• authored by remote viewer
  • published Sat, Oct 29, 2005

Regulator in the Sack with UFCW Pension Crew?

Who's Telling Who What To Do

Many months have passed since the Financial Services Commission of Ontario released a report about the UFCW's Canadian Commercial Workers Industry Pension Fund. The report identified so many instances of non-compliance with pension legislation, that it became the subject of an extensive feature in the Toronto Star.

There would be more to follow, the FSCO stated, pending review of some new submissions provided by the CCWIPP trustees. Nearly six months later, the regulatory agency has said nothing about the "new submissions" or what "further action" it plans to take.

A lot of members are worried about the state of their pension plan. Some are considering their own "next steps". They need to know what the regulator is going to do or not do. As long as the FSCO's examination remains ongoing (and as long as documents are being reviewed, that's exactly its status), it's not over. As long as it's not over, any formal steps by members to hold their pension trustees accountable will be "pre-mature".

While the regulator drags its feet, the CCWIPP trustees issue one indignant statement after another. Their terse media releases have called the FSCO report "incomplete", "riddled with inaccuracies" and proclaimed the pension plan "sound" and "funded and administered in accordance with all regulatory requirements".

A cynical person might conclude that the regulator doesn't want to do anything and is content to keep pension plan members waiting while their trustees spin-doctor its report into oblivion. Good thing that we have a lot of faith in government agencies like the FSCO. If we didn't, some documents that recently came our way from confidential sources would have us gasping for air.

These documents include a "to do list" prepared by a CCWIPP lawyer for an FSCO Officer following a meeting held in June 2002 between representatives of the FSCO and CCWIPP. Why would a pension administrator be giving a pension regulator a "to do list"? Shouldn't it be the other way around? We're going to to post the documents and ask the FSCO to join us online to explain: What's wrong with this picture.

  • posted by siggy
  • Sat, Oct 29, 2005 6:29am


What's wrong with this picture.

Nothing if scripts of deception between plan trustees and plan regulators are legal.

  • posted by weiser
  • Sat, Oct 29, 2005 7:33am

Well it looks like the FSCO was carrying on a "review" right on the heels of the Alberta request for info on the Propcos.

This is really sick when it seems so manufactured:

Joan manufactures a letter with predetermined content.

The FSCO's Larry Martello manufactures a letter to the CCWIPP Toronto lawyer, who has told Larry what to put in his letter.

The Toronto Lawyer will then contact Lawyer Doug Ast of the Calgary office of Bennett Jones LLP and they will then manufacture a revised amendment.

I'm surprised that an officer of the court would get involved in such an odd scheme.

I wonder how much Doug knew about the "To Do" list?

And did the "ToDo" list get completed as planned?

You Betcha!

  • posted by press
  • Sat, Oct 29, 2005 2:43pm

The term "inside job" hit me after reading this.


S: (n) inside job (some transgression committed with the assistance of someone trusted by the victim) "the police decided that the crime was an inside job"

I do think the FSCO people are incompetent and a waste of tax-payer money (they did throw some make-up on their little website though).

But I also think they are criminals. They take from one end, and facilitate the raping on the other end.

  • posted by weiser
  • Sat, Oct 29, 2005 7:44pm

This message is for all CCWIPP members:

The Ontario Pension Benefits Act (PBA) entitles you to demand copies of any and all CCWIPP documents on file at the FSCO. The buggers will charge you 50 cents a copy, but apparently it's well worth the price. Hey, some of your employers might pay the price to have the whole whack copied. I'm sure that they would like to see what the hell they've bought into.

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Mon, Oct 31, 2005 6:24am

How damned interesting! So, it seems that back in June 2002 some kind of "review" of CCWIPP was being carried out by the FSCO. This would make sense since CCWIPP had just relocated its registration from Alberta to Ontario. I guess if a big steaming pile of crap lands on your doorstep you have to check it out or, put another way: With CCWIPP's migration to Ontario, the Ontario regulator needed to ascertain that it was operating in compliance with Ontario legislation.

Hey, didn't that great CCWIPP pooh bah Cliff Evans say that the plan was moving to Ontario because Ontario had "less stringent" solvency legislation?

I wonder what this "review" concluded and whether the "examination" that began later in 2002 was just an extension of the review that was already underway in June 02?

