Evidence of meeting #27 for Finance in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clauses.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
Shall clauses 336 to 380 carry?
(Clauses 336 to 380 agreed to on division)
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
I thought I was going to comment on clauses 373 to 375, if I might. I think you included them in the batch voting.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
Yes, we did. We just carried them. In this case, because we've already voted on them, I would have to ask for UC for you to be able to comment on them.
Is there UC on the committee to hear Mr. Davies?
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Thank you, colleagues.
Thank you, Chair.
This has to do with the veterans-related measures. Many of you have probably received some letters from veterans or may be familiar with this. Clauses 373 to 375 of Bill C-15 would retroactively redefine “province” to exclude the territories in the veterans health care regulations in relation to accommodations and meals payment for some veterans in long-term care. In so doing, Veterans Affairs Canada would effectively legitimize its past overcharges to veterans and nullify ongoing litigation aimed at securing reimbursement for affected veterans.
Canada's veterans ombud, retired Colonel Nishika Jardine, has written to the Minister of Veterans Affairs asking that these provisions be removed from the bill, noting this:
I believe that using retroactive legislation to correct administrative errors is both inappropriate and unfair and undermines confidence in government decision-making, sets a troubling precedent, and denies justice to those who served our country. Normally, retroactive provisions are limited to changes in legislation or regulations only back to the date of a formal government announcement of such intended change; for example, a change in tax rules announced in a budget and made retroactive in a budget implementation act to the date of the budget announcement. In this case, however, retroactivity of almost 30 years is extraordinary; the amendments proposed in Bill C-15 should be prospective only.
Ultimately, it is clear to the Veteran community that Bill C-15 sections 373-375 are meant solely to correct an error made by the Department and to deny them compensation for the overcharge. VAC already faces growing reputational backlash over the manner in which it communicates with Canada’s Veterans, their families and Survivors. I fear this retroactivity measure, if enacted, will only increase the deep distrust in Veterans Affairs Canada that, sadly, I hear about far too often.
Colleagues, I would ask that you vote against that. I guess you can't, but I'm on the record.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
We are moving on to division 21, “Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act”, and clause 381.
Mr. Garon, will you be moving amendment BQ‑14?
Bloc
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC
Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Essentially, BQ‑14 seeks to delete lines 5 to 14 on page 445, which say, among other things, that the minister within the meaning of the Pensions Act may disclose information to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for the administration and management of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
We are asking for these lines to be removed primarily because the RCMP officers' union has expressed its concerns to us on this matter. It fears that this could be used against its members and that the exchange of information could be used very liberally, so to speak, even though I know that the word “liberal” may seem pejorative to you. The union is therefore asking us to delete these lines for the protection of its members.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
Is there no comment? Okay.
Is it the will of the committee to adopt BQ‑14?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 81 as amended agreed to)
There are no amendments between clauses 382 and 388. Is there UC to group these into a single vote?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
Shall clauses 382 to 388 carry?
(Clauses 382 to 388 agreed to on division)
(On clause 389)
We are moving on to division 23, “Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act”, clause 389.
Mr. Garon, are you going to propose BQ‑15?
Bloc
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC
Yes.
Basically, this amendment follows somewhat the same logic. It adds the need to consult the Office of the Privacy Commissioner to make regulations for data mobility.
Basically, this amendment seeks to bring Bill C‑15 in line with Bill 25 that was passed by the Quebec National Assembly. It's an element of federal-provincial concordance.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
Thank you, Mr. Garon.
Is it the will of the committee to adopt BQ‑15?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
Bloc
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC
Madam Chair, once again, it follows the same logic. We're adding that the minister must establish mechanisms to resolve conflicts with provincial laws and regulations. Once again, the purpose of BQ‑16 is to harmonize Bill C‑15with Bill 25 that was passed by the Quebec National Assembly. This is still an element of legislative concordance between the federal and provincial governments.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
Are there any questions or comments?
Is it the will of the committee to adopt BQ‑16?
Bloc
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC
Madam Chair, I don't know if we can do this, but I'm wondering if the government could explain its position to us a little.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
You can ask for a recorded vote. However, I've already asked the question, so there's no more debate.
Bloc
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC
Okay. Then I request a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
Shall clause 389 carry?
(Clause 389 as amended agreed to on division)
There are no amendments for clauses 390 to 421. Is there UC to group them for the vote?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
Shall clauses 390 to 421 carry?
(Clauses 390 to 421 agreed to on division)
(On clause 422)
That brings us to CPC-6. Is someone presenting this amendment?