FSNA Board awaiting appellate court lawyer's advice
FSNA’s National Board of Directors is awaiting the expert independent advice of an appellate court lawyer regarding the appeal of the dismissal verdict rendered in the pension surplus court case last November.
This decision was taken following a meeting with representatives of all the plaintiffs and their legal counsels on January 23, 2008 to further discuss the three notices of appeal that were filed on December 28, 2007 by the Public Service Alliance of Canada; by the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada on behalf of the other National Joint Council Bargaining agents and other organizations, including FSNA; and by the Armed Forces Pensioners’/ Annuitants’ Association of Canada in conjunction with SSEA, now the Canadian Association of Professional Employees.
It is expected that it would take at least a year before the Ontario Court of Appeal hears any appeal.
July 31st, 2008 at 4:28 pm
I have a personal interest in the subject. Alas, Nobody and I do mean Nobody, including the FSNA is taking any action such as Class Action suit, or Charge the MP’s/Government with out and out, theft. All I see is the FSNA or any other Union not holding any lawyers feet to the fire, to get this Surplus Theft on the front burners and in the faces of the MP’s. The workers of Loblaws got theirs settled, but nothing for us sucker Federal or Retired employees. I might consider getting a membership, if I saw anything new from the FSNA! Read the litigation on Nav
Canada’s website. We are just twirling in the wind.
former MOT/NavCan employee
September 9th, 2008 at 9:54 am
regarding the surplus, in my opinion it’s a waste of time and money.There are more pressing issues such as our survivor benefits, they should be more in line with those of the provincial gov’t.Regarding indexing, i feel it needs an overhaul given todays world.
s.p. shirley
September 15th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
I agree that iit is a waste of time and money.
I would rather see our directors support Bill C-502 submitted by Mr.Peter Stoffer NDP-Sackville/Eastern Shore. This bill is not supported by FSNA to my knowledge and confirmed in a conversation with him today.
The bill is supported by DND and RCMP pensioner groups and is a bill to put an end to the clawback on our federal superannuation but was not supported by FSNA.
Look up the bill and read it on line.
That’s where the money should be put
Ray Amell
former DFO/CCG
September 22nd, 2008 at 9:36 am
FSNA does not support Bill C-502 for the removal of the pension reduction that applies at age 65 because Bill C-502 does not take into consideration the cost of the required corresponding removal of the pension reduction. For current pensioners, this means that they would have to return all of their prior employee contribution rebates associated with their pension reduction. For future pensioners, it would mean a major increase in contribution rates further to the significant one that was implemented in 2006. When the CPP was implemented in 1966, the Canadian government, as the sponsor of the superannuation plans, decided (as did most private employers sponsoring a defined benefit plan for their employees) to reduce the scope of the superannuation plans by approximately the size of the CPP benefits and contributions. This was achieved by applying reductions to both contributions and pensions under the superannuation plans. This government’s decision to coordinate the superannuation plans with the CPP was legitimate, as sponsoring a pension plan for its employees is voluntary.
Bernard Dussault, FSNA Senior Research Officer
September 30th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Response to Mr. Dussault (22 Sept 9:36 am)
Perhaps action by the FSNA in 1999-2001 when the Government took the $20B Armed Forces Pension surplus could have covered the cost of any removal of pension deduction at age 65.
No doubt the $20B would also negate the increas in contributions in 2006 and future contribution increases.
Fred King
Winnjipeg, Canadian Forces (Retired)
October 8th, 2008 at 8:42 am
The federal government began removing the surpluses from the three Superannuation Plans (Public Service, RCMP and Canadian Forces) during the 1990′s. This action did not come to light until the early phase of the lawsuit that FSNA undertook in 2000 in cooperation with 20 plus other plaintiffs (public service unions, retiree associations). The total amount removed from the three Plans was just over $30 billion. In November 2007 Justice Panet provided his ruling in our lawsuit and ruled in favour of the government. The plaintiffs are seeking an outside opinion from an independent party as to whether an appeal will be launched.
Prior to the enactment of Bill C-78 in 1999, the Superannuation Acts (of parliament) which regulate the three (Public Service, RCMP and Canadian Forces) pension plans did not contain any provisions for dealing with plan surpluses. Thus, any effort to have the then existing surpluses “applied” to offset any pension reduction at age 65 would have involved convincing a government to address the issue by passing amendments to the Superannuation acts in Parliament. Now we face the additional hurdle of attempting to have the surpluses returned to the three Superannuation Plans before we can raise any proposals about how such excess funds might be utilized.
