:
I call this meeting to order.
Welcome to meeting number 14 of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on February 8, 2022, the committee is meeting to continue its study on survivor pension benefits in cases involving marriage after 60.
[English]
Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website. The webcast will always show the person speaking, rather than the entirety of the committee.
I would like to take this opportunity to remind all participants in this meeting that screenshots and taking photos of one's screen are not permitted.
Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. If you are on the video conference, please click on the microphone icon to unmute yourself. To those in the room, your microphone will be controlled, as it normally is, by the proceedings and verification officer. When speaking, please speak slowly and clearly. When you are not speaking, your mike should be on mute.
I remind you that all comments by members and witnesses should be addressed through the chair.
[Translation]
With respect to the list of speakers, the clerk and I will do our best to maintain the speaking order for all members, whether they're attending the meeting in person or remotely.
On behalf of the committee, I would like to welcome the witnesses. Many of them are appearing before our committee for the first time, and I want to welcome them.
Patrick Boudreau, Kelly Vankoughnett, Tracy Lee Evanshen and Corporal Kevin Sewell are appearing as individuals. We also have Maurice Gill, Co-Chair of the Surviving Spouses Pension Fairness Coalition.
[English]
All witnesses will be provided with five minutes for their opening remarks, and then we will go into rounds of questioning.
[Translation]
I will let you know when you have one minute left and when your speaking time is up.
[English]
We will now begin with Patrick Boudreau.
Mr. Boudreau, you have five minutes for your opening remarks. Please go ahead.
:
Good afternoon, and thank you for letting me speak to the committee.
My name is Pat Boudreau. I started my career as a correctional officer in 1977. I retired on January 30, 2015, after 37.5 years of service. My career was good, but not without challenges. At times, my job was life-threatening. I'm happy to say I reached retirement without a drug or alcohol problem, and my sense of humour intact.
On April 1, the year I retired, I was shocked to find out that my wife was having an ongoing affair and left me. I met my now common-law wife, Kelly, in July 2015. She was a widow who had lost her husband in September 2014. During our time together, I was required to support my ex-spouse as she was not working at the time of our separation. We are now divorced, so she will not be entitled to a survivor pension. However, had we not divorced, the woman who betrayed me would be entitled to a survivor benefit. There's something very wrong about the changing world we live in. The pension clauses have not kept current with the family changes that happen. I did not create this situation.
I contacted my pension provider to ask if Kelly could be added as a survivor to my pension. I was told that I could contribute to the plan if I wanted Kelly to receive a benefit. It is not affordable for us at this time. After 37 years of paying into a pension, I was hurt, upset and angry that the woman who would be there during my senior years would not be cared for if I died.
It's wrong that if I survive Kelly, she leaves me with an OMERS survivor pension and a home that she fought so hard to keep. If she survives me, I leave her nothing from my pension after 37.5 years, because officials think she's a gold digger.
It's just not the case. We have supported each other through difficult times, both emotionally and financially. We are still trying to find a solution to the financial shortfall if Kelly survives me. Kelly will be forced to face the loss of a second husband and have to sell the home she worked so hard to hold onto when her first husband passed. It's just not fair.
Everyone deserves to wake up to someone that they love. We were lucky to both have a second chance. I'm devastated that I financially cannot care for Kelly beyond our time together.
Thank you very much for your time.
:
Good afternoon. My name is Kelly Vankoughnett. Pat and I are happy to have the opportunity to speak today.
I am a retired school custodian. I made the choice to retire in September of last year. Planning for retirement and choosing the right time is a difficult task. There are the considerations of the physical demands of my job, which were taking their toll on my aging body, and there were the huge concerns of financial insecurity and hardship, should I live a long life. There was the real fear of not having any quality time with Pat, who is eight years my senior.
I am a widow, as Pat has mentioned. My husband died the day before my 50th birthday. It was a painful time that changed how I would think forever. It was a pivotal moment in my life that made me very aware that time is our most precious commodity.
Like most Canadian families, we were working hard. We were not taking time to enjoy vacations. We were trying to pay off our home and get set for retirement. Cancer cheated me and Ken of those retirement years. This was my reasoning behind retiring a little early, taking a much lower pension and having time with Pat. No matter what that retirement looked like, it was the right decision.
The only problem was the shortfall in my income and finding out that Pat would not have a survivor benefit for me, should I survive him. For me and Pat, it was illogical to think that after 37 and a half years of work, the woman that he loves, who has been working since she was 16 and who offered him a new shared home after he lost his through divorce, would be called a gold digger. It's ironic that my being the gold digger will leave Pat a mortgage-free home that he can afford to stay in, and an OMERS survivor pension that he won't even need to live a comfortable life.
Pat's pension plan, as written, doesn't make sense or keep pace with today's definition of working families. If I survive Pat, I will have to immediately sell our home, which I love and worked so hard to keep after Ken's passing. I am not sure at this point where I will go. I do not have children to offer any kind of support.
