Feds spend billions on consultants

[Topaz]

Ottawa have the public service sector and yet the Feds go out outside, to get their information, why? The taxpayers are paying the public service to do this job and we are now paying an outside source too. It's very hard to understand this government about what it says about spending and what it ACTUAL does about spending and the taxpayer is alway on the hook for the damage done. http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/12/04/consultants-union.html

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Ottawa have the public service sector and yet the Feds go out outside, to get their information, why? The taxpayers are paying the public service to do this job and we are now paying an outside source too. It's very hard to understand this government about what it says about spending and what it ACTUAL does about spending and the taxpayer is alway on the hook for the damage done. http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/12/04/consultants-union.html

Outsourcing is not a new concept. Get used to it.

[Evening Star]

That doesn't mean we need to like it in every case.

[fellowtraveller]

Ottawa have the public service sector and yet the Feds go out outside, to get their information, why

Because you have to pay for information and the choices boil down to: buy it or hire more civil servants.

[Michael Hardner]

Because you have to pay for information and the choices boil down to: buy it or hire more civil servants.

Or run the government smarter. Much smarter.

I'm being glib here, but suffice it to say: Nobody knows what they do, and nobody cares.

[Shwa]

Ottawa have the public service sector and yet the Feds go out outside, to get their information, why? The taxpayers are paying the public service to do this job and we are now paying an outside source too. It's very hard to understand this government about what it says about spending and what it ACTUAL does about spending and the taxpayer is alway on the hook for the damage done. http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/12/04/consultants-union.html

Here is the CPC government agenda illustrated perfectly. Slowly move jobs from the public sector to the private sector via 'management consultant' and reward all those hard working CPC supporters with some nice consulting gigs. Don't get me wrong, the Liberals did the same, but they were all about the trough where possible; the CPC it seems, want to privatize as much of the public sector as possible and organize the rest according to the latest organizational management fashion styles.

One of the interesting developments - other that the demise of Frank magazine in Ottawa years ago - is the recruiting of executives from outside of the public sector domain to oversee the 'need' for these management consultants - many of which come from that executives former company.

Now is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Michael Hardner]

Now is this a good thing or a bad thing?

My experience tells me that some of this is good and some is bad. People hire friends (good and bad) because they have worked with them (good) and also to reward them for donating to their campaigns (bad), and hire consultants because they can get things done (good) and it's easier to do that then try to reprioritize or retrain (bad to avoid these tasks on a long term basis).

[Battletoads]

Its standard Conservative practice to replace anything publicly run/funded with a more expensive private alternative.\

Is anyone really surprised?

[Zachary Young]

Why not instead of spending billions on consultants we save billions by not spending any money on consultants and also firing the worthless bureaucrats that feed off the public trough? Win win!

[Michael Hardner]

Why not instead of spending billions on consultants we save billions by not spending any money on consultants and also firing the worthless bureaucrats that feed off the public trough? Win win!

In short, let's have no government services at all.

[Bonam]

It's either contract out tasks to consultants, or hire government employees to perform the work. Given the extreme expense and difficulty of getting rid of people from the public sector once they are no longer needed, hiring consultants instead seems like a prudent choice. It also limits the government itself from expanding, which is a primary value for many conservative supporters, if not the Conservative party itself.

There's also the option of not doing the work at all, as some have suggested above, but that is likely not an option the government seriously considers.

[Zachary Young]

"In short, let's have no government services at all."

Well, that is not at all what I said, but that actually is my belief so I won't chastise you for making me take that position. There is nothing magic about the organization known as government, nothing that is currently accomplished by the state which cannot better be done by the market. The state ownership of the means of production has been shown to be terribly flawed. Capitalism, not socialism, is the future of the 21st century. If government is so great, why must you use violence to force me to pay for it? Why not allow me to opt out? We will see rather quickly how many people really support this institution if there is not the implicit gun to the back of our heads present. How much would you like to bet that your main source of income is a government cheque? In our country we have half of the people living parasitically off the other half. Well I for one am fed up. I have had enough. Go make your own fucking money, get a real job you lazy swine, stop stealing ours.

[Shakeyhands]

It's either contract out tasks to consultants, or hire government employees to perform the work. Given the extreme expense and difficulty of getting rid of people from the public sector once they are no longer needed, hiring consultants instead seems like a prudent choice. It also limits the government itself from expanding, which is a primary value for many conservative supporters, if not the Conservative party itself.

There's also the option of not doing the work at all, as some have suggested above, but that is likely not an option the government seriously considers.

Plus you want the results of said consultants to agree with the Gov'ts end goals. What better way to do this!

[Michael Hardner]

"In short, let's have no government services at all."

Well, that is not at all what I said, but that actually is my belief so I won't chastise you for making me take that position. There is nothing magic about the organization known as government, nothing that is currently accomplished by the state which cannot better be done by the market. The state ownership of the means of production has been shown to be terribly flawed. Capitalism, not socialism, is the future of the 21st century. If government is so great, why must you use violence to force me to pay for it? Why not allow me to opt out? We will see rather quickly how many people really support this institution if there is not the implicit gun to the back of our heads present. How much would you like to bet that your main source of income is a government cheque? In our country we have half of the people living parasitically off the other half. Well I for one am fed up. I have had enough. Go make your own fucking money, get a real job you lazy swine, stop stealing ours.

But, as time goes on, there will be less and less need for people that actually do things. What are we going to do to keep the money going ?

I think we can cut taxes, increase the social safety net, and make everybody happy... and I didn't even vote for Rob Ford !

