Veterans Affairs Committee on May 20th, 2022

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

May I interrupt you there? I'm sorry. That's an important piece. You say, “to develop a fund”. Do you mean “to create the fund” and that the money was not meant to actually go out to veterans' survivors but to figure out what the program would actually be? Was that what that money was for?

[Crystal Garrett-Baird]

No, the $150 million was targeted for survivors. It was not to develop the fund. As I mentioned at the outset, the research that we have undertaken we have done within our own operating funding. We have not used that $150 million because that is targeted for survivors.

I want to reiterate that the fund is not a change to the marriage after 60 clause in the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act. The focus would be on developing a fund for individuals who may be impacted by the clause.

This is not an issue where there has been a dragging of feet. We had no information, really, to understand what the needs of this population were or how many were a part of it so that we could actually determine how we would attribute this and what their actual needs were. Without any kind of information, we would be creating a very ill-informed fund, and that would not meet the needs of individuals.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

I appreciate that. Thank you.

[Crystal Garrett-Baird]

That is why—

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

I do appreciate that. That is what we need to hear because that kind of confirms what I'm saying here, I guess.

What we're doing, then, is what I see has been happening for a very long time in Veterans Affairs. We try to create something else to deal with the problem, rather than to streamline and make things simpler for our veterans as far as how those needs can be met. Can you give us just a sense...? I appreciate what you're saying because you're starting at ground zero, really, with this whole issue as far as having any kind of ability.

I'm sorry, Dr. Li, I didn't mean “ground zero”, because there's been an effort made to do something on that file.

Realistically, how long do you think it will take to create this program, and how much has the department spent within itself at this point in time trying to do this to date?

[Crystal Garrett-Baird]

The department has been focused on the qualitative and quantitative research to inform what we're doing, and that is what we are looking at right now. What's the way forward for the veterans survivors fund, taking into consideration other supports that the department is providing to survivors, including monthly disability pensions, income replacement benefits, the VAC assistance line and the veterans independence program.

We are aware of this issue, and we are very committed to this issue because, otherwise, the discussion today around Dr. Li's research and the work we undertook with Statistics Canada would not have been done. That demonstrates the commitment that we have here and the seriousness of it. The pandemic has—

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

As there are maybe 30 seconds left, I would like to ask one more question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

You have 10 seconds.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Okay.

Very quickly, would this mean that some other benefits would be rolled into it or disappear in the creation of this program?

[Crystal Garrett-Baird]

We are not looking at getting rid of any benefits. The focus here is on the needs of this population, taking into consideration what was stated in budget 2019. The focus is on taking the research that we have received and looking at that to determine where the needs are and what this population needs. That is helping us inform the way forward for the veterans survivors fund.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Ms. Garrett-Baird.

To conclude this round, I'd like to invite MP Darrell Samson for five minutes, please.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Mr. Chair, could I speak for 30 seconds before Mr. Samson?

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Please go ahead, Mr. Lauzon.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

I will be brief, as I do not want to take up any of the time given to Mr. Samson.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

I've stopped the clock. We're listening.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

I think we had three good rounds of questioning with the witnesses, who answered several questions. As we are at the end of this third round and the study, I propose that we end the committee meeting after Mr. Samson's intervention.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

I do not agree.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Absolutely not.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

We have taken good note of your objection, Mr. Desilets and Ms. Blaney.

Mr. Lauzon, after Mr. Samson's five-minute intervention, I was going to invite the members and witnesses to take a five‑ to ten‑minute break, and come back to complete at least another 25‑minute round. Do you agree?

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Yes, that suits me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Excellent. We're going to complete this five‑minute round with Mr. Darrell Samson. Then we'll take a 10‑minute break and come back for a final round. I hope that's acceptable for our witnesses as well, and I thank them for their co‑operation.

Mr. Samson, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Thank you.

I just would like to begin by stating that I don't think we should be playing political games or using comments about this government making promises. I mean, we lived through 2005 to 2015, with major cuts to Veterans Affairs and the Canadian Armed Forces from the Conservatives. We didn't talk about that, but maybe we should have. The last speaker was saying that we made some promises, and the Conservative government was in power from 2005 to 2015 and didn't do anything on the survivor fund for those aged 60 and over. Let's just focus on getting this job done.

I'm glad for the discussion. I want to thank all members who are here today, and I want to thank Ms. Blaney for bringing the topic of the study up. I think this is very important, and there have been lots of discussions around that.

I guess I'd like to begin by asking—again, maybe you could identify this—has the Treasury Board, National Defence or Veterans Affairs...? How much are we hearing questions around the veterans' pensions after 60 survivors fund? Are we getting calls? Is it something that's being asked of us or asked of your responsibilities?

I guess I'll start with Mr. Crabtree. Are you having some requests or questions on that topic?

[Simon Crabtree]

I would suggest that the Department of National Defence would be better prepared or suited to answer this, simply because we don't deal with their membership directly.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

That's good.

Go ahead, Brigadier-General Tattersall.

[BGen Virginia Tattersall]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The only time we get asked questions is at the Canadian Forces Pension Advisory Committee meetings.

The retiree representative will bring up at our CF PAC the question about marriage after 60, but in terms of this being a question that is asked of the pension centre, which is where these queries would be directed, I do not have numbers for you. I don't believe that they track that particular line of questioning.