Bill C-215 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act (deletion of deduction from annuity)

This enactment amends the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act to eliminate the deduction of Canada Pension Plan benefits from the annuity payable under each of these Acts.

Opposition Motion—Veterans Affairs

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will I am splitting my time with the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

It is a great pleasure today to speak to the opposition day motion put forward by the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore. I want to start by recognizing the fact that the member has been a tireless advocate for veterans, despite some of the comments the minister made in his speech, asking him to stand up for veterans. That is exactly what he has been doing since the day he was elected to Parliament, whether it is in this opposition day motion or in the many private member's bills that he has brought forward for the consideration of the House, all of which have been opposed by the Conservatives. There is no question about who has been standing up for veterans and certainly the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore is one of those.

I also want to thank veterans' organizations across the country that provide many services to veterans, whether they are funded directly through Veterans Affairs or through their fundraising, through bingos and other charitable events. In my riding veterans' organizations raise a lot of money for programs supporting veterans and also for other community organizations in my community.

I also want to thank the front-line staff at Veterans Affairs. I know they do the best they can to try to provide the best services for our veterans.

I want repeat something I have said in the House before. I honestly thought the Conservatives would be different than the Liberals when it came to the treatment of our veterans. If the Conservatives support this motion, that will finally prove to me that they have had a change of heart, that they have finally seen that our veterans deserve the full support of all members of the House of Commons.

In opposition, the Conservatives talked a good line. They talked about extending the veterans independence program to all widows. They talked about holding a public inquiry and ensuring there was full compensation for all the victims of agent orange. They talked about opposing the unfair reduction of veterans disability insurance payments, known as SISIP. However, the their record in government has been much more modest. In fact, it has been a record of only partial success.

The minister likes to talk about the continual expansion of the budget, which he apparently intends to undo in a single year. His proposed cuts will actually devastate service for veterans. It is a kind of new speak to imagine that we can have cuts up to $220 million and somehow magically none of the services for veterans will be affected by those cuts. We have numbers being tossed around in various papers, some public and some not, of 300 to 500 staff reductions in Veterans Affairs. How in the world can veterans expect to get the services they are entitled to as a result of their service to our country with those kinds of cuts to the personnel serving them?

The minister and the government have tried to justify these reductions by pointing to a decline in what are now called “traditional veterans”, those who served in World War II and those who served in Korea. However, what they are doing, in a way, is devaluing what I would call the modern day veterans, those who have served in peacekeeping operations around the world and those who have served in operations in combat, like in Afghanistan. It would also ignore those whom I had the privilege of welcoming home last weekend on the HMCS Vancouver, which returned from seven months in an active combat zone in Libya.

How are these modern day veterans somehow less entitled to veterans benefits than what are called the traditional veterans?

This new budget planning exercise we have been going through with the government reveals the real program of the Conservatives, and this is, as I mentioned, cuts of somewhere, and we do not know the exact figure but we will soon find out, between $150 million, $170 million and maybe as high as $350 million out of a Veterans Affairs budget of $900 million, cuts from somewhere between 300 and 500 jobs. In a kind of new speak, we are asked to believe that this will somehow result in better services for veterans.

Just the other day in the House, when it came time to vote on Bill C-215, which was also proposed by the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore and which I had the honour of seconding, the Conservatives voted against it. The bill would end the unfair clawbacks of pension benefits for veterans and members of the RCMP, benefits which they had paid for throughout their careers by paying into CPP. The clawback would result in reductions of up to $800 a month for some of these veterans and RCMP veterans, $800 a month which would go a long way for those veterans in maintaining their independence in our communities and not having to rely on provincial or federal government services.

Again, the Conservatives have been clear and they continue to make the point that somehow veterans should get by on their own, that they do not really deserve the kind of support that veterans have traditionally received.

Now that the Conservatives have a majority, they seem to be on course to cut that support. However, allies like the United States and the U.K. have exempted their veterans affairs departments from the across-the-board government cutbacks, recognizing that a general cut in government spending ought not to apply to those who have risked their lives in the service of their country.

In contrast, what would an NDP program for veterans look like? We would start by ending the clawback for retired and disabled Canadian Forces and RCMP service pensions. We would extend the veterans independence program to include RCMP veterans and all widows. In the case of marriage after 60, we would grant pensions and health benefits. We would provide better care for those suffering from post traumatic stress disorder, shorten wait times for disability applications and eliminate or reform the Veterans Review and Appeal Board.

There is a large number of things about which I could talk. This is something which may seem small, but it has been a very big problem for many veterans and their families in my riding, and that is the lack of an increase in funeral benefits over the last decade. Even in death, we place a hardship on veterans by refusing to increase those benefits.

The hon. member from Toronto who sits in front of me raised the question of veteran homelessness. I think there is probably no greater shame for a country than for those who have served their country in our forces ending up on our streets without the dignity of a home to call their own.

I find it somewhat surreal to hear that one of the priorities of the minister is to come up with clearer language for the veterans who get a denial of benefits so they will understand exactly why those benefits have been denied. We ought to be working on ways to ensure veterans receive the benefits to which they are entitled rather than to find better ways to tell them why they are not entitled to those benefits.

There is also a disturbing tendency on the other side when it comes to seniors as a whole, and many of our veterans are seniors, to refer to them as a burden on our society. We heard this is the discussions about health care transfers, where it was argued that seniors were taking more than their fair share of health care services. We heard it in the discussions on the necessity to reduce the OAS, where somehow seniors who worked and contributed all of their lives would have to take less in the future. Once again, this is being applied to veterans in that somehow those who have served their country are not really entitled to fair treatment when they come back from that service.

I began my speech by talking about veterans' organizations, and all the things they did in their communities, and the staff of Veterans Affairs. I would point out that many legions across the country do incredible work in their communities. In my community, one very good example is the charity fundraising that the Royal Canadian Legion of Esquimalt does. We have Esquimalt Neighbourhood House, which provides service to both military and other families in our community. When the Esquimalt Neighbourhood House needed a new roof, the veterans of the Royal Canadian Legion stepped up and made a grant to the house in order to help it put on a new roof so it could continue its services to families.

Like all seniors in our country, veterans continue to contribute in their community, they continue to volunteer and they continue to raise money for charity. I would like to see us recognize the service they have given and continue to give across the country.

I want to conclude by thanking all those who have served their country, whether in the Canadian Forces or the RCMP. It is something I will try to remember to do on all the appropriate occasions and not just once a year on Remembrance Day. I invite all members to join me in those attempts to ensure that it becomes built in to our Canadian culture to recognize the sacrifices made both in times of war and in peace in terms of defending our country.

Today I do so by rising to support the opposition motion. In the budget consultations that went on previously, every veterans' organization called on the minister to back away from cuts to them. I hope when it comes times to vote on this, we will see the unanimous support of all members in the House in recognition of the service veterans have given to their country.

Canadian Forces Superannuation Act

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-215 under private members' business.

The House resumed from February 10 consideration of the motion that Bill C-215, An Act to amend the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act (deletion of deduction from annuity), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise here in the House today to take part in the debate on Bill C-215.

I wish to congratulate my hon. colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore on his excellent work on this bill. I commend him for always caring so much about the interests of our heroes, our soldiers and our RCMP officers. I share his opinion that we need to do more for our veterans. They have given so much to our country, and we need to recognize this, not only with kind words and nice ceremonies, but also with concrete gestures that will improve their lives and make a difference.

That is why I wholeheartedly support this bill. It represents a real, important gesture to help veterans and their families. I am sure most Canadians will be shocked to learn, as I was when I was elected to this House, that many veterans of the Canadian Forces and the RCMP are living in poverty. I was also shocked to learn that many of them suffer from chronic illnesses and mental health problems and have no access to the medical services they need.

Now I know, because I have had the privilege of meeting a number of these heroes in my office or at the legions in my riding. They are usually stoic and not in the habit of complaining. Consider what it must have taken for a courageous veteran to end up in a constituency office to complain about his financial situation. The situation for veterans 65 and over is getting worse. Our government should be ashamed of the economic situation of so many veterans. We have to do more; it is the honourable thing to do.

It is unacceptable that the pensions of Canadian Forces and RCMP retirees are considerably reduced when the retirees begin to draw benefits from the Canada pension plan at age 65 or when they draw Canada pension plan disability benefits. They already have so little, and taking away some of their pension makes absolutely no sense. Even more unfair is that when this decision was made, the members of these forces had no say in how they wanted to make their mandatory contributions. It is unbelievable.