Pat and I are very happy to have found each other in our later years. Not everyone gets that chance in their late fifties and early sixties. For that, we feel blessed. Things have been tough financially. I have paid off the mortgage and Pat has paid the financial agreements of his separation and divorce. We are not in any position to pay for a survivor benefit.
The sole purpose of retirement planning is to try to have some security if you should live a long time, while still enjoying some fruits of your labour. I'm not sure how many couples are affected by the ancient paragraphs of the pension plan. My guess would be a small handful, but they will pay dearly.
The definition of “family” has changed many times. Both parties work and contribute to household income and few have the luxury to live off of one income. Those of us who are affected are going to have hardship that no amount of retirement planning could prevent. At the end of the day, we are forced to roll the dice when it comes to retirement planning. The facts still remain that Pat paid the price in many ways in his career, and he paid for a long time into a pension plan that will not support his surviving spouse. It's unfair, but we made the decision to choose time over money.
Thank you for the opportunity to be heard. We pray for changes for those who are affected.
:
Good afternoon. My name is Tracy Lee Evanshen. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today.
I had the pleasure of speaking before this committee before and recognize some familiar faces. Hello. To the new faces, it's a pleasure to meet you.
Last time, I gave a brief outline of what a weekend looks like for us when my children are visiting and of the minefields we must navigate to do so. I will not go through that again, but will give you some other insights into our lives.
Having met Kevin at a program for veterans and active military members suffering from PTSD, I knew that there would be some hurdles in our lives. I truly didn't know there would be this many. I sometimes ask what I have gotten myself into. Honestly, that thought lasts less than a heartbeat. This man has given me and my children everything he possibly can. Being his wife is amazing, frustrating, angering and full of love, and I would not want anything else. Would I like to see it be different? Absolutely, but we are dealing with the crappy hand we have been dealt. It's a hand we did not ask for, nor do we deserve it.
He willingly joined the military to fight for his country and to fight for those who couldn't fight for themselves. He did that not once, but twice. He gave of himself only to have the country he fought for turn its back on him, give him grief and make things so difficult that he often thought of ending it.
Why? It's because the government decided to. They would say that they were looking into those claims and that they would create a study and spend millions on it. How about giving the millions to the veterans, spouses and their families?
This ridiculous clause was written in 1901. Are you serious? Twice, said they'd get rid of it, yet it's still here.
The majority of veterans and/or spouses are living just above the poverty level, if not below it. We are not asking for much, just what we deserve and were promised. We don't want to struggle with how to pay the phone bill or the mortgage this month, or whether we'll eat hotdogs or peanut butter sandwiches.
You may think I'm joking, but this is a serious dilemma for some veterans. At the end of the veteran's days, when he or she gave it all for his or her country, his or her spouse will be destitute because they are not entitled to his or her benefits if they found love after the age of 60. I ask you, if any of you are over 60 and have a significant other, how would you feel if you wouldn't be able to care for them after you're gone?
I can tell you that my husband cried over the fact that he will be unable to financially provide for me once he's gone. He feels like less than a man, useless, less than dirt and worthless. How dare this government make him and others feel that way?
For example, when Kevin turned 65, his take-home monies were cut by 20%. I guess life ends for a veteran at 65. When they need help the most, they get thrown out with the bathwater. He was unceremoniously released from the military because he was considered old. Sixty is not old.
We are on the phone daily to VAC, the ombudsman's office and human rights to try to get straightforward answers. Those answers are rarely given. We receive responses that go in circles. We are not uneducated people, but feel that way each time we get such asinine responses. Yes, I said “responses”, as they are never answers to the questions. The responses seem to change like the weatherman's predictions.
We need things to be easier. Things are made so much harder. Nobody seems to want to be accountable. Someone has to be. Someone must initiate the change. Please be that someone.
When I was his common-law partner, we figured out that I was entitled to his VAC benefits but not his military benefits. How does that make sense? We found out that if a veteran is not married by 60, any partnership after 60 will not be recognized. He never knew this clause existed. Once married, we had a year to submit the paperwork in order for me to be able to get his military benefits, i.e., pension, but we had to pay into it from what little money we now have coming in.
Veterans Affairs returns upwards of $150 million a year to the government. This money could be used to support veterans and their families, no matter what the family unit looks like.
Please know that I am new to this life and I would not change it. Veterans have to chase people for help, but it isn't help. It's more trouble. They give up. They are tired of being marginalized, cast aside and forgotten.
If he wants to ensure that I, as his wife, have some of his pension, we must pay back into a pension he is already paying back into because he re-enlisted for Afghanistan at the age of 53. If we do that, we will have next to nothing to live on. Let that sink in, please.
Please help us. Help change this archaic clause and give veterans and their families the help they deserve.
