This is coming from a long-time Cl B non-annuitant Reservist for what is its worth. These comments are only applicable to those who serve on a Cl B greater then 189 days, not shorter contracts or Cl A. The CF must be the only department where a member can retire from it, but still work for it in the same capacity and collect a wage along with a pension when retired. The key phrase he is retire. It is called a component Transfer as in you are moving from one component to another, therefore as I see it a member is not retiring. For those who don’t like to be termed “double –dippers”, is no different me being called a “Mo”.
Saying it is all the same Fed Gov’t is a red-herring. If a PSA member retires from DND, and goes to work for the Dept of Agriculture, do they collect their pension and pay? I think not. It is the CF Superannuation Act not the Government of Canada Pension Act. Look at big picture, money may not come from CF, but it does come from the Gov’t because the pension is not fully funded by members.
From many on this board, the refrained is often heard if you don’t like any aspects of Class B then CT to the Reg F. The same thing can be said for those who think they need both their pension and Cl B, and can’t live on the 85% pay (as all non-annuitant do) without PLD etc - Then don’t retire. The 15% premium is for the universality of service for the Reg F, to which they are entitled. Most “double-dippers are SNCOs, WO, and Capts, so 85% is better then the 40-60% pension they would be receiving. Not too many places where you can retire (there’s that word again) at a relatively young age, and receive 40-60% of what many consider a very decent wage, and still be able to work in another field. (As an aside this 85% of a retired CF mbr nets higher then a non-annuitant Cl B, because of no CF pension deduction).
As have been suggested in previous posts, I disagree and there should be no top up, or this will create a two tiered system. Lose of experience will always be an issue, as it is with any organization, but double dipping should not be used as an incentive. Give non-annuitant reservists a chance to gain experience they can take back to their home units. Employing non-annuitant alleviates losing mbrs for 35 days on top of annual leave.
In my experience, double dippers do little for the unit. Before the advent of the PRL. retiring Reg F would CT into a unit, plug a position, and immediately go on Cl B, never to be seen by the unit. The minute the mbr had to go back to Cl A, they tended to disappear. Double dipping was the main reason for the CT. This does nothing for a unit, which always could use the experience of ex-Reg F mbrs.
Having said all that, there is nothing wrong with Cl B under 189 days collecting a pension, but those over should have pension stopped, but then should be able to contribute so as to increase there pension at 2% per year.
Lot of teeth gnashing as this is a Reg F problem, because Reserves a specifically prevented from double dipping (join reserves; CT to Reg Force can’t collect pension; CT back to reserves, still can’t collect; can only be eligible to collect when actually retire from the CF.) Where was the big cry when Reservists were saddled with high interests rates for our buyback in appreciation of our long service – nothing but deafen silence.
I know this turned into a bit of a rant, and some of it off topic, but so be it.
