Evidence of meeting #33 for Veterans Affairs in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was rcmp.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Joan Arnold  Senior Director, Legislation, Authorities and Litigation, Pensions Legislation Development, Pensions and Benefits Sector, Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer, Treasury Board Secretariat
Lynne McKenna-Fleming  Acting Director General, Compensation and Benefits, Department of National Defence
Superintendent Alain Tousignant  Director General, Learning and Development, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Michael Cape  Director, Pension Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police

9 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Sweet

Bonjour, mesdames et messieurs. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

We're at the 33rd meeting of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, and we're again considering Bill C-201.

I advise the committee that the time we have scheduled on the agenda for clause-by-clause consideration says 10:30 a.m. If at all possible, we should try to target it for 10:15 a.m. Of course, if we need to take time for questions, it will be exhausted, but let's try to target for 10:15 a.m. We have three significant pieces of business I'd like to deal with by the end of the meeting. In fact, I think there are some committee members who would like me to deal with them, too.

Without further delay, then, let me introduce the witnesses we have here today, and we'll allow them to make some opening remarks. We have Joan Arnold, senior director, legislation, authorities and litigation, pensions legislation development, pensions and benefit sector, office of the chief human resources officer.

Do you get that all on one business card?

9 a.m.

Joan Arnold Senior Director, Legislation, Authorities and Litigation, Pensions Legislation Development, Pensions and Benefits Sector, Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer, Treasury Board Secretariat

Yes, it's a very large one.

9 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Sweet

From the Royal Canadian Mounted Police we have Chief Superintendent Alain Tousignant, director general of learning and development, and Michael Cape, director of pension services. And from the Department of National Defence we have Lynne McKenna-Fleming, acting director general, compensation and benefits.

Do all of you have opening remarks?

Are there no opening remarks from anyone? All right. I know there are committee members who have questions, so without any opening remarks, we'll go directly to questions and to the Liberal Party, with Madam Sgro, for seven minutes.

9 a.m.

Liberal

Judy Sgro Liberal York West, ON

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

We're pleased to have the individuals here this morning that will help us to ensure, as we deal with Bill C-201, that we fully understand it.

You know this issue, so I'm not going to have to tell you about it. I've been here ten years this month, and I've heard about this issue ever since I've been here, partly because we have elected officials raising it, and because many of us who were involved in veterans' affairs have travelled and we hear about it. We hear it from the widows, but we also hear it from other members who feel they have not been treated fairly. For me, that's the issue I would like to see us get on the record clearly in this hour that we have, so that we can clear up any misunderstandings. We can't go back. I'm terribly practical. I don't view us as having the ability to go back and try to change things, but I'm very interested in what we can do as we go forward.

Could you address some of the issues that have happened in the past and why this continues to be an issue for many people when it comes to the superannuation and the bridging issue? I'd like each and every one of you to address that.

9 a.m.

Lynne McKenna-Fleming Acting Director General, Compensation and Benefits, Department of National Defence

I can start if you like. I'm from the Department of National Defence and we get a fair number of these kinds of questions.

People face the biggest drop in overall pension income when they take their CPP benefits early. That's only been permissible since 1999, so I think that's why we're seeing this issue be a problem for people.

Not everybody is a financial whiz. Not everybody understands or is counselled appropriately on the ramifications of the decisions they make. The Department of National Defence has some obligation, in the sense that they provide financial planning through the work of SISIP, the agency that does this for the department for members and veterans. But individuals need to take responsibility for themselves and be educated about it. The question is, what has the department done in that timeframe to help educate people so that it doesn't come as a really horrible shock when they turn 65 and all of a sudden they're without a sizeable chunk of the income they've been counting on?

First of all, while you're still a member of the forces, there is a chain of command that exists. You can always ask your superior officers to find answers to questions you have about your pension plan if they arise in that time. But as I think we talked about the last time, these questions don't tend to arise until a couple of years before you're getting ready to retire. When you're 18 and interested in the new things you can do and the new places you can go with the forces, you are not thinking about your pension plan, yet your pension plan begins at that time. So the Government of Canada is responsible, in that even though the average person isn't thinking about their pension plan, a pension plan begins to be provided.

During the development of the reserve force pension plan, a great deal of communication was done to find out what people wanted in the pension plan. We gave them the ability to communicate their questions directly to the project team as the pension plan was being developed. The bridge benefit was a topic of conversation then as well. That information continued to be provided through a number of forums, such as newsletters, articles in The Maple Leaf, and information notices.

