Finance Committee on May 10th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

You do?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Caron seems to think it is unprecedented to pass a law saying that a law did not exist, but in the case of a law that should never have existed it is probably good public policy.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I don't want to get into extended debates here. Mr. Caron, please be brief.

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

My questions are not for or against the principle of an act to balance the budget. Rather, they focus on the fact that it really is a departure from the fundamental principles of law.

As Mr. Recker mentioned, there is no precedent at the federal level for a law on balancing the budget, but it does exist at the provincial level. Their content and scope are somewhat the same as what we have here. The precedents that have been established do not necessarily require the government to have the right to make this change retroactively and to abrogate a law by saying that it does not exist and that it never did.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you.

We'll move on to part 4, division 2, and call Faith McIntyre to the table. This section represents the changes to the Canadian Forces members and veterans re-establishment and compensation in the budget implementation act.

Ms. McIntyre is director general, policy and research division, strategy policy and commemoration, with the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Could you give us a little briefing first, Ms. McIntyre?

[Faith McIntyre, Director General, Policy and Research Division, Strategic Policy and Commemoration, Department of Veterans Affairs]

Yes, I can. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I refer you to part 4, division 2, articles 79 to 116 of the act. It is an act to amend the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act, which we more commonly refer to as the new Veterans Charter. There are four areas that are being proposed for amendment in this division of the act.

The first area would see an increase of the earnings loss benefit from 75% to 90% of a veteran's monthly gross pre-release salary. The earnings loss benefit is an economic impact benefit, which recognizes the impact of a service-related disability on an individual's ability to earn income following release from the military. This change would take effect as of October 1, 2016.

The second change that is proposed is a change to the permanent impairment allowance. First, it's recommending the change of the name to the “career impact allowance”. The permanent impairment allowance is an economic benefit that recognizes the lost opportunity that a permanent impairment has on employment and career progression. The name “permanent impairment allowance” does not accurately indicate what the award is for, hence the proposal to change the name to “career impact allowance”.

It is also proposed to change the term “totally and permanently incapacitated” to “diminished earning capacity”. In order for an individual to receive this award, they have to demonstrate that they have what we'll now be referring to, if this act goes through, as a “diminished earning capacity”.

Furthermore, in respect of the permanent impairment allowance, we are proposing to add an element to assess the impact of the service injury on a veteran's career advancement opportunities. Right now, there is no assessment that provides a measurement of the loss of earnings due to their service-related injury or illness. The proposal would provide for a functional capacity assessment to do so. That change would take effect as of April 1, 2017.

The other two changes have to do with the disability award, a lump sum payment that recognizes the non-economic impact of the pain and suffering. We propose increasing this lump sum payment to $360,000. It is currently about $310,000. Other changes will also be recommended for other types of awards that will all be part of the lump sum payment. It will take effect on April 1, 2017. There will also be a payment retroactive to April 1, 2006.

The last change is a clarification of the wording used. It concerns when the disability award becomes payable and how it is calculated. These are the four proposed changes for this part of the act.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you, Ms. McIntyre.

In terms of the assessment you talked about, who will do these assessments on veterans or military personnel, and is there an appeal process? Is it DVA?

[Faith McIntyre]

We are currently working through exactly how the functional capacity assessment would be implemented. It will be part of the regulations that we are now writing and hopefully, would come after this legislation is passed.

However, we're looking at different methods to do so. For example, our current service providers that we have do this type of assessment for other individuals, such as the workers' compensation boards. It's not a new assessment; it's an assessment that's used in many other jurisdictions to measure a future loss of earnings, if you will.

In terms of how that could be appealed, there certainly are always mechanisms within which to do so. Again, we're currently working through those provisions that would form part of the regulations moving forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Caron.

[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?

[Faith McIntyre]

Yes, that's right.

[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?

[Faith McIntyre]

Unfortunately, I don't know the answer to that question. I'm not sure.

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

Initially it was to have been studied by the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.

A complete bill is included in a budget bill. If I'm not mistaken, the bill was about 20 pages long. The budget bill was already 159 pages long and grew to 179 pages after the inclusion of these measures that were not for the Standing Committee on Finance, but for the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. Still, the government is trying to convince us that this is not an omnibus bill, but that all these measures are in the budget.

This might eventually mean that all bills tabled by the government, expect perhaps those on crime, will be in one omnibus bill, the reason being that all these measures will in the long run be in a budget or in a line of the federal budget.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Sorbara.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

It seems like many components of this division relate to money matters, so I'm glad they're brought before the finance committee.

I'm curious about clause 82, the increase in the percentage of pre-release gross income from 75% to 90%.

If I'm reading this language correctly, and forgive me because I'm not a lawyer, this means that there would be an increase and veterans would receive an income of up to or at a minimum level of $42,850. Am I reading that correctly?

[Faith McIntyre]

Indeed, 75% to 90% of gross pre-release salary is the adjustment that's being proposed. It would be in individual circumstances that the veteran might actually receive the full 15%, because there are offsets provided for under the regulations, which are calculated as well from employment earnings. However, it certainly is an increase, and every veteran would see an increase to some extent.

The amount you're referring to would be the minimum salary, equal to that of a senior private. That would be the minimum salary a veteran would actually have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Ouellette.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

So that amount could be different, if you were, for instance, a corporal, a sergeant, or a captain.

[Faith McIntyre]

The amount being proposed is 90% of your pre-release salary, so yes, it would be different, depending what your rank was at the end of your military career.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

And it's for as long as you have a disability.

[Faith McIntyre]

Eligible veterans for the earnings loss benefit have to participate in a rehabilitation program, so there are eligibility criteria that a veteran would have to meet in order to receive the earnings loss benefit, yes.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Caron.

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

I have a quick question.

We heard about the case of a veteran who had to show every year that the legs he lost had not grown back so that he could receive his compensation. Does this bill contain a provision that would put an end to this kind of practice?