Yes. The unilateral decision was made, once again without consultation, to integrate the CFSA and CPP contributions, rather than stack the plan or increase their CFSA contributions. At the time, members did not realize that their retirement pensions would be reduced when they began collecting their CPP benefits, just when they needed them. It is possible to remedy this situation today. Eliminating the clawback provision with respect to members of the Canadian Forces and the RCMP, as proposed by this bill, would be a way to straighten things out and to recognize the special and important contribution that these individuals make to our country. Members of the Canadian Forces and the RCMP have roles and a lifestyle distinct from the general community. During their working years, they face dangerous conditions.

My belief in this bill is so strong that, even if it were going to cost money, I would support it. The reality is that it will cost nothing. The lack of cost is yet another good reason to support this bill. All that is left for me to do is to invite and encourage the members of all parties to do something concrete for all our heroes and support this bill with the same enthusiasm as the hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is truly a pleasure to stand and support this fine piece of work drafted by my colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore. It is a piece of legislation that every member in this chamber should be proud to support. It is the epitome of good, sound policy work that can be done by members of the House. I want to speak for a few moments about my colleague from Sackville--Eastern Shore.

The member has been elected six times to this chamber. I do not think there is any higher recommendation or expression of confidence that voters can give in a democracy than to send a person back to represent them half a dozen times. One of the reasons for that is because the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore is one of the finest, hardest working, most compassionate and most reasonable members in the House. He has demonstrated that time and time again. This piece of legislation before the House is a classic example of that fine work.

Many Canadians wonder what impact an individual member of Parliament can have on not only the House of Commons, but on our country. When done properly, when adequately researched, well thought-out and well consulted, a member of Parliament can bring an excellent idea to this chamber that can change the lives of many people. In this case, hundreds of thousands of people across this country would have their lives improved by this piece of work.

For Canadians watching, the bill has a big title, An Act to amend the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act (deletion of deduction from annuity). That is a complex title for what is really a simple concept. That concept is essentially this: that the way our pension system is set up for members in our armed forces and the RCMP, it requires those members to make contributions to the Canada pension plan throughout their working careers. At the same time, those same members have to make contributions to a separate pension plan that is contributed to partially by them and partially by their employer.

When they reach retirement age of 65, one would expect they would then start receiving the dividends from the payments that were made, but that is not the case. At age 65, because of the way the legislation is set up, the amount of Canada pension plan that they would receive is deducted from the pension that they receive through their own contribution and that of their employer. In effect, the Canada pension plan portion of their pension is clawed back from their total pension receipts.

I think any fair-minded Canadian who hears that would be wondering why is that the case? What possible policy reason would there be for such an obvious inequity? Canadians would also ask themselves how is that fair? How is it that we expect people to make contributions through their working lives toward a pension that ultimately gets clawed back when it comes time to retire? That is the ultimate question that the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore set out to try to solve. This piece of legislation does exactly that.

I want to talk about pensions in this country. Before I was elected to the House, I was a pension trustee for seven years on a joint employer union pension fund in British Columbia and Yukon. In fact, it became a national plan. In those seven years, in which I was very honoured to occupy that role, which was a volunteer role by the way, it became extremely apparent to me what a critical part retirement plays in the lives of every Canadian.

Every Canadian wants to obtain an education. Every Canadian wants to have a fulfilling, satisfying, rewarding career. But a very pivotal part of every Canadian's dream, of what makes a good Canadian life, is the opportunity at some point to put down their tools, to retire and spend time with their families, to spend time in their community, and to have the time where they can actually pursue hobbies and interests and to give back to this country. Often when we work we do not have as much time for that as we would like.

It is part of every Canadian's dream to have sufficient income to retire with dignity. Canadians do not want to live a life of exorbitance. They are not looking for extreme wealth in retirement. They just want enough to have a secure retirement, enough that they can pay their accommodation, feed their families, take care of their families, do a bit of travel and live the rest of their lives in the secure comfort and knowledge that they do not have to worry about poverty or financial pressure.

The bill would go some way to making that dream a reality for some of the most important people in our society, members of the armed forces and members of the RCMP.

A very important point that I do not think has been expressed enough in the House is that, unlike other Canadians in this country, members of the armed forces and the RCMP do not have the legal ability to organize themselves into a union. They do not have the ability to take their concerns and sit down at a bargaining table with their employer and negotiate the terms and conditions of their work. Because they are deprived of that ability, they just have whatever remuneration package is determined for them thrust upon them. It is doubly incumbent upon us as parliamentarians to supervise that remuneration package and make sure it is fair.

To claw back Canada pension plan benefits from men and women in our armed forces and RCMP who paid for those benefits, is simply unfair. It should be changed, and the bill would change it.

I want to talk for a moment about pensions in general, because of course that has been raised very much in the House by the clear direction of the government to raise the retirement age for old age security from 65 to 67. Day after day, week after week, the Conservatives in this House keeping say they just want to strengthen the plan, that they will not do it for anybody who is currently retired or near retirement. They will not say on whom they will impose this rule. Yet they will impose this rule on Canadians. It will be Canadians in their twenties, their thirties or their forties.

I have heard government members talk about what a wonderful job they have done managing the economy, how strong our economy is and how we are growing. Yet they are asking Canadians to take less. I am not exactly sure where all this largesse and all the benefit of the economy are going. They are certainly not going to our retirees. Retirees' lives in this country, according to the government's plan, will get worse. We just do not know when, whether it is next year, 10 years from now or 20 years from now. However, it is guaranteed they will get worse.

We all know old age security is a pay-as-we-go plan. There is not a segregated account into which we put money to pay for our old age security. It comes out of general revenues. The government is saying that we have a demographic challenge coming, the baby boom is coming and this plan will be unsustainable.

I ask, did the Conservatives not see this coming? Did the baby boom sneak up on us? We have only seen that coming for 40 years. How is it that successive Conservative and Liberal governments have not seen this coming?

Over the last 30 years, from 1982 until now, the Conservative and Liberal governments have been in power exactly the same amount of time, 15 years each. For the last 30 years Canadians have listened to these parties say they are the best fiscal managers. Yet they could not even arrange to make sure that Canadians could have $6,500 in retirement when they turn 65. That is a shame.

At the same time, if it is a revenue problem, the Conservative government cut the GST by 2% and took $12 billion of revenue out of the federal government coffers. Just the last corporate tax cut, from 19% to 16.5%, took another $10 billion out of the government's coffers. That is $26 billion just on those two items alone that has come out of federal government revenue. Then the government says that it does not have enough money to pay for old age security.

Why did the Conservatives make those revenue cuts? What were they thinking two years ago? In terms of democracy, when the Conservatives say they have a strong mandate from the Canadian people, and we hear this repeated ad nauseam, why did they not get a mandate from the Canadian people eight months ago to raise the old age security levels from 65 to 67? Why did they not have the courage to tell Canadians that is what they would do? They must have known it, because the demographic bulge was there for everybody to see for decades.

I speak highly in favour of the bill. Let us make sure every Canadian can have a secure retirement. Let us start with members of our armed forces and our RCMP officers and correct this longstanding inequity.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member who just spoke in this House raised a very relevant and pertinent question. Where are the Conservatives who are speaking on this bill? If they do not agree with it, at least they could participate and tell us what is wrong with this bill and why they cannot support it in principle, because that is what we are debating today, whether or not this bill should be supported in principle so that it can go to committee. That is a very good question and maybe we will see a few Conservatives get up now and speak to the bill.

First, I want to express gratitude to the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore because, as the previous members and others have said, he has worked diligently and with great honour and integrity on these issues affecting veterans. I know that since he was elected in this House in 1997, he has brought this file forward and exposed the inequalities and issues and grievances that exist within Veterans Affairs Canada and for all of the pensioners across the country who receive these pensions. It is a real testament to what an individual member can do with a private member's bill, and also beyond, working within the community. As we have heard today, there are over 100,000 people who have signed a petition supporting this bill. That is an enormous number of people. It is quite incredible. All of us would love to have a petition of 100,000 people, the result of years of work on this bill and reaching out and hearing from people about their legitimate concerns.

Bill C-215 is very straightforward. It deals with an injustice. It deals with an inequity in our system. When people look at this issue, the first thing they would ask is why people who have served in the Canadian armed forces or the RCMP would lose a portion of their service pension when they reach age 65 and get their CPP or their CPP disability pension. They earned that service pension.

