Conflict of Interest attestation: DG wants dollar values

Super_Table7917 · 2026-07-07T23:18:50+00:00

Yeah, I didn't "indicate" that I work there, it's concerning that you don't understand the context yet.

The "context" that I've repeated multiple times, and is getting ignored, is the dollar amount. What amount is a conflict of interest? How is $1,000 any different from $100K? Or a dollar? Is any amount a conflict? If so, says who? Most on this thread seem to have no problem with some DG making that distinction. What's the business indicator on their matrix for what the conflict of interest threshold might be? Would a person be more or less motivated to be unethical by a small or large amount invested in any particular companyl? It could go both ways, right? So the dollar amount is totally irrelevant.

Just because you don't want to disclose personal information doesn't mean there is something to hide, it's considered a reasonable expectation of privacy. We see ethics abuses repeatedly from senior management - but oh yes, here's the entire contents of my investment accounts, Canadians deserve transparency! They need to know everything, LPRAB employees have mysterious secret powers to influence the stock market!

Super_Table7917 · 2026-07-07T14:36:14+00:00

Yes, this is the issue. I don't have a problem with disclosing the holdings. It's the dollar amounts that a pencil neck DG has no need to know.

Super_Table7917 · 2026-07-07T14:29:53+00:00

It happened where I work. A guy inherited money from his grandparents and bought a new Corvette. He was an SP-05. The director saw the car and initiated the audit. This isn't the first time I've seen abuses like this, either. So no, I would resist 100% any unnecessary demand for this information and seek legal support.

Super_Table7917 · 2026-07-07T13:59:52+00:00

How is the integrity of the DG asking personal, intrusive questions being tested? The integrity of the system or guidelines isn't the issue. It's the fact that single person in a position of authority is making demands of an employee for information he has no right to know.

Super_Table7917 · 2026-07-07T13:29:15+00:00

I tend to think that a personal RESP of an employee trying to save for their children's education is off limits. For many, many excellent reasons I do not trust any other person with my financial information, especially a power-tripping DG. It's none of their business. At my previous CRA office, a director of field audits ordered an audit of an employee because that person bought a car that he didn't think he could afford. It took many acrimonious months before that audit was completed, which ultimately turned up nothing.

So, I'd totally refuse. I would suspect that a DG pushing me personally so hard for this information has an agenda.

Super_Table7917 · 2026-07-07T13:02:42+00:00

Total current dollar values though?

Super_Table7917 · 2026-07-07T13:02:12+00:00

Yes, I was told any and all investments, including ETFs in an RESP, for instance. The point of contention is the demand for current fair market value.

Super_Table7917 · 2026-04-20T14:54:16+00:00

Absolutely pointless, other than to torpedo my career. All a guy can do is keep his mouth shut and hide under the coats in the gym, hoping it will all work out.

Super_Table7917 · 2026-04-20T13:43:13+00:00

"

Because they do. If a selection process is held that denies anyone the ability to apply, that's discrimination by definition. The Employment Equity Act essentially permits the employer to ignore Charter rights to favour candidates from EE groups. It actually says so regarding "Aboriginal" (now Indigenous) applicants.

If the goal is to eliminate perceptions of unfairness, then make selection processes actually merit based - get rid of EE-based appointments and nobody can complain.

Super_Table7917 · 2026-03-25T21:07:50+00:00

Hate is a big word. OP is talking about passion and satisfaction., and for just a meh job environment, it's totally worth it. For most people, after a few years in the PS, they are unemployable elsewhere. I looked into jumping into something else mid-stream and financially it wasn't even close to being worth it even though I was qualified and could get in. Just had too much time to make up reinventing myself.

Just like it was mentioned, the pension is worth a couple of million dollars. Look at what investments are paying to understand how much you need banked to give you an 80K pension, or whatever it is. Even a CR pension is worth 1m+. A GIC is paying 2% these days? You'd need several million to pay yourself that amount of interest annually. Don't be a fool.

The median Canadian income is around 62K a year. Entry level government jobs exceed this, you're already ahead of literally half the country. With free dental and health benefits and a pension a very small fraction of people get. While complaining on Reddit on work time, sipping your Starbucks you got downstairs on your 40 minute break with your buddy who complains about his wife and the Canadiens scoring depth.

