Bill C-12 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

This enactment amends the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act to, among other things,
(a) replace “permanent impairment allowance” with “career impact allowance”;
(b) replace “totally and permanently incapacitated” with “diminished earning capacity”;
(c) increase the percentage in the formula used to calculate the earnings loss benefit;
(d) specify when a disability award becomes payable and clarify the formula used to calculate the amount of a disability award;
(e) increase the amounts of a disability award; and
(f) increase the amount of a death benefit.
In addition, it contains transitional provisions that provide, among other things, that the Minister of Veterans Affairs must pay, to a person who received a disability award or a death benefit under that Act before April 1, 2017, an amount that represents the increase in the amount of the disability award or the death benefit, as the case may be.
It also makes consequential amendments to the Children of Deceased Veterans Education Assistance Act, the Pension Act and the Income Tax Act.

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, moving a motion to extend the sitting hours of the House is not a great way to close out the last session of the 42nd Parliament of Canada. We are not opposed to working late every evening. We want to work and make progress on files.

Once again, we take issue with the means the government is using to get all members to work a little harder because the session is ending and these are the last days of this Parliament. The other items in the motion do not concern the extension of sitting hours. We take issue with the government's approach, which prevents the opposition from doing its job properly. It is handcuffing the opposition and moving the government's agenda along as quickly as possible, not based on what parliamentarians may have to say, but on what the government wants.

This is not new to us, given how the government has handled the legislative process throughout its mandate. The government has been unable to advance a decent legislative agenda. I am the opposition agriculture and agri-food critic. I spoke to my predecessors, and we have been waiting for the Minister of Agriculture to introduce a bill to improve the lives of Canadian farmers since my appointment two years ago.

When I look at all the agriculture documents and bills this government has introduced since it was elected in 2015, it is clear to me that the government has achieved nothing. Absolutely no legislation was proposed to improve the lives of Canadian farmers.

However, numerous bills were introduced. Now, the government is saying that the situation is urgent and that we must move quickly and pass this legislation. A number of bills were not passed by the government, and now time is of the essence.

Of all of the bills that were not passed, some never even moved forward. We have, for example, Bill C-5, introduced on February 5, 2016; Bill C-12, introduced on March 24, 2016; Bill C-27, introduced on October 19, 2016; Bill C-28, introduced on October 21, 2016; Bill C-32, introduced on November 15, 2016; and Bill C-33, introduced on November 24, 2016. The Liberals have had four years to move these bills forward.

All of a sudden, the government claims that these bills need to be passed urgently. After the vote this evening we will debate Bill C-81, which was introduced on June 20, 2018. It has been nearly a year. We are being told that this bill is urgent and must absolutely be passed, but the government was unable to bring it forward earlier.

If this is so urgent, why did the government not bring up this bill more regularly in the House? Why did we not talk about it on a regular basis? All of a sudden, we need to pass it quickly because the Liberals have realized that they are going to run out of time. The government was unable to manage the House. It was unable to give parliamentarians an opportunity to do their work and to speak about important bills. The Liberals have realized at the last minute that they have forgotten this and that. There is an election coming up in the fall and now parliamentarians have to do the work to pass this or that bill.

The government chose to impose late sittings on the House for 18 days while also moving a time allocation motion, which means that we will not even have the chance to talk about it for long. If we refer to the Standing Orders, the government could have extended sitting hours for the last 10 days of the session, as provided for in our normal parliamentary calendar. That is what it could have done, and it would have been entirely doable.

I would like to talk about one of the Standing Orders. Even though the standing order that governs the extension of sitting hours in June has been in effect since 1982, it is not used every year. In some cases, special orders were proposed and adopted instead, usually by unanimous consent.

Parliamentarians are here to represent the people in their ridings. According to the Standing Orders, anyone who wants to change the rules to move things along has to seek the unanimous consent of the House.

Unfortunately, this government does not really seem to care about unanimous consent. It does not really seem to care what the opposition thinks or has to say even though, just like MPs on government benches, we represent all the people of our ridings. The least the government could do, out of respect for Canadian voters, is respect people in opposition. We have a role to play.

Unfortunately, our role is not to agree all the time and say the government is doing a good job. On the contrary, our role is to try to point out its failings so it can improve. Basically, the opposition's role is to make the government better by pointing out its mistakes and bad decisions so the government can reflect on that and find better solutions for all Canadians. However, the government does not seem willing to take that into account.

On top of that, there are two opposition days left. I mentioned the negative effects of the motion. The government is proposing to extend the hours in the House, but what it failed to mention is that it is going to deny the opposition the opportunity to have two full opposition days to address situations that are very troubling to Canadians.

For instance, during a normal opposition day during which we might hear from a number of stakeholders, we could have talked about the canola crisis, which is affecting thousands of canola producers across Canada. This crisis, which involves China, is costing Canadian canola producers billions of dollars. For all members who have canola farmers among their constituents, it would have been an opportunity to express the concerns of their fellow citizens and farmers in their regions. Perhaps we could have convinced the government to take action, such as filing a complaint through the World Trade Organization to condemn China's actions or appointing an ambassador, for example. As peculiar as it may seem, Canada currently has no representative in China to speak with Chinese authorities.

We could have had such a debate here in the House.

The one thing that the members across the aisle seem to have forgotten is that members of the House are not the government. The government is the ministers, the cabinet members. In this chamber, people have the right to speak their minds in the hope of swaying the government.

It is true that the government is formed by the party with the most members elected to the House, but it is also up to backbench members of the ruling party to try to persuade their government and speak for the people they represent, such as the farmers in their ridings. Sadly, the members on that side of the House seem to be divorced from reality. They seem to be blind to the government's desire to crush Parliament, to crush the MPs who are trying to do a good job of representing the constituents of every riding. I think that is a real shame.

We have absolutely nothing against extending the sitting hours of the House, but if it is intended to cover up the government's mistakes and its inability to properly organize the work of the House, then I think that is disgraceful.

The government is using this kind of motion to not only make us work more, which, as I mentioned, we agree with, but also deprive us of our last remaining tools, like the voting marathons everyone remembers. We held those voting marathons to make the government realize it cannot do whatever it wants in the House of Commons. The House of Commons is not the tool of the government. This motion to extend the sitting hours also prevents us from using that tool, which was a powerful means for us to send the government a message.

After making such grand promises of transparency and openness, this government has failed spectacularly to deliver. Sadly, its latest motion on the rules of the House just proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that it has no respect for the work of the House. It saddens me to see a government ending its term on such a sour note.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I just want to thank my hon. Liberal colleague for splitting his time with me, although we will probably take some different approaches on our views on Bill C-15.

Bill C-15, the budget implementation bill, is, as I have heard some Liberal members of Parliament say, where the rubber meets the road for a government's budgetary policy. The NDP has examined some aspects of Bill C-15, and we do agree that there are some positive measures that the NDP has fought for, so we will acknowledge that there are some good things in the bill. However, it is nowhere near what the Liberals promised and it is not what is necessary to strengthen our economy and combat inequality.

For example, one of the major things that I campaigned on and on which I received feedback from my constituents was child care spaces. It is one thing to increase the child benefit, but when families are struggling to even find spaces or they have wait-lists that go on longer than a year, that will not really help two-income families try to find that space so that one parent can have the freedom to find work.

The other major glaring omission is with employment insurance. There was a real opportunity in the bill to make some profound changes to the Employment Insurance Act, to how it operates for Canadians on an equal basis from coast to coast to coast, and that is what was lacking.