Thank you.
:
Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for letting me talk to you.
After that, there really isn't much to say. I can give you a history of the situations from this clause and tell you about who I am.
I served in the Canadian Forces two different times. I enlisted in the early 1980s and was released in 1987. I then proceeded to become a paramedic in Ontario and was one for 22 years. Afghanistan came along, and I felt it was a situation in which I could take my skills and my knowledge to the forefront. I joined the military at that time.
I served until age 60. At that age I was released for a couple of reasons. I had PTSD. Basically I was broken. There was also the clause that says that, when you are 60, the military releases you. It's an age category.
Since then, I've been fighting PTSD and fighting other injuries. Veterans Affairs have helped but not totally. Then I met this young lady. We lived in a common-law situation for a number of years. We were planning on getting married and COVID came along. That deferred us. Finally we got married in October last year, so we are now considered married.
Under Veterans Affairs, she already was the beneficiary to all of what I could give her from Veterans Affairs, but the superannuation clause for the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and this gold digger clause would restrict her dramatically and totally from receiving my pension if I passed away.
When I found this out, it was like a kick in the gut. It just totally deflated me. I wouldn't be able to give her what I had planned to give her, and I did not feel like a total human or a total man.
It's contradictory. Common law is recognized by the government in most things. The tax man recognizes it. VAC recognizes it. The military recognizes it to the age of 60. Then all of a sudden, the military doesn't. It's kind of interesting.
Our previous prime minister by the name of Pierre Elliott Trudeau said that the government should stay out of the bedrooms of Canada. With this, to me, we're still in the bedrooms of Canada when we're telling someone that they can or cannot receive things because of their marital status.
As you all know, the gold digger clause started in 1901 because of the Civil War in the United States. We jumped on the bandwagon and felt that there would be individuals following through with this. However, the U.S. military got rid of this clause, and we're still playing with it, more than ever, 10 years later. There's also the situation that the Canadian Forces do not inform members that this clause exists, so when they do get out, they are surprised about this situation. It's not appropriate, and it's actually a poor way of treating veterans and soldiers at the same time.
Basically, you got most of it from Tracy, and I totally agree with what she said. I can't really say much more on that. If you have any questions, which you will probably have during the question time, I'll be more than willing to answer your questions.
Thank you for letting me spend time with you.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
We have filed a brief in which we attempt to provide an overview of the subject under study. Now I would like to provide some additional information and comments. I was unable to submit my statement earlier as I didn't finish it until yesterday.
I will begin with a word about our coalition.
The Surviving Spouses Pension Fairness Coalition came together in 2013 and 2014, when it recruited a large number of partners wishing to support its objective, which is to help change federal pension statutes. Those partners are associations of retirees including, of course, the Armed Forces Pensioners'/Annuitants' Association of Canada, the National Association of Federal Retirees, which appeared before you on April 29, unions and other organizations. You can access a list of our partners on our website.
The coalition came to public notice as a result of our efforts during the 2015 election campaign. In 2016, we took action to increase awareness among many ministers directly or indirectly responsible for the various pension statutes.
In 2018, we supported the New Democratic Party's bill to amend those acts, and we publicized the petition that supported it.
After a very long pandemic that disrupted political life in this country and considerably reduced our opportunities for action, here we are before your committee.
The part of our brief concerning federal legislation addresses at length the 1901 act, which, among other things, included an exclusionary provision that I want to discuss today. Under that legislation, a widow already receiving a pension who remarried, perhaps as a way to improve her financial position, would lose that pension, which would subsequently be restored if her new husband then died. A similar provision was included in several pension plans over a long period of time, particularly in the Canada pension plan, in which it was in force from 1965 to 1987.
We believe that the "marriage after 60 years" clause is completely arbitrary, and we clearly understand why many people consider it discriminatory, even though the Supreme Court dismissed a complaint to that effect in a judgment in 1994. However, reality changes over time, and the court's opinion could change as well, as we've seen with regard to assisted suicide and medical assistance in dying.
In our brief, we provide a line of reasoning that could be used to justify the "marriage after retirement" provision. Since most marriages after 60 years occur after retirement, we could easily delete the words "after 60 years" and have only one provision for all legislation. Why not?
Now I want to discuss the veterans survivor fund.
In one piece of research, from which I cited some results in the brief, we surveyed 4,490 widows who were alive in 2020. Assuming, for example, that they became widows between 2005 and 2020, and considering that, during that 15-year period, other widows not receiving pensions unfortunately died, several hundreds would be added to the total for that period.
Here are some more figures from that research that may surely be of interest to you.
The incomes of 19% of those widows were below the low income measure.
We will now go to the first round of questions.
I invite the members to say to whom they are directing their questions. We have with us Mr. Boudreau, Ms. Vankoughnett, Ms. Evanshen, Corporal Sewell and Mr. Gill.
