# Federal Speech from the Throne (SFT) 2013



## The Bread Guy (16 Oct 2013)

The PM appears to be giving a "Readers Digest" preview of the SFT via his Twitter Feed - pre-SFT teaser info also attached in case previous link doesn't work.  So far, only military ref is this:


> And we are standing up for our men & women in uniform, by giving them the equipment they need & the respect they deserve!


Check here to find out more about the SFT once details become available (after 1630EDT/1330 Pacific, 1430 Mtn/SK time, 1530 Central, 1730 Atlantic, 1800 NF), or click here to watch/listen live.


----------



## ARMY_101 (16 Oct 2013)

Can't wait!  ;D


----------



## GreenMarine (16 Oct 2013)

I want good stuff to happen  however with it all being pre-fabbed with an early pre-election tone added, it's going to be a sore to read let alone hear it or watch it.


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Oct 2013)

Here you go with the text here (also attached in case you can't get through on the link) - here's the defence/arctic highlights ....


> .... Supporting Our Armed Forces
> Government has no higher obligation than the protection of national sovereignty and the security of citizens. And Canadians know that you cannot earn respect by projecting weakness. Serious countries have serious capabilities.
> 
> Look at the paintings that adorn this room—scenes of the Great War. They remind us of this, and of the profound sacrifices made by our men and women in uniform. These heroes are the pride of our country and the backbone of our history.
> ...


----------



## dapaterson (16 Oct 2013)

Ignore the fluff: the speech opened with the key considerations (big one has emphasis added):

•*Our Government will freeze the overall federal operating budget*, which will continue to restrain hiring.
•Our Government will make further targeted reductions to internal government spending.
•Our Government will reform the way the federal system manages spending.
•Our Government will review federal assets; when it is in the best interest of Canadians, they will be sold.
•Our Government recognizes the value of a lean, competent and committed public service. Public Service pay and benefit levels will be reasonable, responsible, and in the public interest.
•Our Government has already reformed federal government pension plans, to ensure that parliamentarians and public servants pay their fair share. It will reform disability and sick-day entitlements and work with employees to get them back to work as soon as possible.
•Our Government will amend the Public Service Labour Relations Act to ensure that the Public Service is affordable, modern and high-performing.
•Our Government will increase performance accountability in the Public Service to provide better service to Canadians, at a reduced cost, and to better recognize dedicated and effective employees.
•And we will make government more efficient and responsive to Canadians – by, for example, moving from 63 different email systems to one.


----------



## Journeyman (16 Oct 2013)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Our Government will:
> Put front-line capability before back-office bureaucracy


   :rofl:

Oh, he was serious.....   :-[


I'm sure it will be a kick-ass Rambo/Dilbert powerpoint.....


----------



## Scott (16 Oct 2013)

Wait for it, one of their hacks will arrive soon to tell us how good it really is.


----------



## Lightguns (16 Oct 2013)

I watched Mantracker instead. What did I miss...   New guns, tanks, starships?


----------



## cavalryman (16 Oct 2013)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> I watched Mantracker instead. What did I miss...   New guns, tanks, starships?



Bolos  ;D


----------



## GAP (16 Oct 2013)

> •And we will make government more efficient and responsive to Canadians – by, for example, moving from 63 different email systems to one.



They're gonna buy Hotmail?



psst: There is some guys from Blackberry looking for work.....


----------



## MilEME09 (16 Oct 2013)

> •Our Government has already reformed federal government pension plans, to ensure that parliamentarians and public servants pay their fair share. It will reform disability and sick-day entitlements and work with employees to get them back to work as soon as possible.
> •Our Government will amend the Public Service Labour Relations Act to ensure that the Public Service is affordable, modern and high-performing.
> •Our Government will increase performance accountability in the Public Service to provide better service to Canadians, at a reduced cost, and to better recognize dedicated and effective employees.




Part of me hopes for real change, reform, and accountability within the federal civil service, but I've also seen those hopes dashed before as it becomes all talk and a return to business as normal. I firmly believe that many issues within our government can be solved with an effective civil service that is help accountable just like any one would be in the private sector, problem is that pesky union among many other things


----------



## cupper (16 Oct 2013)

> Look at the paintings that adorn this room—scenes of the Great War. They remind us of this



That explains all of the window dressing changes of late. Maybe they should get some more updated paintings of citizens serving their country.


----------



## Lightguns (17 Oct 2013)

Overall, a bland un-surprising re-position to the populist roots of the Reformers for the next 2 years; it sucks to be a Federal civil servant, someone getting income solely from Federal programs or someone getting income from a marketing board or other socialist agent of economic output.