One note with respect to the pension adjustment that occurs at age 65. This adjustment occurs for all pensioners receiving pensions under the Public Service, RCMP and Canadian Forces Superannuation Plans. A similar adjustment also takes place for many pensioners covered under private sector pension plans in Canada (no more than 40% of Canadian companies sponsor a pension plan to their employees). The “adjustment” results from the decision taken by employers to harmonize their pension plan with the CPP/QPP (introduced in 1966) rather than “stacking” the two plans. Stacking of these plans would require higher contributions from both the employer and the employees.
October 11th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Mr. Dusseault’s comments makes it sound like it’s a “federal case” for the government to make any changes to the pension reduction at age 65…but the government didn’t seem to have any problems recently when it did exactly that; reduced the ‘.007′ factor over several years such that, in my case, when I turn 65 in 18 months, I’ll have about $400/year more in my pocket, (i.e. my reduction at age 65 will be $400 less than under the old .007 factor).
If the government can ‘reduce the reduction’, why can’t they eliminate it altogether? They could have, if the pension funds showed a $30+ billion surplus. Instead, the government had the absolute cheek to steal the surplus, then increase pension contributions….and with that act of theft, there went any chance we had to further reduce or even eliminate the pension reduction at age 65.
D. Rollins
Employment Insurance (retired)
October 17th, 2008 at 11:21 am
I want to share the following information. Decisions regarding other federal pension plans considered stacking vs. intergrating. How are we different? Is this fair and reasonable? There are surplus funds (our own contributions) to fund stacking which were removed by BIll C-78 which is currently being looked at for a court appeal.
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A9
9 July 2008
Mr. Bill Casey, M.P.
Room 646S
Centre Block
House of Commons
Ottawa
Dear Mr. Casey:
Further to your request of 2 July 2008, I am pleased to provide you with some information on the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) and its integration with the benefits provided under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act (CFSA) as well as the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act (MPRAA).
Like a number of employers in both the private and public sectors in Canada, when the Canada/Quebec Pension Plans (C/QPPs) became effective in 1966, the federal government decided to coordinate the C/QPP with the pension plans legislated for federal public servants (coordination with both the Canada Pension Plan and the Quebec Pension Plan), members of the Canadian Forces (coordination with the Canada Pension Plan) and members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (coordination with the Canada Pension Plan) instead of requiring contributors to pay additional contributions for their C/QPP coverage.
With this coordination, C/QPP benefits became available to members of these legislated plans without any increase in their monthly pension contributions: a portion of their contributions was allocated to the C/QPP and a portion was allocated to finance modified coverage under the Public Service Superannuation Plan, the Canadian Forces Superannuation Plan and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Plan. Since contributions to the three federal public service pension accounts under these Plans were reduced, a corresponding adjustment was made to benefits payable in order to recognize both the lower contributions to the pension accounts and the fact that a C/QPP benefit would become payable. Superannuation Plan benefits are reduced automatically, in accordance with a standard formula, either when a plan member retires and reaches the normal age of eligibility for C/QPP – which is 65 – or when a plan member is eligible to receive C/QPP disability benefits.
In particular, a Canadian Forces Pension Plan member begins to receive benefits under the CFSA after completing 25 years of service. However, once the Plan member reaches age 65, the CFSA benefits are reduced by a standard formula, and the CPP retirement benefits at age 65 are approximately equal to the amount of the reduction; the amount may not match exactly, since benefits are calculated independently under each retirement income plan. The same reduction occurs immediately should a Plan member become eligible for a CPP disability benefit. For more information on benefit rates, please consult the Treasury Board Secretariat website at http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pubs_pol/hrpubs/Pensions/nppm-aprp01_e.asp.
Members of Parliament receive retirement benefits in accordance with the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act (MPRAA). Unlike the CFSA (as well as the RCMP Pension Plan and the Public Service Pension Plan), the MPRAA is not integrated with the Canada Pension Plan. Therefore, plan members do not have their benefits reduced once they begin to receive the CPP. In some sense, unlike members of the federal public service, the Canadian Forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, members of the Senate and the House of Commons make full contributions to both the CPP and the legislated plan under the MPRAA; consequently, their MPRAA benefits are not reduced when they begin to receive CPP retirement benefits.
Should you require further information on this or any other subject, please do not hesitate to contact the Parliamentary Information and Research Service.
Yours sincerely,
Jennifer Paul, Research Assistant
Economics Division
Parliamentary Information and Research Service
October 25th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
The crux of the matter is that we, as Fed Civil Servants were NOT given the opportunity of opting in or out of the stacking VS integration. This option should have been given at the inception of the legislation and should be offered to new as well as existing members of the RCMP. CF and Federal Civil Service.
