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.
2:10 p.m.
Co-Chair, Surviving Spouses Pension Fairness Coalition
—survivor's pension could also be applied to marriages entered into before retirement. It makes sense in a way.
2:10 p.m.
Conservative
Fraser Tolmie Conservative Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK
Thank you, Mr. Gill. I appreciate that.
Mr. Sewell, you wanted to step in there, sir?
2:10 p.m.
As an Individual
I do, if you don't mind.
The public service union was the one who took this to the Supreme Court back in the 1990s. It cost them a lot of money. They don't want to go back to the courts on it because of that situation. The RCMP are looking at going after it. Retiree associations are looking at it also. Those are two other things.
We've already contacted human rights on this—on age discrimination and marital status discrimination. They can't touch it because both the acts, the Militia Act and the other, are outside of their jurisdiction, and also you have to look at the other ones. They are not able to touch them because of the age factor—not of the individual but in the act itself.
2:10 p.m.
Conservative
Fraser Tolmie Conservative Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK
Thank you for both of your answers.
Chair, I want to make sure we're still in a good working relationship.
2:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg
No, we are. We are in a good relationship, but you know that I have to manage the time. All of us would like to intervene.
Thank you, Mr. Tolmie.
Right now I'd like to invite Mr. Churence Rogers for five minutes.
Go ahead, please, Mr. Rogers.
Mr. Samson, would you like to intervene?
May 13th, 2022 / 2:10 p.m.
Liberal
Darrell Samson Liberal Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS
Yes, Mr. Chair, you read my mind. I was going to say I will take his turn, and he will take mine right behind.
I want to begin by thanking all of you for your presentation and your service. The families serve as well. We've learned more and more about the important role of families and spouses and kids.
I want to thank you as well for sharing your personal stories. A lot of interesting facts are coming out today, which are a little different from those last time. I find this will be very helpful. I don't know where to start. I have too many ideas.
Let's start with Mr. Gill.
Mr. Gill, I appreciate the fact that you're thinking of other ways to achieve certain objectives that would help meet the challenge that you characterize as a "mission impossible". I don't like that adjective, but I accept it.
You propose that survivors be granted a percentage of the pension, not a full pension, based on the number of years of marriage after 60. You mentioned the case of a woman who had been with her husband for 30 years. It depends on the pension system, but 50% is probably the maximum percentage. I calculated that, for a survivor who had been with her spouse for 15 years, it would amount to perhaps 25%. Am I wrong?
I think your idea is an interesting one. Have you discussed it with anyone else? Could you tell me more about it?
2:15 p.m.
Co-Chair, Surviving Spouses Pension Fairness Coalition
That's correct. I don't want to go into any technical details, but you can imagine that the survivor would receive a larger percentage of the pension for each year of marriage, to a maximum that could be equal to the present amount. The normal amount is 50% of the retiree's pension. The progression could be done in various ways. You could start with larger percentages and subsequently reduce them to try to provide something eventually. For the first five years, it could be 3%, and thus 15% in five years, and so on…
2:15 p.m.
Liberal
Darrell Samson Liberal Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS
Thank you, Mr. Gill. We don't need too many details. I wanted to be sure I understood the concept.
2:15 p.m.
Co-Chair, Surviving Spouses Pension Fairness Coalition
I wanted to give you an example because it's an idea that should be looked at.
2:15 p.m.
Liberal
Darrell Samson Liberal Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS
Yes.
Have you mentioned this idea to anyone else, or is this the first time you've presented your brief?
2:15 p.m.
Co-Chair, Surviving Spouses Pension Fairness Coalition
We haven't discussed it very much so far. We came up with the idea for this appearance.
2:15 p.m.
Co-Chair, Surviving Spouses Pension Fairness Coalition
Starting tomorrow, we're going to develop a plan including other targets for spreading this idea, which is worth spreading. If it's rejected, we'll stick with the mission impossible.
2:15 p.m.
Liberal
Darrell Samson Liberal Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS
Thank you, Mr. Gill.
You said that Quebec didn't draw a distinction. Mr. Desilets had a big smile on his face, so you obviously said what he wanted to hear.
Do you think governments are part of the problem? I don't necessarily mean the government in power today, but the entire succession of governments since this provision was established in 1901.
Is the problem mainly related to the way pensions are calculated? I'm no expert, but, if my understanding is correct, an analysis is always done. For example, a certain percentage of people will live for 100 years, whereas others will die younger. Since that's the way it's calculated, do you think the problem is that the creation of new programs could result in an increase in the pension percentage paid in order to add something?
I don't know if that's the problem; I'm just suggesting the idea.
2:15 p.m.
Co-Chair, Surviving Spouses Pension Fairness Coalition
I'm not sure I actually understood. Are you talking about how much it would cost to increase pension distribution?
2:15 p.m.
Co-Chair, Surviving Spouses Pension Fairness Coalition
Those are the secrets of the actuaries, who come up with the projections and forecasts. They are scientists who consider demographic characteristics, among other factors. I think they could conduct a study on this and establish limits together. There's a minimum the could be done and a maximum, and that's different from the normal pension…
2:15 p.m.
Liberal
Darrell Samson Liberal Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS
Thank you very much.
My time is up, and I had six more questions to ask, Mr. Chair. The information our witness is giving us is so good it generates interesting questions.
Thank you very much.
2:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg
Thank you.
Mr. Rogers has raised his hand to request the floor.
Go ahead, Mr. Rogers.
2:15 p.m.
Liberal
Churence Rogers Liberal Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL
Mr. Chair, I want to check and see if you can hear me now.