In British Columbia, where we also have a superannuation plan, I am not aware of any deductions being made. Through their service, people earn their superannuation, which stands on its own. Yet here, federally, we have a clawback where people forfeit one side of their contribution when another contribution kicks in. That seems to me to be fundamentally unfair.

I am very glad that the member has brought this forward and has tried repeatedly to get this bill through the House of Commons. This bill was first brought forward in 2005. It actually did pass the House of Commons at second reading at one point and went to committee. However, the government has always foiled attempts to rectify this injustice. We have another opportunity here today with this bill to do the right thing, and if there are procedural matters around a royal recommendation, as the member for Halifax just pointed out, there are remedies for that too. There has been a lot of homework done on this bill to show that it can meet the rules and the procedures around private members' bills.

The most important thing to note is that the government at any point or on any day it wanted to correct this issue could do so by introducing its own bill. Despite all the effort that has gone toward this private member's bill, let us not forget that the government itself has the mandate and authority to come forward with a bill to ensure that these seniors and pensioners do not lose out on their hard-earned money. Let us not forget that those pensioners had to work 20 years and that they made these contributions to the plan. This is not a go home free day, but a contribution that has been earned as a result of work service. As my colleagues have pointed out, these particular members of society have provided a service that is sometimes risky and very challenging in the Canadian armed forces and the RCMP.

This is a significant issue and it relates to the bigger issue of fundamental fairness. We have had debates in this House and in question period day after day about what is happening to the old age security system.

There are so many people across the country asking what is going to happen to their pensions, if this is going to be taken away from them because of the plans that have been announced by the government.

The Prime Minister did it in such a wonderful way in announcing it in Davos, Switzerland. Maybe he was hoping we would not notice it here in Canada. However, once that message gets through to seniors in this country, a lot of organization starts to happen. We are beginning to see it with the sit-ins at the Conservative members' offices, and I am sure we are going to see more of that.

This is taking place within a bigger environment of growing inequality in our country. One of the things I find surprising is that we are always told it will cost too much, that this bill is something we cannot really afford. Let us look at the bigger picture. We will have had about $60 billion in corporate tax cuts. We have a public revenue pie and a government that has been hell bent on slashing away while providing tax cuts for profitable corporations. Just look at the six big banks and the billions of dollars in profits they made last year. These corporations can afford to pay their fair share. That is all we are asking for, a fair share, so that the public revenue pie can be properly divided to ensure that essential programs, like pension programs and supports for seniors, veterans, and people with disabilities, can actually go ahead.

The issue here is not affordability but the income inequality that has clearly been chosen by public policy decisions of this Conservative government, and governments previous to it as well. However, I am glad to see the Liberals are supporting this bill today. However, let us get the big picture right and recognize that what we are talking about here is not minor. In the big picture, this is something that is entirely supportable, defensible and doable, and it is the right thing to do.

I would echo others who have said in the House today that we should put aside some of the partisan feelings and instead focus on the merits of this bill and recognize that these members of the Canadian Forces and RCMP deserve to have their superannuation contributions recognized and upheld.

I want to make one last point. This does not only affect those individuals who worked and who made contributions, but also their spouses. We should acknowledge that many spouses of military members have difficulty finding and retaining employment because of their frequent moves and postings. That is something we can understand and relate to because they are moving around so much. Therefore, it is very difficult for them to contribute to their own pension plan. That is all the more reason to approve this bill, because we would be assisting the spouses of military and RCMP members and increasing their income level as a result.

There are too many people falling below the poverty line. There are too many people being left behind. We in the NDP have a pretty good track record of bringing forward economically sound proposals, whether on the CPP, OAS, employment insurance, child care or housing. We try to create a better balance on income inequality.

Here is another really fine example of what we can do in the House if we vote for this bill. We can make sure that this injustice is corrected and that those receiving these service pensions are allowed to keep 100% of what they contributed and earned through their work.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, this is essential legislation if we are going to treat our Canadian Forces and RCMP personnel with dignity and respect. My friend and colleague, the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, has worked tirelessly on this issue over the years, so I am extra pleased today to speak to it.

Whether it is embarking on search and rescue missions, carrying out dangerous arrests on our streets or working alongside our international partners in peace building overseas, Canadian men and women in uniform make a tremendous sacrifice for our country every day. They often face dangerous conditions and extended family separations. Canadians and their families together make huge contributions, contributions that the rest of us can barely comprehend.

Sadly, the government is not prepared to make a similar contribution to the lives of men and women who serve our country. As it currently stands, as we have heard in the House, service pensions for retired Canadian Forces and RCMP personnel are significantly reduced at the age of 65 or when personnel begin to receive disability benefits. That is not just. Why would we reduce a veteran's pension at a time when he or she need it most? When veterans are grappling with permanent disabilities, visible, invisible or maybe with increased health risks because of old age, why would we not support them having a fair standard of living? Thousands of veteran Canadian Forces and RCMP personnel across this country want an answer, as do I.

In my riding of Halifax, the military is the largest employer. We have been a navy town since the beginning and we are proud of our military legacy, which began in the 18th century with the building of the dockyard. However, more than 300 years later, CFB Halifax is home to Canada's east coast naval base and the country's largest military base in terms of posted personnel, with more than 10,000 military and civilian employees. It is a major factor in the riding of Halifax.

Military personnel are actively engaged in my community. They enrich Halifax through their dedication to their work, their community and their volunteer work. They are involved in many different community partnerships, including the Military Family Resource Centre. However, like I said, too often many of the retired workers do not have an adequate standard of living. They do not enjoy the standard of living they deserve because of the current clawback to pensions.

The deduction that we are talking about was created nearly half a century ago and it is time for us to put this policy to an end. It hurts veterans, but, as I said, it also hurts their families. The Conservatives say that this is not a clawback. Maybe technically that is not the word that we should be using, but when money is missing from people's bank statements each month, that is a clawback and a clawback by any other name still stinks.

How does it work? I have an email from Leslie Sanders, who was impacted by this clawback. He did his deductions and talked about what he was getting before versus what he was getting now with this clawback and the difference was $130 a month. That is a lot of money for someone living on a pension. That is a couple of weeks of groceries. He told me that just because he had turned 65 did not mean that he needed less to live on than when I was 64. He wants an explanation of how this could happen. I think we would all appreciate that explanation.

It is not just service men and women. It is also their spouses that we need to think about. Due to the unique nature of life in uniform where families continuously move around this country and the world, CF and RCMP spouses often struggle to find and maintain employment. That makes it even more difficult for spouses to contribute to their own pension plans and support their families. We are seeing people left in the financial lurch yet again.

What is even more troubling is the unequal treatment of our troops. Currently, serving members of the Canadian Forces are able to draw their full salaries as well as disability pensions if they are injured, and rightly so, but discharged troops with a disability are not entitled to the same treatment. However, they have all made tremendous sacrifices so why would we not treat them the same?

Some of my colleagues across the way have expressed concerns about the financial implications of this legislation, but great credit should be given to my colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore because he has outlined so many opportunities to keep the costs of implementing the bill at a minimum or revenue neutral.

We could try avenues like current payments to employment insurance, which CF and RCMP personnel pay into but cannot collect. We could use those contributions to offset these costs. Plus, members would likely receive less old age security and guaranteed income supplement payments.

This legislation is about more than the bottom line. I am almost reluctant to talk about those measures because it is really about providing a quality of life for Canadian Forces and RCMP personnel who go above and beyond for Canada every day. Supporting our troops is not just about wearing a yellow ribbon.

New Democrats are not alone in support of righting this wrong. More than 112,000 Canadians have signed a petition supporting this initiative, including many former colonels and generals. The Canadian Legion, the Army, Navy & Air Force Veterans in Canada Association and the national chairman of the Armed Forces Pensioners'/Annuitants' Association all back this proposal, as does Veterans ombudsman, Colonel Pat Stogran. He called it profoundly unfair.

In my home province of Nova Scotia. the clawback has become a concern for countless Nova Scotians. In 2006, our provincial government adopted a resolution urging:

...the Government of Canada to investigate this matter immediately and end the unfair policy of benefit reduction to our veterans of the military and the RCMP.

It is pretty profound when a provincial government would make a statement like that concerning a federal issue. I think we need to take that to heart.

