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.
1:50 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Desilets Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
I'd like to greet my colleagues, as well as our guests, whom I welcome to the committee.
If my understanding is correct, Mr. Chair, Mr. Gill is unable to answer questions for the moment, even if they're asked in French.
Is that correct?
1:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg
That's a good question. I'll ask the clerk, but I see Mr. Gill is doing some tests.
Can you hear us, Mr. Gill?
Unmute your mic, please.
1:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg
All right. There may be some questions in French, and you'll be able to answer them.
Then I invite Mr. Desilets to ask his questions.
1:50 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Desilets Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good afternoon, Mr. Gill. I do have some questions for you.
Repealing the "marriage after 60 years" provision has been on the Liberal Party's agenda since 2015. That's no news to you. The veterans survivor fund has been in existence since 2019. I can't explain why the government still hasn't commissioned or published an actuarial study to determine the cost of such a measure. I'm obviously referring to the repeal of the "marriage after 60 years" provision.
Do you think it's normal that, seven years later, we still don't know how much that change would cost? Do you have anything to say on the subject?
1:50 p.m.
Co-Chair, Surviving Spouses Pension Fairness Coalition
Thank you for your question, Mr. Desilets.
According to a professional actuary who has advised us, some calculations were done using incorrect figures. Ultimately, the government doesn't want to repeal the provision. It's a "mission impossible" that was assigned to the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of National Defence. That's why we suggest that the problem be handled differently using a completely new approach. We have to determine whether it's possible to grant a proportionately reduced pension in these cases.
I'm mainly talking about doing it for those who have retired because that would be the logical way. The "marriage after 60 years" provision is purely arbitrary and quasi-discriminatory, as I said earlier. We suggest that the government take a completely new approach. We're in uncharted territory here, and, consequently, I don't have any figures to provide. I definitely don't want to cite any examples, although I think that would be invaluable.
I nevertheless want to mention that the pension would increase with the number of years of life together. For example, as you can see in the appendix to our brief, Cora Goddard and her husband, Terry Goddard, were married for 30 years. She was his caregiver for many years. She should have received the maximum 50%. Spouses who have lived with a retiree for a shorter period of time could receive a smaller percentage. This is a defensible principle.
In Nova Scotia, for example, there was the special case of two former spouses who were equally eligible for a pension. They decided to prorate the pension based on the number of years they had lived together.
I also want to tell you a wonderful story. The former and current spouse of a retiree knew each other. The retiree died after being an invalid for five years. The current spouse in this example was also a caregiver. The former spouse, who had received the pension, regularly shared a portion of it with the current spouse. I think that example perfectly demonstrates how unfair the present system is.
1:55 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Desilets Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Thank you, Mr. Gill.
Thank you for assisting us with your expertise, and thanks as well for your work on this issue, which is not an easy one. It's obviously not black and white.
You said that repealing the provision was a mission impossible. Why do you see it as impossible?
1:55 p.m.
Co-Chair, Surviving Spouses Pension Fairness Coalition
The government appears to think there's an operating assumption here.
What's incomprehensible is that this is included in the mandate letter of the Minister of Veterans Affairs, whereas it isn't his responsibility. Only the Minister of National Defence can make changes to the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act. Defence department experts have worked on this issue. I'm trying to contact them to find out what they've done. I want to sell them on the idea that we've advanced, the idea of creating a new rule under which a reasonable pension would be paid proportionate to the length of the spouses' life together. There has to be a little more fairness. It really makes no sense not to pay a pension.
Any government other than the Liberal government would probably be in the same position. Everyone's afraid to touch it. There's one government in this country that has done things differently since 1985, and it's the Quebec government. Under the Public Service Act, a pension is paid to every survivor at the time of death, regardless of the date on which their relationship began.
1:55 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Desilets Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Yes, Mr. Gill, Quebec can stand as an example in that regard. We'll be able to discuss that later on.
For example, the Act respecting the Government and Public Employees Retirement Plan doesn't penalize women. What's harmful here is that it's women who are the hardest hit. As we all know, this issue affects women in 95% of cases, and those women are living in precarious situations.
Since the chair is signalling that my time is up, I'll turn the floor over to him.
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg
Thank you very much, Mr. Desilets.
Thanks to Mr. Gill as well.
We now go to Rachel Blaney for the next six minutes.
We are listening, Ms. Blaney.
May 13th, 2022 / 1:55 p.m.
NDP
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
Thank you, Chair.
I want to thank everyone here, especially those of you who are having to share incredibly personal stories.
Let me just apologize that you have to face this reality and that the only way for us to address it is for you to come on a screen and tell people your really personal stories. I think that is a travesty. It's why I'm fighting so hard, and, of course, why I put forward Bill C-221 that will address this issue, an NDP bill that has been in the House repeatedly. Hopefully, we will finally see some action on it.
I will go to you first, Pat, and then I'm going to you right after, Kevin.
I want to know. When did you find out that, if you married or entered a common-law marriage after 60, you would not be able to have a survivor's pension for the woman you loved?
2 p.m.
As an Individual
I found that out after I called my pension provider. I wanted to put Kelly on, and that's when they told me I couldn't. They just said no.
