Benefits Cut...

[dapaterson]

Hurry up and wait, it is coming as I said last Friday. Likely pertains to the timing of the benefit changes.

Given that all benefits are set by the Treasury Board, and that there have been, to my knowledge, no meetings of the Treasury Board since June, the CF has no legal authority to delay any of the changes.

Any CANFORGENs may address mitigations of the announced changes; any alterations to timelines are outside the authority of the CDS and Deputy Minister of National Defence.

 

[FSTO]

Given that all benefits are set by the Treasury Board, and that there have been, to my knowledge, no meetings of the Treasury Board since June, the CF has no legal authority to delay any of the changes.

Any CANFORGENs may address mitigations of the announced changes; any alterations to timelines are outside the authority of the CDS and Deputy Minister of National Defence.

Could you tell me how Treasury Board (TB) comes to their decisions? Do they constantly review our policies and then tells the Department what can be added or deleted? Or does TB come down and say "you must cut 10% and it must come from certain aspects of Compensation and Benefits".

It just seems that changes to our C&B come out of the blue with no preparation other than " don't count on allowances such as SDA, PLD, etc ". It would be advantageous to us as leaders to have an inkling of how these decisions are made.  This would avoid the usual shrug of the shoulders and "those **** in Ottawa" when our subordinates ask the questions.

 

[dapaterson]

Could you tell me how Treasury Board (TB) comes to their decisions? Do they constantly review our policies and then tells the Department what can be added or deleted? Or does TB come down and say "you must cut 10% and it must come from certain aspects of Compensation and Benefits".

It just seems that changes to our C&B come out of the blue with no preparation other than " don't count on allowances such as SDA, PLD, etc ". It would be advantageous to us as leaders to have an inkling of how these decisions are made.  This would avoid the usual shrug of the shoulders and "those **** in Ottawa" when our subordinates ask the questions.

The short answer is:  It's complicated.

The longer answer:

The Treasury Board (TBS) is a statutory committee of parliament.  There are half a dozen members, plus alternates, who meet pretty much weekly while Parliament is in session to make decisions.  These decisions cover a wide range of areas.  For example: they will approve projects for departments, at various stages.  They also approve labour agreements with publc sector unions.

TB is supported by the Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS), supporting the ministers of TB.  They do a great deal of the heavy lifting behind the scenes, co-ordinating with departments to ensure that submissons put before the board provide a complete picture.  TBS will write summaries of submissions, and include recommendations as to whether they think the Board should approve, reject or approve with conditions the submissions.  Ministers are not bound by the staff recommendations.

Submissions to the Treasury Board are Cabinet Confidences, and treated as Protected B as a minimum.  They are considered as advice to government and thus are not releaseable under ATI.

In this specific case?  All departments were instructed to find reductions.  Not sitting at the left hand of the DM and CDS, I do not know what was directed from above (TB or TBS), and what was identified from below.  However, the VCDS co-ordinated the CF returns.  Options would have been presented together with impact assessments from all organizations within the Department.  The VCDS would have reviewed, compiled, and submitted those, approved by the CDS and DM, with costings confirmed by the Departmental Chief Financial Officer.

Once reduction proposals were submitted, they would be reviewed by TBS staff, questions directed to DND OPIs for clarification, and the TBS staff would draft recommendations for the TB ministers to decide what reductions to make.

TB Ministers met, decided which options to select from each department, and directed that those reductions be made.


That's a very abbreviated version of the process.

 

[4Feathers]

Given that all benefits are set by the Treasury Board, and that there have been, to my knowledge, no meetings of the Treasury Board since June, the CF has no legal authority to delay any of the changes.

Any CANFORGENs may address mitigations of the announced changes; any alterations to timelines are outside the authority of the CDS and Deputy Minister of National Defence.

