Bill C-59 (Historical)

Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1

An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures

Part 1 implements income tax measures and related measures proposed or referenced in the April 21, 2015 budget. In particular, it
(a) reduces the required minimum amount that must be withdrawn annually from a registered retirement income fund, a variable benefit money purchase registered pension plan or a pooled registered pension plan;
(b) ensures that amounts received on account of the new critical injury benefit and the new family caregiver relief benefit under the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act are exempt from income tax;
(c) decreases the small business tax rate and makes consequential adjustments to the dividend gross-up factor and dividend tax credit;
(d) increases the lifetime capital gains exemption to $1 million for qualified farm and fishing properties;
(e) introduces the home accessibility tax credit;
(f) extends, for one year, the mineral exploration tax credit for flow-through share investors;
(g) extends, for five years, the tax deferral regime that applies to patronage dividends paid to members by an eligible agricultural cooperative in the form of eligible shares;
(h) extends until the end of 2018 the temporary measure that allows certain family members to open a registered disability savings plan for an adult individual who might not be able to enter into a contract;
(i) permits certain foreign charitable foundations to be registered as qualified donees;
(j) increases the annual contribution limit for tax-free savings accounts to $10,000;
(k) creates a new quarterly remitter category for certain small new employers; and
(l) provides an accelerated capital cost allowance for investment in machinery and equipment used in manufacturing and processing.
Part 2 implements various measures for families.
Division 1 of Part 2 implements the income tax measures announced on October 30, 2014. It amends the Income Tax Act to increase the maximum annual amounts deductible for child care expenses, to repeal the child tax credit and to introduce the family tax cut credit that is modified to include transferred education-related amounts in the calculation of that credit as announced in the April 21, 2015 budget.
Division 2 of Part 2 amends the Universal Child Care Benefit Act to, effective January 1, 2015, enhance the universal child care benefit by providing $160 per month for children under six years of age and by providing a new benefit of $60 per month for children six years of age or older but under 18 years of age.
It also amends the Children’s Special Allowances Act to, effective January 1, 2015, increase the special allowance supplement for children under six years of age from $100 to $160 per month and introduce a special allowance supplement in the amount of $60 per month for children six years of age or older but under 18 years of age.
Part 3 enacts and amends several Acts in order to implement various measures.
Division 1 of Part 3 enacts the Federal Balanced Budget Act. That Act provides for certain measures that are to apply in the case of a projected or recorded deficit. It also provides for the appearance of the Minister of Finance before a House of Commons committee to explain the reasons for the deficit and present a plan for a return to balanced budgets.
Division 2 of Part 3 enacts the Prevention of Terrorist Travel Act in order to establish a mechanism to protect information in respect of judicial proceedings in relation to decisions made by the designated minister under the Canadian Passport Order to prevent the commission of a terrorism offence or for the purposes of the national security of Canada or a foreign country or state. It also makes a related amendment to the Canada Evidence Act.
Division 3 of Part 3 amends the Industrial Design Act, the Patent Act and the Trade-marks Act to, among other things, provide for extensions of time limits in unforeseen circumstances and provide the authority to make regulations respecting the correction of obvious errors. It also amends the Patent Act and the Trade-marks Act to protect communications between patent or trade-mark agents and their clients in the same way as communications that are subject to solicitor-client privilege.
Division 4 of Part 3 amends the Canada Labour Code to increase the maximum amount of compassionate care leave to 28 weeks and to extend to 52 weeks the period within which that leave may be taken. It also amends the Employment Insurance Act to, among other things, increase to 26 the maximum number of weeks of compassionate care benefits and to extend to 52 weeks the period within which those benefits may be paid.
Division 5 of Part 3 amends the Copyright Act to extend the term of copyright protection for a published sound recording and a performer’s performance fixed in a published sound recording from 50 years to 70 years after publication. However, the term is capped at 100 years after the first fixation of, respectively, the sound recording or the performer’s performance in a sound recording.
Division 6 of Part 3 amends the Export Development Act to add a development finance function to the current mandate of Export Development Canada (EDC), which will enable EDC to provide development financing and other forms of development support in a manner consistent with Canada’s international development priorities. The amendments also provide that the Minister for International Trade is to consult the Minister for International Development on matters related to EDC’s development finance function.
Division 7 of Part 3 amends the Canada Labour Code in order to, among other things, provide that Parts II and III of that Act apply to persons who are not employees but who perform for employers activities whose primary purpose is to enable those persons to acquire knowledge or experience, set out circumstances in which Part III of that Act does not apply to those persons and provide for regulations to be made to apply and adapt any provision of that Part to them.
Division 8 of Part 3 amends the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act to, among other things, provide that the Chief Actuary is not permitted to distinguish between members of either House of Parliament when fixing contribution rates under that Act.
Division 9 of Part 3 amends the National Energy Board Act to extend the maximum duration of licences for the exportation of natural gas that are issued under that Act.
Division 10 of Part 3 amends the Parliament of Canada Act to establish an office to be called the Parliamentary Protective Service, which is to be responsible for all matters with respect to physical security throughout the parliamentary precinct and Parliament Hill and is to be under the responsibility of the Speaker of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Commons. The Division provides that the Speakers of the two Houses of Parliament and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness must enter into an arrangement to have the Royal Canadian Mounted Police provide physical security services throughout that precinct and Parliament Hill. It also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
Division 11 of Part 3 amends the definition “insured participant” in the Employment Insurance Act to extend eligibility for assistance under employment benefits under Part II of that Act, while providing that the definition as it reads before that Division comes into force may continue to apply for the purposes of an agreement with a government under section 63 of that Act that is entered into after that Division comes into force. It also contains transitional provisions and makes consequential amendments.
Division 12 of Part 3 amends the Canada Small Business Financing Act to modify the definition “small business” in order to increase the maximum amount of estimated gross annual revenue referred to in that definition. It also amends provisions of that Act that relate to eligibility criteria for borrowers for the purpose of financing the purchase or improvement of real property or immovables, in order to increase the maximum outstanding loan amount.
Division 13 of Part 3 amends the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act to extend the application of that Act to organizations set out in Schedule 4 in respect of personal information described in that Schedule.
Division 14 of Part 3 amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to require the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada to disclose designated information to provincial securities regulators in certain circumstances.
Division 15 of Part 3 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to
(a) clarify and expand the application of certain provisions requiring the collection of biometric information so that those requirements apply not only to applications for a temporary resident visa, work permit or study permit but may also apply to other types of applications, claims and requests made under that Act that are specified in the regulations; and
(b) authorize the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to administer that Act using electronic means, including by allowing the making of an automated decision and by requiring the making of an application, request or claim, the submitting of documents or the providing of information, using electronic means.
Division 16 of Part 3 amends the First Nations Fiscal Management Act to accelerate and streamline participation in the scheme established under that Act, reduce the regulatory burden on participating first nations and strengthen the confidence of capital markets and investors in respect of that scheme.
Division 17 of Part 3 amends the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act to
(a) add a purpose statement to that Act;
(b) improve the transition process of Canadian Forces members and veterans to civilian life by allowing the Minister of Veterans Affairs to make decisions in respect of applications made by those members for services, assistance and compensation under that Act before their release from the Canadian Forces and to provide members and veterans with information and guidance before and after their release;
(c) establish the retirement income security benefit to provide eligible veterans and survivors with a continued financial benefit after the age of 65 years;
(d) establish the critical injury benefit to provide eligible Canadian Forces members and veterans with lump-sum compensation for severe, sudden and traumatic injuries or acute diseases that are service related, regardless of whether they result in permanent disability; and
(e) establish the family caregiver relief benefit to provide eligible veterans who require a high level of ongoing care from an informal caregiver with an annual grant to recognize that caregiver’s support.
The Division also amends the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act as a consequence of the establishment of the critical injury benefit.
Division 18 of Part 3 amends the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act to, among other things, provide that the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act do not apply with respect to records and copies of records that are to be destroyed in accordance with the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act. The non-application of the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act is retroactive to October 25, 2011, the day on which the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act was introduced into Parliament.
Division 19 of Part 3 amends the Trust and Loan Companies Act, the Bank Act, the Insurance Companies Act and the Cooperative Credit Associations Act to modernize, clarify and enhance the protection of prescribed supervisory information that relates to federally regulated financial institutions.
Division 20 of Part 3 authorizes the Treasury Board to establish and modify, despite the Public Service Labour Relations Act, terms and conditions of employment related to the sick leave of employees who are employed in the core public administration.
It also authorizes the Treasury Board to establish and modify, despite that Act, a short-term disability program, and it requires the Treasury Board to establish a committee to make joint recommendations regarding any modifications to that program.
Finally, it authorizes the Treasury Board to modify, despite that Act, the existing public service long-term disability programs in respect of the period during which employees are not entitled to receive benefits.

