# BILL C-201 RCMP/Military Pensions passes second reading



## meni0n (17 May 2009)

Military/RCMP Veterans
Against Annuity
Benefit Reduction at age 65



May 14, 2009



Subject: 2nd Reading Bill C-201



Dear Supporters and Friends,

We are pleased to announce that under the Leadership of Mr. Peter Stoffer, MP the motion of Bill C-201 was carried. (139 Yeas, 129 Nays)

Thanks to LCOL (ret’d) Jim Lumsden we are able to enclose the listing of MP’s who voted on the 2nd reading/vote held in the House of Commons on May 13, 2009.
In the near future we will send a letter of appreciation to Mr. Peter Stoffer, MP and we will ask Veterans to do the same.
Next on the agenda we will prepare a rebuttal letter to Mr. Laurie Hawn, MP for his shameful presentation against Bill C-201 in the House of Commons on May 12, 2009.
The above mention information will be translated and forwarded to you.
This fall a Committee will be formed and Bill C-201 will proceed to be properly evaluated. Further information will be made available in the near future.
It can no longer be denied that Military/RCMP Veterans where unfairly and unjustly treated, 116 Former Colonels and Generals and 111,000 supporters across 18 Countries have back up our claim!
Please distribute far and wide!

Sincerely,
John Labelle

Campaign Coordinator

florencejohn@ns.sympatico.ca



Important sites:

www.petitiononline.com/vets8

www.veteranvoice.info



Enclosure: 1





YEAS

Members

Allen (Welland)
André
Andrews
Angus
Ashton
Asselin
Atamanenko
Bachand
Bagnell
Bains
Bélanger
Bellavance
Bevington
Bigras
Blais
Bonsant
Bouchard
Bourgeois
Brison
Brunelle
Byrne
Cannis
Cardin
Carrier
Charlton
Christopherson
Coady
Coderre
Comartin
Cotler
Crête
Crombie
Crowder
Cullen
Cuzner
D'Amours
Davies (Vancouver Kingsway)
Davies (Vancouver East)
DeBellefeuille
Demers
Deschamps
Desnoyers
Dewar
Dhaliwal
Dion
Dorion
Dosanjh
Dryden
Duceppe
Dufour
Duncan (Etobicoke North)
Easter
Eyking
Faille
Foote
Fry
Gagnon
Garneau
Godin
Goodale
Gravelle
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques)
Guimond (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord)
Hall Findlay
Harris (St. John's East)
Holland
Hughes
Hyer
Jennings
Julian
Kania
Karygiannis
Kennedy
Laforest
Laframboise
Lalonde
Lavallée
Layton
LeBlanc
Lee
Lemay
Leslie
Lévesque
MacAulay
Malhi
Malo
Maloway
Marston
Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca)
Martin (Winnipeg Centre)
Martin (Sault Ste. Marie)
Masse
Mathyssen
McCallum
McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood)
McTeague
Ménard (Hochelaga)
Ménard (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin)
Mendes
Murphy (Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe)
Murphy (Charlottetown)
Murray
Neville
Oliphant
Pacetti
Paillé
Paquette
Patry
Pearson
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Rafferty
Ratansi
Regan
Rodriguez
Rota
Roy
Russell
Savage
Sgro
Siksay
Silva
Simms
Simson
St-Cyr
Stoffer
Szabo
Thi Lac
Thibeault
Tonks
Valeriote
Vincent
Volpe
Wasylycia-Leis
Wilfert
Wrzesnewskyj
Zarac

