Tuesday, Deficit Jim was in the lobby of the federal building that houses Finance, Treasury Board, and the Public Service Commission, cracking jokes and leading a Christmas sing-a-long with federal employees.
Wednesday, this news:
Ottawa plans to shrink the public service and usher in a new era of smaller government in its bid to return to balanced budgets.
.
Is anyone surprised? Harper has made no secret of his dislike of the public service and his desire to greatly limit it. Privatization benefits his biggest financial backers. So Steve, as several people predicted, is using the economic crisis to hack and slash away at what he cannot control directly.
Flaherty says there will be no actual cuts, just reduction through attrition, meaning as people quit, they will not be replaced. Nice try, Jimbo, but we are not talking individuals, rather jobs, as in positions. If the ones leaving aren’t replaced, then the position no longer exists, which means fewer jobs available to Canadians.
Those are jobs cuts.
Harper & Co. Claim the stimulus money (much of which they can’t account for) was to give a boost to our ailing economy primarily by creating more jobs. So how does cutting jobs create more jobs? Sure, the money saved from cutting public service jobs could be used to create private sector jobs, but since the government still cannot say how many jobs were created with stimulus funds, we cannot be certain that will happen.
Flaherty talks about not replacing the baby-boomers as they retire. What he doesn’t tell you is that through attrition, other positions also will likely be canceled since many government workers are term employees which means they are not permanent, and their term needs to be renewed upon approval. Not renewing these term positions is another way of getting rid of government jobs without actually laying someone off. Again, however, fewer jobs exist by doing this, and more people are out on the streets competing for the increasingly scarce jobs.
That is just the job issue.
What does reducing the number of public servants do to services to the public?
“I hope (Flaherty) realizes that when you cut public servants, you cut public service,” said Gary Corbett, the president of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada. Mr. Corbett said cutting public-service jobs means cutting back on important jobs like food safety inspectors and scientific research.
That’s right. Pretty damn obvious. It also means longer wait lines for the public using federal agencies, higher expense to the public as expensive contracts will have to fill in for the lack of specialized staff (remember Jimbo’s very expensive budget speech?), fewer satellite offices, thus limiting access to many Canadians...to name but a few consequences.
This letter to the G&M editor makes clear little will be saved, and costs will be incurred:
So Finance Minister Jim Flaherty says Ottawa will save as public servants retire and the federal work force shrinks...Well, unless the work done by those retiring and/or not being replaced was meaningless or no longer needed, then the burden of providing their services will just shift to other governments, charities or the private sector. Accordingly, society as a whole won't see a reduction in costs, merely a spreading of cost centres. The federal government will be the only one to "save" money, as it not only becomes leaner but also meaner. - Ronald G. Rowswell
In addition, once targeted for cuts, it will be tempting, especially for Harper who has little use for the public service - except to use it’s employees as scapegoats - to keep cutting.
The concern expressed by the deputy ministers and others is that the government's revenues have fallen so steeply that Mr. Flaherty simply will not be able to find enough savings to wipe out the deficit. They argue that even when economic growth returns to normal, the Conservatives' two point GST cut has left Ottawa with a continuing deficit.
Public-service unions are already bracing themselves. After years of so-called strategic reviews, where various departments are asked to cut five per cent of their program spending, they say there is little meat left on the bone.
Public services should be reviewed regularly for quality and efficiency. There are things that should be cut, no doubt, but the cuts should not bis e for short term gains, and they should be for the benefit of all Canadians, not for certain politicians, nor for private industry.
Harper has already made some head-spinning, ultra-partisan cuts to federal agencies in order to forward his political goals and in an attempt to re-create Canada and Canadians in his image. Status of Women’s altered mandate and funding attempts to convince Canadians that gee, women are already equal, so no need for funding; Heritage Canada listens to Harper saying average Canadians don’t care about the arts, so why fund them?; public oversight agencies? Waste of money:
Three essential oversight agencies will begin 2010 without leadership and wearing government-issued blinkers. By hook and crook, Harper Conservatives have gutted the effectiveness of the Military Complaints Commission, the Commission for Public Complaints against the RCMP and the Office of the Information Commissioner.
PM Martin made some deep cuts in order to get us out of the deficit Mulroney left us in. It worked, it was needed, but his cuts were not selected or driven by party politics. No such impartiality is being shown by Steve and lackeys. Everything he does is to gain political advantage - buying support, silencing opposition.
Politics is, of course, prone to hyperbole. But it's also true that the broad public interest is too often a casualty in the constant fight to gain narrow partisan advantage.
I’d say that defines the actions of our current government.