There's a formal mechanism as well. It's called the Canadian Forces Pension Advisory Committee. It's set by legislation, and it has been in existence pretty much as long as the CFSA has been in existence. On that committee are senior members from each of the environments, a member from the reserves, and some folks from the pension world. Their job on that committee is to advise the minister about pension issues and discuss things like the bridge benefit and its impact on members. So that has been in effect for a while, and it continues to be in effect. We can continue to use it as a means of wrestling with pension issues and their impact on members and pensioners.

If you're a CF member or a pensioner and have questions about your pension and why the bridge benefit has hit you, there is a 1-800 line that has been in operation for quite some time. Folks can call up and get information specific to them. The people at the end of that line have access to CF members' service records as they pertain to their pensions, so they can answer those kinds of questions.

I mentioned the last time that we have a new website. I've looked at the transcript of that meeting and want to clarify something. There are 300 pages of text on the website; it's not a hard copy manual at this point. We've had a pension manual for quite a while, but with the new reserve force plan and the changes made to the pension plan, the manual is outdated. So rather than go with a hard copy first, we went with a website because people are very attuned now to getting information off the web. It's also much easier to maintain. If any changes happen, bing bang, we get the IT guys on the case to update the website.

In the process of doing the website we took the opportunity to look at all of the communication products the department uses to communicate information to pensioners and to members. All of the information was looked at, not only for accuracy in light of the changes of the new plan, but for readability and relevance. How readable and relevant is it to the person who's reading it? Let's face it, pensions are a difficult, complex subject, and you don't get a nice, warm, fuzzy feeling until someone says to you, “For you, this is what's going to happen.” So the website is trying to answer that question.

It's not a substitute for a one-on-one briefing, but a one-on-one briefing is beyond the resources of the department. It's not a bad substitute. When you go to the website you pick out the kind of person you are. So if you have been in the regular force since before March 1, 2007, you click on that link and all the information related to it is related to people like you. It specifically will give you all the information, with the exception of just what your pension will be. It won't give you that information yet, because we don't have the systems to do that, but if you call the 1-800 number knowing what's available on the website, you'll be much more knowledgeable and able to make decisions about things such as whether you should buy back, how you prepare for the bridge benefit drop-off, and whether you should take the CPP at 60 or 65, and you'll have a much better idea about the impact of those things on you personally.

Lastly I would say that when you're getting ready to retire from the forces, they have SCAN seminars. The acronym escapes me at the moment, but it stands for second career something, and in that people are told about the bridge benefit, that it's going to happen to them. But let's face it, I think the average retirement age is 43 in the Canadian Forces. So 65 is a long way away. So it's not very likely that you will continue to remember that, but to help you remember, every year with your pension stub--once a year--you get a letter, and in the letter there is a reminder that the bridge benefit will cease at the age of 65. So every year you'll be reminded that that's the case. That's what we have available.

9:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Sweet

Thank you, Ms. McKenna-Fleming.

Our tradition here has been to time the members and not the answers. Even though we're at nine minutes, I'll let one of the other witnesses add to that if there's something that wasn't covered regarding Madam Sgro's question.

November 17th, 2009 / 9:10 a.m.

Chief Superintendent Alain Tousignant Director General, Learning and Development, Royal Canadian Mounted Police

I think it might be a benefit from the RCMP's point of view to explain briefly what our communication strategy is around the issue. I'll ask Mr. Cape, our director of pension services, to provide some insight into what the RCMP does.

9:10 a.m.

Michael Cape Director, Pension Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police

As Lynne was saying, we have a lot of similar instruments. We have the website. We have communication devices, such as our PAC News, that are sent to our retired members to update them on a variety of issues. One of these is the bridge issue as well; we have communicated that to them before. We have staff relations reps who are able to identify the concerns of regular members and civilian members who contribute to the pension plan, and identify their concerns to our pension advisory committee as well, to advise them on that advice.

The core message, I would say, from the perspective of the RCMPSA, is that we want to ensure that the value of what they put into it is protected. So everything we do allows us to protect that money and that investment they've made. The investment they've made allows for the bridge to take effect at 65 and allows them to contribute less during the course of their career, so it's a positive thing. The only other thing I would add is that we always encourage our members on retirement to seek independent financial advice, because even though you may read it on the web, you may read a variety of documentation. It's probably a good idea to seek a financial expert to ensure that you understood what's being said and what is out there.

9:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Sweet

Thank you very much.

Now, Mr. André, of the Bloc Québécois, you have seven minutes.

9:10 a.m.

Bloc

Guy André Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC

Good morning. I am very glad that you are here today. I have a few technical questions. You are pension fund experts.