Now for the witnesses, if the question is directed to you, I don't need to announce you; you may respond immediately.
Incidentally, I would also like to say hello to one of our colleagues, Sameer Zuberi, who is participating in today's meeting.
Then we will begin with Frank Caputo, who is the first vice-chair of the committee.
Mr. Caputo, you have the floor for the next six minutes.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
It is obviously a pleasure and an honour to be here with everybody on the committee. I want to thank everybody here for their service. Those who may not have served in an official government or military role, I want to thank for the service of their partners and for their support. I know that I am nothing without the support of my wife and partner, so I thank you for that.
I must say that this issue really resonated a lot with me since it came to the forefront a few months ago for me, maybe a couple of months after my election. At that time, it was generally something I thought was fairly confined to the military.
Mr. Boudreau, you said something that struck me right from the get-go. Obviously you probably don't know this, but my first career was in federal corrections as well. I only served for about one-tenth of how much time you served for, 37 and a half years, which is an accomplishment in any career but especially in the federal correctional system in the institution where you worked. That's quite an accomplishment, and I thank you for your service for that.
I thank everybody for their service, Corporal Sewell, and to all the partners as well. Thank you so much for everything you do, and for being here.
All that being said, we've heard how this impacts you. I'm wondering though, are there any hidden impacts? I believe it was Ms. Evanshen who talked about being labelled a gold digger and how offensive that was—and is. Are there any hidden impacts here that people may not have really appreciated that you want to share?
That goes to all four of you. This is your time to tell us exactly how this has impacted you.
:
With this whole thing, it also includes people who have gone through their whole lives in a common-law situation. As we know, nowadays a lot of people basically stay away from marriage as we know it, and they are more in a common-law situation throughout their lives.
You can have an individual in the Canadian Forces, who is recognized as married by common law, go through his whole career of whatever number of years and come to his retirement. He is released and told that all those years he had doesn't mean an iota of anything post-60. He then has to step up and get married. Most people don't want to get into that whole marriage thing. They feel that common law is more what they want and thus try to stay with that.
We're saying, prior to 60 is okay; post-60 is not okay. That's what we have to look at. In that sense, it's not a gold digger, because that person could have been married or common law for 25 or 30 years, and now, suddenly, he or she is being labelled as a gold digger because of a clause that was written in 1901 based on information that does not really exist anymore.
Thank you.
:
As I mentioned in my statement, my choice is for retiring a little bit early, just because Pat's older than I am and I don't want to lose time with him, but I wouldn't have qualified.... I was fortunate enough to have my own pension, but I had to make a choice. I was not entitled to my full pension until age 65. I'm 57, so I had to decide: Do I want some quality time and maybe fewer options for things to do in retirement?
You always hope that you can, like I said, have some of the fruits of your labour and be able to do some fun things in retirement. We've had to now look at it and decide whether we put a certain amount, a little bit...or whether we just say, okay, well, the house.... Then where do I go? I fund myself, my retirement, with my home, which I'm fortunate and blessed to have, but when we look at today's rents and other accommodations, I can't afford to stay in the home and pay the monthly on my retirement income. It's small.
I think the thing that's upsetting is that I've been working since I was 15 or 16. I started working at Burger King, and I have done every job imaginable. I've worked hard, and every time I was without work or I got laid off, I found another job. To be turned around and told that at 60 you're too old to find love.... Well, wait until they're 50. Fifty's not old. Wait until they're 60. Sixty's not old. We have lots of fun and lots of time and life ahead of us. We try to stay healthy.
In my case I feel very much discriminated against as a woman when they label me and say I'm a gold digger. I've worked very hard. They're going to give 65% of my small OMERS pension to Pat. Are they serious? He won't need that. The whole thing is just ridiculous, in my mind. We were shocked when we found out that there would be nothing there for me.
It's been very difficult to make the decision to retire, but as I said, we chose time. After losing Ken young—he worked his whole life and never had a retirement—I wasn't going to sit back and say I'm going to work until 65 and Pat will be in his late seventies, and we're going to do what? We want to enjoy some time, even if that's sitting in my backyard with my garden, if that's what it is. But this whole thing has changed. I think, for him, working 37.5 years and paying into something that will go absolutely nowhere.... Like you said, he could have just kept his ex-wife on there. She could have collected his pension. Are you serious? It's offensive. It's totally offensive and discriminatory, for sure.
Thank you.
:
Thank you for your question, Mr. Desilets.
According to a professional actuary who has advised us, some calculations were done using incorrect figures. Ultimately, the government doesn't want to repeal the provision. It's a "mission impossible" that was assigned to the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of National Defence. That's why we suggest that the problem be handled differently using a completely new approach. We have to determine whether it's possible to grant a proportionately reduced pension in these cases.