Expect little progress on ships, planes or even boots.


----------



## Remius (17 Oct 2013)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Part of me hopes for real change, reform, and accountability within the federal civil service, but I've also seen those hopes dashed before as it becomes all talk and a return to business as normal. I firmly believe that many issues within our government can be solved with an effective civil service that is help accountable just like any one would be in the private sector, problem is that pesky union among many other things



Be careful what you wish for.  Normally what affects the civil service ends up affecting the CF.  Those pesky unions as you put them are the ones that negotiated many of the perks and slalary increases CF members currently enjoy and will be fighting to keep.  In case you haven't noticed, we are paying more into are pensions, benefits are being cut back (severance for example) or changed and all of it is a result of going after the public service.  Keep a close eye on what they want to change to the PS because it will likely happen to the CF about a year later.


----------



## MilEME09 (17 Oct 2013)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Be careful what you wish for.  Normally what affects the civil service ends up affecting the CF.  Those pesky unions as you put them are the ones that negotiated many of the perks and slalary increases CF members currently enjoy and will be fighting to keep.  In case you haven't noticed, we are paying more into are pensions, benefits are being cut back (severance for example) or changed and all of it is a result of going after the public service.  Keep a close eye on what they want to change to the PS because it will likely happen to the CF about a year later.



True but what I mean is stories I've heard of civil servants changing departments like every six months, and not doing work as to leave it for who ever takes their position. I can't do a trade transfer every six months, why the heck should a civi freely move departments if there is no need for them to be moved? and leave work not done cause they don't want to do it. makes the system longer, god knows how long waits already are for services with VAC and such, but CRA is surprisingly fast when they want my money


----------



## PuckChaser (17 Oct 2013)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> I can't do a trade transfer every six months, why the heck should a civi freely move departments if there is no need for them to be moved?



We don't have a union and they don't have unlimited liability, but I absolutely see you point.


----------



## dapaterson (17 Oct 2013)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> True but what I mean is stories I've heard of civil servants changing departments like every six months, and not doing work as to leave it for who ever takes their position. I can't do a trade transfer every six months, why the heck should a civi freely move departments if there is no need for them to be moved? and leave work not done cause they don't want to do it. makes the system longer, god knows how long waits already are for services with VAC and such, but CRA is surprisingly fast when they want my money



Wow.

If an individual moves, it is because there is a vacancy they move to, and the employer with the vacant position beleives that that inddividual will be a good fit in helping them accomplish their objectives.

Would you rather indentured servitude for the public service, with no possibility of mobility?


----------



## Danjanou (17 Oct 2013)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Here you go with the text here (also attached in case you can't get through on the link) - here's the defence/arctic highlights ....



 Translation you guys still in uniform will be getting a whole shitload of new ceremonial pins for your DEUs over the next few years  :


----------



## McG (18 Oct 2013)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> ... I've heard of civil servants changing departments like every six months ...


There was a new article a few years ago about this.  I recall Ottawa being the focal point of this high rotation as public servants would get into one job and start applying for the next one up the ladder.  But, I have a gut feel that 8 months was the reported mean or mode time in job.  Google did not help me, but I did not try very hard either.  Of course, there are many in the public service who are happy where they are and will never apply for anything higher ... they will just stick to where they are at.



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> Would you rather indentured servitude for the public service, with no possibility of mobility?


I would not mind a minimum 1 year time between accepting a deployment and applying for the next higher job.  But I would worry about



			
				Crantor said:
			
		

> Be careful what you wish for.  Normally what affects the civil service ends up affecting the CF.


In the case of sick leave, I think the PS is behind the CAF.  It constantly builds-up over a career and is seen by some as entitled days off; as a result, there are the occasional individuals who are constantly sick through the last year or two of employment.  At the other end of the spectrum, new employees who become legitimately, seriously ill are SOL because they have not built-up the bank of sick days of a 10 year employee.



			
				Danjanou said:
			
		

> ... you guys still in uniform will be getting a whole shitload of new ceremonial pins for your DEUs over the next few years  :


Bling & ribbons!  What else matters?  
More on this element of the Throne Speach here:  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/110983/post-1263874.html#msg1263874


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Oct 2013)

There is, actually, some _substance_ hidden in the Throne Speech: a promise (for what that's worth) to stabilize and then shrink government. Consider:



> Our Government will freeze the overall federal operating budget, which will continue to restrain hiring.
> Our Government will make further targeted reductions to internal government spending.
> Our Government will reform the way the federal system manages spending.
> Our Government will review federal assets; when it is in the best interest of Canadians, they will be sold.
> Our Government recognizes the value of a lean, competent and committed public service. Public Service pay and benefit levels will be reasonable, responsible, and in the public interest.



