Veterans Affairs Committee on April 29th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Good afternoon. Welcome to meeting number 12 of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on February 8, 2022, the committee is meeting to begin its study on survivor pension benefits in cases involving marriage after 60.

I would like to welcome Angela Crandall, who is filling in for Mr. Taquet, the clerk, as well as Mr. Small.

Mr. Clifford Small has replaced MP Roberts.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website. So you are aware, the webcast will always show the person speaking rather than the entirety of the committee.

Today's meeting is also taking place in the webinar format. Webinars are for public committee meetings and are available only to members, their staff and witnesses. Members enter immediately as active participants. All functionalities for active participants remain the same. Staff will be non-active participants and can therefore only view the meeting in gallery view.

I would like to take the opportunity to remind all participants of this meeting that screenshots or taking photos of your screen is not permitted.

Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. If a question is addressed directly to you, you can answer right away. If you are on the video conference, please click on the microphone icon to unmute yourself. Those in the meeting in the room, your microphone will be activated as usual by the proceedings and verification officer. When speaking, please speak slowly and clearly. That will help our interpreters. When you are not speaking, your mike should be on mute.

Finally, I'll remind you that all comments by members and witnesses should be addressed through the chair.

I would like to extend a warm welcome to the entire team and all the witnesses joining us today.

We will be hearing from three witnesses as individuals: Robert Demers, a veteran of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, or RCMP; Walter Pinsent, a retired RCMP staff sergeant; and Norma Pinsent. Also with us are three members of the National Association of Federal Retirees: Jean‑Guy Soulière, president; Anthony Pizzino, CEO; and Patrick Imbeau, advocacy and policy officer. Lastly, we have Alexander Glenn, national president of the RCMP Veterans' Association.

Witnesses will have five minutes for their presentations, after which, committee members will have the pleasure of asking them questions. Starting us off will be Mr. Demers. Please remember to look at the screen while you are speaking. I will let you know when you have a minute left.

I'll show a red card when your time is over.

Mr. Demers, I'm going to start with you. You have five minutes.

[Robert Demers, Royal Canadian Mounted Police Veteran, As an Individual]

Good afternoon.

I am pleased to be joining you this afternoon.

This is an issue that means a lot to me, because two and a half years ago, I received a categorical no regarding my spouse's eligibility for a survivor pension allowance.

I would like to thank the honourable member Rachel Blaney for bringing forward private member's bill C‑221 in response to the so‑called gold digger's clause.

I spent 32 years in the RCMP in Canada and more than two years in Haiti as a personal bodyguard for the Canadian ambassador there, following the coup d'état in 1991. I also took part in two UN missions in Haiti.

By early 2020, I had been living with my spouse for two years already. I contacted the RCMP regarding the survivor pension allowance for my spouse. I was 63 at the time. That's when I found out that my spouse was not eligible for the survivor benefit.

After that, someone from Radio-Canada reached out to me, and my spouse and I were featured on the program La facture, which aired on Radio-Canada on November 17, 2020. If you missed the episode, I encourage you to watch it. The show was very well done, and the issue was well laid out.

The Quebec government provides the survivor pension allowance, but the federal government does not. What a huge letdown that is.

As you probably all know, seeing as most of us are quite active on this issue and care deeply about it, the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act—called the Militia Pension Act in Canada—dates back to 1901. We are in 2022, so the gold digger's clause is beyond outdated.

According to the act, it's as though the person no longer has any rights once they turn 60; it's over. I disagree with that. We all have the right to equal treatment. This archaic law has not kept pace with changes in society, the society we are living in now. It also goes against the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. At the time, men had a life expectancy of 50 or 60; today, they are expected to live to 80 and beyond.

Last year, the current health minister, Jean-Yves Duclos, who was President of the Treasury Board at the time, said that, if we weren't happy with the provision, all we had to do was put pension money aside for our spouses. Forgive me, Mr. Duclos, but I contributed to the pension fund for nearly 33 years, and my spouse has every right to receive survivor pension benefits.

If I died tomorrow, with today's cost of living, my spouse could not afford to keep living in our rented condo. She would have to find somewhere else to live, practically low-cost housing.

Denying her survivor pension benefits is unacceptable. This is 2022, and we need to act like it. We are entitled to equality, a right set out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Thank you for this opportunity.

I would be happy to answer any questions you have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Mr. Demers. It will be our pleasure to ask you questions. This is a very important issue, and it is fortunate that we are studying it.

I would now like to invite Mr. Walter Pinsent to speak for five minutes, please.

