Evidence of meeting #31 for Veterans Affairs in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was priority.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:05 p.m.
Director, Program Policy and Outreach, Department of Veterans Affairs
No. The definition of survivor in the act is a spouse or common-law partner.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Royal Galipeau Conservative Ottawa—Orléans, ON
And if there is no spouse but there is a child, is it just too bad?
4:05 p.m.
Director, Program Policy and Outreach, Department of Veterans Affairs
The act does not address other survivors.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Royal Galipeau Conservative Ottawa—Orléans, ON
We here as parliamentarians, in some of the privileges that we have and in some of the entitlements that come with this job—with this temporary job, I'd like to underline—have certain privileges that go to our spouses and also to our minor children and also to our major children, provided that they are students and no older than 25 years old.
If it's good enough for us, shouldn't it be good enough for those who saved the democracy that got us here?
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON
From the explanation that has been given, and understanding Ms. May's and the Green Party's intent and I think the sentiment that might probably be felt by many around this table, there may be an amendment that can achieve the desired result, albeit not in the form that was presented by the Green Party.
If I'm led correctly, were we to change subclause 12(1)'s definition of survivor, line 4 from paragraphs (a) to (e), instead of leaving it in its current form, we would achieve—
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON
—I'm sorry, (a) to (f)—we will achieve the desired effect.
I would ask the analyst to analyze that.
4:10 p.m.
Committee Researcher
I agree with that statement. I think that would fulfill the intention that was presented.
That would be a subamendment, though. It's not in the amendment.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON
Can I ask the analyst to look at the next page on the handout and under paragraph (f) to see whether in fact the proposal is redundant, given that paragraph (f) is included in the transitional provisions?
4:10 p.m.
Committee Researcher
No, the transitional provisions don't apply. It's not the—
4:10 p.m.
Committee Researcher
Subclause 12(2) deals with the definition of “veteran”, not “spouse”—
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON
I stand firm on my original proposal that you change “(e)” to “(f)” and it will achieve what's intended.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
Having said what Mr. Galipeau said so eloquently about the fact that if a service person dies in the line of duty and has a dependent child of legal age—say, 19 or 20 years old or something—and there is no common-law spouse or husband-and-wife concern, I understand that if we try to include that and change it in this bill, it's going to cause a lot of consternation within the public service and the commission in doing all those types of changes.
But what I would like, if we support this particular issue as it is now, is that we have assurances from the government members that they will take this back to the government and seriously look at what Mr. Galipeau said and what we're indicating. This is not just for hiring, but for other benefits as well; that in the event that there is no known common-law partner or legally married husband or wife, in this particular case the government would undertake either a study or some sort of look at the benefit package's being much more inclusive and including dependent children. Nathan Cirillo's son was five years old. If Nathan Cirillo's son were 20 years old, I think emotionally we'd have a much different situation in this regard. That's why I say this.
If we can get assurances from the government that the minister and the government will look at this as a serious issue and maybe come back to us—say in 30 days, before Christmas—with some kind of response, that would be very helpful for all of us on this committee, sir.
I ask that to the parliamentary secretary.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Greg Kerr
Just before we go further, I understand that we are changing some direction of the bill, if we do this. Keep in mind that we're getting into broader territory. I'm just saying that within the context of the bill, this may be something that follows after the bill.
Did you want to respond? I know we have responses, but you had your hand up first.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON
Yes. First of all, I guess I'm not as assured as Mr. Stoffer might be that assurances from the government will actually materialize into much of anything over the next 30 days, with respect. I mean, it's a bureaucracy, and you're going to have all sorts of responses.
If, Mr. Chair, it is within my rights to bring the amendment that I spoke of earlier, and that is to change subclause 12(1)'s definition of “survivor of a veteran” by changing (e) to (f); if it's within my right to do that, then I—
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Greg Kerr
It is not right now, but there will be an opportunity before we have finished the clause. We have to deal with the amendment first.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