I'm mainly talking about doing it for those who have retired because that would be the logical way. The "marriage after 60 years" provision is purely arbitrary and quasi-discriminatory, as I said earlier. We suggest that the government take a completely new approach. We're in uncharted territory here, and, consequently, I don't have any figures to provide. I definitely don't want to cite any examples, although I think that would be invaluable.
I nevertheless want to mention that the pension would increase with the number of years of life together. For example, as you can see in the appendix to our brief, Cora Goddard and her husband, Terry Goddard, were married for 30 years. She was his caregiver for many years. She should have received the maximum 50%. Spouses who have lived with a retiree for a shorter period of time could receive a smaller percentage. This is a defensible principle.
In Nova Scotia, for example, there was the special case of two former spouses who were equally eligible for a pension. They decided to prorate the pension based on the number of years they had lived together.
I also want to tell you a wonderful story. The former and current spouse of a retiree knew each other. The retiree died after being an invalid for five years. The current spouse in this example was also a caregiver. The former spouse, who had received the pension, regularly shared a portion of it with the current spouse. I think that example perfectly demonstrates how unfair the present system is.
I want to thank everyone here, especially those of you who are having to share incredibly personal stories.
Let me just apologize that you have to face this reality and that the only way for us to address it is for you to come on a screen and tell people your really personal stories. I think that is a travesty. It's why I'm fighting so hard, and, of course, why I put forward Bill that will address this issue, an NDP bill that has been in the House repeatedly. Hopefully, we will finally see some action on it.
I will go to you first, Pat, and then I'm going to you right after, Kevin.
I want to know. When did you find out that, if you married or entered a common-law marriage after 60, you would not be able to have a survivor's pension for the woman you loved?
:
I found that out after I called my pension provider. I wanted to put Kelly on, and that's when they told me I couldn't. They just said no.
Another thing I want to bring up here is that, with my ex-wife, I ended up having to pay her an awful lot of money to protect my pension that I worked so hard for and that I paid into and I deserve.
I wanted to share my pension with Kelly, should I pass before her. That's when the pension people told me, “No, you can't do it.” However, if I wanted to pay 30%, 40% or 50% of my pensionable income, she'd be entitled to something. They never did tell me how much, but 50% of my pension? That just wasn't feasible. It's still not feasible today.
I think that's really important because, like you both mentioned, the optional survivor benefit, the OSB, is what you can pay 30% to 50% of your income into your pension income.
I know you have both chosen not to do that because it would mean an economic inability to do anything today. What a horrible place to be in. I can't imagine how painful it is to make these kinds of decisions.
I guess my next question is this: When were you told that if you took that option—or were you told that option—to take 30% to 50% of your pension and put it away for them, that if your loved one, your partner, passed before you did, you would never receive a penny back?
I will start with you again, Pat.
:
Chair, I think that's a little bit of payback for last week.
Thank you for joining us today.
I'd like to thank you for your service, Corporal Sewell.
I'll point out, Mr. Boudreau, that my father was in the corrections facilities before, so I understand that it's not an easy job with what you witness. I appreciate your being open with some of the challenges you're facing today.
Right now, I'd like to just point out a comment that was made by Mr. Sewell about every other legislation that we have concerning common law. The way we look at partnership seems to be linear everywhere else except in this particular circumstance. We seem to be outdated. That is validated by the language that's used when we talk about “gold digger”, which quite honestly is not acceptable terminology to use right now. Maybe it was acceptable back in 1901.
I apologize that you're labelled that, quite honestly. I'm sorry because that seems outdated.
Mr. Gill, you're not going to get off the hook that easily. Apart from my statements, I do have a question for you, sir.
This issue was ruled on by the courts. That was nearly 30 years ago. Are you aware of any new moves to challenge this in the courts again, sir?
I have no idea. I don't have any confidence in the Supreme Court, but as I mention in the brief, they changed their opinion as time evolves. Society is changing and so on. In that case, I don't understand how they could say it was an interpretation of the charter. That's why they rejected the request.
As I said, I suggest forgetting about the 60. It is irrelevant. The problem with the older people's pension is that, after retirement we have another era. The pensioner no longer contributes, and we can't rationalize saying there could be two systems: one for marriages before retirement and one for marriages after retirement. I think it would be more logical, because I like to work logically. It could be done. I'm just losing the other part here anyway.
It would be strange to see the government decide to standardize the exclusion conditions. Of course all the legislation rejecting it after 60 and keeping only the other one could make sense. I would think that, looking far ahead into the future, the—
:
Yes, Mr. Chair, you read my mind. I was going to say I will take his turn, and he will take mine right behind.
I want to begin by thanking all of you for your presentation and your service. The families serve as well. We've learned more and more about the important role of families and spouses and kids.
I want to thank you as well for sharing your personal stories. A lot of interesting facts are coming out today, which are a little different from those last time. I find this will be very helpful. I don't know where to start. I have too many ideas.
