things.

The public service is certainly different today from its former self, because it needs to be, to reflect how much the world has changed. The reality is that the public service is Canada's largest, most complex institution, with over 260,000 employees, more "lines of business" than any Canadian private sector organization, more "points of service", both nationally and internationally, and ongoing pressures to revamp our "product lines" in response to the demands of a changing world. But, we need to do a better job at explaining the breadth, scope and complexity of today's public service in Canada.

2. Perception number two is that the status quo is fine, no need for change, no need for renewal.
Demographics and the increased complexity of our work are driving the need for change.

For the first time in our history, the public service has more employees over 45 than under. The demographics of ageing are even more pronounced in our executive ranks: the average age of public servants is over 44, executives is 51, our assistant deputy ministers is just shy of 55, the age when many public servants are eligible for an unreduced pension. Indeed, almost 50% of executives and 25% of all public servants will be able to retire by 2012.

This is our demographic reality. But it is also an opportunity. It should provide the catalyst to engage the best of the next generation of Canadians in public service and, through this, reshape the public service to better reflect the diversity that is Canada and infuse it with new ideas and energy.

And we're doing just that through Public Service Renewal. New, targetted recruitment programs were begun in 2007-08 and more than 8,000 post-secondary graduates have been recruited into indeterminate positions. Recruitment will continue, despite the recession, because of our demographic pressures and the key role the public service needs to play in implementing the government's economic and financial policies and programs to respond to the global crisis.

3. Next is perception number three, that the public service cannot compete for the best talent anymore, that we don't have a strong, clear brand.
The reality is that we can recruit and retain the-best-and-brightest to public service but only as long as we remember our strength. The strongest argument for a public service career is the unique nature of what we do and why it matters. What we do is different than the private sector, and our bottom line is making a difference.

What we offer is challenging work. Work which touches the lives of Canadians in meaningful ways. Work whose scope engages a broad range of issues of public importance over the course of a career. Work that serves the the public interest, not a company's interest. Work that is based on values and commitment and personal and professional satisfaction that comes with making a difference to your community, your country, the world.

To leverage these advantages, we need a clearer, sharper brand. Public servants and Canadians want to know what we do, what we stand for and why it matters. I believe that brand for the Canadian public service has to stress just that, that we serve Canadians, and we strive for excellence in everything we do --- no one wants to join or work in an average institution or company. Join us, we're excellent and what we do makes a difference, is a good recruitment slogan, a good retention motto, and helps build our brand. An example of how we are attempting to rebrand ourselves is the video “My Canada, My Public Service”, available at www.pco-bcp.gc.ca.

4. This brings us to perception number four, that the policy capacity of the public service is not what is used to be.
First and foremost, it is useful to remind ourselves that public servants don't make policy decisions, elected governments do. The job of the public service is to provide governments with analytically rigorous, professional, unbiased policy options and recommendations. And that job is certainly a challenging one today, with a synchronized global recession, an international financial crisis, war in Afghanistan, security issues affecting Canada at home and around the world, minority Parliaments, and changes in the global order.

Second, I believe these policy challenges of today are more complex than in years past. Our policy capacity has to be world class in new areas such as globalization, security, productivity, ageing, competitiveness, and climate change, to do the work expected of us.

A third observation is that the public service should not have a monopoly on policy research and advice. The more independent, non-governmental think tanks doing high quality, analytic policy work in a country the better.

5. The next perception is that public servants are afraid to take risks, that risk aversion is in our genes.
Risk aversion is imposed not inherent in public services.

We have mired public servants in a complex, and often conflicting, web-of-rules that encourages risk aversion over taking responsible risks, and discourages innovation in favour of the status quo. This is amplified by a "gotcha" mentality in the press and at times in Parliament, where error free government, not risk management by government, has become the benchmark for success or failure.

Innovation in public policy thinking and in public service delivery is not possible without risk taking, based on rigorous risk management systems.

6. Perception six is that in the public service management is too often not a priority.

As Peter Drucker has wryly observed, "so much of that we call management consists of making it difficult for people to work". That applies to the public service as well. The reality is that we can and must do better in embedding best-of-class management practices in the way we operate, the way we think, the way we evaluate performance.

Fundamentally, we have to make management a core part of every executives's jobs, not someone else's. We are strengthening performance management, including dealing with poor performance. This was highlighted in my Annual Report on the Public Service of Canada, tabled in Parliament at the end of March, 2009, which described how the performance management system for senior executives has been made more rigorous and transparent. But, more must be done throughout the executive cadre and beyond. There is nothing more damaging to morale and a healthy workplace than poor performance that is left unaddressed.

