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.
2:15 p.m.
Advocacy and Policy Officer, National Association of Federal Retirees
When the person who did the research and spoke to the 10 people who were affected by this, he mostly spoke to women. His name is Dr. Eric Li. I believe he's speaking at committee in a couple of weeks. You'll be able to ask him that viewpoint in a couple of weeks.
2:15 p.m.
Liberal
Rechie Valdez Liberal Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
This question is now for Sergeant Pinsent and Mrs. Pinsent.
You've talked about how this policy has negatively impacted your life. Could you describe for all of us how it would positively impact your lives if we were to change the current policy?
2:15 p.m.
Staff Sergeant (Retired), Royal Canadian Mounted Police, As an Individual
It would give me some clarity.
So many laws have been changed. We're a sensitive society.
Like I said in the beginning, it's not entirely about Walter and Norma Pinsent. It's about the individuals and families of veterans of the armed forces and the RCMP. I don't know of any other pension program that would be compared to this. If this law were to be changed tomorrow, it would make me the happiest man in the world.
2:15 p.m.
Liberal
2:15 p.m.
As an Individual
It would change the days and, hopefully, years that come.
We purposely retrofitted our home and invested our funds in making it as wheelchair accessible as possible. We are presently changing our bedroom ensuite to make it better and more easily accessible to both of us.
With an increased funding for me after Walt's death, plans would be very different. I am looking at staying here as long as I possibly can, as opposed to having the funds that might give me a cottage in a city closer to a hospital. All of these sorts of scenarios crop up for every couple that's approaching their later years like we are.
Yes, that money would make a massive difference in how we are approaching our future and in the way we have been working together up to this point.
2:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg
Thank you so much.
The next two members will have quick turns of two and a half minutes each, starting with Luc Desilets.
Go ahead, Mr. Desilets.
2:15 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Desilets Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to revisit Eric Li's report quickly. I'm very glad that he will be appearing before the committee. I certainly have questions for him. It's not unusual for a report to cost $120,000, but I can't figure out why only seven people were interviewed for the study. Even a qualitative scientific study would typically involve more than seven people, so this is a far cry from a quantitative study. I'm struggling to wrap my head around that.
I also can't understand why the report isn't available. Is it a secret report? What's the reason? Apparently, it was published and made available two years ago, but we can't see it. I don't understand that. Those are questions we'll have to ask Mr. Li.
Thank you, Mr. Demers, for agreeing to share your story and appear on La Facture. It was mainly thanks to that episode that I became aware of this issue. It was really well done. It was clear how much this means to you. I commend you.
Earlier, you touched on how the Quebec government deals with pension benefits.
Can you tell us a little more about that?
2:20 p.m.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police Veteran, As an Individual
What I learned is that Quebec provides an allowance to the surviving spouse. In our case, though, the federal government gives nothing to the surviving spouse if we marry after 60. The province provides the benefit. The measure is in place and it works.
Why, in our case, does the federal government give the surviving spouse nothing?
To put it politely, that is nonsense. The province has no problem paying out a survivor benefit allowance, but the federal government does. The gold digger era is long gone. This is 2022. Maybe the government should get with the times.
2:20 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Desilets Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
I understand. I would really like to know how other provinces do things.
My last question is for Mr. Pinsent. It's a short one.
You mentioned the model in Denmark.
Quickly, could you tell us about it?
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
2:20 p.m.
Staff Sergeant (Retired), Royal Canadian Mounted Police, As an Individual
CBC did an inquiry about this exact thing about elderly care. It was on just a couple of nights ago. It stuck out that the example they used was Denmark.
That's one thing, I guess, that would be of concern to all of us who are aging now, especially for the health care that I'm talking about.
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg
Thank you so much.
Thank you, Mr. Desilets.
We now move on to Ms. Blaney.
Over to you, Ms. Blaney. You have two and a half or three minutes.
2:20 p.m.
NDP
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
Thank you, Chair.
I will go quickly to Sandy.
I believe you told a story about a veteran who's put aside, I think you said, about $153,000 so far for his wife, and now I understand the wife is not doing well and will probably not make it. I want to clarify that with the way these pensions work, folks are giving up part of their pension—between 30% and 50% of their pension—every single month, but if their loved one passes before they do, that pension disappears and all of that money is returned. Could I get clarity on that?
2:20 p.m.
National President, Royal Canadian Mounted Police Veterans' Association
The money is not returned to the pensioner. The government keeps the money. In that case, it was 100 and some thousand dollars invested in her security. If she passes, not a penny goes back to the pensioner. You have to remember that pensioners get small amounts. A big pension is $2,000. If you give up 50% of that to make sure your spouse is taken care of, your family has to live on $1,000 a month.
After putting your life on the line.... In the RCMP for sure, I've been in some bad situations, and I'll just do it again. Can you imagine soldiers who are giving up huge portions of their lives—the most productive portion—and who then can't afford to provide for their spouse? If he or she does pay into it, that money is lost. Is it a 50% chance for profit by the government? I'd hate to think that was their thinking, but that is the reality.
2:25 p.m.
NDP
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
I will go to the Federal Retirees. I want clarity on that. Could I hear whether there is any other jurisdiction that doesn't do that or that allows survivor pensions? I also want clarity as to whether, if you are 55 and you are a federal public retiree and then you get married at 58, this applies even though you got married before 60? I need clarity on that.
2:25 p.m.
Advocacy and Policy Officer, National Association of Federal Retirees
There are a couple of things there. First off, for federal retirees and how that works, if you got married at 58 but it was after your retirement then it's after retirement. It's basically right after retirement, when you get your first paycheque as a retiree. That's very similar to other jurisdictions and pension plans basically across the country. These kinds of after....marriage types of things are fairly common with pension plans. They've existed in pension plans for ages. That doesn't mean it can't change; that's just the way it's been.
As two members already brought up, it does exist. In Quebec, for example, for marriage after 60 there is no discrimination based on age in the pension plan. In Newfoundland there isn't for the public service or for the CAAT pension plan. Those are the only three examples I'm aware of. The vast majority of plans have something similar to this. Again, as I said, just because it exists, doesn't mean it can't change.
2:25 p.m.
NDP
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
If you're common law at 55 and then you get married at 60, is there any change there?
2:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg
Answer in five seconds, please, or maybe Ms. Blaney will come back with that question.
Go ahead, Mr. Imbeau.
2:25 p.m.
Advocacy and Policy Officer, National Association of Federal Retirees
For federal retirees, no, it doesn't matter. You can be common law beforehand and continue, as long as you can prove the relationship existed prior to the retirement.
2:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg
Thank you.
Let's continue with the questions. We have our colleague Mr. Fraser Tolmie. I'm pretty sure he has a lot to ask this afternoon.
Mr. Tolmie, the floor is yours.
April 29th, 2022 / 2:25 p.m.
Conservative
Fraser Tolmie Conservative Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, everybody, for your service, and more importantly, thank you for your advocacy.
I think one of the challenges sitting here, as Mr. Desilets, my colleague from the Bloc, shared earlier on, is that this seems to be a no-brainer. It seems that in 2015 the government of the time was coming forward with an answer, and then all of a sudden it pulled the rug out. For me, it's very disappointing and frustrating to be sitting here discussing something that should have been dealt with six years ago. I really don't have many questions. I think, sitting here looking at each other on these cameras, we all agree that this should be taken care of.
I would ask this question to Mr. Soulière. Did the government ever give you a heads-up that they were going to backtrack on this promise that was made in 2015?
2:25 p.m.
Conservative
Fraser Tolmie Conservative Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK
Has the government ever responded to you with any numbers, and how long have you been asking and advocating for this?