Yes you are correct, somewhat. I am no expert as I do not work in Ottawa (nor would want to). But for a policy change to an existing policy you would first need a Memorandum to Cabinet (MC), and Govenor In Council (GIC) approval. The TB is the approving authority only of the design, deliver and implementation of the program. The secretary of the TB has the authority, with the recommendation of the sponsoring Minister, to amend any of this. AFC just sat, and hopefully put together a compelling case for the MND to request these changes to the Secretary of the TB. It is all very confusing, and likely designed by lawyers so that we as ordinary tax payers, are kept in the dark as to how things happen. Perhaps they could dumb up the process a little more so that it is understood, or they could do a book called "How the Government works for Dummies". Bottom line is I hope we see some amendments soon, whether it be time lines, or to protect those on Restricted posting. I tend to be an optimist in any case.

 

[FSTO]

The short answer is:  It's complicated.

The longer answer:

The Treasury Board (TBS) is a statutory committee of parliament.  There are half a dozen members, plus alternates, who meet pretty much weekly while Parliament is in session to make decisions.  These decisions cover a wide range of areas.  For example: they will approve projects for departments, at various stages.  They also approve labour agreements with public sector unions.

TB is supported by the Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS), supporting the ministers of TB.  They do a great deal of the heavy lifting behind the scenes, coordinating with departments to ensure that submissions put before the board provide a complete picture.  TBS will write summaries of submissions, and include recommendations as to whether they think the Board should approve, reject or approve with conditions the submissions.  Ministers are not bound by the staff recommendations.

Submissions to the Treasury Board are Cabinet Confidences, and treated as Protected B as a minimum.  They are considered as advice to government and thus are not releaseable under ATI.

In this specific case?  All departments were instructed to find reductions.  Not sitting at the left hand of the DM and CDS, I do not know what was directed from above (TB or TBS), and what was identified from below.  However, the VCDS coordinated the CF returns.  Options would have been presented together with impact assessments from all organizations within the Department.  The VCDS would have reviewed, compiled, and submitted those, approved by the CDS and DM, with costings confirmed by the Departmental Chief Financial Officer.

Once reduction proposals were submitted, they would be reviewed by TBS staff, questions directed to DND OPIs for clarification, and the TBS staff would draft recommendations for the TB ministers to decide what reductions to make.

TB Ministers met, decided which options to select from each department, and directed that those reductions be made.


That's a very abbreviated version of the process.

Thanks for the answer.

Seeing that this proposed change would have gone through several levels of senior NDHQ directorates that they would have know the impact of said change. Or are they that far removed from the folks most effected that they never considered the implications?
And they are so surprised by the reactions that the AFC has to sit to make adjustments? Are they that daft?

 

[Remius]

Well, they've also cut and are cutting Class B positions (as in you are no longer required, find a job somewhwere else), they've cut some 1200 civilian positions, pretty much have told annuitants to take a walk and are cutting some benefits.  Are they daft? No.  Did they consider the ramifications?  Something tells me yes.

Maybe they also had the option of mothballing some ships, disbanding some units and releasing some members.  Maybe they looked at those ramifications as well...

 

[dapaterson]

1.  An MC would be required to institute an entirely new benefit or significant policy change.  Altering benefits likely would not have required an MC.

2.  Changes to benefits require the approval of the TB as a whole; while certain administrative details can be left to the secretary, policy changes would require a meeting of the board.

3.  A fundamental rule of the military applies equally to government: No plan survives first contact with the enemy or with reality.  It is extremely unliklely that the original plan was to give 30 days notice in the middle of the summer.  However, if approvals were delayed, hands may well have been tied: remember, TB submissions are cabinet confidences; disclosing them is an offense.  So announcements can't be made until approval from TB is received.  Assuming that TB direction includes an effective date a department can end up with very limited time to react.

4.  There are many other initiaitves proceeding from the Strategic Review and Deficit Reduction Action Plan, both inside DND/CF and in the larger Government of Canada.  The impacts of this are severe, but so are he impacts of many other changes hitting DND/CF and other departments.  As anyone who's spent time in a CP can testify, when lots of things are movign fast & furious, sometimes somedetails are overlooked.  That's not an excuse, but an explanation.

