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(a) reduces the required minimum amount that must be withdrawn annually from a registered retirement income fund, a variable benefit money purchase registered pension plan or a pooled registered pension plan;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.

[Michael Blais, President and Founder, Canadian Veterans Advocacy]

Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Michael Blais. I'm the president and founder of the Canadian Veterans Advocacy. Thank you for inviting me to attend committee tonight to speak to Bill C-59 and the creation of new programs designed to improve the quality of life for disabled veterans.

It is very gratifying to me to note that several of the primary issues that I found at the Canadian Veterans Advocacy in 2010 have been addressed recently. While there is a certain degree of scepticism within the veterans community I serve as to the timing of these announcements and the looming election, I am hopeful that the government is acting in good faith and that there will be merit in these discussions.

I understand there is only so much we can do with the limited time available to us. To that end, I'd like to focus on the shortcomings that I believe can be resolved at this time, if the government is acting in good faith, to ensure the proposals that have been brought forward will be inclusive to all veterans, not only those who have experienced physical trauma.

Critical injury benefit: I believe this is a positive development. However, what is very troubling to me is the fact that many who have sustained mental wounds will be excluded, due to the immediate prerequisite within the proposal. This exclusion is detrimental to our collective objective to eliminate stigma, to ensure that those who have sustained mental wounds are assured that the pervasive health insidious stigma does not relegate the seriousness of their sacrifice, as this does, to a lower state of recognition. There must be equality in acknowledgement of all serious wounds, physical or mental.

I would respectfully remind the committee members that mental wounds are just as lethal as physical wounds. We must acknowledge the grim fact that more of Canada's sons and daughters have died as a consequence of suicide than the nation's sacrifice during the war on terror. Without effective intervention, this number will only rise. Furthermore, we must be cognizant that these intensely tragic numbers speak only to one segment of the issue, as Veterans Affairs Canada does not track suicides within the veteran community. These numbers may be exponentially higher.

We know now that mental wounds, when incurred during an operational period, are often not recognized or acknowledged by the individual until returning home and the cycle of despair begins to ravage the mind, adversely affecting self and the family unit. We also understand that many of our heroes suppress acknowledging the seriousness of the wound, fearful of stigma and career-ending ramifications, until the mental discord appears and finally the treatment is brought forward.

We must consider all serious national sacrifice equally. It should matter not whether you have sustained a physical or a mental wound. Should it not qualify for the prerequisites of the CIB because a mental wound is bereft of the need for immediate hospitalization? Amendments can be made to respect the national sacrifice of those who have sustained mental wounds as a consequence of their service, so that they, too, will be included in this compensatory proposal.

In regard to caregivers, this too is a positive step forward, aligning the NVC provisions with that of the Pension Act and providing annual respite for primary caregivers who have been consigned to a lifetime of caring for seriously disabled veterans.

Once again, however, caregivers who are caring for veterans who have sustained serious mental wounds have virtually been excluded. Spouses who care for their husbands 24/7, fearing the spectre of suicide on a daily basis, are not accorded the opportunity for dedicated respite while knowing their loved ones are cared for.

There must be equality and recognition that the impact that a mental wound bears upon the caregiver is extraordinary, that the threat of the wound manifesting catastrophically is clear and present long after a physical wound has been determined non-life threatening. I would encourage you to recognize the travail that caregivers of those with mental wounds are experiencing. Amend the legislation to include the plight of families who are dealing with mental wounds.

Regarding the retirement income supplementary benefit, this has been the cornerstone principle of the CVA since conception, that is, the plight of our disabled veterans when reaching aged 65. I repeat, it's for disabled veterans, ladies and gentlemen. The foundation of the RISB, a comparative to the average Canadian's post-retirement income at 70% of 75%, negates the disabled veteran's quotient completely. We're not speaking of ordinary Canadians; we're speaking of disabled veterans who are bereft of a lifetime of opportunity to prepare for retirement. Disabled veterans do not retire from being disabled. Indeed, as they grow older, they require additional help.