Let's start with Mr. Gill.
[Translation]
Mr. Gill, I appreciate the fact that you're thinking of other ways to achieve certain objectives that would help meet the challenge that you characterize as a "mission impossible". I don't like that adjective, but I accept it.
You propose that survivors be granted a percentage of the pension, not a full pension, based on the number of years of marriage after 60. You mentioned the case of a woman who had been with her husband for 30 years. It depends on the pension system, but 50% is probably the maximum percentage. I calculated that, for a survivor who had been with her spouse for 15 years, it would amount to perhaps 25%. Am I wrong?
I think your idea is an interesting one. Have you discussed it with anyone else? Could you tell me more about it?
You said that Quebec didn't draw a distinction. Mr. Desilets had a big smile on his face, so you obviously said what he wanted to hear.
Do you think governments are part of the problem? I don't necessarily mean the government in power today, but the entire succession of governments since this provision was established in 1901.
Is the problem mainly related to the way pensions are calculated? I'm no expert, but, if my understanding is correct, an analysis is always done. For example, a certain percentage of people will live for 100 years, whereas others will die younger. Since that's the way it's calculated, do you think the problem is that the creation of new programs could result in an increase in the pension percentage paid in order to add something?
I don't know if that's the problem; I'm just suggesting the idea.
:
Actually, I mentioned that in my brief.
Did the government or the defence department consult the Régie des rentes du Québec, which administers the plan, to try and understand how they did it?
I gave another example, and it's really special. The municipalities of Ontario decided to do the same thing.
So it's obvious that it's perfectly possible. Does it have a major impact on the employers and on employee contributions?
The employees have their say in that. The unions need to be involved so that they can take a positive approach to deal with the problem.
Kevin, I'm going to have to go to Tracy and Kelly. I'm not trying to be rude, but I want to make sure their voices are heard on this. It will keep you out of trouble later on.
First of all, I want to say that I am really appalled that it is called the “gold digger” clause. It's very apparent to me, after listening to many witnesses, that families have a visceral reaction to being called gold diggers. I hope that's something all of us, in this place, take some reflection on.
I heard from both of you about the commitment of your family and how families are changing; the definition definitely has to change. I want to remind all of us that the clause is in all of these departments. We can't say one department can fix it. It's bigger than that. It's in every one of these departments. I'm wondering whether each of you could take an opportunity...starting off with you, Kelly, and finishing with you, Tracy.
What would your experience be if this clause were fixed? What would the impact on your life be?
I just wanted to say that I agree. If you put it back to each individual department, my fear is that it would just keep going in a big circle.
The thing that exists between all of those, for veterans, and for Pat and I, is the fact that the clause is there. You're making a discrimination about age and the whole gold digger....
How would it affect me? I do worry, because I do not have children. I do worry about if, when I'm older, I will be able to look after myself. Where will I be? After so many years of working, what situation will I be in?
When I hear the story of Kevin and Tracy too, it hurts me to hear that kind of thing. People who gave for their country, people who have been working their whole lives, are finding it difficult. They're finding it difficult to make ends meet. It shouldn't be the case. These people gave up a lot.
Pat, Kevin, you've given a lot. It is a big thing to step up and do that as a career, and to then be treated that way—
I want to go back to something.
First of all, I want to thank everyone for being here. It's tough to keep repeating these stories. To be honest with you, it shouldn't really be necessary, because this is a common-sense issue. I don't know where we lost common sense.
I want to go back to Kelly. You said you were 58. You're young. The new 50 is—what is it?—the new 40 now, so you're not old at all. I just want to make that clear.
This issue seems to be going on for a long time, and I have to agree with my colleagues that it's about time we put it to bed. In your opinion, how can we expedite this situation so that the government understands that enough is enough and that we need to make changes. We can't wait for another research study. We can't wait another month. We can't wait another day. Taking your opinion into account, what can we do to expedite this situation?
Certainly, Mr. Chair, that might be something that we could look at as a committee.
I would certainly be very intrigued and very interested in hearing what's happening in the U.S., because we've heard references to it before from some of the other witnesses. I know that we had other witnesses, for example, who talked about giving the option to pay into a survivor benefit plan. Of course, if the veteran died before the spouse, the spouse would get absolutely nothing. That was my understanding.
Kelly, is that how you understand it?
Thank you to all the witnesses for being here.
I have learned a lot while substituting today in this committee. I want to share that, like many here, I also served in uniform, albeit part time in the reserves, but I can empathize with your current situation. I hear you, as we all do here. We hear you loud and clear, and we do care and want to make things better.
For the spouses, thank you for supporting those who have served in uniform for so long, for so many years. Your personal moral support is very important and welcomed, I'm sure, by those who did serve.