7. And perception seven is that the public service is out of touch with citizens, the "they're from Venus, we're from Mars" syndrome.
This sense of a solitude between the public and private sectors, is both real and wrong. Real in the sense the perception exists. Wrong in that it is based on the false assumption that the two sectors have little in common and few areas for meaningful collaboration.

In this world of pervasive globalization, public and private sectors need to work more not less together. We need to interact, not disengage, to ensure we have business strategies and public policies that are designed to take advantage of our country's relative strengths, for the betterment of all.

Conclusion
I would like to leave with you three thoughts on public service.

First, public service matters. As the 2007 Report of the Prime Minister's Advisory Committee on the Public Service stated: "...a well-functioning and values-based public service is critical to the success of every country in today's complex and interconnected world.” But we need a better public understanding of the important role the public service plays in the ongoing success of our country.

Second, at no time has the Government needed a professional, non-partisan public service more than today, as we face the most difficult international economic circumstances in recent history. In such circumstances, ideas, advice and implementation experience from the public service --- from every department and agency with policy or program capacity relevant to the difficult situation facing this country --- are essential. I am proud of the contribution being made by so many of our fellow public servants.

Third, public service renewal matters. It will require individual public servants to take ownership of it. As John F. Kennedy once asked: "If not us, who? If not now, when?" Public sector renewal needs all of us, all the time.

Thank you, and keep up the excellent work here in Germany.

Funny coincidence.  Nuremberg is in Germany.
 
Thomas Friedman was, undoubtedly, correct when he said: "... in the globalization system ... one of the most important and enduring competitive advantages that a country can have today is a lean, effective, honest civil service". I have emphasized "lean" because I don't think it gets enough attention. Mr Lynch said, "He was articulating that there is a strong correlation between a country's competitiveness and prosperity and the quality of its public sector." I agree with that. And I further agree with Mr Lynch when he said, "this correlation holds whether the country is developing or developed; whether it is poor or rich." Canada is a rich, developed country with a, broadly and generally, effective and honest public service, but it's anything but lean. The public service is too large, in my opinion ... not bloated, not like the CF's C2 superstructure with too many GOFOs in too many HQs, but in need of some pretty ruthless downsizing (and pay raises for the survivors). (My guesstimate is that fully 25% of the Canadian public service can and should be cut; that's 64,000 people who, in my opinion, need, "pink slips and running shoes," as Brian Mulroney put it back in 1983, when he was standing for his party's leadership. I believe that as many as ¾ of those 64,00, 48,00 in other words, are doing work that is useful but ought to be done by the private sector, on contract for or, sometimes, just instead of the government, so only about 15,000 people would be "out on the street," so to speak.

Of course, my position is quite at odds with the position that PSAC outlines in the article George Wallace posted just above.

My suspicion is that few people agree with me. The public service does, indeed, serve the public and my sense is that the public, the voting population, likes being served.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
My suspicion is that few people agree with me. The public service does, indeed, serve the public and my sense is that the public, the voting population, likes being served.

But does the public like the service they have received?  Which public servants do they routinely interact with and how many are appreciative of the interaction?
 
Kirkhill said:
But does the public like the service they have received?  Which public servants do they routinely interact with and how many are appreciative of the interaction?

I'm thinking on the macro level. My guess is that most of the public equates cuts to the PS as cuts to the services they want, maybe even need.
 
Kirkhill said:
But does the public like the service they have received?  Which public servants do they routinely interact with and how many are appreciative of the interaction?

Most of the inefficiencies that the PS may have, are not usually found at the "front end" workers who are serving the "customers", although at times there may be duplication of effort found in number of offices, workers, services, etc.  Most often where the cuts should be made, would be found in the bloated upper echelons.  Unfortunately, it is there that one finds the senior members whose survival skills are often the only skill that they have mastered.  >:D
 
George Wallace said:
Most often where the cuts should be made, would be found in the bloated upper echelons.  Unfortunately, it is there that one finds the senior members whose survival skills are often the only skill that they have mastered.  >:D
Or the senior members who are asked, "how should we cut?" 

I remember one year at city hall, a manager actually provided council with the option of cutting his job and merging his team with a larger city department - and that only happened once in the 10 years or so I watched city council.
 