We believe there should be no reduction and that the 70% of 75% equation does not respect the needs of a disabled veteran. The RISB should ensure the quality of life provisions to which they have been accorded, the foundation of VAC's mandate, are maintained at 75%. We also find it disingenuous to include a permanent impairment allowance—an award that recognizes the fact that seriously disabled veterans require financial support to cope with their wounds in addition to the 75% ELB or SISIP provision—into the harmonization of these income prerequisites. Once again, these are seriously impaired veterans. To negate the PIA mandate through a RISB clawback formula—despite the fact they are still seriously disabled and have already sustained a significant physical reduction—when reaching age 65 will consign them to lives of near poverty.

We also have grave concerns about the proposals to give 50% of 70% of prior earnings to dependants should the veteran pass prior to the spouse. We find this is grotesquely insufficient. There must be equality in recognition of national sacrifice. A serious life-altering wound must be treated with the same level of respect, regardless of whether it's physical or mental in nature.

I have come here today to attempt to convince you to fulfill this obligation, this sacred obligation to the valiant who have sustained serious mental wounds and to their families who have offered such profound sacrifice on behalf of this magnificent nation.

Thank you.

[Bradley K. White]

I, too, grew up with veterans. My grandfather was a company commander in Dieppe. He served with Lieutenant-Colonel Merritt, who received the Victoria Cross for his actions in Pourville. I knew Mr. Merritt when I was a young lieutenant, and I listened to his stories, so I know them well.

We all hope that what we're doing here is serving our veterans and making their lives better. That's why we do this. We're not politicians. That's why when we address you, we address you collectively as the government, regardless of what party you belong to.

As was mentioned, Robert Borden said years ago that it's the obligation of the government to look after those they send away to serve. We in the legion believe very much that it's the government's obligation to do that. You are all government to us. So our position is to advocate on behalf of those veterans to make sure that after they've served, they're looked after, to make sure that they have a healthy and productive life after they've been injured. That is our aim.

Is it incremental? Yes, it's incremental. But remember, 2006 and Bill C-55 in 2011 were the first steps to improve and breathe some life into the charter. We now have some more incremental steps in Bill C-58, which have been incorporated into Bill C-59, to do that again. We won't stop pushing. We said that in our statement.

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to all the witnesses for coming here this afternoon. It's great to see you here again.

Before I ask a question, I want to make a few points to clarify certain things.

First of all, the veterans ombudsman who was here this morning did not mention half measures. He said, actually, that it was a good step in the right direction. I think it was Mr. Forbes who mentioned half measures.

What I would really like to stress is that we can play political games here and point fingers at each other—I can point fingers at someone—and say, “Do you remember what happened in 1994-95?” But we're not here for this. I am really very proud and happy that I have been able, by my own choice, to serve on this committee since the beginning of this Parliament. I did not grow up here in Canada, but I grew up among veterans. I remember my grandfather on my mother's side—not very well, but I remember that he was missing his right arm. He lost it in the war of 1920, and he already was married and had children. He came back and had another three or four. My mother had 11 siblings.

I heard all sorts of war stories. Growing up, I truly believed that one day I would go to war and fight like these guys about whom I heard stories. It took time to grow up and realize what war was. I realized how fortunate my generation, born after the war, was and how grateful we should be for those who went to fight, those who served after, and those who are serving today—we have some of them at the table here—to protect us: my generation, the generation of my children and grandchildren, and I hope many generations to come.

We may have different political agendas, but we are here to serve the veterans. You gentlemen remember that when we were doing the review of the Veterans Charter, the question asked of many groups that appeared here—and several times the question came from me—was, if you had to choose, what would be the first things you would change in the Veterans Charter?

I'm not pointing fingers at all those members of Parliament in 2006 who decided, without any opposition, to pass the charter. They had great intentions; some things came up. That's why it is a living charter; that's why we have to look at it. Truly, I would not like to feel, after all the work at the committee....

You probably know the story from Greek mythology of the Greek king Sisyphus, who was punished and had to roll a boulder up a hill and never made it: the boulder would roll back. I hope we are going in the right direction and addressing the issues. I hope that's what we've done.

