Finance Committee on May 14th, 2014

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

We meet with many veterans who have a difficult time raising these issues, either because of health issues they're suffering or just out of a simple sense of dignity: they don't want to be out fighting for something and feeling that they are somehow disrespecting the country they served. I thank you for what you're doing.

We always say that actions speak louder than words. Do you believe that we can and should amend this bill in order to properly compensate veterans back to the date when the clawback first started, in 2006? Would that be some modest sign of respect to the men and women whom we just honoured a few days ago, some of whom served in Afghanistan? Is this something that this committee could recommend and do as a sign of respect to veterans of Canada?

[Sean Bruyea]

In my mind, it's a no-brainer. This could easily be amended to go back...and before we start complaining about costs, let's look at what these soldiers have given up for us. We are talking for the most part, about the most disabled veterans being affected by this. This will force them into, as I said, a bitter legal morass over years, which not only will inconvenience them but will likely destroy their health and their families.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Talk to me about some of the soldiers we're talking about here, the veterans who have fallen into this clawback trap from the government.

What kinds of injuries are we talking about? Why is going to court...? The government can say ”let them go to court again”; we'll spend taxpayer money, and they can go through this process. But who are we talking about explicitly?

[Sean Bruyea]

We're talking about the whole gamut. Some of the veterans may have just been released from the forces and, during the transition period of, let's say, up to 24 months, or sometimes longer, were retraining. Maybe they're suffering a knee, ankle, or shoulder injury. These people probably will have moved on with their lives and are no longer collecting the benefit.

I think the biggest focus has to be on the most seriously disabled veterans. These are the ones who cannot work for the rest of their lives. They are the ones who will be collecting this earnings loss benefit to help compensate them in some limited form for the lost potential that they had.

So yes, it's very important that this strong signal be sent out by amending this back to 2006, because this new Veterans Charter is supposed to be a new start in recognizing what our Canadian Forces have given up for Canada. It's extremely important that we amend this from the beginning, or else the new Veterans Charter will continue to fall into disrepute.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Finally, New Democrats will be writing such an amendment and seeking support from all our colleagues around this table.

Thank you again for your service and testimony.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Cullen.

I'll go to Mr. Saxton, please, for five minutes.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Thanks to our witnesses for being here today.

My first question is for Cyndee Cherniak.

Ms. Cherniak, you say that staffing will be affected due to expertise being lost. However, under this change, it's been clear that all staff currently with the tribunals, as well as related departmental resources, will transfer to the ATSSC. Expert staff will continue to be dedicated to their respective tribunals.

How can you say this, then, when it's so clear that the change values the expert analysis and those working with tribunal chairs and members?

[Cyndee Todgham Cherniak]

It's not clear to us that the staff are going to all stay and be allocated 100% to the tribunals that they were working with. I can tell you from my experience at the Canadian International Trade Tribunal over the last three years that they have reduced staff and they have created efficiencies. There's not much room left.

If a couple of those staff members are assigned to different files and a different tribunal, there will be a problem for me, as a lawyer who appears before the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, to get the filings done and the research done. There are questionnaires that are completed in connection with anti-dumping cases that compile a significant amount of information. Then the staff compile that information so that the tribunal can have economic and trade analysis to render their decisions on injury analysis. If that research can't be done, we will have a problem at the Canadian International Trade Tribunal with the decisions, which can then lead to problems in the international arena.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Okay, but I think it's been stated clearly that all staff currently with the tribunals will be transferred to the ATSSC.

My next question is for Gordon Lloyd. Mr. Lloyd, the globally harmonized system of classification and labelling of chemicals, known as GHS, is a standardized, internationally consistent approach to classifying chemicals according to their physical, health, and environmental hazards. Implementation of the GHS worldwide would facilitate international trade and enhance workplace safety by providing workers with standardized and consistent information on chemical hazards.

Do you concur with that assessment?

[Gordon Lloyd]

That's generally true. The issue is that GHS, at a broad spectrum, is a correct label, but each jurisdiction has implemented little bits and pieces of it somewhat differently. So yes, but with some exceptions, and the exceptions are different in different places.

Canada and the U.S. have decided to focus on getting it right between our two countries because we have major trading with each other. It will achieve those objectives for sure between Canada and the U.S. We just want to make sure that it achieves them in time so that we get the maximum benefits. Some of our member companies have talked about the delay. We're fearful of costing them, for certain product lines, millions of dollars.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

I know that your sector contributes nearly 100,000 jobs to the Canadian economy and indirectly another 500,000 jobs. How will these Canadians benefit from these new standardized or harmonized safety standards?

[Gordon Lloyd]

I think there are benefits in several areas. One, the general competitiveness of companies will be improved by this because it is an improvement in efficiency of our regulatory regime. It will cut down costs in trading. Again, there's efficiency there. I think it will also make for a better hazard communication system, because there will be more commonality between Canada and the U.S. People get transferred in jobs; they'll have a clearer understanding without having to learn new systems. I think there will be direct benefits along the line of what you talked about.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Will adopting the GHS help reduce red tape for businesses involved in the chemical industry in Canada?

[Gordon Lloyd]

Absolutely. We just want it to be done sooner rather than later.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Saxton.

Mr. Brison, please.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Thank you, Chair.

Thanks to each of you for joining us today and for your testimony.

The fact that in an hour at the House of Commons finance committee we are discussing issues around veterans benefits, international trade law, consumer products labelling, and temporary foreign workers speaks to the absurdity of the exercise. It's extraordinarily frustrating as a parliamentarian to witness and to actually be a participant in a charade in terms of not having the capacity to adequately scrutinize legislation, which is our job.

I want to thank you for your service, for what you've done on behalf of Canada, Captain Bruyea, in the past, but also for what you're doing today.

On the arbitrary date of May 28, 2012, has the government explained why that date? Why not go back further? What is the defence?

[Sean Bruyea]

No, they haven't approached the veteran community to explain that date. The only briefings that have been given have been to parliamentarians without the knowledge of the veteran community. It sounds as if that's the date because they don't want to pay back to 2006. I think we have to compare that to the veterans' service when they're in the military. Imagine the military saying that they didn't want to go to Afghanistan or Libya, or that they didn't want to deploy to eastern Europe.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Does it seem like a war of attrition, with the resources of the federal government against veterans? At some point, the government has the resources and the legal capacity to wear down the other side. Isn't that it?

[Sean Bruyea]

That's right. It's not just the financial resources. If we look back at the SISIP class action lawsuit, veterans were paying out of funds that were rightfully theirs the equivalent of a million dollars a month in legal fees to fight that battle. I am most concerned about the emotional costs. This will take a huge toll on families and will take years off these veterans' lives.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Colleagues, as you know we have votes in half an hour. Can I take it we have unanimous consent to finish this round in three more...? Is that okay?

Thank you.

Mr. Brison, please continue.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Thank you.

Ms. Coombs, you have proposed an amendment that one of us, as a member of this committee, could move. Can you take a guess as to how many amendments have been accepted to budget implementation acts over the last five years?

[Shannon Coombs]

I could not, sir. I take it none—

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

None.

[Shannon Coombs]

—from the way you're asking the question.