We have to resume debate.
The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.
House of Commons Hansard #388 of the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was pension.
House of Commons Hansard #388 of the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was pension.
Veterans AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes
We have to resume debate.
The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Madam Speaker, as always, it is an honour to rise and talk about the important issues facing Canadians.
Before I get into the substance of my speech, let me first thank, on behalf of the people of Battle River—Crowfoot, and, because I represent a military base, camp Wainwright, the thousands of serving men and women who don our nation's uniform and do the hard work that is required to keep our nation safe. In spite of the challenges we face, these dedicated men and women are absolutely an incredible example of what it is to be the best of our country. Along with that, because of having a military base in Wainwright and the small towns and communities that surround it, there are many veterans whom I have the honour to represent.
As we go into the Christmas season, especially at a time when often emotions run high, and times can be difficult, whether because of economic circumstances or emotional circumstances for those who have faced loss, let me start by thanking the men and women who have served and who are currently serving our nation. All those veterans and servicemen and servicewomen are the best of what our country is.
We are here talking about an interesting subject, which reminds of the early months when I was first elected. I heard from a veteran, Tom, who shared a bit of his story with me. He reached out to my office before COVID, which seems like a long time ago. As a newly elected MP, I heard from Tom and he described a little bit about himself. He was a technician in the armed forces. He had served in a number of overseas deployments, had retired and was now doing contract work with DND. However, he had spent much of his life, as is the story of so many who have served our country, travelling and did not call any one place home for very long. He had just settled down in a small town in rural Alberta, which is, of course, the greatest place on the planet. After getting settled there, he bought his first house, which he was very proud of. He then found love and got married, but much to his surprise when wanting to make sure that his wife was taken care of, while updating the pension documents and associated paperwork, he learned about this clause that would eliminate the ability of his spouse to be entitled to his pension. If memory serves correctly, he was just over the age of 60, and so had just fallen out of the qualification range. He was now having to make difficult decisions in terms of long-term planning for his family, because of the implications of this clause.
I remember very specifically the grace with which his request was made, as Tom explained that he wanted to see that this was fixed so that others did not have to go through what he went through. I would highlight that while this was part of the mandate of, I believe, two or three consecutive ministers of Veterans Affairs, there were some proposed changes, which were clarifying changes that did not actually fix the substance of the issue, but clarified some of the rules around marriage versus common-law in the superannuation acts affected. However, this is still a concern that many veterans have to face.
We deal with this on other public policy issues, such as CPP, OAS and other seniors' benefits. At the time when many of these things were brought into effect, the average life expectancy of Canadians was significantly lower than it is today. As a result, the calculations associated with these programs were based on a life expectancy that was generally much lower. Thankfully, because of advancements in health and whatnot, we see that the average life expectancy now of men and women in Canada is pushing 80, and I believe for women it is a little above 80, which is good news for Canadians, but it has also changed the way that many of these things are calculated. The context in which that happens has in fact changed.
In 1901, this policy was brought forward. Circumstances were very different in terms of what an average Canadian family life would look like. We couple all of those things together and now we have individuals who are simply falling through the cracks.
Let me highlight how important it is that we honour and respect our veterans because they are putting their lives on hold. It is not that they get into the military. I do not know that I have ever heard of a military serviceman or servicewoman who gets into the military because they want to serve for the pay. They get into it because they want to serve our country; they want to do what is best for our country. I am proud to serve in a caucus with a number of veterans, and get to hear their perspectives, including the member for Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, who spent some time in military service. I think he does not boast enough about his time with the Snowbirds, the pride of the Air Force. Those incredible men and women put their lives on hold and not for financial gain. There is a sacred obligation that the government has to ensure that they are taken care of.
When it comes to what is really a technical issue of ensuring that family members are able to have peace and security, as life can be unpredictable, we need to ensure what should be predictable at a time when men and women face circumstances that so often are, by nature of their service, unpredictable, and the consequences that go along with that. I know about that very well from some of the things that happened in my own life last fall.
I would just highlight that this is, I believe, incumbent upon all of us. Camrose is the only city that I represent, a small city, about 18,000 people, where my main constituency office is. I remember John, who lives in Camrose. He was a veteran who was very outspoken and very stereotypical in terms of the demeanour we would expect from a military man. He had very strong opinions and was not afraid to share them with me. I knocked on his door in the 2019 election, again in the 2021 election, and we had great conversations. He pointed out to me, which I am highlighting again today in the House of Commons, the irony that an MP qualifies for a pension after six years, but that is certainly not what is afforded to our veterans, although they have put their lives on the line for our country.
