CANADIAN  VETERANS AGAINST SECTION THIRTY-ONE

CVAST

Before you go on to read the correspondence on this web page, you may detect a note of cynicism in my letters to our elected officials as time goes on.  I don't apologize for this - it is just the result of my sheer frustration at the replies I have been receiving over the past 14 plus years, as you will read.  All the letters are in chronological order. 

Reg Warkentin  

 NEW LETTERS AT THE END OF THIS SECTION!             

            (Copies of original correspondence)

This is a letter from Maj (Ret'd) Reg Warkentin to Prime Minister Chretien, September 18, 1994.

1.

Dear Prime Minister,

I wrote to you last February concerning the perceived inequity in not allowing the spouses of retired Service personnel to receive death benefits in the form of a reduced pension, should the retired service person marry or re-marry after age 60.  I did not receive an answer to the letter but with the amendments to the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act that took effect in March 1994, this inequity has been eliminated.  But, I think, some problems still remain.  First, the premiums that will be and are charged for re-instatement of pension "privileges" are exorbitant.  For example, in my case to allow my new spouse to draw a fifty percent pension on my death, would cost $772.48 every month out of my present pension.  And no where does the agreement mention that this amount will not increase.

As a past member of the Canadian Forces for 38 years, I was a contributor to any future retirement benefits.  I fail to see what has changed so far as my past contributions are concerned.  Simply put, the only thing that has changed is the fact that my first wife passed away and I remarried.  My first wife never collected a cent of any military pension, so, if there is a fund, wouldn't it be held in escrow, and, presumably be used to pay a fifty-percent pension to my surviving spouse? Why should there be any difference in benefits payable to a "first" surviving spouse than to a "second" surviving spouse? Who gets this monthly "contribution" of $772.48? Is in turn used to buy an annuity from a private insurer? As you well know, if our sole income is from government pensions, we are not allowed to buy RRSPs with this money - also unfair.

Finally, Mr. Prime Minister, I think that this situation is highly unfair and inequitable.  If there are certain Acts of Parliament that control survivor (pension) benefits, I think that they should be reviewed and amended in all fairness to one's surviving spouse, without having to contribute a large percentage of one's rightful pension income.

Sincerely,

R.G. Warkentin, Major (Ret'd)

This is the answer to the above letter from Art Eggleton, President of the Treasury Board, dated December 23, 1994

2.

Dear Major Warkentin,

The Office of the Prime Minister has kindly referred your enquiry of September 18, 1994 regarding survivor benefits under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act.

You expressed specific concerns with respect to the reduction in your benefit which is required in order to provide your current wife with survivor benefit protection under the Act. As well, you have indicated your dissatisfaction with the restriction in the Act that prohibits the payment of automatic spousal benefits where a member marries or remarries after attaining age sixty.

Although it may appear unfair that survivor benefits are not paid automatically to spouses of post-age 60 marriages, there are several reasons for this situation. Survivor benefits currently provided under the federal public service pension plans are, already in many ways more generous than survivor benefits provided under many other employer-sponsored pension plans, both in the public and the private sector. Of those plans that do provide similar benefits, most also have provisions to limit eligibility only to spouses who marry contributors before retirement.  Most plans, and the financial bases for most plans, are designed to provide protection for dependants acquired during the years the contributor was working and actively contributing to the plan.

Accordingly, under the Public Service Superannuation Act, for example, no benefits are paid automatically to spouses of post-retirement marriages. In the case of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, the features were modified to take into account the earlier retirement ages of Canadian Forces and RCMP members, with the result that survivors' benefits are not payable to a person who marries a contributor after the contributor's sixtieth birthday.

The policy was originally decided upon as a means of limiting the costs of providing survivors' allowances. In considering changes to the pension plans a careful examination was made of the cost implications for present contributors, the Government, and, ultimately, the taxpayer.

When the Act was recently amended by Bill C-55, the restriction on post-60 was not removed.  However, the Bill did give retired plan members some flexibility in their ability to provide survivor protection by giving a pensioner the opportunity to elect to reduce the amount of his or her benefit in order to provide a pension for a surviving spouse who would not otherwise be entitled to a survivor's allowance.

During the development of Bill C-55, it was decided that, rather than increase pension plan costs, survivor benefits for spouses who marry after age 60 should be provided on a cost-neutral basis; that it, without any overall additional charges to the superannuation account.  Thus, the cost of providing the optional survivor benefit coverage is absorbed entirely by those plan members who choose to have it.

Others have suggested that there be no reduction to the plan member's benefit for this coverage. This possibility could be considered further as part of the review of pension arrangements being undertaken by the Canadian Forces Pension Advisory Committee on the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act. Their review will likely include a study of the current survivor benefit provisions.  Accordingly, I have taken the liberty of forwarding a copy of your letter and this response to the attention of the Minster of National Defence.

I hope my response will help you to better understand the basis on which this provision rests.

Sincerely,

Arthur  C. Eggleton

This is the letter to Mr. Eggleton in answer to the letter above:

3.

February 5, 1995

Dear Mr. Eggleton,

This letter is in response to your letter to me, dated Dec 23, 1994, concerning survivor benefits under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act. You mention that the survivor benefits currently provided under the federal public service pension plans are more generous than many other employer-sponsored pension plans. You mention that under the Public Service Superannuation Act no benefits are paid automatically  to spouses of post-retirement marriages. As well, you mention that under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act that features were modified to take into account the earlier retirement ages of Canadian Forces members. That is what I wish to discuss in this letter.

By modifying the Act to take into account the earlier retirement age of the Canadian Forces members, the Act in fact, discriminates against those members. Because a member of the public service can work until age 65 before compulsory retirement, he or she could, in fact marry (or re-marry) at age 64 and 364 days, and his/her spouse would be entitled to one-half of that person's pension upon the death of the retired public servant. Granted, that public servant has contributed to his/her pension plan for ten more years that a retired service person, but why should the whole issue of spousal benefits hinge on the fact that a service person was forced to retire at age 55, and then decided not to get married or (or re-married) until after age 60? If you consider the additional funds that a public servant contributed to the (non-existent) pension fund, then by all means cap the spousal benefits for widows/widowers of retired service persons at the level of his/her contributions at retirement age.

As I mentioned in my last letter to the Prime Minister, I think that the amendments contained in Bill C-55 appeared to redress the matter of inequity; but instituting an additional cost of over $700 per month in my case to cover premiums for spousal benefit is hardly fair in light of the fact that I had contributed to the (non-existing) pension fund for 35 years.  My only "crime" appears to be that I re-married after my first wife passed away.  I do not think that when I 'acquired' my wife, either during service or during retirement, should be a factor in establishing spousal benefits. In summary I think that this is a case of age discrimination when one considers the spousal benefits of retired/deceased public servants.

Sincerely,

R.G. Warkentin, Major (Ret'd)

4.

Letter to BGen A. McLelland (Ret'd), February 13, 1996

Dear General,

I am writing to you as a member of the Canadian Forces Pension Advisory Committee concerning an inequity I see in the payment of survivor benefits to spouses of retire and decease Service members. A married and retired Service person can expect his/her spouse to receive one-half of his military pension on his death.  But this does not hold true to someone who marries (or re-marries) after age 60, regardless of the number of years the member had paid into the (non-existent) pension fund.

Because military personnel are forced to retire at age 55 and public servants at age 65, the public servant can serve 10 years longer and get married after age 60, and expect his/her spouse to draw one-half of his/her pension, should he/she marry between age 60 and 65, and then die at age 66. Yes, the public servant has paid into the plan longer than the Service person, but surely some sort of an "off-set" could be found, ie, base the fifty-percent amount payable to the spouse at the level of pension the Service person received on the day of retirement.

This situation strikes me as extremely unfair and will place an undue strain on my wife when I die; she will receive zero from my paid-in pension plan. Yes, the Government magnanimously allowed us to contribute to a "new" spousal plan with the contributions being deducted from our present military pensions. My "contributions" would have been $772.48 per month!

I do not understand this inequity; my only "fault" was that I remarried after age 60. My first wife died about 3 1/2 years ago; she never lived long enough to collect a cent. I've gone the route via the President of the Treasury Board with negative results.

Hopefully you can assist me (and I'm sure others) in resolving this unfair situation.

Sincerely,

 Reg Warkentin, Major (Ret'd)

5.

This is a letter to Maj (Ret'd) Reg Warkentin from BGen (Ret'd) A. McLellan, dated 22 February, 1996. (NOTE: BGen McLellan was a member of the Canadian Forces Pension Advisory Committee, CFPAC at this time)

Dear Sir,

With regard to your letter of 13 February, 1996, I must say from the start that I agree with you that the limitation on survivor benefits in the case of marriages after age 60 should be eliminated.  Having said that, I will give you my views on the issue.

The denial of survivor benefits in cases where marriage took place after the annuitant had reached the age of 60 has, as far as I know, always been part of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act since it was first passed.  I can only guess at the reasoning, which I believe was to prevent 'death-bed marriages' to much younger spouses, which would drain the pension fund in a way that was never intended, and do so unfairly to other contributors.  A second possible reason could have been to preserve the actuarial assumptions on which our contribution rates were based, and which assumed that only a certain percentage of annuitants would have original surviving spouses to whom survivor benefits would have to be paid.  In fairness, I must point out that the limitation existed when we joined, and one could argue that we accepted it by joining.

Nevertheless, I do not agree with the restriction.  If there really is a valid concern about the 'death-bed' scenario, there are other ways to control it without affecting genuine marriages.  I also believe that the second possible explanation holds even less water, because I suspect that the amount of annual additional costs to remove the restriction would not be actuarially significant and would be within the pension fund's capacity to absorb.  I cannot speak for the other members of the Committee, but I feel confident of their support when I raise this issue, which I certainly will when we examine pension benefits, hopefully before the end of this year.

I must caution against the expectation of an early resolution  of this issue.  At present, the Committee is occupied with changes that must be made to bring the administration of the CFSA into conformity with the latest amendments to the Act itself and the Income Tax Act without any reduction in benefits.  When the Committee turns to looking at benefits, if it agrees to seek removal of the limitation it must convince the government that the pension fund could sustain the costs, and that it would be only fair and just to do so.  Then the long process of getting the legislation changed would have to be completed before it could be put into effect.  I expect it would take several years to see it through.

You may be aware that organizations of pensioners have been seeking removal of this limitation for many years.  The best they were able to accomplish was the new provisions for annuitants to purchase survivor benefits for spouses they married after reaching the age of 60.  Although it is undeniably expensive, it is better than the nothing that existed previously.  However, as far as I am concerned, that this is only a step towards its eventual removal no matter how long it takes. ( Underlines mine - Reg Warkentin)

Yours truly,

Signed (A. McLellan)

BGen (Ret'd)

6.

This is a letter from the Canadian Human Rights Commission after their attempt to "get involved".

February 5, 1999

Dear Major Warkentin,

As you are aware, your complaint against the Canadian Armed Forces alleging discrimination in the provision of services on the ground of age was stood down in November 1996,pending the final outcome of Sutherland and King v. Her Majesty the Queen.

On January 2, 1997, the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal of Sutherland and King ruling that the applicable provisions of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and of the Defence Services Pension Continuation Act did not contravene the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The applicants sought leave to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court of Canada. On January 28, 1999, this application for leave was denied. On the basis of this decision, it is recommended that the Commission dismiss the complaint. The Commission may decide to accept, or reject this recommendation.

In making its decision, the Commission will review the enclosed material as well as any comments received by you or the respondent. Should you wish to provide comments, they may be up to ten pages in length.  Please provide them by February 19, 1999. Should you wish to provide them by fax, you may fax them to---. If we do not hear from you within this time period, we will proceed on the assumption that you have decided not to submit comments.

You will be advised of the Commission's decision as soon as it is rendered.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your cooperation in the investigation of your complaint.

Yours sincerely, 

(Signed) Anne Rooke

Deputy Director Compliance

Canadian Human Rights Commission

7.

The reply to the above letter, dated February 8, 1999:

Dear Ms Rooke,

Thank you for your letter of February 5, 1999.  It is still very difficult for me to see why this is not a case of discrimination based  purely on my age. I really feel upset that the leave to appeal by previous appellants was denied and that it has been recommended that the Commission dismiss these complaints. Many people in Canada depend on the Human Rights Commission to defend their causes which are seen as being discriminatory. I take issue with the letter sent to you by the Department of National Defence on July 10, 1998 where Lieutenant Colonel Pellicano states that I "did not lodge his Human Rights complaint until 12 March 1998" even though I had been informed of the provisions of the CFSA, etc, etc, on 23 December 1994.  I am sure that the Colonel knows that I commenced my 'action' with the Prime Minister on September 18, 1994 and proceeded to be 'directed' to other various departments, Treasury Board, etc, until I finally had to turn elsewhere, which was to the Human Rights Commission. I think that I sent you all of my previous correspondence with the various departments trying to get some action.

In the decision to deny an appeal to bring this to the Supreme Court, was there any reason given? Surely there must have been some discussion as to why this would not be allowed. Did no one see the unfairness of all of this? Is there no other course of action? I for one am not content to let this matter die. The unfairness of this decision bears a similarity to the unfairness of the government to fail to recognize the part played by the Merchant Navy until recently - 54 years after the war. I cannot see why it is so difficult to see that when a Forces member pays into a pension plan for his/her whole military life that he/she should not be accorded the same benefits regardless of when one marries. What has that got to do with anything? The Armed Forces Pensioners' Association was quite optimistic that the decision would go in the retirees' favour. I, for one hope and pray that you will not let this matter die. Many of us are depending on you to support us in having this unfair decision reversed.

I have no new evidence to send you. I have sent you all I have; today has not been a good day for those who served our country and then have it turn against us.

Sincerely,

Reg Warkentin Maj (Ret'd)

8.

Letter from the Canadian Human Rights Commission, dated March 26, 1999.

Dear Major (Ret'd) Warkentin,

I am writing to inform you of the decision taken by the Canadian Human Rights Commission in your complaint against Canadian Armed Forces.

Before rendering its decision, the Commission reviewed the report disclosed to you previously and any submissions filed in response to the report. After examining this information, the Commission decided, persuant to subparagraph 44(3)(b)(ii) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, to dismiss the complaint because it is beyond the jurisdiction of the Commission as it deals with a superannuation plan established by an Act of Parliament enacted before March 1, 1978.

The Commission's ability to deal with allegations of discrimination in pension plans was the subject of two recent Federal Court decisions. In Magee v. Canadian Armed Forces (a case involving a challenge to provisions of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act) and Cowie et al. v. Human Resources Development Canada (a case involving a challenge to provisions of the Canada Pension Plan Act), the Court ruled that section 62(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act precludes the Commission from dealing with complaints regarding the wording or application of pension plans, if such plans were created by an Act of Parliament enacted prior to 1978, the year the Canadian Human Rights Act came into force.

In light of these Federal Court decisions, the Commission has no choice but to close your file.

Yours sincerely,

(Signed)Lucie Veillette, Secretary to the Commission

9.

Letter to Her Excellency the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson, CC, CMM, July 10, 2000

Excellency,

I am writing this letter to you, as Commander-in-Chief of the Canadian Forces, in the hopes that you can do something in your position, to investigate and perhaps eliminate a form of age discrimination that exists today. No, this has nothing to do with the serving personnel in our Forces, but rather a form of discrimination that is applied to these members when they retire from the Forces. Perhaps you are not aware of what I am going to explain. As the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act (CFSA) now stands, women or men who marry a retired Service person after the retiree reaches the age of 60, are not entitled to a penny of his or her spouse's pension upon the spouse's demise. This is true even if the Service person has paid into the Military pension plan for 35 years! You may wonder how an 'enlightened' government that has eliminated many other discriminatory practices, still insists that anyone marrying an ex-Service person after the retiree reaches the age of 60, must be a gold-digger! This may hark back to the days of the Crimean or Boer Wars when there were 'death bed' marriages. But surely, no one believes that this is the case today.