 

[dapaterson]

Yes you are correct, somewhat. I am no expert as I do not work in Ottawa (nor would want to). But for a policy change to an existing policy you would first need a Memorandum to Cabinet (MC), and Govenor In Council (GIC) approval. The TB is the approving authority only of the design, deliver and implementation of the program. The secretary of the TB has the authority, with the recommendation of the sponsoring Minister, to amend any of this. AFC just sat, and hopefully put together a compelling case for the MND to request these changes to the Secretary of the TB. It is all very confusing, and likely designed by lawyers so that we as ordinary tax payers, are kept in the dark as to how things happen. Perhaps they could dumb up the process a little more so that it is understood, or they could do a book called "How the Government works for Dummies". Bottom line is I hope we see some amendments soon, whether it be time lines, or to protect those on Restricted posting. I tend to be an optimist in any case.

[tangent]

The processes of Government seem complex at first, but aren't really.  Some of the internal admin to supprot the processes can become involved, but overall, it's fairly straightforward.

1.  Requirement identified.  Can be top down (political) or bottom up (departmental).

2.  Policy cover.  Can be existing from legislation or regulation, or may require a Memorandum to Cabinet.

3.  Approval (including spending).  May be addressed through existing departmental authorities, or may require a submission to the Treasury Board.


Lots of process hoops to jump through along the way, but not overly complex.

 

[armyvern]

Well, they've also cut and are cutting Class B positions (as in you are no longer required, find a job somewhwere else), they've cut some 1200 civilian positions, pretty much have told annuitants to take a walk and are cutting some benefits.  Are they daft? No.  Did they consider the ramifications?  Something tells me yes.

Maybe they also had the option of mothballing some ships, disbanding some units and releasing some members.  Maybe they looked at those ramifications as well...

There are those of us who'd point out that the Snowbirds and Skyhawks are still around drumming up CF business. Perhaps the govn't should pay for those political keepers out of differing coffers from the CFs then before removing either essential CF Units and Eqpt or food from troops' mouths?

 

[Monsoon]

There are those of us who'd point out that the Snowbirds and Skyhawks are still around drumming up CF business. Perhaps the govn't should pay for those political keepers out of differing coffers from the CFs then before removing either essential CF Units and Eqpt or food from troops' mouths?

I suspect you'll find that the political benefit those flakey programmes accrue gives us the political leverage needed to keep some of our operational units; in that sense you may have the "supporter" and "supported" backwards.

 

[4Feathers]

Thankfully, there are Ottawa (or google) experts on here, and the mystery is solved, we did this to ourselves and are now trying to dig ourselves out of a hole.

 

[MedCorps]

There are those of us who'd point out that the Snowbirds and Skyhawks are still around drumming up CF business. Perhaps the govn't should pay for those political keepers out of differing coffers from the CFs then before removing either essential CF Units and Eqpt or food from troops' mouths?

I was under the impression that Canadian Heritage already paid for the Snowbirds and that their flying and maintenance budget (I have heard the number 10 million used) does not come out of the RCAF / CF coffers.  I think this happened in 1999 when Air Command was ordered to make cuts and the first thing they offered up was 431 Sqn.  This did not go over well with the general public or PMO but it was a hard argument to justify getting rid of another "operational" Air Command sqn. As such the Department of Canadian Heritage kicked up the cash. 

I have no first hand knowledge or source documentation.  This could be mess rumour. One of the tell tail signs may be who approves their yearly roster of shows. Anyone know?

MC

 

[Remius]

There are those of us who'd point out that the Snowbirds and Skyhawks are still around drumming up CF business. Perhaps the govn't should pay for those political keepers out of differing coffers from the CFs then before removing either essential CF Units and Eqpt or food from troops' mouths?