The loaded agenda for the June 14/02 meeting certainly suggests that there was much to discuss: Solvency, the regulatory review, investments, an amendment to the plan. Mr. Martello must have had his hands full. I hope he brought someone else with him to the meeting because it looks like a pretty high-powered CCWIPP crew was going to be there.

My sense is that something odd happened at this meeting. I mean, since when do pension regulators get told what to do by the people they're supposed to be regulating? That's just whacked!

The first item on the "to do list" just blows me away. It's basically an agreement between CCWIPP's Tanaka and the FSCO's Martello to orchestrate an exchange of correspondence about an amendment to the pension plan! To me, it looks like one of those nudge-nudge wink-wink deals. The CCWIPP boys want to effect some kind of amendment (or amendents from the look of Item 2) to the pension plan. The regulator needs to approve the amendment(s) before they can be put in place and the CCWIPP crew expects the regulator might have some concerns. So the deal is:

1. Administrator Chick will write some crap to Regulator boy about the amendment to put his mind at rest about some anticipated issue.

2. Regulator Boy will write back saying expressing some "agreed upon" concerns.

3. Some other hired gun will rewrite the amendment in a way that appears to address those concerns.

This will allow Regulator Boy to say, "We brought some concerns to the pension administrator's attention and our concerns were addressed."

Sorry people, but this isn't regulation, it's collusion and I hope you feel really good about being outed.

The last item (the one about "Investment Issues") reeks just as badly.

I'm assuming that the "audit" that our dear Larry is to await is the audited financial statement for CCWIPP for 2001 (which was supposed to be filed by the end of June 2002).

You can find a copy of the 2001 Financial Statement at these two links (it's in 2 parts).

2001 Financial Statement

2001 Supplement

I guess the CCWIP crew were concerned that some questions might be asked about the multitudinous Propco companies. It seems that our dear Larry was primed to respond to those questions. Otherwise, why would the "to do list" say that he "would respond to any investment concerns the FSCO may have" about the Propco Companies? How was he going to respond to these given that he hadn't seen the financial statements yet? What if he saw the audited financial statement and decided that, instead of "responding to concerns that the FSCO might have" a more appropriate course of action would have been to sound the alarm?

This is disgraceful.

When you put all the known pieces together the reek just gets stronger. Isn't it odd that during this period CCWIPP was investing in Royal Group Technologies - a company on whose Board of Directors was one Gregory Sorbara? In 2003 Greg would become the Minister of Finance responsible for, among other things, the FSCO. I wonder if that had anything to do with the foot-dragging and CCWIPP-friendliness on the FSCO's part from 2003 to the present?

Maybe we should invite the disgraced Mr. Sorbara online to answer some questions?

Hey, here's something else that really stinks too: Cliff Evans' letter (of June 18/02) to a member. No solvency problems here! Good thing the member wasn't at the high level June 14/02 meeting where solvency issues were discussed.

Evans June18/02 letter

  • posted by weiser
  • Mon, Oct 31, 2005 9:20am

Now we have the FSCO supposedly taking a close look at all the Propcos and various other odd-ball investments. Larry Martello is supposed to run what some might interpret as "interference."

The CCWIPP has been reporting these stinky investments for a few years. Alberta is starting to indicate that the bad smell might be coming from the "self-invested" schemes. Heck, even the friendly FSCO folks are holding their noses and pointing at the source.

What does the CCWIPP do? They stop individual reporting on the stinky investments. The FSCO asks why, and the CCWIPP auditors reply:


Dear Ms. Ellis:

Re: The Canadian Commercial Workers Industry Pension Plan Trust Fund

As per your letter of July 30, 2003, we have reviewed the Section 76 of Regulation 909, R.S.O. 1990 under the Pension Benefits Act, R.S.O. 1990 and determined that the annual financial statements filed have complied with Section 76 except for Subsection 13 Paragraph (b).

Enclosed please find the schedule which presents the fair value and cost for the investments in each category at December 31, 2002 and 2001 that represents 1% or more of the Plan's net assets. This schedule should be considered as part of the supplementary information supplied to your office as part of the annual filing.

I dunno, but it seems like the FSCO asked where the stinky deals went in the financial reporting and the CCWIPP told them to piss off, they wouldn't be reported again 'cause they didn't have to if they didn't want to.

