Veterans Affairs Committee on Nov. 3rd, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you Monsieur André.

Thank you Mr. Stoffer.

Now on to the Conservative Party. Mr. Kerr, for four minutes.

[Greg Kerr, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I think Mr. Stoffer will understand that I'm going to take great exception to the entire process he's brought before us today.

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

Yes, sir.

[Greg Kerr, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

I'm not going to talk about which committee goes to it or anything. But it's unfortunate. I think he has unnecessarily raised an emotional level without having factual background to deal with it.

This government, former governments--Ms. Sgro was part of one, and it goes right back to the beginning--have looked at this and have thought that in terms of fairness, this is how the public service receives pensions. They make contributions and they get a bridging process to take them through so that they get fair treatment right through to the CPP time. We can argue about whether it's right or wrong or fair, and I think probably there are some points there that are worth looking at. It doesn't change the main premise that this is a fair pension process.

Second, I feel that the disability issue is important. As you well know, since you were part of the bill, that's not necessarily the thrust of this bill. But it's an important issue that I think this committee should look at, and I think it has some merit.

I think it's really important, Mr. Chair, that we remind ourselves that it is extremely important that this pension process, this public service pension process, of which these are members, is funded properly. It's extremely important that it in fact is fair to all the participants. There's no question about that. There are issues with each and every pension. I think it's fair to discuss them. But as a general premise, this in fact is a compensation process that was thought out carefully and was funded carefully. As far as using the EI process, we have some experts today who can deal with that. But to leave the taxpayers with the idea that this is not going to cost anything.... I don't know who your experts are, but we do have experts this morning who will deal with the financial part of it. Whether the numbers are exactly correct, we can debate, but there's a huge cost to taxpayers in this.

I think every member supports the military, supports the veterans, supports whatever. I really think it's important. I get a little frustrated--you do a lot for veterans, I have no question--because you have not supported one financial initiative for veterans. There are very, very important programs that provide absolutely critical and essential services. You have voted against every single one that has come forward in the House.

My question, very specifically, is how you can take us down this road with the false expectation for the military folks, and not, at the same time, support the financial initiatives that are so very critical to our veterans and to former service people. My question is specific to that. How do you arrange it so that those two match up?

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

Mr. Kerr, thank you very much for the CPP disability aspect. I appreciate your knowledge on that.

Let me just take you down a little memory road first.

Mr. Thompson, an opposition member at that time, I remember very well, at SCONDVA committees and publicly.... In a letter Mr. Harper wrote to Joyce Carter, of St. Peter's, in 2005, he said that if the Conservatives formed a government, they would immediately extend the VIP program to all widows and widowers of World War II and Korean War veterans; it was signed by Mr. Harper. That's what he said in a letter to a widow of a veteran in 2005. The words were “immediate” and “all”.

In 2008, an increase to VIP came, which allowed 10% of those widows the additional benefit, but it was under new criteria. They had to have a disability tax credit or have a particular income. That's not what the letter to Joyce Carter said. The letter said “immediate” and “all”. We asked that it be in the 2006 budget. It didn't come. We asked that it be in the 2007 budget. It didn't come. When it came in 2008, over two and a half years after the written promise, you asked me, as an opposition member, to vote for that, when Mr. Harper himself said “immediate” and “all”.

Both Mr. Thompson, in Gagetown, and Mr. Harper said that we will have a public inquiry into the chemical spraying of defoliants at Gagetown, and all people affected from 1958 to 1984 will be looked after. Those were their words, not mine. We're still waiting for the public inquiry. I think fewer than 2,000 people were actually eligible for the $20,000 ex gratia payment. Over 300,000 people, Mr. Kerr, were affected by defoliant spraying in Gagetown during that period. What the Conservatives did was exactly what the Liberals promised: they would only look after those affected by the American spraying of Agent Orange in 1966 and 1967. That's not what the Conservatives told the people when they were in opposition prior to the election in 2006.

We did a collaborative report that was unanimous about certain conditions for the veterans ombudsman. Here's what we wanted to see. We got the veterans ombudsman, but he's handcuffed--

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

It's burning a lot of time. I did say that for this meeting we try to stay—

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

I appreciate that, sir, but he asked me why I didn't support the budget and I wanted to give him a reason why.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Now on to the Liberal Party and Madam Sgro, for four minutes.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Stoffer, I have to applaud your dedication to the whole issue of veterans, and nobody can ever challenge that. You've brought issues forward that needed to be brought forward and fought them through.