[Roch Lapensée, President, House of Commons Security Services Employees Association]

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, please allow me to thank you, on behalf of the House of Commons Protective Services Employees Association, for this opportunity to speak before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

The House of Commons Protective Services Employee Association has been certified since 1987 to represent some 225 members of the Protective Service of the House of Commons. The members of the association comprise approximately 190 constables, 15 corporals and 15 sergeants, who all report to the director of the service.

The present brief pertains solely to division 10 of Bill C-59, which amends the Parliament of Canada Act by adding sections 79.51 to 79.59, as well as certain transitional provisions.

Considering the profound changes proposed by this bill regarding security in the parliamentary precinct, the association considers that it is important to appear before this committee to submit its observations in relation to the contemplated changes.

Before delving into the heart of Bill C-59, the association wishes to emphasize its great pride in the professionalism and exemplarity of its members, especially regarding their behaviour during the events of October 22, 2014.

Nobody knows the precinct and members of Parliament better than the employees of the House's Protective Service, which plays a key role in the functioning of our democratic system. Our work requires a significant skill set to combine the necessary security requirements with the public nature of the parliamentary precinct, and this work deserves to be recognized and underscored before this honourable committee.

Turning to the substance of Bill C-59, it should be noted at the outset that the bill provides a definition of the term “parliamentary precinct” in section 79.51. This is a novelty to our knowledge, and one that should be commended. For several years, the work of members of the House's Protective Service has expanded far beyond the walls of what was once called “the Hill”.

The association is satisfied that this new definition recognizes that parliamentary privilege follows the parliamentary function, thus recognizing a functional rather than geographical vision of the concept of parliamentary privilege.

Putting into practice the authority vested in the Sergeant-at-Arms and the Speaker of the House with respect to protection matters, the employees of the House's Protective Service exert all their functions within the confines of parliamentary privilege, being its custodian and therefore an essential part of the legislative function of the House of Commons of Canada.

It is this legislative function that is at the heart of our work, which is why the protection of parliamentary privilege was significantly underscored in the press release issued by the association on February 4, 2015, when the elements now contained in Bill C-59 were announced for the first time by government. The concerns that were voiced in this press release are entirely transposable to Bill C-59, and can be grouped into two broad categories: operational concerns, and labour relations concerns.

The association does not dispute the findings made by the Auditor General of Canada in June 2012 recommending greater coordination between the various entities engaged in the protection of the parliamentary precinct. It is clear that greater coordination in terms of protection and security would have been desirable on October 22, 2014, and still is. This is a conclusion that was also reached by the Ottawa police in a recent press conference.

Also in June 2012, the Auditor General recommended that the House of Commons should contemplate the feasibility of a unified security force for the entire parliamentary precinct. Again, the association is not opposed to this recommendation and welcomes the creation of the Parliamentary Protective Service proposed by section 79.52 of the bill. There are, however, two caveats that the association wishes to underscore.

Firstly, better operational coordination between the various entities does not necessarily require an operational merger of the two protective services, namely, of the House of Commons and Senate. The association considers it unlikely that constables, corporals and sergeants of the House will be used interchangeably in the Senate and vice versa. Our work requires a deep and detailed knowledge of places and people to adequately fulfill our duties, and this knowledge comes with experience that is gained by devoting one's lasting attention to either the House of Commons or the Senate.

The association also considers that it would be impractical and undesirable from a security standpoint to reorganize the protective staff of both houses in order to require that every employee can interchangeably perform the duties in the House of Commons or in the Senate without having long-term assignments in one of the houses.

