Federal Elections

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

Yes, bigoted/anti-Semitic - even his once allies have called him out on it. Such as myrth.

https://x.com/DeanTester/status/1878825972314607736?t=TjXFieFYwx6iwlktkiNOew&s=19

I don't find his comments bigoted and think that is an overused word. He called Israel the biggest threat in the middle east and asked Jewish neighbours to hold them to account. I don't find that anti-Semitic. Wrong but no based on bigotry.

I think Russian Canadians should stop supporting Russia's Genocidal actions. Even though most Russians don't that's not Russophobic. I think Arab and Islamic Canadians need to hold Hamas to account and not support them. That's not Islamophobic. Now I think is position on Israel is ridiculous and I don't think he should be an MP. I also don't think equating Jews with Israel is fair in some contexts but when they (rightly in my view) are supporting Israel publicly they can be called out for that if you think they are supporting a genocidal power.

[LeadingEdgeBoomer]

I am sure our Mayor is not going to like this---fewer public servants and let them work from home if they wish to.

From Morrison of the Canadian Press:

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre says a government led by him would cut the number of federal public servants — but he doesn't mind if they work from home.

When asked by Radio-Canada on Tuesday if U.S. President Donald Trump's executive order sending federal workers back to the office five days a week is a good idea, Poilievre said that what matters is whether public servants do the work.

He said that work is not getting done now within the federal government.

He called for public servants to be given clear assignments and be monitored to ensure they're completing their tasks.
Poilievre said he would also cut the federal public service, arguing that Canada has far too many bureaucrats.

He said the federal Liberals drove up the deficit in part by hiring 110,000 public servants.

[kwoldtimer]

Someday, one hopes, all will be told about how the federal government managed to add so many positions without any noticeable improvement in output.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Someday, one hopes, all will be told about how the federal government managed to add so many positions without any noticeable improvement in output.

Define improvement. How do you think they spent that billions of dollars? Somebody has to administer that, set policy etc. Actually they even outsourced it to consultants as they couldn't hire enough people. ESDC went from 20 to 40 thousand employees but the only way to cut the headcount is to cut the programs (which they will do of course). The departments not ramping up their spending mostly grew slowly.

[lrt's friend]

I ordered something from Library and Archives Canada 10 months ago. Still not received. Can you imagine this kind of service in the private sector?

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Someday, one hopes, all will be told about how the federal government managed to add so many positions without any noticeable improvement in output.

Work from home.

[YOWflier]

If you give yourself a week to do a task that should take a day, it’ll take a week. If you give yourself ten people to do the work of five, it’ll take ten people to produce the same output. That, plus perma telework during the last years as already mentioned. Performance management in the public service is also woefully inadequate.

[SweazyCavalry]

Originally Posted by YOWflier

If you give yourself a week to do a task that should take a day, it’ll take a week. If you give yourself ten people to do the work of five, it’ll take ten people to produce the same output. That, plus perma telework during the last years as already mentioned. Performance management in the public service is also woefully inadequate.

I currently work in the public service and I can affirm that the protections offered by the unions and the knowledge that it takes almost murder in order to get fired or receive consequences creates a culture of slackers that milk it for the pay while not contributing the work for which they are payed for. It's a major issue that private sector doesn't have to face that much because there are actual consequences for not doing work. Hence a portion of the public service work like dogs while the rest barely do anything.

I'd like to know if anyone here disagrees.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by YOWflier

If you give yourself a week to do a task that should take a day, it’ll take a week. If you give yourself ten people to do the work of five, it’ll take ten people to produce the same output. That, plus perma telework during the last years as already mentioned. Performance management in the public service is also woefully inadequate.

It's actually worse than that. Add a team doing gender analysis another when environmental impacts and all the sudden the team ordering sending out books needs to look at how their book ordering policy impacts on the one toed sloth in BC and the gender neutral author of comic books. So they add a person doing that. This person then asks another department to consult etc. etc.

I don't think there is any evidence work from home is decisive. My estimate is the less productive lazy people are getting even less done but they aren't in the office to distract the productive employees. They are on message boards like this instead of having two hour conversations at the water cooler. (well not literally as I doubt any government department actually provides drinking water that would have negative environmental impacts and as a meeting place would be a danger to vulnerable populations)

Originally Posted by SweazyCavalry

I currently work in the public service and I can affirm that the protections offered by the unions and the knowledge that it takes almost murder in order to get fired or receive consequences creates a culture of slackers that milk it for the pay while not contributing the work for which they are payed for. It's a major issue that private sector doesn't have to face that much because there are actual consequences for not doing work. Hence a portion of the public service work like dogs while the rest barely do anything.

I'd like to know if anyone here disagrees.

It's not dramatically different in the large private sector. 20% of the people always do 80% of the work. I think more and more the public service is punishing wantonly bad behaviour.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

I don't think there is any evidence work from home is decisive. My estimate is the less productive lazy people are getting even less done but they aren't in the office to distract the productive employees. They are on message boards like this instead of having two hour conversations at the water cooler. (well not literally as I doubt any government department actually provides drinking water that would have negative environmental impacts and as a meeting place would be a danger to vulnerable populations)

I would argue that those water cooler conversations at least have some value. People will spend at least some of this time discussing work, making contacts, finding out what other are working on, etc.

[LeadingEdgeBoomer]

Here is another issue that could become part of someone's platform in the soon to come federal election. Erin Weir, a former MP, writes in the Financial Post why Greenland would find it a better fit to become a Canadian Territory, like Nunavut.