Total: -- 139




NAYS

Members

Abbott
Ablonczy
Aglukkaq
Albrecht
Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac)
Ambrose
Anderson
Arthur
Ashfield
Baird
Benoit
Bernier
Blackburn
Blaney
Block
Boucher
Boughen
Breitkreuz
Brown (Leeds—Grenville)
Brown (Newmarket—Aurora)
Brown (Barrie)
Cadman
Calandra
Carrie
Casson
Chong
Clarke
Clement
Cummins
Davidson
Day
Dechert
Del Mastro
Devolin
Dreeshen
Duncan (Vancouver Island North)
Dykstra
Fast
Finley
Flaherty
Fletcher
Galipeau
Gallant
Glover
Goldring
Goodyear
Gourde
Grewal
Guergis
Harris (Cariboo—Prince George)
Hawn
Hiebert
Hill
Hoback
Hoeppner
Holder
Jean
Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission)
Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's)
Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Kent
Kerr
Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings)
Lake
Lauzon
Lebel
Lemieux
Lukiwski
Lunn
Lunney
MacKay (Central Nova)
MacKenzie
Mark
Mayes
McColeman
McLeod
Menzies
Merrifield
Miller
Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam)
Moore (Fundy Royal)
Nicholson
Norlock
O'Connor
O'Neill-Gordon
Obhrai
Oda
Paradis
Payne
Petit
Poilievre
Prentice
Preston
Raitt
Rajotte
Rathgeber
Reid
Richards
Richardson
Rickford
Ritz
Saxton
Scheer
Schellenberger
Shea
Shipley
Shory
Sorenson
Stanton
Storseth
Sweet
Thompson
Tilson
Toews
Trost
Tweed
Uppal
Van Kesteren
Van Loan
Vellacott
Verner
Wallace
Warkentin
Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country)
Weston (Saint John)
Wong
Woodworth
Yelich
Young

Total: -- 129



Note, anyone in Petawawa notice Cheryl Gallant voted against it.


----------



## brihard (17 May 2009)

Being unaware of the specifics of this, can anyone summarize what the issue is? I've head there was something going on with pensions, but after my frustration with the reserve pension I had little desire to read about further pension controversy.

I'm noticing my MP voted against it...


----------



## meni0n (17 May 2009)

Remove the clawback on pensions once CPP kicks in.


----------



## Sub_Guy (17 May 2009)

MacKay a NAY?

Interesting......


----------



## Old Sweat (17 May 2009)

This vote appears to have been done on party lines with the Conservatives supporting the government position, and the others voting for the bill.


----------



## brihard (17 May 2009)

meni0n said:
			
		

> Remove the clawback on pensions once CPP kicks in.



OK. So if this passes, would reitirees be in receipt of BOTH CPP and the CF pension?


----------



## dapaterson (17 May 2009)

Right now retireees receive both CPP and a CFSA annuity.  Their contributions to the CFSA were based on a reduction of CFSA benefits at age 65 because CPP would kick in.

That many retirees never paid attention (or were too stupid to pay attention) should not entitle them to benefits they never paid for.

Every SCAN seminar passed on this information.  The CFSA and its related regulations relate this information.

Wonder if any of those who complain are willing to pay for this benefit?


----------



## Michael OLeary (17 May 2009)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Wonder if any of those who complain are willing to pay for this benefit?



Hmmm, maybe when the Reserve Pension office has finished all those calculations, they can start on the files for the ones wishing to top up their pension account to offset the CFSA reduction on receipt of CPP.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (17 May 2009)

Presumably, if this goes through, this is going to cost a wack of money.  More to the point- how much is this going to cost me per month in increased pension contributions...


----------



## antique (17 May 2009)

Interesting responses.Let me just say,for the benefit of the younger generation,that back in 1964,65 and 66 when then CPP was rolled in,we,who were in the Canadian Army then,had NO such things as SCAN seminars.The rules then was"That's how it works and shut your mo#$@^"No explanations were given.I am a real old guy today mind you but...my mind still works.Was I given a choice then??NO
But I do know that MP's,judges do not have this reduction.I do know that MP's,judges Do not pay EI.
I served for 22 years the worked for another 20 after paying into CPP and EI.What did I get?NO EI when the company I worked for went south...NOT eligible because of military pension.I'm really not complaining here(because I took care of myself) just pointing out that some of are really relying on the CFSA to live after release.Who pays for this...well the EI pay by military could certainly help(me think don't get...don't pay).If Paul Martin had NOT depleted the CFSA account,you younger people would not have seen your contributions go up and the excess could have been used to better the life of some.If anything,the debate Will demonstrate that the members of the CF have a deal that is nowhere close to ant other Govt. employee..think SDB,marriage after 60 etc.One thing is certain,you will all grow older and face the music one day so...start taking care of yourself if you want to retire in financial health.
Regards
Just one old guy


----------



## SeaKingTacco (17 May 2009)

Antique-

You've made (IMHO) excellent points about taking care of your own financial affairs first and not counting the pension for everything.