On this issue, we all know what it's like when you are 18 or 19, or maybe 35, and someone gives you the book and says this is part of the employment contract and this is how things will work. Yes, everything's great, because all you want to do is start your new career and start your job. So you don't look at all of the wording that's in there about all of these things.

Everyone from the bureaucracy I have asked about this issue indicates that they outline all of these things: what will happen with the reduced benefits, the benefit reduction—not a clawback, as you often refer to it. But again, many of us wouldn't be listening. I always put myself in the other person's position. I wasn't really paying attention when I was 35--“It's a long way away and I'm sure it must be good”, and all of that.

The thing I'm concerned about is where do we go from here, recognizing that there are a lot of people who didn't feel they got the full information? But that was yesterday and this is today. How do we move forward? We don't have the money, being realistic here, and I'm going to be perfectly honest, I doubt it's ever going to go backwards. I'm talking about where we go in the future, about the changes we would look at happening, so that we make sure people know about whatever changes need to happen.

It was the union that flagged this originally, back in 1996, that asked why its members should be paying twice. They were the ones who pushed for this reduction, is the information I get from the bureaucracy.

Again, I don't want to go backwards, because if we had to try to do this retroactively, all of those people would have to turn around and change their contributions, right? So we're going to go back and ask thousands of other people to all of a sudden send us money to make up for what wasn't paid back then to bring it up to that level. None of that's going to happen, so let's just move it forward.

The changes that need to happen as of today are in our hiring practice, to get a sign-off from individuals, and more importantly, to move it forward so that we're doing this right, so that there is not a benefit reduction, because it is significant for people. So how do we make those changes for the future and not for the past?

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

Madam Sgro, thank you very much for that.

Since Bill C-201 resurfaced—it was Bill C-411 a few years ago—there is no question that information now to leaving members or to members who are signing up is much more available, open, and transparent than it was before. There is no question it was always in a manual somewhere, in this big binder you sign in. Anybody who has ever signed up for the military knows there's one form after another and you're just signing away.

But the reality is that the explanation of what it was...it was never fully explained until many years later. Now I have to give the CF credit; they are fully explaining, very clearly, and I think it's because of the public awareness of this particular legislation putting forward. So it has improved greatly in that regard and people know exactly what to anticipate. They don't like it, mind you, but they do anticipate it.

How do we go forward? Quite simply, if Bill C-201 ever became law, if I ever reached that sort of luxurious moment in my life, the reality is it would stop immediately. Then the individual members would receive both, and they would obviously have to pay more taxes, receive less OAS, and put that money right back into the economy. It's another way that we say to all of them “Thank you very much”.

As a New Democrat, I will give the Conservative parliamentary secretary credit, because right now Mr. Ted Menzies has gone across the country looking at pension reform. But one thing they haven't looked at yet is this reform, and if Mr. Menzies wished at any time to discuss with the various military and RCMP this particular aspect of pension reform in Bill C-201, I would work with him.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

On the issue in and around the disabled and what happens with them, do you not think it might be more successful if you segregated that, put it in a separate part? All of it is quite complicated for people to follow. Clearly, the disabled deserve more and not less in order to make sure they are getting the full benefits they should have.

I disagree with the whole way the disabled are being handled in a variety of forces, as I do more and more work on the pension file for my own party and find out just how much Canadians struggle when they clearly haven't saved sufficient money themselves, or their pension funds are going bankrupt. But on that issue in and around the disabled, as a suggestion, it might be more helpful if you could keep it as a separate angle.

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

When it comes to the Canada Pension Plan, they are intertwined, whether you receive it normally at 60 or 65 or whether you receive it as a CPP disability.

One of the frustrating things when you watch a military or RCMP individual who is medically released.... We're not even talking about the SISIP plan, which is outrageous in itself, that we charge the military for an insurance plan and then deduct it from them. At this committee, two DND ombudsmen and the last witness from the legion said that this money should be put back into that SISIP plan to look after those members. That's separate from this.