[fellowtraveller]

Its standard Conservative practice to replace anything publicly run/funded with a more expensive private alternative.\

Is anyone really surprised?

Yet the federal civil service has grown under Harper. How does fit into your bit of rapier-like wit?

It's either contract out tasks to consultants, or hire government employees to perform the work. Given the extreme expense and difficulty of getting rid of people from the public sector once they are no longer needed, hiring consultants instead seems like a prudent choice.

You have the wrong end of the issue here. The larger problem is not getting rid of civil servants for the job required, it is hiring them in the first place. Anytime the Public Service Commission is involved, look at a one to two year process to hire anybody. Consultants can be hired quickly and are specifically used because Human Resources and the PSC are largely bypassed. It is a credit to managers that they find a way to bypass the system designed to stop them from getting any work done.

Yesterday the CEO of the PSC was on the radio(CBC of course)and she agreed that the time required to hire was overly long but had no suggestions on how to streamline the process. I was just one of many Canadians who could have given her the solid advice to first fire all her staff, then fire herself, thus lightening the yoke of thousands of public service managers.

[Michael Hardner]

Yesterday the CEO of the PSC was on the radio(CBC of course)and she agreed that the time required to hire was overly long but had no suggestions on how to streamline the process. I was just one of many Canadians who could have given her the solid advice to first fire all her staff, then fire herself, thus lightening the yoke of thousands of public service managers.

I believe I saw this person on CPAC as well. Basically a well-spoken person but obviously unable to manage the situation in any way whatsoever, perhaps due to the excessive political demands on her.

This hearing was painful to watch, just painful. A handful of MPs asking questions (they seemed to have no clue) and her deftly answering them with a polite "we don't know that, but we will find out".

This has nothing to do with the civil servants themselves, but has everything to do with an organization that is ostensibly supposed to do something, that was set up to report to political operatives, and therefore can only satisfy their goals.

[fellowtraveller]

Basically a well-spoken person but obviously unable to manage the situation in any way whatsoever, perhaps due to the excessive political demands on her.

I don't agree. The PSC is an absolutely classic example fo a bureacracy gone viral, an Orwellian organization that does the exact opposite of what was intended. The situation she chooses to manage is to perpetuate her job and those in her organization. By doing so, she maintains a pay grade and benefits that 99% of Candians would envy. It is a powerful personal incentive to change nothing. Andf in another irony, the more controls she implements and enforces on hiring and firing, the harder it gets to change her own organization.

There is no incentive whatsoever to change anything, and no consequences for being utterly useless.

[Shwa]

You have the wrong end of the issue here. The larger problem is not getting rid of civil servants for the job required, it is hiring them in the first place. Anytime the Public Service Commission is involved, look at a one to two year process to hire anybody.

So how often are the PSC directly involved in hiring do you think? That is, what is your estimate of hires that the PSC actually does (i.e. "is involved") for the rest of the bureaucracy?

[Michael Hardner]

I don't agree. The PSC is an absolutely classic example fo a bureacracy gone viral, an Orwellian organization that does the exact opposite of what was intended. The situation she chooses to manage is to perpetuate her job and those in her organization. By doing so, she maintains a pay grade and benefits that 99% of Candians would envy. It is a powerful personal incentive to change nothing. Andf in another irony, the more controls she implements and enforces on hiring and firing, the harder it gets to change her own organization.

There is no incentive whatsoever to change anything, and no consequences for being utterly useless.

You're putting motives on her, the truth of which you have no idea. There's no point in doing that, as we can have this discussion without doing so.

[fellowtraveller]

As you well know, the PSC does not have to be directly involved with hires since they have the mandate to force all departments to hire under their guidelines and scrutiny. The average length of the process is claimed to be six months by the PSC itself, they of course do not count the numerous scams done by federal managers that will help them do their jobs in spite of the PSC and departmental HR strictures.

And that includes 'consultants'.

You're putting motives on her, the truth of which you have no idea

She surely cannot have performance of herself or her department as a motivator, so that leaves money as the only impediment to resignation.

The PSC is as stated, an Orwellian mess that works counter to its stated purpose.

[Michael Hardner]

She surely cannot have performance of herself or her department as a motivator, so that leaves money as the only impediment to resignation.

The PSC is as stated, an Orwellian mess that works counter to its stated purpose.

As I said, it's not helpful to the discussion to add the motives part, and in fact it may make people suspicious of your motives if you're mixing ad homminem with your arguments.

You certainly don't need it. Every 6 months to hire somebody is ridiculous.

I don't know the woman, but I have worked in the civil service (as a student). I'm sure her performance evaluation is studded with gold stars, since she does what she's asked to do by her bosses.

[Michael Hardner]

To add:

The whole system of having politicians at the top of a huge corporate pyramid that dispenses services is starting to show itself as unworkable. It worked in the past (I assume) but it's pretty clear to everyone that it's not working anymore.

Services should be managed by organizations that are more bottom line oriented, not necessarily private but certainly more independent of political tampering and interference. Certainly the MPs who were grilling her on her department's practices seemed to have no idea how large organizations work either.

[GostHacked]

In short, let's have no government services at all.

When the government outsources, there is no government service.

[Michael Hardner]

When the government outsources, there is no government service.

The poster was talking about eliminating services entirely, I think, not outsourcing them.

[GostHacked]

The poster was talking about eliminating services entirely, I think, not outsourcing them.

Either or, eliminate or outsource, the end results is the same. (guess I should re-read the OP)