Finance Committee on May 31st, 2016

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

You mentioned previous to this that you could also see an increase according to your progression in what you might have had in the ranks. Is that still...?

[Faith McIntyre]

That, sir, is another program. It's the permanent impairment allowance, career impact allowance. That is the proposed title change. It's another one of the amendments that we're proposing under Bill C-15. It's an additional benefit that's available to individuals from an economic loss perspective. There's also the disability award, which again we're increasing to $360,000 as proposed under Bill C-15 for non-economic loss award.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you both.

Mr. Caron.

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

I have a very simple question about the interpretation of the proposed amendment.

Am I wrong to think that, basically, the effect of the amendment would be to remove a discretionary power from the hands of the minister and put it back into Parliament, that it would remove the provisions from the regulations and instead enshrine them in the act?

[Faith McIntyre]

It adds an element to the act that describes how the regulations must be written. At the moment, in the act, there is no reference to “income imputed to a lower amount”.

Apart from that, I can make no comment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you, Mr. Caron.

Mrs. Wagantall.

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

Mr. Chair, just in closing, the intent originally was to increase to 90%, but the fact that it has been adjusted to change the minimum benefit threshold to a senior private's salary instead of a basic corporal's salary impacts the lower-paid veterans. I understand from the website that the concern was if they didn't change that designation, some veterans would end up earning more than our armed forces serving right now, so the adjustment seems to have been on the high end to ensure that we don't end up overpaying.

I understand our people serving shouldn't be receiving less than veterans, but I would rather ensure that our veterans who are earning the lower-level incomes were protected and come in with maximums instead of minimums because a number are going to be facing a difference in their salaries because of the change to the minimum benefit threshold.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay, back to Mr. Ouellette.

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

Mr. Chair, I was just reviewing some of the salaries that we can find online. A senior private makes around $4,120 a month. A basic corporal earns $4,714. Under the old rate at 75% they would be making around $3,535.50. Under the new charter they would go down, so for a senior private, we would take that $4,120 and multiply it by 90%, so they would be getting $3,708. There would be an increase of a hundred-and-some dollars, so they'd be better off.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Ms. McIntyre, you're nodding your head. We can't put that in the record, but you're saying yes, I gather.

[Faith McIntyre]

Yes, those are the figures that I quoted earlier. They're based on 2013 rates.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you, all.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 82 agreed to on division)

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

On clauses 83 to 88 there are no amendments.

(Clauses 83 to clause 88 inclusive agreed to on division)

On clause 89 there are no amendments.

(Clause 89 agreed to on division)

Clause 89.1 is considered a new clause.

(On clause 89.1)

On new clause 89.1, Conservative amendment CPC-2 is moved by Mr. McColeman.

Mrs. Wagantall.

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

Mr. Chair, veterans who are injured due to their service must have access to the necessary benefits and resources to support them. We all agree with that. However, veterans with significant mental and/or physical injuries can suffer due to delays before receiving their benefits during the transition period between leaving the jurisdiction of the Canadian Armed Forces and entering into the jurisdiction of Veterans Affairs Canada.

This is something that we've seen and heard over and over again on our committee, which is functioning very well, by the way.

The federal government has a responsibility to support veterans who have been injured as a result of their service to all Canadians. In order to enhance the support that is provided to veterans, this government must also build on the process of delivering services and resources, an objective that is missing from the program in the budget.

The federal budget outlines increased financial resources for veterans, building on a significant 35% increase in funding for each veteran, which was an investment provided by the previous Conservative government. However, the budget does not address the procedural issues that are leaving the most vulnerable veterans, men and women, who suffer from significant physical and mental injuries at risk, by not receiving the support they deserve in a reasonable time frame.

This amendment would help bridge the gap between the period when injured men and women in uniform are in the jurisdiction of the Canadian Armed Forces and already require immediate assistance from Veterans Affairs.

By passing this amendment, veterans who have suffered as a result of their service could immediately begin the process of applying for their benefits with the help of a Veterans Affairs representative while in the jurisdiction of the Canadian Armed Forces, expediting the current delay and ensuring injured veterans receive the support needed immediately upon exiting the armed forces.

Currently, a member of the Canadian Armed Forces who is injured can be waiting three to six months before meeting with a Veterans Affairs representative, resulting in a gap between the time they leave the care of the Canadian Armed Forces and begin receiving benefits from Veterans Affairs Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you, Madam Wagantall.