Before I close, I would like to read part of a letter of support I received in response to Bill C-215 from a gentleman named Doug Grist, a retired RCMP officer. He is not from my riding but from the riding of South Shore—St. Margaret's, which is held currently by a Conservative MP. Mr. Grist said:

...there is more to recognizing all these brave men and women, who lay it all on the line both on foreign soil and here at home, than building monuments and holding an annual ceremony. These people provide us all with a secure, peaceful, enviable quality of life. They too deserve the same quality of life, not just while they serve but in their retirement.

I could not have put it more eloquently than Mr. Grist.

Throughout this debate I have been reminded of the old adage “no soldier left behind”. With the policy on service pensions in its current form, CF and RCMP personnel are being left behind. We need to ensure that this adage becomes a reality.

I urge members on all sides of the House to put down their partisan blinders, to go beyond our party affiliations and realize that this is the right thing to do. We need to stand up in the House and support the bill to ensure that none of them are left behind.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I stand today to speak to Bill C-215. It is a bill which we support in principle and we would like to see it go to committee. The Liberal Party has been fairly clear over the last couple of weeks, in terms of expressing how important pensions are to Canadians as a whole, and the action we need to take to improve the quality of retirement for all Canadians.

I approach this debate with a bit of a bias. I used to be a member of the Canadian Forces. I have had the opportunity to become friends with numerous individuals who have been able to benefit through retirement pensions and so forth. Having said that, I do not collect a Canadian Forces pension, nor will I collect a Canadian Forces pension, but I see the merit of what is actually being proposed in the legislation.

Taking into consideration the sacrifices that are made by our men and women in the forces, whether they are in the Canadian Forces or the RCMP, the bill has a great deal of merit. I am anxious to see how the government will respond to the legislation. At the very least, it would be beneficial to all Canadians to have this bill go to committee, where we might be able to receive presentations and get some perspective from Canadians, in particular, members from the forces.

I know first-hand that many people who join the forces do not join because they are thinking of their retirement or how much money they are going to make on an annual basis. Generally speaking, the annual income is not that great. Most people join the forces because they want to contribute to our country in terms of building it and making it a safe place to be. I have the deepest amount of respect for those men and women who have taken on the responsibility of joining the forces.

I see this bill as one of the ways in which we can acknowledge the sacrifices they make. I look forward to not only dealing with the pension for the forces and the RCMP, but also dealing with the broader pension issue as a whole.

The Liberal critic for seniors has talked at great length about pensions and the importance of our being able to develop an overall pension scheme that will satisfy the needs of people in their retirement years for generations to come.

Today, sadly, and this even applies to members of the forces who have retired, too many seniors, because of the limited income they receive, are having to decide between buying prescribed medication that they require or buying food or clothing they. We would all agree that food is absolutely critical. People have to have food. Often, that means it is the medications that will lose out or, as we are starting to see, more seniors will use food banks.

My assistant, Roldan Sevillano, placed a call and learned that approximately 7,000 seniors, 65 years and older, living in the province of Manitoba visit food banks. I can assure members that a good number of those individuals have retired from our forces.

I suspect that we will continue to see a growing dependency on our food banks. We need to look at ways in which we can improve the quality of life for all of our seniors who retire at age 65, and I say to my Conservative colleagues, age 65, not 67.

I hope and trust that the government will see the wisdom of rectifying the crisis and fear it has created for many individuals, including members of our armed forces, who are looking at retirement. When people take into consideration the applicable age for old age security increasing to 67 years, they put off their retirement plans. Even this legislation would be impacted by what the government is talking about.

I will take this opportunity to highlight what I think is important.

It was raised today in question period that when the Prime Minister was still dreaming of becoming the prime minister of Canada, he came up with what we thought was important to say to Canadians. In a speech he gave in Guelph back in December 2005, he made some fairly strong statements. I will quote a couple of them. He said, that a Conservative government will protect our public pension programs. He said, “My government will fully preserve the old age security, the guaranteed income supplement and the Canadian pension plan and all projected future increases to these programs. I will build on those commitments”.

That is what the Prime Minister was saying when he was telling Canadians that he wanted to be the prime minister of Canada. He has really fallen short.

I am unable to best describe what he has actually done for the simple reason that the words I would use would be unparliamentary. I am not allowed to talk of the Prime Minister's sense of commitment that he made to Canadians back then and his inability to fulfill that commitment.

As the debate taking place on the old age security would have an impact on the legislation before us today if it were to pass, there is some value in reminding the Prime Minister of his commitment. Canadians believed the Prime Minister when he said that he was going to maintain, preserve, expand and make better our public pension programs. I anxiously await the March budget to see what the Prime Minister's true intentions are. All we know for sure is that the government is going to be increasing the applicable age from 65 to 67 years.

Getting back to the bill at hand as it pertains to members of the forces and the RCMP, we need to take a look at the broader picture and all the different forms of pensions that are out there. As the bill attempts to deal with improving the quality of life for retiring individuals who are members of the forces and the RCMP, we need to take that same attitude and look at other ways to complement our current programs to enhance the retirement income for other seniors and individuals who are looking toward retirement. That is what is important.

We have had great prime ministers who have provided us programs such as the CPP, old age security and the guaranteed income supplement. Those were bold initiatives. I believe that now is the time to look at ways to enhance our pension programs. Bill C-215 is one of the bills that could do just that. For that reason, we would like to see Bill C-215 go to committee.

The House resumed from November 21, 2011, consideration of the motion that Bill C-215, An Act to amend the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act (deletion of deduction from annuity), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-215, which, earlier today, I had the honour of seconding.

The bill would end pension clawbacks from our military and RCMP veterans and from those with significant disabilities. The bill in its first incarnation was introduced by the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore in 2005 and he has re-introduced this bill in each of the Parliaments since then. I thank him for doing that. It has been part of the member's work that he has taken on this House as being a champion for veterans in all areas. I thank him and congratulate him for the work that he has done.

The members on the other side like to say that there has been some kind of vacuum on this bill. I just want to point out that its previous incarnation, which came forward for its first debate in March 2009 and then came back in May, was passed by the House of Commons by of a vote of, I believe, 139 to 129. It then went off to committee where there was a toing and froing and machinations. It came back to the House without what is called a royal recommendation.

Stripping away all those technicalities, what it means is that the government did not support the bill. It argued that it was necessary to expend public funds and, therefore, the government would not let it proceed further.

I must say at this point that, when the Conservatives took over government from the Liberals, I thought there would be one thing that they would be better on than the Liberals have ever been and I thought that would be on the treatment of the military and veterans. On some fronts, yes, it is true that there have been some improvements, but this case is one, unfortunately, where the veterans have not received the fair treatment that I thought a Conservative government would have given them.

I will not review the list of things that I see right now that are a crisis for veterans but I do need to mention what is taking place right now with cuts to Veterans Affairs. The government has proposed taking $223 million away from the Department of Veterans Affairs and says that somehow this will not impact services for veterans. It is very hard to see how that could possibly happen.

On this side of the House, the NDP has called for exempting Veterans Affairs from the government's program review and to maintain the spending on those who served our country so well for so many years.

Now, rather than continue down this road talking about the deficiencies in treatment of veterans, I would like to treat this as an opportunity for all of us to do better by veterans, both military and RCMP. We need to remember that we are talking about those who have served more than 20 years for their country.

This brings us to one of those myths, the myth about the number of people affected by this bill. It is not hundreds of thousands as the other side likes to imply. It is not that total of more than 700,000 retired military and RCMP veterans. It applies only to the 96,000 who retired with over 20 years of service and, of course, to future retirees who will then have 25 years of service.

The bill is not proposed to be retroactive, which leads to the related myth about costs. At one point, even the government admitted that the real cost would be about $100 million a year. The member for Sackville—Eastern Shore has certainly shown us how this could be a revenue neutral process. Chief among those measures to ensure that would be true is to stop charging the premiums for unemployment insurance, which members of the military and the RCMP could never collect, and shift those premiums over to cover the cost of this fair treatment for veterans with such long service.

The second point would be to focus on the net cost to government. Certainly, by increasing pension payments, this would lead to lower costs for governments in many other areas. Both federal and province governments would save money by paying these extra pension benefits for which members of the armed services and the RCMP have already paid through deductions off their paycheques.

When the government says that it would be necessary to raise contributions to cover future costs, I am not convinced. The facts say otherwise. And, when I talk to veterans in my riding, they are not convinced.