The EI thing is an abortion that does need to be cleaned up, too.  But it is a side issue to the pension thing.

My fear here is that people are thinking- hey great! Bill C-201=free money!

I'm guessing that, if this passes, what is going to happen is that our pension rates will be recalculated and that this will be at the expense of take home pay today (My usual mantra in these sorts of situations is- TANSTAAFL).  I'm not sure about you, but I will take money in the bank today over hypothetical money in the bank tomorrow, every single time.


----------



## Infanteer (18 May 2009)

I'm sorry gents - I've done a little bit of snooping around but I'm totally lost on this one.  Can someone give me a quick snap of what the controversy is here?


----------



## PuckChaser (18 May 2009)

With an deficit of almost 85$ billion in order to fix the economy, this is the perfect time to cost people more money in CPP and CFSA contributions..... :


----------



## Elorajen (18 May 2009)

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you pay into CPP your entire life. You also pay into a pension plan your entire life. You make sacrifices that most people are not asked to make when it comes to family, health and security. Isn't it unfair to also ask you when you turn 65, to have your pension clawed back because you are getting an additional benefit that you have paid into your entire working life? 

Isn't it bad enough that you pay into EI your entire career and can only under one condition claim it? 

I see the bill as a positive thing personally. 

Your local MP only has to serve what, 4 years to get a complete pension that would support a small village forever.


----------



## GAP (18 May 2009)

> Your local MP only has to serve what, 4 years to get a complete pension that would support a small village forever



six years, but who's counting....


----------



## Long in the tooth (18 May 2009)

Our military pension suffers 'the clawback' as it's under the onerous restrictions of the CPP, not a stand own entity.  That's the way it was written on unification 40 years ago.

On a different note, I have the option of taking my measely pension of $2090/month immediately, or a transfer value of 333,000 which must be placed in a Locked in Retirement Account (LIRA) until I'm 55 in six years.  I have a fair RRSP I can live on for a while.

Any thoughts?


----------



## Elorajen (18 May 2009)

Oh, and is this standard for other pensions? My dad works for a transit system, and he told me that his pension won't go through any sort of clawback. How is that fair? 

I will have to check with my FIL (reg force, 33 years) to see if his pension was negatively affected, not sure if he has got there yet. Shows how much I pay attention.

Otto - maybe talk to a few different retirement specialist types? With a fixed pension, well, it's fixed. With the RRSP, you can WD to pay off a mortgage, pay for a trip etc. Instant access to cash if needed. Yeah, you may only be 49, but what if you're diagnosed with some horrific disease/illness, fat lot of good a fixed pension does your family when you're dead (it gets cut in half right). But hey, thats my opinion, and you know what they say about opinions!


----------



## AmmoTech90 (18 May 2009)

In around 13 years your pension will have paid more than the transfer value, so by the time your 62 according your profile, and despite the whole CPP thing it will keep paying until you kick off.  In fact in the three years between 62 and 65 that's an additional 75k.  Depends on what you want and if you have anyone to support.  Does the RRSP you have now have good growth, if so let it grow and use it when you need to or want to?  2k a month is nothing to sneeze at, especially when you have severance pay to help pay down a mortgage.  If you have no kids or dependents, you can get a job picking up shopping carts for folding money depending on your lifestyle.

On another note, you can get a 3 bedroom villa in Thailand for around 95k.  Your 2000 a month would probably do you quite well there.  I recall in discussion with a release clerk that there are options with regard to the transfer value being taxed or not, and locked in or not, depending on where you settle. YMMV.


----------



## Elorajen (18 May 2009)

Just checked with the husband who knows about his dads clawback. His pension reduced by 700 bucks, CPP added 500. So, he's out 200 dollars a month.


