Finance Committee on May 31st, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Sorry, Guy. We'll let you make your point, but they are carried.

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

I would like clause 79 not to be grouped with the others.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Go ahead.

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

Are we calling the question on the other clauses or not? Can I talk about clause 79?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

You can speak to clause 79.

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

I have made a number of comments on the matter and I am going to make another one.

This clause would retroactively rescind the Federal Balanced Budget Act. My concern is not so much about eliminating or rescinding that act in particular, but rather about the fact that we are making a retroactive change in order to avoid the government finding itself in an illegal situation, which will be the case as of tomorrow, June 1.

We consider that this retroactive change to a situation in which the government finds itself is problematic in terms of the rule of law. I certainly heard the parliamentary secretary’s comments about the fact the Parliament is sovereign, but that does not mean that the government can escape from its obligations by legislation that it itself imposes.

The current President of the Treasury Board, Mr. Brison, who was once my colleague on the Standing Committee on Finance, said this when the Conservatives were doing the same thing, retroactively rescinding an act: “…a government that, effectively through an abuse of power, is changing a law retroactively to make legal that which was illegal at the time…”

When the current government was in opposition, it condemned this kind of approach. Now, it seems to be going in the same direction and embracing retroactive changes which, let me remind you, contravene recognized rules of law, even though it is possible for a sovereign Parliament to act in that way. That is what the Liberals are doing at the moment.

For that reason, we cannot support retroactive changes in the way they are being made. The act should have been eliminated or rescinded in an open and straightforward manner, and the government would have suffered the consequences of not honouring an act that was voted in by another sovereign Parliament.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay. We've already carried the clause on division.

(On clause 82)

Amendment CPC-1 was moved by Mr. McColeman.

Ms. Wagantall, you will comment.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Chair, first of all, I'd like to express for the record that the official Conservative opposition was prepared to support Bill C-12, the veterans budget, when presented as a stand-alone bill in the House, a bill which we applauded, which the veterans deeply recognized as timely, and which would have been very effective in ensuring that the funds allotted to them would have been out the door sooner.

With regard to this first amendment, the Liberal government has changed the formula for the earnings loss benefit from 75% of a corporal's salary as the minimum to 90% of a senior private's salary. This could result in lower payout for veterans. While the Liberals are claiming that they are increasing the earnings loss benefit, lowering the minimum benefit threshold to a senior private's salary instead of a basic corporal's salary will result in a significant reduction in the benefits received by the most vulnerable injured veterans. This amendment would safeguard the financial support from the earnings loss benefit to ensure that it could not be lowered for any veteran.

The earnings loss benefit is an important source of support for our veterans who were injured through their service to Canada. It's important that the Liberal government's budget not in real effect reduce this benefit to veterans who served in the lower ranks of the Canadian Armed Forces. Just recently, the veterans website was updated with the budget information. The rationale there was that they had to make this change because otherwise some veterans would be receiving more income than serving armed forces members, yet at the same time we are penalizing the lowest-income veterans, who are the most vulnerable.

This amendment would basically ensure that it would “not have the effect of reducing the imputed income to an amount less than the amount that would have been determined before the coming into force of section 82”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Champagne, go ahead.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

I would like to call as a witness the representative from Veterans Affairs. I don't think what the member said was accurate, so I would like to correct the record and have the official answer that question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Could the official come forward, please.

Ms. McIntyre is director general, policy and research division, strategic policy and commemoration, with Veterans Affairs Canada.

Welcome, Ms. McIntyre.

Go ahead. You heard the amendment.

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

Yes, I did. Thank you very much.

The earnings loss benefit provides income support to veterans while they are participating in rehabilitation, as well as support to those who aren't able to be suitably and gainfully employed once rehab is complete. It is part of a suite of programs that Veterans Affairs Canada offers in terms of re-establishment to promote support and encourage wellness, independence, and successful transition to civilian life.

The earnings loss benefit is designed to replace lost income and therefore has always directly corresponded with the veteran's salary at the time of release or the minimum level, whichever is greater. Changes to budget 2016 do not impact this.

With the proposed amendment, if Bill C-15 is passed, veterans who would have previously received 75% of whatever their salary was at the time of release would now receive 90% or the minimum, whichever is greater.

What is paramount in looking at this modification of 75% to 90% is that injured veterans have access to benefits that allow them to focus on recovery, so all veterans will benefit from the increase from 75% to 90%. Again, what is paramount is the support they require during recovery, and with the adjustment, that is pre-release salary or the minimum, whichever is greater.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you, Ms. McIntyre.

Do you have any questions, Mrs. Wagantall?

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

We are all in agreement that these programs are all in place to help them become successful once they are released from the forces. You are talking about a minimum, but are you saying that this minimum in no way is going to be less than what any veteran is receiving right now?

[Faith McIntyre]

It is complicated, because it is an individual calculation and it will depend on offsets, so it will also depend on employment earnings that the veteran might have. That 15% increase in the benefit itself will apply to all eligible veterans.

For those who are at the minimum, the increase would not be 15%. It would be around a 5% increase from the minimum to the minimum, because of that adjustment as well. Again, individual veterans' circumstances would differ, depending upon offsets in terms of employment earnings.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Is there anything further, Mrs. Wagantall?

Go ahead.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

From conversations with individuals who are determining these for themselves, they are finding that they are actually going to be earning less with the change in the threshold. That is the concern for that particular part of their scenario, outside of all the other things that are happening: they are actually ending up with less.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

If I could ask for a point of clarification.... Is that under Bill C-15 or before Bill C-15?

Bill C-15 hasn't passed. Are they going to end up with less under Bill C-15? Is that what you are saying, Mrs. Wagantall?

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

With the way it is structured now, with the lowering of the minimum benefit threshold, that is my understanding, that it will be less for some of the lower-income veterans.

[Faith McIntyre]

Just a point of clarification, the legislation amends the 75% to 90%. The actual reference to the minimum is in the regulations.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Caron, go ahead.

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

We could have drawn more attention to this aspect if the amendments had been included in Bill C-12, as was intended. The matter would then have been studied independently. When a committee studies a stand-alone bill, it can spend more time assessing the concerns that are very often raised. Unfortunately, the government has chosen to include these amendments in a bill that is 179 pages long, meaning that the committee can devote less attention to matters of that kind.

Ms. McIntyre, thank you for being here. I would like to ask you a question.

If the amendment were passed, what would the consequences be? Would this benefit provide greater protection? Would there be an effect on the act?

[Faith McIntyre]

I should have put my headset on. I have to confess that I did not hear you.

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

I will repeat my question. I know that it is difficult to hear clearly in this room.

If the amendment is passed, what would change? Would there be greater protection? Would the changes succeed in reassuring veterans about their benefit?