• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Pension Reduction Et Al- Merged

  • Thread starter Thread starter GAP
  • Start date Start date
I believe this has recently been added to the CFPMP Website, FAQs, along with info on the payment of CPP by Cl A and Cl B (under 30 days). This is the first time I have noted the 2008 "the reduction applied would be smaller".
If anything is going to be done on this for the CF, re the claw back,  it may be part of the Federal (election) Budget in Feb(?).

CPP Offset
Q30:    What is the CPP offset and how does it affect my pension benefits??
A30:    Pensions payable to retired members under Part I of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act (CFSA) are reduced when the retiree reaches age sixty-five or becomes entitled to a pension under the Canada Pension Plan on account of disability. This is because the CFSA pension arrangements are integrated with the provisions of the Canada Pension Plan (CPP).
When the CPP was introduced in 1966, it was decided to coordinate or integrate the national plan with the pension plans that applied to the federal public sector workforce. The integration decision meant that the total pension plan contributions made by members of the federal plan did not increase, but their retirement income would come from both the federal public sector plan and the national plan. Said another way, the benefits of the CPP became available to contributors under the CFSA without any increase in their monthly pension contributions. The total pension contribution amount remained the same, but a portion went to the CPP and the remaining amount went to the CF pension account. Of course, since contributions to the Canadian Forces Superannuation Account were reduced, it was necessary to have a corresponding adjustment to payable benefits. As a result, all pensions payable under the CFSA are adjusted once a retired CF member reaches age sixty-five, the age of eligibility for an unreduced retirement pension under the CPP. If a retired member becomes entitled to a CPP disability pension before reaching age sixty-five, the reduction is made at that time.
These original arrangements have had to be modified somewhat over the years. For example, because of the increase in CPP contribution rates, it became necessary to limit the reduction of the CFSA contributions. As a result, CPP contributions are no longer fully offset from CFSA contributions. However the benefit integration principle remains unchanged.
When the existing reduction formula was adopted in 1966, it was recognized that at some point in the future, the reduction factor in the three major pension plans would have to be revisited as the pension plans and the CPP evolved. Parliament will be asked to approve an adjustment of the reduction factor applied to pension benefits, in the member's favour. If the amendment to the existing reduction factor is enacted, the CPP pension may still be more or less than the reduction of the CF pension; however, beginning in 2008,the reduction applied would be smaller.
 
Further on this ( again sent to me via email) :

Military Retirees
Against CPP
Benefit Reduction at age 65


To our Supporters:



January 3, 2007



Subject: Military Retirees against Benefit Reduction at age 65.



First, let us say “Thank you” for your continued support over that past 2 years. This letter is written to advise you that we will continue to be involved with the subject matter. A new approach regarding the for-mentioned initiative is being organised with a new direction. New information will be sent to you soon.



The Committee believes that this issue cannot be resolved without the support of a major political party. Therefore, letters have been sent to the Honourable Mr. S. Dion, MP Leader of the Liberal party of Canada and the Honourable Ms. Marie-P. Poulin, Senator, President of the Liberal Caucus, seeking their support to advance our objective to terminate the CPP Benefit Reduction formula affecting our Military Veterans. The Liberal party was selected because its delegates unanimously voted in favour of a recent NDP motion presented in the House of Commons.



Our main Objectives will be to:



·        Identify our Objective;

·        Prepare our Campaign presentation;

·        Increase our support base level of supporters;

·        Seek to bolster votes to a major Political party that will support the initiative; and

·        Support other Military Associations that embrace the Objective.











Conclusion:



The Committee feels that our Objective is attainable with the support of a major political party. We believe that a private member’s bill approach of succeeding is very poor. There is a window of opportunity for the Federal Government to correct an injustice that has been levelled at our Military retirees for far too long. We must continue on our journey to right a wrong.



Veterans want their Golden Years Financial Dignity restored!



Sincerely,



John Labelle

Roger Boutin







John Labelle

27 Dresden Court

Lower Sackville

Nova Scotia

B4C 3X1

florencejohn@ns.sympatico.ca

1-902-864-2456
 
Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act.