I will now talk about some of the many veterans from whom I have heard. My friend, Doug Grant, is the manager of the Esquimalt Legion Dockyard Branch No. 172. Doug gave me permission to tell a little bit of his story. He started his story by asking me what I was doing in 1962 when he was serving in the Canadian navy in the Caribbean as part of the Cuban missile crisis that threatened armed confrontation and even nuclear war.

I stopped Mr. Grant to point out that I was in elementary school. However, since that time I have studied Canadian history and I have also been a participant in international human rights missions. I know from the field, both in East Timor and Afghanistan, the great dangers and sacrifices that the members of our military put forward on our behalf.

I know that many veterans in my riding, who continue to write to me and call for an end to this cutback, are not asking for something they do not deserve, they are not asking for something they have not earned and they are not even asking for something for which they have not paid.

I will read one last quote. I will not name this resident because I do not have his permission. He said, “As a resident of Colwood and a current serving member of the Royal Canadian Navy, I ask that you support Bill C-215. ... And now after contributing independently to both my superannuation and CPP for 34 years, I will have both reduced to the equivalent of my military pension upon turning 65. I know the country has huge financial demands but I wish the reigning government would respect their members of the military and RCMP and not use them like a piggy bank and not try to ignore the surplus in their pension funds”.

I call on members of all parties in the House, because this is a private member's bill, to vote their conscience and vote in favour of those who have given so much service to our country, more than 20 years in the military and the RCMP, correct this injustice and immediately end this clawback to their pensions.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the House to speak to Bill C-215, An Act to amend the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act (deletion of deduction from annuity).

This bill is very important to my colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore. For over six years now, he has been working, with the support of hundreds of thousands of army and RCMP veterans from across the country, to ensure that the Government of Canada provides compensation for the reduction in pension benefits that applies to our veterans and members of the RCMP. My colleague told me that over the years he has met with veterans and former RCMP members who have spoken about a persistent problem: their pension is reduced at the age of 65 and the Canada pension disability is reduced.

To reiterate what my colleague already explained in more detail, it all started in 1965-66, when the Canada pension plan was created. The government proposed what it called a blended plan, because at the time, people had contributed to a retirement pension. When the Canada pension plan was created, the government said that its purpose was not to increase contributions for men and women in the armed forces or for members of the federal and provincial public service. The government therefore blended the program and determined how many people had to contribute to the Canada pension plan and a retirement pension. However, this was done without the consent of the men and women of our armed forces and the RCMP, and without their full understanding of the impact of these new measures.

In the past, the government has asked why we are giving priority solely to veterans of the Canadian Forces and the RCMP given that all sectors of the federal public service are affected by this clawback. It is important to recognize that the men and women of the Canadian Forces and the RCMP play a different role from all other members of the country's public service. They have an enormous responsibility. They are ready to risk their lives to defend Canadian ideals and to protect our country. They also ensure that our communities are safe. I have the utmost respect for the incredible work done by our men and women in uniform.

Every federal government worker is affected by this pension clawback, except senators, judges and members of Parliament. The pensions of the men and women of the armed forces and the RCMP are clawed back, but this does not happen to members. It is unacceptable that members, senators and judges are not affected by this rule, but that the men and women who protect us are.

If the government is concerned about how much this measure would cost, the hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore has already broken it down. He has been looking into this issue for over six years. During that time, he has had the opportunity to discuss it with pension experts across the country. This bill presents a very interesting proposal, and we have a plan to minimize additional costs for taxpayers.

As the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore has already explained, if veterans are allowed to keep both of their moneys at age 65 or on disability, they would receive less old age security and guaranteed income supplement. Including old age security and the guaranteed income supplement in the argument that they do not lose any money is simply incorrect. Those payments come from general revenues, not from defined benefit pension plans. There is nothing stopping the government from cancelling the employment insurance deduction, taking that amount and putting it in the veterans' superannuation. That would cover the cost of the bill.

A committee review of Bill C-215, as introduced by my colleague, would also be a logical follow-up to the report adopted by the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs in June 2010. That committee report was on the living new veterans charter. Here is what the committee report had to say about the uncertainty surrounding veterans' standard of living at the age of 65:

Committee members expressed concern about the lack of information that would enable them to anticipate the situation of a seriously wounded veteran upon reaching the age of 65. The earnings loss benefit stops at the age of 65, and the permanent impairment allowance is only paid under exceptional circumstances. Consequently, all that is left is the Canada pension plan or the Quebec pension plan and old age security. Since the earnings loss benefit does not grant entitlement to make contributions to pension plans, it is reasonable to expect a significant drop in income for injured veterans who are not receiving a substantial pension from the CF.

My colleagues and I are committed to working very hard on behalf of Canada's veterans, and we will fight not only to protect their pensions but also to invest in their well-being. I know that many members here in the House are willing to do a lot more to enhance the quality of life of those who fought for us.

That is why I would also like to take this opportunity to say that we also need to take care of our veterans' most recent health concerns. The intensity of the combat operations in Afghanistan took its toll on front-line soldiers both in the field and on their return home. The government needs to be proactive when it comes to the mental and physical health of Canadian soldiers and veterans. More support is needed for veterans making the transition to work outside the military, as well as support for caregivers and other family members. Better follow-up with our veterans is also needed after their service, since post-traumatic stress disorder and other operational stress injuries may manifest themselves many years after their period of active service. We are all very concerned about this issue and we will continue to work for Canada's soldiers to ensure that they get the services they need.

To understand veterans' issues, we have to take the time to speak with veterans and their families. I hope the Conservative MPs will at least go visit their local legion branch and meet with veterans. They should talk to them and ask them what they want. They should talk to them about Bill C-215. Then the Conservative MPs might realize that the vast majority of military personnel, RCMP officers and their families want to eliminate the clawback of their pension by the government.

A few years ago now, a number of veterans' groups, including the Royal Canadian Legion and the Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans in Canada, unanimously adopted resolutions in support of the initiative of the hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore. What is more, 110,000 people from across the country have signed a petition in support of this bill. Among the signatories we have Major-General Lewis MacKenzie and Senator Roméo Dallaire. Nevertheless, this government continues to deny that there is a problem.

On May 5, 2010, the vote on bill C-201—to which Bill C-215 is identical—was successful. Unfortunately, the Speaker of the House at that time subsequently declared that Bill C-201 could not proceed because the Prime Minister had refused to ask for a royal recommendation. However, the Prime Minister has said in the past that, when a bill is passed by a majority of members democratically elected to the House of Commons, this government must honour the request.

I would also like to remind this House that in November 2006 the NDP members proudly voted in favour of the “veterans first” motion, a five point motion that would have helped former RCMP officers and their families. Unfortunately, the Conservatives were fiercely opposed to the motion.

Thus, we are giving the government another opportunity to respect not only the democratic process, but in particular, to honour the sacrifices made by veterans of our armed forces and the RCMP. Finally, we should at least study the bill in committee, which would afford us the opportunity to call experts and to have an honest, open and thorough debate about this matter.

I am proud to defend this bill today because it provides an opportunity to address an injustice that has gone on for too long. No veteran or RCMP officer, nor their families, should live in poverty after serving their country. For that reason, we must put an end to this situation today.

In conclusion, I would like to highlight the exceptional work of my colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore and thank him for it. For years he has listened to veterans, visited them and tried to understand and summarize their proposals. That is what is truly important—to listen and to be grateful. Bill C-215 would be a great way, so soon after Veterans' Week, to permanently support and recognize what veterans do for us every day of our lives.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on behalf of Bill C-215, An Act to amend the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act.

When members of the RCMP and military along with federal civil servants receive a Canada disability pension, it is deducted dollar for dollar from the superannuation plan, which leaves many of our heroes, who served Canada, in financial hardship when they become disabled.

For all the people who work hard for us, with these clawbacks, there is an overall loss of income in the hundreds of dollars because the old age pension is far less than the maximum Canada pension.

I would like to give the House some facts I have received from the military and RCMP veterans associations. It states that the money is in the fund to help pay for these costs:

On January 1, 1966 the Canadian Forces employee’s contribution was reduced from 9.3% to 7.5% of their gross rate of pay. Hence, a “So called” reduced Annuity contribution to our CFSA has accumulated a C.F. Military Annuity surplus funds of almost 20 billion dollars! It clearly indicates that contributions to the CFSA continue to be sufficient to pay for our benefits without a reduction clause.