I think that highlights how quite often there is a disconnect in the way we approach thinking about what public service is. We must do everything we can to ensure that our men and women who put their lives on the line are, in fact, given dignity and respect. It highlights how difficult it is for all Canadians, specifically those who are on fixed incomes, like those who are pensioners, and the fact that someone may have a pension that may increase by 2% or 3%, sometimes less, sometimes, if someone is fortunate, a little bit more than that, but yet their costs are significantly more than that.
I asked the parliamentary secretary earlier if he could explain to Canadians how celebrating the rate of inflation coming down does not actually mean cost savings. It is important to highlight that and just highlight another important aspect here, which is the help that veterans need.
I want to give a shout-out. During the first week of September, I had a great conversation with members of the Worthington branch of the Royal Canadian Legion in Wainwright, Alberta. That is home to camp Wainwright, one of the army's training facilities. I am very proud to represent that. I had a great conversation with the president of the legion and other representatives, including some veterans, who shared practical steps that the government could take and, in some cases, not even steps that would cost much in terms of the dollar amount, but just to help make sure that barriers are removed and that veterans are respected.
Something interesting came up which I will put on the record here, just as I wrap up my speech. We need to make sure that, when a veteran calls for help, it is a veteran who answers the phone. That seems to me like common sense. Sometimes when a veteran is facing a difficult circumstance, making sure they have somebody who answers the phone who is in fact a veteran would give them the calming security they need and help to ensure they get the response that they need.
When it comes to the important issue of this particular clause and the larger issues surrounding veterans, I am glad to have had the chance to intervene today.
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Madam Speaker, for all the rhetoric and melodrama that we have been exposed to today by Conservatives about their support for veterans, can the member explain to Canadians why two nights ago he and all of his colleagues voted against $900 million worth of supports for veterans?
Before he goes on about it being a budget bill, that Conservatives are opposed to budget bills by default and they will always vote against them because they vote against the government, I will say that it would have been very simple for the member to ask for the items related to Veterans Affairs to be removed from the vote and voted on separately. It would have been possible for him to have just voted on the $900 million for veterans and voted against everything else.
Can the member tell us why he voted against the $900 million worth of supports to veterans only two nights ago?
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Madam Speaker, Canadians do not have confidence in the government and the Prime Minister. Conservatives are ensuring that when it comes to matters of confidence, of which, if that member is not aware, every spending bill is a matter of confidence, it is time for a change. It is time for a carbon tax election because Canadians do not trust the Prime Minister, the government and the member.
Conservatives are taking a stand to make sure that the perspective of Canadians is increasingly being made known. I know that for a fact because people in Kingston are reaching out to us and sharing that exact opinion. They are tired of the member, they are tired of the government, and it is time for change. That is what Conservatives are offering.
Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC
Madam Speaker, in his speech, my colleague spoke about the fact that seniors on a pension are on a fixed income that has not kept up with the rise in inflation over the years. We should review how pensions are indexed. That might be a solution.
The Bloc Québécois also introduced the bill because this is not right. There is something unfair in the fact that a 68-year-old senior does not receive the same amount as a 78-year-old senior. I hope that my colleague's party will continue to support Bill C‑379.
Lastly, the clause for surviving pensioners who marry after age 60 makes no sense either. It is high time that we show respect for retirees. There are simple measures we can adopt.
What does my colleague think about repealing this clause as soon as possible? It shows that this morning's debate is important and useful.
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Madam Speaker, it was the now Leader of the Opposition, at a time when spending was spiralling out of control and hundreds of billions of dollars of cash were being injected into the economy, who very clearly articulated the consequences of that would be the inflationary situation we find ourselves in today and the long-term impacts we will have, even as the target inflation increases come into what the Bank of Canada considers a target zone.
What is an indisputable fact is that the Prime Minister and the Liberals, supported by the NDP, have made life unaffordable for all seniors. The consequences of that have a devastating impact on Canadians' ability to make ends meet, to afford the food, heat and fuel they need in order to survive. It is the Liberals who are taking away the Canadian promise that, not so long ago, Canadians could count on.
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Madam Speaker, I was quite shocked by the member for Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan's intervention. I want to give the hon. member the opportunity to reflect on what was asked and, hopefully, with integrity, he will honestly answer the question.
Between 2006 and 2012, the government rejected more than 20,000 applications to veterans' funeral and burial expenses, more than two-thirds of all requests, forcing veterans to file a costly $34-million class action lawsuit that took them six years to get the benefits they were owed. Would the member not acknowledge that was inappropriate and certainly not supportive of veterans in their most dire time of need?
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Madam Speaker, I am proud to represent, as I mentioned before, camp Wainwright, many active servicemen and servicewomen and veterans. On Remembrance Day, I stopped by the Drumheller legion and had some great conversations. Veterans want us to make sure we are removing the barriers that exist currently, especially the bureaucratic barriers, to ensure they get the benefits they deserve.