In conclusion to my introduction, we will be opposing Bill C-15 because of its content, but also because of the fact that it is an omnibus bill.

The Liberal government has studied a few Conservative tactics from the previous government. The bill has been rushed through. We have had time allocation. The committee meetings that were held were also rushed. We have an act that spans 179 pages. It changes over 30 different statutes that fall under nine different ministries. There are a few things that we argued should have been split off to give proper study, but the committee, when it was studying Bill C-15, had six meetings. Only two had witnesses and the amendments that were proposed by the opposition were all rejected.

The Liberals make a big deal about how they reach across the aisle and they want the opposition to work with them, but when over 35 amendments are proposed by the opposition and all of them are rejected by the Liberals, I do not see that as working together.

It brings to mind the quote from the movie, Jerry Maguire, “Help me help you”. If the Liberals want the opposition to truly work with them, then I think some deference has to be paid to the propositions we are putting forward and not have them rejected out of hand. Those are a few of the reasons.

In terms of the time to adequately review the different components of the legislation, when the Liberals were in opposition and on the campaign trail, I remember they talked about how undemocratic omnibus bills were. They said during the campaign that they would not resort to legislative tricks to avoid the scrutiny of their bills. I think we will see the history of the previous six months shows completely the opposite.

The Liberals promised to change the Standing Orders of the House to bring an end to this undemocratic process of omnibus bills. I just truly feel that if we are to study an omnibus bill that is changing a few different pieces of legislation, it has to be given the proper time and scrutiny. I believe all Canadians and expert witnesses deserve to have their say in things like this.

I will devote a little time to just going over a few of the good things, with the caveat that there will be a few criticisms as well. The NDP proposed in the last Parliament that we would remove taxes on feminine hygiene products because that costs women $36 million a year, so we are happy to see that mentioned in the bill.

We are also happy to see the Liberals recommit to returning the old age security and GIS eligibility back to age 65. I heard my previous Liberal colleague talk about the GIS and what a wonderful thing it was that it would be increased by 10%. Let me provide a bit more of a factual basis to that claim.

The guaranteed income supplement is going to be increased for people in the income range of $4,600 to $8,400. A person with an income of $4,600 per year or less would get an increase of $947 per year, which is less than $100 per month. GIS benefits will be phased out completely at $8,400. Rather than increasing the GIS by 10% across the board for every senior who is eligible for it, the Liberals are targeting a narrow bandwidth. It is important to illustrate that fact because it gets lost in all of the hyperbole about how great the Liberal government is and how it is helping our low-income seniors. We must always read the fine print.

I am also happy to see that the government has committed to enhancing the Canada pension plan. This pension model survived the recession very well. It is a model for the world to see how well managed a pension plan can be. Our interest is in making sure that every worker who pays into the CPP can retire with an adequate income.

One of the biggest broken promises comes with respect to small businesses. Page 10 of the Liberal fiscal plan in the 2015 election specifically mentioned that the Liberals were going to reduce the small business tax rate to 9% from the current 11%. Not going ahead with this reduction is going to cost the small business sector $2.2 billion. It is going to cost $125 million in the next fiscal year, $475 million in the year after that, $770 million by 2019-20, and $825 million by 2021. This is according to both the finance ministry and the parliamentary budget officer.

What am I supposed to tell entrepreneurs in my riding, when I tell them there will be personal income tax cuts that mean income earners in my range will get a reduction but they will not see that? Furthermore, small business owners usually pay themselves a small amount of money to keep their business afloat so they are going to get hit twice. Their business rate is not going to be reduced and their personal income tax rates are not going to be affected. That is a shameful broken promise.

Bill C-15 swallows what was Bill C-12, which dealt with veterans. We were happy to see the changes in Bill C-12 because we agreed with them, but we believe that Bill C-12 should have been made a stand-alone bill so that we could have proposed different changes to make it better. Swallowing Bill C-12 into Bill C-15 creates an omnibus bill and avoids proper scrutiny. The Liberal government's record with veterans right now is absolutely shameful. It has broken a solemn promise that was made during the campaign. The Liberals agreed during the election campaign that the government has a sacred obligation, a social covenant, and now they are taking veterans to court. I would like to see the government take some firm action and stand up for our veterans for once and not use them as campaign props to get votes.

In terms of employment insurance, I suggested to the Minister of Employment that one of the great things the Liberals could do would be to set up the employment insurance fund as a stand-alone fund so that it would be protected from raiding by future governments. Right now, those premiums, which are paid by workers in the event that they might end up unemployed one day, simply get raided as a cash cow. It would set something meaningful up for workers if we put that up as a stand-alone fund. Again the Liberals have taken no significant action on that and we still have an employment insurance system where six out of 10 Canadians will not qualify.

To help my Liberal colleagues understand why we oppose the legislation, it is always helpful to read quotes that Liberals have given in the past. The current Minister of Public Services and Procurement and the member of Parliament for Bonavista—Burin—Trinity said something in 2014 that really sums it up. She said:

...there is so much contained in this omnibus budget bill that it really does not give parliamentarians the opportunity they need to act on behalf of the people they represent. We do not get to scrutinize the legislation.... At the end of the day, we end up voting on a bill that we have had little time to digest.

I could not have said it better myself.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my Liberal colleague across the way a question specifically about veterans.

As he may know, Bill C-12 was on the Order Paper. It dealt with increasing compensation to veterans. That is something the NDP supports. The budget implementation bill would swallow Bill C-12 and incorporate it among the many different acts that would be changed by this giant omnibus legislation.

In light of the recent horrible news coverage the Liberals have been getting with respect to veterans, veterans groups have been tossing out words like “disgrace” and “shameful betrayal”. In light of those facts, why did the Liberal government not leave Bill C-12 alone so it could at least have gone to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs for further study? The committee would have heard from expert witnesses, and we could have debated things like increasing mental health support services and increasing support for veterans' spouses? Why was Bill C-12 swallowed up by this omnibus bill?

Why are veterans not getting the proper care and treatment they need?

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to stand today in regards to Bill C-15, the 2016 proposed Liberal budget. I am beginning, actually, by expressing my disappointment and confusion as to why Bill C-12, an act to amend the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act was initially tabled in this House to deal separately with budget items that specifically apply to veterans, only later to be pulled from debate and buried in Bill C-15. Veterans were so pleased to learn about Bill C-12, encouraged to see that the government appeared to be committed to responding in a timely and inclusive way to improvements in their financial needs.

With the current attention in the media and within the veterans' community to the unfairness of the decrease from the lower corporal rate to the highest private rate as the base salary benchmark for the earnings loss benefit, perhaps the intent was to have less focus on the inappropriateness of this change that cast such a dark shadow over what was to be a victory for better care for our veterans, an increase of the earnings loss benefit from 75% to 90% of military pay prior to release.

The Liberals claimed that they are now increasing the earnings loss benefit; however, lowering the minimum benefit threshold to a senior private salary instead of a basic corporal salary will result in a significant reduction in the benefits received by the most vulnerable injured veterans. The increase in this benefit for permanently disabled veterans will be minimal for those who make the least, but as much as a 20% hike for the higher ranks.

The proposed increase to the earnings loss benefit will still be applied unequally to the detriment of those seriously injured former members of our Canadian Armed Forces who were at the low end of the pay scale or who were discharged decades ago, before military salaries climbed. This is discriminatory toward veterans who are unable to work because of their disabilities and who had to leave the forces at a young age before they had the opportunity to earn an ongoing living wage. It keeps them at a low income level until they reach the age of 65.

