Veterans Affairs Committee on March 7th, 2011

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

With all due respect to you, Mr. Chair, and to Mr. Mayes, I think it would be good to ensure that the adjectives or terminology used correspond in fact to the spirit of the bill now before this committee for consideration. It's not really a question of amending the provision. There are many new people here at the table. I've attended one meeting, but there are new elements to consider. At the very least, committee members should be given some time to read and understand these provisions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Ms. Sgro and then Mr. Storseth.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Chair, I know you're anxious to get this bill through. I believe most of us are supportive of the bill, but we have to do our own due diligence. This is the first time the bill has been before the committee. It's not like we've had our departmental people here. They give us two hours or an hour of discussion and then we go to clause-by-clause at our next meeting. We are attempting to try to see if we can do that this afternoon. But I think it's unfair if we have questions on any of the clauses. The process that I understand is you have departmental people to answer and explain whatever is necessary so we can go ahead and vote on that clause, fully confident of what it says. That's the process that I've always done on getting a bill through.

We don't have to finish this bill today. We could finish it on Wednesday. So let's make sure that as we go through here....

Would you put me down for another point after you've finished this point?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Storseth.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I'll be brief, because I do believe this is an important piece of legislation that we need to get through as quickly as possible to the other place, because we don't know when the opposition is going to take the government down.

At the end of the day, the opposition has had this bill since November, so they've had the ability to do their due diligence, read this bill, and understand what the clauses are.

At this point in time, Mr. Chairman, I'm understanding that there are no amendments from the opposition being moved, so I'm not sure what their questions are. If they have amendments, that's generally the process through which questions arise. Absolutely, we should do our due diligence. But that being said, I've seen, often enough, due diligence being the excuse for weeks or months of delay from the other side when it comes to getting government legislation put forward.

So, absolutely, do your due diligence, but part of that due diligence is having read it and bringing in amendments. And you have the right to make an amendment now, but part of the due diligence process is bringing the amendments and scheduling them with us all, in both official languages, before the committee starts its proceeding on clause-by-clause.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Ms. Gagnon, please.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

It's been some time since I've sat on a committee considering the adoption of a bill. Be that as it may, it's normal to ask questions. To my way of thinking, what's happening here is anti-democratic. We've said that we would endorse the principle. No one is calling that into question. The meeting wraps up at 5:30 p.m. We should be able to spend a little time on this. We should certainly be able to dispose of this bill, as it is not very long. I think the government party should be a little more understanding.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Ms. Sgro.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

I will go to another issue.

If we're asking questions of the witness, could you reiterate the issue of “may” and “shall” that Mr. Stoffer had mentioned? You mentioned it in your comments. Could you state that again, your objection to changing “may” to “shall”, which is what I understand Mr. Stoffer intends to move?

[Bernard Butler]

My understanding, Ms. Sgro, is that by protocol and convention, legislative drafting has basically evolved such that the word “may” is used and interpreted as “shall” in circumstances where the context dictates.

So as I understand it, this is not a major departure from use of language in legislative enactments, and there's certainly, as I understand it, precedent for it. From our perspective, we don't see it as a major issue. Where an individual qualifies for benefits under the act, the term “may” would simply be interpreted as “shall”. It is not there to in any way limit the responsibility and obligation of the minister to award benefits where eligibility is established.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

If that were changed to “shall”, then it would not be a major problem for the department or you.

[Bernard Butler]

What you're raising is a technical-legal issue from a legislative drafting point of view. From my perspective, this has been subject to legislative drafting by the experts in that law, and this is what they've proposed. I would say that this is how we would see it going forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Stoffer.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Not to ridicule our legislators, but if you read the bill carefully, it says “Her Majesty”, which is great. On the previous one, they have “Her Excellency the Governor General”. I think they meant to say “His Excellency the Governor General”. There are areas in that regard—minor ones.

I've done collective bargaining for an awfully long time, and I know the difference between “may” and “shall.”

If you look at page two, on the development of a plan, subclause 4.(3) says: “In developing a career transition plan, the Minister shall have regard to any prescribed principles.” So the word “shall” is in there once. I'm not asking for the word “may“ to be removed from the actual expenditure parts, which is past subclause 7.(1). I'm just asking for the word “may” to be removed and replaced by “shall” in subclauses 3.(1), 3.(2), 4.(2), and the proposed change to the portion of section 12 of the act before paragraph (a). I'm not asking for the word “may” to be removed on any others. For example, proposed subsection 38.(3) says “may, on application, increase the permanent impairment”.

That's a direct ability to pay additional amounts, and I would leave the word “may” in there to allow the minister's discretion. On the other one, which we have checked, the word “shall” can be implemented with no major problems to the government or the department.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

I have to interject. What we'll have to have is unanimous consent, because four clauses have been passed as they stand. Do we have...?

We're on clause 5. Clauses 1 to 4 have already passed as written.

Ms. Sgro.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

I asked the department, and the response I got did not give me any big reason for concern. Our researcher has raised issues that I think we need to be aware of before we decide this matter. I would ask the researcher to explain further the implications of changing “may” to “shall.”

[Jean-Rodrigue Paré, Committee Researcher]

On the “may” and the “shall,” one of the big differences is in the estimates. In the estimates, you have different votes: you have budget spending and legislative spending.

If you put “shall”, that amount would be legislative spending and not budget spending, meaning that Parliament would not have to approve that spending every year, like the employment insurance benefits. It would go through without Parliament's approval. Whereas if it's “may,” Parliament has to approve the spending and the budget every year for that program. That's the main difference for this.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

It's fairly significant, that difference.

[Jean-Rodrigue Paré]

Yes. It's a big difference for budgeting, for the finance department and for Treasury Board.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Lévesque.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

My comment has to do with the translation. The words “may” and “shall“ are rendered in French by “peut“ or “doit“. I would ask the interpreter to...

[Jean-Rodrigue Paré]

The French version says that the minister “peut“. The word “doit“ is not used when saying “des sommes seront payées“.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

That's right.

[Jean-Rodrigue Paré]

There is no “shall“. The text reads “des sommes seront payées.”

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

I understand the meaning of “may“ and “shall“. However, sometimes these terms can be problematic and I simply wanted to point that out to the interpreter. That's all.