I appreciate the macro/"front-end" dichotomy but public servants include"

Veterans Affairs Canada
Benefits Canada
Canada Revenue Agency.

How many people have enjoyed their experience with the front-end and how many people think the solution is to hire more people just like them?  >:D

 
milnews.ca said:
Or the senior members who are asked, "how should we cut?" 

I remember one year at city hall, a manager actually provided council with the option of cutting his job and merging his team with a larger city department - and that only happened once in the 10 years or so I watched city council.

I still fondly remember when the company I worked for got a directive from the owner (similar to Harper's instruction to NDHQ) to lose bodies:  The DS solution arrived at, by consensus, was for the management team to be slimmed as per orders, the surplus managers to be formed into a Management Advisory Council (with no duties and no responsibilities but healthy personal budgets) and to layoff any technical and sales personnel with more than 15 years in the company......

I had 17 years.
 
Kirkhill said:
I still fondly remember when the company I worked for got a directive from the owner (similar to Harper's instruction to NDHQ) to lose bodies:  The DS solution arrived at, by consensus, was for the management team to be slimmed as per orders, the surplus managers to be formed into a Management Advisory Council (with no duties and no responsibilities but healthy personal budgets) and to layoff any technical and sales personnel with more than 15 years in the company......

I had 17 years.
Yeah, that's the kind of solution we hear about too often - and hiring an outside consultant doesn't help because guess who briefs/guides them?
 
Prof William Watson, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Ottawa Citizen, examines the hidden agenda ... but not Stephen Harper's, he suspects that what we've seen is what we'll get again, but, rather the two hidden agendas of the Liberal and New Democratic Parties:

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/watson-look-whose-agenda-is-hidden-now?hootPostID=fad0d095e790166b4da3cd8b2b582f43
Ottawa-Citizen-Logo-160x90.jpg

Look whose agenda is hidden now

WILLIAM WATSON

Published on: September 28, 2015

After eight weeks, the federal election feels like it’s been going on longer than the major league season. And yet so far, unlike in the last four elections, we haven’t heard much about “Stephen Harper’s hidden agenda.”

The reason is pretty clear: He’s been prime minister for nine years now, four of them with a majority government. If there really were a hidden agenda, it would have emerged by now. What’s he waiting for? His third decade in power? Right now, the polls suggest the best he can do is a minority government, hardly the right circumstance for hauling out a hidden agenda. Of course, minority government was where David Cameron was headed until British voters gave him a majority, helped along in their decision-making by that Wizard of Auz adviser now working for the Tories.

This time the long-term agendas that are uncertain are the Liberals’ and NDP’s. From the top down, for reasons of political expedience — both want to win — the two parties have leapfrogged each other on policy. The Liberals have ditched the hug-the-centre strategy that served them so well for so long and are now the left-most major party. It used to be the NDP were “Liberals in a hurry.” Now it’s the Liberals who look like the NDP in a hurry.

For its part, the NDP has got religion on deficits and high marginal income tax rates, which it argues would be both economically damaging and, shocking to hear from social democrats, unfair. It may be true, as Thomas Mulcair keeps reminding us, that NDP provincial governments have often run balanced budgets — with the important exception of Bob Rae, who though a Liberal now was very much an NDPer when premier of Ontario. But the federal NDP has seldom if ever met a deficit it didn’t want bigger or a surplus it wouldn’t reduce. Deficit fundamentalism, however welcome, is very new to the federal version of the party.

What ultimately made Bob Rae a Liberal was having to deal with die-hard NDPers who didn’t accept that ever-growing debt could kill a province’s economy. That’s all ancient history, of course. Rae’s government was elected 25 years ago this month, so most of his erstwhile opponents in the party are now either cultivating or pushing up daisies. But the NDP does still contain a left wing. Some Dippers are also Leapers, that is, supporters of the Leap Manifesto, which proposes a radical leftward shift in how Canadian society organizes itself.

The same is true, in mirror image, of the Liberals. There still are righter-wing Liberals in the mould of Mitchell Sharp, Donald Johnston and Paul Martin himself. Mr. Martin, slayer of the 30-year deficit, is on board with the current program but given his own hard-won knowledge of what a struggle it is to get rid of a deficit once it’s entrenched, you have to wonder just how enthusiastic he really is about the party’s planned three-year deficit.