After reading the "To Do" list, one might wonder whether the FSCO letter and the CCWIPP's auditor's response were a pre-arranged orchestration too.

Why might one wonder that--aside from the obvious?

The FSCO has the power to demand any piece of paper it wants whenever it wants. It has the power to enter premises and seize whatever documents it wants. The CCWIPP letter looks more like a red flag being waved at a bull. Who in his or her right mind would antagonize their regulator at a time when the regulator was supposedly having serious concerns about the operation of his or her pension plan? I can't think of anyone.

However, the CCWIPP seeminly does the equivalent of sticking its tongue our and bleating "nyah, nyah, nya, nyah, nyah. We're not doin' nothin' we don't have to do anymore. What'cha gonna' do 'bout it?"

That's pretty brave behaviour for anyone unless, of course, she or he knew in advance that nothing was going to happen and that the regulator knew that the petulance was merely for the show. The regulator could say, "We asked" and "All as we can do is to enforce the Act, and these peevish people are operating within the Act."

If something like that happened, it sure would be a pile of crappola all right.

As an aside, why the heck would the FSCO accept the letter when it was obvious that the amounts related to "net assets" were not accurate? To avoid reporting, some items all one would have to do is to inflate asset values to bring the questionable "investment" under the 1% mark.

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Mon, Oct 31, 2005 10:16am

The FSCO's report states that on February 5, 2003 the FSCO demanded certain documents and information regarding CCWIPP's investments from the CCWIPP administrator.

The report then goes on to say that "following receipt and review of a substantial number of documents ... the FSCO undertook an on site examination at CCWIPP offices in Cambellville Ontario in February 2004".

OK, I can't quite understand why almost a full year went by between the time that the documents were requested and that date of this on-site examination. I'm assuming that the receipt and review of the substantial number of requested documents happened sometime close to Feb. 2004 (if they were received much earlier it would beg the question "Why did the examiners wait a long time before doing their on-site examination?")

And then...why did more than a year go by before the report itself was issued?

From comments elsewhere in the report it seems that some indepth discussion and information was provided at a meeting between the CCWIPP boys and the FSCO examiners on February. 24, 2005. Again, a full year after the receipt and review of documents and the on-site examination.

Why was the FSCO dragging its feet throughout this examination. A lag of one year or two years is simply outrageous in circumstances such as these.

Why did they issue a draft report in December 2004?

Why did they hold off on releasing the report (which is dated March 2005) until May 2005?

This is very troubling behaviour for a regulatory agency. Very troubling indeed.

It's as if they were waiting for something. I wonder what it was?

  • posted by weiser
  • Mon, Oct 31, 2005 10:22am

The handling of the "Draft Report" is outrageous!

The FSCO investigates the CCWIPP and then runs its conclusions past the CCWIPP for what? Approval? Editing? A heads up? Maybe, to get another "to-do list"?

It makes you wonder. More so, it makes you wanna' puke!

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Mon, Oct 31, 2005 10:47am

Here's my assessment - based on what we know so far:

The CCWIPP boys were starting to feel the heat in Alberta and needed another place to hang out. Ontario looked like a logical pick. Its "less stringent solvency legislation" (can believe Evans actually put that in writing?!!!) and friendly regulatory environment must have looked mighty appealing.

Realizing that the Ontario regulator couldn't just look the other way while insolvent pension plans rolled up and parked themselves in its jurisdiction (and remembering some of the reek from the Alberta review of 1999 in which the FSCO was involved), the boys decided they'd have to smooth over some wrinkles. So they brought in their hired guns and primed an FSCO official to help them. Hey, it's just good customer service right? (Too bad the regulator forgot that the customers are really the pension plan members).

Everything would have gone nice and smooth except that some time in 2002 some pesky members began making a stink. Oh those damned troublemakers! And some damned FSCO staffers also began making noises about some of the CCWIPP boys investments too.

So, a kind-of sort-of new examination was undertaken. In February 2003 an officious demand for documents was made. The CCWIPP boys laughed and told the FSCO to go pound salt. They dragged their feet and danced around. Eventually, they allowed the FSCO examiners to come visit them in Campellville (which is odd because the CCWIPP offices are in Rexdale).

They showed the examiners some documents (not many from what's in the report) and sent them packing.