This is red meat for part of the Conservative base ~ a part which I suspect is represented in cabinet by e.g. John Baird, Jim Flaherty, Jason Kenney, Tony Clement and *Stephen Harper*, himself. Several of them are veterans of the Mike Harris era in Ontario. They are not, really, _anti-government_ or _anti-civil service_, rather they are true fiscal conservatives.

A balanced budget act is silly and wasteful of time and bureaucratic effort, but a serious commitment to a _lean and mean_ central government might make real, measurable changes to Canada.

There is one HUGE hurdle to overcome: every government programme, especially the wasteful ones (wasteful in my opinion, anyway) has a "cheering section," a constituency of Canadians who benefit from it. Taking away benefits is hard to do, politically.


----------



## ARMY_101 (18 Oct 2013)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> True but what I mean is stories I've heard of civil servants changing departments like every six months, and not doing work as to leave it for who ever takes their position. I can't do a trade transfer every six months, why the heck should a civi freely move departments if there is no need for them to be moved? and leave work not done cause they don't want to do it. makes the system longer, god knows how long waits already are for services with VAC and such, but CRA is surprisingly fast when they want my money



The civil service is competition-based: you can't move up the ladder unless you "win" a competition for a more senior role and are subsequently trained for that role. So if moving up the ladder entails changing departments every once in a while, why not?

See also http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/prg/iec-eng.asp, which actually encourages rotations between multiple organizations for professional development and growth.


----------



## ARMY_101 (18 Oct 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> There is, actually, some _substance_ hidden in the Throne Speech: a promise (for what that's worth) to stabilize and then shrink government.



+1

There was ample substance and new policies not previously announced.  Life means life, balanced budget legislation, income splitting for couples once the budget is balanced, cyber bullying legislation, cutting red tape for small businesses...


----------



## George Wallace (18 Oct 2013)

ARMY_101 said:
			
		

> The civil service is competition-based: you can't move up the ladder unless you "win" a competition for a more senior role and are subsequently trained for that role. So if moving up the ladder entails changing departments every once in a while, why not?
> 
> See also http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/prg/iec-eng.asp, which actually encourages rotations between multiple organizations for professional development and growth.



Perhaps.  Perhaps not.  The Public Service is a very wide ranging 'organization'.  The skill sets one requires for one Department, don't necessarily make you a prime candidate in another Department.  For you Army Guys; would you take a MSE OP WO and put him into an Infantry Platoon WO job?


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Oct 2013)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> True but what I mean is stories I've heard of civil servants changing departments like every six months, and not doing work as to leave it for who ever takes their position. I can't do a trade transfer every six months, why the heck should a civi freely move departments if there is no need for them to be moved? and leave work not done cause they don't want to do it.


And what if you, as a soldier, worked in a system where you could only get short-term periods of employment, with no guarantee of future employment, by moving from unit to unit?  And you decided to work from contract/term to contract/term because you couldn't get a full-time position?  How would that look from the outside looking in?


			
				MCG said:
			
		

> ....there are many in the public service who are happy where they are and will never apply for anything higher ... they will just stick to where they are at.


In the regional office I work in, there are folks with +20 years in, and we've had very little turnover (Workforce Adjustment/Deficit Reduction Action Plan cuts notwithstanding) in the 10 years I've been in.


			
				MCG said:
			
		

> Bling & ribbons!  What else matters?


 :nod:


----------



## ARMY_101 (18 Oct 2013)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Perhaps.  Perhaps not.  The Public Service is a very wide ranging 'organization'.  The skill sets one requires for one Department, don't necessarily make you a prime candidate in another Department.  For you Army Guys; would you take a MSE OP WO and put him into an Infantry Platoon WO job?



I agree, but that's up for the competition process to decide.


----------



## pbi (21 Oct 2013)

We should be cautious about enjoying the sufferings of the Public Service. As has already been posted here, some of the things we take (or, in my case, "took...") for granted as conditions of CF service were gained by linking our pay and benefits to those for the PS, decades ago.

If the CF were happy to take the goodies that came from that linkage (and they were), they will be less than honest if they aren't prepared to take the cutbacks as well.

What I would be on watch for is slippage by the Govt from reasonable fiscal and managerial prudence in reforming the PS down the slope into populist, jealousy-fuelled  demonization of all PS as lazy layabouts who have cushy jobs and don't do anything for Canadians.

We might just feel the burst radius of that type of thinking in ways we can't quite see yet.


----------

