Evidence of meeting #39 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was amendment.
A video is available from Parliament.
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
I think Mr. Butler will probably say this, but as to the political decision that was made, obviously, I don't know—
6:05 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Yes. I'm not seeking the political decision, because we've heard that it was a political decision.
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
6:05 p.m.
Director General, Policy Division, Policy, Communications and Commemoration Branch, Department of Veterans Affairs
I can simply say again that at the time of the announcement, the government noted the fact that there were similarities to our programming with the SISIP programming, in the sense that the new Veterans Charter rehabilitation program and income support benefits that flowed from that were modelled in part on the SISIP program. Albeit the government is not compelled to do it, there were some similarities, and the government made the announcement at the time that simply to try to ensure that there was some alignment on a go-forward basis, the offsetting would be terminated for these particular programs.
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
Very quickly, then you did offer up the date of April 2006 as an option, a costing option, we'll say. Is that correct?
6:05 p.m.
Director General, Policy Division, Policy, Communications and Commemoration Branch, Department of Veterans Affairs
I think what I said was that various options are put forward to ministers when an issue of this sort comes forward.
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
I was under the assumption that April 1, 2006, was put up as an option and costed out for the government if they chose to use that date.
6:05 p.m.
Director General, Policy Division, Policy, Communications and Commemoration Branch, Department of Veterans Affairs
While I think that may be your assumption, I think my answer to Mr. Cullen was that various options are put forward for consideration in any initiative.
6:05 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you.
We will go, I assume, to a recorded vote on clause 103. Are you all in favour?
6:05 p.m.
An hon. member
No.
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
We'll have a recorded vote on clause 103.
(Clause 103 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)
(On clause 104—War veterans allowance)
We have two amendments to deal with: NDP-12 and LIB-12.
As a forewarning, I have a ruling.
6:05 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Surprise, surprise. Are you going to spruce up the language on this one a little?
6:05 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Very briefly—I can speak to it when we get to the main motion—the attempt is similar. I'm sure Mr. Butler understands it as well.
The only thing is that we've made light of some of the exchanges going on here. I just want to add one small thing, Chair, which is that for the veterans who we on this side have spoken to and who have come forward about this issue, it's incredibly serious. It's not only a dollar terms question; it's what they've had to go through in order to have the programs that were designed by government to support wounded vets actually work for wounded vets.
I know we've made light...we're into some later hours. But the importance of this...the stories we've heard, on this side at least, have been incredibly moving, and we should try to take these consequential votes more seriously.
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you.
I will do my ruling.
Bill C-31 establishes retroactively a period for which war veterans allowance applicants and recipients will receive a compensation. This amendment seeks to expand this period.
House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, states on pages 767 and 768:
Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.
In the opinion of the chair, the amendment, by modifying the period of admissibility, infringes on the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation. Therefore, the amendment is inadmissible, and this applies to NDP-12 and LIB-12.
Therefore, I will go to discussion on clause 104. I will start with Mr. Cullen.
6:05 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Sure, since it's available to me, I'm not going to go over ground we've already covered, but one of the challenges—I know it's not in this particular budget implementation act—we have with the format we're in right now is giving these types of conversations their proper due. I know that Mr. Butler takes it seriously, as I imagine many of our colleagues do, but it's about the scrutiny that we've been unable to apply to this conversation, because it is somewhat complicated, as Mr. Butler has said. There's an insurance program that's somewhat differentiated from these other compensation programs. My concern always is whether committee members are aware of what it is they're voting on and what it is we're trying to amend.
One of the challenges that veterans have come to us about is not just the package as offered back to 2012. Having to go to court and prove certain cases with the government, after there being so much fanfare about standing up for troops and treating our veterans properly, has been incongruous, if not offensive. When the government is seeking to rectify mistakes that have been made or to enhance programs that have been offered, these should be stand-alone pieces of legislation. That's one way to show respect, actually. It's to allow bills to be properly understood, fixed, voted on, and passed through the House of Commons. Burying this in the middle of a 360-page omnibus bill is not the way to show that seriousness or respect. On process and on substance, the opposition, the NDP, has problems with this.
Of course, we'll be rejecting this amendment, not simply.... There is something being done, but that something is not enough, and we should always seek to do more than just a little.
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Is there further discussion on this clause?
I assume we will have a recorded vote on clause 104.
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
A voice vote is fine?
(Clause 104 agreed to)
I will move to clause 105.
(On clause 105—Civilian war-related benefits)
I have amendments NDP-13 and LIB-13.