Veterans Affairs Committee on Nov. 3rd, 2009

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

I would think we need to do that for all Canadians, given the fact that two-thirds of Canadians aren't saving enough money today.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Madam Sgro.

Mr. Lobb for three minutes.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Thanks very much, Mr. Chair. Thanks, Mr. Hawn and guests, for appearing today.

Mr. Hawn, your military career parallels my grandfather's career. He retired at about 40. Obviously, it was many years ago, but he retired at 47 or 48 and went to work at the courthouse in London for many years until he retired at 65. I also note that you served in Vanastra in my riding of Huron—Bruce.

To me, this is very perplexing in Bill C-201, where Mr. Stoffer talks about how the employment insurance benefits could theoretically cover these costs. I'm very surprised that the NDP critic for employment insurance even allows these thoughts, because it does create a bit of a Pandora's box, in my opinion. Farmers, for example, pay employment insurance. Theoretically, a full-time employer will never be able to collect employment insurance benefits. A nurse pays for employment insurance benefits and theoretically will never claim them.

I'm wondering if you can comment on the idea that we can start changing employment insurance rules on a whim.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I'm not an expert in how those plans are set up, but clearly, you can't just flick a switch here and divert the money over there. A lot of people in Canada who pay EI will probably never collect it for a wide variety of reasons.

The problem I have with Bill C-201 is the suggestion that thousands of Canadian Forces members are already collecting EI through parental leave, maternity leave, or retiring without an annuity. If we diverted all the money to Bill C-201, they couldn't do that, so we'd be putting at a disadvantage the very members we say we're trying to help.

The other fact is, and I mentioned it before, the contributions to EI from regular and reserve force members this past year were only $56.5 million. The cost of Bill C-201 is projected every year at $110 million, so it still doesn't meet the needs of paying for the bill, and you've disadvantaged or taken away benefits from thousands and thousands of CF members who currently are relying on EI in various circumstances. So it just doesn't add up.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Thanks again.

One other bone of contention I have is that Mr. Stoffer was unable...or at least the Parliamentary Budget Officer claims he's unable to provide it in the time Mr. Stoffer requested. We're not sure of the timeframe. I know there were some questions in the human resources committee about the extension of employment insurance benefits for long-tenured workers, Bill C-50. We provided the documentation, and it answered the questions they had, even though it had been repeated to them that the numbers did work.

I'm encouraged to hear that the department will provide the numbers to the committee, and I hope Mr. Stoffer, in turn, after proper reflection, review, and study, will accept those numbers. Again, thank you to the department for providing those numbers.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Lobb and Mr. Hawn.

Did you have any comment, Mr. Hawn?

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

No. We'll provide the numbers.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

All right.

I'm just trying to be very careful with the time.

Now we move to the Bloc Québécois. You have three minutes.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you.

My question goes to Mr. Mercier. I would think that this would be the case, but is there any adjustment because the same employer contributes to the Canada Pension Plan, to the military retirement pension and to Old Age Security. They get no less, but when they get the Canada pension...

[Mario Mercier]

I cannot answer that, I cannot tell you. You are asking me about the design and about the way in which social security and pension schemes have come about. I do not know.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

I know that, in Quebec, there is an adjustment when a person receives payments from the Quebec pension plan. In the case of a public servant, if the time comes for him to receive payments from the Quebec pension plan, there is an adjustment because the same person is paying for both. I would like to know if this is the same thing. In my view, you do not want to say so, but it must all be part and parcel. I do not know if the same employer pays into the Canada Pension Plan, the public servant's retirement pension and Old Age Security.

[Mario Mercier]

You're talking about the integration, about why our plan is integrated.

As I think it was said, some plans were designed like that. The idea—

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

It is not that I am against the idea. I am just making an observation.

[Mario Mercier]

I have no comment on that.

[Lynne McKenna-Fleming]

The only thing I can really add is that the decision to integrate was made by Parliament in 1966. They did what seemed best to them at the time.

It is certainly prudent to occasionally take a look at decisions we've made in the past and see whether they continue to be what we want. However, the pension plan is just one small part of the whole business of your retirement income. You have CPP, you have your work pension plan, and then you have your personal savings. It was never the intention that just the one work pension plan was going to pay for everything for you after retirement.

Some of the questions we get are related to that: my pension is not sufficient to pay for my needs. But that's not a fault of the pension plan, nor of its design. The decision was made that this was how much we were going to pay for.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

CPP was only ever designed to pay about 25% of a person's retirement income. That's all it was ever intended to do.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

I agree, actually. In Quebec, a person working for Hydro-Québec, or for a private company with a pension plan, is entitled to his full Quebec pension, of course. Since his income is relatively high, he is not entitled to the Guaranteed Income Supplement, but he is entitled to the old age pension.

My question earlier was because, since it is the same employer... it can be different employers, Hydro-Québec, Air Canada, or others, but for a person working for the Canadian Forces, it is the same employer who contributes to the CPP and the retirement pension. I am not sure if that is what...

[Mario Mercier]

There are other integrated plans. The question is finding a way to even out the pension at the time of retirement. That is perhaps easier to predict.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Hawn, do you have any closing comments? I can give you about two minutes for that.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do appreciate that.

I appreciate this opportunity, because this is an issue that's been dogging a lot of us for a long time. I've gotten hundreds and hundreds of e-mails and a lot of feedback from people.

When I explain it to people, they go, “Yes, I get it, but I don't like it.” Well, I don't like it either. It's just the truth. You know, we get what we pay for.

I know that my picture's on a lot of dartboards in legions across the country. That's just the way it goes. But we will continue--I will continue--to support the members of the Canadian Forces, retired and serving, as I know Mr. Stoffer will.

We really are all doing the best we can. I take no pleasure, as I said, in opposing people that I care for. We have to be honest and we have to be realistic and we have to do the best we can, but we have to do it within legal and logical parameters. That's all we're trying to do.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Madam McKenna-Fleming, Mr. Mercier, Mr. Hawn, thank you very much.

Members, please be very brief if you're going to say good-bye to our witnesses. We're going in camera in 60 seconds.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

And Mr. Oliphant, I also like chocolate milk.

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

I noticed you had that in common. I was going to bring that up.

[Proceedings continue in camera]