Rachel Blaney

[Veterans Affairs, December 16th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, the marriage-after-60 pension clause is dated, sexist and unfair. All parties agree it should be eliminated, but the Liberals have sat on their hands and let veterans and their spouses down. The Liberals' former deputy leader said it best: Canadians can tell when the government is focused on itself and not on real people. Failing to remove this clause proves it.

When will the Liberals stop labelling women as gold diggers and get rid of this archaic, sexist clause?

[Committees of the House, December 12th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I know the member has been working on this issue for a long time. The part that is so painful is meeting widows. Widows call me, earnestly promising me that they did not marry their partners just to get their pensions. That they perceive it that way, to me, is a great disservice to this country.

I think of Kevin and Tracy. Kevin served our country and continues to fight this. He is one of my best allies in this process. Not only is he working on this, but he helps so many veterans. Veterans and their spouses are committed to making sure that their stories and realities are heard. I listened to one spouse talk about when her husband came back from the war. He could not bear to hear the explosions in the kids' games and the whole family had to change when he was home again. The amount of work that caregivers provide is tremendous. We cannot dishonour the veterans who served our country, including RCMP veterans.

I think of Pat and Kelly. Pat is a retired corrections officer. They did work for us. We cannot punish them for finding love after 60 years of age when there are ways to fix it. I am really interested in having that discussion. I know it is not simple, but it needs to be fixed.

[Committees of the House, December 12th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her work. I was the seniors critic for the NDP for a lot of years and the unfairness that women seniors face is, quite frankly, shocking.

When I was elected in 2015, I remember knocking on my first door and a young woman answered who had two children. She told me child care was so expensive that she was making about $30 a week. She stopped working to care for her children, but she was worried about not paying into a pension and CPP and what that would mean for her when she got older.

When I think of senior women and this situation, I see this cycle of keeping women in a place where they are going to be impoverished, where they cannot rock the boat because they do not have financial security, and that worries me. Women are often the caregivers of their families. These are women who love these men and care for them no matter what, but we are punishing them. They should not be punished for loving someone.

I have been asked why I keep calling it the gold digger clause because that is not what it is called anymore. I use that language because that is the history of this, and the impact is still the same. Until the impact changes, I am going to keep saying “gold digger” because that is the right thing to do.

[Committees of the House, December 12th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I do not think there is one specifically in this particular case, but I think it outlines one of the things that we have studied repeatedly in the House, which is the free labour of caregivers. If we look at that quantification, we see again and again largely women caring for people and how much work they do.

I want to talk about what we heard repeatedly from veterans. I think of Bob and Sue, an RCMP veteran and his wife. He talked about that, saying that in the future he knew that she would be looking after him and how he felt crappy knowing that, when he was gone, she would not have any survivor's benefits to honour that labour. How do they ask for that? It is a really interesting idea of the difficulty this brings to a relationship, when veterans and their spouses have to talk about the fact that a veteran is asking their spouse to care for them and they will do their best to care for their spouse, but when the veteran is gone, they cannot leave them anything because of this law.

We hope that the government, which talks about being a feminist government, does a very good analysis of how this is actually incredibly sexist, as 97% of whom it impacts are women.

[Committees of the House, December 12th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, we asked the PBO to do that work, and that was the number I gave members. That was not just for veterans. That was not just for RCMP veterans. That was for everybody who is excluded after 60. It is a less than a 2% increase. I think it is the right thing to do. I think there could be an approach implemented so that the $150 million was used to get us to a place where other people would be included.

There could be a really targeted approach. I think it could be very thoughtful. Unfortunately, we are not seeing anybody willing to take that risk. When we know that there has been $150 million waiting and not one survivor has received a cent, I mean, that is shocking to me. We need to make that right, and that should be done immediately.

[Committees of the House, December 12th, 2024]

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.

[Canada Post Postal Workers, December 9th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I stand with all postal workers across Canada and in my riding of North Island—Powell River. Can members imagine being paid so little that they could not afford the very basics for living while their bosses were making hundreds of thousands of dollars every year? Why is it that management feels comfortable padding its pockets and then points the blame at those who strike? They are people brave enough to put themselves in a place where they are not getting paid, and they have now lost their benefits. I say shame on them.

I have stood on the picket line with some of these folks, and when I get home, I will join them again if they are still not able to do the jobs they desperately want to do. The Conservatives will never stand on the picket line, fighting alongside those brave union members, who have made this country better for every single Canadian with their actions. The Liberals need to stop interrupting the process and allow for fair negotiations.

I thank the postal workers who are still collecting letters for Santa and delivering, in some cases without pay, cheques to the most vulnerable. I stand in solidarity with them.

[Veterans Affairs, December 3rd, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, veterans with mental health conditions do not need more red tape to get help, like support with home care services, cleaning and mowing the lawn. They must prove their condition every year. This policy is discriminatory, sexist and completely unnecessary. The Liberals are letting veterans down just like the Conservatives did when they cut veterans' services.

Does the minister recognize the extra burden she is placing on MST survivors, veterans and their families?

[Privilege, November 21st, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I have been contemplating a lot about conflict and how it is being acted out in our communities, our country and across the world. I am reading a book by Amanda Ripley called High Conflict. It talks about breaking free from the destructive cycle of conflict we are seeing in so many places around the world and really focusing on constructive approaches to disagreement, which focus more on improving relationships and decreasing destructive, divisive conflicts.

The member is talking about a utopia that he thinks is somehow going to magically happen. I am wondering if the process of his analysis of this really speaks to any of this, such as looking at how to bring people together, how to have meaningful conflict and how to learn from one another as opposed to just using slogans, which create a high conflict that does not get resolved.

[Women in Politics, November 20th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, the B.C. provincial cabinet has been announced, and the vast majority of its leadership is made up of women. In fact, more than half of B.C. MLAs overall are women, which is a first.

Research shows that, when groups come together with a broad amount of diversity, decisions are more effective and a better fit for everyone. As my friend Karin reminds me, when something is more accessible, it is more accessible for everyone.

Research tells us that women are asked less than half as often as men to run for politics and that they need to be asked multiple times to consider it. I hope all of us in the House remember to get out there and ask many times for the amazing women of our communities to run for all political roles. With more inclusive leadership, we can create better solutions, better communities and a better Canada.