As you know, this discrimination because of age does not affect spouses of deceased CPP recipients, or those drawing OAS or, indeed surviving spouses of disabled veterans drawing a DVA disability pension administered by the Canada Pension Commission. I have been trying to find out why Canada would discriminate against its veterans and I have not been given a reasonable answer. In the past, I have written to Prime Minister Chretien, who passed me off to (then) Treasury Board head Art Eggleton, who thought the Act was indeed, fair! I have contacted the Human Rights Commission who initially stated that investigating this matter was beyond their purvue, as they were formed after the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act was written. I have written to the Minister of Veterans' Affairs who has passed me off to Art Eggleton, the (now) Minister of National Defence, who has not answered my letter dated February 6, 2000. I have also written to the British Minister of Defence who has answered that the British Armed Forces to not discriminate against people marrying veterans older than age 60 in regards to survivor benefits.

As Head of the Canadian Forces, I think that you are in the position to investigate and, should my claim be substantiated, take the necessary action to rectify this discriminatory practice. There are many surviving spouses who are barely surviving on OAS and are living in near-poverty conditions. The Government always seems to have the necessary funds to assist other worthy causes. I cannot understand why, at minimal cost, this truly unfair practice cannot be rectified. It would seem that the Government (read Department of National Defence) is truly penalizing spouses whose only 'sin' was to marry a veteran who, for whatever reason, decided to marry after reaching age 60.

Excellency, I look forward to receiving your reply.

Sincerely,

R.G. Warkentin,CD, Major (Ret'd)

10.

Answer to the above, dated October 5, 2000, from Rideau Hall.

Dear Mr. Warkentin,

On behalf of the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson, I am replying to your letter of September 3.

As was mentioned in an earlier letter from this office, the Governor General does not intervene in matters that are the responsibility of ministers of the Crown. However, Her Excellency has taken note of your concern about age discrimination in Canada's Armed Forces and thanks you for taking the time to write.

Her Excellency sends you her best wishes.

Yours sincerely, 

(Signed)Deidre Jackson,

A/Chief - Editorial Services 

11.

Letter from Canada's Association for the Fifty-Plus (CARP) to Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel, P.C., M.P., Minister of Veterans Affairs, April 5, 2001

Dear Minister,

I have enclosed a letter from Mr. Reg Warkentin, one of CARP's 400,000 members across the country who is a veteran. I have written to your Ministry about this issue in the past.

Veterans who marry (or remarry) after the age of 60 are not entitled to bequeath their military pensions to their surviving spouse, according to section 31(1) of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act. To dismiss this blatantly ageist and discriminatory policy as any but what it is - ageist and discriminatory - as your colleagues, the Minister of National Defence and the President of the Treasury Board, have done, is totally unacceptable.

What is the rationale for this neanderthal policy? Paternalism? Meanness (in both senses of this word)? Does this policy affirm that a veteran who is 59 and remarries and therefore can bequeath his military pension to his surviving spouse loses his faculties when he turns 60? If so, then it is patently ridiculous as well.

We demand that you change this policy immediately.

Sincerely,

(Signed)Lillian Morgenthau

Founder & President

12.

Email to Keith Patterson, Federal Superannuates National Association (FSNA), September 4, 2001.

Mr. Patterson,

I have been reviewing some of my correspondence concerning the "marriage after 60" regulations now in effect for the Canadian Armed Forces. It strikes me that nothing will ever be done to resolve this inequity if the mind set of the Public Service, serving and retired, is that the Forces are getting a sufficient break by extending the age for spousal benefits to age 60 as is the present law. I suppose that nothing will ever come of my and other's efforts if the Public Service uses only the yard stick of age & benefits as they apply to their "own" people, and completely dismisses the very real differences that exist in both types of service. The exigencies of the Service can play havoc with Military families and can also impact on a soldier's life, in that he may not want to, or have the opportunity to get married while in  the Forces. It appears that life in the Forces is equated with life in the Public Service on a virtually even plain, when we all know that life in the two different "Services" is not the same, in most cases. Yes, there are those who may spend their entire Forces life stationed in Ottawa (God forbid!), working alongside a civilian counter part, but that is the exception. I guess what I am saying is that someone somewhere must make the case for the Military retiree a lot stronger than it is. But this can only be done by persons who truly believe in the Military retirees' "case". I don't imagine that there are many who would like to convince Madame Robillard that her office should review its thinking on this matter. Incidentally, was this matter brought to her attention at your meeting with her this summer? And if it was, what is the prognosis? And do you have any other comments?

Regards,

Reg Warkentin

13.

Mr. Patterson's answer to letter number 12. above, dated 12 September 2001.

Mr. Warkentin,

I can assure you that National Defence officials at the working level on pension reform are quite cognisant of the "special conditions" applicable to Canadian Forces personnel that make them quite different from Public Servants. Most of the detailed discussions take place at that level rather than at the Minsterial level, although these issues are discussed with both the Minister of National Defence and the President of the Treasury Board when we have discussions with them. We did not meet with the President of the Treasury Board this Summer but I would expect that the matter of survivor benefits will be high on the agenda when we next meet with either the Minister of National Defence or the President of the Treasury Board.

To a considerable extent the "special conditions" applicable to Canadian Forces personnel are addressed to the extent feasible in the pension plan. For example, as I have mentioned earlier, CF retirees may still marry up to age 60 and have their spouse eligible for a survivor benefit. The vast majority of Public Servants retire well before age 60 and are thus disadvantaged in this respect when compared to CF retirees. Also, CF personnel can retire with an immediate pension much earlier than can Public Servants,

As you probably know, our objective is to get a full survivor benefit regardless of when the marriage took place. This is our objective for all plans and we continue to pursue that objective.

Keith Patterson

14.

Letter to The Honourable John McCallum, Minister of National Defence, September 2, 2002.

Dear Minister,

I am writing this letter to you as a retired member of the Canadian Forces. I realize that you have many important and pressing affairs to deal with, but perhaps you can afford a few minutes of your time to read and digest what I am about to relate to you concerning a matter of age discrimination against retired Forces members.

According to the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, the widow or widower of a retired member of the Forces who married after reaching the age of 60, is not entitled to any of the ex-member's pension. This, of course means that many widows are barely surviving on OAS and perhaps CPP if they worked at any time during their lifetime. But to deny them the normal 50% share of their spouse's pension to which he/she contributed during the whole of their Military Service is, in my estimation, highly unfair. There has been some discussion of this situation in the past, and rather than take some action to right this blatant discrimination, certain Members of Parliament have chosen to sit on their hands rather than place themselves on the side of the Veteran  and take action to correct this aberration. Yes, I realize that Treasury Board does not like to take action ($), neither does the Minister of Veterans Affairs, but there is more than enough money in the surplus pension fund to adequately pay for this. But surely, looking after the pension of all, not just some of the spouses of deceased Service personnel should be on someone's agenda - hopefully yours.  CPP, OAS and CPC do not discriminate against widows/widowers because of age. Isn't that interesting? Why does DND?

Finally, I have contacted the British Department of National Defence and they do not discriminate against their veterans' spouses regardless of when they marry. Lillian Morgenthau, President of CARP has also written to DND concerning this matter. Why is age 60 so critical? Some retired members may not wish to marry until age 60 due to exigencies of the Service; others, like me, have lost their first spouse to some form of terminal illness, and have since remarried. Many have also served with pride in dangerous areas of the world during our Service and looked forward to retirement after 35 years or so. But we never thought that we would unknowingly inflict future hardships on our spouse as a reward for this Service after we died. Perhaps you can provide us with some glimmer of hope and help before it is too late.

Sincerely,

Reg Warkentin, Major (Ret'd)

15.

Letter from the Minister of National Defence in reply to letter 14, dated November 7, 2002.

Dear Major Warkentin,

Thank you for your letter, received September 5, 2002, concerning spousal benefits for retired members of the Canadian Military. I apologize for the delay in responding.

Retirement benefits for members of the Canadian Forces are provided by the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act. Section 31 of the Act addresses entitlement if the member married after age 60.

Most pension plans restrict eligibility for spousal survivor benefits to people who married or entered into a common-law relationship with a plan member before the member retired. The Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, however, includes spouses who married or entered into a common-law relationship with a plan member after the member had retired, as long as the member had not yet turned 60. This provision was made because members of the Canadian Forces usually retire at a much younger age than civilians in the public service. The age of 60 was chosen because 60 is the normal retirement age at which a public service employee is entitled to an unreduced pension.

The contribution rate established under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act is based on the assumption that not all members will be survived by eligible spouses - for a number of reasons -they never married, their spouses predeceased them, they divorced, or they married after age 60. That is, the rate at which members contribute to the Canadian Forces plan is based on the fact that not all annuitants will have eligible survivors.

In 1992, the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act was amended so that retired plan members could secure benefits for spouses they married after age 60. Pensioners can reduce the amount of their own benefits so as to provide a pension for a spouse who would not otherwise be entitled. The cost for this optional coverage is entirely paid for by those plan members who choose to take advantage of the benefit.

When a plan member chooses this provision, his or her benefit is reduced in accordance with the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act Regulations. The amount of the reduction depends on individual circumstances, particularly the plan member's age, his or her spouse's age, and the level of benefit chosen. Reductions are based on generally accepted actuarial principles and valuations.

I am informed that people often ask whether the age-60 provision conforms to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Federal Court of Appeal ruled that Section 31 of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act does not discriminate on the basis of age and is not in breach of the Charter. The supreme Court of Canada upheld this decision.

I appreciate being made aware of your views and trust this information is of assistance.

Yours sincerely, 

(signed) John McCallum

The Honourable John McCallum, P.C., M.P.

16.

Reply to the above letter from the Minister of National Defence, dated November 15, 2002.

Dear Minister,

Thank you for your recent reply to my letter of September 2, 2002. As expected, I see that you have reverted to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Federal Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court of Canada, et al, in denying that Section 31 of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act discriminates of the basis of age. Further, your rationale as outlined that..."the rate at which members contribute to the Canadian Forces plan is based on the fact that not all annuitants will have eligible survivors", is a statement right out of left field. Just show me where that statement is is outlined in the CFSA so that Military persons can read it. It would take an extremely adept and practiced crystal ball reader to predict something like that!

You never did answer my query as to why the Veterans' CPC or OAS or CPP to not 'punish' surviving spouses as DND does. I'm sure you could find some rationale as you outlined to me  that "...not all annuitants will have eligible survivors..." What a great money-saving idea! Just think how popular your Ministry would be by suggesting a similar plan to OAS, CPC and CPP, and think of all the extra surplus money the Government would be able to retrieve from widows and widowers. Veteran Affairs might be overjoyed at the prospect, as surely would the President of the Treasury Board.

You mentioned that a retiree could purchase an insurance plan for his/her spouse. Have you checked out the premiums? Is the sponsoring insurance company a 'friend' of the Government? Up to one-third of one's pension would go to pay the premiums. And why should this be necessary? After all, we paid the same amount into the Service pension plan as everyone else but lose the benefits when we die.

Finally, you might suggest that the information as outlined in Section 31 of the CFSA should be reiterated to those members retiring at age 55 so that they could make the appropriate wedding plans. I see that you are highly visible in visiting 'the troops' - those that are still serving, but you seem to have forgotten about those of us that have done our part and now feel cheated out of being able to leave some of our paid-up pension to our wives or husbands.

Sincerely,

Reg Warkentin, Major (Ret'd)

17. Letter to The Right Honourable Paul Martin, PC, MP, Prime Minister of Canada. February 23, 2004.

Dear Prime Minister,

I am writing this letter to you as our new Prime Minister. It was very gratifying to see that you have taken an interest in the Canadian Forces almost from the first day you took office. I am sure that the troops look upon this as a welcome change. Your commitment to them to ensure that they will be properly outfitted with modern equipment in order to do their jobs is also most welcome.

I am a retired Service person with over thirty-eight years of Service in the Canadian Forces (Army). I have served Canada on three NATO tours, one United Nations tour, one at Alert, NWT and in various other positions in Canada. During all that time, I was always proud to wear the uniform of the Canadian Forces, and tried to do my best as an 'ambassador' of Canada where ever my assignments took me. I always thought that Canada would treat its veterans in a fair and equitable manner when they took their leave of the Forces upon retirement. Our pension plan seemed fair in that when we retired we could expect to receive fifty percent of our best six years service in the form of a pension, and that when we died our spouses would receive fifty percent of our military pension so that they could carry on without having to work in order to survive. Well, it turns out that I was wrong.

When I was age sixty, my wife passed away. I had been retired for five years at that time. My grief was inconsolable for a time until one of my daughters more-or-less straightened me out. I eventually met a fine lady who became my second wife when I was age sixty-two. After my marriage, I discovered that when I died she would not receive a penny of my paid-up pension and not only that, she would lose her Public Service hospitalization coverage and her Public Service dental coverage as these two benefits were only provided to eligible spouses in receipt of a pension. You may not be aware that she would be ineligible because she married me after I was age sixty, regardless of the fact that I had paid into the pension plan for thirty-five years! You see, the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act Section 31 disallows a portion of the military retiree's pension to be paid to the surviving spouse. Even though Treasury Board, the Department of National Defence state that this is a fair policy it is not, in my estimation. How can it be seen as being fair? And why should one equate the benefits of a Veteran of the Forces with the benefits received by members of the Public Service or any one in a civilian-type job? Yes, it has been said that because Service personnel retire at an earlier age, they have 'generously' added another five years beyond retirement age for one to 'qualify', but exigencies of the Service were never considered. I cannot see where granting this extra five years is doing us such a great favour. How can we tell when one's spouse is going to pass away?

Another point: the old Age Pension, the Canada Pension Plan or the disabled veteran's pension plan  do not discriminate because of age, and spouses are entitled to a portion of these pensions when the veteran dies. Why not DND? Some may say that it would cost too much. Has anyone ever done a calculation to determine exactly how much it would cost? How many of us are there? Remember, we have all paid into the pension plan and our only 'sin', it seems, is to have our spouses die!

Prime Minister, I have seen how busy you are in trying to stamp our fires lit by others, but hopefully, when you have the time, you can look into this situation with a personal view and not be side-lined by uncaring persons who may never be affected by a situation that I have described. These same persons will no doubt say, "Oh, no! Not again!" But past decisions must not only be fair, but be seen as being fair by retiring members of the Canadian Forces and their spouses.

Finally, shouldn't the fact that a Service person can now serve to age sixty result in an amendment to the 'marriage after sixty' portion of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and allow persons to marry at say, age sixty-five and beyond, with spousal eligibility, and with proper 'grand-fathering' of the amendment?

Sincerely,

Reg Warkentin, Major (Ret'd)

18. Answer to letter 17 from the Prime Minister's Office, March 15, 2004

Dear Major Warkentin (Ret'd):

On behalf of the Right Honourable Paul Martin, I would like to acknowledge receipt of your correspondence of February 23 regarding your veterans pension.

You may be assured that your comments have been carefully reviewed. I have taken the liberty of forwarding a copy of your correspondence to the Honourable John McCallum, * Minister of Veterans Affairs, within whose responsibilities this matter falls. I am certain that the Minister will wish to give your views every consideration.