In my final words, in case I do not have an opportunity to rise again, I wish a very merry Christmas to the Speaker and everyone in this place. Because we are talking about veterans, I wish a very merry Christmas to our past and present serving men and women in uniform.
Luc Desilets Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Madam Speaker, we are debating the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs entitled “Survivor Retirement Pension Benefits (Marriage After 60)”.
This is a complex issue. In October and November 2022, the committee met three times for a total of six hours and heard 19 witnesses. I am going to dive right back in there. I learned only an hour ago that I was supposed to speak about this. I will do my best, but I repeat that it is a complex issue.
We cannot say that it is all the government's fault, but we also cannot say that it is all the veterans' fault. Still, there is work to be done. To set the stage and understand the issues at stake, I would like to start by presenting six factors as something of an appetizer.
Most pension plans, regardless of whether they are public or private, contain clauses that guarantee benefits for the beneficiary's surviving spouse or children should the beneficiary die. That is standard practice. The terms of these clauses can vary greatly, but they almost always involve a clear distinction between the individual who was still paying into the plan at the time of their death and the beneficiary who may be entitled to benefits. Let us start with that.
There is another very important factor. If the individual was retired at the time of death and was already receiving pension benefits, most pension plans will consider their spouse eligible for a survivor's benefit if, and only if, they were already the beneficiary's spouse before the beneficiary retired. That is the crux of it.
In other words, if a beneficiary enters a new relationship, a new union, after having started receiving pension benefits, the beneficiary's spouse is not eligible for a survivor's benefit if the beneficiary dies. That is the long and short of it. We at the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs inherited this file.
In the case of Canadian Armed Forces retirees, spouses are also excluded from the survivor benefit if they began their relationship after the member began drawing pension benefits. However, there is an exclusion clause in the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act that does not apply when the member begins drawing benefits, but instead when they turn 60.
Sixty is the mandatory age of retirement in the CAF. In other words, if a military member begins receiving pension benefits at 55, the exclusion clause does not apply immediately. If the retiree marries or remarries before reaching 60 years of age, the retiree's spouse would be eligible for survivor benefits. This is the important part.
The act contains a clause entitled “Marriage after sixty years of age”. Apparently, this is a common occurrence. I cannot wait until I am 60 so I can get married again. Oh wait, I forgot, I have never been married. The “marriage after 60” clause, named after the title of subsection 31(1) of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, has been frequently criticized in recent years. In the 1990s, the courts ruled that this “marriage after 60” clause was not discriminatory.
That is a problem too, and it may raise some issues. The courts ruled “that the clause was not discriminatory, or if it was, the resulting exclusion was based on reasonable grounds.” That is the context.
In the Minister of Veterans Affairs' and Associate Minister of National Defence's 2015 and 2017 mandate letters, the Government of Canada made eliminating the “marriage after 60” clawback clause an absolute priority “so that surviving spouses of veterans receive appropriate pension and health benefits.”
The first problem is that it did not happen. It was in the minister's mandate letter, but it did not happen.
The government subsequently abandoned the legislative approach [which we might say was the ideal approach] and did not eliminate the “clawback clause.” In Budget 2019, it instead announced the creation of a Veterans Survivors Fund:
To better support veterans who married over the age of 60 and their spouses, Budget 2019 announces a new Veterans Survivors Fund committing $150 million over 5 years starting in 2019–20 to Veterans Affairs Canada. With these funds, the Government will work with the community to identify impacted survivors, process their claims and ensure survivors have the [adequate] financial support they need.
With all that said, we can see that there are some huge challenges, such as gender equity, equity between veterans and the general public, and equity between benefit plans. Another challenge concerns the fact that 80% of veterans or military personnel who leave the forces are men, and 20% are women. Obviously, this has huge financial implications. If 80% of veterans or military personnel who leave the forces are men, it means that 80% of the spouses of these veterans or military personnel are women who may not inherit or receive an adequate pension. The amounts involved are huge.
The transfer in question is not easy. This is not how things usually work in the public service, which is relatively gender equal. Obviously, this issue is extremely important.
What impact does this have? If the military pension plan were to be harmonized with the public service pension plan, the financial impact would be enormous. A brief assessment from two or three years ago mentioned the figure of $1 billion. This means it would cost $1 billion just to put the plans on an equal footing. In fact, it would have an even greater impact.
If the government were to do that, which we all want it to do because we want everyone to be treated properly, it would also have to renegotiate the collective agreements for 400,000 public servants. We cannot use legislation to equalize, adjust or change plans without anticipating that other public servants might react. They are going to put their hand up and say that they, too, deserve it. A few things will then need to be reviewed and adjusted.
