Finance Committee on May 31st, 2016

[Faith McIntyre]

I cannot speak on behalf of veterans’ organizations, but I can certainly talk about the amendments and about the fact that it would move the earnings loss benefit from 75% to 90%. The rate would go up 15%, so they would have increased protection.

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

My question is very simple. What is your interpretation of the provisions proposed in the amendment? What consequences would they have?

[Faith McIntyre]

As I see it, the minimum would remain as it is at the moment. In the new charter, there would be no change in the minimum provided for in the regulations.

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

Have there been recent amendments or are the amendments to the regulations still to be made?

[Faith McIntyre]

No, there have been no recent amendments. The amendments to the regulations will be made after the bill is adopted.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you, Mr. Caron and Ms. McIntyre.

Mr. MacKinnon.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

My thanks to Mr. Caron for his enlightening questions.

I have one final question. We have heard the minister talk about an in-depth review of veterans’ benefits, to be revealed this year

In addition to this increase in benefits, can you confirm that a more in-depth review is in progress and that it will be finished this year?

[Faith McIntyre]

Thank you very much.

We are indeed in the process of reviewing all of the economic and non-economic forecasts, all the benefits, all the programs and services that currently exist for veterans. We will communicate the fruits of this labour to cabinet shortly, probably for Budget 2017.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

It seems clear to us that the situation is indeed better and that the amendment proposed by my friends opposite would cancel out the benefits of the intent and the wording of the bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. McColeman, and then Mr. Ouellette.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

As the expert on this matter, could you tell me if this would cancel out the benefits as just described by my colleague across the table? Would this amendment cancel out the benefits?

[Faith McIntyre]

This amendment doesn't really cancel them out, but in essence what it would do.... There's nothing that would change without the amendment either, so for what's in play for budget 2016, the increase of the 15% in the earnings loss benefit is there, and that's what's being proposed in Bill C-15 in the legislation—

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

This amendment doesn't—

[Faith McIntyre]

However, as indicated, we are certainly looking at the whole picture in detail with the financial benefits review that will come forward to cabinet in the fall.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

But this amendment doesn't cancel out what's in the legislation.

[Faith McIntyre]

It adds another element which would then tie our hands in terms of the regulations.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

I think that was an error in the translation. I did not say that the amendment that the Conservatives are proposing would cancel the benefits; I said that it would cancel the benefits of the budgetary provision that we are presently considering.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

You're saying the 15%.

[An hon. member]

That's right.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. McColeman, are you complete?

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

I am, but I'd like to yield any time I have, or perhaps the mover would like to speak to it again.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay. We'll come back to the mover.

I have Mr. Ouellette, and then Mr. Caron, and then we'll come back to Mrs. Wagantall.

Mr. Ouellette.

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

I'm looking at this and I'm thinking it's very interesting. As someone who was in the army for a very long period of time, who had friends who served and lost legs in Afghanistan.... They go over as a private. This is real. This is not something that's abstract.

At the end of the day, what I want to know is this. Suppose you go over there and you're a private. You come back and, because of universal service ability or your ability to serve in the Canadian Forces, you can't do the rucksack march. You can't get promoted to corporal. You're now released from the armed forces. You're 25 years old. You have PTSD. You have other issues. Are you going to be able to see some...? The pay of a private is a lot less than that of a corporal. There is that substantive jump when you move up the ranks.

My concern is this. Can you make this a little bit less abstract for me, make it a little bit clearer? Is there an actual benefit to especially these lower ranks within the Canadian Armed Forces, the young people who are actually going over into these hard places and serving Canadians? Not everyone goes over as a sergeant, a major, or a lieutenant-colonel. We're talking about some of our youngest people in the country who often might not have as much education as other people have or life skills, all sorts of other things. I just want to make sure they're well protected.

I'm hearing stuff here. I want to know what your intent is, because it's very concerning to me.

[Faith McIntyre]

Certainly.

Indeed, this is about individuals who have served our country. This benefit in particular is for those who have become injured or ill because of their service. For most cases, eligibility is tied to that.

To make it concrete, I guess I'll just say, as I said earlier, that this is only one part of a whole suite of programs that exist under the new Veterans Charter to support independence, wellness, and re-establishment.

Currently the benefit is payable at 75% of a basic corporal, which is about $3,500 a month based on 2013 rates, and at 90% of a senior private. With the proposed change, it would be about $3,700 a month. There is an increase. Again, when we increased the amount of the benefit, we did look at the minimum. The intent of the policy and the rationale is to ensure sufficient support for the needs of these individuals while they recover.