Finance Committee on June 4th, 2015

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

(Clauses 212 and 213 agreed to)

(On clause 214)

We'll deal with clause 214.

Mr. Brison, you have addressed those clauses generally. I have here four Green Party amendments, two of which are the same.

Mr. Hyer, you can address PV-46 and PV-48, if you want to address them together.

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Yes. It makes sense to put them together.

Starting with PV-46, this amendment seeks to include those veterans who are suffering PTSD by eliminating the requirement for immediacy in symptoms. PTSD often manifests long after the incident that caused the initial trauma. This problem was brought forth to us by the Canadian Legion, including Branch 5 right in my own riding of Thunder Bay—Superior North.

Moving to PV-48, this is the same as PV-46, as well as accounting for the event of multiple incidences that cause injury. For example, PTSD is caused by exposure to extreme violence and repeated violence over a period of time.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Hyer.

I have a ruling that deals with PV-45, PV-46, PV-47, PV-48, and LIB-1. These amendments seek to amend Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015, and other measures. These amendments would result in a greater number of individuals being eligible for the benefit in question.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states the following 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.

Therefore, in the opinion of the chair, these amendments would increase the eligibility of the said benefit, which would impose an additional charge on the public treasury. Therefore, these amendments are ruled inadmissible.

I will move to NDP-12.

I'll go to Mr. Côté.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think that the clerk told you that we have made some changes to the amendment. The changes are very simple. In both the French and the English versions, we would remove from the bill the words “immédiatement” and “immediately”. In the French version of the amendment, since the word “immédiatement” was not included, we are quoting paragraph 44.1(1)(c) in its entirety. Without the word “immédiatement”, here is what we have: “... ont entraîné une déficience physique ou psychologique grave et une détéroration importante de sa qualité de vie.” Is that clear for everyone?

Mr. Chair, fortunately, psychological issues have become increasingly less taboo in our society. That is nevertheless still a serious problem for many of our veterans. When the criteria are too restrictive or there is no explicit provision in the legislation, many veterans may lose their right to the proper treatment they should receive.

We have heard testimony where veterans' advocates feared that the new compensation would help only a small number of veterans with physical, but not psychological injuries. Those with psychological problems are excluded through things like overly limiting criteria such as that of a sudden and single incident that caused a severe impairment and interference in their quality of life. Limiting that access will lead to people who truly need support unfortunately not receiving the help they require. That is why I encourage all my colleagues to support this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Merci.

On NDP-12, we'll go to Mr. Cannan.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Chair, the proposed amendment that Mr. Côté alluded to suggests that eligibility be granted to those who experience “a severe physical or psychological impairment”.

I think to clarify for the committee's sake, the original wording of the bill already included those with psychological impairment, so the amendment is redundant. The addition of the words “physical or psychological”, and the removal of the reference to “severe interference in their quality of life”, could limit eligibility. We would never differentiate between a physical or mental wound. They should be valued and treated equally. Furthermore, the department needs the capacity to evaluate how a condition impacts the veteran's quality of life.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Cannan.

We'll go to the vote on NDP-12.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 214 agreed to)

(Clauses 215 and 216 agreed to)

(On clause 217)

We have four amendments, three of which I have a ruling on—something to do with the royal recommendations—but I will allow....

Mr. Brison, do you want to speak to yours as one group?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay, as one group.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, while the family caregiver relief benefit is a modest step in the right direction, it doesn't adequately compensate a spouse, a family member, or a friend who has to give up potentially full-time employment to become a caregiver. At $7,238 the family caregiver relief benefit falls short of, for instance, the Canadian Armed Forces attendant care benefit, which actually provides $36,500. Providing a family caregiver with $7,238 does not adequately reflect the sacrifice inherent in someone abandoning their own career to become a full-time caregiver.

We have four amendments that would increase the family caregiver relief benefit to match the Canadian Armed Forces attendant care benefit under the compensation and benefit instructions, article 211.04, which pays up to $36,500 over any 365 cumulative days to spouses or family members of disabled veterans to compensate for lost income. It would equalize the treatment of caregiving, within the context of civilians, with those of Canadian Armed Forces personnel or veterans.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Brison.

I'll do the ruling on LIB-2, and then we'll go to LIB-3.

For LIB-2, the amendment seeks to amend Bill C-59. This amendment would result in a greater number of individuals being eligible for the benefit in question.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states the following 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.

Therefore, in the opinion of the chair, the amendment would increase eligibility to said benefit, which would impose an additional charge on the public treasury. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible. That applies to LIB-2.

LIB-3 is admissible, so if anyone would like to speak further to LIB-3....

Mr. Cannan, please.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Really briefly, the proposed amendment qualifies who can provide the veteran's ongoing care. The legislation as drafted is less restrictive and already allows for the scenarios proposed in the amendment. As such, the proposed amendment is redundant.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Cannan.

We'll vote on amendment LIB-3.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I have a ruling. Amendments LIB-4 and LIB-5 are consequential to each other, so I'm foreshadowing my ruling on LIB-5, but I will read the ruling on LIB-4.

This amendment seeks to amend Bill C-59. The amendment would result in an increase in the value of the benefit in question. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, , second edition, states on pages 767-8:

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 proposes to increase the value of the said benefit that would impose an additional charge on the public treasury, and therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible. This applies to LIB-4. It also applies to NDP-13.

Does the NDP wish to address clause 217 in general?

Monsieur Côté.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

This is similar to what I did for the previous amendment. Amendment 13 is related to amendment 14, and its purpose is to really give family caregivers the means to provide dignified support to veterans with significant struggles. I hope that the members of the governing party will consider this suggestion. I have to admit that I think the government's proposal is a positive first step. However, we are reaching out to the government to take another step. We should establish a real system to support all veterans and especially to help family caregivers and ensure that the system is cohesive and strong enough, in a tangible way, to ensure a dignified existence for all parties involved.

Those are my thoughts on the topic.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Côté.

On this clause—

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

We're on clause 217. Is that right?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We've dealt with the amendments, so now we're on clause 217.

Mr. Cannan, you can speak to it or not. It's up to you.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

No, it has been ruled out of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Yes, both LIB-4 and NDP-13 are inadmissible

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

That's fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay.

(Clause 217 agreed to)

Colleagues, I don't have any amendments for clauses 218 to 224. May I group them together?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

(Clauses 218 to 224 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 225)

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We have amendments NDP-14 and LIB-5 before us.

I have the same royal recommendation ruling on both. Would you like me to read from House of Commons Procedure and Practice again?