At the same time, those who were able to stay in the forces longer will receive more under the benefit, with bigger increases, a higher percentage increase than those who receive less.

Some disabled veterans have been making more than 75% of their pre-release salary through the earnings loss benefit because those salaries were so low that the previous Conservative government acknowledged the veterans were not getting enough to meet their basic needs.

In 2011, our Conservative government saw how inappropriate this was and adjusted the benefit so that no one would receive less than $40,000 annually, which was then, at that time, 75% of the salary of a basic corporal.

With the new Liberal minimum base, the end result is that those whose benefits rose under the Conservatives will now get only small increases when changes take place in October. They include those who were injured in places such as Bosnia, Somalia, Rwanda, and Yugoslavia, and those who were discharged before the government approved significant military raises in the late 1990s and over the past decade.

Meanwhile, those former members of the Armed Forces who were discharged at salaries higher than $49,449 that is currently paid to a senior private, such as majors, colonels, generals, and even high-ranking non-commissioned officers, will not be affected by a rank change and could see their benefits rise by tens of thousands of dollars.

This leads me to wonder how many high-ranked members of the Armed Forces have been discharged due to injury or disability in comparison to our lower-ranked soldiers who, I would think, are far more likely to be the ones in larger numbers facing the potential of high-risk situations where they could be injured severely, either physically or mentally, to require them to willingly, or unwillingly, be discharged from service.

Of the millions allocated by the government to earnings loss benefits in this budget, how many of those dollars will actually be spent on these most vulnerable injured soldiers who are unable to provide for themselves and their families because their injuries took away their commitment to serving in the military, fighting for and protecting the freedoms and lifestyles of all other Canadians?

Will there be unspent funds in this portion of the budget because of fewer claims by those in the higher income backet who do not leave prematurely due to injury? If so, why were these funds not implemented into other election promises made, such as the promised $100 million for more family caregiver benefits, or the post-secondary education benefit for all veterans, or the $20 million for two centres of excellence, or opening operational stress injury clinics where none exist for veterans needing mental health services?

The details of the budget in relation to veterans were only added to the Veterans Affairs website on May 9, after it was brought to the attention of the House that none of the details were available online for veterans and their families. Now that it is there, I would like to quote the following from the website: “In the interest of fairness, the increase is based on a Senior Private's salary. To do otherwise would mean that some Veterans receiving the benefit could be making more than their comrades on active duty.”

I cannot help wondering why, then, the approach was not used for a formula that provided a ceiling for those who could have ended up making more than their comrades on active duty under the existing basic corporal salary, rather than penalizing those on the low end of the benefit scale where the increase to 90% of the new senior private's salary will be as low as $100 a month. On the website, the government shared a slightly better bottom line example, stating, “a Veteran who was a corporal in 1996 could receive up to $2,000 more each year because of this proposed enhancement [or a total of $166.67 a month].

The veterans who needed the increase the most feel betrayed by this unfair approach to the earnings loss benefit in the budget. The retroactive increases in the lump sum disability award does improve on the original award set out by the last Liberal government. I believe the amount of $3.7 billion under financial support for veterans on page 193 of the budget, table 5.2, reflects the retroactive payments that need to go out to cover some 70,000 veterans who have been eligible since 2006 and were promised this retroactive payment.

That being said, it is important to note that with this $3.7 billion payout, that leaves $400 million per year budgeted for the disability award, and changes to the earnings loss benefit for each of the next four years, with a total commitment of $5.6 billion over these next six years.

We are all very aware that the budget is being presented as a deficit investment, which is an oxymoron and already a broken promise at best. This greatly concerns our veterans and Canadians who see a formidable future of debt repayment for their children and grandchildren.

Budget 2016 only partially addresses four of the 15 directives in the Minister of Veterans Affairs's mandate letter, and the earnings loss benefit falls short of what was expected for our most vulnerable wounded. Still to come are lifelong pensions, promised; guaranteed four years of post-secondary education, promised; two new centres of excellence, promised; improved education, counselling, and training for families, promised; increased survivor pensions, medical benefits for spouses married after the age of 60, and development of mental health and suicide prevention strategies. There are many, many promises.

Did the Liberal Party members who made these promises actually study and forecast the implications of their promises? Did they make them with true intent to keep them if elected, or were they made without adequate consultation?

In closing, I have deep concerns that the promises that were translated into new measures in the budget, coupled with the increased deficit spending over the remaining mandate of the Liberal government, will not be sustainable on a long-term basis.

Veterans

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Exactly, Mr. Speaker, we want to work together.

I always thought that veterans affairs should not be a partisan issue. That is why I was pleased to see that the minister treated it separately in Bill C-12. However, that is no longer the case.

I would like to say to my colleague from Kanata—Carleton that unfortunately, she did not answer my question, which was on the amount of money that will be allocated retroactively to 2006 for hearing loss. The reason I want to know this sum is that Canadians are wondering if that was the right thing to do. Instead of making this retroactive payment, the government could have used this $3.7 billion implementing a lifetime disability pension effective immediately.

The concerns my colleague is talking about are indeed those of interest groups representing veterans. However, the veterans I meet in person talk to me about the lifetime disability pension option and not the disability benefits for hearing loss.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to participate in the adjournment debate, or what is known in parliamentary jargon as the late show, for the first time. I will learn how this works in the next few minutes.

I am also pleased to see that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence, the hon. member for Kanata—Carleton, is here. I hope that she will be able to give me some answers.

I am here to share some concerns that have been expressed by Canadians in general, not just veterans. The House will understand why. Recently, the minister introduced new financial benefits for veterans under Bill C-12, which unfortunately no longer exists because those measures have now been inserted into omnibus Bill C-15.

These amendments include increasing the disability award, expanding access to the higher grades of the permanent impairment allowance, and increasing the earnings loss benefit. Veterans tell me that these improved benefits are worthwhile, but that the government could have made a better decision. For example, veterans would have liked the government to invest more in mental health clinics, provide more assistance for families, such as military spouses, and improve help for the transition from military to civilian life.

This evening, I will talk about the fact that the disability award was increased and that the increase is retroactive to 2006. We are talking about approximately $3.7 billion that will be spent on these retroactive payments. This expenditure is highly questionable.

I am going to tell a story that explains why I think that we need to ask questions in that regard. One of my constituents came to see me. She earns about $100,000 a year. She was a soldier and she has hearing problems. Although she will not do so, if she were to apply for a disability award from the Department of Veterans Affairs, she would be eligible to receive a cheque for between $5,000 and $10,000. I think that everyone here will agree that this person, who earns $100,000 a year, does not need that money and that her loss of hearing does not prevent her from working.

Imagine how many cases like that there are in Canada and how many people, in the coming months, without thinking of their fellow soldiers, will apply for disability awards for physical injuries that do not necessarily prevent them from working. Under the law, they are eligible for that money and it is good that the government is trying to help them. However, when it comes to veterans, there are urgent needs in many other areas, including those I talked about earlier.

My question for my colleague from Kanata—Carleton is very simple. According to her estimates, how much money will be paid out retroactively to 2006 for hearing-related injuries?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

We could have drawn more attention to this aspect if the amendments had been included in Bill C-12, as was intended. The matter would then have been studied independently. When a committee studies a stand-alone bill, it can spend more time assessing the concerns that are very often raised. Unfortunately, the government has chosen to include these amendments in a bill that is 179 pages long, meaning that the committee can devote less attention to matters of that kind.

