Future of Government Pensions (PS, CF & RCMP) & CF pension "double-dip"

[McG]

Vern,
Sure, there will be people who chose to head out into the private sector.  There are such people now too.

If motivations were purely financial, then I suppose you've found the math to show that everyone should get out the moment they are pensionable to double-dip, build another pension, do both, or just go find another job.  Yet, we have people who continue to serve beyond that 20 or 25 year mark.  If motivations were purely financial, there would be no such creature as the "career Cl B" because all such pers would have transferred to the Reg F.  Yet, there are plenty of examples of pers who have done (or are doing) a full time career in the reserve force.  The fact is, particularly when it comes to the military, there are many other motivators which are also at play.

I suspect a large majority of double dippers stick with the military because they want to stay in the military.  We don't need to gold-plate that option to keep them - the stability of no postings, no deployments is sufficient draw.  There are many people leaving the Reg F would would remain if we could offer geographic stability.  So, let's offer it.  But, just as the "career Cl B" is getting 15% because of that operational/geographic stability, so too must the geographically accommodated Reg F.

If someone wants to continue their service as a reservist within the reserve force (either Cl A or Cl B), then let that person draw a pay top-up if they are entitled to a pension.

One of the reasons we are currently so dependant on Cl B within our Reg F establishments is that we lack Reg F pers to fill existing positions, and we then exacerbate the problem the gold-plated employment option (more take-home money, and no Reg F obligations).  Pers who would not have left are leaving, and the band-aid is cannibalizing the limb to sustain itself.

 

[Brasidas]

If someone wants to continue their service as a reservist within the reserve force (either Cl A or Cl B), then let that person draw a pay top-up if they are entitled to a pension.

Just to be clear, you're saying that ex-regforce shouldn't be able to draw a pension while on class A on weekends or parade nights? That's a bit of a kick in the teeth.

 

[McG]

Just to be clear, you're saying that ex-regforce shouldn't be able to draw a pension while on class A on weekends or parade nights? That's a bit of a kick in the teeth.

No.  On a 70% pension, a Cl A reservist could work two weekends (incl the Fri) and four parade nights every month and they would still not climb to 100% equivalent full-time pay.  Base the policy on the full year average and you are still able to send annuitant reservists on career courses without crossing that limit.

... or the top-up system could be calculated to the day.  A day of Cl A or B is Res pay (85% full time pay) + pension = 100% full time pay, a day on the couch = pension.

 

[armyvern]

Vern,
Sure, there will be people who chose to head out into the private sector.  There are such people now too.

If motivations were purely financial, then I suppose you've found the math to show that everyone should get out the moment they are pensionable to double-dip, build another pension, do both, or just go find another job.  Yet, we have people who continue to serve beyond that 20 or 25 year mark.  If motivations were purely financial, there would be no such creature as the "career Cl B" because all such pers would have transferred to the Reg F.  Yet, there are plenty of examples of pers who have done (or are doing) a full time career in the reserve force.  The fact is, particularly when it comes to the military, there are many other motivators which are also at play.

I suspect a large majority of double dippers stick with the military because they want to stay in the military.  We don't need to gold-plate that option to keep them - the stability of no postings, no deployments is sufficient draw.  There are many people leaving the Reg F would would remain if we could offer geographic stability.  So, let's offer it.  But, just as the "career Cl B" is getting 15% because of that operational/geographic stability, so too must the geographically accommodated Reg F.

If someone wants to continue their service as a reservist within the reserve force (either Cl A or Cl B), then let that person draw a pay top-up if they are entitled to a pension.

One of the reasons we are currently so dependant on Cl B within our Reg F establishments is that we lack Reg F pers to fill existing positions, and we then exacerbate the problem the gold-plated employment option (more take-home money, and no Reg F obligations).  Pers who would not have left are leaving, and the band-aid is cannibalizing the limb to sustain itself.

When I retire, I hope to retire. Fully. Many people truely enjoy their jobs and thus remain in past pensionable date. That's fine. I'm still in precisely because I enjoy my job. That does not = "people would be out if that were the case".

