In light of CBC's candidate's debate last night, I thought it timely to reprint a post from last month.
The original title was "Of porkers and practicals: assuming another can-opener" and, for at least two of the candidates in last night's debate, this election is about political pork - getting more high paying federal jobs just because we have some sort of entitlement.
No one bothered to explain to voters in St. John's South-Mount Pearl how having 10% of Canadian defence spending - if that could even be got - would improve health care, home care, and child care. No one bothered to explain how we'd stand a hope of getting that amount of pork based solely on some bullshit idea that 10% of the men and women in uniform entitles us to 10% of defence spending. It seems the only answer to that was that one had to be a strong voice.
Better to ask for five bucks from everyone for a new bullhorn for Danny than ask for votes in a federal election. It's cheaper and the voice would be "stronger".
Anyway, it seems we have a campaign of pork and entitlement. It's just a bit surprising to see who is leading the charge.
Of pork and entitlement: assuming another can-opener
[originally posted November 2005]
Memorial University's Leslie Harris Centre of Regional Policy and Development released a brief report the other day on the number of federal government jobs in Newfoundland and Labrador. The full document is available here in pdf format.
Some details of the report have been reported elsewhere so there is no need to recount them in detail. Suffice it to say that this report is merely a set of statistics on what has been generally known for some time and is generally understood: over the past two decades and more, the number of federal public servants working in this province has declined.
Unfortunately, the Harris Centre released this set of tables and that's about it. The second part of the study, due in February, will "provide a detailed breakdown of federal employment in the Province, by department and location; identify the level, types and distribution of executive positions; undertake an overview of existing research on access to, and use of, Federal Government programs and services; examine the Federal procurement process; and provide additional qualitative information on changes in the Federal presence in the Province."
There are more than a few problems with this. First of all, the detail to be contained in the second stage of the report will go a long way to helping understand the changes in federal employment levels in Newfoundland and Labrador; simply put, the first Harris Centre report gives us nothing of the "why".
Second, the report actually doesn't give very much in the way of comparative figures. It's all good to say that federal employment declined here by such and such a number, and that it was this much above or below the national average. There is a simple, wider context that, once again, may inform what is becoming a sizeable public discussion and shift that discussion onto some foundation in fact.
The value of context and more, basic information is readily apparent. For example, while federal employment has declined here since 1993, there is absolutely no explanation of why employment levels rose in the years immediately prior to 1993 as dramatically as they fell in the years immediately after.
One possible explanation is a sudden increase in federal spending by a dying political administration which was then corrected by the subsequent one. We don't know for sure and truthfully, it doesn't look like the next Harris study will answer this sort of basic question.
If we look more closely at the Harris report itself a specific example appears - in the form of military employment - that shows the value of accurate information in interpreting the preliminary comments from this first Harris Centre report.
The declines after 1993 actually resulted from changes within National Defence that began while the Tories were still in power. The closure of Argentia in 1994 took with it a bunch of Canadians that simply no longer had a job here as liaison with the Americans. No Yanks. No liaison.
At Gander, organizational and technical changes allowed for moving the communications research unit out of Gander, just as changes led to the closure of the old warning and control squadron in the early 1970s.
In the middle of the Big Land, National Defence moved to a new operating concept at Goose Bay which shifted what used to be federal public service jobs to the private sector. There were fewer people working at Goose Bay after the changes, but the ones that were working just wouldn't show up in a study that deliberately counted only people directly on the payroll of one or another federal department. The situation, therefore, looks worse than it actually is.
The upshot? More information would lead anyone to a better understanding of what caused the changes in the number of federal jobs in the province. Hence, we'd be better able to decide if there was a problem. Hence we'd be better able to figure out what to do.
The Harris numbers, in and of themselves, can't lead anyone to a conclusion as to what happened, why it happened and what, if any action might be needed or possible to fix the "problem".
Another example in the same category - significant subcategories, to quote the Harris paper - is the number of senior executive positions in the province. "Two significant subcategories of employment are the number of executive positions and the service in the military. The former are important since people in executive positions have important influences on policy decisions..."
The paper then notes that the number of senior executives in the province is lower than the share of the national population and was, the lowest across the country.
Ponder that for a second. Then take a look at the report (linked above).
For one thing, the number of senior executives in the province actually grew in the study period, from 55 to 76 positions ranked EX-01 and above. If we take the period from 1998 to 2004, the number of such positions actually grew by 50%! Yet, for some reason, despite the claim quoted above, the Harris paper didn't actually provide the calculations to demonstrate its contention that the senior executive situation was as bad as claimed.
For another thing, we don't actually know what these decision-maker positions are actually supposed to do or why we should be bothered about it. This is a crucial piece of information for anyone wanting to make the claim that nothing happens here because no one has authority to do anything.
On the one hand there is claim we don't have very many, when in fact the numbers went up 50% - that's a bit of an odd thing in and of itself.
On the other, we don't know why EX-01 and above actually means anything. If this is merely rank-creep, in which positions are reclassified upward without any real power changes, then no one in the country is in a better position than we are, despite how many high paying jobs there are. If, in fact, decision-making authority that we might need to influence sits in Ottawa, getting agitated about this might be misplaced. We wouldn't change the overall situation short of moving Ottawa to Gander, let alone relocating the 16 jobs at the weather office.
Predictably, we have seen plenty of people screaming about the injustice of it all. They claim this is all proof that "Ottawa" is shafting us. There are cries for "our fair share", based, apparently on nothing other than some vague entitlement to federal paycheques.
This group, which includes people like Andy Wells, I call porkers. Their interest is not about anything other than getting a share of federal spending for the sake of getting it. It comes not because of anything else than a sense of entitlement. We are owed. We are entitled to our cut of the pork pie. Owed, that is, except when one talks of moving provincial public service jobs from St. John's to Deer Lake. Then Wells finds no merit in moving public service jobs around.
And there is no small irony that many of these same people will lambaste others of a different political stripe for supposedly bellying up to the Ottawa trough to dip their own entitled snouts. No small irony too that the ones clamouring loudest for increased federal spending (like the January transfer payment deal) are likely the first ones to run up the pink, white and green and cry out for "independence" and "self-determination" for our supposedly downtrodden people.
Just for the heck of it, look at the Harris report, and you'll notice something they won't point out too strenuously. Newfoundland and Labrador's share of federal public service jobs is actually higher than its share of the national population. Quebec, by contrast has the lowest ratio, followed by British Columbia and Alberta. Quebec, the erstwhile independent state makes no noise about federal public service jobs; the nationalists of this place howl loudest of anyone about it.
Sadly, there have been very few of the people I call the practicals. These people look at the who question from two related perspectives. They want to ensure that government isn't merely pouring cash down a hole merely to prop up one community or another whose industry has died a natural death. More importantly, though, practicals ask the genuine question about what federal presence and authority is actually needed here.
Having identified that shortfall, if any, they'd work to correct it. For example, if local industry is wasting cash commuting to Halifax, then it makes sense to open a regional office in this province that could:
a. lower operating costs for local businesses; and,
b. improve access of our very successful businesses to markets around the globe with Government of Canada support.
In some respects, this latest Harris report heralds the repeat of the same line of argument advanced by the old Young Royal Commission and the entire increased transfer payments fight from last year.
It is built on much mythology and lots of "numbers" but precious little meaningful information or analysis.
It is as though we are left to assume yet another can-opener.