----------



## dapaterson (18 May 2009)

Elorajen:  Did your FIL draw CPP before age 65?  That will reduce the CPP benefit, and may account for the delta between the end of the CFSA bridge benefit and the amount of CPP he received.  And it's not a clawback.  The pension has always stated that there's a base benefit, plus a bridge benefit to age 65.

At the end of the day, the CFSA is clear that the bridge benefit is only to age 65.  If folks want more money in retirement they should bank it away while working - if they want the CFSA to pay for it, they have to be ready to pay higher contribution rates.  I'd guess that if the bridge benefit is eliminated, and replaced with a CFSA benefit of 2% per year of service without reduction, currently serving soldiers will see their deductions increase by over $1600 each year (right now contributions are reduced on the amount CPP covers; eliminating that would mean 100% of pensionable earnings would have to be paid at about 4% more).


----------



## Elorajen (18 May 2009)

No, he waited until two months before he turned 65 (as he was told to do). He was doing just fine on his pension and his PT job with the commissionaires (where all Soldiers seem to go...). 

Ok, I'm just unclear on this issue, and thought that it was unfair in general. I still don't get why some pensioners get reduced benefits once CPP kicks in and others don't. Doesn't seem fair.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (18 May 2009)

Yes it is as that's the plan that was paid into.
Why can't people get that simple formula?

When I walk from my current job I will have the same issue, only I don't think of it as a clawback, I think of it as 5 years of bonus money my plan PLANNED for so I could walk at age 60 before I qualify for the CPP at 65..


----------



## Old Sweat (18 May 2009)

I was serving when the CPP was instituted. Being in my twenties waay back then, I considered it as another way for the government to tax me, but began to pay more attention as I grew older and maybe a little wiser. Mind you, I also started contributing to a RRSP back then, so maybe I wasn't all that dumb.

However, I understood the rules re CPP and reduction in my CFSA at age 65. Considering that in order to avoid the reduction, I would have had to contributed a few percent more off the top of my pre-tax income for thirty odd years for maybe a couple of hundred bucks more, I have no serious gripes with the current system. As it was I still came out ahead anyway.


----------



## antique (18 May 2009)

Infanteer,
For more information,please see   http://users.eastlink.ca/~clawback1/.

The matter being that some retired members are seeking the removal of the deduction of the bridge benefit at age 65.That is what is being referred as a CLAWBACK.One must understand that those who were in the military prior to 66, when CPP was introduced,were given NO choice in the integration of CFSA with CPP.Eventually one might have preferred the stacking instead.
In the real wold of today,you end up with a CWO that may end up having a pension that is less than what a private makes today.Mind you that is caused by salaries that were less per pay parades then.Example,I get abut 1400$ per month for a 22 years pension but,my best 5 years average was 19K and change way back when...
You get what you pay for  in all cases.
I am involved in this issue as a matter of principle mainly because the bridge benefit is removed immediately if a member gets CPP disability benefits whatever the age and also because WE did not and to this day DO not have fair representation at barganing tables.
Whatever the outcome it is my deep impression that this issue will never come out of the parliamentary committee..still the battle has brought to light some side issues that need to be fixed.
Just an old guy


----------



## dapaterson (18 May 2009)

Having read a number of sites with information on this issue, I am struck by the facile tone, the lack of analytical rigour, the convenient overlooking of the fact that service pensions can be payable to someone from their late 30s onwards (though under the new terms, that will be early 40s - 25 years to qualify vice the previous 20).  Compound interest and NPV are concepts that are ignored.

The reduction has never been hidden.  The legislation and its related regulations are public documents.  


My view is simple: It's an attempt to provide a benefit to people who never paid for it, with no logic or reason behind it.  Naturally, it's endorsed by Jack Layton.


----------



## Redeye (18 May 2009)

That's just it.  The pension is a normal, integrated pension like most private sector defined benefit pensions.  It's reduced at 65 when CPP kicks in because that's the way it was designed, and the contribution formula was designed for that.  If this ridiculous bill passes all that will happen is the contribution amounts for the CFSA will simply rise substantially in order to meet the shortfall that this will create.

The only failure here is by those who failed to research their pension entitlements and understand how their benefits work.  I hope the Senate shuts this nonsense down if it gets to that point - but somehow I'm not convinced it will.