There are also those who are ready to settle down, permanently in one place, who - for financial reasons or other (boredom??) choose to go back to work full time. A lot of them choose the B Class route exactly because it keeps them in one place and/or they can still contribute their experience to the CF. But, take away their pension and a great many of them would instead opt to use their experience elsewhere at the expense of the CF. They are in B Class jobs now precisely because they can be and many want to continue contributing to their "family" in some way as their preference. Do not take it for granted that they would continue to do so for a loss of pension and a paycut when they have the option of "other" employment instead.

Although I am not supportive of double-dipping, I am acutely aware that it is a necessary evil in some locations and some trades. A blanket policy will not fix that and will be detrimental to those trades and/or locations. I am also aware that this policy does not address federal double-dipping in any way, shape or form so we will lose pers to that side of the house and/or the private sector.

Offering a loss of pension and a paycut to keep that experience in the ResF world isn't that promising and I think you'd see nibbles rather than bites. Evil as it may be, I'd rather see the guys who are retiring stay with this family rather than bed down with someone else.

I see bed-hopping in the future for those who must/choose to work after retirement from the RegF, but if their pension is at stake, they'll go to the greener pastures where it and a paycheque are simultaneously available. After all, if they're continuing to work after retirement because they have to financially, they won't be choosing the option of working for the ResF at the expense of their pension cheque. They'd double-dip: elsewhere.

Topping up their pay to a max of 100% of equivalent full-time pay won't do it either I fear when the public and private sector are sitting right there for the taking. 100% RegF pay ... or ... a pension cheque and a pay cheque (and quite possibly a second pension too!) elsewhere ... hmmmmm.

This proposed "fix" does not fix the "gold plated option", it only makes them exercise the gaining of the paycheque on top of that pension elsewhere. I don't believe we'll ever see eye to eye on that.

 

[eurowing]

As a pensioner... I make nearly all my 33 year pension, thanks to pension income splitting, not spending 100 a week on gas driving to work, cheaper car insurance, and all the etc(UI, pension contributions)  that goes into making a wage...  I take home nearly what I did in the CF...  for breathing on the 1st of the month. 

Many are focusing on the reservists that parade one night a week and weekends.  Don't forget the folks in the Air Reserves, who don't parade, but work side by side with the Reg Force nearly full time.
I can't speak for the present, but just 3 years ago, without these folks, some units would have had a VERY difficult time maintaining aircraft.  Some of them were key to success. Although the rank and file might not notice, their ETO and Air Supervisors counted on them for continuity, qualifications and training.  I would be curious if it is the same today and what the impact of the future pension rules may have for the Air side of the house.

 

[OldSolduer]

Just to reiterate not all of us annuitants take Class B employment for the money.

I took a Class B position because it was right for me, and the CF. It is a Reg Force position that they could not fill.

I've done three years and now I'm going back to Class A, and I put the papers in before this was announced.

By the way, I did not retire and grab a Class B job right away. I retired  in 99, Joined the Reserves in 2003, and got the Class B in 2009.

 

[Teeps74]

Vern,
Sure, there will be people who chose to head out into the private sector.  There are such people now too.

If motivations were purely financial, then I suppose you've found the math to show that everyone should get out the moment they are pensionable to double-dip, build another pension, do both, or just go find another job.  Yet, we have people who continue to serve beyond that 20 or 25 year mark.  If motivations were purely financial, there would be no such creature as the "career Cl B" because all such pers would have transferred to the Reg F.  Yet, there are plenty of examples of pers who have done (or are doing) a full time career in the reserve force.  The fact is, particularly when it comes to the military, there are many other motivators which are also at play.

I thought of CT a long time ago. But, I was also disillusioned with the system at the time... Was thinking "mark time" til pension time then get out.

Then along came PSYOPS, CIMIC and IO. "Wow, the CF does truly care about winning!" I said to myself. My disillusionment vanished, and I got on board with PSYOPS. Sadly, this is not a Reg F move, and there appears to be little interest in the Reg F for this to be taken on (some at this stage, but not much).

This capability, as I said before, is not something that can be done part time, nor is it something that can tolerate and entirely new working group every 2-3 years. If it were to be taken on by the Reg F, it would need to be a MOSID or special status allowing for career development within the capability. As a reservist, I continue to contribute to my home unit while growing my beloved capability to make the CF ever more operationally effective.