Yours sincerely,

K. Smith

Executive Correspondence Officer

* (Note: sent to wrong department!)

19. Letter to the Prime Minister regarding letter 18, March 19, 2004.

Dear Prime Minister,

Thank you for the answer to my letter of February 23 forwarded to me by your Executive Correspondence Officer, K. Smith.

I would like to point out that the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Therefore, the Hon. John McCallum would have no interest in my letter. He amply demonstrated this during his tenure as Minister of National Defence by obfuscation and basically, refusing to take this situation seriously. Therefore, in his new appointment, I am sure that he thinks that I am further 'torturing' him by renewing this situation. Please tell him that I realize that he has absolutely no interest in the situation as I have described in my previous letter. Therefore, please forward it on to the Minister who does have an interest - the Minister of National Defence.

Finally, I should hope that there is still some money left in the Military Pension Plan after years of 'pork barelling', to take care of the situation of those of us who married after age sixty and, even after contributing to the plan for our whole military life, leave our spouses with no portion of our pension when we die. Surely, with the annual average pension of *  $8413 to surviving spouses, some of the surplus * $15 billion could be set aside for surviving spouses of those who married retired Service persons who were older than sixty when they married.

Sincerely,

Reg Warkentin, Major (Ret'd)

* Actuarial Report Pension Plan For The Canadian Forces as at 31 March 2000.

20. Letter from The Honourable David Pratt, P.C., M.P., Minister of National Defence, April 23, 2004.

Dear Major Warkentin:

Your letter to the Prime Minister concerning the marriage after age 60 provision of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act was forwarded to me by the Minister of Veterans Affairs, the Honourable John McCallum. It was received on April 1, 2004.

I am advised that since 1999 there has been extensive correspondence on this issue between you and my predecessors and that most of the points in your most recent letter have been fully addressed previously. Therefore, in lieu of restating what has already been said, I would like to concentrate on the new question you have raised.

You propose that if the compulsory retirement age for military members changes from 55 to 60, the marriage after retirement provision should be extended to protect spouses in marriages that occur up to age 65 or beyond, As previously explained, the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act  is already more generous than most other employer pension plans in that the spousal benefit is not limited to marriages or common-law relationships that take place before the date of retirement.

This provision was included in the Act in recognition of the fact that members of the Canadian Forces retire, on average, at a much younger age than their civilian counterparts in the Public Service. Age 60 was selected because it coincides with the normal retirement age at which public service employees would be entitled to an unreduced pension. A change in the retirement age for members of the Canadian Forces would bring the members in line with the retirement date of public servants and section 31 of the Act will remain in place to protect the majority of members who retire early but marry before age 60.

I would also like to reiterate that since 1992, retired plan members can now secure benefits for spouses they married after age 60. Pensioners can reduce the amount of their own benefit so as to provide a pension for a spouse who would not otherwise be entitled. Since contribution rates are established based on provisions contained in the Act, the cost for optional coverage is entirely paid for by those plan members who choose to take advantage of the benefit. Consequently, I must re-affirm that there  is no plan to extend the existing protection beyond age 60.

While I can understand that you are dissatisfied with some of the benefit provisions, I must reiterate that your benefits are paid in accordance with the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and I have no discretion that would allow me to grant you a greater benefit than what has been prescribed in the legislation.

I trust that the foregoing information is of assistance.

Yours sincerely,

(Signed) David Pratt

The Honourable David Pratt, P.C., M.P. 

(Underlines mine RGW)

21. Letter to The Honourable David Pratt, P.C.,M.P., Minister of National Defence, dated April 28, 2004.

Dear Minister,

I have just received your answer to a letter that I wrote to the Prime Minister, forwarded to Mr. McCallum and then forwarded finally, to you. I am sure that Mr. McCallum attached his own observations to my letter.

I would like to comment on some of the points you outlined in your letter of April 23, 2004, addressed to me; I would also like to make a few other observations. But first, I am disappointed that you cannot place yourself "in uniform" to better understand Military serving and retired Service personnel. I would have thought that in your capacity as Minister of National Defence that you would not only concentrate on the present day requirements and welfare of our serving Forces, but to also think about them when they retire. Your comments to me illustrate your out-of-touch mentality in matters concerning some retirees, who fall under your "control", for lack of a better word. Yes, it is commendable that you are attempting to look after our serving personnel - Stryker, helicopters, etc. But it is again a true shame that you have lost touch with many of us veterans. Perhaps a visit to, or even joining your local Royal Canadian Legion, along with your office staff, may give you a better insight.

I do not see why you are using the old red herring by equating our paid into "more than generous pension plan" with that of the Public Service! Have you never considered the "exigencies of the Service"? How can you equate service in Afghanistan with Public Service positions at 101 Colonel By Drive or, indeed, on Parliament Hill? I do not understand this 'more than generous' statement. If you want to see generous, check out General Motors, also called 'Generous Motors', pension plans. It strikes me that you, Mr.McCallum and Mr. Eggleton are all cut from the same cloth! Not one of you believes that there is a problem with Section 31 of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act  as it relates to age discrimination. Yes, I know that the Supreme Court has found in your favour, but they did admit that there was age discrimination in theAct, but that it was acceptable!

You mention that over age sixty retirees can buy an insurance policy that pays X dollars to one's spouse (probably same sex as well) on the retiree's demise. A thorough investigation on this so-called benefit, would show that:

    a. the premiums would require over one-third of a  retiree's pension, and

    b. it has to be applied for within one year of marriage.

Why should we have to do this? We have paid into our annuity fund (you call it pension) our whole military life, the same as those who, for one reason or another, married before or at age fifty-nine and 364 days! What are the plans for the +- 15 billion dollars that are surplus in the Canadian Forces Superannuation Account? Paying widows an average of $701 per month must make all the "bean counters" just feel great! So much money left over for other essential projects, like gun registration, ad agencies in Quebec, etc, etc. There must be a myriad of projects that the government can use the money for. But please don't, for one moment direct a thought at the plight of spouses of deceased veterans who are trying to survive on old age security and CPP (if they are lucky)! That would show heart!

You mentioned that you are not contemplating any changes to Section 31 of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, and that you cannot and will not contemplate such a move. Just think of the power of a Private Member's Bill put forward by, say, the Minister of National Defence. What would stop you from supporting Canada's veterans who, for whatever reason, married after age sixty? Don't you think that the Prime Minister would support such a move? Why not ask him? Let's face it, money is not the problem, it's the mind set.

Regards,

Reg Warkentin, Major,(ret'd)

22. Letter to Mary Ann Burdett, President, Royal Canadian Legion, December 14, 2004.

Dear Madame President,

I wish to apprise you of a circumstance that affects some of us retired Military Service persons. First, I must mention that I am a member of the Canadian Legion here in Kingston, membership number -----. You may have heard of the problem that faces certain veterans if they marry or re-marry after they reach the age of sixty. (from here on, I just repeated what I had been writing to other officials in the past)------------------------------------------------------------

I am approaching the Legion, almost as a 'court of last resort'. In retrospect, I probably should have contacted the Legion much earlier.

Regards,

Reg Warkentin, Major(Ret'd)

Letter 23. Reply from the President, Royal Canadian Legion, 6 January, 2005.

Dear Comrade Warkentin:

I have read your letter of 14 December 2004 with interest. The issue of spousal eligibility in the context of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act has also been troubling the Legion. The issue you raise has been raised by us in the past; however, we never received an adequate response from the Government. Accordingly, we are quite ready to revisit this issue which I will bring to the attention of the Veterans, Service and Seniors Committee (VSS).

For your information, our 2004 resolutions are attempting to correct the inadequate level of compensation provided through the current 50% CFSA allowance. We strongly feel that this allowance should be increased to 66%. We will explore broadening our review of CFSA benefits to include fairer access to spousal benefits which would take into account the longer life expectancy of veterans and Canadian citizens, and their desire to sometimes seek a second partner. Pending further formal action through the VSS Committee, I will endeavour to initiate Legion advocacy for broader spousal access.

Yours sincerely,

(signed) Mary Ann Burdett

Dominion President

24. Letter from The Honourable Peter Milliken in response to an email I sent to him on January 27, 2005.

Dear Major Warkentin,                    February 9, 2005

Thank you for your recent email regarding the provisions of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act concerning survivor benefits for veterans who marry after the age of 60. I appreciate you taking the time to contact me to share your views on this matter.

Please be advised that I have taken note of your frustration with the limitations of this Act. I have raised this issue with the Minister of National Defence on several occasions on behalf of constituents who also felt that the legislation unfairly excludes support for the survivors of veterans who had married after the age of 60. I have taken the liberty of once again contacting the Hon. Bill Graham, Minister of National Defence, to reiterate my support for your position on this matter. I have asked Mr. Graham to give you every possible consideration to reviewing the Act and implementing the changes you suggest.

I hope that this proves helpful. Again, thank you for taking the time to write to me.

Yours truly,

(signed) Peter Milliken, M.P.

25. Letter from The Hon. Peter Milliken to the Hon. Bill Graham, Minister of National Defence, February 8, 2005.

Dear Bill,

Enclosed please find a copy of an email I received for Major Reg Warkentin, a constituent of mine who heels that the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act penalizes unfairly the survivors of veterans who marry after reaching 60 years of age.

I wish to bring Major Warkentin's concerns to your attention, and express my support for his desire to see the Act reviewed. I would appreciate if you could give every possible consideration to this matter, respond to Major Warkentin, and provide me with a copy of your reply.*

Thank you in advance for your assistance with this matter.

Yours truly,

(signed) Peter Milliken, M.P.

(* no reply was received from Mr. Graham)

26.  Letter to Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada, dated February 6, 2006

Dear Prime Minister,

First, let me congratulate you on your election win! I know that the ensuing weeks and months will keep you very busy.  Just prior to the election, your past Member of Parliament for Kelowna-Lake Country, Mr. Werner Schmidt tabled Bill C-362, a Bill to delete Section 31(1) from the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, which received first reading.  As you know this Section prevents widows and widowers of Military veterans from receiving a portion of the veteran's pension if they married the veteran after his 60th birthday.

All affected spouses and veterans would be eternally grateful if you could 'rejuvenate' this Bill and have it brought to a vote early in your tenure as Prime Minister.  I know that there may be a future court case on this very Section of the Act.  But a Government decision to amend this Section would obviate the necessity of a costly court 'battle' - one that widows and veterans can ill afford.

Your Staff may wish to read the past 'history' and previous correspondence concerning this problem at web site www.cvast.com (Canadian Veterans Against Section Thirty-one).

Sincerely,

Reg Warkentin, Major (Ret'd)

27.  Letter to Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada, dated March 17, 2006.

Dear Prime Minister,

I realize that the contents of letters like mine must seem rather mundane compared to your agenda this past week during your visits to the troops in Afghanistan and to your visit to Pakistan.  However, I would like to get back to the case I tried to make with your Office concerning the 'marriage after 60' section of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act - Section 31(1).

I wrote to you on February 6, 2006, the date of your inauguration, outlining the concern that many veterans, veterans' spouses and widows have concerning the inequity of this section of the Act that denies surviving spouses a portion of their deceased spouse's pension.  Hopefully, your Staff have had a chance to review this situation, and, perhaps have even had a chance to check out the web site www.cvast.com that outlines the previous correspondence with various Prime Ministers, Defence Ministers, and others, and their replies.  If not, I am enclosing a copy of all this correspondence that appears on the web site.

Prime Minister, perhaps your Office could send an interim reply, and even acknowledge that someone in Government will pursue the matter in a timely fashion, initiated by one of your previous Members, Mr. Werner Schmidt.

Sincerely,

Reg Warkentin, Major (Ret'd) 

28.  Letter from  Prime Minister's Office to Maj Reg Warkentin (Ret'd), dated April 3, 2006

Dear Major Warkentin, (Ret'd):

On behalf of the Right Honourable Stephen Harper, I would like to acknowledge receipt of your correspondence of February 6 and March 17 regarding survivor benefits under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act.

Please be assured that your congratulatory remarks have been conveyed to the Prime Minister and are most appreciated.  You may be assured that your comments have been carefully reviewed.  A copy of your correspondence has been forwarded to the Honourable Gordon O'Connor, Minister of National Defence.  I am certain that the Minister will wish to give your views every consideration.

Thank you for writing to the Prime Minister.

Yours sincerely, 

      (signed) B. Funes, Executive Correspondence Officer

29.  Postcard from Minister of National Defence Correspondence Unit, dated April 7, 2006

Acknowledgement

This is to confirm that the Minister of National Defence has received your recent correspondence

30.  Letter from Minister of National Defence Correspondence Unit, dated May 10, 2006

Dear Major Warkentin,

A copy of your correspondence to the Prime Minister concerning the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act was forwarded to the Minister of National Defence for reply.

It is taking longer than usual to address the concerns you outlined in your letter.

I am sorry for this delay and wanted to assure you that a response will be forthcoming.

Thank you for your patience in the meantime.

Yours sincerely, (signed) Deborah Mac Culloch, Manager, Minister's Correspondence Unit.

31.  Letter to Mr O'Connor, Minister of National Defence, dated June 22, 2006

Dear Minister O'Connor,

Thank you for your interim replies to my letter to Prime Minister Harper.  It has been quite awhile since I received your last reply and I wonder if the Government is still going to delete or amend Section 31 of the CFSA even though it never was listed as a Government priority. I also realize that you have been and are extremely busy providing excellent equipment to the three Services after many years of neglect.

The welfare of certain widows (and probably some widowers) has been neglected far too long in my and other affected persons, estimation. Granted, our numbers are relatively small - too small to impact on election outcomes. I think that this may have been the very reason for previous Government inaction. If one looks at the number of annual Military retirees and the number of spouses drawing one-half of their deceased spouses' pensions, the numbers are fairly constant:

                1996-97    97-98    98-99    99-00    00-01    01-02    02-03    03-04

Retirees 79193        79907    80446   80681   81303   81859   82268   82483

Widows  17669       18293     18898   19555   20057   20660   21182   21788

These figures indicate that the number of widows annually ranges from about 17,000 to 21,000, indicating that about 500 retirees die each year. Of course some of the widows also die every year. But the most important thing is that there are a number of widows that have been excluded in the 17,00 - 21,000 range; these are the ones that receive no portion of their deceased husband's pension. These are the widows who married their retired Military husband after his 60th birthday.  It has been estimated that the total would be about 1,000 "disenfranchised" widows. If you calculated the monthly pension received by most widows it would be in the range of $775 per month. Surely there would be no great financial strain on the existing "pension fund" to pay these forgotten widows. The ex-Military husband had already paid into the pension fund so that his widow would receive one-half of it when he died. Yes, I realize that actuarial 'experts' and bean counters will say that it is the first wife who is entitled to a portion of the deceased veteran's pension.  Pretty hard to do if you're a dead widow!

In this day and age many people marry later in life for whatever reason. This happens to Military veterans who find themselves single again. Why should he carry on by himself? After age 60 it is pretty difficult to get a job that would allow him to contribute to another pension plan for a second wife. His contributions to his Military pension will die with him.  What an injustice and what a way to treat a widow who may now be relegated to try to survive on OAS.

I think that the time is right for this Government to make a move in the right direction to correct this unjust aberration and place themselves squarely on the side of the present and future widows of Canadian Servicemen.