Ms. McIntyre, thank you for being here. I would like to ask you a question.

If the amendment were passed, what would the consequences be? Would this benefit provide greater protection? Would there be an effect on the act?

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Chair, first of all, I'd like to express for the record that the official Conservative opposition was prepared to support Bill C-12, the veterans budget, when presented as a stand-alone bill in the House, a bill which we applauded, which the veterans deeply recognized as timely, and which would have been very effective in ensuring that the funds allotted to them would have been out the door sooner.

With regard to this first amendment, the Liberal government has changed the formula for the earnings loss benefit from 75% of a corporal's salary as the minimum to 90% of a senior private's salary. This could result in lower payout for veterans. While the Liberals are claiming that they are increasing the earnings loss benefit, lowering the minimum benefit threshold to a senior private's salary instead of a basic corporal's salary will result in a significant reduction in the benefits received by the most vulnerable injured veterans. This amendment would safeguard the financial support from the earnings loss benefit to ensure that it could not be lowered for any veteran.

The earnings loss benefit is an important source of support for our veterans who were injured through their service to Canada. It's important that the Liberal government's budget not in real effect reduce this benefit to veterans who served in the lower ranks of the Canadian Armed Forces. Just recently, the veterans website was updated with the budget information. The rationale there was that they had to make this change because otherwise some veterans would be receiving more income than serving armed forces members, yet at the same time we are penalizing the lowest-income veterans, who are the most vulnerable.

This amendment would basically ensure that it would “not have the effect of reducing the imputed income to an amount less than the amount that would have been determined before the coming into force of section 82”.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

I'm told that the wording of the motion is out of order, so I would like to withdraw it. Nevertheless, I want to be clear that I still have concerns about the form of this bill.

We debated at length about whether this is an omnibus bill. I think it is. It has all the features of an omnibus bill. For example, it includes measures that, though they appear in the budget, should be studied by other committees.

One of those measures is Bill C-12 on veterans' compensation. It was introduced and was supposed to have been studied separately not by the Standing Committee on Finance, but by the Veterans Affairs committee. I think that is the clearest indicator that this is an omnibus bill. We would have liked the government to show some good judgment when introducing this bill by separating the parts that would have been better studied by other committees.

It seems that will not happen, and that is a great shame. I hope this government will not make a habit of doing this with future budget bills. Clearly, Parliament and the House of Commons will be at a disadvantage if they cannot study these bills in depth. I will now withdraw my motion.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Parent, you spoke about the challenges of evaluating the fairness of the measures and compensation promised in the bill. You're well aware that before, the bill was separate and was known as Bill C-12. It's now integrated into Bill C-15.

These are exactly the kind of questions we could have asked and could have gotten answered if experts had appeared before the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, to which Bill C-12 would have been referred. If we could have heard what came out of a study by the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs on this bill, it would have been better than integrating the bill into another bill that also requires discussions with venture-capital representatives, restaurant owners, and retirees, for example.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would first like to take this opportunity to send my thoughts to the people of Fort McMurray. A close friend of my husband lives there, and we all watched in terror as this happened, worrying about the well-being of all the people who were fleeing. It is moments like this that remind us to be grateful for all those we hold dear. It is a reminder of the privilege it is to give when the need arises, and to receive when the hard parts of life happen. I thank all those who have given during this painful time.

Today, the House stands to debate Bill C-15. Budgets are about setting priorities and confirming commitments made, and today I want to discuss some serious concerns I have about the budget.

Bill C-15 is 179 pages long. It amends more than 30 statutes and contains another bill, Bill C-12, which is on the Order Paper before the House of Commons. Now, the time of debate has been shortened. A promise of the Liberal government was transparency and openness. The bill before us has multiple complexities, which include repealing an entire act, retroactive legislation changes, and much more. This alone lessens the capacity for focused discussion in the House, and with a shortened timeline, there is less time for discussion of these important issues.

The people of North Island—Powell River have shared with me their concerns with omnibus bills, and with Bill C-15, the government is going in a direction that concerns many Canadians. I hope this is not what real change looks like.

I know that many people in my riding will feel some relief with the child tax benefit. It is a start; however, I also know that many of my constituents are looking for a real child care strategy.

When I travel in my riding, I am sad to hear the stories of many women who have had to leave their work, because they cannot afford day care. They shared with me their concern that they would miss out on opportunities for their careers. One woman said to me that she just wanted to feel she had a choice in the matter. She loves her children, wants to spend meaningful time with them, and wants to have a career that promises a future for her family. However, the budget does not provide any support for the affordability of child care, nor does it address the reality that there are few day care spaces available.

I talk with single parents who are stranded without the supports for the child care they desperately need. More money in their pocket would provide some support, but if there are no child care spaces available, that is not a solution. Canadians are looking for a comprehensive strategy around child care, and the budget before us does not give it to them.

Veterans are also being shortchanged by the lack of mental health support, and there is nothing for suicide prevention. Veterans affairs have been badly mishandled by the past Conservative and Liberal governments. Pensions have been clawed back, and front-line service cuts have increased wait times for help and access to quality home care, while long-term care is shrinking. Soldiers with PTSD face months of delays before even getting referred for help, and even then, that help is hard to get.

A man from my riding, Dan Thomas, came to see me several weeks ago. A retired soldier with severe PTSD, he talked about how invisible he felt with his long-term issues. He shared with me the helplessness of not being able to receive the support he so desperately requires for his day-to-day life. When people serve their country, they should not feel invisible.

Bill C-12 was tabled in the House of Commons on March 24. The way veterans were treated by the previous government was indeed shameful. They deserve to have this legislation that would affect them discussed in the House, and not a unilateral decision by the current government. By killing Bill C-12 and incorporating it in this omnibus bill, the Liberals have chosen not to make space to listen to veterans' grievances and are playing politics.

Opening the service centres is one step, but it is not the only step required. What concerns me is that Bill C-12 largely fails to provide much-needed supports for mental health or increase support for spouses or caregivers of injured veterans.

We owe it to the men and women who have served our country courageously and honourably to ensure a proper study of these benefit changes to make sure they will address the needs of our veterans. We do not want to see veterans continue to be forced to prove that the leg they lost has not grown back.

This omnibus bill should be split up so that the changes to veterans' benefits receive proper study by Parliament. It is important that we serve those people who have served us so well.

After nearly a decade of Conservative economic mismanagement, middle-class families are working harder than ever yet falling further and further behind. At at time when Canada needs a government that will combat rising inequality, the Liberals' first budget is inadequate.

The Liberals are breaking their promise to reduce the tax rate for small and medium-sized enterprises, the biggest job creators in Canada. They are cancelling the legislation that allowed for any subsequent reductions provided in the bill. However, they made a commitment to lower the rate to 9% by 2019. New Democrats have been fighting for a long time for tax cuts for small businesses, which are the real job creators in Canada.

The Liberals have rejected our proposals to cap transaction fees for credit cards, and are doing nothing to facilitate the transfer of family businesses between generations. This is a direct betrayal of small business owners and will significantly reduce job creation in Canada. The parliamentary budget officer estimates that this cancellation would cost SMEs more than $2.1 billion over the next four years. Meanwhile, consecutive Liberal and Conservative governments have given massive tax giveaways to Canada's most profitable corporations. The Liberals should keep their promise to small businesses by withdrawing the proposal to cancel legislated reductions in the small business tax rate.