By Erin Weir

Donald Trump has suggested he might like to take over Canada and Greenland. While we’re re-imagining the geography of the Western Hemisphere, why not consider the advantages, both for it and for us, of Greenland joining Canada?

Canada and Greenland are Arctic neighbours, and in fact already share a small land border on Hans Island — which would be even less in dispute if it became a territorial boundary. We also share significant cultural connections. Greenland’s population is overwhelmingly Inuit, while Canada is home to the world’s largest Inuit population. Both Inuit populations are several times larger than Alaska’s or, for that matter, Denmark’s.

Greenland aims to develop its economy through mining. The United States is an economic superpower, of course, but in mining Canadian companies are the world leaders and, for obvious reasons, have extensive experience building and operating Arctic mines.

Though Greenland’s prime minister wants his country to be independent, it relies on Denmark for fiscal support. The Americans could afford such support, but just how Greenland might fit into the U.S. is far from clear. Would it get statehood? That seems unlikely, given its population of just below 60,000, barely a tenth that of Wyoming, currently the least populous state. The U.S. territories without statehood are the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and a handful of small tropical islands. Neither governance model seems likely to appeal to Greenlanders.

By contrast, Canada has political institutions that meet the unique needs of large Arctic territories. For decades, our federal government has devolved greater authority to territorial governments and provided Territorial Formula Financing (TTF) to cover the costs of delivering essential public services in remote northern areas.

Since 1982, Canada’s constitution has specifically recognized Inuit aboriginal rights. In 1999, Nunavut was established to provide an Inuit homeland. At two million square kilometres, Greenland is almost exactly the same size as Nunavut. Greenland’s population is larger than any single Canadian territory’s but smaller than any two combined. Greenland could easily fit into Confederation as a fourth territory.

Territorial funding currently costs $5 billion a year — less than one per cent of the federal budget. Denmark provides Greenland with an annual block grant of just under the equivalent of $1 billion. Incorporating Greenland into TFF almost certainly would provide more support than Denmark’s block grant currently does but with minimal impact on Canada’s federal budget.

In addition to having a population and economy six times larger than Denmark’s, Canada is much closer to Greenland than Denmark is. Denmark must maintain completely separate infrastructure for Greenland and the U.S. would have the same problem. But existing ports, airfields and other facilities in Newfoundland & Labrador and Nunavut could help to serve Greenland and vice versa.

Right now, the competitive division of fishing, resource and shipping rights in Baffin Bay and the Labrador Sea between Canada and Greenland is an obstacle to both economic development and environmental protection. Unifying Canada and Greenland would allow a more coherent approach to sustainable development in the Arctic.

Trump argues that the U.S. needs Greenland for aerospace security. But Canada and the U.S. jointly comprise the North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD). Greenland joining Confederation would fully integrate it into the NORAD defences, which stretch across Canada’s existing Arctic territory.

Confederation arose when Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia banded together in the face of tariffs and other threats from the U.S. The most recent addition was Newfoundland and Labrador, which joined in 1949 to fully access Canada’s nearby economy, infrastructure and public services. In the face of renewed threats from south of the border, we should extend the same opportunity to Greenland.

Erin Weir, a consulting economist, was an MP from 2015 to 2019.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Someday, one hopes, all will be told about how the federal government managed to add so many positions without any noticeable improvement in output.

How do you measure "output"?

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by LeadingEdgeBoomer

Here is another issue that could become part of someone's platform in the soon to come federal election. Erin Weir, a former MP, writes in the Financial Post why Greenland would find it a better fit to become a Canadian Territory, like Nunavut.

Flip the script: the territories would probably be better off with something more closely resembling Greenlandic-style "home government".

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Flip the script: the territories would probably be better off with something more closely resembling Greenlandic-style "home government".

Excellent point. Though probably more appropriate in the case of Nunavut than for the other two territories.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Flip the script: the territories would probably be better off with something more closely resembling Greenlandic-style "home government".

With Danish level of subsidies maybe. As expensive as Indigenous affairs is in Canada it is nothing like Greenland. And it seems it works the standard of living there is pretty comparable to parts of Western Europe. The fishing industry helps to of course.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

With Danish level of subsidies maybe. As expensive as Indigenous affairs is in Canada it is nothing like Greenland. And it seems it works the standard of living there is pretty comparable to parts of Western Europe. The fishing industry helps to of course.

If you look at the stats it appears it works here too. I think our territories have three of the top four rungs in the GDP per capita list of provinces and territories.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I ordered something from Library and Archives Canada 10 months ago. Still not received. Can you imagine this kind of service in the private sector?

What kind of "something"?

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Acajack

If you look at the stats it appears it works here too. I think our territories have three of the top four rungs in the GDP per capita list of provinces and territories.

GDP/capita is a garbage measure, though.

[SweazyCavalry]

Originally Posted by Acajack

If you look at the stats it appears it works here too. I think our territories have three of the top four rungs in the GDP per capita list of provinces and territories.

But note that cost of living is significantly higher and many people with higher income are from outside the territory and work for predetermined amount of time.

[LeadingEdgeBoomer]

Today the CPC announced that reporters will not be allowed to travel on the Leader's campaign bus and airplane. That breaks a decades long tradition.

The Libs and the NDP say they will allow it as usual.

Strange decision as it will lead to accusations of being afraid of the media.