I think that what is in Bill C-59 is addressing the issues that were raised—not all of them—and my understanding and that of those who were at the committee is that the agreement was that it would be an incremental change.

I would love to have you address this and comment on the issues I raised.

[Debbie Lowther]

Our membership is encouraged by the provisions in Bill C-59. As I said earlier, we look at them as first steps.

As Mr. White mentioned, the new Veterans Charter was designed as a living document, and we haven't seen a lot of life in that document. It's nice to see some of the improvements being made. We are encouraged, and we're hoping that they are just first steps. There's still work to be done.

[Bradley K. White]

I suppose we'll start it off. Thank you for the question.

I'll answer in English.

One of the issues we have is that in 2006, when the new Veterans Charter came in, it came in as a living document. We didn't see any life in the document until 2011, when we had Bill C-55. When it came in it actually put something back into the new Veterans Charter. That was a start.

Bill C-58, now incorporated in this Bill C-59, is another start, we believe, in making the changes necessary to the new Veterans Charter, to make it a document that's alive, that's living, that's meeting the needs of the veterans at this time.

There will be more needs for veterans as we go down into the future. Bill C-59 does not fix all the issues or gaps in the new Veterans Charter right now. It's a start, and we're positive that this start will keep going. We want to see more. The new Veterans Charter has to continue to evolve to meet the needs of the veterans.

Wayne has indicated that PTSD is the tip of the iceberg at this stage of the game. It is the tip of the iceberg. Latent onset of PTSD is going to happen. We have not seen the full extent of what's going to happen with the mental illness problems we have out there on the street right now. We're going to have to take the steps necessary to address those in the future.

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

For the second or third time, thank you, Mr. Chair. All things come in threes.

I would like to thank our witnesses for being here today. You are the second group that we are receiving as part of the study on Bill C-59, or at least the part relating to veterans.

You all seem to be unanimous and all seem to support the provisions included in Bill C-59, which was previously Bill C-58. This morning we heard from the ombudsman and another group of veterans who described this as a half measure or a step in the right direction.

In a short sentence or in one word, I would like you to give us your understanding, perhaps more directly, of the provisions we are currently studying in the context of Bill C-58 or Bill C-59. Are you encouraged or disappointed when you read these provisions? Obviously, this is the first bill that follows on the report tabled almost a year ago now. How do the members you represent feel about this? Are they encouraged, shocked or disappointed? I will leave it up to each of you to perhaps describe this in a short sentence.

[Debbie Lowther, Co-founder, Veterans Emergency Transition Services]

Well, thank you, first of all, for asking VETS Canada to attend this evening and asking me to speak on behalf of the organization.

VETS Canada is an organization whose mission is to assist homeless, at-risk, and in-crisis veterans of the military and the RCMP. My husband, who is a veteran, and I founded the organization in 2010 after he stumbled across a veteran whom he had served with who was homeless in Halifax.

During the past five years we've had the privilege of helping over 500 veterans across the country. We've expanded from Halifax right to the west coast. In June of last year we were awarded a contract with Veterans Affairs as service providers in the field of outreach to homeless, at-risk, and in-crisis veterans. In the past five years, as I said, we've had the opportunity and the privilege to assist over 500 veterans.

One thing we've noticed is that every veteran's story is different. Every veteran's set of circumstances is different. There's no cookie-cutter solution to helping any one of them. One common denominator we see in our work is that the men and women we've assisted have not made a successful transition from their life of service to their civilian life.

A great deal of effort and rigorous training goes into preparing the men and women to serve their country, and we feel it would be wonderful if they were given the same amount of training and preparedness on the other end, when their career is coming to an end, particularly for those who are being medically released, as it is unexpected.

The reason we're here today is to discuss division 17 of Bill C-59. It's the opinion of VETS Canada that the retirement income security benefit, the critical injury benefit, and the caregiver's benefit are all positive first steps. We do support that they be passed; however, we have some concerns about whether or not they will be the end of the road. It's our hope and our wish that they remain just that, first steps. There is a lot of improvement there.