If we consider the pension fund for veterans and the RCMP—which is more directly affected by this bill—and the Old Age Security program, how much do you estimate was lost? And what is the average salary of members of the Canadian Forces? Do you have an approximate figure to give us an idea of the average salary?

9:15 a.m.

Acting Director General, Compensation and Benefits, Department of National Defence

Lynne McKenna-Fleming

I'm sorry, I don't know what the average salary is for the Canadian Forces, but the bridge benefit is a percentage of that salary, so it varies from individual to individual.

9:15 a.m.

Bloc

Guy André Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC

It is a percentage of that salary.

9:15 a.m.

Acting Director General, Compensation and Benefits, Department of National Defence

9:15 a.m.

Bloc

Guy André Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC

With respect to doing away with the deduction from annuity, which affects retired members of the RCMP, you do not have any study that says, for example, how much a 65-year-old person should receive based on their income? You do not have any numbers that would allow you to assess the scope of Bill C-201?

9:15 a.m.

Director, Pension Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police

Michael Cape

Do you mean a survey of retired members?

9:15 a.m.

Bloc

Guy André Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC

I mean an assessment of the amounts that would be affected.

9:15 a.m.

Director, Pension Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police

Michael Cape

As was mentioned before, it's really a percentage of your revenue. For example, if we talk about ballpark figures, the average retired RCMP member receives a pension of around $2,500 to $3,000. The CPP deduction is around $350 to $500. But the important factor is that when you look at the net effect, the pension amount doesn't change; it's consistent prior to age 65 and after age 65.

9:15 a.m.

Bloc

Guy André Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC

Last week, we heard from correctional officers. They were more or less asking for the same rights as those extended to veterans and RCMP members under Bill C-201. They also argue that they experience problems inherent to a difficult job. They want the years of service to be 20 or 25 years because their job is very physically demanding. Post-traumatic stress syndrome is also something they suffer from.

I would like to hear your thoughts on that.

9:15 a.m.

Director, Pension Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police

Michael Cape

I heard what they said, but from my position as the director of pensions for the RCMP, it's really inappropriate for me to say whether it's a good idea or a bad idea, or whether the government should do anything. It's up to that particular minister to listen to his client base and his constituents in that organization to see whether they should move forward or not on that.

9:15 a.m.

Bloc

Guy André Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC

Thank you.

9:15 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Sweet

Monsieur André, do you have another question?

9:15 a.m.

Bloc

Guy André Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC

No, I'm fine.

9:15 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Sweet

Mr. Stoffer, you have five minutes.

9:15 a.m.

NDP

Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS

First of all, thank you to all four of you for coming today. I appreciate it.

Monsieur Tousignant, I don't know if you had a chance to read the testimony from the last hearing, sir, but we had Roddie O'Handley here, a medically released RCMP officer.

I'm going to give you the scenario of two people. As you know, Bill C-201 would end the benefit reduction at 65. It would end the CPP disability reduction as well.

Roddie O'Handley was medically released from the RCMP. At the time, he got 64% of his RCMP pension. Great-West Life topped it up by 11%, to 75%. After two years, Great-West Life said that's it, we're done; you should be applying for CPP disability. He did so, and he received it, an amount of over $16,000.

The first call he gets is from the RCMP annuity branch: you owe us $11,000. He had to pay all that back.

The second call he's going to get is from Great-West Life. They are going to ask for over $8,000.

Mr. O'Handley received $16,000 from CPP disability and will owe $19,000. He will owe, because of his disability, $3,000 more.

On top of that, when he hits 65, CPP disability will stop. We heard testimony from previous witnesses that he'll lose even more money at age 65.

This happened to him and to Jim Hill. It also happens to members of the military and everything else.

I just ask you one simple question. Is it fair to these men and women who serve in the RCMP and the military that because they're disabled they will lose money on the payback and then, at age 65, will lose money again? Is that at all fair?

Second, you had indicated, Madam, that there are people who advise the minister on these very pensions. A few years ago, the pension was changed from 20 years of service to 25 years.

May I ask who suggested that to the government at the time? Why was it done? Were the pensions in trouble? Did they have to be increased in this regard? If not, then why was that changed?

Also, what was the additional cost to the membership for having that change in there?

This is for new hires of the military. Those who were there before were grandfathered at 20 years, but anyone joining now would have to wait 25 years.

Those are my questions.

Again, I thank you all very much for coming.

9:20 a.m.

C/Supt Alain Tousignant

On your first question, I think I'll ask Michael to answer. As a functional expert, he knows more detail. I think there's a question of pension versus insurance, and I think it's important to understand how the dynamic works.