Regards,

Reg Warkentin, Major (Ret'd)

32. Letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, dated September 1, 2006

Dear Prime Minister,

I wrote to you on March 17, 2006 concerning the plight of widows who married Canadian Forces veterans after the vet's 60th birthday, and who do not receive a portion of their deceased husband's pension. I did receive a reply from your Office stating that you had passed my letter on to Defence Minister O'Connor.  I have written to him as well - my most recent letter was dated June 22, 2006. I have received no reply to that letter; I know that he is a very busy person, ensuring that the Canadian Forces are well looked after.

But I do recall that one of your speeches to a Veterans group mentioned a statement to the effect that you would ensure that the needs of veterans would be looked after, alluding, perhaps to the new Veterans' Charter. However, there are other 'veterans needs' that also need looking after, such as the need to eliminate Section 31 of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act. I would hope that you and your Staff as well as the Defence Minister could now take some action to rectify this absurd aberration, allowing the many hundreds of disenfranchised widows to spend their final years of 'widowhood' with some modicum of comfort.

I am hopeful that you will not carry on the past years of Liberal Government obfuscation and take the necessary steps to eliminate this Section of the Act that discriminates against certain widows.

Sincerely,

Reg Warkentin, Major, (Ret'd)

33. Letter to the Canadian Legion Magazine, dated September 3, 2006.

On December 14, 2004 I wrote to the (then) President, Mary Ann Burdett concerning the discriminatory Section 31 of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act; you know the one that prevents widows of veterans from receiving any portion of his pension if she married him after his 60th birthday. Madam President answered my letter on January 6, 2005, stating, in part..."we are quite ready to revisit this issue which I will bring to the attention of the Veterans, Service and Seniors Committee (VSS)."

I have just read and re-read the "Be It Resolved" section of the latest Legion Magazine and notice that in all of the 72 resolutions there is not one resolution or even mention of Section 31 of the CFSA that discriminates against certain widows - those who married vets who were over 60 years of age at the time of marriage. This would lead one to believe that the Legion has better things to discuss and resolve, like eliminating the GST on meals served by the Legion (Resolution 5), than the plight of widows who may be forced to survive on OAS through no fault of their own, except when they got married and to whom. If you are interested in this 'problem', perhaps you could check out www.cvast.com and read some of the recent correspondence concerning this Act, which includes letters to MPs and others, and their replies.

Regards,

Reg Warkentin, Major (Ret'd)

34. Letter to the Canadian Legion Magazine, dated September 16, 2006.

On September 3, 2006, I faxed you a letter concerning the lack of a resolution concerning the plight of widows who married Military veterans after the vet's 60th birthday. I received a telephone call yesterday, September 15, concerning my letter. The person who called, and I'm sorry I missed his name, mentioned that resolution 59 should take care of these widows, and also others who had no previous affiliation with Military veterans. This 'income-splitting' plan might work very well for those persons who are still living and had nothing to do with the 'over 60' regulation of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, Section 31. This Act clearly states that anyone marrying a veteran after his 60th birthday has no entitlement to any part of his pension when he dies, and no entitlement to the Public Service Medical Plan. Yes, you can say that Revenue Canada may allow them to split his 'income' (superannuation) while he is alive, but once he dies, that's it for the wife. She is a non entitled, disenfranchised person and will receive not one penny of his pension.

So you see, the problem is still there and will continue to be there unless the Department of National Defence with the support of the Government and organizations such as the Legion, do something about it. Income-splitting may very well be a solution for some in order to pay less individual income tax, but it does not address the discrimination that affects so many widows who had married Service Vets after the vet's 60th birthday. Perhaps someone can point this out to the National Defence representative who will be attending your Finance meeting this coming week.

Regards,

Reg Warkentin, Major (Ret'd)

35. Letter to the Honourable J. Flaherty, Minister of Finance, January 11, 2007

Dear Minister,

I am writing to you concerning the lack of pension funding for widows of certain retired Service persons.  These are the widows (and maybe some widowers) who married Military veterans after the veteran's 60th birthday.  The Canadian Forces Superannuation Act Section 31(1) forbids these widows from receiving a portion of their deceased spouses' pension (or Superannuation).

I have recently received assurance from the Office of the Minister of National Defence that the Treasury Board "has no problem with paying these widows".  Can you reassure me that these 'disenfranchised' widows past, present and future, will start to receive the same pension benefits as other widows of retired Military personnel, and that the phone call I received was not, indeed, a hoax? With over $43 billion in the Superannuation Fund, an additional estimated annual payment of $13 million should present no great strain.  The Superannuation Fund increases by approximately $2 billion annually.

Minister, I look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

Reg Warkentin, Major (Ret'd)

36.  January 5, 2007  Letter from the Prime Minister, Stephen Harper

Dear Major Warkentin,

On behalf of the Prime Minister, I would like to thank you for your correspondence regarding the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act.  I regret the delay in replying.

Please be assured that your comments have been given careful consideration.  A copy of your correspondence has been forwarded to the Honourable Gordon O'Connor, Minister of National Defence.  I am certain that the Minister will appreciate being made aware of your continuing interest in this matter.

Yours sincerely, 

M. Bourque, Executive Correspondence Officer

37.  January 24, 2007, Letter from the Minister of Finance

Dear Major Warkentin,

On behalf of the Minister of Finance, the Honourable James M. Flaherty, I would like to acknowledge receipt of your correspondence of January 11, 2007 regarding pension benefits for widows of military personnel.

Although Minister Flaherty appreciates receiving your remarks, the matter you raise falls more directly within the jurisdiction of his colleague, the Minister of National Defence, the Honourable Gordon O'Connor.  Therefore, I have forwarded a copy of hour correspondence to his office.

Thank you for communicating your concerns.

Sincerely,

Patrick T. Byrne, Acting Head, Departmental Correspondence Unit

38. January  19, 2007 Letter to the Honourable Gordon O'Connor, PC, MP, Minister of National Defence

Dear Minister,

It has been quite some time since your last communication with me concerning the "Marriage after Sixty" problem.  You had said that your Department would hve to investigate all of the ramifications of instituting a change to, or deletion of Section 31(1) of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act.  Has any progress been made concerning this?  Perhaps you could send me a progress report.  Hopefully, your Department is still taking an active interest in resolving this problem.

Sincerely,

Reg Warkentin, Major (Ret'd)

39.  February 20, 2007 Email to Mr Shanahan, MND's Office

Good Morning Mr Shanhan,

Sorry I wasn't able to get in touch with you by phone in reply to your call to me.  I'm in Florida until March 10 or so but manage to keep in contact by email & letters.  You mentioned in your phone call that an amendment to CFSA Sec 31(1) would take legislation and that all this may take a long time. That's what is worrying me somewhat. I see the Cdn news daily and it would appear that another election is almost imminent. And, as  happened last year, all Bills came to a stand still at that time and this would mean yet another several years of back-and-forth correspondence to start this up again.  As you  know, I've been 'fighting ' this thing for 12 years with little or no success.  This Government and Defence Minister are the first ones that have given 'disenfranchised' widows a glimmer of hope and I was hoping that this time we would see some positive results. Yes, I realize that the Minister has no control over the 'speed of Parliament' but is there a way that the affected 'offices' could move a bit faster on this?

I don't understand why the Finance Minister would forward my letter to the MND when, as I understand it, he holds the purse strings.  I wasn't making an end run around the MND - just trying to urge the Finance Minister a bit! Anyhow, I will still send an occasional letter to Minister O'Connor, just to let him know that this is still one of my priorities.  Thanks for listening.

Reg Warkentin

40.  March 04, 2007. Email to the Finance Minister

Mr Flaherty, I wrote to you awhile back & received an answer stating that you had sent my letter to the MND as he is responsible for Military pensions, widows' allowances, etc. I would normally write to you but I feel that time is of the essence so have reverted to email. Is it possible for you to make a last minute amendment to your imminent budget to include pension benefits for those widows who have married Military Veterans after the Vet's 60th birthday? Surely you & the Defence Minister can sort this out before the budget is presented, and certainly before the next election. Any delay at this time will, once again, result in continued misery for the 1000 or so "disenfranchised" widows. Certainly the annual estimated $9.3 million (1000 widows x $9300 annual) would not put a big strain on the existing $43+ billion in the Military superannuation account, which increases by approx $2 billion annually.  A reply from you indicating your positive action would be gratefully received by all those widows affected. I await your reply.

Sincerely,

Reg Warkentin, Major (Ret'd)

41.  March 25, 2007. Letter to the Honourable Gordon O'Connor, PC, MP, Minister of National Defence.

Dear Minister O'Connor,

I appreciate your taking time to read the many letters and emails that I have been sending to your office concerning the ever-present problem of widows who married Military veterans after the veteran's 60th birthday. The latest information that I have received from Mr Shanahan, from your office, stated something to the effect that '...legislation would be required...' before any change could be made to the present Canadian Forces Superannuation Act.

This being the case, I am extremely concerned that unless someone really sets his mind to it, nothing will get done prior to the next (impending) election, and any action will be finished once the Prime Minister gets his approval from the Governor General to dissolve Parliament.  Surely positive action can be 'brought to the front of the line', so to speak, in order to get Parliament approval in an expedient manner. Yes, I understand that there are other MPs who have their own axe to grind, and may not agree that the plight of widows is important. But I know that you and the majority of other Members think differently on this vital matter.

I sincerely hope that you can take the necessary action to see passage of this legislation before another election.

Best regards,

Reg Warkentin, Major (Ret'd)

42.  March 20, 2007. Letter from the Canadian Human Rights Commissioner to the Honourable Gordon O'Connor, PC, MP, Minister of National Defence.

Dear Minister,

I am writing to you in reference to section 31(1) of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act. Section 31(1) prohibits the surviving spouse of a Canadian Armed Forces pensioner from accessing benefits if the pensioner married or began cohabiting in a conjugal nature, with the survivor after the contributor turned 60 years of age, unless the contributor became or continued to be a contributor.  It is our understanding that this type of provision was originally considered to prevent young women from marrying veterans for their money.

In 1997, the Armed Forces Pensioners'/Annuitants' Association, which promotes and protects the rights and interests of CAF retirees and their survivors, filed a complaint on this issue, but section 62(1) of the CHRA prevented the Commission from dealing with it.  This section prohibits the Commission from dealing with complaints which relate to a pension/superannuation fund or plan established by an Act of Parliament enacted prior to March 1978.  The Armed Forces Pensioners'/Annuitants' Association recently approached the Commission for assistance in obtaining the repeal of section 31(1) of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act.

Since 2005, amendments to section 31(1) of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act have been sought through private members bills.  The most recent were Bill C-202 by Daryl Kramp (Conservative), which received first reading on April 6, 2006 and Bill C-238 by Peter Stoffer (NDP), which received first reading in May 2006.  Neither bill is likely to pass as neither has progressed beyond first reading.

On March 1, 2007, the Government announced its intention to modernize the Canadian Forces pension plan, however we have been informed by the Department of National Defence that changes to section 31(1) are not included in this modernization effort but rather it is currently examining this provision.  Without opining on the possible discriminatory impact of section 31(1), the Commission would urge you to consider repealing this provision.  Although the Commission has not been approached regarding the provision of the CFSA related to children born or adopted after the contributor reaches the age of sixty and the provision dealing with death within one year of marriage, these sections may also merit reexamination.

I would be pleased to meet with you to discuss the Commission's position on this issue.  As well, the Director General responsible for the policy area, Ian Fine, is available to answer questions about our position on section31(1) of the CFSA in the event that your staff wish to contact him.  He can be reached by phone at (613)943-9090 or by e-mail at ian.fine@chrc-ccdp.ca.

Yours Sincerely,

(signed) David Langtry, Commissioner

43.  Letter to The Honourable Gordon O'Connor, Minister of National Defence, May 18, 2007.

Dear Minister,

As I have not heard from you or your Office lately, I thought I should write to you to keep in contact, and to remind you of the on-going problem with the lack of monetary support for widows who married over-60 Veterans, and now, that their husbands are deceased, find themselves without a portion of their husband's pension.  I realize that I don't have to go over all this again as I and others have written to you over the past year and a half about this very situation.

When I read Hansard and see all of the 'frivolous' private member's Bills, I just wonder how Bills 202 and 238 ever saw the light of day.  And I realize that every private member is pushed into having his Bill receive first reading or he/she will have angry constituents on his/her back. And that is the unfortunate thing - the Bills that are truly 'worthy' (depending on who is judging), get left by the wayside and may never get past first reading. And, I suppose, that is what is happening with the 'over-60' Bills.  It is all very disheartening.

I just hope that you and your Staff can achieve some measure of success with the amendment to CFSA Section 31(1), before Parliament goes on their summer break, but certainly before the next election.

Sincerely,

Reg Warkentin, Major,(Ret'd)

44.  Letter to the Honourable Peter MacKay, Minister of National Defence, August 25, 2007.

Dear Minister,

First of all, I must congratulate you on your new appointment as Minister of National Defence. I am sure that the serving members of the Canadian Forces as well as the Veterans are pleased with you appointment.

I must apprise you of a situation that has existed for over 106 years - one for which the Department of National Defence is responsible. Perhaps members of your Staff have already mentioned it to you, or they may have said, "Standby for letters from Reg Warkentin." What I am referring to is Section 31(1) of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act that prohibits certain widows from receiving a portion of their deceased Veteran husband's pension. These are the ladies who married their Veteran husband after his 60th birthday and are not entitled to a portion of his pension when the Veteran dies.

I have been conducting correspondence with all of the previous Ministers of National Defence concerning this matter, since 1994 as well as all of the Prime Ministers during this time period. Nothing has changed. Although I will say that Minister O'Connor had (I presume) started the ball rolling to have this Section of the CFSA removed so that all Military widows are treated the same. Minister, I look forward to your response and positive action.

Best regards,

Reg Warkentin, Major, (Ret'd)

Kingston, ON    (no answer as of 1 Nov 07

45.  Letter to the Honourable Peter MacKay, Minister of National Defence, dated September 27, 2007

Dear Minister,

It has been over one month since my last letter to you, to which I have not received a reply. I realize that you are very busy with a lot of other important tasks and that your letter writing time is limited, to say the least. Perhaps you can have one of your Staff members, whether civilian or Military, check into and perhaps have your office do something to correct the problem as outlined in many previous letters to the last six or so Ministers of National Defence.

I still believe that all widows should be treated the same, regardless of a perceived mind set within the Government. And, if there is to be another election soon, then everything goes back to zero - again. I cannot see what the great problem is with over 48 billion dollars in the Superannuation Fund for retired veterans and spouses. I have done the "math" and, as previously stated, as well as on the web site www.CVAST.com, the monthly amount required to pay these "disenfranchised" widows would be about $822. Surely this would not take a big bite out of the existing Fund! There are about 1000 widows who receive nothing of their deceased veteran husband's pension simply because they married the Vet after his 60th birthday.

Surely the time is now to have corrective action taken to right this 106 year old Militia Pension Act which DND is so slavishly following! Surely no one at DND believes that $822 per month is "gold digger" wages!

Regards,

Reg Warkentin, Major (Ret'd)

Kingston, ON     (no answer as of 1 Nov 07)

46.  Letter to General RJ Hillier, Chief of Defence Staff, dated 1 October 2007.

Dear General,

I know that you are a very busy person, but I would ask you to take a few moments to read my letter. It concerns the plight of several widows who married Military Veterans after the Vet's 60th birthday. These are the widows who now receive nothing of their deceased husband's pension. You may know all about this already but I would just like to mention that Section 31(1) of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act prohibits these widows from receiving a portion of their spouse's pension. This part of the Act has been in force for 106 years; I think that it is about time that it was changed. These widows are trying to subsist on CPP and OAS and are surely having a hard time doing it.