We feel that the retirement income security benefit could be higher than the 70%. We would like to see the critical injury benefit be more inclusive of those men and women who suffer with OSIs, as these injuries, generally, do not immediately present themselves.

Something that would be nice to see included in the caregiver's benefit would be training for caregivers—and I'll take off my VETS Canada hat and put on my caregiver hat for a moment. My husband had PTSD, and when I was his caregiver—and I still at times am his caregiver—I didn't know if I was doing the right thing. Caregivers need training. They could be doing more harm than good, so it would be nice to see training for caregivers included in that caregivers benefit. Along with the amount of the benefit itself, it would be nice to see it revert to something a little closer to the attendance allowance.

In summary, as I said, VETS Canada does support the passage of Bill C-59, but it is our hope that it remains just first steps and that there's room for improvement. We like to say: Is it better than what was on the table yesterday? Yes. Is there room for improvement? Yes.

Thank you.

[Maj Wayne Mac Culloch, National President, Canadian Association of Veterans in United Nations Peacekeeping]

Mr. Chair and members of the committee—

thank you for allowing me to testify before you today. Veterans are grateful for the attention you have given to their needs and your work in addressing a number of shortfalls in the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act, commonly called the new Veterans Charter, and its attendant regulations.

The 14 recommendations of your report last summer have provided a significant first step in redressing gaps in current legislation meant to assure the well-being of veterans by dealing with the top issues facing our most severely disabled veterans. While the new benefits for veterans, contained in Bill C-59, constitute another step in the right direction, it is but a small step and does not fully address the long-standing top priorities of veterans and their associations.

To recap, for the past several years traditional veterans' groups have been unanimous and consistent with regard to their top three priorities: the earnings loss benefit must be improved to provide 100% of pre-release income, continue for life, and include increases for projected career earnings for a Canadian Forces member; the maximum disability award must be increased consistent with what is provided to injured civilian workers who receive general damages in law court; and the current inequality with regard to earnings loss benefits for class A and class B reservists, those with fewer than 180 days, for injuries attributable to service, must cease.

Further key shortfalls to be addressed were outlined in the assembly's latest letter to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, dated July 18, 2014.

The provisions of the new Veterans Charter unreasonably constrain the number of disabled veterans who are able to qualify for appropriate levels of entitlement to this important allowance.

The exceptional incapacity allowance concept, founded under the Pension Act, should be incorporated in the new Veterans Charter. This allowance has traditionally addressed the impact of the disabilities suffered by 100% veteran pensioners, with reference to their difficulty to cope given their overall capacity. Introducing the exceptional incapacity allowance into the new Veterans Charter would augment the limitations of the permanent impairment allowance, particularly in circumstance where a seriously disabled veteran confronts the ravages of age.

In order to recognize the caregiving requirements that many disabled veterans confront to cope with their incapacities, the attendant's allowance provisions of the Pension Act should be added to the new Veterans Charter, in recognition of the financial costs faced by many families in this context. The new Veterans Charter should acknowledge that veterans with dependants should receive a higher level of compensation, either through the augmentation of the lump-sum disability award or through an increase in the earnings loss benefit for such veterans and their families.

Bill C-59, as it currently stands, does not fully address any of these recommendations. Specifically, the retirement income security benefit provides for a maximum of 70% of pre-age-65 earnings loss benefit, which itself is a maximum of 75% of pre-tax, pre-release salary, or, when you do the math, 52.25% of the pre-tax, pre-release salary, without any provision for projected Canadian Armed Forces career earnings increases. A survivor would receive 50% of the retirement income security benefit. This falls far short of the recommended 100% of pre-release salary, with projected career earnings increases.

Let's put some numbers on this. A regular force corporal currently earns $56,568 per annum before taxes. The earnings loss benefit would reduce that figure to $42,426. After age 65, the pre-tax amount of the retirement income security benefit would be $29,700. His survivor would receive $14,850 annually. Both of these amounts are well below the poverty line.

