Veterans Affairs Committee on March 7th, 2011

[Bernard Butler]

A permanent impairment allowance is a taxable benefit.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Mr. Lévesque. A short one, please.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

I intend to keep it brief, Mr. Chair.

My comments are directed to Mr. Hillier.

Earlier, the question I put to both you and Mr. Butler related to the case of a veteran with whom I was acquainted. He developed a work-related illness while in the military and he was advised to retire. He took that advice and today, he is stuck with a non-indexed pension. He was never given the opportunity to avail himself of career transition or other services. I think a person should be advised, as in any other circumstance, of his right to such services before having to make a decision. I'm referring here to subsection 52(1) of section 2.

[Keith Hillier]

I can't speak for the Canadian Forces in terms of people being advised to retire or what have you. The Canadian Forces do have a universality of service, and when that universality of service cannot be met, they are medically released from the Canadian Forces.

Also, while working with the Canadian Forces, we normally have an exit interview or a transition interview with the member who's going to be leaving, normally about 60 days before they actually leave, so that they are fully aware of the benefits and services that are available. That also gives them time if they need to have any documentation or if they have other things to deal with before they leave the Canadian Forces. But I couldn't comment on the issue of people being asked to retire because it's far outside of the purview of this organization.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you for that.

I hope your questions have been answered. We'll move on now.

(Clauses 13 to 20 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 21--Order in council)

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Yes, Ms. Sgro.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

I have an amendment for clause 21.

I move that Bill C-55 be amended by adding after line 6 on page 10 the following:

Within a two-year period from the time of coming into force of this Act, the provisions of the Act are to be reviewed by the appropriate standing committee of the House of Commons.

If I can speak to that, Mr. Chair, one of the issues we've heard about is the fact that it's taken five years for us to finally start moving forward on it, and I think having a review certainly helps all of us attain what it is we want. We want to make sure we stay on top of things and that Bill C-55 is reviewed in two years if it needs some changes, some things to help improve it. I think that's what we all want to see.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Kerr.

[Greg Kerr, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Chair, I'm afraid we're not going to support the amendment, for the simple reason that it has a bit more of an impact on the entire legislative process than just this bill. I have no problem if the committee makes a strong suggestion that the review process continue, and whatever comments go along with that, but to actually put it in the bill probably has a greater implication.

We're not prepared to support this particular amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Lévesque, and then Mr. Stoffer.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

The Bloc Québecois will be supporting our colleague's motion which calls for a date to be set for reviewing the act to keep it as current as possible. I don't think this changes anything in the budget. It's simply a matter of reviewing the application of the act to keep it current and to ensure that veterans are not unduly penalized.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Well, I do know that it won't require royal recommendation in that regard.

You just heard the witnesses state that it took five years to get this far, and we're helping a few hundred people, maybe 3,500--we don't know. In two years, the most severely disabled veterans, whom this act is supposed to help, will know that the committee—whoever that committee is—will have at least a day or two for review to see exactly how many people have been helped up to that point.

If they're indicating 3,500, yet we have evidence that in the three years previous a couple of hundred were there, it would be interesting just to see in two years where this comes in. It's been done in other forms of legislation as well—mandatory review after a certain period of time—so I think Madam Sgro's amendment is quite worthy and it's supported by us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Can I hear from the departmental people, and then Ms. Gagnon?

[Keith Hillier]

I'd just remind honourable members that the Government of Canada does provide for evaluation of all of its programs on a cyclical basis. All programs have to go through a formal evaluation process, and this program is no different. That is normally on a five-year cycle, because it does take time for research, for data and results to be meaningful, as opposed to just looking at things after a few months. There is that formal mechanism in government to make sure that it is reviewed through an evaluation process that is quite rigorous and is posted on the website.

I think that's a different issue from the committee asking people such as me to come back in a couple of years' time, saying, “You were here in March 2011. Come back and tell us what you're finding.” I think that's different from a very formal process that's inherent in all government programs today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Madame Gagnon.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

We won't be able to move any amendments today if monetary considerations are involved and a royal recommendation is warranted. Mr. Stoffer wanted to move an amendment concerning the words “may“ and “shall“. We'll have to see if that's possible at a certain point in time within a five-year period. There have been many refusals. The minister could have decided otherwise, but did not. Perhaps we should look into the circumstances in which these refusals were made and why no follow-up was done. These corrections should be made.

Moreover, the ombudsman has said that this is legislation that must evolve. I think we can base ourselves on something concrete, even though in politics, we must not always believe the people who make promises to us. However, I do believe that all opposition parties are acting in good faith today. This is a step in the right direction, one that will help certain people. With that in mind, we support the bill. We could have moved some amendments, but all we really want are some assurances that the process won't be dragged out and that no one is going to fiddle with the dates.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Storseth.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Can I get Ms. Sgro to repeat the motion, please?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

I move that Bill C-55 be amended by adding after line 6 on page 10 the following:

Within a two-year period from the time of coming into force of this Act, the provisions of the Act are to be reviewed by the appropriate standing committee of the House of Commons.

I can speak to this. It talks about it coming back to the committee. As Mr. Hillier has said, we can—

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

This is specific to Bill C-55?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Yes.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Isn't that the purview of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, anyway? You're not even putting a date; you're saying within two years, so it could be next week.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Well, no. It has to pass and get into force. It has to have two years for us to find out if it's working.

Is it reaching the people we all want it to reach? Is it helping them? That's what Bill C-55 is all about.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

My only point, Madam Sgro—and I think your intentions are well and good with this—is that this is the purview of the committee anyway. Whether it's three years, or maybe it's every two years, it's the purview of the committee.