In a decision dated December 23, 2005, Justice Panet of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled that 128 internal government documents would be admitted into evidence in the court cases challenging the federal government’s confiscation of over $30 billion of surplus in the superannuation plans for the Canadian Forces, the RCMP and the Public Service. The issue regarding the admissibility of the documents arose during the first week of the pension surplus trial which took place November 15-18, 2005. The plaintiffs sought to put 128 documents consisting primarily of statements, policies and communications by high level government officials before the court. These documents show that during the 1990s, the government was using questionable accounting techniques to appropriate the surplus and pay down the deficit. They also reveal disagreements between Treasury Board and Ministry of Finance officials over the ownership and use of the surplus. The government lawyers objected to the admission of these documents, claiming that it had not been established that they were relevant to the issues in the case and that they were hearsay. Justice Panet found that all of the documents contain statements that are relevant to crucial issues in the cases, namely the establishment, structure, operation, financing and accounting of the pensions. Although Justice Panet held that many of the documents were hearsay, he ruled that they were nevertheless admissible since they were both “reliable” and “necessary”. As documents prepared by senior and knowledgeable government officials, the judge stated that it would be reasonable to expect a “high premium to be placed on their accuracy”. Given the circumstances and since there was no litigation at the time he found that the documents would also likely be characterized by candour. The court further found that the documents were necessary because having regard to the variety of the documents and the length of time over which they were created, it would be difficult, if not impossible to locate all of the authors of the documents. Even if they could be located, Justice Panet held that it would be more efficient and expedient to admit the documents rather than require all of the authors of the documents to testify. He also found that it would be unfair to require the plaintiffs to call the authors of the documents who might well be witnesses adverse in interest to the plaintiffs. Justice Panet stated that, “it is open to the Defendant to call the authors of the documents or other officials to explain the statements made in the documents.” The next phase of the trial is expected to commence in the spring of 2006 and will take approximately three to four weeks.  
The second phase of the trial in the court cases challenging the federal government’s confiscation of over $30 billion of surplus in the superannuation plans for the Canadian Forces, the RCMP and the Public Service will start on February 26, 2007. Six weeks have been scheduled in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice for the trial itself. Following a three-week break, an additional three weeks have been set aside for final argument. The parties had expected that the trial would continue in the spring or fall of 2006. Unfortunately however, these were the first dates that the Court had available for a trial of this length. In the first phase of the trial, which took place in November 2005, Justice Panet ruled that 128 internal government documents would be admitted into evidence over the objections of the government lawyers. These documents, consisting primarily of statements, policies and communications by high level government officials show that during the 1990s, the government was using questionable accounting techniques to appropriate the surplus and pay down the deficit. They also reveal disagreements between Treasury Board and Ministry of Finance officials over the ownership and use of the surplus. It is expected that the second phase of the trial will consist largely of testimony from expert witnesses regarding various aspects of the case. Justice Panet will continue to preside over the trial. In the interim, counsel are continuing to prepare for trial, including preparing the expert evidence and the legal arguments. A pre-trial conference will be held in October 2006 in order to ensure that the trial proceeds as efficiently as possible. Fiona Campbell Barrister and Solicitor
On 6 March 2006 the Armed Forces Pensioners’/Annuitants’ Association of Canada was issued Letters Patent incorporating it as a corporation without share under the Corporations Act (Canada).
The Chartered Accountant firm of Kiel and Company, of London, Ontario, has audited our books of account from fiscal year 1998 through 2004. Throughout, they have been able to satisfy themselves that these statements presented fairly, in all material aspects, the financial position of AFP/AAC at the end of each of those years, in accordance with Canadian generally accepted accounting principles. They are currently auditing the accounts for 2005. J.A. Conyers Vice Chairman (Finance) AFP/AAC Inc. 
The following is a compilation of money expended by AFP/AAC to date to fight Bill C78, and the government irregularities in the handling of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Account leading up to it: Paid Directly to Law firm:  (This includes $35,000.00 from the RCMP Veterans Associations of Quebec Ontario, and BC who are parties to our suit.) Paid From Court-Ordered “Costs”Against the Government: $55,500.00 ($25,000.00 of this amount was actually awarded to the Canadian Association of Professional Employees (CAPE) who have also joined our action.) Total Expenditure:  OTHER LEGAL COSTS The above expenditure is over and above the $39,652.87 costs for our fight against the provisions of CFSA which prevent a retiree from leaving a Survivor’s Benefit if he marries over age of 60, and miscellaneous legal costs in the amount of $4,810.70. 