At least the option would be at the discretion of the employee
Ray Amell
DFOCCG retired
November 7th, 2008 at 8:09 am
The objective of the coordination provision that was added to the superannuation plans in 1966 is a matter of homogeneity and harmonization, i.e. total contributions (to CPP and superannuation plans) and total benefits (from CPP and superannuation plans) after 1965 would be essentially the same as contributions to, and benefits from, the superannuation plans before 1966.
It is unfortunate indeed that federal superannuation members did not have in 1966 the option to maintain after 1965 the scope that the superannuation plans had until then. However, as a matter of alleviating irrelevant frustrations, it must be emphasized that no employer is obliged or forced or mandated to sponsor a pension plan for its employees. Less than 40% of Canadian employers do so. The Canadian government, as an employer, is one of them and, as most (if not all) of them, decided unilaterally but legitimately in 1966 that it was not ready to put more money into pensions for its employees.
November 18th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Its been a considerable period of of time since the FSNA board indicated on this web site that they were seeking advice. OK, it is now November 2008. What is happening and why is there no updating on what is going on.
November 21st, 2008 at 11:27 pm
I can’t understand why are veterans joining FSNA when that organization is against our fight to stop the clawback.
I cancelled my membership with FSNA and I hope that veterans
consider doing the same.
Why stay with an organization that is against our demands.
Come on guys wake up.
January 12th, 2009 at 12:16 am
How come everyone wants to give us an explanation of why our pensions are reduced at age 65. I understand what happened in the sixties, I don’t agree with the way it was handled then and I don’t agree with the way the results of that decision affect CF veterans now. We didn’t have a voice then or now, no union to speak up for us and when you wear a uniform and disagree with the government that is called treason. Now retired military members are taking action to try to right a wrong. Please, no more explaining – we understand it was legitimate, if not well thought out, back in the sixties but we want it changed. Future retirees will benefit from this change and for us present day retirees – tell us what we owe the government for not having paid enough into our plan and we can decide if we want to pay it back. Just as food for thought – I left England in 1969 and have been offered the option of paying back some state pension payments (equivalent of CPP) so I can start receiving a reduced British state pension this year (at age 60) and for the rest of my life (unindexed because I live in Canada, another great deal between governments). Pity that the government of Canada can’t stop spending (or give back) the surplus in the pension fund and give some back to its retired Canadian Forces personnel. Get on the side of the veterans FSNA or pack your bags.
January 30th, 2009 at 9:53 am
Described as a “pension grab” when the issue became public
but was considered surplus and god forbide that any pension
fund have a surplus in its coffers. Well, I ask; if a surplus, then
why were our deductions so large and then not appropriately
distributed to those of us who contributed.
July 25th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Why do sponsors of private plans that are integrated with CPP permitted to deduct from a member’s benefit an amount in excess of what an individual actually receives by way of CPP benefit. This method allows the sponsor of the plan to make a profit. Is this the intent or the spirit of the integration? I am of the opinion that the deduction on account of CPP sdhould be capped at the actual amount of the benefit received and nothing more
November 2nd, 2009 at 8:20 pm
As an addendum to my statement 31 July 08, here is what is still going on:
the news media is still spouting about how Paul Martin saved us all with his colourful accounting to wit >
many News papers spewed this article, after copying it from one journalist
9 Oct. 2009
re: “Paul Martin says Conservatives need clear ‘exit strategy’ for deficit”
I wrote to ‘em-
Since you are quoting the article above, I would like to tell you the real story. Paul Martin, illegally stole 30 billion out of 18 pension funds of federal employees, before which his federal government took a contribution holiday. The surplus of pension funds, due to his departments (finance) gross miscalculations, increased the charge to employees contributions, arbitrarily, and freezing public service pay raises (since Trudeau) – remember 6&5, or 3,3,0 etc., caused the surplus, in the first place. That’s how he slew the deficit, on the backs of public servants. Stop quoting, phony investigative journalists. By the way, the Ontario Government allowed Conrad Black to steal 60 million surplus out of the Loblaw’s pension surplus, and it took a civil suit from the employee/ retirees to get their money back. I looked at work 40+ years ago, and said to myself, self, you can’t afford a McDonald’s franchise, so I picked the other. I knew working for private enterprize (sic) would screw me, as it is doing to the auto workers, etc. etc…. today.
April 5th, 2011 at 6:47 pm
Where does one find something called justice?