As of 31 March 2006 there were 21,624 surviving spouses of deceased Veterans collecting an average of $822 per month.  This was the bulk of the actual 22,450 surviving spouses. At the same time there were 1,000 or so widows collecting nothing. The amount of money in the Superannuation Fund to pay benefits was $48,168,000,000 and increases by about 2.5 billion every year. I do not think that paying these widows $822 per month would break the bank.

I realize that you are not a politician in the true sense of the word, but I also know that you exert a high degree of influence on the politicians who have a final say in financial matters where DND is comcerned.  And I know that you care about Military families, which, of course includes widows.  If you agree with me, perhaps something can be done, soon, to eliminate this discrimination.

Sincerely,

Reg Warkentin, Major, (Ret'd)

Kingston, ON  

47.  Letter to Colonel Patrick Stogran, Veterans Ombudsman, dated October 19, 2007

Dear Colonel,

Congratulations on your appointment as Veterans' Ombudsman -  a long awaited position! Even though your office has just been established, I am sure that you have been inundated with requests for assistance from Veterans.

I am going to mention a problem that I have been dealing with for about thirteen years and sincerely hope that you do not pass this on to the Minister of National Defence because this is not a medical/disability one that has not been resolved by Veterans Affairs. What I am about to mention is something that not only affects certain widows of Military Veterans, but the Veterans as well.

What I am referring to is Section 31(1) of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act that prohibits certain widows  from receiving a portion of their deceased Veteran husband's pension because they married the Vet after his 60th birthday. I have been trying to have this Section changed for the past thirteen years or so with no success. I will admit that there has been some "lip service" applied to this problem by a succession of Ministers but nothing concrete has happened.

My whole effort up to this point has been to achieve a pension for the several hundred widows who married a Veteran after his 60th birthday. Something that I have not stressed in all of my previous correspondence is how Section 31(1) of the CFSA affects the living Veterans who married after their 60th birthday. Many of us are in that category and find that our wives (and future widows) will not receive a portion of our pension when we die. This knowledge can have a devastating effect on a marriage. Falling in love can and does happen to people after their 60th birthday! And why should a Veteran be relegated to a lonely life just because he is 60 years of age, and possibly a widower? Other Veterans do not have this problem because their spouses will be well cared for. Not many of us had the opportunity to put away several hundreds of thousands of dollars for future 'needs'. I know all about the 'insurance plan' that allows one to buy a plan for one's spouse within one year of marriage and pay one-third of one's pension to pay the premiums and why should this be necessary when there is already in existence a paid up pension plan that would cover these widows?

Clearly, with over $48 billion in the pension account, provision can be made to provide a portion of the Vet's pension to these widows - and possibly widowers in the future. A glance at the Spouses Pension page of www.cvast.com shows that the average monthly pension for the majority of today's widows, that is those that do get a pension, is $822, hardly a princely sum. So perhaps, Colonel, you may wish to follow this up and maybe, just maybe, you may be able to have the responsible people remove a perceived road block to have this offending Section 31(1) of the CFSA, amended. As you know, this Section has been in effect for 106 years, having been part of the original Militia Pension Act of 1901. Last year, two private members bill to amend this Section of the Act received first reading in the House of Commons but nothing has happened since then.

It is my fervent hope that you will not be side tracked by simply being directed to submit this to the MND as has happened before. I wish you all the very best in your new appointment and look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

Reg Warkentin, Major (Ret'd)

48.  Letter to Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada, dated 1 Nov 2007.

Dear Prime Minister,

I have written to you twice last year and twice to Minister MacKay this year, and once to General Hillier, Chief of Defence Staff. None of my letters have been answered. Is this because you have given them instructions to forget the Public and just get on with their jobs? I would have thought that keeping in touch with the voting public might be a good idea. Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps now is the time to release certain Ministers from a perceived 'gag' order and let them answer their mail. I just cannot understand that you would give them orders to ignore persons who have a bona fide reason for writing!

Governing is fine; keeping in touch with persons trying to better the existence of persons in need is, in my estimation, also fine. Without regurgitating all of the 'stuff' I have written to both elected Governments over the past 14 years, suffice it to say that there are certain widows of Military Veterans who are not getting a penny of their deceased husband's pension. Surely, you can appoint someone to check this out! I am sure that someone on your or Peter MacKay's Staff is computer literate enough to send something so that I can stop believing that my mail ends up in the drawer marked "J" for Junk.

This is all very frustrating!

Regards,

Reg Warkentin, Major (Ret'd)  (no answer of Jan 20, 2008)

Kingston, ON  www.cvast.com 

49. Letter to Col Patrick Stogran, new Veterans' Ombudsman, October 19, 2007

Dear Colonel.

Congratulations on your appointment as Veterans' Ombudsman- a long awaited position! Even though your office has just been established, I am sure that you have been inundated with request for assistance from Veterans.

I am going to mention a problem that I have been dealing with for about thirteen years and sincerely hope that you do not pass this on to the Minister of National Defence because this is not a medical/disability one that has not been resolved by Veterans Affairs. What I am about to mention is something that not only affects certain widows of Military Veterans, but the Veterans as well.

What I am referring to is Section 31(1) of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act that prohibits certain spouses from receiving a portion of their deceased Veteran husband's pension because they married the Vet after his 60th birthday. I have been trying to have this Section changed for the past thirteen years or so with no success. I will admit that there has been some "lip service" applied to this problem by a succession of Ministers but nothing concrete has happened.

My whole effort up to this point has been to achieve a pension for the several hundred widows who married a Veteran after his 60th birthday. Something that I have not stressed in all of my previous correspondence is how Section 31(1) of the CFSA affects the living Veterans who married after their 60th birthday. Many of us are in that category and find that our wives (and future widows) will not receive a portion of our pension when we die. This knowledge can have a devastating effect on a marriage. Falling in love can and does happen to people after their 60th birthday! And why should a Veteran be relegated to a lonely life just because he is 60 years of age, and possibly a widower? Other Veterans do not have this problem as their spouses will be well cared for. Not many of us had the opportunity to put away several hundred of thousands of dollars for future 'needs'. I know all about the 'insurance plan' that allows one to buy a plan for one's spouse within one year of marriage and pay one-third of one's pension to pay the premiums and why should this be necessary when there is already in existence a paid up pension plan that would cover these widows?

Clearly, with over $48 billion in the pension account, provision can be made to provide a portion of the Vet's pension to these widows - possibly widowers in the future. A glance at the Spouses Pension page of www.cvast.com shows that the average monthly pension for the majority of today's widows, that is those that do get a pension, is $822, hardly a princely sum. So perhaps, Colonel, you may wish to follow this up and maybe, just maybe, you may be able to have the responsible people remove a perceived road block to have this offending Section 31(1) of the CFSA, amended. As you know, this Section has been in effect for 106 years, having been part of the original Militia Pension Act of 1901. Last year, two private members bill to amend this Section of the Act received first reading in the House of Commons but nothing has happened since then.

It is my fervent hope that you will not be side tracked by simply being directed to submit this to the MND as happened before. I wish you all the very best in your new appointment and look forward to your reply.

Sincerely, Reg Warkentin, Major (Ret'd)

50. Letter from the Chief of the Defence Staff, dated 22 November 2007

Dear Major Warkentin,

Thank you for your correspondence of 1 October 2007 pertaining to the limitation of survivor benefits for Canadian Forces (CF) annuitants who marry after age 60.

Representations over the years have been made to amend the situation of former members who marry or enter into a common-law relationship after age 60. In addition to our existing provisions with respect to the availability of survivor benefits, there were amendments made to the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act (CFSA) in 1992 to allow a pensioner to authorize a reduction in their own pension to provide a pension to their survivor, who would otherwise not qualify for a benefit.

As you may be aware, there was litigation on whether or not the age 60 provision conforms to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  The Federal Court of Appeal ruled that Section 31 of the CFSA does not discriminate on the basis of age and is not in breach of the Charter (Sutherland v. Canada).  The Supreme Court of Canada refused leave to appeal the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal.

That being said, amendments to the CF Pension plan regarding the age 60 issue are under active consideration.

Once again, thank you for your interest in ensuring that the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act meets the needs of its plan members.

Sincerely,

R.J. Hillier, General

51. Letter from the Veterans Ombudsman dated December 14, 2007

Dear Mr Warkentin,

Thank you for your letter received October 26, 2007, concerning the fact that Canadian Forces pensions are not available to widows who married a Veteran over the age of sixty years.

This matter does not fall under the mandate of the Veterans Ombudsman. I would suggest that the Department of National Defence (DND) Ombudsman may be of assistance in this matter. I am providing their contact coordinates for your ease of reference.

Office of the DND/CF Ombudsman, 100 Metcalfe Street, 12th Floor, Ottawa, Ontario, K1P 5M1.

Toll-free: 1-888-828-3626

Email: ombudsman-communications@forces.gc.ca

I trust that the DND Ombudsman's staff will assist you with your complaint and I hope that you receive a positive resolution.

Thank you for contacting the Veterans Ombudsman's Office. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 1-877-330-4343.

Yours Sincerely, 

Brenda Michael, Client Service Officer

52. Letter to General Hillier, Chief of the Defence Staff, dated 17 December 2007.

Dear General Hillier,

Thank you for the answer to my 1 October 2007 letter which I received a few weeks ago, pertaining to the real problem of the lack of benefits to certain widows of deceased Service men. As I have been personally involved in this whole problem, I was well aware of the limitations of Section 31(1) of the CFSA, and of the court battles that you repeated to me in your letter. I was just hoping that you would have the time or Staff to urge someone, anyone in 'power' to do something about it.

Yes, I realize that these widows have nothing to do with the war in Afghanistan, and providing pensions to these widows would never grab the headlines. Of course I realize that the welfare of our troops in Afghanistan and other 'hot spots' take precedence, especially when they return to Canada. And I know that DND is looking after the welfare of the widows of those killed in Afghanistan, which is the way it should be. All I am saying that there are other widows of Veterans who are being denied a pension, and that, I think is not right.

Sincerely,

Reg Warkentin, Major (Ret'd)

53. Letter to the Canadian Forces Ombudsman, dated January 17, 2008

Dear Ms McFadyen,

I am writing to you as I have been pointed in your direction by the new Veterans Ombudsman, Colonel Patrick Stogran. My 'problem' concerns the plight of many widows of deceased Veterans. I have been dealing with this problem for about thirteen years with successive Governments and Ministers of National Defence, with no results.

What I am referring to is Section 31(1) of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act that prohibits certain spouses from receiving a portion of their deceased Veteran husband's pension because they married the Vet after his 60th birthday. Yes, as has been pointed out to me many times in the past, I am aware of the battle with the Provincial Supreme Court by two other Vets' wives which found that there was some discrimination, but that it was acceptable discrimination. I have been trying to have this Section changed for the past thirteen years with no results as I mentioned. I will admit that there has been some "lip service' applied to this problem by the previous Minister of National Defence, but nothing concrete has happened. The present MND, Mr MacKay, does not answer his mail. I did receive a telephone call a few weeks ago from the new Chief of Military Personnel, telling me to "not give up" in my quest for action on this matter. Since then I have also written to the Chief of the Defence Staff, General Rick Hillier, about this problem, but his Office just regurgitated all of the legal 'stuff' that I was already aware of.

My whole effort up to this point has been to achieve a pension for the many widows who married a Veteran after his 60th birthday. Many of us are in that category and find that our wives (and future widows) will not receive a portion of our paid-up pension when we die. This knowledge can have a devastating effect on a marriage. Falling in love can and does happen to people after their 60th birthday! And why should a Veteran be relegated to a lonely life just because he is 60 years of age, and possibly a widower? Other younger Veterans do not have this problem as their spouses will be well cared for. Not many of us had the opportunity to put away several hundreds of thousands of dollars for future 'needs'. I know all about the 'insurance plan' that allows one to buy a plan for one's spouse within one year of marriage and pay about one third of one's pension to pay the premiums. And why should this be necessary when there is already a paid up pension plan in existence that would cover these widows?

Clearly, with over $48 billion in the Forces pension account, provision can be made to provide a portion of the Vet's pension to these widows - and possibly widowers in the future. A glance at the Spouses Pension page of www.cvast.com shows that the average monthly pension for the majority of today's widows, that is those that do  get a pension, is $822, hardly "gold diggers" wages! So maybe, just maybe, you may be able to have the responsible people remove a road block to have this offending Section 31(1) of the CFSA amended. As you know, this Section has been in effect for 107 years having been part of the original Militia Pension Act of 1901, and is the responsibility of the Department of National Defence. Last year, two Private Members Bills to amend this Section of the Act received first reading in the House of Commons, but nothing has happened since then. I sincerely hope that you will consider this as an important matter that must be dealt with, soon.

I am anxious to receive your response.

Sincerely,

Reg Warkentin, Major (Ret'd)

54.  Letter from the Acting Director, Canadian Forces Ombudsman, January 25, 2008

Dear Maj Warkentin (Ret'd):

Thank you for contacting the Office of the Ombudsman for the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces.

This letter is to acknowledge receipt of your recent submission dated January 17, 2008.

Your complaint has been forwarded to the Intake Director and will be assigned to an Intake Officer who will contact you to discuss further action.

We are currently experiencing some delays in processing our complaints at this time due to limited personnel resources, which have been addressed. Your concerns are important to us and we will get back to you as soon as possible.

Thank you for your patience.

Sincerely,

(signed) Erin McDonald, Acting Director of Intake

55.  This Redress of Grievance was sent to the Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay and General Hillier on February 25, 2008.  It has not been actioned or answered as of March 26, 2008.

This letter is a request for you to redress a grievance that I will outline. I am a Canadian Forces Veteran with over 38 years of Service to Canada, and my grievance is that I will be unable to leave a portion of my Military Pension to my wife when I die. Unlike most widows of Service personnel,  my wife does not qualify because of Section 31(1) of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act because she married me after my 60th birthday. Therefore, my grievance is that this Act prohibits me from leaving her a portion of my paid-up Military pension. I wish you to redress my grievance as soon as possible.

Reg Warkentin, Major (Ret'd)

Kingston, Ontario  rwark@sympatico.ca  www.CVAST.com

57.  Letter from the Prime Minister's Office, dated April 4, 2008

Dear Major Warkentin,

On behalf of the Right Honourable Stephen Harper, I would like to acknowledge receipt of your correspondence of February 25 regarding the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and your military pension.

You may be assured that your comments have been carefully reviewed. A copy of your correspondence has been forwarded to the Honourable Peter MacKay, Minister of National Defence. I am certain that the Minister will appreciate being made aware of your views and will want to give them every consideration.

Yours sincerely,

(signed) M. Bourque, Executive Correspondence Officer

58.  Letter from Executive Assistant to the Chief of the Defence Staff dated 17 Apr 08

Major Warkentin,

I acknowledge receipt of your correspondence of 25 February 2008 to General R.J. Hillier, Chief of the Defence Staff, in which you wish to submit a grievance related to the limitation of survivor benefits for Canadian Forces (CF) annuitants who marry after the age of 60.

The issue of pension benefits for retired members of the CF galls under the jurisdiction of Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC). As such, I have taken the liberty of forwarding your submission to VAC for consideration. *

On behalf of General Hillier, I wish to thank you for your service to the Canadian Forces and to Canada.