Clearly there is quite a confrontation or discussion ahead for the government and the unions. Despite the fact that it was in the mandate letters, the government then considered the possibility of injecting the tidy sum of $150 million over three years to try to compensate. It did it. It provided the money. The problem is how that money is used.
This brings me to the first recommendation of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs:
That the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence work with the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Public Safety to issue a declaration that gives a definitive answer to which department is responsible for survivor pension benefits of Veterans.
As always, when the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs submits recommendations, we receive responses from the government that are practically always favourable. The Government of Canada agrees with this recommendation. Generally, it is the implementation of these recommendations that creates little problems.
This leads me to another recommendation that the committee made:
That the Government of Canada immediately table a document explaining in detail the reasons for creating and maintaining clauses denying survivors' pensions when the relationship began after the pensioner reached age 60....
Two years later, we are still waiting for an answer, a follow-up or potential solutions. In its usual gracious manner, the government responded to the committee's recommendation by saying that it agreed and by explaining the reasons for these provisions. It spent a whole page explaining why it agrees. The problem is not whether it agrees or not. If a solution is being considered, we just want to see it put in place as quickly as possible.
The following recommendation is also very interesting:
That the Department of National Defence and the Department of Public Safety take vigorous action to ensure that members of the Canadian Armed Forces and of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have all the necessary information about their pension plan, and have access to financial advice to make the most informed financial decisions before they retire.
I really like the word “vigorous” in this recommendation. I mention this recommendation because it implies that the retiring member should be advised by someone. There are people in the government who are capable of advising the member. That is not a problem. However, this involves a level of financial planning that mere mortals and military members may not be used to doing. They were deployed, and usually there were people at home who took care of their affairs. They were off doing their job. Significant planning needs to be done. The department is essentially saying that military members should think about putting money aside while they are still serving in combat roles or elsewhere.
Earlier I was talking about the $150 million that the government injected. In theory, that is great. However, when the military member leaves the Canadian Armed Forces, they may not be in the best mental state to ask for help. Many of them end up with post-traumatic stress. Returning to civilian life is not easy. When a person has worn the uniform for 10, 15 or 20 years and has to get dressed the morning after leaving the Canadian Armed Forces, they do not know what to put on. They do not know how to dress themselves. They do not know how to function outside of this society that was regulated to the nth degree. It sounds silly, but that is how it is.
Nevertheless, they are being asked to do that before they leave the armed forces. They are being asked to come up with a financial plan. If not, there is the $150 million provided by the government. That is great. The services are there. That is not the problem with Veterans Affairs Canada. The problem is accessing them. The veterans must not have it done for them. Rather, they must be referred to the appropriate resources, in this case the necessary financial resources, that could make up for it, because this $150 million could be used to enhance or adjust the spouse's pension plan.
Now we are getting into the technical details. I taught plenty of university courses in more than one faculty for 10 or 11 years, and I am pretty good with money matters. However, when we had to look closely at this report, at the implications and the figures, it was a complex affair. When we got to the $150 million and saw that they had access to it, I wondered how I would have reacted. Where would I have gone for help? There is a door I have to knock on, but what do I ask for? That is evidently still a problem for our veterans. The fact that they do not find it easy to ask for help needs to be taken into account. A veteran is a hero, someone who fought for their country, someone who theoretically does not necessarily need help. It is someone who thinks and says they are independent. Just asking for help, in a case like the one we are looking at today, does not come easily.
In addition to all the inherent problems, we have a Liberal government with two departments, the Department of National Defence and Veterans Affairs Canada, that do not talk to each other, that operate in a vacuum. When a military member leaves the military and becomes a veteran, they cross over into another silo, another zone. The fact that the two departments do not communicate obviously creates problems, including those in the case we are discussing today, the survivor's pension.
As I said earlier, yes, they can get help. There are 32 Canadian Armed Forces transition centres. When a member leaves the armed forces, they are entitled to a few hours of training to prepare them for what comes next. Once again, however, they may not be in the best mindset to be making decisions, to be listening, to be seeking help. However, there are people there. There are 32 centres that are there to help.
In conclusion, I would just like to tie this issue in with the Bloc Québécois's request to increase the pensions of seniors between the ages of 65 and 74. Most, if not all, of the people involved in the case we are discussing today fall squarely in that camp. The Bloc Québécois wants a 10% increase because we calculate, based on the figures we have, that this segment of the population needs more financial assistance than anyone else. That is our position, and the government is aware of it. The connection I am making is that we are talking about survivors, pensions at age 60, and so on. Once again, it is seniors who are bearing the brunt of the failures in our system. It is always easy for the Liberal government to target people in this age group, because they probably are not going to take to the streets with signs.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker, I do not know the answer to this question, and that is why I want to ask this specific question in regard to the province of Quebec. The member made reference to the federal civil service, and I made reference to that earlier too, with the RCMP, and having survivor benefits and how that should also be taken into consideration in regard to our civil service and the RCMP.