Note that these are maximum amounts, and under Bill C-59 they would be reduced by unspecified other amounts. What quality of life could the veteran or the survivor expect to experience under these circumstances? This alarming situation will be further exacerbated by other government cost-shedding actions, such as the current readjustment of cost sharing for the public service health care plan, which many veterans depend on for supplemental health insurance. It will be changed from the current 25% participant and 75% government share to a 50-50 scheme. Where will veterans and their survivors find the means to keep pace with this and other cost increases under the retirement income security benefit?

The solution to the quality of life that disabled veterans deserve lies not in what Bill C-59 proposes, but rather in adoption of the long-standing recommendations of veterans. It is our hope that this new benefit is but the first step towards meeting our stated needs. The Canadian Association of Veterans in United Nations Peacekeeping therefore supports inclusion of the retirement income security benefit in Bill C-59, but calls on government to commit to meeting the full requirement in its next session.

The family caregiver relief benefit is a welcomed addition to the suite of benefits available under the new Veterans Charter. However, at $7,238, it falls far short of a similar benefit under the Canadian Armed Forces compensation and benefit instructions, article 211.04, which provides $36,500. This discrepancy has not been explained, and an 80% reduction in assistance cannot fail to have dramatic consequences on the disabled veteran and his or her family. While the association accepts this benefit as another small step in the right direction, it once again calls on government to adjust the family caregiver relief benefit to the amount of compensation and benefit instructions, article 211.04, while maintaining the current breadth of applicability and duration of such payments.

The critical injury benefit is another new benefit available to those who have suffered traumatic injury requiring immediate hospital treatment. While it is welcomed as yet another small step toward improving the quality of life for those injured in service to Canada, the government’s rationale for this unexpected benefit has received a mixed response from association members. It appears to exclude those who suffer from operational stress injuries unless those injuries are immediately incapacitating. The history of this type of injury generally carries with it a period of latency, thus denying the benefit’s support to its sufferers.

This differentiation would drive a further wedge between those with physical injuries and those with operational stress injuries, both of which have severe impacts on the families of the injured. Previous strides in gaining acceptance of operational stress injuries as a bona fide injury could be nullified by the proposed immediate physical trauma and later OSI distinctions. While still supported, the association would like further work to occur to close this apparent gap.

I would like to bring a further concern to your attention, namely the frequent references in Bill C-59 to “prescribed sources”, the determination of the value of prescribed sources, “prescribed factors”, and what constitutes a single and sudden occurrence. These, and similar phrases, leave much of the value of the new benefits in doubt.

As occurred in the permanent impairment allowance, Governor in Council regulations so restricted the availability of the benefit to veterans, and limited the majority of approvals to its lowest level, that it had little of its expected impacts. Veterans would like to be assured that the provisions of the new section 2.1 of the new Veterans Charter will be amply reflected in the creation of new regulations and revision of existing ones.

In summary, the members of the association support the provisions of Bill C-59 that seek to amend the new Veterans Charter, and urge its speedy passage through Parliament to royal assent. However, significant gaps remain in the support that disabled veterans need from government. The association wishes to impress on all parliamentarians the importance of these gaps and the speed with which they must be closed.

Thank you for your attention.

[Bradley K. White, Dominion Secretary, Dominion Command, Royal Canadian Legion]

Honourable Chair and members of the committee, good evening, and thank you.

I do agree with you, Chair, that 632 is the friendliest branch in all of Ottawa.

It's a great pleasure to appear once again in front of the committee. I'm pleased to speak on behalf of our Dominion president, Mr. Tom Eagles, and our 300,000 members and their families.

This evening, we will do our presentation in English. However, we have provided a copy of our brief in both official languages.

The legion has been asked to discuss specifically division 17 of part 3, which amends the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act to add a purpose statement to the act; improve the transition process of Canadian Forces members and veterans to civilian life; establish a retirement income security benefit to provide eligible veterans and their survivors with a continued financial benefit after the age of 65 years; 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 finally, to 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 portions of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act as a consequence of the establishment of the critical injury benefit.

Please note that our comments are directed specifically to this section of Bill C-59 and not to the entire omnibus bill.

The Royal Canadian Legion is the only veteran service organization that assists veterans and their families with representation to Veterans Affairs Canada and the Veterans Review and Appeal Board.