It would be much more desirable to maintain the current working structures to continue to increase team effectiveness and responsiveness. Thus, the association believes that an operational merger of the two protective services, in the House of Commons and Senate, would not increase the coordination, but on the contrary would reduce its effectiveness by diluting the specificity of its action.

Secondly, the association noted that the bill requires that PPS's new director be an active member of the RCMP, who will serve under the dual authority of the Speakers of the House of Commons and of the Senate. We also note that, although section 79.53 entrusts the PPS with “matters with respect to physical security throughout the parliamentary precinct and Parliament Hill”, section 79.55 of the bill confers exactly the same functions upon the RCMP, referring to an “arrangement” and providing that the RCMP shall “itself” provide physical security services in accordance with this arrangement.

Operational inferences stemming from this situation assume two alternative hypotheses: either the director of the PPS will concretely report to the Speaker of the House of Commons, to the Speaker of the Senate and to someone within the RCMP, or that person will actually be exclusively under the authority of the RCMP. In the first hypothesis, the association is unclear as to how a PPS director receiving directives from three different heads would be likely to improve security in the parliamentary precinct, or coordination between different protective services involved in such protection.

The mandatory institutional links between the new PPS director and the RCMP also appears problematic, especially in the very likely event that this person is confronted with conflicting or incompatible instructions. The triple-allegiance of that person — in other words, to the House of Commons, Senate and RCMP — would inevitably create a conflict, since the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and oaths made under this legislation would compel the new PPS director to disobey the House or Senate Speakers, and obey only the Commissioner of the RCMP. How could one conclude that parliamentary privilege, ensuring the independence of the legislative function, would be preserved in such a situation? Not to mention the operational nightmare that such a situation could present in an emergency situation similar or worse than the events of October 22, 2014.

The association views the second hypothesis, that is an exclusive operational control by the RCMP, as being equally or even more problematic. The association refers to its press release of February 4, 2015, setting out its position on the possible control by the RCMP of protection within the parliamentary precinct. Our concerns about upholding parliamentary privilege remain intact, and the association does not believe that it is in the interest of our democracy to give control of security within the legislative power to the executive power, this said with the utmost respect for the quality of work of the RCMP in its primary position, which is not the protection of the parliamentary precinct.

Returning to the “arrangement” under section 79.55 of Bill C-59, the association wonders about the practical significance of this provision. Are there plans to replace, double or add to existing positions in the House's Protective Service? If so, in what areas? No response could be provided as to the practical intentions of government regarding this provision.

Still with respect to this “arrangement”, nothing in the bill seems to prevent that the Speakers of the House of Commons and of the Senate may not have a decision-making role in the choice of the future director of PPS. It is entirely possible that this “arrangement” provides that the decision-making level in the selection process lies somewhere in the RCMP, somewhere in the Privy Council Office, or within the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, which would appear to the association to be yet another dent into parliamentary privilege and into our democratic system.

In sum, it is the very idea of RCMP control on protection operations within the parliamentary precinct that the association questions. This is not a matter of turf or jurisdiction, but a strong plea for the need to combine operational effectiveness and the respect for the sacred principles on which our Constitution has been founded.

Concluding on this aspect, the association would like to recall that no report, no study and no informed public commentator has questioned the work of the House's Protective Service, including in relation to the events of October 22, 2014.

It is, in this context, entirely legitimate to question the merits of the probable takeover of the PPS's control by the RCMP, or at least the very real possibility thereof envisaged by Bill C-59. Why change a recipe that works and works well? Are such changes not rather conducive to weakening our security safeguards? The association believes that the answer is in the question.

The association is satisfied by the presence of certain transitional provisions in Bill C-59 which, at first sight, seem to guarantee employment for the 225 employees of the House's Protective Services. This is especially so with respect to section 100 of the bill, which seems to protect the position of those currently employed by the House and of the Senate.

However, the association is concerned that the bill does not uphold the commitment made by the Speaker of the House in his motion of February 25, 2015, guaranteeing the employment of all employees of the House's Protective Services.

Indeed, Bill C-59 does not reflect this clear commitment and does not preclude a reorganization of work that could result in cuts or abolition of positions or modifications in terms of the workforce. Contrary to providing such job security, Bill C-59 introduces a significant amount of doubt and insecurity by requiring, as noted above, that both the PPS and the RCMP will be responsible for providing physical security throughout the Parliamentary Precinct, but without specifying who will do what, and by giving an unfair advantage to the RCMP in this regard by requiring that the director of PPS be an active member of the RCMP. This is a significant concern for the association, which would wish that the commitment made on February 25, 2015, jointly by the Speaker of the House and by the late Speaker of the Senate, Mr. Nolin, be clearly spelled out in Bill C-59.

To the extent permitted by the necessary discretion inherent to security operations, the association is available to answer questions that this honourable committee may have regarding division 10 of Bill C-59.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We will reconvene.

We're discussing the proposed amendments of Bill C-59. We have one witness, the very popular Mr. Kurland. We've made him well travelled over the years, it seems.

I thank you, sir, for coming in and giving us your thoughts. We had originally scheduled three witnesses, but it's just you. Unless the committee objects, I'm going to shorten the last hour somewhat, by perhaps half an hour. My colleagues may want to talk to you longer, but that's what I'm proposing.

Sir, as usual, if you could give us some of your thoughts on these proposals, we would appreciate it.

[David Macdonald, Senior Economist, National Office, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives]

I'd like to thank the committee for its invitation to speak today about Bill C-59. I'd like to limit my comments this morning to the proposed increase in annual contribution room in the tax-free savings account to $10,000 from $5,500.

I'd like to start with some critical information missing from budget 2015, without which I'm afraid the committee members may draw incorrect conclusions from the benefits of TFSA doubling.

The graph on the slide is reproduced directly from the federal budget 2015, and it purports to show that lower- and middle-income Canadians may gain more than wealthy Canadians from TFSA doubling. Unfortunately, the proportion of the population contained in each of these bars is not shown or included elsewhere in the budget, and this missing critical information for context to understanding what's happening here may lead to incorrect conclusions.

For instance, if the first bar on the left—for those making under $20,000—represented only 1% of the population, but received 15% of the benefits from TFSA doubling, as shown in the graph, this would certainly be a good deal for this group. Unfortunately, those making under $20,000 represent 34% of the population, but only receive 15% of the benefits—not an especially good deal.

