Evidence of meeting #93 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was project.
A video is available from Parliament.
12:25 p.m.
Director General, Policy and Research Division, Strategic Policy and Commemoration, Department of Veterans Affairs
I can't answer that question specifically, but we are now in the process of drilling down on all of these pieces as part of the development of the regulations. I will take note of it, and I will certainly follow up and ensure that we are very pertinent and open to the reserve force.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Robert-Falcon Ouellette Liberal Winnipeg Centre, MB
I'll now switch to French for one last question, Mr. Chair.
I read a statement from the veterans' ombudsman, Guy Parent, entitled “Myth Busting – Reserve vs Regular Force Benefits”.
I'm wondering about something. The ombudsman proposed to eliminate the difference between the rate for reserve force members and the rate for regular force members with regard to the earnings loss benefit, the supplementary retirement benefit, the long term disability plan, and the accidental dismemberment insurance plan. He raised a number of issues regarding the difference in treatment between the two groups.
I'm concerned that we may not be paying attention to this issue. If people hurt themselves while serving in the reserve force, let's say in Gatineau, what happens? Maybe they won't receive the same compensation as regular force members?
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I'm sorry to interrupt for a second, Robert.
We are on the budget implementation act.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Robert-Falcon Ouellette Liberal Winnipeg Centre, MB
It's related to this actually because the difference, I think, is—
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Try to keep it as tight as you can, because we do have a lot of other divisions to cover.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Robert-Falcon Ouellette Liberal Winnipeg Centre, MB
It's just the difference between.... These are two different groups. The reservists have always been the poor man in the army, yet they bear an awful lot of the load. I want to ensure that we're actually protecting them, not only here, but we have a consideration for them in other programs, which are just as important if not more important.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
12:30 p.m.
Director General, Policy and Research Division, Strategic Policy and Commemoration, Department of Veterans Affairs
Sure. Thank you very much.
It is a very important consideration. We do have eligibility for reserve forces in all of our programs. To the point of the ombudsman, as well, we are now working toward a consolidation of all of these benefits. In doing so, we are relooking at that eligibility and working actively again with the Canadian Armed Forces. The intention is certainly not to have two tiers, if you will. The intention is to be able to ensure that there is a smooth transition for all those who have served the country.
Your point is taken. It will certainly be part of our analysis going forward. Having said that, there is eligibility for reserve forces now—
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Robert-Falcon Ouellette Liberal Winnipeg Centre, MB
I have one final comment. It's not going to be very long. I appreciate everything you've been saying.
As you move forward with this creation of an education training benefit, we have to be cognizant of impeding anyone from actually going into the reserves after full-time service. The reserves often rely on former regular force members who become the backbone. They are the senior sergeants and senior master corporals who help run these units. If they feel that they can't get this benefit because they are entering into the reserves and they become ineligible for it, it will degrade the quality of our reserve forces. Now, it's one force, and we're all supposed to be working together.
I just want to ensure that we protect that element of our capacity for national defence.
Thank you.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Thank you very much, Ms. McIntyre, for coming today.
My question relates back to testimony that we heard yesterday. Mr. Liepert made reference to having treatment for mental health issues for veterans and for service members that would be focused on them alone so that they wouldn't find themselves in programs for the general population, which could put them in contact with folks who might have been involved with criminal elements. I understand the importance of having that so they would feel free to fully express themselves. In your response to that question, you mentioned that we have the centre in Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue, in Montreal, which is a great centre. I know it well.
How accessible is that centre? In other words, if you are a veteran or a service member who lives in Saskatchewan, are your travel costs taken care of so that you can go there for that period of time to receive the treatment? Does that extend to spouses and families so they can also be part of that process of healing?
12:35 p.m.