The pesky members kept up the heat. As 2004 was coming to an end, the FSCO crew knew they'd have to do something sooner or later. I mean, they couldn't just keep their examination going forever. The CCWIPP boys seemed to think that they could and would.

So the FSCO crew wrote a draft report and sent it to the CCWIPP boys - to sort of get their attention and maybe to give them an idea of what a report would look like. Of course, the reason you share a draft of any kind of document is also to get everyone's input. Maybe there was some stuff that the CCWIPP boys would like to see in the report right?

The CCWIPP boys saw the draft report and got nervous and indignant. The FSCO crew told them that "we gotta release something some time". A meeting was convened (Feb. 24, 2005), whereupon the CCWIPP boys provided some comments (about all the great things they were doing to fix the problems) and maybe some documents that they'd been sitting on and asked the FSCO crew if they wouldn't mind holding on just a little bit longer, just a few more weeks, because something was going to happen, something very important and after the something-very-important happened, then it wouldn't matter what the f**k they put in their damned report.

So dutifully, the FSCO crew waited. They prepared their report in March 2005. It wasn't very nice to the CCWIPP boys but what could they do? A pile of shit is a pile of shit and there aren't a lot of other things you can call it. But they did say that it was a "historical pile of shit" and that the "trustees had gone a long way to make it smell better" and that the trustees had provided more submissions and that these were going to be reviewed and considered so that "next steps" could be decided.

Then, the something-that-was-supposed-to-happen, didn't happen. The report had to be released.

But having released the report, the FSCO crew put its feet up and decided to do nothing about the glaring non-compliance that it uncovered.

IMO, somewhere there is someone who has been compromised and doesn't wish to be hung out to dry. He or she or they know that if they push for any kind of remedial action against the CCWIPP crew, they will be exposed.

That's what I think went down.

  • posted by weiser
  • Mon, Oct 31, 2005 12:52pm

Like I always say, "It wasn't the break in that did Nixon in--it was the cover-up!"

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Mon, Oct 31, 2005 1:08pm

Yeah, that's so true. The whole thing reeks of cover up.

But just to digress a little: I'd really like to take this opportunity to welcome the gang from the FSCO to our web site. So many are visiting today, it almost feels like a government office in here.

Welcome to MFD Forum FSCO guys! Don't be shy. If you think we're being too harsh in our assessments of you, get registered and get talking. Really, it's easy. We do it all the time. You can even start a new discussion thread. Call it FSCO: Our Side of the Story. Come on, don't just sit there staring indignantly at the screen.

  • posted by weiser
  • Mon, Oct 31, 2005 1:53pm

I wonder if it ever dawned on these guys to 'consider the interests' of pension plan members?


The Financial Services Commission of Ontario ('FSCO') has established a new consultative group to consider the interests of multi-employer pension plans ('MEPPs'). The group, which is the brainchild of Mark Zigler of Koskie Minsky, is intended to promote two-way communication between FSCO and representatives of MEPPS so that the government will be better informed about the interests of MEPPS.

The advisory committee had its first meeting in November, 2004, and will continue to meet on a quarterly basis. Members include Bill Anderson, president of MEBCO; Brian Foote, MEBCO director and representative of the construction industry; Tom Levy, MEBCO director and actuary; Bryan Kogut of BDO
Mike Gallagher, the business manger of Local 793 of the International Union of Operating Engineers and Mark Zigler. David Gordon, the Deputy Superintendent of Pensions, and his associates represent FSCO….

Right after this, the venerable David Gordon spoke at the MEBCO AGM. The MEBCO is run out of Dave Harvey's nest at Queens Plate Drive and CCWIPP Administrator Joan Tanaka and CCWIPP associate Peter Martini are on the Executive Committee and Committee respectively.

Oh, and BTW, Bryan Kogut of BDO Dunwoody is the dude who told the FSCO that the CCWIPP wouldn't be reportin' on the stinkies any more 'cause they didn't want to and didn't have to.

  • posted by press
  • Mon, Oct 31, 2005 2:16pm


posted by remote viewer:
But just to digress a little: I'd really like to take this opportunity to welcome the gang from the FSCO to our web site. So many are visiting today, it almost feels like a government office in here.

While you bastards are all here... tell me where the hell is my old friend John King Shah?? His spot in charge of my plan is showing as vacant (maybe that's just a newbie with a weird last name?).