NDP can force change for veterans
Victoria Times Colonist, 9 Jan 07
Article Link

A window of opportunity has opened for the federal NDP. Last Friday, Liberal MP Wajid Khan crossed the floor to sit as a Conservative.

This means that as long as the NDP provides support, the Conservative government cannot be defeated. Together both parties constitute a majority in the House of Commons.

In November the NDP sponsored a "Veterans First" motion that would help support not only currently serving members and their families but also those members who have retired.

This motion would eliminate the Canada Pension Plan clawback at age 65 for retired military members, extend pension and other benefits to surviving widows and better harmonize long-term benefits for medically released members.

Although the motion was passed, the Conservative government chose not to introduce it as a bill. The NDP now has the political power to ensure that this motion becomes a bill and is passed.

If it does not take action on this issue its introduction of the motion will be exposed as a vain attempt to buy votes. The NDP needed this motion to help offset the negative publicity generated by "Taliban Jack's" non-support for our troops.

The NDP can, as a price for its support to the Conservative government, ensure that the veterans' agenda is passed as law.

Does the NDP have the will, or was the motion just political rhetoric?

John Finn,
Courtenay.


NDP Veterans First Motion
NDP news release, 1 Nov 06
Article Link

On Thursday November 2nd the NDP's opposition day motion was debated in the House of Commons.

An opposition day motion is an opportunity for opposition parties in Parliament to bring forward and vote on issues important to Canadians that are not on the government's agenda.

New Democrats are using their opposition day motion to bring forward long overdue assistance to members and veterans of the Canadian Forces and their families. After debate in Parliament on Thursday the NDP's "Veterans First Motion" will be voted on, Tuesday November 7th.

Veterans First Motion

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should immediately take the following steps to assist members and veterans of the Canadian Forces and their families:

  1. amend Section 31 (1) of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act so that second spouses of CF members and veterans have access to pension rights upon the death of the Canadian Forces member or veteran;
  2. extend the VIP (Veterans Independence Program) to all widows of all veterans, regardless of the time of death of the veteran and regardless of whether the veteran was in receipt of VIP services prior to his/her death;
  3. increase the Survivor’s Pension Amount upon death of Canadian Forces retiree to 66% from the current amount of 50%;
  4. eliminate the unfair reduction of SISIP (Service Income Security Insurance Plan) long term disability benefits from medically released members of the Canadian Forces; and
  5. eliminate the deduction from annuity for retired and disabled CF members.
 
The below article is taken from website http://www.afp-aac.org/01_2006_E1.htm.

If you are unaware the former government has been accused of illegally grabbing over 30 billion from several Pension Plans including the CF and RCMP.  If you have also been paying attention, the rates of your pension premiums are going to raise over 25% in the next few years (a table of the proposed raises are available on DND sites) these raises were drafted under the previous government after the surplus grab.
Apparently, at least 16 Billion of the 30 came directly from the CFSA program, ummmmm 16 Billion surplus, and my premiums are going up?!?!?


  "The second phase of the trial in the court cases challenging the federal government’s confiscation of over $30 billion of surplus in the superannuation plans for the Canadian Forces, the RCMP and the Public Service will start on February 26, 2007. Six weeks have been scheduled in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice for the trial itself. Following a three-week break, an additional three weeks have been set aside for final argument. The parties had expected that the trial would continue in the spring or fall of 2006. Unfortunately however, these were the first dates that the Court had available for a trial of this length.

    In the first phase of the trial, which took place in November 2005, Justice Panet ruled that 128 internal government documents would be admitted into evidence over the objections of the government lawyers. These documents, consisting  primarily of statements, policies and communications by high level government officials show that during the 1990s, the government was using questionable accounting techniques to appropriate the surplus and pay down the deficit. They also reveal disagreements between Treasury Board and Ministry of Finance officials over the ownership and use of the surplus.

    :rage:It is expected that the second phase of the trial will consist largely of testimony from expert witnesses regarding various aspects of the case. Justice Panet will continue to preside over the trial.



  In the interim, counsel are continuing to prepare for trial, including preparing the expert evidence and the legal arguments. A pre-trial conference will be held in October 2006 in order to ensure that the trial proceeds as efficiently as possible.

Fiona Campbell

Barrister and Solicitor"




 
I would be curious to see why the Conservatives opposed this motion.
 
