Veterans Affairs Committee on April 29th, 2022

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I first of all want to thank everyone so much for their testimony, especially those of you who are sharing very personal and intimate stories about the reality you're facing because of this very apparent injustice, quite frankly, in our country. Thank you for taking this up and for being able to share what is happening in your life so that as parliamentarians we can all better understand it.

If I could, I'll first start out with Mr. Demers.

First of all, thank you again for sharing your very personal information. You said in your testimony that your wife would not be able to stay in her home in the event of your passing. I would like you to tell the committee what it feels like to carry the weight of worrying about the safety of your spouse of 17 years when you meet your end.

[Robert Demers]

I'll take you back a few years, to 2020, when I first learned the news. My spouse was in the living room. I went over to her, and she was so shocked when she saw my face that she asked me whether I had seen a ghost. She said I was as white as a sheet. I told her what was going to happen to her. It felt as though I had been hit in the head by a two-by-four. I couldn't believe my ears.

If I died tomorrow, my spouse would not be able to stay in the home where we live. She would have to rent a place somewhere, perhaps not low-income housing, but a lower quality place, for sure. That makes me very uncomfortable.

What's really upsetting is that I and all the RCMP veterans here today served our country—in my case, at home and abroad. I came close to death more than once in Haiti. Nevertheless, at the age of 60, we are thanked for our service, and told that our spouses will not be receiving any benefits and that that's okay.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you for sharing that. I really am impacted by how you talked about feeling as though you were hit with a two-by-four. I'm looking for some clarity. You found out in 2020, so that, to me, means that it was not made clear to you at any point in your service that if you were marrying after 60 this would be the outcome. Could you speak to that?

[Robert Demers]

That's exactly right. I never heard of it. Maybe I should have checked more.

I just assumed that my spouse would be entitled to half of my pension. To tell you the truth, the first I'd ever heard of it was when they told me the news over the phone. I was stunned.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you for sharing that. I think that is incredibly important. It's not right, but it's also a shock, which really makes you, as a human being, feel very uncomfortable that you didn't warn your partner that part of being with you would be this potential outcome. Thank you for that.

Mr. Pinsent, you talked about being married for 17 years to your amazing wife. I really appreciate both of you testifying here today. I think hearing from both of you has been really helpful. You did talk, Walter, about feeling stressed, when you thought about what the future was and about the hard conversations you had with your wife about how you would make your financial decisions.

Could you just explain? I think people need to understand how stressful it is for you to carry with you the fact that when you go, all the benefit you bring to her personally will be gone but also what that means financially for her future.

[Walter Pinsent]

Yes. It makes me feel that we've been neglectful in our duties as husbands. As I said, I'm at the age now where it's a major concern that my beautiful wife will have some benefit for taking care of me since I got out of the forces. It's not her fault that when we got married I was strong and everything else, but that through the last 17 years I have been aging probably at a rate that makes me more concerned now. It's shameful that I have to stand here and talk to people like you about trying to justify my finances after death. It's the principle of the law.

I don't want to start going into what I've seen, even last night, about how laws have been changed to accommodate. There was a law that was unreasonable. I'll mention it. The blood transfusion law was changed because of pressure from people. Since 1901, we haven't seen anything. I felt kind of insignificant with this whole thing.

Basically, how I feel is that she has been a good caregiver to not only me, but this community. She's well respected, and it's almost like an insult that I would leave this earth and not have anything to leave.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you.

Ms. Cathay Wagantall, you have five minutes.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Thank you so much, Chair.

Thank you all for being here today and for again sharing your personal circumstances and your heartfelt responses to either what you're experiencing personally or from being involved in advocating on behalf of those who this does impact.

I would like to ask a question. I'm going to ask Norma if she would respond, just to get that Pinsent feel again to this question as well, and also Robert.

In our notes, I understand that in the 2015 mandate letter for the Minister of Veterans Affairs it was a top priority to eliminate the “marriage after 60” clawback clause. Then the government abandoned this legislative route and didn't eliminate it, and instead, in budget 2019, it announced the creation of the veterans survivors fund, which we've been discussing.