Registration Number: 0930396
Effective Date: Thursday, March 27, 1986
Fiscal Year End: December 31
Plan Type: Multi-Employer
Benefit Type: Defined Benefit
Total Active Members: 3911

FSCO Contact Person: Vacant, (MH)
Phone: 416-226-7770

Cliff Evans and company did quite the number on this plan. The CCWIPP members actually fare a lot better than us!

FSCO, I don't mind you sweeping our little group under the table with all those 'review completes' (although you're aware they're pretty much part of the same trough). We'll just bide our time.

Deal with your CCWIPP migraine first.

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Tue, Nov 1, 2005 7:17am

Hey, here's something enlightening.

At this link you'll find the web site of an outfit called MEBCO - "The Voice of Multi Employer Plan Interests in Canada".

MEBCO is like a club for union guys who run multi-employer pension plans and their hired guns. Check out the current MEBCO crew. There's CCWIPP's Joanie Tanaka, a guy from BPA Group (run by Cliff Evans' pal David Harvey), a dude from Koskie Minsky, Cliff Evans' pal Peter Martini and other assorted pension luminaries.

MEBCO is actually a lobby group that puts pressure on governments to loosen up pension regulations which, the MEBCO crowd believe are way to stringent and...get in the way of things.

Here's a copy of MEBCO'sSpring 2005 Newsletter. Go to page 3. There you'll see the FSCO's Deputy Superintendent of Pensions, David Gordon, addressing the MEBCO crowd at their 13th annual party.

Nice of David to give his time to these high rollers. Too bad he doesn't have time for pension plan members.

Check out the things he said though. What a hypocrite. Wonder why he hasn't applied any of these principles to the FSCO's dealings with CCWIPP. Too many nice conference gigs I guess.

  • posted by weiser
  • Tue, Nov 1, 2005 8:53am

I wonder if the speech went something like this:

"Now boys and girls....I'm going to read you a fairy tale--a very scary fairy tale. Bwaaa haaaa ha ha ha....


Need to retain complete records. Mr. Gordon stressed the importance of MEPPs retaining complete records, particularly relating to the entitlement of individual members to receive benefits. In addition, he said that if FSCO advises a MEPP that it is conducting a special purpose examination and requires certain documents, the MEPP must provide those documents. If the plan fails to do so, FSCO will then order a forensic audit, and may require the MEPP to pay the costs.

Put interest of plan and members first. The board of trustees of a MEPP must work together to put the interests of the plan and the members ahead of their own. Mr. Gordon described one situation where the labour and union members of a board of trustees refused to meet, so were unable to discharge their fiduciary obligations. Mr. Gordon emphasized that union politics must stay outside the board of trustees.

"Oh sorry kiddies. Was that too scary for you? Now, now, I told you it was a fairy tale. It's make believe. Here, have my hankie, wipe away those tears. You know that we'd never hurt you. It was just a campfire story. Shhhhh, calm down now...."

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Tue, Nov 1, 2005 9:37am

This is all part of the phoney-baloney "clientism" that the FSCO and so many other government agencies practice. It's what happens when teh people who run government agencies stupidly mistake the guys who they're supposed to be policing for their "customers" (when the real customers are the public that they're supposed to be protecting).

David Gordon gives the MEBCO guys a little lecture about what's expected of them, but really, he's out to build rapport with them so the FSCO can work more closely with them and make them happy.

What a load of crap. If Gordon was serious about anything that he said, the FSCO would be booting Joan Tanaka's ass. Instead they appear to be kissing it.

  • posted by Richard
  • Wed, Nov 2, 2005 11:17am

Oh these guys are so not believable. Check out their publication Somewhere to Turn: The Financial Services Commission of Ontario

Somewhere to turn my a$$.


FSCO oversees compliance with legislation and regulations, and takes enforcement action where necessary

FSCO administers 11 statutes that govern specific financial services operating in the province of Ontario to ensure a trustworthy, fair, and competitive marketplace.

If there appears to be a violation of any of the statutes it administers, FSCO will investigate and, if necessary, disciplinary action or prosecution may follow.

Gi'me a break! The FSCO is not a regulator, it's an enabler.

  • posted by press
  • Wed, Nov 2, 2005 8:12pm


posted by Richard:
Gi'me a break! The FSCO is not a regulator, it's an enabler.