On the other hand, those making over $250,000, representing the top 1% of the population, receive 4% of the benefits—definitely a good deal for them. In fact, the bottom 25% of the population in this graph—those making under $10,000—receive only 8% of the benefits of TFSA doubling; however, the richest 10% of the population receive 22% of the benefits of TFSA doubling.

However, looking at the distribution of benefits alone belies a larger fact, that very few Canadians are actually maximizing the TFSA room they already have.

This slide shows the percentage of Canadians who are maximizing their TFSAs in 2013, the most recent year available. It also displays bars of 10%, or deciles of the population, so as not to under-represent low-income Canadians, as the previous graph did.

For the bottom half of the population—those making under $30,000—maximization rates for TFSAs are vanishingly small. In every decile, the maximization rates are at or under 5%, meaning that 95% of the bottom half of the population haven't maximized the room they had in 2013.

Maximization rates are predictably higher at higher income levels, and they peak for the top 1%, where roughly one-third have maximized their TFSAs.

Underlying low maximization rates are low take-up rates in opening a TFSA account in the first place, particularly for low- and middle-income Canadians. For the bottom half of Canadians, only 30% have even opened a TFSA account; in other words, three-quarters of the lower half of Canadians don't have a TFSA. In contrast, 70% of those in the top 1% making over $250,000 do have a TFSA.

The final slide shows that since 2010 maximization rates have been falling. For the poorest 10% of Canadians making under $5,000 a year, only 4% maximized their TFSA in 2010, and that's fallen to only 1% in 2015. For the middle-income earners—this is the sixth decile—the maximization rate has fallen from 12% in 2010, when the maximum was $10,000 for a TFSA, to only 5% in 2015, when the cap was the much higher $36,500. This is prior to the doubling being discussed here.

The purported purpose of the TFSA program is to help low- and middle-income Canadians save for retirement and in particular to avoid the GIS clawback upon retirement. However, take-up rates, much less maximization rates among low- and middle-income Canadians have been poor, and the program has been much more rapidly taken up by the rich.

In order that this program does not produce TFSA millionaires who are eligible for programs meant for low-income seniors, like the guaranteed income supplement, it's important that the TFSA program have two caps put in place. First, a lifetime contribution cap should be set at $150,000, and second, a maximum amount of assets in a TFSA should also be set at a cap of $300,000.

I encourage the committee to include these caps in budget 2015.

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.

[Terry Zive, Chair, Government Relations, Conference for Advanced Life Underwriting]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members, for today's opportunity.

I'm Terry Zive and I appear before you today as a member of the CALU board of directors and the chair of CALU's government relations committee.

CALU and our sister organization Advocis represent approximately 11,000 insurance and financial advisers, who in turn provide financial advice to millions of Canadians. We're pleased to have this opportunity to comment on elements of the 2015 budget now contained in Bill C-59 that will assist Canadians as they retire and enter their ever-extending senior years. We would also like to comment on an additional proposal that CALU included as part of its pre-budget 2015 submission, which we hope will be given consideration during the 2016 budget process. It's never too early to start.

Demographically, we can all agree it is readily apparent that the boomer generation has had, and will continue to have, a significant socio-economic impact in Canada. Notably, the first boomers turned 65 years of age in 2011, and over the next 20 years, this group will expand the number of Canadians over the age of 65 to 23% of the population. As Canadians retire and age, two of their greatest concerns are receiving quality health care and the probability of outliving their personal savings. It is therefore critically important that all levels of government focus on encouraging Canadians to be more financially self-sufficient during their retirement years, and in doing so reduce their reliance on public programs and institutional support.

CALU is therefore very supportive of the reduction in the RRIF minimum factors announced in budget 2015 and now included in Bill C-59. These modifications, the first since the early 1990s, will help Canadians retain more of their savings and protect them from longevity risk. While CALU applauds the government for its action, we also strongly recommend the implementation of a regular review process of the payout factors, say every five years, to ensure that this important investment vehicle continues to provide the necessary financial support to aging Canadians when they need it most.

With a significant portion of the Canadian population moving into their retirement years, advancing age will drive the corresponding need for increased long-term care services. Last fall, the C.D. Howe Institute released a report that estimates that the total cost of long-term care will more than double to $140 billion over the next 20 years, leaving all of us to ask who will bear this additional cost.

The C.D. Howe report concluded that the provinces will need to shift more of the cost to those who can afford to pay. This will be an additional financial burden in retirement for which most Canadians are not currently planning. While we recognize and support the introduction of several long-term care initiatives in the 2015 budget, including the home accessibility tax credit and extending compassionate care benefits, we believe the looming funding crisis must be addressed with greater urgency.

CALU believes that long-term care insurance can play an important role in helping address this funding gap. Long-term care insurance provides a cash allowance to individuals who are unable to manage the activities of daily living. Greater ownership of this type of insurance coverage is critical to helping manage private costs associated with long-term care services. CALU therefore urges the federal government to continue to take a leadership position in preparing Canadians for what lies ahead. This can be achieved by: first of all, educating Canadians about their financial obligations relating to long-term care services; second, by working with the provinces to develop a more unified approach to determine who qualifies for subsidized access; and finally, by enacting the tax rules that will encourage more Canadians to own individual long-term care insurance.

Mr. Chair and committee members, I thank you for your time and attention. I'd be pleased to respond to any questions you might have.

[Corinne Pohlmann, Senior Vice-President, National Affairs, Canadian Federation of Independent Business]

Good morning and thank you for the opportunity to be here.

CFIB is a not-for-profit, non-partisan organization representing more than 109,000 small and medium-sized businesses across Canada that collectively employ more than 1.25 million Canadians and represent about $75 billion in GDP. Our members represent all sectors of the economy and they're found in every region of the country.

I provided a slide deck presentation to the clerk, and I'm hopeful you can have it in front of you when I walk you through it as we go through the presentation.

Our latest “Business Barometer” was just released this morning, and it shows that small business confidence remained cool in May, essentially staying unchanged since April at 60.6, as you can see on slide 2. While things have not gotten worse, they also have not improved, and so measures that can help boost small business confidence, such as some of the measures within part 1 of Bill C-59 are welcome.

