Finance Committee on June 4th, 2015

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 174 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)

(On clause 175)

We have four amendments, but two are identical.

Mr. Hyer, are you going to deal with PV-40 and PV-42 separately or together?

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

I think we can probably do them together.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay.

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

First, regarding PV-40, Bill C-59 brings in the possibility of automated decision-making. We could have a computer making decisions about who gets to come to Canada. This raises many questions, but it's hidden in this huge budget bill so we haven't been able to ask those questions.

PV-40 and PV-42 delete this section that allows incorporation by reference of these regulations related to the electronic administration of the act. Incorporation by reference means regulations could change over time when external bodies decide to revise those documents that have been incorporated by reference, and Parliament would have no further oversight role. These external changes would become law automatically with no further action required from the Canadian state, or from Parliament.

We feel this is not only not transparent but also downright undemocratic.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Hyer.

Is there any further discussion?

Mr. Adler, you can deal with PV-40 and PV-42 together if you wish.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Okay, thank you.

The government does not support amendment PV-40 because it would undermine the purpose of this new measure, which is to ensure that the minister has the flexibility to make use of a full range of modern electronic tools in the administration of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Automated systems assist officers in carrying out routine, straightforward tasks, thereby freeing up officer time for more value-added complex activities. Their use enhances the timeliness and efficiency of decision-making and bolsters program integrity measures. The effect of the proposed amendment would be to significantly hamper the department's ability to use available technology to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its processes. It would provide clients with faster and more efficient service and focus its resources on those cases that need it most.

The government also does not support PV-42 because it would prevent regulations made under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act from incorporating standards and specifications by reference, and would require instead that these standards be reproduced in full text. Incorporation by reference limits unnecessary repetition of technical standards and specifications that have been developed and made available by authoritative external bodies. The effect of the proposed amendment would be to lengthen regulations. It would lead to amendments to regulations whenever technical standards change, and would create an opportunity for discrepancies between regulatory requirements and industry-recognized technical standards.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you very much, Mr. Adler.

We'll vote now on PV-40.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

All those in favour of PV-42?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 175 agreed to)

(Clause 176 agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We'll thank our officials from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. Thank you.

We'll move on to division 16, First Nations Fiscal Management Act. This deals with clauses 177 to 205. I do not have any amendments for this division. We'll bring our officials forward from the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada.

Colleagues, do you want me to group these clauses?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We'll group clauses 177 to 205.

(Clauses 177 to 205 inclusive agreed to)

I want to thank our officials for convincing the committee to carry those unanimously.

We'll bring forward officials dealing with division 17, Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act. I do not have any amendments for clauses 206 to 209.

(Clauses 206 to 209 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 210)

For clause 210 I have NDP-9, NDP-10, NDP-11, PV-43, and PV-44. We'll go to NDP-9 and NDP-10.

Could I have a short explanation because the chair does have a ruling for NDP-9 and NDP-10. I'd like a short explanation.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will be brief.

Thanks to amendment NDP-9, the minimum benefit would help keep our veterans above the line of poverty. Without sufficient benefits, the situation of our women and men who have bravely served our country could worsen.

Amendment NDP-10 would help increase the retirement income security benefit. In the bill, that benefit actually represents 70% of the money Veterans Affairs Canada receives in financial benefits before the age of 65. The amendment would bring it up to 100%. So we would ensure the financial stability of our veterans as they age.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Côté.

I have a ruling that applies to NDP-9 and to NDP-10. These amendments seek to amend Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures. The amendments would result in an increase in the value of the benefit in question. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states the following on pages 767 and 768:

Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.

In the opinion of the chair these two amendments propose to increase the value of the said benefit, which would impose an additional charge on the public treasury. Therefore, I rule these two amendments inadmissible.

We will move to NDP-11, which I do not have a ruling on.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Chair, I'm disappointed by your decision, but I understand it. I hope my colleagues from across the table have listened carefully and will use our proposal themselves. We, the NDP, actually love having our ideas stolen. We have no objection to that.

The goal of amendment NDP-11 is to have the benefits indexed based on the consumer price index once a year. It is one thing for the benefits to be predictable, but it is another for them to follow the cost of living index. That would ensure that the benefits would not decrease over time and as the cost of living index increases. After all, that is a major concern for our veterans. They would not have to worry about increases in the price of their rent, groceries or gas if the benefits they are entitled to increase.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Merci. On NDP-11, we'll go to Mr. Cannan, please.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Chair, I agree that as far as legislation adjusting the registered income security benefit, the RISB, to be in accordance with the consumer price index is concerned, it makes sense, but the drafting conventions and consistency with other regulations within the new Veterans Charter dictate that the indexation of benefits be contained in the regulations. The government intends to index the RISB, as it does other benefits, to the consumer price index. Outlining the criteria in regulations versus legislation also provides the minister with more flexibility to make changes in the future should a better indicator for adjusting rates than the consumer price index be established at some point in the future. Therefore, the government does not support this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Cannan.

We'll go to the vote on NDP-11.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

I would still like to quickly respond to these remarks.

It's a pity. Ultimately, the members of the governing party and we agree on the fact that it's important to index benefits based on inflation. However, instead of establishing an automatic mechanism that in no way prevents the minister from making improvements or proposing additional enhancements, decisions will be made arbitrarily by the executive. That's really too bad.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Merci. We'll vote on NDP-11.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We'll deal now with PV-43 and PV-44. They are identical, so we'll deal with PV-44.

Mr. Hyer.

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

What this amendment is trying to fix is surprising. This amendment seeks to make it so that as veterans age, they don't see a decrease in the funding they receive from the government. It appears that currently in Bill C-59, when veterans reach the age of 65, they will actually receive less money, which makes no sense, as they're looking at increased costs of health care as they age, as we all age.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Hyer.

We'll go to Mr. Cannan on this.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Chair, this amendment would create a new section in the retirement income security benefit that would restrict the regulation-making authority section to require consideration of the veterans's age and needs, and could not result in a decrease in the RISB. This is problematic because in addition to the fact that determining the offset based on age could be discriminatory, a charter violation, Veterans Affairs Canada is already considering the needs of the veteran and his or her family, which are already factored into the current design as the RISB will provide lifelong financial stability for moderately to severely disabled veterans beginning at the age of 65.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Cannan.

We'll go to the vote on PV-44.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 210 agreed to )

I don't have any amendments for clauses 211 to 213. May I group these together?

Mr. Brison.

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

I'd like to speak to clauses 212 to 216.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay, so we'll vote on clause 211.

(Clause 211 agreed to)

(On clause 212)

Mr. Brison, on clause 212.

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

Mr. Chair, I'd like to speak to the critical injury benefit.

The establishment of a critical injury benefit is a positive step forward in responding to the needs of those who suffer from severe or traumatic injuries. We're concerned, however, that the criteria are highly restrictive and make no reference to people with post-traumatic stress disorder, which marginalizes them yet again. It excludes those who suffer operational stress injuries and PTSD, unless those injuries are immediately incapacitating.

Evidence shows that these types of injuries often reveal themselves over time, which means that sufferers often won't qualify for the critical injury benefit. Countless veterans have told us that disabling PTSD, traumatic brain injury, or loss of organ function are being lowballed below the $40,000 average lump sum payment for pain and suffering. The critical injury benefit continues to marginalize many veterans who are enduring lifelong disabilities. Therefore, we are proposing an amendment, in fact to clause 214, to address that.