The associations went on to say:

Today a Chief Warrant Officer with 38 years of service draws an Annuity smaller than that of a serving Private’s income.

Veterans that retired in the year 1970-80 today receive an average annual Annuity of $15,000. The annual average payment to annuitants was $21,684 for the year ending March 2009.

The 2009 annual pension report indicated that there were 86,406 Military annuitants. 39,192 were over the age of 65. The total annual cost of the CF Vets annuity benefits for the year 2009 was $2.391 billion. The CF pension plan assets recorded for 31 March 2009 was 6.94 billion. More than sufficient funds to terminate the CPP benefit reduction program.

The Government of Canada enacted the Canada Pension Plan in 1965 and the plan came into force on January 1, 1966. Its intention was to provide another source for an income security program supplementing the old age security pension plan. Military/RCMP Veterans maintain that in 1966 the Government of Canada deliberately or otherwise imposed on them a gross injustice and unfairness by merging rather than stacking their Annuity and CPP contributions and benefits, and by not providing them with any other options.

This worthwhile initiative continues to grow! Over 112,500 Veterans have pronounced their support. To date 121 former Generals and Colonels have signed our Veterans petition. It includes the signatures of 54 former Generals and RCMP Superintendents.

The Dominion Command of the Royal Canadian Legion, The Army, Navy & Air Force Veterans in Canada, and the Air Force Association of Canada have adopted resolutions at their Annual General meetings in 2006 in full support of our Annuity initiative. We have also received support regarding our mission from numerous other Military Associations.

The Yukon and the Nova Scotia Provincial standing Committee on Veterans Affairs unanimously passed motions in support of the military/RCMP Veterans Annuity issue in 2011.

What I recently read is a transcript from the military and veterans associations. The point is that the money is there so it should not be clawed back.

I have received some other correspondence over the last couple of days. I want to quote, for this House, a correspondence that was in The Ottawa Citizen blog yesterday. It is from Robin Brentnall from Gambo, Newfoundland. In his letter to the Prime Minister he states, in part:

Last year, your Party voted against Bill C-201, “An Act to amend the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act (deletion of deduction from annuity)”.

Your government keeps repeating that they “Support Our Troops and Veterans”, yet you vote against a Bill that will assist all Soldiers, Police, and Veterans with ceasing the deduction from annuity, a deduction that was never asked for nor voted on. The Military and RCMP don’t have a Union [as a member stated previously in the House] nor the ability to vote on whether they want a deduction or not.

This letter goes on to state:

By following the same “slap in the face” that Soldiers, RCMP, and Veterans received last year from you and your Party, you will confirm to Canada that you DON’T Support Our Troops and Veterans, thereby affirming that you do not respect what they have done to protect this country from those who would use their Dictatorships to rule with an iron fist.

It then continues:

Mr. Prime Minister, you can fix this wrong. Do not use our “fragile” economy to refute this Bill. If our economy is so “fragile”, why would your government continue on with it’s spending on expensive jets, jails, and Corporate Tax Cuts? Why continue to send our troops into battle when we can’t afford it? Why continue to buy hockey tickets for your RCMP guards with taxpayers' funds so that you can watch a hockey game, yet deny the same RCMP guards the deduction that they need that you voted against last year? Why allow your Ministers to order Air Force pilots at taxpayer expense to get to the airport on time but deny those same pilots the deduction that you voted against last year?

I will continue reading this letter but it states how hypocritical the government and the Prime Minister are. It goes on to say:

We served this country with pride, respect, and honour. The least your party can do is have the dignity to fix this deduction by voting “Yes” [on this bill] and truly supporting our troops, police, and veterans. To do anything less will confirm what is already thought: The Conservative Party of Canada does not Support Our Troops.

I have another letter here from Michael Gregory from Tatamagouche, Nova Scotia. The letter is an email sent to the Minister of National Defence. I will read some parts of this correspondence that pertain to Bill C-215. He states, in part:

On Monday, 21 November at 11 a.m. Bill C-215 will be debated in the House of Commons. This bill will eliminate the shameful and unfair claw back of retired Canadian Forces and RCMP service pensions.

I recently spoke with a retired RCMP veteran who spent 40 years in the RCMP. He told me he received his first old age pension cheque in August and because of the claw back his pension cheque went up $26. It is my understanding that the federal politicians pensions are not subject to the same humiliation [as was quoted earlier today].

I read your newsletter for November and it is very touching. The following is a quote from that newsletter.

At the end of this letter to the Minister of National Defence, he writes:

“On Remembrance Day, when Canadians from all corners of this great country join together in silence, may we fill those empty moments with the thoughts of gratitude and compassion for the men and women, and their families, who have given so very much for the causes of freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Canadians are eternally grateful for the sacrifices of those who serve to protect us”.

These quotes were from Michael Gregory and Robin Brentnall.

Cape Breton is one of the highest areas of recruitment for military and police services across this country. I am an honorary Cape Breton Highlander and I can appreciate the sacrifices of our men and women who maintain our peace. This is also true for police officers in our region.

When Bill C-215 comes up for a vote, I would ask all members of Parliament to vote in favour of it. They owe this to the brave men and women who serve our country.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise in the House today, as many others on the government side have done before me, to add my voice to the debate on Bill C-215.

We have no dispute with the statement by the member opposite that veterans have served this country with distinction, with courage, with selflessness and that not just this government but every government has a duty to look after them. However, the suggestion that we are taking benefits away, or that the current system somehow has been unfair or lacking in enhancement is simply wrong.

One of the core commitments of this government has been to modernize the Canadian Forces so that our country has the military it needs to deal with the 21st century security environment.

Three years ago we released the Canada first defence strategy. Members are very familiar with it. It is a 20-year framework to revitalize the armed forces based on a long-term predictable funding framework. We are investing in new and renovated infrastructure for men and women in uniform. We are purchasing new equipment for our navy, army and air force. We hear about these procurement exercises in this House every week, almost every day.

We are not just focusing on our efforts to support serving members of the Canadian Forces; we are also making sure that veterans receive the support they deserve because, as the member opposite said, we owe them a great debt. Their service has shaped modern Canada. It has given our country a respected and influential voice in world affairs. It has helped to make Canada one of the safest and most secure countries in the world. For this, we cannot ever fully repay them, but what we can and must do is make sure our veterans' particular needs and those of their families are fulfilled. The government understands this, which is why over the last few years we have undertaken a number of initiatives to stand up for veterans, to enhance support for veterans.

We have increased access to employment insurance for military families. We have funded new community war memorials across the country. Recognition is incredibly important to veterans. We have put into place a veterans bill of rights, the new veterans charter and a veterans ombudsman.

The bill of rights ensures that each and every one of our country's veterans is treated with respect and dignity. The charter provides veterans and their families with special programs and services to improve their quality of life. We have been very clear before the House and in committee about the investments this entails, some $189.4 million over the next five years, a $2 billion investment over the life of the program. The ombudsman, who operates at arm's length from government, plays a key role in raising awareness of the needs and concerns of veterans.

The government has also tackled issues related to veterans health and reintegration into civilian life.

There is now a one-time tax-free ex gratia payment to individuals with an illness related to the use of agent orange at CFB Gagetown, another issue that went unaddressed for too long. We have instituted a program that awards special financial recognition to Canada's atomic veterans.

We have launched the joint personnel support unit, a collaborative venture between National Defence and Veterans Affairs Canada. Twenty-four joint personnel support units and nine satellite units have been set up across the country to serve veterans, whatever their needs, especially the nearly 40,000 of them who served in Afghanistan and who are reintegrating into civilian life in Canada. They provide help to current and former CF members who want to get back to normal, and they ensure the services offered by National Defence and Veterans Affairs are coordinated and integrated.

A generous pension plan is one more way we are taking care of veterans. The government's contributions to the CFSA constitute around 75% of the total pension a member will receive, while the members' contributions account for around 25% of their pensions.

Part of each contribution goes to the Canadian Forces superannuation plan, or CFSP, while part goes to the CPP. Confusion sometimes results from the fact that benefits from the two plans are combined so that they blend seamlessly in order to meet the particular needs of Canadian Forces veterans. Let me explain to members what this means.

Unlike other Canadians, the vast majority of Canadian Forces members retire by the age of 60, before they become eligible for CPP. The CFSP contains a special provision designed to cover the gap between retirement and eligibility for the CPP.