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> Having read a number of sites with information on this issue, I am struck by the facile tone, the lack of analytical rigour, the convenient overlooking of the fact that service pensions can be payable to someone from their late 30s onwards (though under the new terms, that will be early 40s - 25 years to qualify vice the previous 20).  Compound interest and NPV are concepts that are ignored.
> 
> The reduction has never been hidden.  The legislation and its related regulations are public documents.
> 
> ...


----------



## j_r_42 (18 May 2009)

Elorajen said:
			
		

> Oh, and is this standard for other pensions? My dad works for a transit system, and he told me that his pension won't go through any sort of clawback. How is that fair?



In my experience (as a former fincial advisor/banker), it's not that uncommon for pensions to have the amount reduced after CPP/OAS starts, however most pension plans call the extra money you get at the start a 'top-up'. It's sounds a lot nicer than clawback, but it's essentially the same thing.   

Otto -- I would recommend you seek guidance from a certified financial planner.  There are pros and cons to taking a commuted value for the pension, but you need to talk to somebody who can work this out with you.  Locked in retirement accounts have a lot more restricitions than a normal retirement account would.


----------



## Quag (18 May 2009)

I noticed Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew County (Petawawa) was a Nay.

This does not surprise me.  I never understood how such an incompetent person could ever be voted in office.

You would think that as a representative of Petawawa you would be in favour of the bill.  Is that not what our elected official do? Represent the opinions of the people of the riding?

Of course she will be getting a pretty pension for having served her time doing little but sit in an office looking pretty and cruising the Ottawa River in her ski boat.  

Disgusting really...


----------



## aesop081 (18 May 2009)

I will not share my opinion on the pension issue here but i wish to adress this :



			
				Quag said:
			
		

> You would think that as a representative of Petawawa you would be in favour of the bill.  Is that not what our elected official do? Represent the opinions of the people of the riding?



Considering that she represents a riding full of military people and that many military members on this site have posted that they do not agree with the bill, how can you say that her 'nay" vote does not represent her constituants ?


----------



## Quag (18 May 2009)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I will not share my opinion on the pension issue here but i wish to adress this :
> 
> Considering that she represents a riding full of military people and that many military members on this site have posted that they do not agree with the bill, how can you say that her 'nay" vote does not represent her constituants ?



You think a handful of people on this thread represent the majority of the military community in Petawawa?


----------



## aesop081 (18 May 2009)

Quag said:
			
		

> You think a handful of people on this thread represent the majority of the military community in Petawawa?



No but it surely indicates that being a CF member does not imply support for this bill.

Unless you have hard numbers of CF members in the Petawawa area that support / does not support the bill, i feel you are premature in saying that the local MP does not represent her constituants.


----------



## Strike (18 May 2009)

It was also already stated that the members seemed to have been voting along party lines.  Gallant might not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but she certainly didn't vote that way because of her constituents' views.


----------



## Quag (18 May 2009)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> No but it surely indicates that being a CF member does not imply support for this bill.
> 
> Unless you have hard numbers of CF members in the Petawawa area that support / does not support the bill, i feel you are premature in saying that the local MP does not represent her constituants.



Obviously I don't have hard numbers and you are right in saying being a CF member does not necessarily imply support for this bill.

However, I don't feel I'm premature in saying that Gallant does not represent her constituents...look at her history...she rarely does...

(facts lifted from wikipedia)

In 2002, she was accused of making anti-gay remarks to then Minister of Foreign Affairs Bill Graham, when during a heated exchange, she kept interrupting "Ask your boyfriend" or "How's your boyfriend?". Graham is married and has two children with his wife Catherine Graham.

During the 2004 election, a controversy erupted when Gallant compared abortion to the beheading of Iraq war hostage Nick Berg.

Gallant resurfaced in the spotlight on March 17, 2005, when she suggested that Christians were being persecuted by the Liberal Party in a flyer she sent to her constituents. Tory leader Stephen Harper, confronted with the news, said "I'll let Cheryl Gallant explain those remarks herself; I haven't seen them."

