Madam Speaker, I move that the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, presented on Wednesday, December 14, 2022, be concurred in.
I am very honoured to be here to speak on behalf of the tremendous members of my riding, North Island—Powell River, as well as on behalf of many people across this country, largely women, who married people in the military after they turned 60.
What is unfortunate about this is that we are having this concurrence debate on something that started in Canada in 1901. It was a piece of legislation that was put in place to make sure that young women did not marry older military men for their pension. It was put in place that, if they were married after 60, the person they married would not be eligible for any spousal benefits when they died. They called it the gold digger clause. The rationale was that a person would only marry someone over 60 who had served our country because that person was waiting for their pension.
Here we are. It is 2024, and this rule is still in place. It is shocking that it has an impact on so many people. What is really upsetting to me and to people who have lived through this is that, in 2015, when the Liberals were put into power, the Prime Minister's letter to the Minister of Veterans Affairs stated very clearly that this was to be remedied. It was time to deal with this and to make it fair. Unfortunately, even though this was written to two ministers, in 2015 and 2017, it then suddenly disappeared from the mandate letters of the Minister of Veterans Affairs. It was clearly there before, and nothing was done.
I know that some members in the House, especially the Liberals, will think about 2019 and say that they did do something, that they put in place $150 million to start to support some of these people, largely women, who are marrying people after 60 who served our country or who served as RCMP officers, and put it aside for them. They were going to find a process and make sure that they got a bit of a survivor's benefit. That was done in 2019.
Again, I just want to point out that it is now 2024. It is over five years later, and how much of that money has been spent? How much has gone to these amazing women who, in some cases, were married for 25 and 30 years and who cared for the people who served our country as they aged? Zero dollars has gone out to those women.
The minister and her team came to visit us in committee just over a week ago, and I asked about this again. This may surprise some, but people from all over Canada contact my office and talk to me about this issue; it is having an impact on them. I do not know how people feel in the House about having elderly women, in some cases in their eighties, call their office to explain this. What I have heard again and again is a woman saying she is not a gold digger. She married her spouse because she loved him, and she cared for him as he aged. Now that he is gone, she cannot afford the basic necessities of life.
I do not want to hear that anymore. It upsets me that people who care for the people who served our country feel as though they are second-class citizens with the mantle of gold digger on their shoulders. We had a whole study about this in the veterans affairs committee a couple of years ago, and that is what I am talking about. What was very distressing about that study was listening to couples who were in this current circumstance, some of whom did not know. They went out and served their country. They found a spouse, and they were happily married. Then they found out, after they were married or in a common-law relationship, that their spouse would not get any survivor's benefits. Some who found this out went back and asked for information, and they were told then.
One of the recommendations in the report is a very basic one, which is to please tell the people who serve us that if they find love after 60, they will be penalized. Then the government said, “Do not worry; we have this program, and you can implement it.” It is called the optional survivor benefit program. What they can do is give up a percentage of their income every month to put aside for their loved one. The pickup on this program is extremely low and I think all of us in this House instinctively know why. It is because veterans do not have huge pensions to begin with. What are they going to do? Are they going to commit to poverty through their whole time with their spouse so their spouse can have a pittance when they are gone? It is shocking.
One veteran spoke to me about what he had done. He loved his spouse so much, so when he found out about the optional survivor benefit, he put it in place. He put part of his pension every month, every year away for her. Sadly, his spouse developed a serious illness and passed away. For years he had been putting money away for her. It was his money, part of his pension, that he was saving for her through this program. When she passed, he asked what was going to happen to that money, and the government said, “It is gone now; that is ours.”
When we think about this, people are choosing to live in poverty so their spouse can have a pittance when they pass and then something like this happens and they lose absolutely everything. The department officials were assuring me that when the veteran lost their spouse, not to worry because they get the same pension; they are no longer deducting from it once they lose their loved one. Never mind that the money veterans put aside for a specific reason just disappears into the coffers.
When we in this place think of injustice and unfairness, we have to really look at what is happening and really understand that we are asking people to care for the people who served our country as they age, during, in some cases, some of the hardest physical, emotional and mental times for these people, and we are asking their spouses to just go without. Never mind that people live way longer now than they did in 1901. Never mind that in 1901, already this was a sexist, misogynistic law, because it was. To assume the only reason people would marry a veteran was for their money is shameful, and that we are still practising that today is shameful.
The other thing that came up again and again is one of the recommendations in this report that I hope all members in the House take time with, because this is a simple injustice. We saw this happen again and again, and it was like a dance. We would talk to people at Veterans Affairs, and they would say, even though it is in the mandate letter from the Prime Minister, “It is not us; it is National Defence.” Then we would go to National Defence officials and ask them. They would say, “No, it is not us; it is Veterans Affairs.”
We have veterans, including RCMP veterans, all over this country who are fighting this. They are standing up and saying, “This is not right. This is not fair. We do not want our loved ones to be in poverty when we go because we cannot get that pension for them, that survivor's benefit.” They do not even know who to advocate to because these two departments keep switching it back and forth. That is simply unfair and really shameful.
