Veterans Affairs Committee on Nov. 3rd, 2009

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

I call it a clawback because that's what my colleagues in the armed forces and RCMP call it. But the reality is that the legal or technical term in committee is benefit reduction. I call it a clawback because it's easier for them to understand it in many ways, because that's how they refer to it in talking with me.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Stoffer.

Monsieur André, you had a point.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

I agree with Ms. Sgro. Mr. McColeman's questions are completely out of place.

We want to understand the bill, and we want to spend an hour studying it today. We only have one hour and here we are debating how the last budget was passed! That has nothing to do with our study.

I think that the questions should be solely on Bill C-201 as presented here by the NDP. I share Ms. Sgro's opinion.

Mr. Chair, I would appreciate it you could arrange for us to keep to the agenda.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. André.

I did speak to that the last time in no less than two different answer sessions. Mr. Stoffer was digressing quite a lot and I wanted to give him, as well as other members, the freedom. I think that's the tradition we've had here, and certainly I didn't hear any point of order when Mr. Stoffer was doing his travelling.

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

That's good.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

And he agrees it was good.

Anyway, on to Monsieur Gaudet pour quatre minutes.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am going to make up an example so that I can really understand your bill, Mr. Stoffer. A person joins the army at age 20 and stays for 35 years, until the age of 55. That person leaves the army and receives, let us say, an annuity of $38,000, starting at age 55. At 60, the person is entitled to a Canada pension or a Quebec pension of $6,000. At 65, the person becomes eligible for an income security pension that brings in another $6,000. In addition, the army pension is indexed annually. When that person retired, his income was $38,000 per year; at 65, it is $50,000.

That is how I understand your bill.

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

OAS is not part of the bill, by the way. Old age security is completely separate from what I'm talking about in Bill C-201. But the argument I have heard in many, many cases is that when a person receives the benefit reduction, or what I referred to as the clawback before, what happens is that OAS kicks in. It kicks in anyway, but old age security is determined by the amount of income you receive from other sources. So if you receive higher amounts, you get less OAS. We see that all the time. In this particular aspect, if you receive higher income either from QPP, CPP, or your MP's pension, you would receive less OAS to the point where, at a certain amount, you don't receive OAS at all in this regard. It's just like the GIS, the guaranteed income supplement; it is used to pop those with very low income up out of impoverishment. Again, it's based on your total income.

In many cases, the argument was that men and women don't lose any money. In some cases, I have seen members of the armed forces and the RCMP with an additional amount at age 65. It's not much, but it's a little bit more, even after a reduction. But the vast majority I've seen have lost money at age 65, and this is the part that gets them. They don't believe that at age 65 they should be losing money; they should actually be gaining a bit more to offset the higher costs when you become age 65.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

The example I used was of someone who has worked for 35 years. But you are talking about someone who has worked 15 or 20 years.

After 35 years in the army, the person receives a full pension of some amount or other. Under your bill, he would also receive a Canada pension or a Quebec pension. I am not talking about the guaranteed annual income, just income security. Of course, that person would not be eligible for the guaranteed annual income.

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

Let's say you serve a 35-year military or RCMP career and get your maximum annuity. At age 60 your CPP kicks in if you wish to take it early, but you get two-thirds of it. You get them both. There is no OAS or GIS at that time. At age 65, benefit reduction kicks in. The amount you would have received at 65 gets deducted from your annuity, and if you are eligible for OAS it applies at that time.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Gaudet. Thank you, Mr. Stoffer.

We'll go to Mr. Lobb for four minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Mr. Stoffer.

I'll share my time with Mr. Payne, so I'm going to ask succinct questions and I'd like to get succinct answers in return.

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

Yes, sir.

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

My first question is on employment insurance. This morning you commented that there's no opportunity for CF members to collect employment insurance.

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

No, sir, that's incorrect.

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

That's what you said.

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

I said that if they collect their annuity there's no chance for them to collect EI.

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

Would you be surprised that over 30,000 CF members collected employment insurance benefits of one sort or another from 2006 to 2009?

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

I suspect that number should be higher, but the reality is that none of those people would have been in receipt of an annuity.

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

It's good that we've cleared that up for the record.

My second question is on the costing of your bill. You stated in the House that the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the Library of Parliament were unable to provide a reliable estimate to you.

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

That's correct.

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

That would go against what I've heard the opposition members comment about the Parliamentary Budget Officer, so that's surprising.

You also questioned the government's costing of your bill at $7 billion. You've disagreed with the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the Library of Parliament, and the government on this costing.

In your statement today you said that allowing both programs would save money in administration. I'm not sure how much red tape you think there is in the bureaucracy, but it certainly wouldn't cost $7 billion to administer these programs.

Perhaps you can provide a brief explanation of those statements to help this committee understand where you're coming from on the costing side.

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

First of all, I never disagreed with the Parliamentary Budget Officer. I asked the PBO for assistance in this regard, as well as the parliamentary library, in order to give me an actual figure. They said they didn't have enough time or were unable to do it at this time. So if they were unable to give me an exact figure on the initial cost of this bill, how did the federal government come up with the $7.2 billion figure? I asked the PBO that, and the department couldn't give me an answer. I'm waiting to see how the federal government answers that question.

On administrative costs, they would receive less OAS so they would pump that money back into the economy. They would also pay higher taxes on that. It's also a recognition. There is no question that if I use the unemployment insurance deduction--

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

I need to stop you there. We're going off track here.

Mr. Payne.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Thank you.

I'll have to make it really quick.

We don't question your sincerity or anyone else's.