More than a quarter of seniors are living in poverty, and some Canadians are wondering whether they will have a secure income when they retire. We welcome the Liberals' recommitment to returning the age of eligibility for old age security and the guaranteed income supplement to 65. We also welcome their recommitment to increase the GIS for single seniors. However, we are disappointed that seniors have to wait until July, despite the Liberals' promise to help them immediately.

This is a useful start, but more can be done. Increasing the GIS by 10% for all seniors would lift nearly 150,000 additional people out of poverty. Income data shows that the median income for single seniors without employer pension income is below $20,000. With the low income measure for a single senior at $22,000 per year, this is unacceptable. I can tell members that there are many seniors in my riding who are living well below $20,000 a year. I have seniors in my riding who, in January, debate whether to purchase medication or keep their heat on. That is not a good debate for seniors who have worked so hard to create this beautiful country we have. These changes should be closely studied to see how we can improve them to help even more seniors, not pushed through in an omnibus bill. The government needs to keep its promise to immediately enhance the CPP.

Last week in this House I spoke to Bill C-14, medical assistance in dying. The bill refers to palliative care in its preamble, yet while introducing this bill the government made no new commitments to palliative care. We have a critically important opportunity to enhance services across the country, yet the government was missing in action on palliative care in the budget, even after promising $3 billion for home care during the campaign. Holding the government to account on the promise of that motion remains one of our top priorities as we assist in the legislative response to the Carter decision.

In my riding, there are many seniors. Home care and palliative care are of huge concern. Seniors living in remote communities want to hear from the government that they matter, that staying in their home is a priority. Many constituents have shared stories of feeling pushed to leave not only their home but their community for health concerns. Accessible services in my remote communities are important.

I cannot support this budget. It does not fulfill the promises made to Canadians. It has some positive steps, but leaves out too many key concerns that would make the lives of my constituents better. Whether it be actual dollars or respecting the process, this budget fails to follow through.

Second Reading

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by speaking about the aspects of the budget bill that are contained in Bill C-12. I am really disappointed that members of the House were not given the opportunity for debate and study in committee of Bill C-12 to make it a better bill. Veterans have been shuffled aside for so long, but apparently, according to the Liberal government, not long enough. Veterans and their families are in despair. We hear it every day in the veterans affairs committee. Too many are absolutely desolate.

It is no secret that Veterans Affairs Canada has been badly mismanaged by past Conservative and Liberal governments. Pensions have been clawed back, front-line services have been cut, and the result has been increased wait times for desperately needed help. Quality home care is simply not as available as it should be and we all know that long-term care services are shrinking. Soldiers with PTSD face months of delays before even being referred for help and then that help is hard to get.

The changes in the bill to the earnings lost benefit and the disability award for veterans are good first steps. I hope the changes will result in more veterans qualifying for benefits and that those heroes of our country see a positive improvement to their quality of life.

However, this omnibus bill lacks the full support that veterans need.

First, there is no support for mental health in the budget, and this is a huge concern. Many veterans are suffering from the trauma of combat, the stress of their service to Canada. Yet there is a lack of support for veterans and their families to recognize and care for mental health issues that result from their experiences in the field and beyond on behalf of their country. Let us not ever forget that the government asked them to do their duty and they did not fail, and we must not fail.

Sadly and unacceptably, the budget bill would not increase support for spouses or caregivers of injured veterans. Partners of CF members are often required to leave their own jobs to care for the injured veteran. Those caregivers are provided with little training and very little support. This not only impacts the current income of caregivers, but it impacts their own pensions down the road.

Every member of the House knows that pension benefits are largely based on the earnings of an individual's years of employment. Therefore, caregivers who give up employment pay are at a terrible disadvantage. They pay a terrible price in their senior years because their pensions are simply inadequate.

When Canada sends its women and men in uniform into conflict, they and their families accept unlimited liability, and there is the very real possibility that what they are ordered to do could cost them their lives. As a country, we have nothing less than a sacred duty to our veterans to care for them when they return. It is time for a new era in the government's relationship with veterans, one based on respect that ensures dignity, financial security, and quality of life.

If the government is serious about repairing the damage at Veterans Affairs Canada, it should take immediate action and ensure all veterans have the income support they need. We are calling on the government to prove this in a new era by working with veterans and to immediately review, update, and improve the new veterans charter, including addressing the issue of lump sum payments, those payments currently offered to seriously injured veterans.

It is crucial that the government develop a one veteran one standard policy that would ensure all veterans would be treated equally, regardless of when or where they served.

It is time to end the unfair service pension clawback for retired and disabled Canadian Forces and RCMP veterans and show good faith by increasing the survivor's pension of veterans.

It is time to remove the archaic marriage clause restricting benefits for marriages that occur after age 60. Imagine in this day and age calling older spouses who marry, love, and care for veterans “gold diggers”. What a ludicrous and petty label.

The government should provide timely accessible care for veterans' health and well-being. We as a nation must improve and expand PTSD and mental health supports for veterans to ensure they get the care they need, and get that care quickly without barriers, without harmful delays.

The government should reverse the cuts to long-term care for veterans, and expand the veterans independence program to allow seriously injured and elderly Canadian Armed Forces and RCMP veterans to continue to live at home. It should not put that burden of care on partners, on spouses, on caregivers. The government must make sure that the veterans independence program is there, in addition to what caregivers and spouses provide.

I have spoken to this House about post-Korean vets who served Canada in times of great danger only to be turned away from long-term care in their time of need. It is disgraceful to say to a veteran that his or her contribution was less because it occurred after 1954.

Even though the wounds may not have been obvious at the time of release or active duty, they are wounds that come from dedicated service to Canada. Those who suffer those wounds must be respected. They deserve long-term care in a veterans hospital, if that is what they wish.

There must be increased supports for veterans' families and caregivers who are often the main support for veterans.

We have an absolute obligation to ensure that services are delivered with a veterans-first approach. This can be done by establishing a formal covenant for veterans' care that recognizes the government's moral, social, legal, and fiduciary obligation to care for Canada's veterans.

I submit it is also important that we eliminate the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, which is staffed by government appointees who have too often been unresponsive to the realities faced by veterans seeking disability benefits. It is time to replace the old VRAB with a medically focused review process for appeals.

Unlike WSIB, the court cannot overturn a Veterans Review and Appeal Board refusal. The court can only refer the issue back to the same people who decided against the veteran in the first place. How can this result in fairness for veterans? It would seem to me that the appearance of arm's-length non-interference in the VRAB from government is actually a refusal of government to take responsibility. It is politics at its worst.

Finally, Canadians wish very much to show all veterans that they respect them and that these veterans deserve our support. This can be accomplished by a government prepared to expand eligibility and increase funding for the Last Post Fund to ensure that all veterans can be guaranteed a dignified funeral.

New Democrats value the work and sacrifice of our Canadian Forces and RCMP veterans and personnel currently serving, whether they served at home, in war, or in peacekeeping missions. We call on the government to repair our country's relationship to one that is based on that respect, rather than on the current state of neglect.

We must ensure that our veterans and their families are well cared for from the moment they sign up to the moment they pass away, including that dignified funeral and burial I talked about.

Bill C-12 and the same measures covered in this budget bill do not come close to fully addressing the needs of our veterans. The manner in which we honour and care for our veterans and their families is a reflection of the integrity of this country. When we ask people to put their lives on the line for Canada, we must ensure that their sacrifices are recognized and their losses, monetary, physical, and emotional, are compensated, and that their service is recognized with grateful acknowledgement.