The legion's advocacy program is core to our mission, and we have been assisting veterans since 1926 through our legislated mandate in both the Pension Act and the new Veterans Charter. Please note that veterans do not have to be legion members to receive our assistance; we provide it free of charge.

Our national service bureau network provides representation, starting with their first applications to Veterans Affairs Canada and through all three levels of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board. Through the legislation, the legion has access to service health records and departmental files to provide comprehensive yet independent representation at no cost.

Last year our service officers prepared and represented disability claims on behalf of over 3,000 veterans to VAC and the VRAB. There is no other veterans group with this kind of direct contact and interaction with, provision of support to, and feedback from veterans, their families and, of course, the caregivers.

When it comes to serving veterans and their families, the legion continues to be the only veterans organization in Canada advocating for and providing assistance to all veterans.

The legion recognizes that progress is being made for veterans and their families in this budget and recommends that the NCVA provisions of Bill C-59 be passed as soon as possible. Is it everything we have been advocating for? Does it answer all of the 14 ACVA recommendations? No, it does not, but it is a very positive step forward.

This bill lays out important enhancements that will improve the care and benefits provided to veterans and their families, especially for our veterans who have turned or will be turning 65 in the very near future. We need to ensure that they have financial benefits beyond age 65 for life, including that provision for their survivors as well.

However, we do have many questions on how the retirement income security benefit, the RISB, is calculated, and until we receive and review the complete policies on the RISB, the critical injury benefit, and the family caregiver relief benefit, we will not see how adequate these benefits will be to our veterans and their families.

Our principal concerns remain that the maximum disability award must be increased to be consistent with what is provided to injured civilian workers who receive general damages in law courts. As well, our concern with the family caregiver relief benefit is that it does not adequately compensate a spouse who has to give up a full-time job to become a caregiver. What is proposed is a respite benefit. Most families today are dual-income families and sometimes that service member works two jobs to support the family, so in essence when he gets injured three full-time wages are lost. We would prefer to see something akin to the Pension Act's attendance allowance reinstated.

As I previously stated, Bill C-59, in division 17 of part 3, does not answer all of the 14 ACVA recommendations. The Royal Canadian Legion will not rest until all these recommendations have been addressed and adopted, and we will not cease in our efforts to push the government to honour its obligations.

We have not shied away from making our stance on these issues known. We have shared our position paper, “Veterans Matter”, with all Canadians to encourage an informed debate on veterans' issues in the future.

I want to address the issues of communications and accessibility.

The new Veterans Charter was developed to meet the needs of modern veterans. It is based on modern disability management principles. It focuses on rehabilitation and successful transition.

It must be stated that the legion, while endorsing the new Veterans Charter as it was adopted in 2006, has also been steadfast in our advocacy for its change to better meet the lifelong needs of our veterans and their families. We all have an obligation to understand the complexities and interrelationships, and to inform about and explain the new Veterans Charter for the people who it concerns. Our veterans and their families deserve absolutely nothing less.

The new Veterans Charter and the enhanced new Veterans Charter Act are comprehensive and very complex. Our veterans and their families need to know what programs are available to assist them and how to access them, whether they are financial, rehabilitation, health services, and/or family care programs. The government needs to ensure that resources and programs are in place to meet their needs and to review the accessibility to these programs, while ensuring that front-line staff are available—and knowledgeable—to assist veterans and their families. This can never become a self-serve system.

Most veterans and their families do not have a good understanding of the new Veterans Charter. I would suggest that this highlights the ineffectiveness of the government's communication of the programs and services available under the new Veterans Charter for our injured veterans and their families. What is required is proactive communication to all veterans across this country to ensure that they are aware of the financial compensation, rehabilitation programs, health care services, and the family care programs that are available and of how to access them.

Lastly, it is also time for all of us to understand the new Veterans Charter and the Enhanced New Veterans Charter Act. This should be a priority. Our veterans need to know not only the weaknesses of the programs but the strengths behind the legislation: the programs, the services, and the benefits. We, too, can help our veterans and their families.