Make this a Reg F capability as above and I will be first in line to CT, and I really do not care if you place the home base on Hans Island.

As an aside. If the command team was not thinking of allowing for some of us to make a career of it, why on earth did the C2 authorize a pension?

 

[Remius]

Many are focusing on the reservists that parade one night a week and weekends.  Don't forget the folks in the Air Reserves, who don't parade, but work side by side with the Reg Force nearly full time.
I can't speak for the present, but just 3 years ago, without these folks, some units would have had a VERY difficult time maintaining aircraft.  Some of them were key to success. Although the rank and file might not notice, their ETO and Air Supervisors counted on them for continuity, qualifications and training.  I would be curious if it is the same today and what the impact of the future pension rules may have for the Air side of the house.

This is the kind of situation where it will hurt most and the CF needs to be careful.  In the airforce technicians trades in particular.  I'm not sure but at one time more than a third were reservists on contract and all had reg force experience.  These are the kinds of jobs where exceptions to the rule are supposed to be applied.  I happen to know of one guy who was retired and not actively looking for class b.  But he was contacted to see if he would come back as a reservist because of a critical shortage in his specialty.  It's not like he took on a  job at a CFRC or is the barracks NCO somewhere.

The thing is that the current situation the exceptions have become the rule and that has to stop.

 

[Pusser]

But, De Chastelaine was CIL at the last. (not guaranteed for sure on this)

No, simply because there was absolutely no need to.  QR&O clearly states:

(5) The retention of an officer of the Regular Force beyond the release age prescribed in subparagraph (1)(a) or the retention of an officer of the Reserve Force beyond the release age determined under paragraph (4) may be authorized:

a.  by the Minister; or

b.  by the Chief of the Defence Staff if:

    i.  the period is less than 365 days, or

    ii.  the officer is of or below the rank of colonel.

Why resort to subterfuge and sophistry when there is a perfectly legal means to achieve your aim?

 

[Pusser]

If you say so. But given your element and place of employment, you do know exactly who I had in mind, right?

Actually, I have no idea who you're talking about.  Although I'm aware of at least one senior officer who seemingly created a senior level civilian position in his organization before retirement and then competed for and won it in the subsequent "competition,"  I am not aware of anyone who kept serving as a Flag officer in the CIC/CIL.  As far as I know, there have only been three Admirals of the Royal Canadian Sea Cadets (George VI, the Duke of Edinburgh and the Duke of York).

 

[George Wallace]

So some of you are saying that it's OK for someone in the military to be drawing a pension and then rejoin the military and also draw a pay cheque?  As a reservist, where can I sign up for this plan?  I've got 25+ years in and would love to be able to do this too.  Oh wait, I can't.  Why then should the reg force pers be allowed to do so?

If we take the extreme of what some of you are saying, reg force members should be able to draw a pension after 20 years and continue also drawing a pay cheque.  Why even make them CT to the reserves?  How is it unfair to make them cease collecting a pension while they are working again for the same organization they earned it from in the first place, continue to pay into it, and resume drawing it when they cease employment?

It seems to me many annuitants want to draw a pension, draw a salary form the same organization, and also avoid the reg force issues of postings and deployments.  Where is the downside?

As for those who state Reserve Units will fail as a result of these new changes, I call BS.  The majority of the annuitants I know work at a Brigade or Area HQ and don't contribute to a reserve unit at all.

Finally, I've seen it touted numerous times in this thread the valuable knowledge that is brought by annuitants to the reserve world.  This somehow justifies them drawing two sources of income from the same employer.  I will concede that this is happening for some people in some trades.  But I don't agree that this is true in all of the cases.  For example I've dealt with reg force clerks who are annuitants who don't know a thing about reserve administration.  (not banging on clerks per se as I also know many who do know a lot).  Guess what, many reservists bring valuable knowledge to the table as well.  Yet we don't have the opportunity to "double-dip".  Nor should we in my opinion.