This amendment is inadmissible. It seeks to add a new section between section 75.2 and section 76 of the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, states on pages 766-7, “an amendment is inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause of the bill.”

Since neither section 75.2 nor section 76 of the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act are amended by Bill C-15, it's the opinion of the chair that this amendment is inadmissible. I declare it inadmissible.

We have a new clause in amendment CPC-3.

You are signed in, Mrs. Wagantall. If you want to move it, you're signed in, I think, for Lisa Raitt.

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

Okay. I'm fine to do that.

I so move.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Go ahead.

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

Mr. Chair, the federal government must enhance its services to injured veterans and provide proactive assessments and services to veterans who injure themselves during their service to our country. Due to geographic distance and unreliable Internet availability, many rural veterans face severe difficulty accessing the support and resources they deserve for their well-being.

A constant theme from the testimony at the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs is the need for Veterans Affairs Canada to be proactive and on the ground to assess and support our veterans. Too many injured veterans suffer from vulnerable situations and deplorable living conditions due to their physical or mental injuries as a result of their service.

Additionally, for injured veterans in rural communities, access to online or office-based service is not reliable. This amendment would mandate Veterans Affairs Canada to determine a policy that provides injured veterans with a departmental representative at the veteran's place of living.

By providing injured veterans with in-person support at their home at the request of the veteran, the department could better assess the well-being of injured veterans and their quality of life and determine the best assistance possible to serve them.

This amendment also would ensure that service is in place for injured veterans in rural communities who cannot reach a Veterans Affairs office, stakeholder organization, or online support, allowing injured veterans to receive support regardless of their geographic location.

I would add that this in no way impacts the requirement of more funds. This is something that the caseworkers could and should be doing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you, Mrs. Wagantall.

Similar to CPC-2, I also have to rule this as inadmissible. In this case, I'll not read the passage from House of Commons Procedure and Practice. Since section 76 of the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act is not being amended by Bill C-15, it's the opinion of the chair that this amendment is inadmissible.

Turning to clauses 90 to 106, are there any clauses in that block which members want to make a comment on or have witnesses come forward on?

(Clause 90 to 106 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On clause 107)

We have amendment NDP-7, moved by Mr. Caron.

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

Thank you very much.

We truly believe that Canada has the legal but also the moral obligation to look after its veterans who have run great risks in the service of our country and, all too often, by paying a high personal price. We are clearly in favour of the increased benefits or compensation included in this bill. However, as I mentioned—and I think it is worth mentioning it again—these provisions should have been studied separately in committee, out of respect for our veterans. They would have been able to say a lot more had they not been mixed in with witnesses dealing with a variety of topics, which, moreover, were dealt with very superficially. We find it quite unfortunate that the government acted in that way.

I would also like to take the opportunity to emphasize that I am still very concerned that the government still chose to continue the battle in court against our veterans, even after promising to put an end to it. We feel that this is an outright betrayal of the men and women who served this country.

With respect to clause 107, we are proposing an amendment to solve the problem facing some veterans who, year after year, must justify a permanent medical condition such as the loss of a limb. Some of those stories have been covered in the media. The amendment seeks to allow the minister or the department to ask veterans to provide information about their medical condition, but not to constantly ask for information about a condition considered permanent from a medical standpoint. This would put an end to the insults to those veterans who have to justify the loss of a leg year after year.

I hope that all members of this committee will rally behind this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you, Mr. Caron.

Mr. Champagne.

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

Contrary to what my colleague said, I think veterans are happy to see that we have invested $1.6 billion to help them, out of respect for them and their service to our country. If you raise this issue with the veterans, I feel they will say that they are pleased to see those measures included in the first budget of Mr. Trudeau’s Liberal government.

I would just like to tell my colleague that the amendment presented, even though it seems good in principle, could lead to undesirable consequences in some circumstances. Take a change of address, for example. In that case, it would be necessary to repeat the request for information already on file to ensure that the payments owed to the veterans arrive at the correct destination and are not late.

We are therefore going to vote against this amendment, because it would pose administrative problems in the cases when we would have to ask veterans for information again so that they promptly receive the benefits they are entitled to under the legislation currently in effect in Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you, Mr. Champagne.

Mr. Caron, and then Mr. McColeman.

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

If Mr. McColeman has not had the floor yet, I can let him go ahead.

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

I would like a recorded vote on this one.