Can the member provide his thoughts in regard to, let us say, first responders in the province of Quebec or the Quebec civil service? Is he aware of what sorts of survivor benefits there would be in situations of that nature?
Luc Desilets Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Madam Speaker, we are talking about 400,000 public servants who are affected or who could be indirectly affected. I was saying that, if the government were to go along with the requests for adjustments, then collective agreements would have to be reviewed. As for how things work in Quebec, that is a different story. We are talking about federal benefits here.
That would be my answer.
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
Madam Speaker, I would like to sincerely thank my colleague from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles for clearly defining the problems that veterans face when they leave the military and return to civilian life. I especially appreciated his tribute to those who have worn the uniform. He gave a great description of the reality of being out of uniform. For people like us, who have never served in the military, a return to civilian life seems perfectly normal, but that is not the case. There are hundreds of military members and veterans in my riding, and I am prepared to attest to that.
My colleague clearly established that there are many aspects to this debate. Is there a specific recommendation that he would like the government to implement?
Since partisan politics have no place in a debate like this, what is the first step that any government should take to improve the transition from military to civilian life?
Luc Desilets Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Madam Speaker, my colleague usually has some very brilliant questions.
For me, the number one recommendation has to do with support and assistance for members leaving the armed forces. We deal with this regularly in our constituency offices. Programs exist, but they are not necessarily sufficient or adapted. We understand that; it is all part of a big machine. However, help and support should be facilitated. Once again, veterans defended our values and our democracy. We owe them so much, even though they are no longer in the military, just as we owe seniors so much.
I recently stood by a soldier who was on a hunger strike. He says he went from “hero to zero”. He is asking for help, but he does not know how to ask for it. He needs someone to support him when he asks for help. I would say that it is often this type of thing, no matter which government is in power.
We do not forget veterans, but we do not think about them very often.
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Madam Speaker, I think that today we all agree on the wording of the motion.
It must be said that the federal government has not always treated veterans with respect. I am mostly talking about the Harper years, when the Conservatives ran roughshod over all services for veterans. They even denied them the right to have their disability recognized. They denied 20,000 veterans a funeral. It was appalling. So far, the member for Carleton has never apologized for how shamefully veterans were treated for years.
Does my colleague agree that the Conservatives owe a heartfelt apology to all the veterans they mistreated during the years of the Harper regime?
Otherwise, what should Canadians take away from their refusal to apologize to veterans?
Luc Desilets Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Madam Speaker, I see that my colleague wants to take this in a more political direction. Some might say that is why we are here.
Yes, the Conservative Party can certainly be criticized for some things, including the cuts it made, but it also did some positive things. Personally, I am more interested in finding solutions. Anyone can hit others when they are already down. They can hit, ask and demand, but I prefer to compromise and come up with solutions that work for everybody. Talking about parties and cuts and all that is not the solution. The solution is about human beings. People are at the heart of this issue. We must ask ourselves how we can respond appropriately, no matter which party is in power. With our parties, our platforms and our agendas, we all have our own way of responding to these issues. Again, as I said in my previous answer, I think we have to remember the human aspect. Veterans Affairs is one of the few departments that deal with human beings.
People should be at the heart of everything, and we should take much better care of them than we do, regardless of the party in power.
Alex Ruff Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Madam Speaker, I have two quick questions and a brief commentary. First off, during the study, did the committee look at the fact that the prescribed age of retirement of 60 is really no longer relevant? Just recently, at Remembrance Day, I met two serving members in my own neck of the woods. One just completed basic training at 54. Another one is serving at 58 and still continues to serve and is able to serve past 60, because the military is doing that now.
Secondly, the member talked about post-traumatic stress, its impact and how it does not necessarily happen right away. It can happen decades later. The fact of the matter is that, within the military, the rate of divorce unfortunately is a lot higher than even in civil society. That is an impact that this specific clause and issue faces.
As for my brief commentary, as someone who is only 50, who did serve and who may be lucky enough to find that special someone after 60, it really scares me, to some extent, to think that this future loved one may be left in the dust if we do not fix this.
I would just like the member's feedback on that.
Luc Desilets Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Madam Speaker, I absolutely love the member who just asked me a question. I had the opportunity to serve with him on a memorable mission. I was afraid of him before the mission, but he has since become a friend.
His first question is about the 60-year age limit, and it is a good one. People can join the army at 17 or 18. They might stay in for 10 years or they might have a very long career. I understand that we have to pick a number and set a limit, because there has to be a starting point and an end point. Right now, the age limit is 60. Yes, that is something the committee considered.
