Veterans Affairs Committee on Oct. 29th, 2014

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

I'm going to call for the vote on the amendment as proposed by Mr. Valeriote.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 4 agreed to)

(Clause 5 agreed to)

(On clause 6)

Mr. Valeriote, you have a proposed amendment on clause 6.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

It really is in association with the first amendment that I proposed, and that was eliminating the five-year period. My argument remains the same—if I'm given the opportunity to repeat it—it could possibly hurt those who have a manifestation of an illness that follows the first five- and second five-year periods, which I think is unfortunate, regrettable, but I suspect I know the outcome of this vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Okay.

I don't there's anything further to add if the information's going to be the same. If there's no further comment, we'll go to the vote.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 6 agreed to)

(On clause 7)

Clause 7 is the first one that is fun, eh?

[The Clerk]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

I want to explain, because I know you're all experts far more than I am, if you vote in favour of an amendment, the other amendments immediately die. I'm going to explain that we have an NDP motion, and the next is, I believe, Ms. May's. The point being that there are three proposed amendments, and they're in conflict. Therefore, only one amendment can be voted in. The NDP's is the first, the private member's is the second, and the—

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

The Green Party is actually what PV stands for, Parti vert.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

I can always count on you from way, way back to correct me. I appreciate that very much.

There are three proposals for amendments from the three parties: NDP, Green, and, Conservative.

We will deal with them in the order they are here. If one of them passes the other two are automatically defeated. Is that clear? We can't have all three is my point.

Are you happy with that?

It's the second Green Party one but it is not in conflict with these other ones. So we'll deal with that one separately.

Is that clear? There can be two amendments—

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

One and one....

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Any further questions on the process before we go on?

So the first three are the NDP, the Green Party, and the Conservatives. We are dealing with those as a block. They are in conflict because they have similarities. That comes from the experts not from the chair.

So the first thing we do is have the NDP comment on their amendment, please.

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

I proposed this amendment because I am afraid that there could be problems, for example, in the case of a person leaving the Canadian Forces, feeling unwell and likely suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome. After a year or two, that person's post-traumatic stress is recognized as attributable to his or her service. We know that, without doubt, the discharge will not be recognized. I am afraid that a situation like that could be a problem.

Previously, wounded soldiers and those discharged for non-medical reasons were not able to obtain benefits from the Service Income Security Insurance Plan, even after their condition was recognized as a ground for the discharge. If the text is not amended, I feel that this kind of problem could happen again. So it seems to me to be important for us to pass the amendment because, at the moment, a person leaving the forces because of post-traumatic stress syndrome, or for other reasons, would have problems in such a situation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Are there comments or questions?

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

I ask for a recorded vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

We will have a recorded vote on the amendment.

(Amendment negatived nays 5; yeas, 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Next we'll hear, briefly I hope, from Ms. May on her proposed amendment.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the admonition to be brief but I really do think it needs to be put on the record that this committee passed more than a year ago a resolution, a motion, that said that members of Parliament in positions that I have, being a representative of a smaller party, under 12, and independent members will be invited, or required depending on how you look at it, to present amendments to this committee 48 hours before they begin clause-by-clause.

In that case I need to put it on the record that I find it egregious that it meant we were not entitled to hear from a single witness in informing the amendments we presented and prepared. Had we been able to listen to witnesses I think it's also unfortunate that none of those witnesses would have represented veterans groups. This is after all the veterans hiring act and I think they had relevant experience this committee should have heard.

That said, I rely for this amendment, which you can see quite simply removes the words that are attributable to service so that the medical reasons for which a discharge occurs is not restrictive. We based this amendment on the blog that was posted by the Veterans Ombudsman, Mr. Guy Parent, who wrote:

I believe that all medically releasing Canadian Armed Forces members should be treated the same way, because there is an inherent service relationship for every Canadian Armed Forces member who is medically released because the individual can no longer serve in uniform.

I will paraphrase quickly with an ellipsis...to all medically releasing members regardless of the reasons for medical release should be able to benefit from this act.

That's the rationale behind my amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Thank you very much, Ms. May.

Now I'm going to read into record why the amendment is inadmissible.

Bill C-27 aims to amend the Public Service Employment Act to provide increased access to hiring opportunities in the public service for certain serving and former members of the Canadian Forces, and to establish a right of appointment in priority to all other persons for certain members of the Canadian Forces who are released for medical reasons that are attributable to service. The proposed amendment, PV-1, would remove the specification that a priority in hiring would be reserved for those whose release for medical reasons is directly attributable to service. The scope of the bill, as adopted at second reading by the House of Commons on June 3, 2014, is explicit in restricting the priorities of those individuals and the amendment therefore falls outside the scope of the bill. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, states on page 766, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill”. Therefore, in my opinion as the chair, the amendment is inadmissible

Thank you very much.

So we go to the third, which is moved by the government. We should hear a brief submission on that if we could, please.

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair

My amendment is very simple. It basically clarifies that the Minister of Veterans Affairs makes the determination, and that's about it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Are there comments?

Mr. Stoffer.

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

Does he say Minister of Veterans Affairs and/or...? If the minister for whatever reason in his capacity can't make it, is there a deputy or someone else who that determination can be assigned to?

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

What I'll do is go to any other questions or comments and then, as we did before, we'll let the...

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

Or is that just standard procedure in any aspect?

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

You want him to answer now?

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

My understanding is it's standard procedure, but ultimately any official is able to make a decision on behalf of the minister.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Are there other comments?

Mr. Valeriote.