Unrelated to CCWIPP (but it would not surprise me!)...

Fulcrum closing probed by police


Reindorf is listed with the OSC as a trader. Fulcrum Financial is licensed with the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO), a regulatory agency. Van Dyk is listed as a licensed insurance agent.

Harry Van Diepen, a retired financial adviser, blames the industry and regulatory agencies for allowing Fulcrum to stay in business.

"They should be responsible to the people who lost money. It gives the rest of us a bad name," he said.

These people at FSCO occupy some prime Toronto real estate. What the hell do you all do there? Ever hear the term 'embezzlement'??

I propose we shift your asses down to Parkdale and we'll at least save a couple bucks... and I'll have an honest answer when I ask...


  • posted by weiser
  • Thu, Nov 3, 2005 6:59am

The walls are closing in on the FSCO crew. "Dave, Dave, what do we do now Dave?"

Ah but the question is, which "Dave" are they pleading with?

Audit! Audit! Forensic Audit! Give us a friggin' forensic audit.

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Thu, Nov 3, 2005 1:49pm

If there was ever a situation that cried out of a forensic audit it's this one. I wonder why the FSCO is so reluctant to go there? I mean, if this isn't as case where you'd do one of those, when would you?

  • posted by LloydDobler
  • Fri, Nov 4, 2005 12:52am

Trustee quits the board of controversial pension plan


A former union leader who helped steer more than $280 million of workers' retirement funds into dubious investments has resigned as a trustee of their giant union pension plan.

Cliff Evans, founder of the Canadian Commercial Workers Industry Pension Plan, confirmed yesterday he left the board this week, but said his departure had nothing to do with revelations about sinking cash into exotic money-losing Caribbean resorts or numerous other unusual ventures.

  • posted by siggy
  • Fri, Nov 4, 2005 6:00am

welcome to MfD LD and thanks for the update on the ccwipp saga.


"He let it be known in the last few years that, in due time, he would step down. It's nothing special. I can tell for you for sure it had nothing to do with the report by the financial services commission or any of that stuff."

Oh maybe cliff's sudden departure from the ccwipp banquet isn't special to christophe but it is "special" for sure. If we were to believe christophe then we would have to believe that cliff could turn down a free lunch.

  • posted by weiser
  • Fri, Nov 4, 2005 8:39am


Evans called the commission's report "premature" and "inaccurate," and said union critics were using a Toronto Star reporter as "a pawn" to hurt the union.

FSCO: (in 1999 as part of an Alberta report on the CCWIPP) "The value of investments in real estate are questionable based on their illiquidity. The rate of return is calculated in totality for all investments managed by Mr. Kurki. This is misleading in that, once market value adjustments are taken into consideration, it does not show that the real estate portion has very low yields and negative returns. There were no written policies in place regarding investments in real estate.

There were no written policies in place regarding investments in mortgages. Also, the underwriting and due diligence requirements were not clearly documented."

Cliff Evans: "That's a premature ejaculation....I mean it's premature and innaccurate."

FSCO:( six years later in 2005) Currently, there are no processes in place to track the performance of Cliff Evans and his crew and report back to Evans, his nephew Mike Fraser and rest of the Board of Trustees.

There also does not appear to have been any steps taken by the Mike Fraser and the other Board of Trustees to ensure that Cliff Evans and his crew had the prerequisite expertise to invest these pension assets in these investments.

There does not appear to be any tracking of the rate of return of the investments made by Cliff Evans and his crew nor a process whereby such rates of return are reported to the Board of Trustees on a regular basis.

Cliff Evans: Ah, the reporter is being used as a Prawn...I mean pawn by nasty people spreading the truth about the Plan.

FSCO:On September 21, 1998, Propco 100 forwarded a commitment letter to provide financing to RHK in the amount of $750,000. The amount loaned was towards investment in Sea King Fisheries through its subsidiary Cabot Ventures Inc. One of the conditions stated in the commitment letter was that RHK Capital Inc. and Cabot were to forward on an annual basis, copies of audited financial statements within 120 days of the respective companies' year ends. The commitment letter was signed by both Mr. R. Kelly and Clifford Evans. The required statements were not on file. There do not appear to be any steps taken by the Board to ensure the investments comply with the SIP&P.