Honestly, I do not know what the ideal solution is. This whole issue involves very serious actuarial data. People can enlist in the army when they are young or when they are older. Age 60 is the limit. Personally, I do not think that is all that great. We might change that when I am the minister. Just kidding. Age is indeed a challenge in this file.
As far as PTSD is concerned, my colleague is absolutely right. I do not think many military personnel leave the forces and are diagnosed with PTSD right away. It can happen five, 10, 15 or 20 years later. I have a good friend in my riding who served in Afghanistan, but it was only about two years ago that things really started falling apart for him and he was diagnosed. If there had been adequate follow-up and support when he left the armed forces, he might not be suffering from PTSD today, as such a high percentage of military personnel are. As I said, early support and prevention are key.
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time today with the incredible member for New Westminster—Burnaby.
I am quite honoured to be able to stand and speak to this debate today. I am very grateful to the member for North Island—Powell River for bringing this forward to the floor of the House of Commons. I have been listening to today's debate very carefully. It is something that all parties clearly feel there needs to be action on. We have seen, of course, that action has not been taken by the current administration or the administration prior. There is a clear indication that this piece of our legislation is deeply wrong.
I am a proud advocate for the well-being of Canadians and a strong supporter of our veterans. I am here today to talk about the provision within veterans' pensions that some call the gold digger clause. I am deeply grateful that we have the opportunity to have this debate, because what has been happening for far too long is that this piece of policy, this piece of how we deal with veterans, is cruel. It is unjust, and for too many veterans and too many veterans' families, it means financial insecurity, unfair restrictions and unnecessary hardship.
To give a bit of a sense of what the gold digger clause is, in Canada, this refers to the rule that denies spousal benefits to any surviving spouse who marries a veteran after the veteran turns 60. This provision applies to all veterans, but it is extraordinarily discriminatory. It assumes that there is an ulterior motive for marriage, that those marriages are not based on love or partnership and that they are not genuine marriages. This is an absolutely appalling thing to say to our veterans. It punishes honest, committed relationships. It disregards the rights and dignity of both veterans and their partners.
Obviously, this is very misogynistic as well, when we consider that this has a disproportionate impact on the group of seniors who are women. These seniors are already among the most vulnerable and discriminated against, those who will already find life more unaffordable. This is one more way we are making lives more difficult for women seniors. This is appalling, and it needs to be fixed as quickly as possible.
This discriminatory and outdated policy has real and harmful impacts. Many veterans remarry later in life. We have heard about that from many of our colleagues today in the House. They are seeking love and companionship after years of service, but their spouses are denied that financial support simply because of an outdated and old rule. It is not about protecting pensions from exploitation; it is about denying help to families who need it.
The reality is that many of these spouses dedicate their lives to caring for veterans. Often making personal sacrifices along the way, they act as caregivers, as advocates and as companions. When the veteran passes away, the surviving spouse is left without the pension benefits they need to maintain their livelihood. This is obviously a situation that is unjust and needs to be avoided.
I want to tell a personal story. My grandfather was a veteran. His name was Albert, or Bert, McCoy. He was a gunner in the Second World War. I have told this story in the House before. He was shot down over Belgium. He lived in the underground for two years. It took two years for him to come back to my mother and to my grandmother. Sadly, my grandmother passed away, and my grandfather remarried Dorothy later in life. At the end of his life, my grandfather had dementia. He had a number of health issues. He was in his late eighties when he passed away. Dorothy cared for him and provided the love, companionship and care my grandfather deserved.
When I think of the legislation, I do not just think about random policies we need to fix. I think about my grandfather. At the end of his days, as he was suffering from dementia, as he was reliving those moments that he had spent during the war, it was Dorothy who cared for him. She made sure he was loved, and he was given that companionship. To say that any veteran's partner who cared for them does not deserve those benefits, does not deserve to be supported, is really something we should all be deeply ashamed of.
Canadian veterans have made incredible sacrifices for our country. They have served in peacekeeping missions, defended our values abroad and responded to domestic crises. They are Canadian workers. They deserve the utmost respect. Of all workers, they are the ones who have sacrificed the most for this country, for us; however, the gold digger clause sends the message that we do not trust their personal decisions, do not value their loved ones and do not value their families. This is not the Canada I know. Canadians believe in fairness, in dignity and in compassion. We understand the importance of standing with those who have supported us.
Therefore, we need to look at the report we are discussing today. We need to look at what needs to be changed to deal with this outdated and discriminatory rule and to stop this. We need to modernize the policy so that it supports veterans and their loved ones rather than penalizing them. In this report, we have nine recommendations that were brought forward; the government could act on them right now. In fact, the member for North Island—Powell River brought forward two additional recommendations, which I would encourage the government to follow. I am just going to read these two: “That the Government of Canada eliminate the ‘marriage after 60’ clause from all pension legislation, immediately” and “That Veterans Affairs Canada distribute the Veterans Survivors Fund to the identified survivors, immediately.” It says “immediately”.
