Trudeau has to go?

[davidI]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

A couple of thoughts:

3. It's likely constructed as a single $670k spend to reduce a run rate of like $500k-$1mm/month. Who knows what the actual numbers are, but that's usually how these things go.

Long story short, it's a great clickbait headline.

What kind of advice do you expect KPMG gave to reduce monthly spend by $1MM?

Governments use consultants to cover their own ass, reward cronies, and maintain their budget spend.

The majority of projects should not require consultants and, if they do, it questions why more Federal workers and useless bureaucrats aren't being put out to pasture given they don't have the competence to think for themselves.

The ArriveCan app findings just show the greater systematic problems in how the Government procures and implements the majority of their retarded ideas.

[bjstare]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

What kind of advice do you expect KPMG gave to reduce monthly spend by $1MM?

Governments use consultants to cover their own ass, reward cronies, and maintain their budget spend.

The majority of projects should not require consultants and, if they do, it questions why more Federal workers and useless bureaucrats aren't being put out to pasture given they don't have the competence to think for themselves.

The ArriveCan app findings just show the greater systematic problems in how the Government procures and implements the majority of their retarded ideas.

Point number 2 in my post that you clipped out for some reason conveniently answers your questions.

Also lol that the majority of projects shouldn’t require consultants. In theory that makes sense, until you pause for 0.1 second and think about how stupid and lazy your average government employee is.

[pheoxs]

It's amazing that we can have too many consultants while also simultaneously increasing the number of federal workers by 100,000 positions since Trudeau took office. Oprah must be screaming everyone gets a job.

[killramos]

I can almost guarantee the government gets more value per $ of consultant than they do per $ spent on government worker total comp.

Government getting outside advice is SO not the problem.

$670k is barely enough to get a decent consultant out of bed in the morning.

[msommers]

If government workers are needed to implement and maintain policy, procure and process consultants to do the actual 'work', what are the rest of the government workers doing?

[killramos]

The same thing as all the rest of the government workers.

Nothing

[riander5]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I can almost guarantee the government gets more value per $ of consultant than they do per $ spent on government worker total comp.

Government getting outside advice is SO not the problem.

$670k is barely enough to get a decent consultant out of bed in the morning.

*Perks up*

[JRSC00LUDE]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Is 670k supposed to be a lot?

It's a lot of irony.

[max_boost]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The same thing as all the rest of the government workers.

Nothing

When I feel bad about not doing enough I shall compare myself to government workers

[davidI]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Point number 2 in my post that you clipped out for some reason conveniently answers your questions.

How so?

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

2. Consultants often augment teams from capability/bandwidth perspective, they don't always simply provide advisory services. To figure out a way to spoon feed a bunch of BAU services and processes to government drones in such a way that they can effectively transition everything to them (lol), is likely no small task.

What is going to be "spoon fed" to Government to reduce consulting costs? You don't think there's perhaps a slight conflict of interest in relying on consultants to reduce consulting?

And, if your argument is that Consultants are "better" then reducing them will cost Canadians more, not less. Where is this $1MM/month savings you speak of coming from?

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Also lol that the majority of projects shouldn’t require consultants. In theory that makes sense, until you pause for 0.1 second and think about how stupid and lazy your average government employee is.

I agree that a) the majority of projects shouldn't require consultants; and b) the average government employee is stupid and lazy. However, the point you're missing is that Consultants can't accomplish much with useless Government employees acting as proponent since management of the Consultants is going to remain brutal, implementation will be brutal, and Canadians will be on the hook for the inflated costs of paying both consultants and useless Government employees while nothing gets fixed.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I can almost guarantee the government gets more value per $ of consultant than they do per $ spent on government worker total comp.

Government getting outside advice is SO not the problem.

I get where you're coming from but I disagree. For Consulting to be useful there needs to be competent in-house proponents either working with them to implement good advice or giving the Consultants the capacity to implement themselves. To me, the majority of consulting work we see are "cover my ass" or "pander to my political ideology" or "help me justify my policy" documents.