Sincerely,

J.B.C. Doyon, Lieutenant-Colonel, Executive Assistant to the Chief of the Defence Staff

*(the above is not correct and the Lt Col corrected it in other correspondence)

59.  Letter to the Honourable Robert Nicholson, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, dated May 04, 2008

Dear Minister,

I wish to apprise you of a situation that exists within the Department of National Defence of which you are probably not aware. It concerns the lack of fairness that DND applies to certain widows of deceased Canadian Forces Veterans. Section 31(1) of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act expressly forbids a widow who married a CF Veteran after his 60th Birthday, from receiving a portion  of the deceased Vet's pension. Regardless of the fact that the pension has been paid up, the widow receives not a penny of it. I estimate that there are about 800 to 1000 widows that are in this category. At present there are about 21,000 widows who do draw a portion of their deceased Veteran husband's pension - an average of $875 per month, but there are the 800 to 1000 widows who draw nothing.

Perhaps Minister, in your capacity as Attorney General of Canada, you are in a position to examine this situation to see if there is any hope for these widows, who may be existing on OAS and perhaps CPP. I think that all widows should be treated the same, regardless of when they married the Veteran, or for whatever reason. The $48 billion in the Forces pension fund is ample for the annual $8 million that it would cost to pay these widows.

I have been struggling with this matter for the past fourteen years or so, with no appreciable results, aside from some "lip service" from some Members of Parliament. My 'battle' is fully outlined at www.CVAST.com.

Sincerely, Reg Warkentin, Major (Ret'd)

60. Letter to William J.S. Elliott, Commissioner, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, dated 03 May 2008.

Dear Commissioner Elliott,

I apologize for not contacting you sooner as I realize that the 'battle' I have been involved in might also affect certain retired members of the Force whose pensions fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of National Defence. What I am referring to is the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act that affects not only the pensions of retired members of the Canadian Forces but also the pension that certain deceased Veterans can leave to their spouses. Section 31(1) of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act prohibits a widow from receiving a portion of her deceased Veteran spouse's pension if she married the Veteran after his 60th birthday. I do not know if such a regulation exists within the RCMP. About 800 - 1000 Service widows are affected by this regulation. I have been writing to the various Prime Ministers, Ministers of National Defence and to the Chief of the Defence Staff over the past fourteen years. I suppose one could say that I have been more-or-less spinning my wheels in trying to get the Government to treat all widows the same, regardless of when they married the Vet or under which circumstances.

The previous Minister of National Defence, Gordon O'Connor, had started to take some positive action in this regard, and, in addition. some Members also managed to receive first reading in the House of Commons of Bills that would amend and/or eliminate the offending Section of the CFSA. But nothing concrete has happened in the past fourteen years that I have been involved in this battle.

Commissioner, if the above mentioned Regulation affects the RCMP, perhaps you can add your support to having this Act amended so that all widows are treated the same. As well, I have documented the steps that have been taken in the past at www.CVAST.com.

Best Regards, 

Reg Warkentin, Major (Ret'd)

61.  Letter from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, dated June 2, 2008

Dear Major Warkentin,

Thank you for your letter dated May 3, 2008 addressed to the Commissioner concerning survivor's benefits payable to widows of pensioners who marry after age 60. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act does have a similar provision for members which we do not have the authority to amend. Unfortunately, legislation is required to make any changes to the pension plans forming part of the Consolidated Revenue Fund (includes RCMPSA, PSSA & CFSA).

I hope you are successful in having your suggestions to amend the CFSA changed.

Sincerely, 

Michael Cape, Director, Pensions National Compensation Services

62. Letter to Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada, dated June 18, 2008

Dear Prime Minister,

Something has been bothering me for some time - why is it that this Government is quite generous, financially, in righting certain past wrongs, ie, Japanese Canadians in Canadian Prisoner of War camps during World War 2 and the recent payments to Canadian First Nation children who were forced to attend so-called "Indian Schools", and yet refuses to deal with the simple matter of the mistreatment of certain widows of Canadian Military Veterans? I am writing to you because I understand that nothing that may contain the possibility of future Legislation, makes its way to the floor of the House of Commons without your approval. In addition, it seems that your Ministers do not answer letters without the prior vetting by your Office. But why, may I ask, do you not agree that all Military widows should be treated in like manner? As the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act now stands, the widows who married Veterans after the Veteran's sixtieth birthday receive nothing of her deceased husband's pension. The cost, in my calculations, of the Government removing the offending Section 31(1) of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, would cost the fund about $8 million annually to pay these widows. Surely, the Military Pension (Superannuation) Fund of the published $48 billion, could handle this comparatively small amount.

As you know, many of these estimated 800 or so widows are subsisting on Old Age Security and perhaps Canada Pension and are receiving nothing of their deceased Veteran husband's pension.  Prime Minister, is it not time for the Government to do the right thing and show these widows that you do care for their future well-being in a like manner as you have done for the other mistreated Canadians mentioned above?

Sincerely,

Reg Warkentin, Major (Ret'd)

63.  Letter from National Defence and Canadian Forces Ombudsman, dated June 26, 2008

Dear Major (Ret'd) Warkentin,

Thank you for your letter dated January 17, 2008, concerning Section 31(1) of theCanadian Forces Superannuation Act.

In your letter, you expressed concern that your wide will not be eligible to receive your pension, should you pass away before her, because you were married after you retired from the Canadian Forces (CF) and after you reached the age of 60. You also outlined the steps you have taken to correct what you feel is both a fundamental unfairness and an unfair characterization of those who choose to marry former CF members over the age of 60.

The Ombudsman's Office has received a similar complaint in the past, and following a thorough investigation, it was determined that this specific provision of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act was not unfair, when examined *in the context of other public sector pension schemes. For example, the Public Service Superannuation Act (for federal public servants) does not allow the surviving spouse of a contributor to receive a survivor's benefit if they married or began cohabitating after the contributor retired. However, the Canadian Forces Superannuation Plan has been modified to account for the Canadian Forces distinct career structure and the fact that members retire at comparatively young ages. In extending the deadline from the actual date of retirement to the age of 60, the Government has sought to remedy an identified lack of fairness. In addition, the Act has been amended to allow annuitants, such as yourself, whose spouses are ineligible to receive survivor benefits, to elect to reduce the size of their own pension in order to ensure that their spouse will receive an annuity should it become necessary.

Following our investigation, we concluded that the provision laid out in section 31(1) of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act is neither discriminatory nor is it unfair,* and is based on generally accepted actuarial principles. This conclusion is in keeping with the rulings stemming from various court challenges to the provision, which have also concluded that the existence of the provision in question today is not based on a negative characterization of individuals who marry former CF members over the age of 60.

With this in mind, we have reviewed your letter and the earlier investigation file, and found no new information that would lead us to reconsider our position. As a result, *we will not be conducting any further investigation into this issue.

I thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.

Sincerely,

Erin McDonald, Intake Director

* underlines are mine - Reg Warkentin

64.  Letter to the Ombudsman, dated July 13, 2008

Dear Erin McDonald,

I have just read your letter of June 26, 2008, as I have been away for a couple of weeks.  And I must say, why did I bother to write to you?  I'll tell you why - because I thought that an Ombudsman might have the interest in or take the time to really check out the problem that I had outlined. But obviously you were more interested in pulling out all the old red herrings that have been used before, ie......"not unfair when examined in context of other public sector pension schemes", and...."various court challenges", and so on. What, may I ask, has a Military pension "scheme" got to do with other public service pension "schemes"? I suppose that it has been a lot easier for you to just regurgitate all of the "stuff" that has been sent to me in the past, rather than trying to do something about this problem. I sincerely hope that serving Members of the Forces get more help from you, because it is obvious to me that you and your Office just don't give a damn about the plight of a lot of widows of Military Veterans. My, it must have been sooo easy to just pull out all of the old 'junk' in someone else's filing cabinet (I'm sure that there was nothing in the Ombudsman's cabinet), read it over and say, "This so-called problem was solved a long time ago! No more work to do here!" and slam it shut. Perhaps you could have taken the time to check out www.CVAST.com to see some of the stuff that has been sent to me in the past.

I am forwarding your letter to a Military General as well as publishing it on the above mentioned web site.

Finally, if you are unhappy with the tasks that require some in depth work, perhaps you should find a less stressful occupation.

Sincerely,

Reg Warkentin, Major (Ret'd)

65. Letter from General Natynczk, Chief of the Defence Staff, dated  16 July, 2008

Dear Major Warkentin,

Thank you for your correspondence of 25 February 2008 to my predecessor, General R.J. Hillier, in which you express your concern with the limitation of survivor benefit entitlements, specifically Section 31(1) of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act (CFSA).

You submitted correspondence on this issue as a Redress of grievance. Subsections 29(1) and (2) of the National Defence Act enable an officer or non-commissioned member who has been aggrieved by any decision, act or omission in the administration of the affairs of the Canadian Forces for which no other process for redress is provided under this Act to submit a grievance. This does not apply to a non-serving member. As such, as a retired member of the Canadian Forces (CF), please be advised that there is no redress of grievance process available to you under the National Defence Act. Alternatively, as part of their mandate, the CF Ombudsman has a process whereby a former member can lodge a complaint, should you with to. Further information is available at http://www.ombudsman.forces.gc.ca/sc-sp/index-eng.asp or by telephone at 1-888-828-3626, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. (Eastern time), Monday to Friday. 

Notwithstanding the above, I do offer the following explanation of the CFSA survivor benefit policy for your interest. Pensions to members under the three large federal public sector pension plans, the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, the Public Service Superannuation Acat, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act are calculated according to the following formula: 2% X the member's average salary of the best 5 years of earnings X the member's pensionable service. Survivor benefits are calculated according to the formula: 1% X the member's average salary X the member's pensionable service. In most instances, this means that the survivor's benefit pension is 50% of the member's pension. (In instances where the member has chosen a reduced pension, or has had his pension reduced as a result of the integration of the pension plan with the Canada Pension Plan, the survivor pension may actually be more than 50% of the member's benefit).

The practice in Canadian pension plans is to provide survivor benefits automatically only to spouses or partners where the relationship began prior to the member ceasing to be employed. This practice is based on the principle that the employer's obligation under a pension plan can be reasonably be limited to the member and to the family that existed during the member's period of service to that employer. However, in recognition of the fact that members of the Canadian Forces tend to retire at a much earlier age than average, the pension plan for the Canadian Forces provides that survivor benefits are automatically payable if the relationship begins prior to age 60.

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police pension plan is identical to the Canadian Forces pension plan in this respect. The Public Service pension plan, on the other hand, is less generous, in that it does not provide automatic survivor benefits where the partnership begins after the member's employment ceases, irrespective of the member's age when the termination of employment occurs.

Prior to 1994, a retired Canadian Forces member could not, under any circumstances, provide a survivor benefit if the marital-type relationship began after the age of 60. Legislative amendments in 1992, followed by the necessary regulations in 1994, established the current scheme. However, in order to provide a survivor benefit, a retired Canadian Forces member who marries or enters into a common-law relationship after age 60 must take a reduction in his or her own pension.

Under the current scheme, members may choose to provide their survivor with a benefit equal to 30%, 40%, or 50% of their own annuity. The reduction required in their own pension would depend on the level of the survivor benefit they choose, and other factors such as their age and the age of their partner. Every case, therefore, requires an individual calculation. The following examples, however, will provide an illustration:

a) Pensioner, age 72, released in 1985 and is in receipt of a basic monthly benefit of $1,600. To provide a survivor benefit equal to 50% ($800) of his own benefit to his 71-year-old partner, he must reduce his pension by $455 per month; and

b) Pensioner, age 64, released in 1983, and is in receipt of a basic monthly benefit of $1,018. To provide a survivor benefit equal to 40% ($407) of his own benefit to his 59-year-old partner, he must reduce his pension by $176.

When the current scheme was introduced, the government determined that it should be done on a cost-neutral basis. That is, providing benefits to survivors not previously eligible for them should not impose any additional cost on the pension plan. This decision was based largely on the fact that the survivor scheme under the three plans was already more generous than the Canadian norm. The three large federal public sector pension plans are defined benefit plans, meaning that the benefit provided to plan members is specified in a formula in the plan. Such a plan imposes substantial risk on the employer, who is responsible for ensuring that the pension obligation is met, irrespective of investment outcome or demographic challenges. Poor investment outcomes, low interest rates and very complex regulatory regimes have combined to convince many private employers that only the public sector, with its taxing capacity, can afford these plans. It would be extremely difficult for the government to make a survivor benefit plan improvement for retired members of the Canadian Forces without similar changes to the pension plans for the Public Service and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. A change to this policy is not being considered at this time.

Once again, thank you for writing. I also wish to take this opportunity to thank you for your service to the Canadian Forces.

Sincerely,

W.J. Natynczyk, General

66. Letter to General Natynczyk, Chief of the Defence Staff, July 25, 2008

Dear General Natynczyk,

First of all, congratulations on your recent appointment as Chief of the Defence Staff. I must say that I was surprised at receiving a letter from you just sixteen days into your new job! As well, I was also quite surprised at the length of your letter, and the amount of research you or your Staff had done concerning the problem of "Marriage after 60". I still think that it is a problem. Of course I  realized at the time that I was not entitled to submit a Redress of Grievance, but I was running out of ideas. I was getting little or no response to my letters, in fact, certain Members of Parliament would not answer my letters. I guess that they were getting sick of my insistence. As for the CF Ombudsman, I received short shrift from him/her and have replied in kind. The Ombudsman's research consisted of basically, reading someone else's replies to me over the years and repeating it all to me again. I hope that serving Members get a better response and perhaps even some help, from Erin McDonald.

When I married in 1994 I was not aware of the restrictive Section 31(1) of the CFSA. I had not been briefed on it when I was released in 1987. When I did find out about it and that one could apply for a survivor's benefit, I made enquiries. At that time I had not reached age 65 so was drawing my 'total' pension without the CPP reduction. To leave a 50 percent benefit to my wife would have cost me in excess of $700 per month which would have been roughly one third of my pension. And why should this be necessary? I already had a paid up pension 'plan' which would die with me.

As you are no doubt aware, some MPs have brought forward Private Members Bills which would eliminate the offending Section 31(1) of the CFSA. These Bills have received first reading and agreement from the Government and the Opposition. Unfortunately, nothing has happened since then. This Section of the Act was initiated in 1901 as part of the Militia Pension Act to prevent death bed marriages of old Crimean and Boer War vets to young ladies, and was given these ladies the term of "Gold Diggers". And today, there are still some persons who think that any lady who marries a Veteran after his 60th birthday is, in fact, a "Gold Digger!"

I have done some research into the costs of providing survivor benefits to widows who had married Canadian Veterans after the Vet's 60th birthday. I am not an 'actuarial giant' like those on DND's payroll but, according to the Governments own figures, it would cost about $770 per month to pay these (about) 800 widows who receive nothing of their deceased husband's pension. As you know, there is about $43 billion in the Canadian Forces superannuation (pension) fund, and this amount never seems to decrease, annually. In fact, it increases by about 2-3 billion dollars annually. So where is the problem? Should this 'extra' money again be declared 'surplus' by the Government so they can again pay down the National debt? Or perhaps use it for some other worthy cause like they have done before, ie, paying interred Canadian Japanese in Canadian concentration camps, or pay those First Nation children (now adults) who were forced to attend "Indian schools"? I am not saying that both of these examples were not worthy of financial assistance, but why not the few widows I have mentioned who may have had hardships caring for older, and possibly sick Veterans?