Given the important role small businesses play in the Canadian economy, it should be no surprise that small business confidence is a pretty good indicator of real GDP, which you can also see on the chart on slide 2. Measures that can help boost small business confidence should also help improve Canada's economy overall.

How do you build that confidence? You address the issues of highest priority to the small businesses. As you can see on slide 3, the top issues of concern are total tax burden, government regulation, and paper burden.

Four of the measures contained in part 1 go some way in addressing these issues and will be what I focus on today. They are the reduction in the small business tax rate, the increase in the lifetime capital gains exemption, the new quarterly remitter category for small and new employers, and providing accelerated capital cost allowance for manufacturing and processing equipment.

As you can see in slide 4, in a recent survey 83% of small business owners said that reducing the small business corporate tax rate would be an effective measure in helping them to maintain or strengthen their business performance, with almost half saying it would be very effective. This has actually grown in importance, as we've seen the value of the small business tax gradually erode relative to the general corporate tax rate, which fell from 28% to 15%, while the small business rate only fell from 12% to 11% during that same period.

We believe there are good reasons to have a lower small business tax rate, as it helps to offset some of the increased costs borne by smaller companies. These include the higher cost per capita of dealing with red tape, the more difficult and higher cost to access financing, and the more limited ability for smaller companies to access certain tax credits and tax advantages that larger firms can. As a result we're very pleased to see this commitment to reduce the rate to 9% by 2019. The only thing that might have made it better is if it could have been done sooner to help boost confidence now.

The next measure we are pleased to see is the increase in the lifetime capital gains exemption for qualified farm and fish properties. The lifetime capital gains exemption is the most important retirement savings mechanisms for all small business owners, as you see on slide 5. Most small business owners do not have pension plans; therefore, they must rely on other sources of income to finance their retirement years. In fact, the lifetime capital gains exemption is especially important for those in the agriculture sector as even more of them, close to 90%, said it is a very important mechanism for their retirement savings.

As you can see on slide 6, addressing this issue now is critical, as more than two-thirds of small business owners are planning to exit their business within the next 10 years, and most of them, 85%, are planning to exit to go to retirement. However, it not only helps small business owners with financing their retirement, but it also becomes an important tool for helping to finance the next generation of entrepreneurs. In fact, about half of the respondents in a recent survey stated that securing financing for the successor is one of the key challenges facing businesses that are going through a succession process. To overcome that challenge, some have been using the proceeds from the lifetime capital gains exemption to help finance their successor as they take over the business. Therefore, increasing the lifetime capital gains exemption will be well received, and we can encourage government to consider expanding it to $1 million for all small businesses in the near future.

A third item we welcome in the budget is the creation of a new quarterly remitter category that would reduce paper burden on brand new businesses just starting out. This may be a small measure, but it's hugely important in recognizing the increased cost that regulations and paper burden place on small companies.

Slide 7 shows that small businesses spend almost five times more per capita than larger businesses in dealing with red tape, and any measure that reduces that even just a little bit is welcome.

Even more important, when asked about the most burdensome federal regulations they face, CRA-related rules such as payroll tax remittances are at the top of the list, as you can see on slide 8. If you want to encourage more businesses to get started, we need to make the pathway as simple as possible so that they spend more time growing their business than doing government paperwork.

These small measures can have a significant impact on the ground, and we welcome more creative ways like these to reduce that burden on the smallest firms.

Finally, we welcome the extension of the accelerated capital cost allowance for investment in machinery and equipment used in manufacturing and processing. As you can see on slide 9, in a recent survey more than half of all small business owners and about three-quarters of those found in the manufacturing sector stated it would be effective in helping them maintain or strengthen their business performance. We believe this is an important measure that can help stimulate a sector that has the potential to help boost Canada's economy in the months ahead.

All the measures I have mentioned—the small business tax reduction, increasing the lifetime capital gains exemption, creation of a new quarterly remitter category, and an accelerated capital cost allowance—are welcome, as each of these have the potential to help boost small business confidence, which will ultimately be good for Canada's economy.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I call this meeting to order.

This is meeting number 83 of the Standing Committee on Finance. Pursuant to the order of reference on Monday, May 25, 2015, we are continuing our study of Bill C-59, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures.

Colleagues, we have two panels here this morning.

For the first panel we have Professor Frances Woolley from Carleton University. Welcome back to the committee.

From the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives we have the senior economist, Mr. David Macdonald. Welcome to you, sir.

From the Canadian Federation of Independent Business we have the senior vice-president, Corinne Pohlmann. Welcome back as well.

From the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters we have the director of policy, innovation, and business taxation, Monsieur Martin Lavoie. Bienvenue.

From the Conference for Advanced Life Underwriting we have the chair of government relations, Mr. Terry Zive. Welcome to you, sir, as well.

You will each have five minutes for your opening statement. I think we're still trying to get a technical set-up for Mr. Macdonald, and hopefully we'll have that in place in time.

We'll start with Professor Woolley, please.

[Chris Gregory, Director, Identity Management and Information Sharing, Department of Citizenship and Immigration]

Good morning, Mr. Chair and honourable members of Parliament.

My name is Chris Gregory, and I am Director of Identity Management and Information Sharing at Citizenship and Immigration Canada, or CIC.

I'm here today to answer any technical questions that you may have on the amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act related to biometric screening under part 3, division 15, of Bill C-59.

Verifying a person's identity is vital to decisions made by Canadian visa officers abroad and by border service officers at Canadian ports of entry. An increase in application volumes and sophistication in identity fraud pose significant challenges to maintaining the integrity of Canada's immigration system. The use of biometrics in the immigration screening process helps us to address these challenges.

In 2013 Citizenship and Immigration Canada successfully implemented the temporary resident biometrics project, on time and on budget. Under this initiative we use fingerprints and a digital photograph to screen applicants from 29 countries and one territory who are applying to Canada for a temporary resident visa, work permit, or study permit. Privacy safeguards have been built into policies, procedures, and systems to ensure that client information is collected, transmitted, used, and stored securely.

Biometric immigration screening is now the standard worldwide, with more than 70 countries applying such methods. This new initiative brings Canada in line with key allies who are increasingly using biometric screening as part of their border security and immigration programs.