Meet Buster, Senior Editor. Any errors or omissions in spelling, grammar etc. are to be blamed on the Senior Editor who supervises the production of all the NEWSLETTERs. 
Update on action regarding the besmirching of Canadian women who marry a Canadian Forces Retiree, who is over 60 years of age and in receipt of his Canadian Forces Superannuation. There are now two Private Members Bills before Parliament to amend the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act to exclude this discrimination and cease the name calling of “death bed romances” and provide a survivor’s benefit to any woman who marries a CF Retiree in receipt of a CFS. The two Members of Parliament who introduced their Bills, (coincidentally on the same day - 6 April 2006) are: Daryl Kramp MP Conservative, House of Commons, OTTAWA, ON. K1A 0A6 1 613 992-5321 kramp.d@parl.gc.ca And Peter Stoffer MP, NDP House of Commons, OTTAWA, ON. K1A 0A6 1 613 995-5822 stoffer.p@parl.gc.ca Both these two MPs should receive encouragement from all CF Retirees in the form of letters, emails or telephone calls. At the same time you should contact your local MP and suggest he/she vote on these amendments if they want your vote at the next election! A letter to the Minister of National Defence would also be in order. The Hon. Gordon O’Connor PC, MP. Minister of National Defence, House Of Commons, OTTAWA, ON. K1A 0A6. 1 613 992-1119. oconnor.g@parl.gc.ca Several years ago the AFP/AAC did undertake legal action against the Crown on this subject and lost all the way to the Federal Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court of Canada was just “too busy” with some same sex issue to. consider this case of blatant discrimination! Currently Major R.G. Warkentin CD, RC Signals of KINGSTON, ON. has reopened legal action as an individual. His “death bed romance” is now in its 11th year. Where is the “Gold Digging” here? 
Since the last NEWSLETTER I have had further medical problems and have undergone a serious operation for bladder cancer. This appears to be another indication of “aging”. The medical profession firstly frightened the daylights out of me repeatedly stating that I was a “high risk” patient, and with no further explanation. So that I went into the OR not expecting to wake up. What a pleasant surprise a few hours later to wake up, albeit connected to all sorts of tubes and wires, none for worse for wear and tear and very hungry. I am to start an “URGENT” treatment soon. It is so urgent that I have to wait at least two months because of a backlog of patients. So much for the Liberal “spin meisters” McGuinty and Smitherman and cutting waiting times for urgent medical procedures. From which barrel did the Liberals scrape those two? Somebody had better take over from me as Chairman of the AFP/AAC - SOON! I cannot carry on much longer. So far there have been NO volunteers. This organization, now over 40 years old, is too important to just let it pass into the history books. We are financially solid and have at least five pieces of important legislation to see to fruition plus the very important litigation to recover the $16.6 BILLION stolen from our CFS Account by Paul Martin when he was Finance Minister. (One has to wonder how much of our retirement savings went to the ADSCAM account and long gun registration?) E.W. Halayko National Chairman 
Issues that must be resolved are: 1. Either cease collecting Employment Insurance premiums from Serving Members or reinstate full entitlement. This grab is discriminatory, unjustifiable, unwarranted and undoubtedly illegal! Not that any of the above appears to bother most MPs while they spend their time in the public trough. 2. Expunge that discriminatory clause of “Gold Digger” from the CFS Act and allow CF Retirees, in receipt of the CF Superannuation, to marry at any age! Currently some progress is being made on this issue but not fast enough. This should have been resolved twenty five years ago. A Report, commissioned by Anne McLellan when she was Finance Minister made such a recommendation, but, like most Reports in Ottawa, it rests somewhere gathering dust. 3. Improve the survivor’s benefit to at least 60%. The same that the MPs have given themselves! 4. Bring all CF Retiree’s superannuations up to that currently received by recent retirees. That is, “equal pay for equal Service and rank”, so that a 30 year Corporal who retired ten years ago would receive the same superannuation as a 30 year Corporal who retires today. And so on for all ranks. 