Jump to content

Aviation related if you are currently on a Pension from AirCanada or, or may be on one in the future.


Recommended Posts

PionairsSpecialBulletin.jpeg

 

Special Bulletin
May 9, 2022

Protect our Pensions

 

 

 

We are asking for your support to help protect your pension!

 

You may recall that in March, you received a bulletin from us asking for your support to sign a petition relating to the protection of Canadian pensions.  The new email initiative described below is related, and is the next step following that petition.

 

Your pension may be well funded now, but that doesn’t mean that your pension is secure for the long term.  We all count on our pensions for decades of retirement, and a lot can change in that time.  During the 2008 financial crisis, overall Canadian pension solvency dropped 30% in less than one year. Companies are most likely to file for insolvency when pension solvency is lowest.  Ask yourself how a 30% reduction in pension income would impact your life!  Federal Government regulations currently do not protect your pension.

 

The Conservative Party of Canada has proposed Bill C-228 that would provide pension security in the event it is required.  The next milestone is in June 2022, when the Bill goes to committee for debate. Your help is required now, to show the government that pensioners are concerned about pension protection.  To help, an email will be sent, under your name, to your local MP, the Senator(s) from your province or territory, and key government ministers.  Please act now!!!   


 

Click HERE and let your MP, your Senator, and the government know that vulnerable seniors are no longer acceptable collateral damage in insolvency.

 

It’s easy!!!  When you “Click HERE", you will be asked to fill in your name, email address and postal code.  Once you’ve done that, PLEASE SCROLL DOWN and then click the red “Send your email now!” button.

 

Thank you for your support in protecting our pensions!

 

 

Sincerely,

  

Air Canada Pionairs Pension Sub-Committee

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I retired I took my pension in a lump sum and so far I am glad I did. Buy almost any bank and get at least 4% in dividends (That is if  the NDP/Liberal parties don't get their way)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Falken said:

When I retired I took my pension in a lump sum and so far I am glad I did. Buy almost any bank and get at least 4% in dividends (That is if  the NDP/Liberal parties don't get their way)

Plus you get fairly regular raises.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I sent the emails...Got 5 replies yesterday out of the list of 9 individuals in my area.....and they all said  via  "auto reply"......

 

Thanks for getting in touch! This automated reply is to assure you that your message has been received, will be read, and considered.  

 

ScreenShot003.jpg.075cd1f5ff1026315f2412733bae9a77.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Comment deleted - The bill referred to above doesn't YET seem to justify a concern about RPP's being favoured more than RSP/RIF's (even if some interested parties lobby for it).

Cheers, IFG :b:

Edited by IFG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure it has to be 'either or' RRSP holders or pension holders.

I think any refugee from the Milton era can attest to another line of bloodletting. 

Sometimes the purpose of legislation is deterrence, as in, making it illiegal to plan in full knowledge something that will fail but still allow certain individuals will escape with their full cut, leaving others (RRSP, stock holders and pensioners in the same sinking liferaft) to fend.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, IFG said:

Hmm ...  "provide pension security" ... any thoughts about who will pay the piper for that? 

Look - we're all concerned when things go a bit wobbly. Should those of us without guaranteed retirement income (albeit imperfectly, but a lot more so than my own mostly self-funded efforts for sure) be called upon to subsidize this guarantee (presumably, as a tax-payer), or is the CPC kindly including us in their largesse?

Not sure whether you were referencing the lobbying in general or the proposed bill specifically with respect to a guarantee. 
I may have well missed it in the language labyrinth of the bill's construction but I don't see any reference to the government's obligation or authority to top up or bridge any shortfall resulting from a fund's insolvency.
The bill appears more to represent an increased level of protection through (an overdue) rejigging of creditor priorities and insurance obligations rather than a taxpayer backed guarantee.
In any event if it comes to backstopping retirement funding it should not restricted to the (relatively) fortunate few.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Airband said:

The bill appears more to represent an increased level of protection through (an overdue) rejigging of creditor priorities and insurance obligations rather than a taxpayer backed guarantee.

That's how I understood it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Airband said:

.... I may have well missed it in the language labyrinth of the bill's construction but I don't see any reference to the government's obligation or authority to top up or bridge any shortfall resulting from a fund's insolvency .... In any event if it comes to backstopping retirement funding it should not restricted to the (relatively) fortunate few.

Hi, Airband - I have to confess I know little more about the CPC proposal than what's in the post above.

But in defense - "Federal Government regulations currently do not protect your pension" or "Bill C228 that would provide pension security in the event that it is required", did't lead me directly to such technical considerations as creditor priorities etc.

With that said, I should go find out a bit more about the bill itself :Scratch-Head:.

Cheers, IFG :b:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Hi again, Airband & Vsplat - First read, you're correct, the bill does not seem to propose the sort of broad pension "protection" I commented about. 

Altho' not finding anything in a quick look at info about this bill, I quote the following from Ms. Gladu in HoC:

 

Quote

 

My bill has been reviewed by a variety of stakeholders, including the Canadian Federation of Pensioners and the Canadian Association of Retired Persons. Bill VanGorder, the chief operating officer of CARP, offered this quote:

Most older Canadians have fixed incomes but face rising costs, growing inflation, an unpredictable economy and retirement savings that suffer as a result. The Canadian Association of Retired Persons (CARP) believes it is vital that the Federal Government protect pensioners by giving them ‘priority’ status and creates a pension insurance program that insures 100% of pension liabilities. This proposal would go a long way in making that happen.

 

 

This IS the kind of thing I worry about.

As for what I see in the bill (so far!), altho' introduced by a CPC member as a private bill, it's pretty bipartisan (how long will that last?), incorporating & building on previous efforts by members of all parties. There may be some 'careful what you ask for' tripwires, but that weed-diving is a whole other discussion. Editing my post. :023:

Cheers, IFG :b:

p.s. More I think about it, I shoulda left my 1st post (above) alone :rolleyes:

Edited by IFG
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IFG, I can see how that might be interpreted as leaving taxpayers holding the bag.  The wording is certainly vague enough to beg your question.

My hope is that the requirement for (and any premiums associated with) a pension insurance scheme would fall on the companies. 

I believe AC is taking a pension payment holiday regarding their pilots, while that same group is still forced to take a deduction to fund the pension.  I don't know how that math works, but I doubt those extra payments are as secure as they could be.  It's not fair to make this the problem of uninterested parties.  At the same time,  forcing the accountable execs to be accountable in advance seems like good policy to me.

We'll see how this plays out.

All the best

Vs

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Vsplat said:

....  It's not fair to make this the problem of uninterested parties.  At the same time,  forcing the accountable execs to be accountable in advance seems like good policy to me.

:023:  - Cheers, IFG :b:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...