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 10 plus years, as you will read.  All the letters are in chronological order. 

Reg Warkentin  

SIX 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 Om