If we leave one single veteran living in poverty, one single veteran homeless, one single veteran suffering the agony of post-traumatic stress, or one single dependant of that veteran unsupported and out in the cold, we will have failed in fulfilling our sacred covenant.

I know we can do better. I have faith, hope, and optimism. I believe that we need, and can work towards creating, a system of comprehensive support for our veterans. This budget bill could have addressed the gaps we face in fulfilling our covenant to veterans, but sadly, it has missed the mark. We are capable of better. We cannot let anyone tell us it cannot be done.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Do you think that, when Bill C-12 was tabled, it was supposed to be studied by the Standing Committee on Finance or another House of Commons committee?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

My first question is the following.

Ms. McIntyre, you don't work for the Department of Finance but for the Department of Veterans Affairs, isn't that right?

Bill C-12 was submitted by the government initially. Is this the same bill? No changes have been made since it was tabled, isn't that right?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, I would like to thank the officials for being here, as well as the individuals who will appear later.

The briefing was indeed interesting and useful, even with these delays, but it raises other questions. Obviously, I will not ask all of you to comment on what I'm going to say.

Although the government denies that this is an omnibus bill, it is clear to us that this is, indeed, what we have once again.

This bill is 179 pages long, amends 35 acts and affects nine departments. It also contains Bill C-12, which had been tabled by the government. In fact, it was included in Bill C-15, which implements certain provisions of the budget. It also retroactively repeals the Federal Balanced Budget Act. I say “retroactively”, given that the government would have committed an offence under this act as of June 1, 2016. Lastly, the bill amends the act to make it as if it had never existed, even if there was an offence. But it is contrary to law.

Furthermore, it includes other extremely important elements. I will have an opportunity to come back to many issues relating to the recapitalization of banks. A large number of officials are going to speak about many topics.

In fact, when Bill C-12 was tabled, it was clear that it would be studied by the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, but in the end it's the Standing Committee on Finance that's looking at it. I think this clearly shows that even if a provision or line is announced in the budget, it shouldn't necessarily be studied in the context of the budget. It should be studied by the appropriate committees. Bill C-12 is a patent case of that.

Having said that, I would like to move a motion. I am fully willing to discuss it at the end of this presentation. I will even do the committee a favour by not reading it, since it is rather long.

I'll simply say that the purpose of this motion is to return to the House of Commons Bill C-15, which implemented certain provisions of the budget, so that clauses relating to the re-establishment and compensation of Canadian Forces members and veterans—from Bill C-12, which was inserted—to bank bail-ins and the bank recapitalization regime, to the Old Age Security Act, and to the Employment Insurance Act. The motion also proposes separate bills so that they can be studied by their respective committee.

I won't read the motion because it takes up a full page. But we will be able to discuss it in committee.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I share my colleague's indignation at the fact that Bill C-12 was put into an omnibus bill. However, I would like to remind him that the Conservatives also introduced undemocratic bills like this one that evince disrespect for Parliament.

Also under the Conservatives, wounded veterans were forced to prove, year after year, that the legs they lost in the line of duty had not magically reappeared. That is utterly unacceptable, and it literally adds insult to injury. Unfortunately, that practice will not change under the new government.

Is the member concerned about the fact that this bill fails to ensure that practice will end?

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on her military service.

I think it is important to speak to members in this House about the specific measures in budget 2016 for veterans and how those measures will affect them. Nevertheless, before I address the more specific aspects of the budget, I want to note that my colleagues, the people of my riding of Beauport—Limoilou, and I all share concerns that the Liberal government is planning some exorbitant spending for this year and the years to come.

In light of Canada's current economic climate, the Liberal government's plan to run large deficits over many years is unjustified. Unfortunately, the government is essentially handing out money that has been borrowed instead of earned.

Furthermore, the government is breaking a number of its election promises, and we are just a few months in. This is surprising, since some of these promises were key planks in the Liberal platform. First, there was the promise to restrict deficit spending to a maximum of $10 billion, which has changed. I would remind members that the deficit spending was supposed to be used to invest in infrastructure, not to subsidize new recurring programs.

Then, the government promised to focus upcoming financial efforts on balancing the budget by the end of its term, which is no longer achievable. The other disappointment was the broken promise to lower the tax rate for small and medium-sized businesses, which create wealth for everyone.

I will set these concerns aside and get to the essence of my speech, which is the budget measures put forward to address the needs of our veterans.

I want to note that these measures were first presented separately from the federal 2016 budget, in Bill C-12, an act to amend the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts. This bill was introduced barely one month ago. I thought it was a good sign that the Liberals introduced this legislation, since there was no notion of partisanship on veterans' issues.

As a result, as the official opposition veterans' critic, I was planning to support Bill C-12 and vote in favour of it to help this government take positive action for our veterans, even though I felt that some amendments were necessary to fix certain technical issues.

This is also why I worked enthusiastically and passionately to urge my Conservative colleagues to do the same and vote in favour of Bill C-12, since, overall, it seemed that this bill would improve the well-being of our veterans.

Right now, though, that bill no longer exists. It is part of Bill C-15, the 2016 federal budget, an omnibus bill. As a result, since I will be opposing the 2016 federal budget for reasons of both content and form, and since the measures for veterans have been absorbed by that bill because of inappropriate partisanship, I will have to bear the burden of voting against those measures.

I would like to tell the veterans who are watching that my support for them is unwavering and that my vote against the budget in no way means that I am voting against measures that are good for them.

I will promise veterans this: raw, ruthless honesty that holds nothing back when necessary.

That is why I will be loud and clear today about which of these measures are acceptable to me and which ones are problematic and counterproductive.

No, the government’s approach to veterans’ issues is not perfect, and yes, it is my duty as the official opposition critic to identify major flaws.

Together, then, let us identify the measures put forward in the 2016 federal budget that will help veterans, measures that pertain to financial benefits in particular.

The budget proposes increasing the disability award, expanding access to higher grades of the permanent impairment allowance, and increasing the earnings loss benefit.

One observation immediately comes to mind regarding the political will and, in this case, the legislative will of the Liberal government to move forward with these improvements to allowances and benefits.

They are consistent with the approach that the Conservative Party of Canada had been taking since 2006, an approach that involves constantly improving the financial benefits that veterans are entitled to under the new veterans charter. The charter must be interpreted and amended through the lens of the living tree doctrine, which allows for changes in how our laws are worded and interpreted.

That is why, in recent years, in accordance with this philosophical approach, we in the Conservative Party brought forward various modifications and new measures with respect to this charter that have had a positive impact on veterans. Those measures include things like improvements to the permanent impairment allowance, the new retirement income security benefit, the new family caregiver relief benefit, and the new critical injury benefit.

Like us, the Liberals are adding benefits and allowances to the charter, in other words, increasing financial benefits here and there as the needs of our veterans evolve.

By all accounts, that is commendable. However, I think there are a few glaring problems arising from the Minister of Veterans Affairs's determination to proceed down this path. The improvements in budget 2016 do not address the urgent issues that individual veterans have brought to my attention.

As far as the disability award is concerned, the retroactive increase to the maximum payout draws on considerable financial resources, roughly $3.7 billion that could have been used more effectively. For example, that money could have been used to improve the assistance provided to family members of a veteran who is suffering, to enhance mental health services, and to implement a completely renewed approach to the transition from military life to civilian life and to the bureaucratic services provided to our veterans.

When it comes to these transition services, I very sincerely believe that we are currently at a crossroads regarding our veterans and the help we would like to give them.