I see a lot of confusion being perpetuated in this thread.  To address the above comments by Harris; a Class B Annuitant paid into a Reg Force Pension within the Reg Force Pay System and is now collecting a pension from the Canadian Government, not the Regular Force, nor the Reserves.  A Reservist in your question is being paid through the Reserve Pays System, as is the Annuitant, and paying into a Reserve Pension.  Again, if he collected a pension, it would be from the Canadian Government, not the Reserve Pays System, BUT his contributions and pay would both be tied to the Reserve Pay System.  The Annuitant would have contributed to their pension through the Reg Force Pay System, not the Reserve Pay System; two different systems.



Having receive a briefing last night from my WO, who just returned from his ALQ, who is also an Annuitant and was briefed by the powers that be while on Crse, there is NO clarity on this matter.  What I got from that brief was that an Annuitant on a Class B will have to make a decision to stop the Class B or continue full-time employment loosing their CF Reg Force pension and start paying into the Reserve Pension Plan AFTER reaching day 365 as a Class B.  An Annuitant on Class A or a Class B under 365 days would be unaffected.  As of yet, there is NO policy written in stone, and an effective date of 1 Apr 2012 is still only a rumour. 

Yes, the CDS has signed off a letter on this matter.  Other senior officers have produced documents.  The Income Tax Act has nothing on "Double Dipping" being illegal or a conflict of interest.  Treasury Board is often quite vague, even contradictory in some of its decisions and policies.  We will just have to wait until all the stars align and all of DND, the CF, and Government get their stories straight and legislation is made and a CANFORGEN on the matter is put out.

Me, as I see it, as an Annuitant, if I do not work 366 days as a full-time Class B, I have nothing to worry about.  330 days and an Annuitant Break fills that bill in my eyes.  I do not fill a HQ posn, nor do I work in a Reg Force posn.  I work in support of my unit, in that unit.  My posn is Budgetted by my CO in his/her Annual Budget.  <----- That I see as the main key that is overlooked in this discusion and all the rest of this discusion should be moot.

I have yet to figure out how some penny pincher has come up with the idea that hiring Reservists is more expensive than Reg Force?  My Pension is not coming out of the Defence Budget (Reg Force or Reserve).  I am not entitled to Medical or Dental, unless employed over 180 days.  Should I apply for a Class B in some other Province, I will most often have to cover my own costs for a move, unlike Reg Force pers on Posting, nor would I be allowed a HHT.  NO Class B is a guarantee of continuing long term employment.  On Retirement from the Reserves after 20 years, I would not be entitled to a moved to another location in Canada.  I make 85% of what a Reg Force member makes.  Reservists do not reap the same benefits offered Reg Force members.  I cry foul to any senior staff expousing that Reservists cost more in any of these briefings on this matter.  (foul is just being polite and not saying BS.)

 

[dapaterson]

On the subject of confusion:  There are two parts to the CFSA under which members may become entitled to annuities, part I and part I.1.

Part I is often mistakenly referred to as the Reg F plan,  It is, rather, the full time plan:  all members of the Reg F contribute on entry into the Reg F; members of the Res F enter the part I plan on completion of 55 of 60 months of paid full time service.

Part I.1 is for Res F members who meet certain thresholds over a two-year period.


So it is entirely possible for a Res F member to become eligible for an annuity under part I (the incorrectly-labelled Reg F plan).  However, unlike the Reg F member who currently may draw pay and annuity from the Crown simultaneously for military service, the Res F member must release from the CF to receive an annuity and perform no military service whatsoever - not even class A.


The current "annuitant break" came about in 2002 or so, when the previous restrictions were reduced (options used to be 180 days max, or re-enroll for a year or more).  The CFSA states that after one year of full-time service an individual is deemed re-enrolled under part I of the act and must resume contributions.  That's not optional - I know of at least one person who did not pay attention and wound up crossing the one year threshold and was foced back into the plan - and obliged to repay CFSA benefits he received from day 366 until the problem was detected.

The current dodge of 330/35/330/35/330 does not pass a cursory examination.  An individual working 990 days out of 1060 is working full-time for that employer.  Indeed, we have provisions under the QR&O for Reg F members to take leave without pay - which does not change their status from Reg to Res or released.  Thus, even taking those breaks on a recurring basis looks to be a deliberate attempt to defeat the spirit (if not the letter) of the law.


Will this change cause heartache, pain and problems?  Yes.  Certainly.  No doubt.

Would lesser changes achieve the desired effect?  Probably not.  Institutionally, CF/DND ignores small changes and fights to maintain status quo.