5. For once and forever sort out the Canada Pension Plan and Canadian Forces Superannuation contributions! There is no excuse why Serving Members can’t pay into both accounts SEPARATELY, so that upon reaching age 65 they receive BOTH retirement benefits. At present, retirees reaching age 65 feel that they are being shortchanged by what they consider is a “Clawback” of their Superannuation. All because some idiot of a bureaucrat, away back in 1966, decided that the military couldn’t afford to pay for both retirement benefits, separately. Of course some equally bright general agreed. Finally. We paid into a superannuation scheme and upon retirement receive a superannuation and NOT A PENSION. Pensions and superannuations are NOT the same, in spite of the misuse of the terms, by the government and media. Therefore, all references to our pre-paid retirement benefit must be addressed as the Canadian Forces Superannuation by the government at all times. The use of the word Pension implies to the general public and many in the news media that our superannuation is a “freebie”
 westbroo@cc.umanitoba.ca
Dear Editor: This is an open letter to the membership. Please loosen up and give due diligence to what I am about to say, for I believe that it effects us all. I have been a member of this fine Association and watch guard on government doings for over five years now. You may have been associated with The Armed Forces Pensioners' / Annuitants' Association of Canada Inc. for a great deal longer. If so, you have more to loose than I. During this time, Capt EW (Ed) Halayko, PEng CD, our National Chairman (a volunteer position) has faithfully served both the rank and file. He has presented himself and pleaded our case in front of the Senate. He has been loyal to our newsy Newsletter, even when personal circumstances demand otherwise. I don't think any of us could argue that Ed has not done his part. Indeed, he has done a great deal more than his part for our Association. On more than one occasion he has made it known that it is time to pass the challenges of the National Chair to someone else. The response to his request has been deafening in its silence. Will anybody take on the task? Will this fine organization pass with Ed? Will nobody take on the job of defending our rights against the likes of Bill C-78? I pray that the Association does not become just a memory. I suggest you do the same. It would be a sad day indeed if nobody steps forward. Our Association (the only one in Canada that solely represents service member and dependents following retirement), is too valuable to loose. Will you step forward? Yours in membership, Brian Westbrook Major (Ret'd) Manitoba Representative AFP/AAC Inc. 
Helen Rapp has been quite busy pursuing the issue of marriage after age 60 with no survivor’s benefit. Results so far are two Private Members Bills and support of various senior parliamentarians. Unfortunately, the La Forest Report, commissioned by Anne McClelland, when she was Justice Minister, is being ignored. This also includes the support of the Human Rights Commissioner which also is being ignored. One has to wonder why Commission Reports and the Human Rights Commissioner are asked to submit Reports and have their recommendations ignored? Of course a political hot cake receives almost instant attention. In spite of much ballyhoo, the “year of the Veteran” didn’t do much for our causes, but then homosexual concerns did receive much attention. Unfortunately, veterans do not take to the streets and demonstrate against incompetent and insensitive governments. The 2005 Annual Meeting of the NCVA did produce a letter of support from the NCVA Chairman,. a copy of which is included in this NEWSLETTER. November 4, 2005 Mrs. Helen Rapp-Bowen Vice Chair (Military Widows) AFP/AAC Inc. 810 Edgeworth Road, #606 OTTAWA ON K2B 5L5  Dear Helen: This is to confirm that the 2005 Annual Meeting of the National Council of Veteran Associations held in Toronto, on October 27, 2005, the agenda item in the contained in the 2005 Legislative Programme titled ‘Marriage after Sixty’ was discussed in detail and has the full support of all organizations under the NCVA umbrella. This is a very important issue now that the CF retirees are living much longer and are marrying for a second time. The CF retirees contribute to the Canadian Forces Superannuation fund throughout their whole career and one of the benefits is a 50% Survivor’s Benefit on the death of the CF retiree, except in cases where the CF retiree marries after age 60. Given the relatively small numbers directly affected, it is the feeling of NCVA that this should not be a big issue and the following recommendation came from out of the 2005 Annual meeting of the NCVA: THAT THE NCVA, ONCE AGAIN, REQUEST THE MINISTER OF VETERANS AFFAIRS TO INTERVENE AND INDICATE HER SUPPORT FOR THESE WIDOWS, BY WRITING TO THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL DEFENCE REQUESTING THAT CHANGES BE MADE TO THE CANADIAN FORCES SUPERANNUATION Act THAT WOULD PERMIT THE SPOUSE OF A CF RETIREE MARRYING AFTER 60 BE ELIGIBLE FOR SURVIVOR’S BENEFITS WITHOUT REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF SUPERANNUATION IN PAYMENT TO THE RETIREE. When I have the opportunity of meeting with the Minister this will be one of the important concerns of the NCVA that I will raising with her. At the moment, her focus and time appear to be taken up with the regulations surrounding the new Charter for CF Veterans. In the meantime, I will be sending the Minister a copy of our Legislative Programme and will advise her that these are the concerns and recommendations that have come out of the 2005 National Council of Veteran Associations in Canada meeting held in Toronto in October where the NCVA would like to see some action taken. Yours sincerely, signed Cliff Chadderton H. Chadderton, Chairman National Council of Veteran Associations 
The Honourable Gregory Thompson PC, MP Minister of Veterans Affairs Room 175, East Block, Parliament Hill, OTTAWA ON. K1A 0A6 Dear Minister: It was a very nice surprise to meet you on the 8th of March at the Army Officers’ Mess on Somerset St. West. I was a guest of General Caron at his International Women’s Day Luncheon representing the women veterans of the Canadian Women’s Army Corps (CWAC) of World War II. I did mention that I would be writing to you about Section 31 of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act (CFSA) that penalizes Canadian Forces Retirees who marry after age 60. My Association has been urging the government for many years to amend Section 31. This antiquated regulation was passed in 1901 under Canada’s Militia Pension Act and was based on what our government on what our government saw happening in the United States after the civil War of 1865. Young girls were marrying veteran pensioners for their money. These were termed “death bed romances” and the girls were called “Gold Diggers”. Hence, Section 31 is commonly referred to as the “Gold Diggers clause”. In this day the age 60 years is not considered old and our Canadian Armed Forces Retirees do not need protection from “sweet young things” be they female or male! Every military man or woman pays the same amount into the Canadian Forces Superannuation Account and expects a superannuation upon their release from the Service. They also expect that their spouse will receive 50% of their superannuation (not 60% as in other pension plans) upon their deaths - a survivor’s benefit. But, if they marry after age 60 their spouse does not receive a penny. It could be a first marriage or remarriage, and though they paid into the Superannuation Plan (Retirement Savings) they and their spouse are penalized and there no survivor’s benefit other veteran’s spouses receive. Section 31 was amended by the Minister of National Defence under Bill C-55 in 1992 to allow a military retiree who married after age 60 to put aside some money from his superannuation towards a survivor’s benefit for his spouse. But, when that superannuation is hardly enough for two to live on now how can they possible put any money aside? His superannuation is not large enough to do that and have any quality of life - so much for their senior years. The New Veterans Charter should have included and amended Section 31 of the CFSA in their mandate. Many of our young CF men and women will, one day, face the same situation we have and are still facing. They will find themselves financially strapped if they marry after their 60th birthday and have to pay for a survivor’s benefit for their spouse that they have already paid for over the years. They will be paying twice for a benefit that other military retiree spouses are receiving. The old veterans and the new veterans deserve better treatment - fair and non-discrimination - from their government. They should not be penalized for marrying after age 60! My Association, the Armed Forces Pensioners’/Annuitants’ Association of Canada Inc., is a member of the National Council of Veteran Associations in Canada and I am enclosing a copy of a letter to me from its Chairman, Mr. Clifford Chadderton, supporting our petition for your information. I would like to make an appointment to speak with you about this petition. We are hoping that you will help us “right this wrong”. As Minister of Veterans Affairs you can influence our Minister of National Defence to end this discrimination against Canadian Forces Retirees who marry after their 60th birthday. Section 31 of the CFSA must be amended. Yours truly signed Helen Rapp ex-CWAC Vice Chairwoman, Military Widows, AFP/AAC Inc. | 