ModlrMike said:
I would be curious to see why the Conservatives opposed this motion.

It has been discussed as to why this may happen.  The NDP are playing politics and may not have it right, but want to gain the upperhand in the media's eyes.  Perhaps if you read the previous comments on this matter, you will see why.
 
If your waiting for a resolve on this from the government, "don't hold your breath" as one person mentioned in a previous post you have to take care of yourself. It took WWII veterans 60 years to finnally get some meanigfull benefits from the government. This may never be resolved, because in the governments eyes it would be to expensive. NDP babble is just that "babble" As George mentioned, they want to get in good with the media. Taliban Jack is doing some PR repair after all the RPG's he's been throwing around.

As for the Liberals taking money from the pension funds, it doesn't surprise me. How do you think Paul Martin was able to balance the budget 4 years running, the money had to come from somewhere. Move some numbers around, hide a bit here, hide a bit there and voila he does the impossible... and everyone thinks he's a magician, until the sponsership fiasco came to light and now we're really seeing were the money came from... "You and me". So if your waiting for a politician to fix this, good luck!

We have our say once every 4 years, in between those four years we basically bend over put our head between our legs and give ourselves a great big wet kiss.

I'm 46 years old, by the time i'm eligable for CPP or old age, there won't be anything left anyhow, so i'm not to worried about it.

The only person who is going to take care of you is "you". Top up your RRSP while you still can. Take the money you get back from the tax deduction and apply it to pay down your mortgage or recycle it back into your RRSP. Or if your feeling adventurous buy some low risk bonds or a few GIC's.
 
cdn/aviator you mean like this re:attachmentfought with them punks for 17 yrs,,,
now they are going to screw me for my srb disability suppplement when i turn 65...
hahahaha when i turn 60 i can keep my army pension and srb till im 65
after that they can go to hell
and when my cpp kicks in at 65 my army penion will be  reduced accordingly then either
oap or garanteed income supplement will kick in  topping my up to my allowable full cpp
my question is why not let me keep my army pension (whoch is an anninuity and my
srb disabilty supplement thereby reducing the strain on cpp and using thise funds to help
someone who needs it,,
just a lil rant on my part and was wondering how folks felt...
anyway hope the attachment will clarify my points
                                                              best regards
                                                                    soty


 
I still think, if anything will be done on this matter, it will be part of the next budget. The chances are slim though, as if it is done for the CF, what will the RCMP and Public Service demand, as they are subject to the same regulations? The Public Service is much more powerful than the CF as they unionized and have many more members. The original bill included the RCMP. The last bill excluded the RCMP.  I really doubt the claw back will be abolished, but some of the other items may be enacted.

If anything is to be done for Vets/CF, it should be cleaning up VAC, and a Auditor Generals review of the whole VAC "system". VAC only took on current CF members as "clients" as their WW1 clients were gone, their WW2 and Korea Vets were fast disappearing, leaving no one to support VAC's vast infrastructure. thus no need for them. Hence the new Veteran Charter.
 
I suppose it would be unethical for me to sign it

https://www.change.org/p/cpp-clawback-from-our-canadian-soldiers-pension-appalling
 
Where is the injustice?

You are getting the pension you paid for. The CPP clawback is already factored into that.

If you do not want CPP flawed back, be prepared to pay much, MUCH more for your pension each month.

This "pension injustice" thing gets trotted out every few months and it is frustrating. Have you ever looked at how little our pension costs each of us, in comparison to how much each of us stand to take home from it over the remainder of your life?  It is one of the best deals going in Canada...
 
Clawback from pensions is normal. Almost every PS, provincial or federal, and many private pension funds include the clause. The clawback is on money earned, your pension income.

The travesty that matters is when a Veteran gets his AWARD clawed back. An AWARD is different than money earned. It has it's own set of rules. It can't be taxed or revoked once it is issued, amongst others. If it can't be taxed, it should not be included in the CPP clawback. It is not income, it's an AWARD.

Think of it as if you turn 65 and they start taking money from your CPP because you have five medals. Many of those are awards. If you can't withhold CPP because your medals are an AWARD, you can't hold it back because your Veterans payments are an AWARD.

 
Back
Top