Veterans Affairs Committee on Nov. 3rd, 2009

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Do you see where I'm coming from? You have $2,000 more in your pocket, or less in your pocket as a member of Parliament than maybe you would have had as a member of the Canadian Forces, because it's blended.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Well, I'm outraged.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

What I'm trying to say here is that at the time the members of the Canadian Forces or the RCMP were paying into this, they actually would have had less take-home pay if that wasn't in the agreement.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Yes, and if the pensions had been stacked and not blended, they would have paid more. They would have collected more.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

So they actually had the benefit during the time they were working, right?

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

It all does add up. The bottom line is that we get what we pay for.

The bottom line on this comparison of the CF pension and an MP's pension is that it's completely apples and oranges.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

That's absolutely right.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

There's nothing to claw back; we don't get a bridge benefit.

It really is there to cause people to get upset at MPs, which is generally pretty easy for people to do.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

That's right.

We look at that and what was received during the time you were paying into your Canadian Forces pension, but then after that, for those veterans, there's the increase in funding that our government has put towards benefits for our veterans in appreciation of their years of service. If they want to talk about how they are getting less money once they get to that age of 65, when you blend that in, their increase in benefits as far as support, the VIP, and things like that are concerned, is definitely superior to what it was previous to our government coming in.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Absolutely, and governments have an obligation to do what's right for pensioners, and all governments try to do that within their bounds. We brought in a host of measures that have been to the benefit of the veterans. We're always trying to find more. It's like seniors; you're always trying to find more ways to make life better. I mean, I have a whole list of them, but it involves billions of dollars and many different programs.

The fact is that most CF and RCMP pensioners don't get less at 65. They only show me their CFSA slip; they don't show me their CPP slip. And when I challenge them, in most cases when you put it together, they're getting about the same or more. But they're fixated on the CFSA part of it and they're just ignoring the CPP part of it. Well, they can't because that's how the plan was designed in the first place: a continuous, steady stream of income from the time they retire from the Canadian Forces, past CPP, and on into the future. And it's indexed all day long.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Hawn and Mr. Mayes.

I'd like to get a quick consensus, because we're already reduced to four minutes and I want to try to give members an opportunity to ask questions. Is everybody okay to stay after for five minutes for business?

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

No, I have another meeting at 11.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

It's strictly about some operational resources. Do we have at least one person from every party?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Can we do it at the beginning of the next meeting?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

No, it pertains to the resources for the next meeting.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

I would like it done before 11 because I have another meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Okay.

Over to the Liberal Party for three minutes.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Thank you so much for being here, and to all of you actually.

I'm hoping that we end today and that by the time we finish dealing with this bill, all of us understand it better and we can clear up all of the misconceptions out there about so many things.

If you paid less, you get less. If you merge the CPP.... Someone who chooses to take the CPP at 60 years old, to get them to 65, has to expect that their.... They've been fortunate enough that those bridges were there.

I guess this is going to Mr. Mercier. I'm trying to think fast here. I think it would be interesting to see what happens at 65, how much of a difference there is. Are we talking about a $20 difference between the systems if somebody waits until 65, for their total benefit package? Some of them choose to apply for it at 60 and get a reduced benefit, but they've had the benefit of those extra dollars. So once they make the shift to 65, are they now getting $80,000 a year or are they getting $50,000 a year? I don't think there's that big a difference.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

It totally depends on your years of service and what were your best five years. Somebody who is going to get $1,000 CPP at age 65 will get $700 if they take it at 60.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Of course, but that's for all Canadians who apply for it.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Exactly, and they're treated no different from anybody else. It totally depends on whether you're collecting a $50,000 pension, $80,000, whatever the number is. It's going to be bigger with a bigger pension.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Ms. Fleming, I'm really pleased to see that some of these issues are being rectified as of March 1, 2007, as you indicated in the pension plan information. So over and above the explanation that's in these booklets, has the department thought about having the individual member actually talk to an actuary or a pension professional so that they fully understand the implications of what's going to happen if they take it at 60?

I know it's a lot to do with our own responsibility, but especially when we're talking about people who have been in the military, we all have a sense that we want to make sure they fully understand the implications from when they joined. Whether they listen or not, I don't know; maybe some of us don't. I just think it's important to make sure, especially with the military. It's a bit of hand holding, but let's make sure they and their families know the full implications of what's going to happen via the pension.

[Lynne McKenna-Fleming]

I agree very much with what you say. It's certainly a multi-pronged approach to getting that kind of communication and information out. But certainly there is also the obligation for the individual to take some control over their own financial future. They're encouraged many times to go to a financial planner at a local bank. They also have access to the financial planning services offered through SISIP, which is specific to the CF. So they do have opportunities to get that kind of information. But you're right, people don't start getting interested until they're around 43.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

That information is available to the member at their base upon retirement.