Evidence of meeting #157 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
If there are no further questions, members should have that information I believe.
Mr. Dusseault.
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
I'm wondering why we didn't have access to those models before voting on these proposals to change pensions for veterans. I am wondering why it was not given before voting on these proposals.
4:30 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy and Commemoration, Department of Veterans Affairs
Again, Mr. Chair, I will have to determine where in the process those requests for that model might be. I can assure the member that in terms of the fundamental issue I think you're raising, which is whether or not there is an inequity or a fundamental difference in the amount of compensation payable under these provisions for males versus females, the answer is essentially no, there is not a fundamental difference at all.
I think what you may be referring to and may be expressing some concern about is simply how the calculations are made in those cases as part of the transition provisions of the legislation, how the transition is calculated if you are a member or a veteran who had received a benefit prior to April 1, 2019. If you take an individual who may have had a disability award granted in, say, April 2006, the legislation says that for everybody there will be a calculation made to determine whether or not they might have been better off financially had they received the new pain and suffering compensation.
The department will do that calculation automatically. The fact is simply that when we use actuarial assessments to try to determine the relative value of a disability award made 10 years ago, there are different values on the actuarial base in terms of calculating out into the future as to what the value might have been.
There is no fundamental difference in the actual amount of the pain and suffering compensation made for males versus females.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Mr. Butler, the bells are ringing, and I have to obtain unanimous consent from the committee to stay here until 10 minutes prior to the end of the ringing of the bells.
4:30 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Mr. Chair, I appreciate that departments will sometimes receive these requests, and apparently the information was submitted. The problem we have, though, is the process and timeliness of the information.
Perhaps you could convene with the clerk as to what kind of guidelines we should be giving different departments to make sure that parliamentarians can use that information for clause-by-clause. Again, it's one of those difficult situations. I would appreciate that when a department makes a commitment it is not just to give accurate information, but it's also within the timeline that can allow the legislative process to be done properly.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I can't disagree with you, Mr. Albas.
The fact of the matter is that we have a lot of information filing in. We have a problem almost physically handling the amount of reading material that comes to this committee, so, when requested, it is important that departments get it back to us as quickly as possible.
If there are no further questions for Mr. Butler, there are no amendments proposed on part 4, so shall clauses 120 to 161 carry?
(Clauses 120 to 161 inclusive agreed to on division)
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
There is a proposed amendment, NDP-8, new clause 161.1.
Mr. Dusseault.
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
Mr. Chair, thank you for giving me the opportunity to explain amendment NDP-8, which seeks to incorporate an independent review.
It should read in English, “Independent Review”, not “Independent Teview”. Sorry for that. It should be part of a grammatical correction at the end of the process.
The amendment introduces the following obligations:
161.1 (1)The Minister of Veterans Affairs must cause an independent review to be conducted of the provisions enacted by this Part, including a comparative analysis of gains, if any, arising out of the new benefits. (2) The Minister must cause a report of the review to be tabled in each House of Parliament within 3 years after the day on which this Part comes into force.
The purpose of this amendment is to clarify the issue we have just discussed in order to determine whether the new pension plan for veterans is more generous than the old one. Unfortunately, we have had no data so far. Today, we received confirmation that it will not be possible to have them before we vote. Actually, we have just adopted the proposals without having the figures to show us on average the real benefits for veterans.
The review would allow parliamentarians and the public to find out whether pension plans for veterans have actually been improved. This would require the minister to report over the next three years and to demonstrate that there are real benefits or, conversely, that there are fewer benefits than in the previous system.
I hope to have my colleagues' support for this perfectly reasonable amendment. Its purpose is simply to shed a little more light on the changes and their effects on veterans, to ensure that they have the benefits to which they are entitled since they have given so much to Canada.
I hope to have the support of all my colleagues.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Raj Grewal Liberal Brampton East, ON
Mr. Chair, I think everybody here agrees that we have a solemn obligation to our veterans.
The Minister of Veterans Affairs reports publicly on results through the departmental results report that is tabled in Parliament annually. The government is committed to including the results of the pension for life as well as other recent investments in annual departmental results reports that are published and available to all stakeholders and Canadians.
Further to this annual public reporting, the department undertakes audits and evaluations of its suite of benefits and programs to support veterans and their families in a five-year cycle. These new programs under PFL will routinely be subject to these audits and evaluations, which are proactively available to Canadians.
In consideration of these activities, we feel that this amendment is redundant.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Mr. Chair, could we just ask to see if those documents that Mr. Grewal has mentioned are independently verified?
Are they independently verified or are they done by the department for the purposes of tabling in Parliament?
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
We're talking about an independent report, and I think that's what Mr. Dusseault is aiming at. I just can't see how something is duplicated if it's not the same, if it's not independent, and that's why I just needed that clarification.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Okay, I have Mr. Kmiec and then Mr. Dusseault, and then anybody else who gets in line.
Mr. Kmiec.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
Mr. Chair, I want to make the point that this is a pretty reasonable amendment. It's simply asking the Minister of Veterans Affairs to do two things, to get the independent review done and provide more information to the House of Commons.
I don't know if Mr. Grewal has read those departmental reports, but they are always glowing with all the successes the department has had, 95%, A+ for everybody. That's pretty much what happens. That's why I think an independent review would be a pretty good idea. It would provide both sets of data, a kind of independent analysis of how the department is actually doing. You have the same people writing these reports internally who are running the programs, so of course they'll give themselves an A+.
I don't see any problem. This is a report to Parliament. We, as parliamentarians, get to tell the executive that they must report back to us in a specific matter. Departmental plans and their contents can change at any time in the future. This gets around some of that problem. Governments can always change what types of documents they produce for the public if it is not mandated by Parliament, so I'll be supporting this amendment.
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
I would like to make a clarification. I'm not sure whether I have said it loudly or clearly enough, but the title is “Independent review”, which is fundamentally different. My colleague, who has worked in business and finance, should know the difference between an internal review and an independent external review in terms of determining the results.
In this case, it is clearly indicated that we are not simply looking for a departmental performance report. We cannot rely on a departmental report. Just think of the Canada Revenue Agency's performance report as an example. According to the report, their call centre was perfect, everything was fine, the response rate was excellent, clients were very satisfied, and the responses were also good. However, when an independent review was conducted by the Auditor General, the picture was completely different.
This example demonstrates the need for an independent review and indicates that we should not rely on departmental rhetoric, which will stop at nothing to make the situation look better. We are not just asking for a review; we are asking for an independent review.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Is there any further discussion on this point or shall I go to the vote?