Mr. Pinsent is a staff sergeant, retired, from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

Mr. Pinsent, the floor is yours for five minutes. Please go ahead.

[Walter Pinsent, Staff Sergeant (Retired), Royal Canadian Mounted Police, As an Individual]

Thank you very much for this invitation to speak.

This is not entirely about Walter and Norma Pinsent. It's about a law that is discriminating, ageist, sexist, destructive and hurtful, that impacts individuals and families of veterans of the Canadian Armed Forces and the RCMP.

We are punishing those who swore an oath to protect and serve without fear, favour and affection, who will take the bullet to protect us and other citizens of the world. The armed forces and the RCMP maintain the right and maintain our image as a peacekeeping nation.

Why are we protecting a 1901 regulation formulated under the British North America Act at a time when it was systemic, biased and prejudiced against women, and first nations? Are we still in that mindset?

Today, our Bill of Rights and Constitution reflect Canada's image as being more democratic and sensitive. Our laws have changed regarding sexual orientation, abortion and the war on drugs. Imagine, women are designated persons. Before the law they can vote and join the armed forces and rise to the rank of commissioner of the RCMP, or any other office of government. We can change. This is proof that we are a people who are maturing, growing, and we have reason and common sense. If it does have a place in our legislature, then why is this law not changed?

One gentleman said that many of us live vital, productive lives after 60. Modern medicine has improved my life through six surgeries for arthritis. Norma was 57 when we married and has been my partner and caregiver, seeing me through stressful rehabilitation for 17 years. She's especially supportive of my autistic son and is an indispensable part of our extended, blended family. She's known for her generosity, and supports families, local organizations and charities where government can't.

My stress level is resulting sometimes in restless nights. I'm continually assessing our resources. I want Norma to be able to live in her own home and continue to be an integral part of this community. I want to grant her the benefits of my pension and give us peace of mind. I'm running out of sunsets, and this issue is heavy on my heart.

This week alone in the media the news reflected that Canada is a reactive care country and is seriously lacking in the area of elder care. Apology at this time is a clear sign that the issue has not been fixed. I hate to think of Norma ending up in a nursing home like those who have been paraded before us in recent times. We could do well to look at other models of care, and Denmark has been set as a good example.

I acknowledge that this is all about money. We have to be careful, though, that we don't lose sight of individuals who are affected. As it is with this 1901 law, Canada would do us proud to get this skeleton out of the closet.

You have the power to do what is right. Change the law. For goodness' sake, let's get it done.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you so much, Mr. Pinsent.

We are so glad to have Mrs. Norma Pinsent also with us.

The members of the committee would like to hear you, Mrs. Pinsent. You have five minutes. Go ahead, please.

[Norma Pinsent, As an Individual]

Hello. It is a privilege to speak before a committee whose mandate is to rectify an injustice.

I am Norma, an active, healthy, 73-year-old, who enjoys life and is grateful for all it offers. Walter and I share our money, our energy and our dreams. We want to live in the home that we retrofitted together with all we need to stay safe and comfortable through our advancing years, and to the last possible day.

We choose to live in the present. Seventeen years ago we rejected the option to buy into Walt's pension. It was prohibitive. We would be investing our fixed, limited funds in an uncertain future and robbing ourselves of joys and necessities our combined resources could provide, and should I die first, that investment would be lost.

Our government should rectify this. Fiscally, it is a sensible move. The longer citizens can support themselves, the less they rely on expensive government supports. With drastically reduced income, I will be one of those reliant seniors reaching for services that are scarce and inadequate, a situation painfully highlighted by recent events.

Looking ahead to financial insecurity is dreadful. It fills me with dread. I fear losing control of my circumstances, of forced reliance on family, of not being able to afford the care I will likely need. I want to see out my days in an independent, dignified manner.

There are other concerns. Through marriage, I have enlarged my family. Family is a responsibility. I will assume guardianship, upon Walt's death, of his severely handicapped son. Our granddaughter who has autism will need supports throughout her life, and we have four other children. I want to continue to serve and support my community, as I always have, through committee work, the church and charities. I want to support my friends who are aging as quickly as I am. With reduced income, sharing and giving becomes more difficult. Volunteers, as we know, and charitable agencies make our world go around. The less we give of our time and money, the more gaps have to be filled. I have no idea what life will throw at me.

Right now, I feel secure inside my family structure. Together, Walt and I manage. Should he die before me, my story will change. I make every effort to shine in my life, and in that, I am like millions of others, giving all that I can and striving to do what is right. I expect no less of my government.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you so much, Mrs. Norma Pinsent, for your intervention.

I would now ask the representative from the National Association of Federal Retirees to give their statement. I'm assuming it will be the president, Jean-Guy Soulière.

Go ahead, Mr. Soulière. The next five minutes are all yours.

[Jean-Guy Soulière, President, National Association of Federal Retirees]

Thank you.

Thank you, committee members, for inviting the National Association of Federal Retirees to speak today.

I would like to begin by recognizing that I and my colleagues are joining you from Ottawa, the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishnaabeg people, who have lived on this land since time immemorial.

The National Association of Federal Retirees is the largest national advocacy organization representing active and retired members of the federal public service, Canadian Armed Forces and Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and retired federally appointed judges, as well as their partners and survivors.

With 170,000 members, including over 60,000 veterans and their families, the association has advocated for improvements to the financial security, health and well-being of our members, and all Canadians, for nearly 60 years.

Federal Retirees is also proud to co-chair the Women's Veterans Research and Engagement Network, or WREN. WREN's mission is to work collaboratively to ensure equitable lifetime outcomes for all veterans.

I am here with the association's CEO, Mr. Anthony Pizzino; and our staff advocacy and policy officer, Monsieur Patrick Imbeau. I will share my time with Mr. Pizzino, and we will all be pleased to respond to any questions that committee members may have.

Our remarks today are supplemented by a written brief, and our association stands by to participate in other areas identified for study by this committee.

[Anthony Pizzino, Chief Executive Officer, National Association of Federal Retirees]

Thank you, committee members, Mr. Chair, for your time today.

The Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and the superannuation acts for the RCMP and federal public service have provisions for survivor pensions, pensions that are paid to eligible surviving spouses of contributors or pension plan members. The limitation if plan members marry or begin to cohabit with their spouses after age 60, in the case of the Canadian Armed Forces and RCMP, or after retirement in the case of federal public service, has been important to members of Federal Retirees for decades.

While the legislation is rooted in the turn of the 20th century, it's important to look at how pension legislation and regulations have evolved and to consider changes to the factors that impact pensions, including longevity and workforce participation.

While veterans, retirees and their spouses are affected by this difficulty, as our brief details, this is a complex pension policy matter that requires thorough study and assessment before proceeding with any changes. It is essential to have clear and accurate data to define the extent of this concern and to inform any potential solutions and their potential consequences. The importance of this data cannot be underscored enough. We are talking about hard-earned pensions of serving members of both the Canadian Armed Forces and the RCMP.

Pension plans rely on the balance between contributions and investment returns to fund appropriate levels of benefits. In 2015 and 2017, the federal government committed the ministerial mandate letters to “Eliminate the 'marriage after 60' clawback clause”. In its 2019 budget, the government established a $150-million fund for the veterans' survivors to be administered by Veterans Affairs, to work with the community to identify impacted survivors and to ensure they have adequate financial support. Little information is available on these initiatives. Veterans and their survivors deserve accountability and transparency, and to know what has happened with those funds and what they can expect going forward.

We have noted that veterans' survivors who are affected by this issue are often taken unawares. It is, in our view, clear evidence that retirement preparation and planning and pension communication needs to be comprehensive and clear.

Our brief demonstrates that veterans have been promised that this would be addressed for too long. They deserve answers, and I'm pleased to see that the committee is studying this.

I and my colleagues would be pleased to respond to your questions and to provide further information on the topic. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you so much, Mr. Pizzino and also Mr. Soulière.

Now I'd like to invite, from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Veterans' Association, Mr. Alexander Glenn, national president.

You have five minutes.

[Alexander Glenn, National President, Royal Canadian Mounted Police Veterans' Association]

Thank you for the opportunity to address this major problem among our retirees.

As mentioned, my name is Alexander Glenn, and I go by the name of Sandy.

I'm a retired member of the RCMP, and the current national president of the RCMP Veterans' Association. The current strength of the association is approximately 5,500 former serving members and employees, along with about 1,000 associate members, mostly being spouses and the vast majority being women. The total number of RCMP retirements in Canada is in the range of about 16,000, but that's a rough estimate.

To address the origins of this situation, as you no doubt are aware, when Canada's Militia Pension Act was passed in 1901, it contained a section now disgustingly referred to as a “gold-digger clause”, which gave the government discretion to deny benefits to widows deemed unworthy. That is a most inappropriate way of thinking in this day and age, especially when you consider that these spouses had been married after the age 60, for 10, 15, 20, and 25 years. That's not unworthy. A widow was denied benefits if she was more than 20 years younger than her husband, or if he married her after the age of 60. It's interesting to note that it predates a woman's right to vote, which was made law in 1916.

The act was drafted this way to protect the Canadian military from deathbed marriages, which were common in the United States. It prompted the Canadian government to assume preventive action. It did have concerns that the same thing was going to happen.

Now consider, in 1901, the average life expectancy for a Canadian male was 50 years of age, and that's according to a 2017 publication by the National Post. I guess it isn't unreasonable to believe that a 60-year-old pensioner at that time could certainly have been in ill health, but today, it isn't that way.

According to a document published by the United Nations entitled “United Nations Human Rights Report 2020”, the prediction was that life expectancy would be in the range of 80.3 years. The national population health survey and the Canadian community health survey estimate that the Canadian male can be expected to live in the range of 79.3 years of age.

Using the deathbed thinking of 1901, I cannot help but believe that this was the thinking of those who drafted today's military RCMP and public service pension plans. It's unreasonable to consider the age of 60 as the probable deathbed circumstance today. Indeed, if this rationale is be applied to today's situation, then change the legislation, so that marriage over the age of 90 will affect the pension, because 90 is 10 years older than the expected life expectancy today. Back in 1901, it was 10 years later than the 50-year expectancy.

I've been serving as president of the RCMP Veterans' Association for almost two years. I must confess that before doing so, I had no idea this legislation existed. However, early into my first term—I'm in my second one now—I began to receive requests for assistance from a number of our association members to make a concentrated effort to get this clause repealed. Not only do those spouses, the vast majority being women, lose a portion of their pension, but sadly, that surviving spouse also loses all medical and dental insurance benefits upon the death of the pensioner.

I cannot imagine the mental stress, and Walt touched on this, that a pensioner who married over the age of 60 must be going through, worrying that his wife of many years is not going to be taken care of when he dies. The spouse doesn't deserve this, nor does the pensioner who gave most of his productive years to serving Canada.

I reached out to RCMP compensation services, and they advised that they were bound by their pension program rules and couldn't make any changes. They did advise me—and this was referred to by Mr. Pizzino—that there is the optional survival benefit, OSB.

Walt referred to this as buying into an additional pension. It's not an additional pension. It means that the pensioner can divert 20%, 30% or 50% of his pension to be used should he predecease his wife, and I say wife because it wasn't until around 2014 that a wife could possibly be in this circumstance with her husband. I'm speaking for the RCMP. Women didn't join the RCMP until 1974.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Mr. Glenn, I'm sorry to interrupt you. It's time; your five minutes are over.

I know that you have a lot more to say, and members of the committee will ask you questions until three o'clock. As we know, it's an important subject, an important study, so I'm sure members of the committee will have a lot of questions.

I'd like to start a round of six-minute questions, and I'll start with Mr. Frank Caputo.

Also, I'd like to ask all members to direct the questions to one of the members as individuals, the National Association of Federal Retirees, or maybe the veterans association with Mr. Glenn. You can answer right away if the question is addressed to you.

Mr. Caputo, please go ahead for six minutes.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to also welcome our clerk for the day.

I thank all of those who have served with the RCMP for their service.

My pre-political career was as a Crown counsel for the last 10 years, so I understand tremendously all the sacrifices that you make to keep us safe. Like one of the witnesses mentioned, I have a child who's autistic, so I understand the circumstances there, and even my pre-law career was as a federal parole officer, so I feel as though I have a few connections here.

This to me is a non-partisan issue. It's not a Conservative, Liberal, NDP or Bloc issue. This is something that concerns us all. In fact, I have somebody close to me—too close, I thought, to nominate or suggest as a witness—who was a veteran of both the Armed Forces and the RCMP who married over 60. I've had discussions with him and his partner about this situation.

I may have missed this, but to the National Association of Federal Retirees, I'm just wondering if there has ever been a charter challenge to this legislation.

[Jean-Guy Soulière]

I believe Patrick can answer that.

[Patrick Imbeau, Advocacy and Policy Officer, National Association of Federal Retirees]

Yes, there has been, in 1994. It was deemed that the legislation was not discriminatory on the basis of age or gender.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

I wonder if that ruling would be the same today. Who knows? That was right around the time that the Supreme Court of Canada said you didn't have a right to medical assistance in dying, and we know what happened to that law several years later, so I wonder if that would be the same.

I was really struck by Retired Staff Sergeant Pinsent and his partner, Ms. Pinsent, and one thing that was mentioned in their opening comments was that they chose not to invest in the pension. This to me, Mr. Chair, suggests that they had two avenues, and I have a pretty good idea—or an idea—but this is all about them speaking and the record reflecting what they went through.

I'm wondering if they could please take us through that. What was the decision? Do we buy in? Do we not buy in? How much does it cost, and what are the implications? I feel as though that's information the committee should have to fully understand the decision faced by people who are in their situation.

Thank you.

[Walter Pinsent]

Yes, the option was there. Assessing it, as Sandy said earlier, we were limited in that it would have been taken from the pension I was receiving and put into another program. I might have gotten out of the force a little earlier than I wanted to on compassionate grounds, but it was still an issue that Norma and I did raise.

She is here now and she can speak up. I wish she would because she is in charge of the finances. I had to put it that way.

We decided as a couple that the best thing for us to do is enjoy the $500 a month that we're required to pay in as an option. We agreed.

Norma, please speak up.

[Norma Pinsent]

Yes, we did a lot of talking about it. Walt really struggled because he had a choice to be given a pension or sign it away. It didn't come easy to him. Actually, I made the final decision on that.

As I stated earlier, we chose to live not in the future, but in the present. Leaving jobs and setting up housekeeping as we did, with a blended family and pooling our resources, seemed to us at the time to be the sensible thing to do. We have been together now 17 years. That is many thousands of dollars that we've shared with each other and family and friends that would be totally and absolutely lost if I had died before Walt, so as an investment it didn't actually make much sense.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

I see. If I understand correctly, the decision was made because you obviously didn't know the future. There was an uncertain future.

Just so I can have a little bit more context, what would help me is this: What percentage or how much would you have had to pay in order to receive these benefits? What kind of benefits would that have entitled you to? I gather that those benefits would disappear on Mrs. Pinsent's death if she were to pass prior to you, Retired Staff Sergeant Pinsent. Is that right?

Could you just walk us through that please, just so I have an understanding? Can you give an example? If had you paid x amount of dollars, what would you have gotten per month, where if she were to pass first, then you would have nothing?

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Mr. Caputo, thank you, but your time is up.

I don't know if Mr. Pinsent or Mrs. Pinsent would like to have a quick response to your comment, in 15 or 30 seconds, please.

[Norma Pinsent]

There are a couple of points. Walt got out of the service fairly early, as he indicated, so his pension in and of itself was not well padded. We'll put it that way.

Out of that, we would have had to pay $489 or $500 a month to stash away 50%—I think, but maybe it would not have been that—of his pension for me should he die.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you so much.

Now I'd like to ask Mr. Wilson Miao to ask his questions for six minutes.

Please go ahead, Wilson.

[Wilson Miao, Liberal, Richmond Centre, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to everyone who is joining us today to discuss this important topic. I'd like to thank all of you for your service to our nation.

I understand this is a very unfair situation with the law that was passed earlier on. Can someone explain a bit more about the “marriage after 60” clause? How long has your organization has been advocating on this issue? Can you tell us about the history, your advocacy and how we are moving along in this process?

Can someone from the National Association of Federal Retirees answer this?

[Patrick Imbeau]

Essentially, it's part of at least three pieces of legislation: the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, the Public Service Superannuation Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act. They're all a bit different. The one specific to veterans is that the survivor or contributor is not entitled to an annual allowance if, at the time the contributor married the survivor or began to cohabit with the survivor in a relationship of a conjugal nature, the contributor had attained the age of 60 years. That is very similar in the other cases of the legislation. For public servants, it's after retirement, instead of at 60.

Our association was supportive of the court case in the nineties. We've been working on this issue since 1992, as far as I know.

To answer the question that was posed earlier, for a survivor pension to have the reduced amount, you can do 30%, 40% or 50%, which, you can imagine, is a substantial amount for a couple on one pension.

We've been active, at least, since then. Speaking regularly with MPs on this file, I believe we went through the legal route by supporting the court case in the nineties, but have been taking the political route since then.

I'll let someone else speak, if they would like.

[Jean-Guy Soulière]

There's an advisory committee at the public service pension plan, and this has been a hot topic. I was the pensioner representative on that pension advisory committee for a number of years. Our association was the one that first raised it at that committee and has been supporting it on the public service side. We also had a representative on the Canadian Forces advisory committee and the RCMP advisory committee. There's a pensioner representative on these committees, and all three committees have been pushing for a resolution to this.

However, as Anthony mentioned in his opening statement, information is needed. You can't just go and present recommendations without having the information. Information gathering is something that we have been asking for from the government and the chief actuary, who takes a look at all these pensions plans and makes the projections. We've been asking them to cost out what it would involve, and then you can start talking about the solution.