In most cases discussed here - the RCAF employment of techs, the Army backfilling low priority positions - class B employment was supposed to be a short-term measure until an appropriate long-term solution could be put in place.  However, with the problem "addressed", there was little impetus to "solve" it - whether through process improvement, restructure, reallocation of Reg F positions, increases in SWE or other. 

This change will force some organizations to finally address their personnel misalignment - a fancy way of saying too many people in the wrong places, doing the wrong things.  LGen Leslie's report provided some ideas (at a very high level) as to what could be done in terms of some NDHQ reductions.  I expect that in the next few months more changes will be announced as the goverment makes clear its plans for the already announced $1B in recurring savings from DND/CF and whatever further savings are announced in the Federal Budget.

 

[Stoker]

I see a lot of confusion being perpetuated in this thread.  To address the above comments by Harris; a Class B Annuitant paid into a Reg Force Pension within the Reg Force Pay System and is now collecting a pension from the Canadian Government, not the Regular Force, nor the Reserves.  A Reservist in your question is being paid through the Reserve Pays System, as is the Annuitant, and paying into a Reserve Pension.  Again, if he collected a pension, it would be from the Canadian Government, not the Reserve Pays System, BUT his contributions and pay would both be tied to the Reserve Pay System.  The Annuitant would have contributed to their pension through the Reg Force Pay System, not the Reserve Pay System; two different systems.



Having receive a briefing last night from my WO, who just returned from his ALQ, who is also an Annuitant and was briefed by the powers that be while on Crse, there is NO clarity on this matter.  What I got from that brief was that an Annuitant on a Class B will have to make a decision to stop the Class B or continue full-time employment loosing their CF Reg Force pension and start paying into the Reserve Pension Plan AFTER reaching day 365 as a Class B.  An Annuitant on Class A or a Class B under 365 days would be unaffected.  As of yet, there is NO policy written in stone, and an effective date of 1 Apr 2012 is still only a rumour. 

Yes, the CDS has signed off a letter on this matter.  Other senior officers have produced documents.  The Income Tax Act has nothing on "Double Dipping" being illegal or a conflict of interest.  Treasury Board is often quite vague, even contradictory in some of its decisions and policies.  We will just have to wait until all the stars align and all of DND, the CF, and Government get their stories straight and legislation is made and a CANFORGEN on the matter is put out.

Me, as I see it, as an Annuitant, if I do not work 366 days as a full-time Class B, I have nothing to worry about.  330 days and an Annuitant Break fills that bill in my eyes.  I do not fill a HQ posn, nor do I work in a Reg Force posn.  I work in support of my unit, in that unit.  My posn is Budgetted by my CO in his/her Annual Budget.  <----- That I see as the main key that is overlooked in this discusion and all the rest of this discusion should be moot.

I have yet to figure out how some penny pincher has come up with the idea that hiring Reservists is more expensive than Reg Force?  My Pension is not coming out of the Defence Budget (Reg Force or Reserve).  I am not entitled to Medical or Dental, unless employed over 180 days.  Should I apply for a Class B in some other Province, I will most often have to cover my own costs for a move, unlike Reg Force pers on Posting, nor would I be allowed a HHT.  NO Class B is a guarantee of continuing long term employment.  On Retirement from the Reserves after 20 years, I would not be entitled to a moved to another location in Canada.  I make 85% of what a Reg Force member makes.  Reservists do not reap the same benefits offered Reg Force members.  I cry foul to any senior staff expousing that Reservists cost more in any of these briefings on this matter.  (foul is just being polite and not saying BS.)

No rumour unfortunately as I saw a copy of  letter today and it has been distributed to Chief Clerks for distribution. Implementation of 1st Apr 2012 with details to follow. The Coles notes version is a policy review that hasn't been done since 2001 and the end of high OP tempo and low attrition rates in the regular force. We have briefed all our Annuitants to adopt a wait and see approach until the details come out as they are understandably upset.

 

[armyvern]

...
Me, as I see it, as an Annuitant, if I do not work 366 days as a full-time Class B, I have nothing to worry about.  330 days and an Annuitant Break fills that bill in my eyes.  I do not fill a HQ posn, nor do I work in a Reg Force posn.  I work in support of my unit, in that unit.  My posn is Budgetted by my CO in his/her Annual Budget.  <----- That I see as the main key that is overlooked in this discusion and all the rest of this discusion should be moot.
...