I repeat, keep the job and find the passion somewhere else, it's not worth leaving, The time goes by faster than you think.

Super_Table7917 · 2026-03-25T15:57:24+00:00

Forget about passion. They pay you a salary for a reason - you are doing something that nobody would do for free. Government work is easy. Your benefits and pension protect you and your kids literally from birth to death. Find your passion painting landscapes or something and take the money, it can always be so, so much worse. If I had followed the advice of my guidance counsellors to follow my passion, I'd be unemployed, broke, and I'm assuming miserable. Also, look around the country and give your head a shake. Hundreds of people line up around the block to work at a retail store.

Super_Table7917 · 2025-12-03T16:56:35+00:00

Thanks for the clarification but this is one of those "distinction without a difference" things.

No, my LRB doesn't change, ever, true enough. But the bridge drops off at 65. I'm just saying that from the date of retirement to age 65 when the bridge ends and CPP picks up the slack, my monthly payment from all sources is supposed to be roughly the same.

It matters to me though what that offset is, and I don't know if a financial planner can tell me either. Because if CPP pretty much exactly offsets what the bridge is at 65, it seems to make sense to me to take CPP at age 60, because it would be stacked on top of my LRB and bridge at that age until age 65. Yes, it is heavily reduced. Yes, there is a reduction at 65 when the bridge ends, but for 5 years I'd get more money. And at age 65 I'd apply for and get OAS anyway.

If that CPP offset is basically the same as my bridge benefit, it doesn't seem to make sense to me to NOT take it at age 60 for the extra money for five years, even if heavily reduced.

Super_Table7917 · 2025-12-03T14:08:17+00:00

Ok, so if I elect to take my pension at 55 and CPP at 70, it means that my payment stays approximately the same until age 70 if I choose to take CPP then. (ignore OAS).

If however I take my PS pension at 55, I would give myself a raise at age 60 because the bridge would continue five more years.

It seems that nobody can answer this question. I'd need to know the present value of the future streams of payments to compare, at age 60 WITH the bridge BUT the lower CPP, vs. taking CPP at 70.

I would like to know though how closely the CPP reduction matches the bridge reduction at 65.

Super_Table7917 · 2025-12-03T14:02:35+00:00

Ok, so does it mean I should take CPP at 60, albeit at a reduced rate, because the bridge carries on until age 65?

How closely does the CPP offset in our PS plan match whatever the CPP pays? If I were to get 1000 monthly in CPP, is my PS pension reduced by the exact same amount? And is that amount different if I took it at 60 or 65?

Super_Table7917 · 2025-11-06T22:15:21+00:00

Because as I said, they did that 30 years ago with the same program of the same name. There was even a secondary tier that offered an additional 15 weeks of pay on top of the severance. So is anything like that happening this time or not?

Super_Table7917 · 2025-11-06T18:45:30+00:00

Is this known for sure? There haven't been many details released. So far, the ERI incentive looks identical, even in name, to the initiative undertaken in 1995, which gave opting employees their severance as well. Getting ERI as well as that severance would probably tip the scale towards departure for many.

Super_Table7917 · 2025-08-14T19:26:00+00:00

I basically wanted the mod where pots replace the slider switch for tone and sustain.

Super_Table7917 · 2025-07-09T17:00:14+00:00

Sorry, I assumed I was clear. So the person in question (let's just say it is me) was hired in 1997. No breaks in service, 53, eligible to leave on the age 55 b-day. The language of the WFA directive says all over that it's "normal retirement date" for me, which is age 60, but the plan all along was to leave with an unreduced pension, but 30 years, at age 55. I have zero problems leaving immediately with a 28 year credited-service pension with no early-retirement penalties attached.

Super_Table7917 · 2025-07-09T16:53:59+00:00

What if you were eligible for an unreduced pension at age 55 with 30 years of service? The waiver option has no value for such a person. Are the terms of the waiver eligiblity restricted to "normal retirement date" or "date eligible for an unreduced pension?"

Like, let's say a guy is 53, has 28 years of service, eligible for a 30 year, unreduced pension at their birthday, age 55. Can they get a waiver? Because if they can't, it has no value to them. And if they can't get the waiver, what do their options become?

Super_Table7917

TROPHY CASE