I want to do a bit of a dive into some of the gendered aspects of things. From the data we have, we know that 8% of female veterans are of low-income status, whereas only 4% of male veterans are of low-income status. I'm just wondering if any of the witnesses can shed some light on why, in their opinion, female veterans are twice as likely to be low income as are men. Would anybody like to shed some light on that?
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I believe that any legislative measures that we take ought to be based on values, and the principles of justice and equity. Everyone appears to agree that the current situation is totally unacceptable. It's discriminatory. Not only that, but this approach is antiquated. Once again, it's the women who are taking the hit. As we've already said, 90% of the people targeted are women, not men. That's something that truly upsets me.
In 2008, the Treasury Board estimated the value of the measure, meaning the adjustment of this iniquitous situation, at approximately $1 billion. A study by the chief actuary of the Government of Canada was published last year I believe, showing that the amount was $300 million. That's clearly not the same, and the difference is enormous. I continue to believe that in terms of real figures, it's difficult to come up with solutions.
Mr. Gill, I am delighted about your proposal, but if the Department of National Defence, which administers these funds, were to refuse this measure, how would you react?
I'm also wondering if it's up to you to react. Shouldn't these solutions be coming from the department?
You have about one minute to reply.
Could I hear a bit more on this issue? I think this is so important. For the partners of people who served our country in whatever department they did, there may be particular challenges they are experiencing. Part of appreciating that sacrifice, as a country, is recognizing the impact it has.
When I listen to this.... Maybe, in 1901, there was a good intention to protect. I don't think it was, really. I still think it was sexist in 1901, but it was to protect vulnerable men in a situation where they may have needed to be protected.
What we're seeing now is the impact on people like you, Tracy, who are spending a great deal of their time supporting someone who has saved lives and supported our country. These are the ramifications, and I'm—
[Translation]
Thank you, Ms. Blaney.
On behalf of the committee members, I'd like to thank all the witnesses who took part in today's meeting. Your comments were very heartfelt. Thanks to you, we'll be able to produce a report that contains some recommendations. That should make it possible to deal with the situation. I must say that we were all moved deeply by the discussion of the "gold digger" epithet. That's really disappointing.
On behalf of myself and the committee members, I'd like to thank you for taking part in the meeting. I'd also like to thank Ms. Evanshen for having taken leave to come and testify before the committee.
And just a reminder that Mr. Patrick Boudreau, Ms. Kelly Vankoughnett, Ms. Tracy Lee Evanshen and Mr. Kevin Sewell all testified as individuals.
Lastly, I'd like to thank Mr. Maurice Gill, the co-president of the Surviving Spouses Pension Fairness Coalition, for having suggested a number of options.
Once again, I'd like to thank you all and would ask you to…
:
We're resuming the meeting.
[English]
We can now proceed to the second panel of this meeting. I will give a quick reminder to our witnesses that, before speaking, please wait until I recognize you.
[Translation]
If you are asked a question directly, feel free to answer it without my asking you to do so.
[English]
If you are on the video conference, please click on the microphone icon to unmute yourself. For those in the room, your microphone will be controlled as normal. When speaking, please speak slowly and clearly. When you are not speaking, your mike should be on mute.
[Translation]
I'd like to welcome our witnesses, who are from Statistics Canada.
We are welcoming Josée Bégin, Director General, Labour Market, Education and Socio-Economic Well-Being, and Andrew Heisz, Director, Centre for Income and Socioeconomic Well-being Statistics.
You will have five minutes for your opening address. After that, the committee members would like you to ask you some questions.
Ms. Bégin, you have five minutes for your opening address.
[English]
Mr. Chair and committee members, thank you for inviting us to this meeting.
Statistics Canada would like to contribute to the study of the committee on the financial concerns of the marriage over 60 clause in the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act by presenting information on the number of persons who married or entered into a common-law relationship with a veteran after he or she turned 60, as well as their characteristics.
This information was produced last year at the request of Veterans Affairs Canada through a secure linkage of 2018 tax records with various administrative records, including the Department of National Defence - Canadian Forces personnel cohort file and the PSPC Canadian Forces Superannuation Act legacy file. I would like to mention that Statistics Canada's deliverable was limited to producing four data tables to help provide a general understanding of the population size of persons who married or entered into a common-law relationship with a veteran on or after the veteran's 60th birthday and their socio-economic characteristics. Statistics Canada was not asked anything more specific beyond that with regard to the marriage over 60 clause and the current committee study.
Our data show that in 2018, there were between 4,000 and 6,000 persons who married or entered into a common-law relationship with a veteran on or after the veteran's 60th birthday, and the veteran was still living as of 2018. There were between 2,000 and 4,000 persons who married or entered into a common-law relationship with a veteran on or after the veteran's 60th birthday, and the veteran had passed away as of 2018. Spouses were generally aged over 60 and, not surprisingly, those of deceased veterans tended to be older than those of living veterans. Between 95% and 100% of spouses were women.