There does seem to be a glimmer of hope in having this Section of the CFSA change. I am enclosing an article from the latest Armed Forces Pensioners Association news letter. Who knows - maybe Peter MacKay will take some action to have this Section changed, but I'm not holding my breath.  *

Finally, I am also enclosing page 49 of the Canadian Forces Annual Superannuation Report. It states quite clearly that the SDB decreases by 10 percent annually starting at age 61 and that a minimum coverage of $5,000 is provided at age 65. If you do the math, decreasing the insurance by 10% from age 61 to age 65 would only be a total decrease of 50%, leaving coverage of the remaining 50%. In most cases this would amount to more than $5,000. Clarification (not amendments) please.  *

Again, General, thank you for taking the time to do the research and answer my letters, even though I am not pleased with the status quo and will continue my efforts to have Section 31(1) of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act changed.

Sincerely,

Reg Warkentin, Major (Ret'd)

(Note - these two articles are not included here but are available from their respective sources)

67.  Letter to the Honourable Peter Milliken, M.P. dated August 22, 2008.

Dear Mr Milliken,

I wrote to you on January 19, 2005 concerning the plight of a certain group of Service widows - those who married Veterans after the Vet's 60th birthday.  You forwarded my letter on to the then Minister of National Defence, Bill Graham.  Since then I have been corresponding with all successive Prime Ministers, Defence Ministers and Chiefs of the Defence Staff concerning this matter.  Not much has happened.  As you know, two Members of Parliament brought Private Members Bills to the House to have the offending Section 31(1) of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act eliminated, or at least amended. These Bills received first reading.  This was very encouraging at the time but it seems that no one in Government really believes that there is a problem and that these 800 or so widows can fend for themselves without any financial 'help' from their deceased husband's pension. It has been commendable that the Government, in their generosity and/or guilt, offered recompense to the Japanese Canadians held in Canadian concentration camps during World War 2, and to First Nation children (now adults) who were removed from their families and forced to attend so-called "Indian Schools".  But what of the few widows who get nothing of their husband's pension? What will the Government do with the $43 billion in the Forces' pension fund?  Probably this money is being 'eyed' by some Government departments as to their possible use, as it increases by 2-3 billion dollars annually.  

So before this happens, why can the Government not release about an estimated $8 million annually to help the widows who may be subsisting on OAS and perhaps CPP?  The other Force's widows that do receive a portion of their deceased husband's pension receive, on average, about $722 per month.  This is not a princely sum but would certainly help those remaining widows to maintain a better standard of living. Mr. Milliken, perhaps you can add your support to resolve this discrepancy.  I believe that all Military widows should be treated in a like manner.  Please check out www.cvast.com for all past correspondence and other information.

Sincerely,

Reg Warkentin, Major (Ret'd)

68.  Letter from Rob Nicholson, Attorney General of Canada, July 31, 2008

Dear Major Warkentin,

On behalf of the Honourable Rob Nicholson, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, I acknowledge receipt of your correspondence of May 4, 2008, concerning the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act.

The matter you raise falls within the purview of the Honourable Peter MacKay, Minister of National Defence. I have therefore taken the liberty of forwarding a copy of your correspondence to Minister MacKay for his information and consideration.

It may be helpful for you to know that, as Minister of Justice, Minister Nicholson provides legal services, including legal advice, to the federal government and its departments and agencies. In his role as Attorney General , he represents the Crown in all court cases involving the Government of Canada. He is not able to investigate or intervene in the matter you raise.

Thank you for writing.

Yours sincerely,

L. Bisson, Manager, Ministerial Correspondence Unit

69. Letter from Hon. Peter MacKay, Minister of National Defence, Sep 02, 2008

Dear Major Warkentin,

Your letter of May 4, 2008, concerning the eligibility of souses of retired Canadian Forces members who married after the age of 60 to survivor benefits under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act was forwarded to me by the Office of the Honourable Rob Nicholson. I appreciate your taking time to voice your concerns about this important matter.

Many retired members have expressed their dissatisfaction with this aspect of the pension legislation. Considerable study by the Department of National Defence and discussion with other federal departments has taken place to find an appropriate solution. I look forward to addressing this matter in an informed way in the future.

I wish to assure you that the views you have expressed hare being taken into account.

Thank you for writing. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank you for your service in defence of Canada.

70. Letter to the Right Honourable Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada, Sept 6, 2008.

Dear Prime Minister,

This week I noticed that the Government has finally recognized the "Atomic Veterans" - those 700 or so Military personnel who were exposed to radiation in Nevada more that fifty years ago. I am sure that the $24,000 compensation payment cannot compensate for the suffering that these Veterans endured over the years, and the loss that families still endure by the death of their loved ones caused by the radiation exposure.

As you know, there are still some Military widows who receive no financial assistance - that is, a portion of their deceased husband's pension. Of course I am talking about the 800 or so widows who married these Veterans after the Vet's 60th birthday. These are the widows who must now make a life for themselves on Old Age Assistance and perhaps the Canada Pension Plan. As of March 2006, there were 22,450 widows receiving a portion of their deceased husbands paid up pension. The average monthly payment of the bulk of this number - 22,060, was $799 per month. These Service widows at least get a portion of their deceased husbands paid up pension - 800 or so get nothing. As there is about $43 billion in the Military Pension Fund, I cannot foresee a problem with extracting about $7.9 million annually to pay these widows this approximately $799 per month. The Canadian Forces Superannuation Fund increases by 2-3 billion dollars annually, so I cannot see why serving Members would have to increase their payments to the Military 'pension' fund to offset the payments to these widows. Of course, actuarial experts will have an explanation as to why it is necessary.

Prime Minister, as you know, Canadian statistics and the last census have indicated that the demographics of Canada have changed somewhat from what they were fifteen years ago. People live longer on average and much of the social structure has also changed. Many people wait until they are older to get married, and many marry even after their 60th birthday. And why should Military widows or widowers in the late 50s or 60s be relegated to a 'single' life? Some actuarial experts still think of the offensive "Gold Diggers Clause" - Section 31(1) of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, with the view that women marry or enter into a relationship with older men entitled to pensions, so that they can obtain a survivor's benefit as a financial advantage. In the real world, a new spouse or partner of someone over the age of 60 is typically making a long-term commitment to someone who may require a great deal of future support. That commitment, if reduced to financial terms, is typically much greater than the value of the survivor's benefit.

Finally, Prime Minister, I believe that now is the time to re-kindle the hope that these widows hold, and offer them and all future Military widows the chance for a better standard of living by allowing them to receive a portion of their deceased Veteran husband's pension.

Sincerely,

Reg Warkentin, Major (Ret'd)

(cc)

The Honourable Peter MacKay, PC, MP, Minister of National Defence

General W.J. Natynczk, Chief of the Defence Staff

71. Letter from the Honourable Peter Milliken, M.P for Kingston and the Islands, dated Sept 8, 2008

Dear Mr. Warkentin,

Thank you for your recent letter regarding spousal access to veterans' pensions in Canada. I always welcome the views of my constituents.

Ensuring that surviving service spouses maintain financial security is indeed a pressing issue for many Canadians. I certainly appreciate your keen interest and the volume of correspondence you have compiled on this important matter. However, as you may be aware, in my role as Speaker of the House of Commons I cannot vote directly on legislation except in the case of a tie. For this reason I have taken the liberty of forwarding a copy of your letter to the Hon. Greg Thompson, Minister of Veterans Affairs, so that he might clarify the position of his government on this issue.

I have also sent a copy of your correspondence to the Hon. Albina Guarnieri, the Opposition Critic for Veterans Affairs, so that she might clarify the position of the Liberal party as well. Furthermore, I will be sure to keep your comments in mind during the discussions with my parliamentary colleagues.

I hope this proves to be of assistance. Thank you again for taking the time to write to me.

Yours truly, Peter Milliken, M.P.

72.  Letter from the office of the Minister of Veterans Affairs, Sep 23, 2008

Dear Major Warkentin,

On behalf of the Minister of Veterans Affairs, the Honourable Greg Thompson, I am pleased to respond to your letter, forwarded by the Honourable Peter Milliken, requesting changes to military pension policy.

Since this matter falls under the responsibility of the Department of National Defence, I have taken the liberty of forwarding a copy of your correspondence to the office of the Honourable Peter G. MacKay, minister of National Defence, for his consideration.

I hope that this will be of assistance.

Yours sincerely,

Peter Mills, Director, Executive Services Unit

73.  Letter to the Veterans Ombudsman, dated November 5, 2008

Dear Colonel Stogran,

I first wrote to you on October 19, 2007 reference a problem that some Veterans and Veteran's widows are having with Section 31(1) of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act. You answered on December 14, 2007. Your answer basically said that what I had requested in my letter did not fall under the mandate of the Veterans Ombudsman and I was directed to the DND Ombudsman for possible assistance. On reading your mandate, I see that it does not really apply to all Veterans - just those who have a medical problem who would normally be looked after by Veterans Affairs. But on reading the paragraph under the Government page on Veterans Ombudsman, "Who We Are", then looking down to the paragraph entitled "The Veteran Ombudsman will:" ...I see that the last two lines would certainly apply to the contents of my previous letter, ie,...."make recommendations and help raise awareness of the needs and concerns of Veterans, " and "...work to build Veterans' confidence that their views are important."

I should have seen this part of your mandate a long time ago and perhaps quoted it to the other gentlemen with whom I have been corresponding, like the Prime Minister, Minister of National Defence, Chief of the Defence Staff and the Chief of Military Personnel as, like me, they probably were not aware of these two extremely important paras giving you the right to help the many Veterans and deceased Veterans' spouses who married Veterans after the Vet's 60th birthday and are now in dire need of financial help.

Finally, I did contact the DND Ombudsman who was not the least bit interested in the problem, and I now find myself running out of ideas, trying to get someone, anyone to take some action. Please check out my previous letter to you and the web site www.cvast.com for the past correspondence concerning this problem. Maybe you will interpret the two lines mentioned above as I have. I noticed that you held a meeting in Halifax on October 27/08. I note that CPO Labelle (Ret'd) brought up a subject to you, other than VAC problems - the pension clawback at age 65 'problem'. So, if you are on 'his side' with that issue, perhaps you can have a look at the "marriage after 60" problem as well.

Sincerely,

Reg Warkentin, Major (Ret'd)

Kingston, Ontario

74.  Letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, dated December 17, 2008

Dear Prime Minister,

I realize that this is an extremely busy time for you and your Finance Minister, preparing for the January budget. And I also realize that the subject of this letter has nothing to do with bailing out the big three auto manufacturers, or other steps that will probably be taken to strengthen the economy and take the action necessary to create jobs in all parts of Canada. No, my subject is quite mundane by comparison as is the low amount of money required to ease the burden of certain widows. I am sure that you have guessed that I am asking you to think of the widows of deceased Military Veterans who receive nothing of their spouses Military pension. I am sure that some of these widows have lost some of their own savings were they fortunate enough to put some money away, further exacerbating their financial burdens. Surely these widows who married Military Veterans after the Vet's 60th birthday deserve some recognition for looking after the Vet during his later retired life. As you know, they receive nothing of his pension because of Section 31(1) of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act. I ask you to include a small note in the up coming budget that will offer these widows a glimmer of hope in the New Year. Please use some of the money in the Military pension account before it disappears (again) to pay down a possible future deficit.

Sincerely,

Reg Warkentin, Major (Ret'd)

Kingston, ON

(CC) Hon. Jim Flaherty, Minister of Finance

75.  Letter to Ms Helen Rapp, Vice Chair Military Widows, Armed Forces Pensioners'/Annuitants' Association

Dear Ms. Rapp

Thank you for your letters of September 5 and November 7, 2008, concerning the limitation of survivor benefit entitlements, specifically section 31(1) of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act (CFSA). I appreciate your kind words on my re-appointment as Minister of National Defence.

Further to my previous correspondence to you of June 17, and subsequent to our meeting of April 29, I will explain the CFSA survivor benefit policy and provide an update on departmental plans regarding this issue. Pensions to members under the three large federal public sector pension plans, CFSA, the Public Service Superannuation Act, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act are calculated according to the following formula: 2 percent x the member's average salary over the best five years of earnings x the member's pensionable service. Survivor benefits are calculated according to the formula: 1 percent x the member's average salary x the member's pensionable service. In most instances this means that the survivor's benefit pension is 50 percent of the member's pension. In instances where the member has chosen a reduced pension, or has had his or her pension reduced as a result of the integration of the pension plan with the Canada Pension Plan, the survivor pension may actually be more than 50 percent of the member's benefit.

The practice in Canadian pension plans is to provide survivor benefits automatically to spouses or partners where the relationship began prior to the member ceasing to be employed. This practice is based on the principle that the employer's obligation under a pension plan can reasonably be limited to the member and to the family that existed during the member's period of service to that employer. However, to recognize the fact that members of the Canadian Forces tend to retire at a much earlier age than average, the pension plan for the Canadian Forces provides that survivor benefits are automatically payable if the relationship begins prior to the member turning 60.

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police pension plan is identical to the Canadian Forces pension plan in this respect. The public Service pension plan, on the other hand, is less generous, in that it does not provide automatic survivor benefits where the partnership begins after the member's employment ceases, irrespective of the member's age at termination of employment.

Before 1994, a retired Canadian Forces member could not, under any circumstances, provide a survivor benefit if the marital-type relationship began after the member turned 60. Legislative amendments in 1992, followed by the regulation adjustments in 1994, established the current scheme. However, in order to provide a survivor benefit, a retired Canadian Forces member who marries or enters into a common-law relationship after age 60 must take a reduction in his or her own pension.

Under the current scheme, members may choose to provide their survivor with a benefit equal to 30, 40 or 50 percent of their own annuity. The reduction required in their own pension would depend on the level of the survivor benefit they choose, and other factors such as their age and the age of their partner. Every case, therefore, requires an individual calculation, but the following examples provide an illustration:

    Pensioner, age 72, released in 1985 who receives a basic monthly benefit of $1,600: to provide a survivor benefit equal to 50 percent ($800) of his own benefit to his 71-year-old partner, he must reduce his pension by $455 per month.

    Pensioner, age 64, released in 1983, who receives a basic monthly benefit of $1,018: to provide a survivor benefit equal to 40 percent ($407) of his own benefit to his 59-year-old partner, he must reduce his pension by $176 per month.

You indicate that this is an issue for the Department of National Defence to resolve. Unfortunately, the matter is not so simple. All federal pension plans are significantly funded by the taxpayer; consequently, Treasury Board must provide the authority for changes to these federal pension plans while ensuring equity among the various plans. When the current scheme was introduced, the government of the day determined that it should be done on a cost-neutral basis-that is, providing benefits to survivors not previously eligible for them should not impose any additional cost on the pension plan. This decision was based largely on the fact that the survivor scheme under the three plans was already more generous than the Canadian norm.

The three large federal public sector pension plans are defined benefit plans, meaning that the benefit provided to plan members is specified in a formula in the plan. Such a plan imposes substantial risk on the employer, who is responsible for ensuring that the pension obligation is met, irrespective of investment outcome or demographic challenges. Poor investment outcomes, low interest rates, and complex regulatory regimes have convinced many private employers that only the public sector, with its taxing capacity, can afford these plans. It would be extremely difficult for the Government to make a survivor benefit plan improvement for retired members of the Canadian Forces without similar changes to the pension plans for the Public Service and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. A change to this policy has been seriously contemplated but is not feasible at this time.