Cliff Evans: My gosh! What's with you guys? That stuff is a little premature. Just because it happened seven years ago and we were told about it six years ago doesn't mean that we weren't going to comply some time in the -- ahem --future.

FSCO:A due diligence review would be expected to set out in a report the complete history of the proposed investments, showing full financial, legal, costs, purchase price, funding and other details. -The persons reviewing such a due diligence report would then be able to make an informed decision on whether or not the investment should be completed. In normal cases, the due diligence review is done before any commitment letter is issued. During the examination, FSCO asked for the due diligence reports and reviews. On one occasion, FSCO was advised (by Mr. Ray Kurki) that the commitment letter was the due diligence review. This was not supported by the commitment letter since this letter referred to the due diligence reviews being completed. If these due diligence reviews were completed by CCWIPP, such reviews were not a part of the file nor were they made available to FSCO during or after the examination. This would lead the examiners to the conclusion that either the proper due diligence reviews were not undertaken or such documentation has been misplaced.

Cliff Evans: Ahhhhh, that's inaccurate and premature.

FSCO: How's it inaccurate?

Cliff Evans:None of your business.

FSCO:We'll make it our business.

Cliff Evans:Ya, and hell will freeze over in July. Come visit me in Florida....or perhaps Nassau. I've just bought another hotel. It's called the Accurate Inn, it's one of the most premature venues in the Caribbean.

  • posted by weiser
  • Sat, Nov 5, 2005 7:43pm

The recently departed (from CCWIPP) Cliff Evans spewed the biggest pile of bullshit when he wrote the following to a member:


Insofar as the investments are concerned, attached is a copy of the CCWIPP financial statement for the year ended December 31, 2000, and as published in the Spring-Summer 2002 edition of the UFCW Magazine. All decisions pertaining to the Investments of the pension funds are made by the board of Trustees after having completed the proper due diligence process. [I smell bullshit] Further, the placement of investments must follow the Statement of Investment Policies and Procedures filed with the pension regulatory authorities. The Investments and the pension fund are audited annually by a highly reputable audit firm. As soon as the audit for the year ending December 31, 2001 has been accepted by the Trustees, the results will be published in the UFCW Magazine.

I'll be polite: It just doesn't ring true. If Cliff could ply a member with this sort of crap and copy Larry (to do list) Martello, why would the FSCO believe anything the CCWIPP boys and girls said after the FSCO published its Freakin' Damning Report?

Those you don't trust, you audit. If the FSCO trusts the CCWIPP, I'd like to know why? If the FSCO doesn't trust the CCWIPP, why no audit?

  • posted by weiser
  • Tue, Nov 8, 2005 1:06pm

And nephew Mikey spewed some things that aren't even a "Tissue of Factoid".


Recent reports have suggested that numerous pension plans are having 'solvency' shortfalls. While this may be true for some pension plans, that is simply not the case with CCWIPP. If you take a look at the audited Abbreviated Financial Statement on page eight of this publication, you will see that employer contributions last year were substantially higher than the amount of money required to pay retiree benefits. And this has been the case year-in and year-out. Even as investment returns have decreased in recent years for virtually all investment plans globally, I can assure you as a trustee of the plan that the CCWIPP assets continue to grow, and will continue to grow because of the solid membership base, the ongoing contributions of participating employers, and the diverse investment portfolio.

In fact, pension plan regulators the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO), in conjunction with the Alberta and Québec regulators and the Canada Revenue Agency
(CRA), have recently completed an exhaustive two-and-a-half year examination of the plan, reviewing virtually all of its investments made since inception. Conducted as a result of malicious, unsubstantiated allegations made by unnamed complainants, the examination involved CCWIPP's Board of Trustees working with FSCO in compiling and providing over 100,000 pages of documentation relating to the plan's investments.

The FSCO report concluded that while some minor administrative procedures may require updating, absolutely no instances exist (or ever have existed) to cause concern to any UFCW Canada members with regard to the ongoing viability of CCWIPP.

I am proud to sit as one of the trustees of your pension plan, along with four other union representatives and five employer nominees. Together, we work to ensure the pension plan achieves the highest return on investment and delivers the greatest benefits for its members' futures. CCWIPP is your pension plan, and one that will provide you with economic security in your retirement – security which you, as a member of UFCW Canada, so justly deserve.

No matter how it's served, it's still dog poop:

© 2024 Members for Democracy