To simplify my summary of the results, I will now use the term “spouse” to describe persons who married or entered into a common-law relationship with a veteran after they turned 60.
Depending on the data source used, our results show that in 2018, the median income of spouses who entered into a relationship with a veteran aged 60 and over ranged between $26,000 and $35,000, with spouses of deceased veterans reporting the highest median income.
Survivors of veterans who entered into a relationship at age 60 or after received higher government transfers than spouses of living veterans who entered into a relationship at age 60 or after. In 2018, the median amount of government transfers received by spouses of deceased veterans reached $18,000. This compares with a median ranging between $14,000 and $15,000 for spouses of living veterans. Spouses of deceased veterans also had higher private pension income than spouses of living veterans, with a difference of about $2,000.
While widowed spouses of veterans who entered into a relationship at age 60 or after had higher personal income than spouses of living veterans, they were more likely to be in a situation of low income. In 2018, the proportion of low income ranged between 19% and 23% among spouses of deceased veterans who entered into a relationship at age 60 and over, compared with a proportion ranging between 8% and 11% among spouses of living veterans who entered into a relationship at age 60 and over. The higher prevalence of low income among survivors of veterans is likely related to the fact that these spouses were more likely to be living in a one-income household. In 2018, more than four in five widowed spouses of veterans who married at age 60 and over lived alone.
The Maritimes and the province of Quebec generally had the highest proportions of survivors of veterans who entered into a relationship at age 60 and over living in a situation of low income. Across age groups, the occurrence of low income was highest among widowed spouses aged under 60.
Statistics Canada is committed to monitoring trends pertaining to Canadian military life. For example, in partnership with Veterans Affairs Canada and the Department of National Defence, a report was prepared last year on the prerelease and postrelease income of regular force veterans.
This concludes our opening remarks.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
:
Thank you for your question, Ms. Blaney.
I think we would need to do more analysis to answer that question. The data that we have presented to you here shows that older survivors and older spouses of veterans who are still alive do have lower incomes than younger ones do, but that's fairly normal in terms of people's life-course. Their incomes do get lower as they age out of the workforce and into retirement years.
What we would really need to know to answer your question specifically is that we would need to have looked at an earlier year as well and at the incomes of, say, people in 2008. Then we could have said, for a person over the age of 80, how was their income in 2008, compared to a person over the age of 80 in 2018. Then you could say that they were better or worse off compared to that earlier year. Unfortunately, we weren't asked to do that particular type of analysis, so we can't make a conclusion right now across cohorts.
:
Thank you for the question.
Broadly speaking, we release income statistics at Statistics Canada annually. It's a pretty common pattern that household incomes—the incomes of families and individuals—are higher in western provinces, somewhere in the middle in Ontario and B.C., and lower in Quebec and the maritime provinces. That can be due to a lot of different things, including the types of work and work environments that are available. It also reflects the cost of living. It's often the case that many places in the Maritimes and in Quebec have a lower cost of living than some other places in Canada.
That's my first point, which is that the pattern we're seeing here among this particular group is fairly similar to the pattern we see in more aggregated statistics that concern the population overall.
My second point is that the low-income measure being used here doesn't take into account these differences in cost of living. It simply asks what proportion of Canadians in this province have an income that's low relative to the Canadian median, which means lower than most other people in the country. It doesn't take into consideration the cost of housing, food or transportation. Again, in those cases we often see that this particular low-income measure shows differences with other provinces and it sometimes shows higher levels.
Other measures, which aren't possible with this particular study—like the market basket measure, which does control for local costs—could show different results.
Thank you to our witnesses today.
It's good to hear the information you're providing to us. I have more questions than we have time for. In the meantime, I would like to comment on the mandate and scope of your study, and what that means, of course, for what we're trying to accomplish here and the decisions we're trying to make.
How do you see the tables you've put together being useful to this committee in assisting in the appropriateness of maintaining or abolishing the “marriage after 60” clause?
An answer from either of you would be appreciated.
[Translation]
Ms Blaney, you might consider the possibility of making a request.
On that note, we will be ending this meeting.
On behalf of the committee members, I'd like to thank the witnesses in this second group, both from statistics Canada. They are Josée Bégin, Director General, Labour Market, Education and Socio-Economic Well-Being, and Andrew Heisz, Director, Centre for Income and Socioeconomic Well-being Statistics.
Your presence was very important for us because we want to add more details to our report and to the report's recommendations.
I see that it's getting late.
I'd simply like to inform the members of the committee that on May 20, we will be continuing our study of pension benefits for surviving spouses. At that meeting we will have representatives from Veterans Affairs Canada, the Treasury Board, the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Institute for Military and Veteran Health Research (CIMVHR).
I'd also like to thank our entire team here today: the clerk, the interpreters and the whole technical team.
Will the members of the committee agree two adjourning this meeting?
As there are no objections, the meeting is adjourned.