Since commencing our advocacy in 1926, the legion's advocacy and programming efforts continue to evolve to meet the changing demographics while supporting our traditional veteran community. However, notwithstanding the capacity of the legion, we certainly believe that the Department of National Defence and Veterans Affairs Canada have a responsibility to ensure that policies, practices, and programs supported through a sustainable research program are accessible and meet the unique needs of all veterans, with a goal of enabling the healthy transition of all our veterans and their families through this very challenging, changing, and sometimes difficult life course.

Finally, I would be remiss if I did not mention our World War II veterans and post-World War II veterans who are now seeking assistance through the legion for access to the veterans independence program. These veterans are often frail, and they are approaching the end of their life. They are a very proud group of people who have never applied to the government for any type of disability benefit assistance, and now, because they want to remain independent in their own homes rather than going into a long-term care facility, they cannot access the VIP and benefits for frailty because they do not have an established eligibility for a disability or a lower income.

Last October, we sent a high-priority list of resolutions to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, including a resolution that all veterans be deemed eligible for VIP benefits based on need, irrespective of their having established disability entitlement or low-income status. We urge the government to action this resolution without delay. We understand that the response to these resolutions will be forthcoming from the department very soon.

We agree that the passage of Bill C-59, and particularly those provisions that affect the new Veterans Charter, is a step in the right direction. Let me thank the committee for the work it does on behalf of our veterans. The legion appreciates the opportunity to come before the committee to brief you on our perspective on issues of concern to Canada's veterans.

I would also at this time like to extend to the committee the opportunity to visit our national headquarters, which we call Legion House. It would be opportunity for us to provide you with a full brief on how the legion is one of Canada's great institutions, and how we support Canadians, our veterans, and our communities.

Once again, thank you. Merci.

[The Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Welcome to the 51st meeting of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.

This evening, we are continuing our study of 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.

During the first hour this evening we will hear from Mr. Bradley White, Dominion secretary of the Dominion Command, and Mr. Ray McInnis, director of the service bureau, Dominion Command, both from the Royal Canadian Legion. I want them to note that I'm wearing my legion pin from the friendliest branch in the region, 632.

We will also hear from Mr. Wayne MacCulloch, national president of the Canadian Association of Veterans in United Nations Peacekeeping, as well as Ms. Debbie Lowther, co-founder of the Veterans Emergency Transition Services.

This part of the meeting will end at 7:30 p.m. We will then have a brief pause.

During the second hour of this meeting we will hear columnist, media personality, and academic researcher, retired captain Sean Bruyea. We'll also hear from Mr. Derryk Fleming, national administration member of the 31 CBG Veterans Well-being Network; Mr. Brian McKenna, representative from the B.C. Veterans Well-being Network; and Mr. Perry Gray, editor-in-chief of VeteranVoice.info. We also have Mr. Michael Blais, president and founder of Canadian Veterans Advocacy.

Are you making four different presentations or just one?

You have 10 minutes each.

The legion starts.

Opposition Motion—Federal Science Research

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Yes, I am alarmed, Mr. Speaker.

There is a new phenomenon in this city that I have not seen before. In the past, I found that when public servants retired, they were somewhat discreet and did not get actively involved in political parties. However, what I find today is rather surprising in that when they retire, they very rapidly join our party. They want to get rid of the Conservative government because of the way they have been treated, and it is not just the scientists but other public servants as well. I have mentioned this before.

In Bill C-4, the government totally put in shambles the laws governing the relationship with our public service. In the current bill before the House, Bill C-59, it is the same thing. The Conservatives would give the President of the Treasury Board total power to decide unilaterally, without negotiation, how to arrive at a sick leave program. It is not through negotiations anymore.

What has happened in the last few years is that our federal public service has been totally mistreated, and it is not prepared to accept that anymore, including the scientists.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Look, I actually think this is a good debate. You pay attention in Parliament to the debate over Bill C-59, over the different parties and the platform. Not to be too analytical about the politics of this, I think there's a very good debate in the country right now. I think there's a pretty clear choice about where we're going. I think Canada is in a very good place. If you look at KPMG's assessment, you see that the costs to create a business in Canada are 46% lower than in the United States.

