Proposed legislation I would like to see.

this is kinda how id like to see this thing come about .

bill to amend the Canadian forces and veterans re-establishment and compensation act and the pension act .

part 1. proposed changes to the Canadian forces and veterans re-establishment and compensation act;

a. in 19.(1) of this act in the formula the value of "A" the figure "75%" is to be omitted and replaced by " 90% ".

b.in 52.1 (1) of this act subpara (d) is to be added to read ;
  a monthly pension to be paid in accordance with section 21. of the pension act of the amount set out in schedule 1 of that act from the day on witch the application was first    made.

c.52.1 (2) to be extended to include the following ; and inform all members or veterans who have not previously been given the choice to elect 52.1(1) (d) of their right to do so.

d.52.1(3) is to be amended by omitting the words " as a lump sum " and replacing them with " in accordance with 52.1 (1) (d) of this act."

part 2. proposed changes to the pension act .

a. 39.(1) of this act shall be amended by adding "with the exception of a member or veteran making an election under 52.1(1) (d) of the Canadian forces and veterans re-establishment and compensation act" prior to " a pension awarded ".

probably not perfect but its a good start .

propat

Sounds good, Propat!

references ;
NVC
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-16.8/

PA
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/p-6/index.html

FAA
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-11/

propat

supreme , bigrex,k-9, COD , anyone ???

constructive criticism would be greatly appreciated .

propat

Honestly Propat, there is nothing that I would say needed changing. It would be nice if the legislation amendments could be as easy as this, but we have seen just how complicated they could be, regardless of how minor the actual change.

thanks bigrex and yes I here ya . a lot of times they do just siply refer to existing legislation . some times they fracking well decide to try and reinvent the wheel witch more often then not really ends up in a crap show .

one thing I keep going back to not as a conflict but say an unspecific or something that might lead to a little confusion . the change is obvious IF required but I don't think it is althoe it still kind of bugs me a bit . keep in mind im not really getting into regulatory changes here .

when it comes to paying back PA retro that is covered under these changes and of course the NVC buyout would be covered under the existing overpayment part of the legislation in sect 88. of the NVC .

this part in particular bugs me .

(a) by deduction from any future payments made under this Act to the person or their estate or succession;

its the words " under this act "

now as you probably well know they don't like unnecessary language but like certainty .

yes as an option under the NVC the PA pension can be considered a payment made under this Act but is it???? or is it specific enough . would love it not to be for sure rather the garnish taxable stuff to repay a non taxable but don't think they will do that if they do all the better . and much better for the remission clauses as well .

is there something im missing here ???

or does it bother me because im overthinking this way to much????

propat

I'm not sure that they would need to write any repayment into the actual legislation. That could be handled internally, because I'm hoping that this type of thing will never happen again. The thing that I'm worried about, is that they try to rewrite the entire Charter, instead of just the clauses that pertain to the changes that they want made, because that could open it up to other mistakes being made.

ya that's my biggest worry as well buds at least when it comes to righting the legislation.

of course my biggest worry over all is they do just that to purposely frack vets over once again while making it look good .

ya know what im saying we have seen that far to often .

propat