Thank you again for writing. I trust this information is of some assistance.

Sincerely, Peter G. MacKay

76.  Letter to Reg Warkentin from the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman, January 28, 2009

Dear Mr. Warkentin,

On behalf of the Veterans Ombudsman, I would like to thank you for your letter received November 13, 2008.

The Office is presently operation with limited staff, which has resulted in a backlog of inquiries. However, we are actively processing all of the backlogged files and we have opened a case file on your query and will follow up with you as soon as possible to discuss your request.

You will find attached some information about the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call us at 1-877-330-4343 or visit our Web site: www.ombudsman-veterans.gc.ca. You may consult Colonel Stogran's blog for regular progress reports on-line as we continue to build the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman.

Yours sincerely,

Nancy Thomas, Records Management Clerk

77.  Letter from Nancy S. Goodman, North Saanich, BC, January 31, 2009

Re: Marriage After 60 or After Retirement

Dear Reg,

Recently a group of spouses formed a committee to advocate for deletion of these clauses from the CFSA and Public Service Superannuation Acts. We have each written to our three local MP's with copies to the Military Ombudsman and others. I have written to MP's David Kramp and Peter Stoffer, as they presented Private Member's Bills on this issue in April 2006. 

We have written an article for the current Sidney and Victoria FSNA branch newsletters asking anyone in this situation to contact us.

We have heard from about 15 spouses (the Victoria newsletter has not come out yet). We are sending them a letter asking them to write to our three local MP's, to the Prime Minister and to the Treasury Board.

We are going to be calling our three MP's to make appointments to discuss this issue.

I have printed your entire website and it's in a spiral binder as a reference! We realize that you have done all these things over and over during the past 14 years. We admire your persistence and well written compassionate letters.

The piece that has been missing over the years is involving the SPOUSES. We have asked FSNA to initiate a Canada-wide initiative to find out who and how many spouses there are. We notice that you are estimating 1,000, but we don't know where you got the figures. FSNA has recently made this their top priority.

We see ourselves as a grassroots effort. What can we do to work together?

Sincerely yours,

Nancy Goodman & Anne Bowen

78.  Letter to Nancy Goodman from the President of the Treasury Board, Mar 10, 2009

Dear Ms. Goodman:

Thank you for your letter dated February 2, 2009, regarding the "marriage after 60" provisions under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act (CFSA) and the "marriage after retirement" provisions under the Public Service Superannuation Act (PSSA). I have noted your comments.

It may be helpful to provide some background on this issue. The survivor pension is payable to spouses who were married or in a common-law relationship at the member's attainment of age 60 or after retirement. The CFSA and PSSA are not unlike most private and public pension plans by requiring that spousal relationships be established before retirement.

In recognition of the fact that pensioners may enter into a new spousal relationship after these dates, the federal pension plans were amended to provide an optional survivor benefit. Under the amended provisions, a Canadian Forces (CF) pensioner who marries after age 60, or a Public Service (PS) pensioner who marries after retirement, is able to elect to provide a survivor benefit by having his or her pension reduced to compensate for the provision of this benefit. Pensioners may provide a survivor benefit of 30, 40 or 50 percent of their pension to a surviving spouse. With respect to health care and dental benefits, these would also be available to the surviving spouse is the plan member elects to provide this optional survivor benefit to his or her spouse. If you are interested in receiving more information concerning the optional survivor benefit, I invite you to contact the Public Service Pension Centre at 1-800-561-7930.

It is important to note that, in recognition of their earlier retirement, surviving spouses of deceased CF members will still be eligible for the normal survivor pension if they were married or established a common-law relationship after the CF member's retirement, but before reaching age 60.

In light of the above, no changes are being contemplated to the "marriage after retirement" provisions under the PSSA. It is also my understanding that no changes are being contemplated to the "marriage after 60" provisions under the CFSA.

Finally, while the President of the Treasury Board is responsible for the financing and funding of the three major pension plans )the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, the PSSA, as well as the CFSA), I would like to clarify that the responsibility of the CF pension plan rests with my colleague, the Honourable Peter Gordon MacKay, Minister of National Defence. I have therefore take the liberty of forwarding a copy of your correspondence to him, for consideration.

Again, thank you for writing.

Yours sincerely,

Vic Toews, P.C., Q.C., M.P.

79.  Letter to Canadian Human Rights Commission from Nancy Goodman, April 07, 2009

Re: Marriage after 60 or Retirement

Dear Commission Members:

A group of thirty-five spouses from the Victoria and Sidney, BC area have formed a committee to work toward the deletion of the age-restrictive clauses in the five Federal Superannuation Acts, which are the Canadian Forces (CF), Public Service (PS), RCMP, Members of Parliament (MP) and Judges. We contend that these Acts violate section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms because they discriminate on the basis of both SEX and AGE. Statistically, the majority of spouses affected by these clauses are women, who are in long-term marriages and are also senior citizens. 

Currently, there are pension plans in the private sector that do not have age-related restrictions on surviving spouse pensions. Furthermore, the United Kingdom and the United States, the original sources of these restrictions, have deleted them. We understand that the UK deleted the clause in the 1960's or 70's. The UK Military Survivor Benefit Plan indicates that the surviving spouse is entitled to survivor benefits provided marriage took place at least 6 months before the pensioner's death. The US Military Survivor Benefit Plan requires that a surviving spouse be a widow who was married to a retiree at the time of his enrolment or was married to the deceased retiree for at least one year prior to the retiree's death. In addition, the Canadian Human Rights Act protects against discrimination by federally regulated employers, such as "federal departments & agencies." This would certainly include the CF, PS, RCMP, MP & Judges Superannuation Acts.

We have read many reports and are aware of previous efforts in this area. We know that this is another day, another time, and we ask that you assist us. We have confidence that you will support our cause. Thank you.

Sincerely yours,

Nancy S. Goodman

CC: Status of Women Minister of State Hon. Helena Guergis, 

Opposition Critics for the Status of Women: Irene Mathyssen, Anita Neville, 

Seniors Minister of State Hon. Marjory LeBreton, 

Opposition Critics for the Seniors Minister of State: Wayne Marston, Hon. Judy Sgro, 

National Advisory Council on Aging  

Helen Rapp, Armed Forces Pensioners' Association

80.  Letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, May 10, 2009

Dear Prime Minister,

I have just read two letters written by the Minister of National Defence, and the other by the President of the Treasury Board, concerning the problem of certain widows of Veterans not being entitled to a portion of their deceased husband's pension. I have enclosed copies of these letters that were recently sent to me.** I am truly disappointed and disheartened at the contents of both letters. as well, you will see that each of the authors, Mr MacKay and Mr Toews are pointing the finger of responsibility at each other! It appears that neither one of them wants anything to do with this problem! So, I guess, it's really up to you to take the helm and take some positive action yourself to right this problem that has been foisted on certain widows since its inception by the Militia Pension Act of 1901 - 1901, for goodness sake! After I have spent several years battling the Liberal bureaucratic brick wall I now find that really nothing has changed with the Conservative Government. The same old regurgitated rhetoric that has been repeated over and over again over the years. Nothing original, which demonstrates to me that none of your Ministers really give a damn about the plight of the 'disenfranchised' widows. I don't even know how many there are; it could be 8 or 80 or 800. Only your Military Pension Office knows how many. But I do know that there is enough money in the Canadian Forces Pension Fund to take care of these women who would receive approximately $799 per month if the number of widows totaled 800. With over $43 billion in the account, an annual payment of approximately $7.9 million should not break the bank.

As you are aware, many people wait until they are older to get married, and many marry even after their 60th birthday. And why should Military widows or widowers in the late 50s or 60s be relegated to a 'single' life? Some actuarial experts still think of the offensive "Gold Diggers Clause" - Section 31(1) of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, with the view that women marry or enter into relationships with older men entitled to pensions, so that they can obtain a survivor's benefit as a financial advantage!  In the real world a new spouse or partner of someone over the age of 60 is typically making a long-term commitment to someone who may require a great deal of future support. That commitment, if reduced to financial terms, is typically much greater than the value of the survivor's benefit. 

I know that your Government has financially assisted some of the CFB Gagetown Agent Orange survivors, the Atomic Veterans, and the so-called "Indian School" students and other groups who had been neglected over the years. Is it not time to offer the same kind of assistance to the few Military widows who have been left out in the cold with perhaps the only things that they still possess of their Veteran husband are memories, a wedding picture and his medals? Perhaps you may wish to see how the British Armed Forces do it under the British Armed Forces Pension Scheme which was sent to your Minister of National Defence some time ago. No mention of age in their Pension Plan!

If you can't correct this situation, who can?

Sincerely,

Reg Warkentin, Major (Ret'd)

Kingston, ON

** - Letters 75 and 78 above

 81.  Letter from Anne Bowen and Nancy Goodman to The Honourable Gary Lunn, PC, MP

RE: CFSA - MARRIAGE AFTER AGE 60 AND PSSA MARRIAGE AFTER RETIREMENT

Dear Sir,

Thank you for meeting with us recently to discuss the Marriage after Age 60 or Retirement clauses in the CF and PS Superannuation Acts. We hoped that you would champion our cause; however, as you clearly explained, your party, the Conservative Party, does NOT SUPPORT this issue. Needles to say, we are disappointed.

As much as we appreciate your honesty, doing nothing is not an option. You are a creative thinker, isn't there something else you could do, in addition to writing letters? You said that if you helped us, you would be "turning in your resignation." Surely, in our democracy, an MP should be able to represent his constituents without fear of losing his job! You said you couldn't support this issue publicly. How can you support us privately?

You said that you would write to Minister of Defence, Peter MacKay and to the President of the Treasury Board, Vic Toews and respectfully ask you to do so. In addition, please write to Peter Van Loan, the Minister of Public Safety (RCMP). Please forward copies of your letters for our information. You also said you would mention this issue at the time you are interviewed for the budget. Thank you.

You stated that you "honestly don't understand the brick wall put up by the bureaucrats on this issue". The answer is obvious. It's not the bureaucrats; it's your party, the Conservatives, who do not support us. Change has to start somewhere, some time. As you stated," This could be a winner for the government."

We appreciate your suggestion of working with FSNA, "as a powerful advocacy organization", to move forward and we will continue to do so. Your suggestion that FSNA get involved in the pre-budget planning in October is very helpful.

Would you follow up with the Veterans Ombudsman, Colonel (Ret'd) Patrick Strogran, MSC, CD? According to our lawyer, his mandate SHOULD INCLUDE this issue. Nancy has not received a response from her letter written on April 10, 2008. This is way beyond the 6-8 weeks you said is an acceptable time to receive a response.

You may not be aware that Logan asked Nancy to compile a survey of the Sidney and Victoria FSNA spouses affected by this issue. We would like to know how this information may be helpful to our cause.

As you stated, we won't go away. Our group SPAC, Spousal Pension Advocacy Committee, will continue to pursue our efforts on behalf of all the spouses who are denied Survivor Benefits in the Superannuation Funds.

Sincerely yours,

Anne Bowen, SPAC, Nancy Goodman, SPAC

82.  Letter to General W.J. Natyncyk, Chief of the Defence Staff, July 10, 2009

Dear General Natynczyk,

It has been a year since I last communicated with you concerning the plight of a few widows who receive nothing of their deceased veteran Husband's pension. Of course I am referring to those ladies who married a Veteran after his 60th birthday. My "campaign" has been basically, fruitless.  It seems that I and a few widows are the only ones who believe there is a problem. No one in Government seems to want to tackle this issue. Yes, I have read all the so-called rationale for Secation 31(1) of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act. Even the Defence Minister has been noted as comparing our plan with other civilian-type plans, and is deathly afraid that should DND start supporting these widows, that the electorate would be up in arms! Of course I realize that an elected member of this Government cannot act in isolation, no matter how strongly he believes in 'the cause'. As you know, the CF Ombudsman's mandate applies only to Veterans and their family problems if the problems are associated with the Veteran's Charter and/or Veteran Affairs Canada; nothing to do with other types of Veteran's problems, like ensuring his widow gets part of his pension when he dies.

I am not looking at this problem with blinders on, not like DND. Web site www.cvast.com lists all the correspondence, rhetoric, etc, that I have received over the years. It is all very discouraging. The collective 'we' need your help.

Sincerely,

Reg Warkentin, Major (Ret'd)

Kingston, ON

83.  Letter to Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada, July 10, 2009.

Dear Prime Minister,

I have not been in contact with you for the past two months. During the elapsed time, I would like to know how much, if any progress has been made in easing the plight of a few widows who receive nothing of their deceased Veteran husband's pension. As you know, these are the ladies who married their Veteran husband after his 60th birthday.

It is interesting to note that the Government has been magnanimous in protecting the pensions of all General Motor retirees and their families. And, as you know, the employees to not pay into the GM pension plan; payments into the plan are made as a benefit by the Company. On the other hand, Military personnel do pay into their pension plan which does not go far enough in protecting the Veteran's survivor in all circumstances.

I am sure that you will agree that an amendment to delete Section 31(1) of the Canadian Forces Suprannuation Act is long overdue and would eliminate the present discrimination in favour of all Military widows.

Sincerely,

Reg Warkentin, Major (Ret'd)

Kingston, Ontario

84.  Ltr to Mr Peter Stoffer, MP, August 27, 2009

Dear Mr Stoffer,

It has been almost one year since you introduced your Private Member's Bill, Bill C-210, Marriage after 60. As is well-known, nothing has happened since the First Reading and acceptance by all parties at that time. I have been involved with trying to get successive Governments to repeal or amend Section 31(1) of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act for the past 14 plus years. I established a web site, www.cvast.com and have published all of the correspondence to and from the various Members, as well as to the Chiefs of the Defence Staff. I note that your Bill concerning the "claw back" has received second reading with passage.

I know that the Armed Forces Pensioners Association has also been fighting to have that Section of the Act repealed, for many years. Would it be possible for you to re-introduce Bill C-210 in the next session of Parliament? And if so, do you think that there would be a chance of your Bill being enacted into law?

Best regards and good luck,

Reg Warkentin, Major (Ret'd)

Kingston, Ontario

85.  Letter to General Natynczyk, Chief of the Defence Staff, September 6, 2009.

Dear General,

As I have not received a reply to my July 10 letter, I thought I should write to you, just to let you know that I am still alive and that I have not given up in my quest for fairness for all Military widows.  I see that protocol has changed since I was last in uniform, in that "interim replies" are not sent to correspondents; at least not to me.

A  Member of Parliament called me the other day concerning the "over 60 thing", stating that he was told by the MND that changing Section 31(1) of the CFSA would never happen.  He also said that if you as CDS were to insist that  Section 31(1) of the Act should be changed. that it would happen.  This tells me that you do have the 'power' to make good things happen.

I enjoyed my 38 years in Army Signals, and my progression through eleven ranks from Signalman through Chief Warrant Officer, from Second Lieutenant to Major.  Having gone through the ranks, it was easy to see their problems and offer guidance.  This was especially true during my two appointments  as  Commanding Officer.  During those years with all of the many moves, often away from one's family and raising a family, it was fairly difficult for one to be able to put away a lot of extra money for future needs.  Many Military widows who married Veterans later in life, must find it extremely difficult to subsist on OAS and CPP with no pension from their deceased husband.

If nothing happens to rectify the existing situation before the next election, it surely will not happen after the election as both political parties do not have the political will to get it done. They just could not care less.

Regards,

Reg Warkentin, Major (Ret'd)

922 Pembridge Crescent,

Kingston, ON, K7M 6C5