When a member retires, the member immediately begins to receive the pension benefits payable to him or her under the CFSP. These consist of a lifetime benefit and a bridge benefit. The lifetime benefit continues from retirement onward. The bridge benefit, as its name suggests, is a special allowance only provided to veterans during the period between release from the forces and eligibility for CPP at the age of 65.

Once the member's CPP payments kick in, the bridge benefit ends. It ends because it has done what it was meant to do, by bridging the period between retirement and eligibility for CPP. In the vast majority of cases, a veteran's overall pension remains stable as the bridge benefit is fully replaced by the CPP.

Why do veterans not continue to receive the bridge benefit even after becoming eligible for CPP? Continuing the bridge benefit past 65 would ignore the added benefit provided by CPP after that age. It would undermine the intended purpose of the bridge benefit, which is to provide for the period between release and eligibility for CPP. In addition, pension plan contributions are currently based on the assumption that the bridge allowance will end at age 65 when CPP typically begins. This is what we can afford. It is fair. It is what the circumstances of service in the Canadian Forces require for us to do right by veterans.

The amount contributed by a Canadian Forces member and the government would have to rise significantly during a member's career in order for his or her bridge benefit to continue past the age of 65. This is a point that has not been fully reflected in the member opposite's comments. In return, Canadian taxpayers support veterans pensions to ensure that they enjoy a fair, stable and predictable retirement income throughout their lives.

The government believes this support for veterans is just and fair, but we also have a duty to be fair to taxpayers. Those who wish to see the bridge benefit extended beyond age 65 should remember that the money must come from somewhere: either member contributions would rise significantly, or taxpayers would supplement what is already a very fair and equitable pension practice.

The government stands behind serving retired members of the military. We are committed to making these investments. We have established new programs to support veterans. We want veterans to have a stable, predictable and equitable pension, but we are also committed to responsible stewardship of public funds. Bill C-215 would put a greater financial strain on serving members. It would increase their contributions and would require taxpayers to fund further the already generous pension benefit package enjoyed by Canada's veterans.

Our actuarial calculation is that the financial implications of the member opposite's bill would be a further $8.3 billion investment. This is not something that is provided for in our fiscal framework. It is not something to which the member opposite has spoken. It is not the right way forward.

Let me simply remind the House that this bill is not being proposed by the member opposite in a vacuum. It comes in the context of a mission in Libya that has just ended for Canada. It comes in the context of unprecedented investments in procurement, a veterans charter, provisions for which have been reflected in our budgets, one of which is scheduled for passage at third reading today.

I have some questions for the member opposite. Why stand in the House and raise false hopes on the part of veterans on this issue, when there is a fair, equitable, enhanced practice in delivering reliable pensions for Canadian Forces members? Why does he not support the real-life investments in equipment, training and human resources that the Canadian Forces require today, that this government has brought forward and that are the lifeblood of a successful army, Royal Canadian Air Force and Royal Canadian Navy?

Why is the member standing for the sixth time to bring this bill forward while continuing to oppose almost all aspects of the agenda relating to the Canadian Forces, its equipment, its people, its procurement, indeed its veterans, when this is an agenda that Canada and Canadians want? The agenda the member opposite has proposed is unaffordable and unfair.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

moved that Bill C-215, An Act to amend the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act (deletion of deduction from annuity), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my hon. colleague, the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, and my entire party from coast to coast to coast for their support during the six years that I have been trying to get the bill passed. This is the sixth year that Bill C-215, in its many forms, has come to light.

First I would like to thank Roger Boutin, Mel Pittman and John Labelle from Lower Sackville, Nova Scotia, for bringing this matter to my attention over six years ago and helping me with this legislation.

When individuals in the military or RCMP retire at age 65, the amount of money they receive from the Canada pension plan is deducted from their superannuation. Also, if they become disabled in their forties or fifties, for example, whatever amount they get from CPP disability benefits is deducted from their superannuation. That is wrong.

Most people do not know that all federal and provincial public servants who receive an annuity from their government, from the Canada pension plan, get that deducted from their superannuation when they retire at age 65, except for senators, judges and your friendly members of Parliament.

In 1965-66, when the scheme came into place, nobody in the military or the RCMP was advised of this. They had no options, yet somehow this great scheme avoided members of Parliament, senators and judges. As I have asked repeatedly over six years, if it is such a great deal for members of the armed forces and the RCMP, why did members of Parliament not get into it? It is quite obvious that somebody was looking out for our personal interests at that time.

In 1966, people paid a certain amount into one pension plan. When the Canada pension plan came into effect in 1966, the system was blended. Members of Parliament have what is called a stacked system. However, most people have a blended system which is divided into superannuation and CPP. The argument is that they did not pay enough into both to merit both when they retire.

If indeed that is the case, then why is it that at age 60 a person can fully retire, receive his or her superannuation and then apply for the Canada pension plan? He or she would get a reduced amount in CPP, but everybody does.

For example, a person receives $3,000 in superannuation. If he or she applied for the Canada pension plan at age 60, then instead of, say, $800, he or she would get $600. He or she would still get both, the superannuation and the Canada pension plan, until age 65.

Here is what happens for those in the military or the RCMP.

The government sends the dreaded letter, and anyone in the military or the RCMP at retirement age knows about this letter. It is from their friendly government officials: “Congratulations on reaching age 65. If you were collecting CPP at this time, you would have received this amount of money.” The letter informs them, for example, that they will keep the $500 or $600 in CPP that they presently receive, but the government is going to deduct more from their superannuation. They will actually lose money, but the government tells them not to worry because the old age security will kick in and should offset the loss of their Canada pension plan clawback.

I remind everyone that old age security, OAS, has nothing to do with defined plans. It comes from general revenues. Therefore, to say that something else builds that up is simply misleading. It is simply wrong.

For example, and this is true story, a gentleman in my riding who had 32 years of service with the RCMP had a stroke at the Halifax airport and was rushed to the hospital. When he woke up in the morning the doctor told him that he had good news and bad news for him. The good news was that he was going to survive his stroke. The bad news was that he had cancer. He was sent to London, Ontario for treatment. While he was there, he was told by his senior officials that, after 32 years of service with the RCMP, he would never work again. Then he was told to apply for CPP disability benefits because he was unable to work.

He said, “Okay, my pension is around $3,000 from the RCMP.” He thought that if he applied, he might get about $800 in Canada pension plan disability benefits. He calculated that if he got both amounts, and if he survived his health problems, that he would be okay with $3,800 a month. He was told, “Oh, Jim, we are so sorry, but that is not how the game is played.” He would get the $800 in Canada pension plan disability benefits, but it would be deducted dollar for dollar from his superannuation. He said, “Why am I applying for CPP disability benefits?”

That is the $64,000 question. Why should he have to go through all these hoops, all the trials and tribulations and do all that paperwork when it is going to be deducted from his superannuation, not at 65 but when he is 52? What the government did not tell him is that when he turns 65, the Canada pension plan disability benefits will stop for him. Then he will go on a reduced CPP, which is clawed back from the superannuation.

If he dies, his wife will get 50% of the clawed back pension. That is the big thanks he gets for 32 years of loyal service to his country as an RCMP officer. This also applies to military personnel. It also applies to all federal and provincial public servants.

The reason we focus on members of the RCMP and the military is that they do not have unions or associations that could argue this at the bargaining table. In fact, PSAC and others have gently refused to support this legislation. I believe I know why. They are waiting to see if we are successful. I believe that they themselves may wish to argue this issue at a future round of bargaining.

The heroes of our country, the RCMP and military, should not have to suffer the financial indignation of clawbacks at age 65 or when they are disabled.

I would like to deal with a couple of myths. There are roughly 740,00 to 750,000 retired military and RCMP officials, along with their spouses.

This bill only affects about 96,000 of them. They would have had to have served over 20 years in order to get superannuation. Now, for the modern military personnel, it is 25 years. If they served five years in the military, this bill does not apply to them. Everybody knows that.

What I have also heard from some people is that the bill is retroactive. It is not. It will only come into force when it becomes law. Everybody is fully aware of this.

On the cost, we heard the former parliamentary secretary to the minister of defence once say in a committee that the bill would cost about $100 million. He is about right. To run this program every year is another $100 million. People who serve for over 20 years in the military or the RCMP can get superannuation.

However, one thing they pay into, which by the way members of Parliament do not pay into, is employment insurance which, if they retire from the military, they cannot collect. We, as members of Parliament, do not pay into EI because we cannot collect it.