If one of these two parties wins, maybe even with a majority, and if it puts through most of its current platform, what comes next? What’s its agenda after that? Does the Liberal right wing reassert itself? Do the Liberals stop hurrying and revert to the form that kept them in government for most of the 20th century? Does Mr. Trudeau, like most people as they age, move rightward? And once the NDP has enacted its platform does it, spurred on by an irrepressible left wing, revert to its reformist persona and push the country to ever bigger government?

The thrust of new Conservative TV ads featuring Stephen Harper talking to a table-full of Canadians is that with the prime minister you know what you get. That’s probably true. For the other two parties, however, it depends whether their new incarnations last. Their medium-term agendas may not be hidden. But can anyone say what they are?

William Watson teaches economics at McGill University.[/b]



If we do not get a Conservative majority, then:

    I fear the NDP's left wing, notwithstanding M Mulcair's move to the centre ~ which I believe is real; and

    I can only hope that the Liberals might elect enough right wingers, blue Liberals or Manley Liberals to offset and overpower the influence of Gerald Butts and Premier Wynne, because I believe that
    M Trudeau is a sock puppet for those two.
 
Anyone having a problem watching the Munk Debates? I cant seem to get on the website at all. Does anyone know if the debates are being streamed elsewhere? Or if they will be available on Youtube later? I liked that the Globe and Mail streamed the debate on Youtube and you could pause and replay the debate.


****Posted on twitter right after I asked this question: http://livestream.com/Munk-Debates/federal-election-debate***

Appears they are having problems.
 
HULK_011 said:
Anyone having a problem watching the Munk Debates? I cant seem to get on the website at all. Does anyone know if the debates are being streamed elsewhere? Or if they will be available on Youtube later? I liked that the Globe and Mail streamed the debate on Youtube and you could pause and replay the debate.

Try this: http://www.cpac.ca/en/vote2015/ it's working well for me.
 
I was having some issues with The Globe and Mail stream earlier, but it's stable as of now.

BTW - I highly recommend Elizabeth May's twitter feed.  ;D
 
OK, those who missed it, the foreign policy debate, didn't miss anything ... young M Trudeau, nice as he may be, comes across, to me, as a rude kid.
 
Harper held his own again, while the other two were getting strident at times trying to make their points.

They are talking about what they would do, Harper is talking about what he has done....there is a difference.
 
“Loss of our traditional place at some multilateral tables.”
“Canada may not be a ‘partner of first choice’ ” for foreign countries.
“Declining market share in emerging markets,” meaning Canada is failing to sufficiently build commercial ties with fast-developing countries.
“New donor countries are emerging and Canada’s relative [official development assistance] is declining,” meaning as Ottawa has restrained foreign aid, other international actors such as China have hiked international assistance to expand their global influence.

Without knowing which tables, the first one could be an improvement.  Some tables aren't worth being at if they give "face" to people who do not deserve it.

The latter three are most likely all good news.  To the extent other countries are becoming more multilateral and engaged (both good), by definition Canada's share of the action is likely to decrease.  Examples: an increasingly stable, powerful, regional "partner of first choice" - perhaps with shared culture - vice far-away Canada; more other countries trading in emerging markets (good for everyone); more other countries increasing aid (the denominator in the calculation of Canada's share - CanadaAid / TotalAid).
 
>The Liberal Leader’s idea for a reset revolves around a more diplomatic Canada, one that tries to engage the United States on climate change, and embraces North America, and Mexico – a potential two-on-one ally in continental affairs. Still, it’s light on issues, such as security co-operation, which matter to both sides.

Wishful thinking.  Canada's relationship with the POTUS overlooks the influence of senators and house members.  There will always be regional parochialism.  (Example: softwood lumber.)  Everything requires work, and Canada has no control over which issues the US chooses to take up as internal grudge matches (eg. environmental ones).

>The NDP, meanwhile, offers a revised version of the idea that Canada’s help on global issues will earn goodwill on cross-border ones. MP Paul Dewar said Canada can find a global role that’s helpful to the United States by playing a bigger role in places the United States doesn’t, such as Mali, or the Central African Republic. There are many countries that will offer six fighter jets to a mission like the one in Iraq, so in the end, Canada’s contribution is not significant, he said.

A bigger role abroad is not what is important.  The presence of military or non-military support is a nice afterthought to what really matters: unambiguous political backing.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
OK, those who missed it, the foreign policy debate, didn't miss anything ... young M Trudeau, nice as he may be, comes across, to me, as a rude kid.
In case you're interested nonetheless, here's a transcript.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top