Biometric screening in Canada's temporary resident program is proving effective in protecting the safety and security of Canadians and the integrity of the immigration system, while facilitating travel for genuine travellers. It has made it easier to establish and confirm a person's identity, and to identify known criminals before they come to Canada. It has also facilitated the entry of applicants seeking to come to Canada for legitimate purposes, and made it more difficult for others to forge, steal, or use another person's identity to fraudulently gain access to our country.

In the 2014 economic action plan, the Government of Canada highlighted the importance of biometric screening in Canada's immigration program and committed to exploring new ways to improve the security and integrity of the immigration system.

To this end, the 2015 economic action plan announced the expansion of the biometric screening program. Through the proposed legislative amendments in front of you today, we are seeking to expand biometric screening to more foreign nationals applying to come to Canada, including foreign nationals applying to come temporarily to visit, work, or study as well as those applying for permanent residency. As Canadians are generally exempt from providing their biometrics when seeking temporary entry to the United States, U.S. citizens would also be exempt from providing their biometrics when they apply to study or work in Canada.

The fingerprints we collect would be checked against the RCMP's immigration and criminal fingerprint records, which would confirm if someone has previously applied to CIC using the same or a different identity, has previously been removed, or has a previous Canadian criminal conviction. Upon arrival in Canada, these individuals would have their fingerprints verified to ensure that the person who is issued a visa or permit is the same individual now seeking to enter Canada.

These legislative amendments would be supported by regulatory amendments that would come into effect in 2018-19. Safeguards would continue to be in place, including in the regulations, to ensure biometric screening is conducted in accordance with Canada's privacy laws and policies.

Expanding the use of biometrics in our immigration and border screening processes would help facilitate the entry of genuine travellers, and strengthen the safety and security of Canadians by reducing identity fraud and preventing inadmissible people, including known criminals, from entering the country.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Now I turn to Brenna for further remarks.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Good morning. This is the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, meeting number 50, Thursday, May 28, 2015. We're here to decide, to debate, and to discuss a number of clauses from Bill C-59, particularly clauses 168 to 176 of that bill, as requested by the finance committee.

The morning is divided into two sections. The first will be with the members of the department who are here this morning to help us. In the second hour we had originally scheduled for three witnesses; however, only one is able to appear.

We'll proceed with the first hour. We do have some representatives from the department. Chris Gregory is the director of identity management and information sharing. I gather, sir, you're going to be making a presentation to us. We have Brenna MacNeil, who's the senior director of strategic policy and planning. Good morning to you, Ms. MacNeil. Finally, we have Bruce Grundison, who's the executive director of the strategic projects office. Thank you, sir, for coming.

Mr. Gregory, you have the floor to make a presentation to the committee.

[Richard Blackwolf, National President and Chief Executive Officer, CAV, National Alliance, Canadian Aboriginal Veterans and Serving Members Association]

Good evening. I'm Richard Blackwolf, the national president of Canadian Aboriginal Veterans and Serving Members Association. I'm honoured to have with me tonight, Mr. Joseph Burke, the Canadian Aboriginal Veterans national representative from Ottawa, who has an extensive medical background from his service in the military.

Mr. Chairman and honourable members of the committee, thank you for the invitation to appear before the committee and give you our thoughts and opinions on the clauses contained in division 17, part 3 of Bill C-59.

It is our understanding that Canada is one of the countries that do not maintain a large standing armed forces. The often quoted prime minister, Sir Robert Borden, in his speech to the Canadian corps on the eve of the attack on Vimy Ridge is a reflection of the covenant between the Government of Canada and the citizen volunteers of Canada who go to fight in Europe.

The new Veterans Charter is a covenant between the people of Canada and the Government of Canada to the current volunteers serving in the Canadian Armed Forces and to future citizens answering a call to arms when the country needs to fight aggression. Therefore, it is all of our duties to make the best possible charter for the care of our veterans.

Our submission today is the result of a clause-by-clause analysis of division 17, part 3 of Bill C-59, with reference to the committee's previous three questions posed last year in May.

The purpose of the act is centred on the obligation to provide services, assistance, and compensation to Canadian Forces serving members and veterans, who have been injured or die for their service and have benefits extended to their spouse, common-law spouse, children, and orphans.

Mr. Burke will address the other portion of our presentation at this time.

[Robert Thibeau, President, Aboriginal Veterans Autochtones]

Good evening.

Once again, it's a great pleasure for me to appear in front of this committee to speak to you on behalf of the Aboriginal Veterans Autochtones and its partner organization the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples veterans, as well as the first nations veterans of Canada.

I've been asked by this committee to comment specifically on division 17 of part 3 of Bill C-59, which amends the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act to:

(a) add a purpose statement to that Act; (b) improve the transition process of the Canadian Forces members and veterans to civilian life...; (c) establish the retirement income security benefit to provide eligible veterans and their survivors with a continued financial benefit after the age of 65 years; (d) establish the critical injury benefit to provide eligible Canadian Forces members and veterans with lump-sum compensation for severe, sudden and traumatic injuries or acute diseases that are service related, regardless of whether they result in a permanent disability; and (e) establish the family caregiver relief benefit to provide eligible veterans who require a high level on ongoing care from an informal caregiver with an annual grant to recognize that caregiver's support.

The Aboriginal Veterans Autochtones believes that this portion of Bill C-59 as it deals with veterans requires us to examine it more closely as to the substance of what will be contained in that bill and what that actually encompasses. We feel that there needs to be a substantive commitment and positive action to prove to veterans, the veterans community and their families that this government and this nation does care for those they have sent into harm's way.

I will now briefly acknowledge the details of division 17 of part 3 and offer our words on these.

Aboriginal Veterans Autochtones and its partners are in full agreement that this looks like a step in the right direction for the Government of Canada and Veterans Affairs Canada. Transitioning of Canadian Armed Forces members and veterans and the services that have been mentioned in broad terms must include a sound and effective communication plan. There cannot be any misunderstanding as to what services are available and the benefits prescribed through Veterans Affairs. Therefore, effective communication is the key.