It appears to me in the way it's worded here that the majority of that was initially to be spent over five years, first of all on determining what this should look like and to work with the community identified. However, what was done was solely a research effort by Professor Eric Li of the Faculty of Management at UBC. They were given a $125,000 grant from the Canadian Institute for Military and Veterans Health Research. They submitted their report in December 2020 after interviewing seven surviving spouses and three veterans.

Now, we're always told that we need a critical mass to come up with any conclusions that have weight. Do you feel that seven surviving spouses and three veterans is a fair representation of people who would be in your circumstances?

Perhaps Norma could respond first, and then Robert, if you would.

[Norma Pinsent]

That is totally amazing. As I've said, I'm secure inside my family, but I know there are countless stories out there that would have had impact in a study, or whatever, such as you're speaking of.

What amazes me is that we're looking at it with a very fine comb at the moment, but what stands out to me is the injustice that sits at the top of this. Any one person's individual story probably is not as important as the overall injustice of denying a pension to a spouse, especially of a vet who has already paid in for 25 years. Where is that?

Now he's with me and happily so. We have a lovely time together.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

It certainly appears so.

[Norma Pinsent]

It makes no sense to me. It's the injustice. It's not even the individual story.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Can I take from that, then, though, that what you're saying here is to redirect their thinking to move over to this different approach to the issue, and study further, but yet they're not truly dealing with the issue that everyone knows exists? Whether it was five spouses or 300 spouses, it's the injustice that is wrong.

[Norma Pinsent]

Yes, and rather than five stories, there would be 300 different ones.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Right. Okay. Thank you.

Robert.

[Robert Demers]

I'm still stuck on what Mrs. Pinsent said. We are focusing on statistics and throwing out numbers, seven, three, 10 or two. The injustice has existed for over a century, since 1901, and to this today, nothing has been done.

After the La facture episode featuring our story aired, I got calls and emails from RCMP veterans and others. We realized that we weren't the only ones affected by this. Many people are suffering this injustice, which should have been remedied a long time ago.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

That was very good feedback. Thank you so much; I appreciate that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Now let's go to Mrs. Rechie Valdez for five minutes, please.

[Rechie Valdez, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Good afternoon, Chair and colleagues.

Thank you to our witnesses for your important work to support our veterans with this study with your very important testimony. It's really heartfelt, and you can hear from all of us that your testimony is very valuable.

Special thanks go to those who have served and who continue to serve our country and to their spouses as well. We all need to work together to support our country.

Mr. Chair, through you, I'll direct my questions to the National Association of Federal Retirees. I do have a few questions, so let's see if we can get through them.

Why do you think that common-law partners have not been included in the benefit process as well? Can you add your input?

[Patrick Imbeau]

Common-law partners are included. I can find the specific wording. It only affects marriage after 60, but if you have a spouse who existed before—not necessarily married but a common-law spouse—you can receive survivor benefits.

[Rechie Valdez, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

How could this policy become more fair to include LGBTQ partnerships?

[Patrick Imbeau]

I believe it does specifically state that it can be.... It literally says both same sex and—

[Rechie Valdez, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Thank you.

Have you received any specific input or testimony from women veterans associations about these reforms? Have they made any suggestions through you or provided you with any feedback on this?

[Patrick Imbeau]

Feedback very specific to this issue? Not specifically. Obviously, it does affect female veterans as much as it affects male veterans. It doesn't matter what gender you are, you will be affected by this, although it does disproportionately affect female survivors and male veterans simply because of the demographics of veterans.

[Jean-Guy Soulière]

Could I add something?

That's a good point you raise. I did mention in my opening statement that we were quite involved with women veterans research and engagement. I will make sure that the question is posed. Maybe there is some information there. If there is, we will certainly provide it to you.

[Rechie Valdez, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Thank you.

We've had many different witnesses come forward. The women's testimony in particular is unique. That's just what I was trying to understand.