George,

The issue lies in blanket statements such as the above. A great many RegF positions are directly involved in supporting ResF as well as RegF. I will, again, go to training locations and schools. CFSAL is RegF positions: they train both Res and Reg. My father was contacted after his retirement to come back as a Class B at CFSAL for 3 years as an instructor - thus an annuitant and collect a paycheque at 85%. CFSAL and other schools depend upon B Class augmentation to succeed at their mandate.

3ASG is another example of same. It is the support Unit for CTC, LFAA(TC) etc etc as well as operational units. RegF positions within a pri 6 establishment that is the lowest priority for manning ... they too directly support shit tonnes of Res and Reg training. They exist without benefit of an ASU, a Svc Bn etc and are directly under their area HQ. They too rely on B Class to fill unmanned RegF positions to get shit done and ensure that Res and Reg training can continue.

A move to convert their "missing men" back into peons instead of Officers working in dotcoms would go far in allowing the availability of the trades to fill those spots once again thus negating the need to hire B Class.

Blanket policies will not fix the issue and blanket statements are not indicative of the pan-CF reality of the utilization of B Class personnel who happen to annuitants. What may work in one situation or place can have the exact opposite effect in other locations.

They do attempt to get RegF augmentation from other RegF units first (witness Moe's current augmentation to her respective school in Borden), but when those higher priority units all say, "no" to augmenting a lower priority training establishment because "they are too busy doing operational stuff" there isn't much other choice out there for them because those schools must continue to function. If they do not, both the ResF and the RegF suffer ...

 

[dapaterson]

This discussion is branching out into a larger issue of Army and CF pers management.

Has the insitution lost the bubble?  Are we permitting no-fills in situations where higher should be telling their subordinates "No-fill is not an option"?  Deployments overseas are seeing  many, many A/WSE ranks granted because of no-fills.  In one notorious instance, all 100ish Reg F Infantry LCols were all unavailable; all 380ish Reg F Infantry Majors were also unavailable to fill a single Infantry LCol position.  (Fill ended up as a P Res Maj, granted A/WSE LCol for the deployment)

Were all 480 (+/-) Infantry officers really occupied in other jobs that were a higher priority than mission success in deployed operations?  Or are we letting commanders get away with hiding people and refusing tasks?  It's the same situation when units refuse taskings to provide augmentation - when did "You are to provide XX pers to augment ASU Gagetown" become an option instead of an order?

 

[aesop081]

  They made it pretty clear when I signed up that I could receive an immediate pension after 20 years service. 

No. They made it clear that you could retire after 20 years of service and receive an immediate pension.

If you were to get back into the Regular force, you would cease to receive your pension and start paying into it again. This is the case going on with the guy sitting at the desk next to me. So why is it you think it should be different if a member becomes a reservist ?

 

[exabedtech]

No. They made it clear that you could retire after 20 years of service and receive an immediate pension.

If you were to get back into the Regular force, you would cease to receive your pension and start paying into it again. This is the case going on with the guy sitting at the desk next to me. So why is it you think it should be different if a member becomes a reservist ?

Because it isnt the same pension plan.  To re-enlist reg force or join the RCMP would be, but not reserves, not public service, not political office. 
Why would anyone want a policy that discourages former reg force members from joining the reserves?  I served a couple years once as RSS and can honestly say that that unit would have been screwed without the class B ex reg force guys running ops and trg, BSM, RSM and a bunch of other key positions.  Once you tell them that the only way to keep getting the pension cheques they've clearly earned is to go find work away from the reserves, you can bet that they will do exactly that.  Losing those skill sets is well beyond bad policy and into the realm of utter stupidity.  Of course that doesnt discount it happening... as any fellow ex-CAR in here will attest.