An issue previously brought forward to this committee by the Aboriginal Veterans Autochtones was this very issue of effective communication to rural and remote communities of aboriginals, including first nations, Métis, and the Inuit. We must consider veterans living in remote areas and develop ways to remove barriers due to location and possibly a lack of technology and to improve outreach to those veterans.

The retirement income security benefit and its establishment cannot be commented on fully at this time as we require to see the content of the proposal. We can only hope that whatever will be proposed will be acceptable to meet the needs of those veterans and families requiring this assistance and that we will not struggle later on to obtain the services for veterans or survivors.

The establishment of the critical injury benefit is another positive step forward to respond to the needs of those who suffer severe and/or traumatic injuries related to their service. Again, we must ensure that the content of this will meet the needs of the affected veterans.

During a recent trip that I took with 28 veterans of the Italian campaign—heros of Canada—I heard horrific stories of battles fought, friends lost, and pain endured. I was humbled to be included with these individuals. The stories I heard were stories that had never been talked about. They were stories of tragic events, happy occasions, and remembrance of good old friends. It certainly gave me a better understanding and an appreciation of the need to ensure that veterans are properly looked after due to their personal contributions, their personal sacrifices, and their abilities to move forward.

I was informed by some of these outstanding veterans of suicides of friends, of alcohol abuse, and of family problems suffered by returning veterans.

I also heard of how some were able to tackle the demons and to become successful in whatever they decided to do. There are two comments that stand out in my mind that were shared by these veterans with me.

The first one is that we had a number of aboriginals who were in our units. They were all good soldiers and we lost more than a few of them. It is too bad they were not looked after when they returned home.

Two, if it was not for the Afghanistan veterans, we veterans would not have gotten the benefits that were denied to us long ago. We can certainly see the similarities between what earlier veterans had gone through in the past and what our current veterans are going through today. Today's veterans have also suffered deeply, both physically and mentally, from recent conflicts.

Today's veterans are forced to rely on the dedicated and steadfast efforts of caregivers who in some cases are spouses, who gave up careers, took a reduction in income, and faced financial hardships, and which for some, led to a strain on relationships and a breakdown in relationships. These caregivers ensure the best of care is given. They are the ones who assist the injured while leading to the ultimate survival of the heros. No one could ever take for granted these what I term front-line defenders of our injured.

Compensation to caregivers who sacrifice everything in order to provide much in the therapeutic recovery of our veterans should not be undermined, and they must be recognized for their selfless contributions. If there is a need to continue support beyond age 65, then this should never be questioned, as we are talking about individuals who have given a great deal of themselves for the freedoms enjoyed by other Canadians.

We must also remember that as a country, Canada has sent these soldiers, sailors, air men and women to places of turmoil, conflict, and outright horror. That being the case, we should never accept the shirking of the responsibility we have for looking after injured Canadian Forces members and veterans.

In closing, I echo the comments made by both the Veterans Ombudsman and the Royal Canadian Legion. The new Veterans Charter and the enhanced Veterans Charter are considered living documents. This means that as a living document it requires review and adjustment in order for it to meet the needs of its recipients. As I have stated before, the new Veterans Charter was introduced in the House and all parties accepted it, as did the Canadian Armed Forces and a vast majority of the veterans groups. The new Veterans Charter has a number of issues and problems, but it is the job of our politicians to look to and listen to organizations that are providing good advice and offering solutions to the problems associated with veterans.

ADA stands behind the Royal Canadian Legion and the ombudsman for their tireless efforts to move forward on behalf of all veterans. ADA has always taken the stance that we will support only those organizations or groups that are for positive movement forward on veterans issues.

A final thought from one of my partner organizations is that veterans should probably be the labour force at Veterans Affairs Canada and also appointees to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board.

On behalf of myself, my partner organizations, and all Canadian veterans, I offer sincere thanks for allowing me to attend this committee.

Meegwetch.

[The Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Good evening and welcome to the 52nd meeting of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.

Tonight we will continue to study division 17 of part 3 of Bill C-59, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures.

The meeting will end at 7:30 p.m.

I'd like to begin by thanking the committee members for agreeing to meet today on such short notice so that we could hear from additional witnesses.

Unfortunately, scheduling this meeting next week was not an option since the Standing Committee on Finance invited our committee to present its recommendations by 9:00 a.m. next Tuesday, June 2.

This evening we will have the pleasure of hearing Robert Thibeau, president of Aboriginal Veterans Autochtones; Richard Blackwolf, national president and chief executive officer, and Joseph Burke, national service officer, Ottawa, both with the National Alliance of the Canadian Aboriginal Veterans and Serving Members Association; and finally, Jenny Migneault in a personal capacity.

The representatives from each of the three groups will have up to 10 minutes to give their presentation. Afterwards, members will have the opportunity to ask questions.

Mr. Thibeau, you're first. Welcome.

Parliamentary Privilege

[Brent Rathgeber, Independent, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, omnibus budget bills are undemocratic and unfair, contain wedge issues and make a member of Parliament's job impossible to complete. On Monday night, the House was forced to cast a single yea or nay vote on Bill C-59, the government's latest omnibus budget bill. The bill is 157 pages long, divided into three parts, and part 3 is further divided into 20 divisions. This allows for a wide range of disparate topics to be covered, some supportable, many not.

I support most of the tax credits and actual budgetary items. However, I strongly oppose retroactively amending the access act to allow for the premature destruction of records. I supported ending the long gun registry, but to retroactively change the law dealing with the records while the abolition bill was being debated is a dangerous, undemocratic precedent.

In any functioning parliamentary system, this omnibus bill would be divided and there were would be separate votes on each part and on every division within each part. It is simply impossible to cast a single yea or nay on an entire disparate package.

If the government will not respect Parliament enough to allow us to do our jobs, then the Speaker must intervene to defend parliamentary privilege. That is how a functioning parliamentary democracy would proceed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

I would like to thank all of our witnesses, and particularly Mr. Fleming for his patience in participating long distance like this.

The 52nd meeting of this standing committee will take place here in this room at 6:30 tomorrow evening.

This will be our third meeting on the study on division 17 of part 3 of Bill C-59.

This will in fact be the last meeting at which we will be hearing witnesses with regard to the study.

Tomorrow, we will hear testimonies from Aboriginal Veterans Autochtones and the Canadian Aboriginal Veterans and Serving Members Association.