Consultants love Government contracts as it's an easy way to fill their pockets. Do you really think KPMG is going to give actionable advice on how to reduce KPMG revenues?

The ArriveCan testimony supports that point - the "Consultants" scrolled through LinkedIn to find resumes and then edited the resumes to charge the Government more - NOT less. The testimony also described the Department Head or whoever it was not wanting to use KPMG because they're "hard to work with".

If you have examples where Government Consultants have proved valuable I'd love to hear them. All I see is paid propaganda and waste.

[Buster]

My dream job is to be a consultant with the power to cut government spending.

I would do this job for free.

[davidI]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

My dream job is to be a consultant with the power to cut government spending.

I would do this job for free.

I'd volunteer to help. I'll even buy the pink slips.

[ExtraSlow]

I'd do the first rewrite of the tax code for free. Currently 1500+ pages, need it down under 500 pages for the first edit, and then you can start the harder work.

[Maxx Mazda]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I'd do the first rewrite of the tax code for free. Currently 1500+ pages, need it down under 500 pages for the first edit, and then you can start the harder work.

Flat tax rate for everyone. Done.

[jutes]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Flat tax rate for everyone. Done.

The wealthy and greedy CEOs need to pay tHiEr fAiR sHarE.

[killramos]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Flat tax rate for everyone. Done.

Sounds great.

BUT Most people, like the vast majority of people, would be very upset with how much extra tax they have to pay under this system.

The vast majority of Canadians do not pay their fair share of taxes.

[bjstare]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

[...] To me, the majority of consulting work we see are "cover my ass" or "pander to my political ideology" or "help me justify my policy" documents.

The majority of work "we see"? What firm do you work for, and what sectors/industries do you serve? Don't post it, you can pm me.

In case it wasn't obvious, I do this for a job. I have a very good idea of how much and what types of work consultants do across multiple sectors, including government. Your statement above doesn't even describe a type of work, you just listed reasons that a company/government might employ consultants. The exception to this would be "help me justify my policy".

Anyways, re: savings, I thought it was implicit in my post, but I'll try and explain it in a more straightforward way.

1. Government currently pays KPMG $1mm/mo to do tasks x, y and z (note: tasks x, y, z are not advisory services. The obvious logical fallacy that everyone is latching on to is that this is paying for advisory to reduce advisory which makes zero sense)
2. Government wants to save some money but has no idea how to do x, y, z
3. Government requests consultant train and transition x, y, z to their internal team - this costs money. It will take time to produce playbooks, conduct training, etc. This is the $670k fee.
4. (my future prediction) government proves they are incapable of effectively doing x, y, z and brings some consultants back in to keep doing it. Consultants get paid, work gets done, media gets their headlines. Everyone wins. Except the taxpayers, obviously, but that's a given.

[ExtraSlow]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Flat tax rate for everyone. Done.

If I had my way, the final implementation would be slightly more complex, but it'd fit on one page for sure...

[davidI]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The majority of work "we see"? What firm do you work for, and what sectors/industries do you serve? Don't post it, you can pm me.

I spent a decade managing over a billion USD in Contracts for a SOE (and prior to that a public company) covering everything a Government could do, including: catering, security/defense, aviation/airport, roads, power plants, electrical grids, IT hardware/software, satellite links, marine terminals, underwater welding, FEED/EPC, logistics, etc. Basically, everything a remote city could need. That included negotiating dozens of Consulting agreements and managing the consultants.

My biggest take away is that Consultants work best when managed very well by people who already have a good general understanding of what needs to be done and how much time/cost it should require.

If your argument is that the Government needs consultants to do tasks and has no idea what it's doing then it's basically a blank cheque signed by Canadian taxpayers.

[suntan]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

If your argument is that the Government needs consultants to do tasks and has no idea what it's doing then it's basically a blank cheque signed by Canadian taxpayers.

Welcome to Trudeau's Canada.