An Act to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act (Group 1 contributors)


Alupa Clarke  Conservative

Introduced as a private member’s bill. (These don’t often become law.)


Introduced, as of June 5, 2017

Subscribe to a feed (what's a feed?) of speeches and votes in the House related to Bill C-357.


This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament often publishes better independent summaries.

This enactment amends the Public Service Superannuation Act to include in Group 1 contributors any employees who elected to count as pensionable service a period of service in the Canadian Forces that began before January 1, 2013.


All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, provided by the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.

March 22nd, 2018 / 12:15 p.m.
See context

Michael Davie Representative, Armed Forces Pensioners'/Annuitants’ Association of Canada

Thanks for the opportunity to speak to you today.

I'm here to bring to the committee's attention an issue that affects veterans who have transitioned to a second career in the public service; that includes me. We've also submitted a written brief to the committee with detailed background information on this issue. It's still in translation, but you should get it soon.

In 2013, the public service pension plan was modified so that new employees would be required to wait an additional five years before retiring with a full pension, while existing employees were grandfathered under the old rules. However, at the time of this change, no allowance was made to similarly grandfather veterans who transfer military or RCMP service to the plan as part of their transition. As a result, these veterans will be forced to wait five years longer to retire than their peers in the public service with the same period of service. Currently there are more than 100 veterans in this situation, including me, and this total could grow to as many as 500 in the years ahead.

When I transitioned from the army to the public service in 2014, I transferred my 15 years of pensionable military service to the public service pension plan. However under the current rules, I'm considered to be a new employee and am therefore faced with a later retirement age. In my case this will be at age 60, after more than 42 years of service. However, if I were to be grandfathered under the old rules, I would instead be able to retire at age 55 after 37 years of service. If you're trying to do the math, yes, I started when I was 17.

Unlike many of the issues the committee has heard about as part of this study, this one is completely and exclusively within the authority of Parliament to solve. All that is required is a simple amendment to the Public Service Superannuation Act, which is already before the House of Commons in the form of a private member's bill, Bill, introduced by MP Alupa Clarke. I believe this is a simple issue of fairness for veterans and one that can be easily rectified.

My hope is that the committee will include as part of its report a recommendation that the House of Commons pass Bill C-357 to address this issue or that the Government of Canada incorporate the required amendment into appropriate legislation.

Thank you for undertaking this important study. I look forward to your questions.

Opposition Motion—Veterans AffairsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

February 15th, 2018 / 1:30 p.m.
See context


Alupa Clarke Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am very honoured to rise today. I will be sharing my time with the member for Lakeland.

As usual, I would like to say hello to the many constituents of Beauport—Limoilou who are watching. Two months ago, as I was going door to door in Limoilou, I met a man who said that he listened to all of my speeches. He talked to me about how the festivals at Cartier-Brébeuf park cause noise disturbances. I want to say hello to him.

First, I would like to say that I am very passionate and care a lot about any issues that affect Canada's veterans, mainly for family reasons. On the Clarke side of the family, fathers and sons have served in the Canadian Armed Forces since 1890, and I was no exception. My great-grandfather, William Clarke, served in the First World War and the Boer War. My grandfather, Robert Clarke, served in the Second World War. My father, Patrick Clarke, served our country in Berlin during the German occupation in the 1970s. My brother, Anthony Clarke, served in Afghanistan in 2006 during the campaign in which most lives were lost. I served the country in the reserves and never went overseas. It is perhaps one my biggest disappointments that I was not able to serve this beautiful country in times of war.

My colleagues opposite say that we, as Conservatives, should be embarrassed about how we treated veterans. However, I just shared my family's and my history, and I am in no way embarrassed to be a Conservative. I assure my colleagues opposite that I am being sincere. If the Conservatives had acted poorly towards veterans, I would admit it, if I were minimally honourable and capable of analyzing public policy—which I am. This is not at all the case, however, and I will have to talk about everything that we did for veterans. This is not the primary focus of my speech, but I have no choice, because all the Liberal members have been saying since this morning that the Conservatives were horrible to veterans. Our treatment of veterans is not the focus of this opposition day. Today's focus is the following:

That the House call on the Prime Minister to apologize to veterans for his insensitive comments at a recent town hall in Edmonton and show veterans the respect that they deserve by fulfilling his campaign promise to them, when he said on August 24, 2015, that “If I earn the right to serve this country as your Prime Minister, no veteran will be forced to fight their own government for the support and compensation they have earned”.

Not only did the Prime Minister break this solemn promise in an egregious manner when he stated at a town hall in Edmonton that veterans were asking for too much, but he broke three other promises. The Prime Minister promised Canadians that, if they voted for him, he would restore lifetime pensions for veterans. He broke this promise because the lifetime pension established and presented by the Liberals before Christmas does not really restore the old lifetime pension. Most veterans who elect to pull out of the former system, which applies to those who fought before 2006, will not get 100% of the amounts they were receiving.