Sure.

But I'm sure they looked at the ramifications of doing that as well.

 

[armyvern]

Sure.

But, now I am interested in seeing who pays their bills due to the previous response from MedCorps.

 

[Paladium]

There must be.
Several thousand times the Recruiting threads have seen "go talk to a recruiter," yet still get dismissed by some dingbat saying:
Obviously anonymous internet posters have more credibility...."much more often than not."  :nod:

/tangent

Let's just talk about this a little shall we.

There are an awful lot of policies in recruiting and I can tell you straight out that it is impossible to know everything about everyone.  I said recruiters are right more often then not - but in some cases there is no harm in double checking.  That is all I am saying.  Have I ever met a recruiter who had misconceptions about certain programs or how a policy is applied - absolutely - but it is not commonplace - typically if recruiters don't know an answer they will find someone who does.

Policies change from one day to the next - take the Separation expense policy - one week we were telling married people that they wouldn't be paying for rations and low and behold now they are.  Recruiters have told some people their degree is accredited (an off the beaten track degree) when it has proven in the end not to be the case.  Again recruiters are great but there are some unique and rare programs that they may not be totally versed upon depending on where in the country they are from - or if it a program they rarely deal with.

In the east a recruiters knowledge of Aboriginal programs may not be as in-depth as say someone from Edmonton who deals with those programs everyday - nor should it be.

To reiterate  I am not trying to disparage recruiters they are great - I am promoting double checking - depending on the situation.

 

[Remius]

But, now I am interested in seeing who pays their bills due to the previous response from MedCorps.

.

I wouldn't be surprised if other departments and or agencies or whatever pour some funds into those things.  I know that Tourism Ottawa for example forks over some cash to the Ceremonial Guard in Ottawa as an example.

In the end though the bulk of the costs though, come from DND.

And as far as this CANFORGEN goes, I wouldn't be surprised if an ammendment, modification, delay or combination of all three comes out sooner rather than later.  As much as some people here think the CoC is daft and clueless, I think they are working to minimise the impact. 

 

[dapaterson]

re: External funding:  There may have been some long-ago historical funding transfer from Heritage Canada for the Snowbirds; if so, as far as I know, it's been lost in the mists of time.  (Random tangent:  What's the French name of the Snowbirds?  Les Floridiens?)  Year to year, it's RCAF money spent to sustain them.

As for the CG: While Tourism Ottawa may provide some funds for promotion, the pay & operating costs for the CG are borne by the Army.


Having been through several iterations of reductions while working on the Land Staff, I'll say that usually one of the first pieces of direction given to the staff is "Do not propose the CG"; I'll assume the RCAF gives similar directions concerning the Snowbirds.  Those are two high profile public faces of the CF.  Their costs compared to overall departmental budgets are not that large; there are many other things that the CF does that can also be evaluated to find savings.  Not to say that the CG and Snowbirds are immune; the length of the public duties season has been shortened.  But it's far too easy to claim that there's no other fluff in the CF and that therefore we must cut very public activities; it's much more intellectually honest to look at everything.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

it's much more intellectually honest to look at everything. headquarters

 

[CombatDoc]

And as far as this CANFORGEN goes, I wouldn't be surprised if an ammendment, modification, delay or combination of all three comes out sooner rather than later.  As much as some people here think the CoC is daft and clueless, I think they are working to minimise the impact.

I know that the CoC and their staff are working to minimize the impact, particularly the impact on our most vulnerable junior ranks.  We'll see what comes out of their efforts.

 

[DAA]

With regards to "Separation Expense" and the announced cuts.....

If it was to be changed, would it not sound "reasonable" to break this into two categories?  Those whose status gave rise to the beneift (ie; IR Requests, occupational transfers. etc, basically internally for serving members) and those whose status is as a result of assignment for training (ie; new enrolments).  Mind you, for new enrolments, we can always say "you want the job or not?"

You only get, what you ask for...