We have heard in the House today from many people that this is something that has been going on for far too long; this is something that has not been fixed by the current Liberal government and was not fixed by the Conservative government before it. This is an opportunity for the current Parliament to do the right thing and to actually adopt these recommendations, including the two recommendations from the New Democratic Party, and fix this problem.
In closing, I will just say that our veterans and their families have given so much to our country. They have earned more than just our thanks. They have earned policies that support them through every stage of their life. The gold digger clause does not align with Canadian values, and it is time we changed it. Let us work together to build a system that truly supports our veterans and their families, a system that is based on fairness, justice, compassion and respect.
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Madam Speaker, if the whip is listening, I intend to vote for this, so they can just put that on the record right now.
However, the whole gold digger clause represents an attitude toward women that was just back in the dinosaur age. We now have very capable women serving in the armed forces who may remarry some gold digger guy in the future. Could the hon. member reflect on the fact that maybe the tables are turning and that this is all about equity?
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out to the member that, while he has mentioned the whip, I am not his whip. I hope he is not informing me that he will be voting for the legislation.
It does not matter who is the veteran and who is the spouse. What matters is that there is a principle of equity, a principle of justice; it is the idea of doing the right thing. I certainly would not hope that we are making decisions as a tit-for-tat scenario. I do not think that is what the member meant, but we need to look at the very basic principles of what is just, what is fair and what shows respect for our veterans. What we have right now does not do so, and we should fix that.
John Brassard Conservative Barrie—Innisfil, ON
Mr. Speaker, I will note that, in the committee's report, many of the recommendations were vague. I would classify the government's response to it as more vague. There is a clause that dates back to early military history when, in fact, perhaps there was some abuse; however, any society evolves, as ours has here in Canada. I believe that there is a fundamental right of people who marry military members to be granted this type of coverage as a result not only of the member's service but also of the caregiving. I think the member agrees with that, but that was my comment.
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Speaker, as my colleague correctly says, this is a watered-down report. That is why the New Democrats put two much stronger recommendations in the supplementary report that the member for North Island—Powell River brought forward.
This could and should stop immediately; there is that possibility, and the government has the ability to do that. I cannot help but note that the member, as a member of the Conservative Party, also had that opportunity. Instead, the Conservatives cut supports for veterans. That becomes a bit of a problem when we have the government of the day failing to take the steps necessary to fix the legislation and when previous governments, when they had that opportunity, also failed to take those steps.
The member made an excellent point in that veterans have waited long enough. It is time to fix this.
Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné Bloc Terrebonne, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for such an interesting speech. She often talks about the more human aspect of the many reports made to the House of Commons. It is important we remember that at every opportunity.
I want to take the liberty of circling back to what my colleague spoke about earlier. There is one thing I have noticed in a number of committees, and I wonder if it is particularly true of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. The recommendations are a little vague and, in turn, they receive a very vague response from the government. In the end, the recommendations are accepted, but there is no follow-up afterwards.
Why is the government not taking action, not thinking about the human aspect of all this? I would like to hear my colleague's comments on that.
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question. I am sorry I cannot answer in French, but this is a difficult subject for me.
I thank the member for acknowledging that we try to bring a human lens to the work we do.
The government has the ability to make these changes. As I read from the report, there are two concrete things that New Democrats think need to happen, and I think the member would agree that they could happen immediately. The Government of Canada could eliminate the marriage after 60 clause from all pension legislation, and Veterans Affairs Canada could distribute the veterans survivors fund to the identified survivors. It is the “immediately” piece here.
I agree with her: It is frustrating when we come to this place, and there is a bit of a thoughts and prayers mentality, with people saying, “Shoot, I sure wish that we could get something done here. Shoot, let's do another study and a round table and maybe have a consultation.”
We can do it now, so let us do it now.
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Edmonton Strathcona for her very important speech on this day when we are honouring Canada's veterans. We will forever be indebted to our veterans.
I also want to thank my colleague from North Island—Powell River for presenting this report and I want to thank her for working hard to ensure that veterans can enjoy these important rights that should be a given. I think there is consensus on the fact that veterans must get their due. It makes no sense that still today, and after decades, veterans' pensions are not paid to their spouses under the pretext that they marry latter in life.
An NDP government will not hesitate to rectify that immediately. One of our priorities when we form government will certainly be to resolve this issue. This issue is so easy to resolve that the government promised to do so years ago. However, it chose not to do it. The fact is that it is very easy to do.