Either we continue increasing the benefits, since that is the easiest thing to do, or we cut through the Gordian knot at the root of the problem that veterans are experiencing in their everyday lives. This is the next battle in their lives, the one they must wage in order to get help and an attentive ear at Veterans Affairs Canada, where they unfortunately face a systematically rigid and calculating bureaucracy.

The minister says he wants to help veterans, and that is a good thing. Therefore, he must get rid of the department's sometimes abusive bureaucracy once and for all, as it is characterized by a structure that too often dismisses veterans' requests and needs.

We must acknowledge one irrefutable fact: our veterans suffered in battle and they often return with problems that give rise to terrible mental health issues or physical conditions. These men and women in uniform not only made personal sacrifices. Above all, they dedicated their lives to serving Canada by defending our political principles, which from time to time vacillate even here in the House.

That is why those who are forced to leave the Canadian Armed Forces for medical reasons more often than not feel bitter and betrayed and as though they have lost their country's support for their commitment and ultimately for themselves.

The current veterans' movement includes a multitude of groups and claims often involving an increase in financial benefits.

I truly believe that these financial claims are motivated by injuries that go much deeper and require systemic help that goes far beyond any specific amount of money.

Veterans want respect from their own department, Veterans Affairs Canada. This department, which is the main source of assistance for our veterans in need, has to make major changes to its administrative approach and its established culture. The government needs to take real action on this, not just make announcements with no real meaning.

I believe that the Minister of Veterans Affairs needs to launch a comprehensive review of his department's administrative culture, including a review of staff conduct and of the regulations and structures that determine employees' everyday practices as well as the type and nature of services offered to veterans.

The minister needs to change the status quo. That is the real task he needs to undertake.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know when I was walking among many communities in my riding and knocking on doors, one of the things that my constituents spoke to me about again and again was their serious concerns about omnibus bills filled with lots of information that was not adequately debated in the House of Commons.

We now have another one. It is 179 pages long, contains 30 separate statutes, refers to nine different ministries, impacts several others, and contains Bill C-12, which is already on the Order Paper before the House of Commons.

The people in my riding are concerned. How would you respond to them?

Second Reading

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague, I am very concerned about the Liberals falling into bad ways with what we can only describe as an undemocratic omnibus bill. The fact that it is 179 pages long and addresses a significant number of ministries and statutes concerns New Democrats very much.

My question is twofold. First, I absolutely understand that child care is an investment. For every $1 that is invested, $1.79 goes back into the economy, so it is a smart investment. I am sorry that it has not seen the light of day with the current government.

Second, I am very concerned about how veterans are being treated. Bill C-12 has been incorporated into this budget bill and it deserves our full attention. It is a bill that addresses the needs of our veterans with regard to their pensions. It needs to be separate and I wonder if my colleague could comment on that.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the first budget implementation bill was really the first test of the new Liberal government in terms of the economy. Of course, there have been some ways and means motions, but, since the budget was tabled on March 22, 2016, this is the first concrete expression of the approach that the Liberal government plans to take.

I am saddened to say that this first test has been a failure. It has been a failure on many counts, especially with regard to the promises that the Liberal Party made during the campaign.

It has been a failure because the Liberal government promised to do things differently. I was a member here during the previous Parliament. Time and time again, twice a year, the Conservatives introduced omnibus bills that included many different elements. The omnibus bills were often 300, 400, or 500 pages long, and the Standing Committee on Finance had to study them within impossibly tight timelines, which prevented the committee from doing its work. In other words, it could not study matters that were extremely important to the social and economic well-being of this country in a careful, rigorous, and analytical manner.

During the election campaign, the Liberals promised the following in their platform:

We will not resort to legislative tricks to avoid scrutiny.

[The previous prime minister] has used prorogation to avoid difficult political circumstances. We will not.

Let us wait and see what happens.

[The previous prime minister] has also used omnibus bills to prevent Parliament from properly reviewing and debating his proposals. We will change the House of Commons Standing Orders to bring an end to this undemocratic practice.

We are still waiting for that.

Let us now talk about the definition of the word “omnibus”. The Minister of Finance is denying that this is an omnibus bill. I will go back to the question I asked him. According to O'Brien and Bosc, our parliamentary procedure bible, an omnibus bill “seeks to amend, repeal or enact several Acts”. That is true of this 179-page bill: it seeks to amend 35 laws, it includes specific laws in their entirety, and it repeals other laws. It affects nine different departments. With that in mind, I think we can agree that Bill C-15 is an omnibus bill. It is characterized by the fact that it “is made up of a number of related but separate initiatives”.

The Minister of Finance himself said that these measures are related because they are in the budget. Instead of really doing what Canadians expect them to do, which is to take a different, transparent, and more responsible approach, the Liberals have decided to play with words by saying that all these measures are in the budget.

The budget is often 300, 400, or 500 pages long. If the Liberals now want to include all the measures in an omnibus bill by saying that they were in the budget, they are going to start changing the budget to reflect the legislative changes they want to make. That makes no sense.

This makes no sense because the size of the bills and the limited time we have to carefully study them preclude transparency. In order for the committee to do a proper job, it needs time and bills, especially when they are technical, that will allow it to conduct an analysis and present a proper report to Parliament.

It is not the case because there are many highly technical aspects of this bill that should be studied separately.

For example, the bail-in plan in the bill aims to solidify the banking system and reassure Canadians that if there is a failure in the banking system, taxpayers will not be on the hook for it. Often we are between the choices of letting the banks fail and having large consequences for the economy, or bailing them out with taxpayer money. This would bring a third possibility, which is currently being studied through OECD countries.

Why include this 20 to 25-page highly technical bill of its own modification of the Bank Act to be studied with hundreds of other measures that touch things as diverse as the Canadian Wheat Board, veterans, modifications to the GST, and so on?

This creates uncertainty right now among the Canadian population. I am not opposed to the idea of the bill. It should be studied. It actually might be a good way to protect the economy and at the same time protect the taxpayers. It is possible we will go in that direction. However, I am sure the government members, and all of the members of the House, have already received emails and communications from concerned citizens that this might touch their deposits, that the money they have invested in banks could be affected.

It would have been wise for the government to take this part and study it separately to reassure Canadians that this would not be the case, that this would not be like Cyprus, for example. However, the Liberals decided to put everything in this 179-page bill. It does not make sense.

What was the rationale of including a full bill that had been tabled in the House, Bill C-12, which aims at the reinsertion and the compensation for veterans? Honestly, I think we are all in agreement that we need to study this bill carefully. It would have been studied carefully if it had stood as its own bill.

If that had stood on its own as a bill, it would have warranted a study in committee over three or four meetings of two or more hours each, to ensure that the concerns of veterans were heard. What is going to happen now? The Standing Committee on Finance is going to review the provisions of this bill with the very few witnesses we will have for the entire study. To share their concerns and opinions veterans will have to compete with bankers and tax experts who will come to talk about other measures in the bill, including the bail-in regime.

Why draft a bill that we would debate here? We can discuss the details, but I think the House generally agrees that we should at least find a way to provide compensation to the veterans.

Do not tell me that this is not an omnibus bill, when it includes all these measures that could have and should have been studied differently.

Some of the other measures are highly questionable. Once again, they are going to have to share the stage with a myriad of other completely unrelated measures. I am thinking about employment insurance in particular. The government once again misled the House by saying that the EI surplus would be kept separate from the consolidated revenue fund and would not be used to fund government activities. However, we can clearly see in the budget that the EI surplus will be used as part of the consolidated fund.