The Prime Minister also promised that veterans would not have to fight their own government to obtain the support and compensation they deserve. Yesterday, my great colleague from Barrie—Innisfil introduced a bill that proposes a covenant. It is a commitment, an agreement, or a contract. My colleague from Barrie—Innisfil probably wanted to enter into a proper contract with veterans by changing the Department of Veterans Affairs Act and compensation for the Canadian Armed Forces by amending section 4 of the act by adding the following:

...the Minister shall take into account the following principles:

(a) that the person, as well as their dependants or survivors, is to be treated with dignity, respect and fairness;

It is interesting, because the Prime Minister delivered a big speech here yesterday about the relationship that his government and Canada have with our brave indigenous peoples, who have been here for thousands of years. He said we do not need to change the Constitution, because section 35 already says that we recognize the rights of indigenous peoples. The Prime Minister said that instead, we need to change the way we view indigenous peoples and treat them with dignity and respect, and that is how we will give them the recognition they want.

However, that is exactly what my colleague from Barrie—Innisfil wrote in his motion on veterans. His motion called for the concept of treating veterans with dignity and respect to be incorporated into the act, so that bureaucrats and judges would take that concept into consideration when making decisions about veterans' benefits. Sadly, the Prime Minister voted against that motion yesterday. Is that not a shame?

I am disappointed, not only because the Liberals voted against this motion, but also because day after day in question period, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, the Prime Minister, and his veteran colleagues trot out the same hogwash about how the Conservatives treated veterans disgracefully. Those are lies.

Ours was the first government to implement the new veterans charter. We significantly increased virtually all of the compensation amounts. Every day in question period, rather than actually answering questions and apologizing for what the Prime Minister said, the Liberals spout off this kind of nonsense when what they should be doing is explaining how they intend to respect veterans, some of whom are meeting with a number of my colleagues outside.

Another thing I am disappointed about has to do with Bill C-357, a bill I introduced to create a grandfather clause for veterans wanting to transition to the public service. They could thus avoid having to work another five years to collect full retirement benefits. It is a very simple bill.

I have repeatedly requested a meeting with the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I even told him to forget about my bill and incorporate its amendments into the Treasury Board rules so that the 80 veterans who have to work an extra five years in Canada's public service to retire with dignity can benefit from the grandfather clause. The Minister of Veterans Affairs refused to meet with me. This would cost about $2 million. That is peanuts.

As a final point, in response to my colleagues, I want to point out what we, the Conservatives, have done since 2006. First, we created the position of veterans ombudsman. Second, we announced clinics for veterans affected by post-traumatic stress disorder. Third, we established the Veterans Bill of Rights, which is on my desk in Beauport—Limoilou. On top of that, we announced additional funding to support operational stress injury clinics.

Furthermore, we created the atomic veterans recognition program. We launched an outreach campaign with community partners to identify and support homeless veterans in the Montreal area. In addition, in 2010, we created a community war memorial program, because once again, veterans often need recognition. We also introduced benefits for seriously injured veterans, including the earnings loss benefit, to increase monthly financial support.

All of that was introduced by the Conservative government, and that is not all. We also improved access to the career impact allowance, another measure created by the Conservative government. Is that not incredible? We also created a $1,000 supplement to the career impact allowance for the most seriously injured veterans. That is another Conservative government measure. Lastly, let us not forget the flexible payment options for veterans and Canadian Forces members who are receiving a disability award. That is another Conservative government measure. Is that not incredible, Mr. Speaker?

Despite everything I just said, the bottom line is that the Prime Minister made a solemn promise in 2015, hand on heart and surrounded by top military brass who are now MPs. He said that veterans would never, ever have to fight in court for their rights.

That is what is going on. He broke his promise. There is nothing honourable about that. It is most unfortunate.

VeteransStatements By Members

November 3rd, 2017 / 11:05 a.m.
See context


Alupa Clarke Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC

Mr. Speaker, this November, as members of Parliament, we have the duty and privilege to say a few words in the House to acknowledge the extraordinary dedication that our veterans and active military members show to our country, day after day, from one military conflict to the next.

We must not forget that these men and women in uniform often serve on Canadian soil, as we saw most recently during the unfortunate flooding last spring.

Therefore, in addition to remembering their many sacrifices, we must also develop legislation that helps improve their lives. I have taken action, and in May, I introduced Bill C-357 to fix a bureaucratic injustice that affects veterans.

During this time of remembrance, I urge my colleagues from all parties to take a serious look at this bill and to help me pass it, to guarantee that our veterans will be respected in their transition to civilian life.

Public Service Superannuation ActRoutine Proceedings

June 5th, 2017 / 3:10 p.m.
See context


Alupa Clarke Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-357, An Act to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act (Group 1 contributors).

Mr. Speaker, it is with honour and pride, but mostly with humility that I rise today because this is the first time in my life that I have had the opportunity and incredible privilege, as a Canadian, to act as a legislator and introduce my first bill.

It is a private member's bill, of course, but it would require royal assent. I intend to do everything I possibly can to make the government see the importance of this bill.

It seeks to ensure that veterans can benefit from the grandfather provision in the changes made to the federal public service pension legislation.

In 2012, some changes were made to ensure the vitality of federal public service pensions. Some grandfather provisions were applied to ensure that those who were public servants before 2013 could benefit from the status quo. Veterans were inadvertently excluded from this.

When a veteran who fought for our country for many years brought the issue to my attention, I did not hesitate to move forward. For a year, I prepared everything I needed to and today I am very pleased to introduce this bill.

In closing, I would like to say that I love grassroots politics, but I want to be a full-fledged legislator. This is a big day for me and for all the veterans who served this country in another way, in the Canadian federal public service in particular.

That is why I am introducing this bill today.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)