Can we tell the average person serving their country in an RCMP uniform or a military uniform the fairness of that little scheme? It is simply wrong.

And $58 million of the superannuation could be easily transferred by cancelling the EI deduction and moving it over to superannuation. That is a simple deduction right there.

Also if they received more CPP money at age 65 or if they were disabled, they would receive less old age security at age 65. This would be another savings to the government.

The average person would get about $200 extra a month. What would a disabled hero of our country, someone who is 65 years old, do with an additional $200 a month? Well, that person might buy prescription drugs. He or she might buy heating oil, or take the granddaughter and grandson out for lunch. That money would be put right back into the economy, right back into the tax system.

The bill itself, when we look at the overall picture, is fairly revenue neutral. The most important aspect of this is these people are the heroes of our country, and they require financial dignity when they retire.

Why is it that we as members of Parliament, the leaders of this country, do not suffer this indignation, but they do? It is simply wrong. I have case after case of individuals showing me the letter, showing me how much they made at age 64, for 364 days, and then on their 65th birthday how much they are making. An awful lot of them lose money. It is tough enough in our economy now without them losing more of their income.

Why would we do this to them? Why did they not have any say back in 1965-66 when this was done behind closed doors? In the 1960s and 1970s, most of them were not advised this was happening. Although it was in the book they received, it was written in language that was difficult to read. I have to admit the government is correct, everyone leaving the military now is fully aware of what will happen to them if they become disabled or if their benefits are clawed back. However, it is simply wrong.

Here is the case of Roddie O'Handley, from Nova Scotia, a disabled gentleman from the RCMP. He was supposed to receive 75% of his pay from the RCMP, which he got. Great-West Life, the insurance company, was supposed to cover him for two years of long-term disability. He received that. After two years, Great-West Life said it would not pay him any longer, that he would have to apply for Canada pension plan disability benefits. He did that, and he received benefits. However, all the money he got from CPP, backdated for two years, had to be paid back to Great-West Life. This happens to everyone. He had to pay it all back. Then, of course, CPP was deducted from his RCMP superannuation. Therefore, he did not gain any money; he lost it.

He asked, “If I'm supposed to receive x number of dollars from the RCMP for my disability on my superannuation, why is it that they can deduct it from my superannuation?” He should not be losing money for being disabled. Those additional funds are required in order to help him move forward.

There are probably many veterans watching us debate this on the great channel, CPAC, right now. I encourage members of Parliament to talk to the Royal Canadian Legion, to the ANAVETS and to the Canadian Association of Retired Persons. They are fully supportive of this initiative.

At the end of the day, when the heroes of our country become disabled, or when they retire at age 65, they should not suffer receiving the dreaded letter.

We have already outlined in previous Parliaments, in committee, and everywhere else how this can be paid for. At the end of the day, when these men and women were on the front lines in the country and around the world, no one asked them how much money they made. When they had to pick up a bunch of kids off a vehicle that rolled down a ditch and all four of them died, no one asked them how much money they made. On the front lines in Afghanistan, or in World War II, or wherever they may have been, no one asked them that. Now we are asking them how much money they make and we are going to deduct it from them.

This is not to be confused with the SISIP clawback. That is something completely different. This is the annuity clawback, the pension benefit reduction at age 65 or when disabled.

Most of my colleagues on both sides of the House know that the disability part is a real sore thumb for them, and they want to fix it. We can fix that quite easily if we want to, and we can work on the other aspect later if they like.

The reality is, people who serve our country deserve no less. They deserve to be treated with the greatest of respect. As I have heard many times, they deserve to be treated with financial dignity when they retire. They serve our country. They allow us to have a good night's sleep. They look after our families. They really are the best of Canada. As Rick Mercer once said, “If you're going to take the very best of Canada and send them to hell on earth, you might as well give them the gold card when they're there”.

As parliamentarians, we have the ultimate responsibility for the needs of these men and women all the way up to and including the headstone. They do not deserve to have those pensions clawed back. It is simply wrong and unfair. It is not illegal, but it is immoral and wrong and it needs to change.

God bless all those who have served our country in the military and the RCMP, and their families. Lest we forget.

Private Members' Business

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please.

The House will soon begin private members' business for the first time in this Parliament. I would, therefore, like to make a brief statement regarding the management of private members' business.

I want to remind all hon. members about the procedures governing private members' business and the responsibilities of the Chair in the management of this process.

As members know, certain constitutional procedural realities constrain the Speaker and members insofar as legislation is concerned. One such procedural principle concerns whether or not a private member’s bill requires a royal recommendation. The Speaker has underscored this principle in a number of statements over the course of preceding parliaments.

As noted on page 831 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition:

Under the Canadian system of government, the Crown alone initiates all public expenditure and Parliament may only authorize spending which has been recommended by the Governor General. This prerogative, referred to as the “financial initiative of the Crown”, is the basis essential to the system of responsible government and is signified by way of the “royal recommendation”.

The requirement for a royal recommendation is grounded in constitutional principles found in the Constitution Act, 1867. The language of section 54 of that act is echoed in Standing Order 79(1), which reads:

This House shall not adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address or bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue, or of any tax or impost, to any purpose that has not been first recommended to the House by a message from the Governor General in the session in which such vote, resolution, address or bill is proposed

Any bill that authorizes the spending of public funds for a new and distinct purpose or effects an appropriation of public funds must be accompanied by a message from the Governor General recommending the expenditure to the House. This message, known formally as the “royal recommendation”, can only be transmitted to the House by a minister of the crown.

A private member's bill that requires a royal recommendation may, however, be introduced and considered right up until third reading, on the assumption that a royal recommendation will be provided by a minister. If none is produced by the conclusion of the third reading stage, the Speaker is required to decline to put the question on third reading.

Following the establishment or the replenishment of the order of precedence, the Chair has developed a practice of reviewing items so that the House can be alerted to bills which, at first glance, appear to impinge on the financial prerogative of the Crown. The aim of this practice is to allow members the opportunity to intervene in a timely fashion to present their views about the need for those bills to be accompanied by a royal recommendation.

Accordingly, following the establishment of the order of precedence on October 5, 2011, I wish to draw the attention of the House to three bills that give the Chair some concern as to the spending provisions they contemplate. These are Bill C-215, An Act to amend the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act (deletion of deduction from annuity), standing in the name of the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore.

There is also Bill C-291, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (waiting period and maximum special benefits), standing in the name of the member for Bourassa.

The third bill is Bill C-308, An Act respecting a Commission of Inquiry into the development and implementation of a national fishery rebuilding strategy for fish stocks off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, standing in the name of the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl.

I would encourage hon. members who would like to make arguments regarding the requirement of a royal recommendation for any of these bills, or with regard to any other bills now on the order of precedence, to do so at an early opportunity.

In addition, members are likely aware that a point of order was raised yesterday by the member for Windsor—Tecumseh regarding Bill C-317, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (labour organizations), standing in the name of the member for South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, arguing that this bill should have been preceded by a ways and means motion. As members know, limitations exist on the manner in which taxation measures may be amended in the absence of an accompanying ways and means motion. If a bill that requires a ways and means motion has not been preceded by one, our rules do not permit it to remain on the order paper.

As I stated in the House last night, should any other members wish to provide additional information regarding Bill C-317, they are encouraged to raise them without unnecessary delay, as the Chair has taken note of the matter and would like to ensure the question is resolved as quickly as possible.

Finally, I should inform members that earlier today I received written notice from the hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale that he would be unable to move his motion should private members' business begin tomorrow.

As members well know, private members' business is set to start 24 hours following the presentation of the report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs indicating those items which remain votable, and no exchange can be requested prior to the tabling of the said report.

The report was indeed tabled earlier today, and the member now finds himself in the unforeseen situation of not being able to provide the 48 hours' notice required to proceed with an exchange.

In this particular case, and considering my role regarding the orderly and timely conduct of private members' business pursuant to Standing Order 94(1)(a), I will allow the exchange to proceed without the usual notice requirement.

The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs may wish to examine this matter and consider whether our practices in relation to the application of Standing Orders 94(1)(a) and 94(2)(a) continue to serve the House in an effective manner. As your Speaker, I see no reason why the member occupying the first position on the order of precedence would not be afforded an opportunity to make an exchange, while all other members can do so.

I thank hon. members for their attention.

I understand the hon. member for Malpeque has some further comments about the question of privilege raised.