But you tell a military or RCMP person who, after over twenty-something years, is disabled out of the military or RCMP to go and apply for Canada Pension disability. That's not just picking up the phone and saying, “Hi. I need CPP disability.” It's quite an arduous, brain-melting task to do that. You have to do a Cirque du Soleil act to get that. Eventually if you do get it, the government says, “Sorry. Yes, you'll get it, but it's deducted from your annuity.”

So the first question they ask you is why in hell they bothered applying for this in the first place. It's a question I can't answer. They're very frustrated by that. People who are disabled should never, in my opinion, have a deduction in any way, shape, or form. I don't care what they put into a plan; they're disabled, for God's sake. Don't look at them as a cash cow to reduce that benefit. Have some humanity in this discussion and look after these people for the rest of their natural lives. It's the least they deserve.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Stoffer and Madam Sgro.

We're now on to Mr. McColeman for hopefully four minutes.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Of course, it goes without saying that your passion is huge and your commitment is huge, just like that of many members around the table, which has been expressed in different ways.

The bridge financing to CPP already makes Canadian military pensions among the most generous in the country. This is as it should be, as you have said, because the men and women in uniform deserve to be generously compensated for their service to Canada.

I'm concerned about how you square things. I just listened to your response to the questions posed by my colleague, with you pointing a direct finger at our Prime Minister and others for failing, as you claim, on a letter of promise as the reason why, on March 24, you voted against $35 million to increase the grant for disability awards and allowances. You voted against $240,000 in funding for the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. You voted against $175,000 for children of deceased veterans, assistance providing funding--

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

I don't want to take away from Mr. McColeman's time, but just on a point of order, whatever Mr. Stoffer voted for or against in the House has nothing much to do with the content of a bill that we're all trying to understand better, so that at the end of this process we can make some recommendations.

I just don't think it's helpful.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Madam Sgro, it's really not a point of order, and I did let Mr. Stoffer digress all over the map during his answers; he went from about four different departments.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Sir, I'm asking the question here that drives to how this witness squares his actual actions against what he's promoting today. It's about his credibility. His actions are speaking much louder than his words in terms of who he is pointing the finger at today. To explain why he voted against these....

I'd like to know specifically why you voted against those.

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

Mr. McColeman, may I please ask you one question. Where were these items that you talked about? What part of a document--

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Sir, you're asking a question. I'm asking the question. You're to answer. I'm not answering your question.

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

Okay. You asked me why I voted against certain particular items. I put to you that all of these items were part of a budget. Am I correct?

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

I believe they were the March 24 supplementary (C) budget items.

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

First of all, sir, I would never ever question you or any of your colleagues or anyone in this House about their morality or ethics towards veterans and their families. I think each and every single one of my colleagues, and I've been here for the last twelve and a half years, hold our military and our RCMP in the highest of regard. I say that for you and for everyone else as well.

Sir, you know as well as I do, those are confidence measures, and what you're asking a New Democrat, who sits, by the way, in the last seat in the House of Commons, is whether I have confidence in the Prime Minister and in my colleagues in the Conservative Party. The answer is no. That's why we voted against it.

There are literally thousands of items in an estimate or a budget, as you would know, sir. It's the simplest thing in the world to take two or three things out. Now is everything that government does bad? No. Is everything in a budget bad? No. But in opposition, as I would say the Conservative Party has done and the Reform Party...I remember many times the Conservative Party voted against things inside a Liberal budget that had increases to the defence department and increases to the veterans as well. Nobody questioned why you voted against those things. You voted against them because they were a budgetary confidence item against the government of the day.

That's why, sir, I voted against those items.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Did you speak publicly in support of these particular items?

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

In fact, if you want to check the record, I've supported many things that Mr. Thompson and the previous minister, Albina Guarnieri, have done specifically for veterans in their statements and the way they handled the file. As I have said many times, there are certain things in every budget that are quite good, but the reality is that as an opposition member, when you vote in a confidence vote for or against the government, you have to take the entire package as one. You don't have the luxury in opposition of taking this out and saying, I want to want to vote for this but not for these other things.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Today in your comments you mentioned you don't see this as a clawback measure. Yet, in many of your public comments about this, including in the House of Commons, you continue to use the word “clawback”. Why do you do that?