Director General, Policy and Research Division, Strategic Policy and Commemoration, Department of Veterans Affairs
It is our only VAC residential in-patient clinic, operated through the province. It is accessible to veterans across the country who are, of course, referred for their proper mental health reasons to attend. Their travel is paid. In most circumstances, depending upon the need of the spouse or family member to attend, travel would be considered for them as well. It's difficult to speak broadly, because it would really depend on the circumstances as to why those individuals would need to attend with the veteran. For the veterans themselves, absolutely, it is fully covered.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Ms. McIntyre, to come back to what both Mr. Liepert and Mr. Fergus referred to, I would encourage you to go to the minutes of yesterday's meeting. The veterans here did express real-life concerns, something along the lines that the current system, from their perspective, does not come close to providing the standard of care and compensation that is owed under the social covenant. They expressed that pretty vividly. I just wanted to make a note of that.
I thank you for answering our questions. The committee did stray some distance from the budget implementation act, so we appreciate your broad answers to those questions. Thank you, again.
12:35 p.m.
Director General, Policy and Research Division, Strategic Policy and Commemoration, Department of Veterans Affairs
You're welcome.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
We will turn back to division 18, part 4, Infrastructure Canada.
We were on Mr. Liepert. Go ahead.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Ron Liepert Conservative Calgary Signal Hill, AB
I'll try to be as quick as I can, Mr. Chair.
On the line of questioning before we broke, I guess the real concern being expressed is that this initiative really needs more study and it should be carved out of the budget implementation act. I'll just leave that. You may not be in a position to make any further comment on that.
I want to ask one final question. Yesterday, testimony from people who I guess had done some significant research on this idea described the difference between a P3 project as we know it today and what they saw this bank having the potential to do. The difference—these are my words, not theirs—is that these projects would be larger and riskier, but also potentially more rewarding. In other words, they would be a larger gamble than a typical P3 project might be. Would you agree with that?
12:35 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Canada Infrastructure Bank Transition Office, Office of Infrastructure of Canada
I would not, actually. The concept of a P3, or a public-private partnership, pertains to the method of procurement for any infrastructure project. That model or option for procurement would still be available for any project that is supported by the infrastructure bank.
12:35 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Canada Infrastructure Bank Transition Office, Office of Infrastructure of Canada
The P3 model is therefore a contract structure that is designed to manage availability payments—these are largely for infrastructure paid for by taxpayers—and to get efficiencies in the construction and operation of the asset. It is completely distinct from the upstream financing and project development of an asset within a partnership model, which may or may not be more risky, generally speaking.
The objective would be to find projects that are in that sweet spot of being revenue-generating—not “availability payment”, which largely means taxpayer-funded—and that are not so risky that it's not in the public interest to do them, but for which there's enough such interest for some strategic support from the Government of Canada to support the project, which would have been funded perhaps by all taxpayers, that it is in the public interest to then manage the risk in that project.
Just to conclude, once that project is determined and there's a partnership structure in place, the party can, as the project stewards, say, we'd like to use Infrastructure Ontario or Partnerships B.C. to help in using the procurement model for building the project.
Really, they're separate distinctions.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Ron Liepert Conservative Calgary Signal Hill, AB
Well, they're separate distinctions, but you've just outlined a situation, I believe, that confirms that the project wouldn't proceed under a P3 model, which therefore makes it more risky.
12:40 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Canada Infrastructure Bank Transition Office, Office of Infrastructure of Canada
Well, to the extent to which there's more risk, it's because the model is a revenue-generating model.
12:40 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Canada Infrastructure Bank Transition Office, Office of Infrastructure of Canada
Some P3s are.
In the Canada infrastructure bank model, you're attracting additional private sector investment into the asset to take on the risk in the revenue part. The extent to which a project may be riskier is the extent to which there is risk to be managed around the revenue or business model of that project, which is what the infrastructure bank is transparently designed to do: match up the risk with a private sector investor who is willing to buy the risk, with the infrastructure bank coming in no more than necessary to manage the risk transfer between the two parties. They're quite clear and distinct.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative