Evidence of meeting #14 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 pension.
A recording is available from Parliament.
2:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg
Next time, it will be your turn.
Thank you.
Ladies and gentlemen, we will now go to short turns of two and a half minutes.
I therefore invite Luc Desilets to unmute his mic.
Go ahead, Mr. Desilets.
2:15 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Desilets Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Mr. Samson has obviously put words in my mouth. Whether that was the proper thing for him to do is another matter.
In Quebec, we have a plan called the Government and Public Employees Retirement Plan, or the RREGOP. As a school principal, I contributed to this plan. It meant that if I was married, neither my wife nor I would have any problems.
According to you, Mr. Gill, How come Quebec can pay for a plan like that and we can't do it for veterans? If possible, please keep your answer short.
2:20 p.m.
Co-Chair, Surviving Spouses Pension Fairness Coalition
Actually, I mentioned that in my brief.
Did the government or the defence department consult the Régie des rentes du Québec, which administers the plan, to try and understand how they did it?
I gave another example, and it's really special. The municipalities of Ontario decided to do the same thing.
So it's obvious that it's perfectly possible. Does it have a major impact on the employers and on employee contributions?
The employees have their say in that. The unions need to be involved so that they can take a positive approach to deal with the problem.
2:20 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Desilets Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
According to you, is the contribution made by an employee in Quebec higher than for an employee contributing to the National Defence plan?
2:20 p.m.
Co-Chair, Surviving Spouses Pension Fairness Coalition
I have no idea, because it varies. So many factors come into play, like people's age, and even sex—or perhaps I should be using the word gender now. More research is needed.
2:20 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Desilets Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
I understand. It's complicated.
The committee is there to make recommendations.
From what I've understood, you're strongly recommending that the Canadian Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs should dialogue, collaborate and exchange information because in the end, it's a matter for the Canadian Armed Forces. They administer the funds.
Am I wrong in saying that's one of your recommendations?
2:20 p.m.
Co-Chair, Surviving Spouses Pension Fairness Coalition
You're quite right. I mentioned earlier that I wanted to understand the situation. I'm getting there, but I'd like to ask the of defence department what it did and what it might do. I'd like to suggest to them that they consider other options.
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg
I'm sorry, Corporal, no. Perhaps one of our members will ask you questions so you can intervene on that.
2:20 p.m.
As an Individual
It's in reference to this one. The United States military went through this approximately 10 years ago and corrected the situation.
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg
Excuse me, Mr. Sewell, but I have to ask members of the committee to ask you questions. Maybe one of them will ask you a question, and you will be able to answer then.
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg
I would like to invite Ms. Blaney to go ahead for two and a half minutes.
2:20 p.m.
NDP
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Kevin, I'm going to have to go to Tracy and Kelly. I'm not trying to be rude, but I want to make sure their voices are heard on this. It will keep you out of trouble later on.
First of all, I want to say that I am really appalled that it is called the “gold digger” clause. It's very apparent to me, after listening to many witnesses, that families have a visceral reaction to being called gold diggers. I hope that's something all of us, in this place, take some reflection on.
I heard from both of you about the commitment of your family and how families are changing; the definition definitely has to change. I want to remind all of us that the clause is in all of these departments. We can't say one department can fix it. It's bigger than that. It's in every one of these departments. I'm wondering whether each of you could take an opportunity...starting off with you, Kelly, and finishing with you, Tracy.
What would your experience be if this clause were fixed? What would the impact on your life be?
2:20 p.m.
As an Individual
Thank you.
I just wanted to say that I agree. If you put it back to each individual department, my fear is that it would just keep going in a big circle.
The thing that exists between all of those, for veterans, and for Pat and I, is the fact that the clause is there. You're making a discrimination about age and the whole gold digger....
How would it affect me? I do worry, because I do not have children. I do worry about if, when I'm older, I will be able to look after myself. Where will I be? After so many years of working, what situation will I be in?
When I hear the story of Kevin and Tracy too, it hurts me to hear that kind of thing. People who gave for their country, people who have been working their whole lives, are finding it difficult. They're finding it difficult to make ends meet. It shouldn't be the case. These people gave up a lot.
Pat, Kevin, you've given a lot. It is a big thing to step up and do that as a career, and to then be treated that way—
2:25 p.m.
NDP
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
I'm sorry, Kelly, but I have to give Tracy a few seconds too.
2:25 p.m.
As an Individual
Unfortunately, if Kevin were to pass away tomorrow, if we go with what Mr. Gill is even suggesting, I would get next to nothing, because we've been together only a short time. You're, again, punishing us for falling in love after the age of 60. If something, God forbid, were to happen to him, I honestly don't know what I would do, period.
Thanks.
2:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg
Thank you so much.
Thank you, Ms. Blaney.
Mr. Sewell, we're going to have two other interventions, but I know that one of the members will ask you a question, so you will be able to intervene.
For now, I'd like to invite, for five minutes, Mrs. Anna Roberts.
Mrs. Anna Roberts, the floor is yours.
May 13th, 2022 / 2:25 p.m.
Conservative
Anna Roberts Conservative King—Vaughan, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to go back to something.
First of all, I want to thank everyone for being here. It's tough to keep repeating these stories. To be honest with you, it shouldn't really be necessary, because this is a common-sense issue. I don't know where we lost common sense.
I want to go back to Kelly. You said you were 58. You're young. The new 50 is—what is it?—the new 40 now, so you're not old at all. I just want to make that clear.
This issue seems to be going on for a long time, and I have to agree with my colleagues that it's about time we put it to bed. In your opinion, how can we expedite this situation so that the government understands that enough is enough and that we need to make changes. We can't wait for another research study. We can't wait another month. We can't wait another day. Taking your opinion into account, what can we do to expedite this situation?
2:25 p.m.
As an Individual
In my opinion, you have to immediately drop the 60 clause and the retirement clause. Some people choose to have long careers. Some people's careers are shortened. Sixty is not old. It's discriminatory. It's just absolutely discriminatory.
Why does it exist in Pat's pension plan and not in my pension plan? I think OMERS is one of the few pension plans that chose to make all the changes so they fit the definition of today's family.
You're right. There's no time. I'm sitting here today and thinking that this is all wonderful, but if it doesn't go anywhere. It doesn't help anybody, but we're here, hoping that the change happens. The sad part is that it may not happen for the families who need it now. It has to be changed so that the law drops that discriminatory factor. Take it out; that fixes it.
2:25 p.m.
Conservative
Anna Roberts Conservative King—Vaughan, ON
I will agree with you. I lost my husband 27 years ago. With my pension, through my company my new spouse will receive it. It's something that is strange to me, when I'm hearing this. Thank you very much for sharing that.
Corporal Sewell, you wanted to say something earlier. I want to give you that opportunity before I go to my next witness.