I keep thinking about the people who came and spoke with us. One of the stories I found most frustrating in this job was of a couple, a veteran who was 59 and his partner, who were planning to get married and then the pandemic hit. What happened during the pandemic? I think all of us know: Everything sort of fell apart for a while. By the time they could figure out how to get married, he had reached the age of 60. Because of a pandemic, he could not get married before 60 and now his spouse will not get a survivor's pension.
I look at things like that and I think it is so ridiculous. What else has been surprising is how many veterans have contacted my office who did not know. We have actually had people call us and say they got married because they were worried that if they waited until they were 60, their spouse would get nothing. It is totally shocking.
I think of Walt and Norma. They both testified at our committee. One of the things that will always stick with me is Walt saying to the committee that he just wants Canada, the country he served, to understand that his wife is worth a survivor's benefit. They are married. They care for their family together. They have a grandchild who has some particular needs. Walt and Norma are a big part of providing support for those needs, which is what people do in a family. What Walt is worried about is that if he goes before Norma, she would not be able to afford and maintain their house, she would not be able to have space for that granddaughter and that whole family who need the support and care, and everything would start to fall apart. That is unfair, and Walt feels bad. It is shocking to me that we are in a situation where Canada is literally making people feel guilty for finding love after 60.
I want to do a special shout-out to Madelyn, an amazing woman who lives very close here in Ottawa. She got a hold of me to talk about the fact that she has survived a beautiful person, Roger, who served our country, and things are tough for her. Madelyn, with tremendous grace and dignity, is addressing her day-to-day issues with as much dignity as she can, but she is struggling because she will not receive a survivor's benefit after Roger's passing. She was one of the women who called me and said, “Rachel, I promise you, I'm not a gold digger.” Then she said Roger was a lot of work sometimes at the end. It was a lot of work for her, but she would have done it again, even if it was hard and frustrating, because she loved him.
I did the responsible thing and I said, “Okay, let us ask the PBO to do a bit of a report on this and how much it would cost.” There is no doubt it would be a change, but here is the thing that people have to understand: The increase to the actual payments that people are making today would be minuscule. I look at this place and I look at the fact that this government promised in 2019, in the budget, $150 million to help out these women, largely. About 97% of survivors are women.
Some of these women are struggling financially every day. Since 2019, there has been money in the coffers put aside specifically to support these women that has not moved forward. The only thing the government paid for was some research done during COVID, but it was legitimate research and it was very clear that we need to make this right and help these women out, so here we are.
Is there not a way for the government to figure out how to use that $150 million to get these women a little money and, while it is doing that, to figure out, on the other end, how much the government can start getting paid into this system to make sure that in the future, survivors are covered after 60? This is not rocket science. This is about accepting and understanding that specific people are struggling in our country because we have an unfair rule that was made in 1901 and we have never, ever fixed it. It is something the current government committed to doing. It was put in two different letters to the Minister of Veterans Affairs that said to make it right and fix it, and then it disappeared.
Everywhere I go, I am surprised. A couple of years ago, I was in Campbell River at a fundraiser, talking to people, and this gentleman came up to me and said, “Thank you for fighting on the gold digger clause. I am that person. I am 61, I am dating, but I feel uncomfortable that if I actually find someone I want to marry, I am going to have to explain to them that there will not be anything for them.” That is startling.
This summer, I went to New Brunswick, and when I was there, several people contacted me. They had heard me and knew I was coming, and they met with me just to talk specifically about this issue. I remember sitting at a restaurant when I was there and I met a lovely couple who were married. He was older than 60 when they got married, and she has a pension. If she goes first, he gets her pension, her survivor's benefits, but if he goes first, he cannot return the favour. I think that is shocking and very concerning. It does something that I think all of us should care about: It makes senior women poorer in this country.
We know for a fact that the poorest seniors in Canada are women, and here we see this cycle continue. We are penalizing women for their caregiving duties, not acknowledging them, not accepting the tremendous amount of support and free labour that they do, and we take away their survivor's benefit. It is absolutely shocking. I think of Elva in my riding. Her husband was a World War II veteran. She is my constituent and I appreciate her service to our country through loving her husband, and she needs that survivor's benefit.
I also want to point out that the following organizations are in favour of eliminating the clause: the RCMP Veterans' Association, the Royal Canadian Legion, the National Association of Federal Retirees, the National Council of Veteran Associations and the Armed Forces Pensioners'/Annuitants' Association. These are important organizations that have all come behind it and said, “Yes, this is something we need to make right.” We need to stop punishing veterans and their loved ones for finding love later in life. We have to stop it. They deserve better. They served our country and we need to do better by them.
Again, if the government were to eliminate the clause, the additional cost to the pension fund would be less than a 2% change on an annual basis. I know that sometimes we really have to think about money, and I appreciate that. I come from a long line of people who were struggling financially, and I come from the non-profit sector. We did everything we could to spread everything as far as we could, and we really had to pinch our pennies and take care. I appreciate that, but I think there is a cost associated with this, and that cost is leaving women who care for the people who served our country in poverty and with the burden of financial insecurity. This does not address that issue. If we are a country that is about fairness, about respecting those who served us, then we have to make sure that a survivor's benefit is there, that veterans get the care they need and so do their loved ones.
In conclusion, in Canada we should not be punishing veterans for finding love later in life. We should not be punishing them and we should not be punishing their whole families by not providing a survivor's benefit.