 

[Edward Campbell]

We may be hearing a lot more about public service pensions, contracted people/consultants and so on when the directed downsizing mentioned in this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, becomes reality:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/public-service-faces-deliberate-downsizing-as-tories-tackle-deficit/article2363131/

Public service faces ‘deliberate downsizing’ as Tories tackle deficit

BILL CURRY

OTTAWA— Globe and Mail Update
Posted on Thursday, March 8, 2012

A new report to Prime Minister Stephen Harper gives the clearest indication yet that public-service layoffs will be a big part of the government’s deficit cutting plans.

Federal ministers have been downplaying the impact of looming budget cuts in recent weeks, but a report released Thursday paints a different picture.

“One of the major tasks that senior leaders will face is the deliberate downsizing of the Public Service,” the Prime Minister’s Advisory Committee on the Public Service says.

The committee is co-chaired by former Privy Council clerk Paul Tellier and former Liberal and Conservative cabinet minister David Emerson.

The report’s language about cuts comes on the heels of recent revelations that Treasury Board – the central agency in charge of public service hiring – is creating a new Litigation Management Unit.

That development, made public in recently-tabled spending requests to Parliament, is raising concern among unions that Ottawa is girding for a fight.

Thursday’s report to the Prime Minister hints that may be the case.

“Current provisions of workforce adjustment agreements will make this [downsizing] a particular challenge. Departures must be managed in a way that does not undermine the longer-term capacities of departments,” it states.

The report also advises the government to communicate clearly and often with employees about changes. “Employees can deal with unpleasant facts. What is much harder is to live in an atmosphere of uncertainty,” the report states.

The report’s language is noteworthy because the Conservative government has not previously described its cost-cutting as a “downsizing” of the federal public service. Finance Minister Jim Flaherty has previously referred to slowing the rate of growth in government.

Union leader Gary Corbett, president of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, said it’s the first time he’s seen the phrase “deliberate downsizing” before.

“It’s the elephant in the country. It’s not talked about openly, but everyone knows it’s going to happen,” he said. Mr. Corbett added there’s a lot of mixed messages in the report, noting that it talks about the importance of investing in the public service while at the same time talking about cuts and delivering bad news.

Treasury Board President Tony Clement said it was too early to say whether budget cuts will shrink the public service.

“I think it’s fair to say that our position is that we should be delivering excellent services to Canadians, using appropriate numbers of personnel and that could be a whole range of possibilities. It could be current employment levels, it could be reduced or in some cases, enhanced. So in order to answer that question fully, I’m anticipating you’ll repeat the question to me after budget day, but certainly we want to deliver excellent services to Canadians because that’s what Canadians care about,” he said.

The report notes that 2011 marks the second consecutive year in which there has been no growth in the size of the public service. However the number of public servants is higher than when the Conservatives were first elected in 2006.

There are several different ways of measuring the size of the federal public service.

Treasury Board’s statistics on the population of the federal public service shows a 0.2 per cent decline between 2010 and 2011, from 282,955 to 282,352. The 2011 numbers are 13 per cent higher than the 249,932 public servants working in 2006 when the Conservatives first won power.

Statistics Canada lists federal general government employment at 416,418, a number that includes reservists and full-time military personnel. A larger category called “federal public sector” includes federal business enterprises, such as Crown Corporations. Statistics Canada reports there are 526,699 people employed in the federal public sector, which is a 9.6 per cent increase over 2006 levels.

 

[McG]

Because it isnt the same pension plan.

It is the same plan.
As has been suggested, you should go read the legislation.

 

[Jed]

Because it isn't the same pension plan.  To reenlist reg force or join the RCMP would be, but not reserves, not public service, not political office. 
Why would anyone want a policy that discourages former reg force members from joining the reserves?  I served a couple years once as RSS and can honestly say that that unit would have been screwed without the class B ex reg force guys running ops and trg, BSM, RSM and a bunch of other key positions.  Once you tell them that the only way to keep getting the pension cheques they've clearly earned is to go find work away from the reserves, you can bet that they will do exactly that.  Losing those skill sets is well beyond bad policy and into the realm of utter stupidity.  Of course that doesn't discount it happening... as any fellow ex-CAR in here will attest.

I have to agree with you on this point. Back to my first comment on this policy... I really feel for all Res and Reg pers that have to keep things going after it gets implemented. IMHO, this is unnecessary, poorly thought out change for change sake.

Will the CF recover? Of course. Just like they survived the decade of darkness. Things will not be fun, though.