Another thing I want to bring up here is that, with my ex-wife, I ended up having to pay her an awful lot of money to protect my pension that I worked so hard for and that I paid into and I deserve.
I wanted to share my pension with Kelly, should I pass before her. That's when the pension people told me, “No, you can't do it.” However, if I wanted to pay 30%, 40% or 50% of my pensionable income, she'd be entitled to something. They never did tell me how much, but 50% of my pension? That just wasn't feasible. It's still not feasible today.
2 p.m.
NDP
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
Exactly.
Kevin, when did you find out that, if you were in a relationship after 60, you would not be able to leave a survivor's benefit?
2 p.m.
As an Individual
Basically, it was like the other gentleman.
When Tracy came into my life, we were looking at whether she would get any benefits from my military service and Veterans Affairs. The only one that came up as no, basically, was the superannuation act. Everything else she's good for, and good to go with.
As Pat said, you have to buy it back. My pension is $960 a month. I am buying back my previous pension, so you do the simple math if I am going to suddenly pay 30% more to cover Tracy. It's financially impossible.
2 p.m.
NDP
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
Thank you for that.
I think that's really important because, like you both mentioned, the optional survivor benefit, the OSB, is what you can pay 30% to 50% of your income into your pension income.
I know you have both chosen not to do that because it would mean an economic inability to do anything today. What a horrible place to be in. I can't imagine how painful it is to make these kinds of decisions.
I guess my next question is this: When were you told that if you took that option—or were you told that option—to take 30% to 50% of your pension and put it away for them, that if your loved one, your partner, passed before you did, you would never receive a penny back?
I will start with you again, Pat.
2 p.m.
As an Individual
I was never told that. That was something I learned recently. The pension people never told me what Kelly would get if I paid in for two years, three years or six months. They never told me whether I would get that money back if she passed before me.
2 p.m.
NDP
2 p.m.
As an Individual
Basically, at the start when I asked, I was told this. I enquired a number of times about it and kept getting the same answer. That happens. That seems to be an ongoing situation with the Canadian Forces superannuation: They don't tell anybody anything. You have to do a lot of digging to find stuff out.
The problem with the Canadian Forces is that, for most individuals all through their careers, if they ask a question, they're told they don't need to know. Most of them go through their career totally not asking questions because it's not their need to know. When they get to the point of retirement, they still don't ask questions.
They're also not informed. When members get out of the Canadian Forces, there are supposed to be sessions to bring them up on knowledge and that. This is one issue that has never been brought up in any of the sessions they had at that time for the members because they don't think of these things. That's how it ends up.
2:05 p.m.
NDP
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
Yes. I know that, for me, it wouldn't occur to me to ask those questions. I would just assume that when I got married or when I was in a long-term relationship, my loved one would receive something when I was gone.
2:05 p.m.
As an Individual
It also goes back to the fact that, all through their careers, common-law relations are recognized by the military and then all of a sudden at 60, it is not recognized.
2:05 p.m.
NDP
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
Exactly.
I think that's my time, but I will be coming back for you, Tracy and Kelly, in the next round.
2:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg
Thank you so much.
I'd like to invite Mr. Fraser Tolmie for five minutes please.
Go ahead, Mr. Tolmie.
2:05 p.m.
Conservative
Fraser Tolmie Conservative Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK
Chair, I think that's a little bit of payback for last week.
Thank you for joining us today.
I'd like to thank you for your service, Corporal Sewell.
I'll point out, Mr. Boudreau, that my father was in the corrections facilities before, so I understand that it's not an easy job with what you witness. I appreciate your being open with some of the challenges you're facing today.
Right now, I'd like to just point out a comment that was made by Mr. Sewell about every other legislation that we have concerning common law. The way we look at partnership seems to be linear everywhere else except in this particular circumstance. We seem to be outdated. That is validated by the language that's used when we talk about “gold digger”, which quite honestly is not acceptable terminology to use right now. Maybe it was acceptable back in 1901.
I apologize that you're labelled that, quite honestly. I'm sorry because that seems outdated.
Mr. Gill, you're not going to get off the hook that easily. Apart from my statements, I do have a question for you, sir.
This issue was ruled on by the courts. That was nearly 30 years ago. Are you aware of any new moves to challenge this in the courts again, sir?
2:05 p.m.
Co-Chair, Surviving Spouses Pension Fairness Coalition
I got the question.
I have no idea. I don't have any confidence in the Supreme Court, but as I mention in the brief, they changed their opinion as time evolves. Society is changing and so on. In that case, I don't understand how they could say it was an interpretation of the charter. That's why they rejected the request.
As I said, I suggest forgetting about the 60. It is irrelevant. The problem with the older people's pension is that, after retirement we have another era. The pensioner no longer contributes, and we can't rationalize saying there could be two systems: one for marriages before retirement and one for marriages after retirement. I think it would be more logical, because I like to work logically. It could be done. I'm just losing the other part here anyway.
It would be strange to see the government decide to standardize the exclusion conditions. Of course all the legislation rejecting it after 60 and keeping only the other one could make sense. I would think that, looking far ahead into the future, the—