Of around 60 major candidates in 15 Eastern Ontario and West Quebec ridings, Gallant was the only one who didn't attending a meeting with the Ottawa Citizen editorial board. "Ms. Gallant's decision to duck every difficult question from the media is nothing short of childish", commented Citizen columnist Kelly Egan.

I think Strike summed it up, not the sharpest tool in the shed...


----------



## aesop081 (18 May 2009)

Quag said:
			
		

> Obviously I don't have hard numbers and you are right in saying being a CF member does not necessarily imply support for this bill.



So therefore, all things being equal, she may have voted along the lines of her constituant's views. We just dont know because we do not have numbers for members who support /do not support this bill. We only know that some do and that some dont.

Of course, Strike is correct in saying that the vote was along party lines so things were not equal.


----------



## Strike (18 May 2009)

Quag said:
			
		

> I think Strike summed it up, not the sharpest tool in the shed...



Whoa whoa whoa!  I also said she was *towing the party line* on this issue.  The other items you brought up have no bearing whatsoever on the topic at hand.


----------



## Quag (19 May 2009)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> So therefore, all things being equal, she may have voted along the lines of her constituant's views. We just dont know because we do not have numbers for members who support /do not support this bill. We only know that some do and that some dont.
> 
> Of course, Strike is correct in saying that the vote was along party lines so things were not equal.



She MAY have voted along the lines of her constituents but IMO I highly doubt it...

Strike I wasn't bringing you in, just wanted to steal your line...


----------



## dapaterson (19 May 2009)

Sigh.  The majority of military personnel in Petawawa are not represented by Cheryl Gallant.  For those paying attention, Reg F members (and a limited number of reservists) vote in the riding where they enrolled, unless they submit formal paperwork to change their residence.  Hence the special voting arrangements made for members of the military.

(And re: Ms Gallant - from what I've seen, she may not be the sharpest tool, but she certainly is a tool...)


----------



## Occam (19 May 2009)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Sigh.  The majority of military personnel in Petawawa are not represented by Cheryl Gallant.  For those paying attention, Reg F members (and a limited number of reservists) vote in the riding where they enrolled, unless they submit formal paperwork to change their residence.  Hence the special voting arrangements made for members of the military.



That's not necessarily true either.  My federal electoral district remains that of my place of enrolment, but I haven't cast a vote that's been counted there for over 25 years.  I simply walk into the appropriate polling station, show my driver's licence to indicate place of residence, and they give me a ballot for the riding where I actually reside.  I suspect many others do it the same way, rather than changing their official federal electoral district every 3-4 years when posted.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (19 May 2009)

Quag, 
I'm just curious, how do you feel that you have the authority to state that the 3,000+ members at CFB Petawawa wish to contribute three or four hundred dollars more per pay to their pension fund?


----------



## dapaterson (19 May 2009)

Occam said:
			
		

> That's not necessarily true either.  My federal electoral district remains that of my place of enrolment, but I haven't cast a vote that's been counted there for over 25 years.  I simply walk into the appropriate polling station, show my driver's licence to indicate place of residence, and they give me a ballot for the riding where I actually reside.  I suspect many others do it the same way, rather than changing their official federal electoral district every 3-4 years when posted.



You do realize that you're breaking the law in doing so?  No polite weasel words around to dance around that fact.

But we're now well and truly off topic...


----------



## Redeye (19 May 2009)

This is just it - if this is approved, the pension fund will immediately be grievously underfunded, and guess who the money will have to come from - the current contributors - pension contribution amounts will SOAR to cover the massive shortfall this will create.  There's nothing nefarious here at all, despite what all these ill-informed groups seem to think - they didn't pay for the benefits they're trying to claim and therefore shouldn't be entitled to receive them.  What they get prior to 65 is their normal pension amount (which they continue to receive at 65) and a bridge benefit which is given to them until they are able to draw CPP which is part of their plan.  The CFSA like most pensions is designed to integrate with the CPP.  This is political hay being made over a load of ignorance.



			
				Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Quag,
> I'm just curious, how do you feel that you have the authority to state that the 3,000+ members at CFB Petawawa wish to contribute three or four hundred dollars more per pay to their pension fund?