I have a quotation that I come to often, by former Secretary of State and New York senator Hillary Clinton, who says:

Canadian middle class incomes are now higher than in the United States. They are working fewer hours for more pay…living longer on average, and facing less income inequality.

It's true that Canada is doing well. We have incredible challenges, of course. It's a competitive global economy. The manufacturing sector has some very specific and acute challenges in particular sectors. We have to work well with provincial governments, who sometimes are working at counter purposes to us in terms of lowering costs and being competitive. But we have to work together to make sure that we're maximizing the quality of our investments in infrastructure. I say this often, but this infrastructure question is important, which is why it comes up often in question period. It's so essential.

We're the second largest country in the world in size, but 37th largest in population. That's a gap, but there is also a gap in our fiscal capacity to make sure that we are all connected together as a country and that we're taking full advantage of that connectivity for economic benefit. It's why we have to work really well with provinces to build the infrastructure we need to be economically competitive going forward, east and west and north and south.

It is really important that we stay competitive, that we be fiscally responsible, that we balance the budget so that we have the fiscal flexibility to have the programs we have, such as the infrastructure program, the Building Canada fund, the gas tax fund, and all these programs, so that we can invest in infrastructure, be competitive, be cost-competitive, have world-class infrastructure, improve our quality of life, and be able to compete.

The policies, for example, in the auto sector that are in place in Mexico are not something we should be looking to import into Canada—billions of dollars in corporate welfare, lower-than-minimum wage standards of pay for workers. We need to make sure that we have good quality jobs in the auto sector and that we're competitive in other ways, and the only way we're going to stay competitive is if we maintain our fiscal discipline so that we can keep taxes low and can compete in other areas in terms of quality productivity, quality employment, and competitive cost pressures.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

It's not a post hoc ergo propter hoc—the rooster crows and the sun rises, so according to the rooster, it causes the sun to rise—situation. There's no direct line on a graph we can point to. But it's self-evident that firms that are able to upgrade their equipment and expand their capacity and to invest in their capacity over the fullness of time will become more efficient, get their products to market at a more competitive price point, and be able to expand and to sell their products around the world. We know that the Americans are doing this. We know that our European competitors are doing this. We want to make sure that we have the tools in the hands of firms.

It's so critical, by the way, as a tax tool for investment. As an example, I was with Premier Clark in Vancouver last week. As I pointed out, we've opened up the door for the LNG industry in British Columbia with this public policy in this year's budget. There are 19 LNG projects on the table in British Columbia. Not all of them will go forward, but we hope that some of them will. But for Petronas this is possibly a $36 billion investment for my province, British Columbia. Whether or not that investment goes forward at all is in part based on whether or not they would have this competitive tool. So this standing up of an entire industry and a $36 billion investment in one project could be lost if we didn't have this investment and this provision in this year's budget. There enough is a reason to support Bill C-59.

[The Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Thank you all for your cooperation.

The 51st meeting of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs will be tonight in this room from 6:30 to 8:30.

I want to thank our witnesses, Mr. Parent and Mr. Forbes.

I particularly want to thank Mr. Forbes for complimenting the committee on its work. I took good note of that.

This evening we will continue our study on division 17 of part 3 of Bill C-59.

In our first hour, we will hear from the Royal Canadian Legion.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I call this meeting back to order. We are resuming 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.

I want to welcome all of our officials here this morning. Thank you so much for being with us.

Colleagues, I've received some feedback in terms of priorities, so this is how I will proceed as chair. We will do part 1 first, then we will proceed to part 2, and then we will proceed to part 3. In part 3 we will do divisions 1, 6, 7, 10, 18, and 20. If we have time, and that's a big if, we will do part 3 divisions 8 and 19. Those are the sections that committee members have indicated are priorities for them.

I want to welcome our officials for part 1. I ask you to make an extremely brief opening statement. Members have all had extensive briefings on the bill itself, so we'll just do a brief introduction of part 1 and then we'll go to members' questions.

Mr. McGowan, I think you'll be doing the statement.