We will also hear Jenny Migneault, who will join us in a personal capacity.

We are waiting for confirmation from Marie-Andrée Mallette, but it looks like she will be there, too.

Have a good evening, and see you tomorrow.

The meeting is adjourned.

[Derryk Fleming]

I believe that spousal care should be made available to all veterans, not just moderately and severely injured ones, because the spouses, the caregivers, until this point have not had any support whatsoever.

In terms of the actual transition, I take into account that this is a living document, so Bill C-59, division 17 is just one step of a number of steps.

So specifically I think you can do the most good by closing the seams of the football, as Brian mentioned, and doing the hand-off. I think there is some merit to this bill, specifically the hand-off. I think you're going to see real value come about from this bill in a really proactive manner, which is not to take away from what the other witnesses have said, but in a proactive manner. Having a seamless transition so the guys don't fall between the cracks as they're being released, I think is a strong point of this bill.

Thank you.

[Sean Bruyea]

Okay. Super, Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable members of the committee, for the invitation. We have much to do so I will skip further formalities.

The proposed programs that bring us here today have been accompanied by an inundation of feel-good political announcements. Does the hype match reality? More importantly, do the programs fulfill identified gaps and address the evidence-based recommendations?

The retirement income security benefit claims it will top up to 70% of what the veteran received from government prior to age 65. However, this is based upon the veteran's earnings loss benefit, as already pointed out, which pays 75% of release salary, inadequately adjusted for inflation. The retirement benefit equates to the veteran effectively receiving 52.5% of their military salary, once again inadequately adjusted for inflation.

It is interesting to note that the ombudsman, Guy Parent, was quick to endorse this program during a partisan political announcement, yet Mr. Parent's office clearly recommended a retirement benefit matching 70% of a fully indexed release salary.

The department has been less than forthcoming as to what will be deducted from this income, but we are safe to assume that CPP, OAS, and the CF retirement pension will be deducted. We must know that OAS, a program for all Canadians, is transparent in its legislation as to how OAS is calculated. Do veterans not deserve the same sort of transparency for their benefits?

What we do know is that the calculation for the veteran retirement benefit does not include these other incomes in calculating the 70% benefit, but then will likely deduct these programs at 100%. This hardly meets the smell test, let alone the fact it fails to provide the veteran with even 70% of what he or she received in Government of Canada benefits prior to age 65.

We also must emphatically remember that the majority of veterans groups that are active in advocacy, the ombudsman, VAC's own advisory group, and this committee in 2010 have all repeatedly recommended that the 75% earnings loss benefit be substantively increased to anywhere from 90% to 100% of release salary, matching typical career progression and promotions.

Implementing this universally supported recommendation would result in a dignified income loss program, which would in turn provide a dignified retirement benefit for our most injured veterans. Today we are witnesses to the consequence of government's repeated dismissal of this evidence-based research and recommendation in this paltry payout from this proposed retirement benefit.

The family caregiver benefit is another puzzling creation. No veteran group, parliamentary committee, ombudsman, or advisory group asked for this benefit in this form. What others have asked for is everything from matching the DND caregiver benefit, which pays up to $36,500 in any 365 cumulative days, to providing spouses of TPI veterans with their own earnings loss benefit to compensate for their lost income while they're caring for their disabled veteran spouses.

One of the easiest solutions would be merely to open up attendance allowance to new Veterans Charter recipients. However, the proposed family caregiver benefit pays $7,238 per year, equivalent to the lowest levels of attendance allowance, which pays up to $21,151.44 annually.

New Veterans Charter clients are prevented, under this legislation, from accessing the attendance allowance. Attendance allowance recipients are prevented from accessing the new family caregiver benefit, yet the criteria for each are different. If new Veterans Charter programs are so good, why is this one closed to Pension Act clients? If the Pension Act so inadequate, why are NVC clients prevented from accessing attendance allowance?

The critical injury benefit will provide a one-time payment of $70,000 to eligible Canadian Forces members and veterans “for severe, sudden and traumatic injuries or acute diseases that are service related, regardless of whether they result in permanent disability”. Countless veterans have come forward, telling us that disabling PTSD, traumatic brain injury, and loss of organ function are being low-balled below the approximately $40,000 average disability award payment.

How can government justify to a veteran suffering a lifelong disability that their disabling pain and suffering merits far lower a payment than a veteran who temporarily suffered an injury?

This leads to the obvious question on many Canadians' mind: from what bureaucratic orifice did this benefit originate? Absolutely no one in the veterans community, the ombudsman's office, the committee, or advisory group asked for this benefit. We know little of the criteria, but we can guess.

The criteria will be so stringently defined as to restrict the benefits to only two or three individuals per year out of a totally disabled and permanently incapacitated veteran population of 4,000 veterans, and a CF serving and veteran population of 700,000 individuals.

How is this in any manner fulfilling Canada's obligation to all of our veterans and their families? It is not. Why did government not do what we've all been asking and increase the amount of the lump-sum benefit to at least match court awards for pain and suffering? We are inundated by slick PR campaigns and political photo shoots on the importance of military service and of being a veteran, but when it comes to addressing shortcomings for those most in need, government delays deflect, and unfortunately have been lightly dancing on the suffering of our veterans and their families.

Bill C-59 proposes wording regarding an obligation to our serving members, our veterans, and their families, to provide services, assistance, and compensation. It is more encompassing than the construction clause of the Pension Act. However, both offer little substance and are essentially meaningless.

To what end is the obligation? Is it to rehabilitate, to re-establish or offer opportunity, well-being, employment, quality of life or education, or perhaps provide a clear service standard? An obligation without a goal is meaningless. Why does this obligation recognize assistance to only injured members, veterans, and their families? Is Canada not responsible for all veterans? The duty of the minister under the Department of Veterans Affairs Act is for “the care, treatment or re-establishment in civil life of any person who served in the Canadian Forces”, and “The care of the dependants or survivors”. Is this not what the NVC promised but has so far failed to deliver?

I'm consistently honoured to appear before committee and to have my comments placed on the record. In the past, I have provided over 100 recommendations in original reports with often unprecedented observations, likely more than any other individual or organization. In my last submission, I provided 30 easy and doable recommendations, which would have minimal expenditure and—