The Liberals are not the only ones who failed in their duty to enhance veterans' right to respect and a well-deserved retirement. In 2006, with the Harper government newly in power, the NDP got a motion adopted unanimously in Parliament. However, the Harper government never implemented our proposal. I will have more to say about that later.
The fact is, neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals truly respected veterans' rights. I believe that only an NDP government would do so.
I come from a community that is deeply respectful of our nation's veterans. New Westminster and Burnaby, British Columbia, the two cities I am proud to represent in the House of Commons, have a deep and ongoing engagement with our nation's veterans. The Royal Westminster Regiment is based in New Westminster and the armoury is often the site where we pay respect to our nation's veterans. Legion branch 83 in Burnaby and Legion branch 2 in New Westminster are both organizations that provide remarkable service to the community but are also focal points for respecting our nation's veterans.
Before the city hall in downtown New Westminster sits the cenotaph, where we commemorate those who gave their lives for our country. The names of my grandfather and my uncle are on that cenotaph. Everyone in the community pays respect; in fact, on Remembrance Day this year, thousands of people turned out in New Westminster and in Burnaby to pay respect to our nation's veterans.
There is this gold digger clause, even though Parliament passed a motion in 2006, as the Harper Conservative government was just coming into power; the Harper government refused to implement it and did much worse things. I will come back to that in just a moment. Subsequent to that, we had a new government, a Liberal government, and it does the same thing. It ignores the needs of veterans and discriminates against the spouses of veterans. To our mind, in the NDP corner of the House, we believe it is simply profoundly disrespectful to our nation's veterans.
This is something that should be done today. It could be done today, yet the government has delayed for nine years. The previous government delayed for nine years. It shows a remarkable and profound disrespect for our nation's veterans. This can be done, and as my colleague from North Island—Powell River pointed out, these are real people who are impacted. She mentioned, in a supplementary opinion to the report we are debating today, the case of Walt and Norma Pinsent. She mentioned as well the case of Corporal Kevin Sewell and his spouse, Tracy Evanshen, and what it means, in terms of their lives, that the pensions are denied.
Despite their finding love later in life, there is profound discrimination by the federal government toward veterans who have put their lives on the line for their country, some coming back with severe disabilities or a whole range of challenges. Coming from a family whose family members went overseas, I can tell members about the kind of impact being in service can entail. It is profoundly sad to me that we are not immediately moving to honour our nation's veterans.
A number of Conservatives have stood up today, and I want to come back to the Conservative record on veterans. The Liberals have been restoring some of the damage that was committed during the Harper regime, but I was here in the House. As so many veterans have indicated, because of the discrimination by the Harper regime, the former Conservative government has lost any moral authority forever with respect to the stewardship of our nation's veterans. The Conservatives should never, ever again, in the history of our country, be put in charge of Veterans Affairs because what they did was absolutely reprehensible. It is unbelievable to me how that party pretends, as the member for Carleton often does, and pays lip service to honouring our nation's veterans. What they did was profoundly despicable, was disrespectful and should never be forgotten.
I want to take a few minutes to go through the litany of the tragic and horrible things the Harper Conservatives did. The member for Carleton has never apologized for a single one of these things.
It was not just slashing services at Veterans Affairs, cutting about a quarter of the services and staff available to veterans. The Harper Conservatives often forced veterans to travel for days across provinces as they closed offices across the country. In the interior of British Columbia, northern Ontario and western Newfoundland, veterans services were no longer available. It was absolutely reprehensible that they would do this.
They denied funerals. The scale is unbelievable: 20,000 applications for veterans' funerals and burials were rejected under the Harper Conservatives. The reality is that if we, as a country, cannot pay tribute to our nation's veterans at the time of their passing, then how can any member of Parliament stand in the House and say they respect our nation's veterans? This is what the Conservatives did systematically, not over one, two, three or four years, but for more than half a decade. They systematically denied tens of thousands of proper burials and funerals for our nation's veterans.
Not a single Conservative has ever stood in the House to say they were sorry or to apologize to our veterans for the profound disrespect they showed in clawing back a billion dollars, denying services, slashing staff, closing offices and denying the legitimate disability claims that came in from our nation's veterans. Time after time, the Harper Conservatives denied those fundamental benefits. The most disrespectful period of time in our nation's history toward our nation's veterans was under the Harper Conservatives, yet since that abysmal period, not a single Conservative MP has ever apologized for it. The Conservatives have never said they were wrong, that they should not have denied funerals and disability claims, slashed offices and clawed back a billion dollars from veterans who needed those services desperately and given it to billionaires. Not a single Conservative has apologized. I hope they stand in the House today and solemnly apologize to our nation's veterans for all of the devastation they have wreaked upon veterans over those terrible years.