----------



## Occam (19 May 2009)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> You do realize that you're breaking the law in doing so?  No polite weasel words around to dance around that fact.
> 
> But we're now well and truly off topic...



Well, whaddya know.  The Special Voting Rules say I can only vote where my SOR says I reside.  I learned something today.  However, I doubt I'll be breaking any rocks over it, since the integrity of the "one person, one vote" principle is intact.  Nevertheless, I'll submit the SOR amendment to make Elections Canada happy...


----------



## Occam (19 May 2009)

Redeye said:
			
		

> This is just it - if this is approved, the pension fund will immediately be grievously underfunded, and guess who the money will have to come from - the current contributors - pension contribution amounts will SOAR to cover the massive shortfall this will create.  There's nothing nefarious here at all, despite what all these ill-informed groups seem to think - they didn't pay for the benefits they're trying to claim and therefore shouldn't be entitled to receive them.  What they get prior to 65 is their normal pension amount (which they continue to receive at 65) and a bridge benefit which is given to them until they are able to draw CPP which is part of their plan.  The CFSA like most pensions is designed to integrate with the CPP.  This is political hay being made over a load of ignorance.



Something I'm curious about - all the kerfluffle associated with Bill C-78 and the pension surpluses in the CFSA, PSSA and RCMPSA.  One of the government's assertions is that the pension plans are defined-benefit plans, and that even if the funds were "given back" to the pension plans, there's no authority to give anyone benefits different than what the legislation states.

If C-201 goes ahead, wouldn't that constitute a change to the definition of benefits, and put the government on the hook for it?


----------



## Michael OLeary (19 May 2009)

Redeye said:
			
		

> This is just it - if this is approved, the pension fund will immediately be grievously underfunded, and guess who the money will have to come from - the current contributors - pension contribution amounts will SOAR to cover the massive shortfall this will create.  There's nothing nefarious here at all, despite what all these ill-informed groups seem to think - they didn't pay for the benefits they're trying to claim and therefore shouldn't be entitled to receive them.  What they get prior to 65 is their normal pension amount (which they continue to receive at 65) and a bridge benefit which is given to them until they are able to draw CPP which is part of their plan.  The CFSA like most pensions is designed to integrate with the CPP.  This is political hay being made over a load of ignorance.



Ah, but it won't be underfunded.  No more than the approval of a Reserve Pension created any immediate shortfall.  

The ignorance of those who refuse to accept that the pension plan was always a joint plan won't force the payout of entitlements that weren't paid for through contributions while serving.  Imagine the public and media hue and cry if the Government even considered doing that.  

The result will be a plan under which CF members will have to pay into a revised CFSA *PLUS* CPP.  All those who are current beneficiaries, who who want to purchase time served to date, will have to submit to a calculation to top up their contributions, _ya gotta pay to play_ - just like those working on their Reserve Pensions.


----------



## dapaterson (19 May 2009)

Occam:

To go further off on a tangent here, perhaps we need to adopt the method of the US military - where you pay state income tax based on your declared residence.  That would encourage folks to keep their SOR up-to-date - get a posting to Alberta, declare it to be your residence, and pay Alberta income tax rates for the rest of your career...


----------



## Quag (19 May 2009)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Quag,
> I'm just curious, how do you feel that you have the authority to state that the 3,000+ members at CFB Petawawa wish to contribute three or four hundred dollars more per pay to their pension fund?



I don't feel I have the authority.  Where are you getting these retro pay numbers from?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (19 May 2009)

Quag said:
			
		

> I don't feel I have the authority.  Where are you getting these retro pay numbers from?



They are a guestamite on my part from when the Ontario Corrections looked at things like "25 and out" or reducing us to the "80" [age+service] factor instead of the "90" factor we have now.

..and just so you know, those numbers ARE LESS than it would have cost us. You [military] retire sooner therefore you would also have a longer "bridge" to age 65, so budget even more dollars for it.


----------



## Long in the tooth (19 May 2009)

LOL, just had to post - "TOWING the Party line" - that must be some big boat she's driving.....


----------