Although the government may pat itself on the back for introducing measures to partly reverse the Conservatives' 2012 EI reform, those measures do not really meet the needs of workers and do not give them the protection they expect from the EI program.

There are measures to eliminate the discrimination between the different classes of workers, which forced frequent claimants, who are often seasonal workers, to accept jobs at 70% of their salaries and more than 100 kilometres away from their homes. We applaud those measures. We agree with them. We fought for that. Our party was the first to oppose those restrictions. Since I come from a riding where seasonal work is still important and still a major part of the economy, I am certainly in favour of eliminating those two requirements.

However, there are other very important measures that the Conservatives got rid of. I am thinking about what was known as the pilot project, which sought to bridge the gap between the end of EI benefits and the beginning of the working season. That measure was available to all workers in areas of high unemployment. For reasons that I cannot understand, the Liberals decided to restore that program but only for exactly 12 regions of Canada.

I do not take issue with these 12 regions getting an extra five weeks of employment insurance benefits. However, this measure should be available to all workers, as it was before 2012.

When I look at the Liberal members from the Atlantic provinces, with the exception of Newfoundland and Labrador, which is really the only province to benefit from this extension, I sincerely wonder what they think of these measures. What do their workers in seasonal industries such as the fishery, tourism, and agriculture think of these measures that exclude them from the extended benefits that they were entitled to before 2012, when they had seasonal industry status? The Liberals are turning a deaf ear despite the fact that they currently have all 32 seats in Atlantic Canada. As my party's critic for the Atlantic provinces, rest assured that I will be asking them this question many times.

I still did not get an adequate answer to something else I asked the official opposition finance critic about. Why did the Liberals break their solemn promise to follow the NDP example and then that of the Conservatives who lowered taxes for SMEs? That promise has vanished.

Then they have the nerve to claim through the parliamentary secretary that they did lower the SMEs' tax rate because it has gone from 11% to 10.5%. It was not the Liberals who did that. Those measures were in place in the Conservatives' previous budget. Nonetheless, we would have liked the measure that we supported in the Conservatives' budget to be applied more quickly. It was a gradual reduction from 11% to 9%. The measure to lower the tax rate to 10.5% did not come from the Liberal government. It was a previously made decision.

I find it appalling that the Liberals want to take credit for a measure that has nothing to do with them, and that they are trying to divert attention away from the fact that they cancelled the gradual reduction that would have lowered the tax rate to 9%. This measure will cost $2.2 billion, and was harshly criticized by the small business community. The government has provided no justification whatsoever for failing to adopt that measure. It was one of the most important and most popular measures of the 2015 Liberal election platform.

The Standing Committee on Finance will have to pay particular attention to certain other measures. For instance, some elements are problematic and are causing concern and uncertainty regarding the potential disclosure of personal information to the Canada Revenue Agency. I am not saying whether that is a good or a bad idea. I am saying that, any time we are dealing with such sensitive issues, especially in light of what we have learned over the past few months regarding tax evasion and other problems that seem to abound at CRA, clearly we need to be able to take our time studying these measures. Once again, it is not my intention to block or obstruct the process, but I want to reassure Canadians that these measures are necessary and they will protect their privacy.

The government does not seem to understand that that is what should happen. It would rather bundle everything together in one big package. Then it will ask the Standing Committee on Finance to proceed as quickly as possible so the bill can be passed and we can stop talking about it. That approach flies in the face of the Liberals' commitment to transparency and to restoring the watchdog role to Parliament and committees and giving them the time they need to study and scrutinize bills.

We do not use our names in the House. I am the member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques. All members of the House are identified by their title or their riding. In committee, we use people's names. Why is that? Because even though our presence is determined according to the number of seats we have, we are not there on behalf of the government, the official opposition, or the third, fourth, or fifth opposition party. We are there to study the government's bills and ensure that they pass the test of legislation that will ensure well-being and progress for Canada, its economy, and its people.

We cannot do this with bills that are 179 pages long. Why is the number of pages important? The answer to this question can be found in another quote, this time from a study by Louis Massicotte published in the Canadian Parliamentary Review.

It has been computed that between 1994 and 2005, budget implementation bills averaged 73.6 pages, while since 2006 they averaged 308.9—four times longer. But the increase is even more huge than it looks. While during the first period a single budget implementation bill was presented each year (there were none in 2002 and two in 2004), bills of that nature have since then been presented twice a year except in 2008, when there was a single one. The yearly average of budget implementation legislation in recent years is therefore closer to 550 pages—this is seven times longer!

We should note that the period between 1994 and 2005 corresponds to a time when the Liberals held power. That was the last time that the Liberals were in power. Their budget implementation bills were on average 79 pages long. They sought to legislate tax measures affecting income tax, the GST, and excise taxes.

Now, we have just been casually told that a 179-page bill that affects a myriad of other measures, which may have been mentioned in the budget but are still extremely complex and should be examined separately, is not an omnibus bill.

I am not convinced by the explanation given by the Minister of Finance. I do not think the House or Canadians are either. They are not being fooled. This government, which promised to be more transparent and more accountable, is failing its first test miserably.

I would like to end my speech by talking about a point that was raised by one of my Conservative colleagues, and that is the fact that this bill repeals an entire law, the Federal Balanced Budget Act. I will admit that we did not particularly like that law, but the way the Liberals have chosen to repeal it is highly reprehensible. They are retroactively repealing an act that is currently in force and that, as of June 1, they will technically be violating.

Apparently that is not a problem for them because they are just going to retroactively repeal the law. It will be like it never existed.

We live in a country governed by the rule of law. The government cannot and must not start changing laws retroactively to exempt themselves from them. However, that is exactly what this government has done twice in three weeks.

The government wants to repeal a law, but as we are debating whether to repeal it, the act may have already been violated and the case could end up before the courts. That is completely at odds with the principles of a country governed by the rule of law and the principles of the rule of law.

For all of those reasons and others that I do not have time to get into, even though I hope to have the opportunity to answer questions from my colleagues, I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the words “since the bill” and substituting the following:

(a) is an omnibus bill that amends or repeals 35 acts and regulations, that retroactively repeals an act of Parliament, and that contains a bill that has already been introduced in the House;

(b) breaks the promise to lower taxes for small businesses;

(c) does not significantly improve access to employment insurance; and

(d) contains significant changes to benefits for veterans, changes to the guaranteed income supplement for seniors, and a new banking regulation without any review or proper parliamentary debate.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister of Finance for his speech.

The fact that this is an omnibus bill has been raised a number of times in the House. The government denies it. However, O'Brien and Bosc's House of Commons Procedure and Practice, our bible of parliamentary procedure, indicates that an omnibus bill “seeks to amend, repeal or enact several Acts...”.

This 179-page bill amends 35 laws.

O'Brien and Bosc goes on to say that an omnibus bill “is made up of a number of related but separate initiatives”.

The word “initiatives” is an improvement over the previous definition and clarifies the situation.

This bill rolls an entire government bill, Bill C-12, into one measure. This bill contains an entire section on an extremely complex and important measure on the recapitalization of banks. There are measures that affect 35 different laws and nine different departments.

The minister claims that this is not an omnibus bill and that the committee and the House are not being prevented from conducting an in-depth study. How then does he define an omnibus bill? How does his definition differ from the definition in O'Brien and Bosc?

Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act

[Kent Hehr, Liberal, Minister of Veterans Affairs]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-12, An Act to amend the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)