Evidence of meeting #12 for Veterans Affairs in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was years.
A recording is available from Parliament.
1:45 p.m.
Liberal
Wilson Miao Liberal Richmond Centre, BC
From what I'm seeing, it seems like the clauses are quite outdated. Would you say the elimination of these clauses will lead to a correlated increase in pension contributions to cover the financial shortfall? What would those increases look like?
1:45 p.m.
Advocacy and Policy Officer, National Association of Federal Retirees
I was going to say what Jean-Guy said. To know that answer, you would have to have the actuary look at it. The PBO would have to look at the question, or you would have to have someone look at exactly what the cost would be.
There doesn't necessarily have to be increased contributions. It could be a solution, like the.... In the mandate letters, for example.... The veterans fund that was suggested doesn't get to the root issue but, at the very least, there are funds there.
There are other solutions other than increased contributions, but increased contributions could possibly be one. This is one of the reasons why a study would be helpful from an actuarial perspective.
1:50 p.m.
National President, Royal Canadian Mounted Police Veterans' Association
May I speak on this?
1:50 p.m.
National President, Royal Canadian Mounted Police Veterans' Association
First of all, in terms of the contributions, I'll use an example in terms of cost. We have many pensioners in this situation. We have a person who came to me who was paying $750 a month. He's been married for 17 years. So far, he's put in $153,000. If he dies, the government keeps that $153,000. There's probably a 50% chance that it's a profit-making venture on behalf of the government, so I doubt there's going to be much change.
The RCMP is not eligible for the veteran and family well-being fund. That's only for military veterans. It is a potential profit-maker, as disgusting as that sounds, but there's a lot of money involved.
Thank you.
1:50 p.m.
Liberal
Wilson Miao Liberal Richmond Centre, BC
Thank you.
I understand that in budget 2019, $150 million over five years was announced, starting in 2019, to create a new veterans survivor fund.
How much of the $150 million is going to survivors? Is it enough to meet their basic needs?
1:50 p.m.
National President, Royal Canadian Mounted Police Veterans' Association
As I said earlier, not a penny goes to any RCMP folks. That's strictly a military venture.
1:50 p.m.
Advocacy and Policy Officer, National Association of Federal Retirees
Also, nothing has been handed out, as far I know, for veterans either.
1:50 p.m.
Liberal
Wilson Miao Liberal Richmond Centre, BC
How much would an average survivor be missing out on this compared to those who are married before the age of 60?
1:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg
Excuse me, Mr. Miao, could you keep your questions for the next round, please? We are dealing with about seven minutes each. You'll be able to ask them in the next round.
1:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg
Thank you.
Now we go to the second vice-chair of the committee, Luc Desilets. You have six or seven minutes.
1:50 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Desilets Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Hello to my fellow members. It's nice to see everyone.
Thank you to all the witnesses who are with us today. It's good to have you and to hear so many viewpoints.
I care about the topic we are studying today. These are truly archaic and discriminatory provisions. If we were to do a secret poll of all the members of the various parties represented at this table, I don't think anyone would say they support this type of discrimination in 2022.
Be that as it may, I care so much about this issue that I sought to ensure the Bloc Québécois platform addressed the two provisions, in other words, the marriage after 60 and the marriage after retirement measures. Let's not forget that this was in the minister's mandate letter in 2015 and again in 2017. We can talk about that later, but I can't understand why the commitment would appear in a minister's mandate letter without a cost estimate or an impact analysis having been done first. Nevertheless, it showed up again in 2017.
As the honourable member just said, in the 2019 budget, the government set out $150 million over five years as compensation, it would appear. Since 2019, it has been radio silence. We have heard nothing, and I don't know what is happening with the program. I now realize that the RCMP wasn't covered by the fund, but I can't for the life of me figure out why the fund would not apply to the survivors of RCMP veterans.
My question is for Mr. Demers.
How did you feel when you found out that the Liberal Party was abandoning its efforts to eliminate the marriage after 60 clause? Have you found out anything more? Has any money already been spent, and if so, on whom, why and under what circumstances? I have no information on that.
1:55 p.m.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police Veteran, As an Individual
I can't give you any exact figures, but according to representatives of the RCMP and federal retirees, the fund contained millions of dollars and the return on investment over the past five or 10 years has been huge. As you pointed out, so far, no one knows how much money has been set aside to pay out these benefits just in case the legislation were to be amended, as we hope it will be.
1:55 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Desilets Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
That's interesting, but you didn't answer my question. I understand what you're saying, though. I share your concern.
Mr. Glenn, I have the same question for you. Simply put, are you satisfied with the infamous $150‑million fund instead of the elimination of these two provisions?
1:55 p.m.
National President, Royal Canadian Mounted Police Veterans' Association
Thank you.
It's kind of irrelevant. We're not eligible. It's that simple. On that $150 million, I understand that none of that has even been spent. The RCMP is not included. The Government of Canada does not recognize the RCMP as veterans. Therefore, we were excluded from that $150 million.
In terms of our superannuation fund, I know that it was at one time in the billions and some of that was transferred back over through Treasury Board regulations or decisions. I am no expert on that.
I canvassed our entire association just to see how many people were impacted overall. Eighty-one people responded to me, stating that they were worried or were already in financial difficulties because of the legislation.
Simply stated, I'm not at all happy, and I'm representing our association in saying this: that any of those actions or promises are repealed. We need this not only as a promise, but we need it as an action.
1:55 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Desilets Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Thank you.
Mr. Soulière, do you have an answer to that question? In other words, is that amount enough to compensate for the two provisions?
1:55 p.m.
President, National Association of Federal Retirees
I can tell you what I think, but I'm going to ask Mr. Imbeau to weigh in, since he is the expert.
I think the $150 million was meant to appease people. My sense is that it wasn't meant to make up for the fact that survivors would not be receiving pension benefits.
Someone mentioned the money the government had taken a few years ago, when the new legislation came into effect in 2000. There was indeed a surplus of $50 billion in the superannuation fund, and the government of the day decided to take the money and put it towards the national deficit.
Mr. Imbeau may be able to speak to that.
1:55 p.m.
Advocacy and Policy Officer, National Association of Federal Retirees
The money was supposed to help those people but has yet to be spent. No one has received anything. I believe a study is supposed to be conducted to determine how the money will be spent so that it goes to the people who need it.
1:55 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Desilets Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
You're telling me that not a single cent of the fund, which has been around for three years now, has been spent.
1:55 p.m.
Advocacy and Policy Officer, National Association of Federal Retirees
No, not a single cent. At least, none of it has gone to the individuals who need it.
Even so, if the government were to start giving people the money, the underlying problem remains: in a few years, the money will be gone. The problem is still there.
2 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Desilets Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
The problem will get worse. That is for sure.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
2 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg
Thank you, Mr. Desilets.
We will keep going.
I also want to remind everyone that the meeting is being broadcast live on Parliament's website, so anyone can go there to watch the committee's proceedings.
We will now go to Ms. Blaney for seven minutes.
The floor is yours, MP Blaney.