Veterans Affairs Committee on March 7th, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Okay.

Do we have unanimous consent to revisit clauses 1, 2, 3, and 4?

[Some honourable members]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

There's no consent.

We're on clause 5. Is there an amendment for clause 5?

Mr. Stoffer.

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

Since I wasn't successful on clause 4, I'd ask to change the words “Minister may” to “Minister shall” in clause 5.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Kerr.

[Greg Kerr, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Chair, I think we're going to follow the same principle as explained by the analyst. The staff have certainly gone over it. It's more an implication than simply a minister being instructed to go from “may” to “shall” on an option. It could in fact have financial implications. We're therefore not prepared to accept any of the “mays”.

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

Point of order, Mr. Chair.

I made a mistake. I'd like to keep clause 5 the way it was. I'm sorry. I was looking at clause 6.

Mr. Parliamentary Secretary, I'm sorry. I made a mistake on clause 5. It's clause 6.

(Clause 5 agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Lévesque.

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

The thing is, in clause 5, the word “may“ is used in the English version, while the word “peut“ appears in the French version. The meaning is reversed here, because “may” means “doit“, while “shall” means...Do I have that right? The interpreter is gesturing to me.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

I'm told by my experts that it's fine. I don't understand, but....

Okay. Clause 5 was carried, so we're on clause 6.

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

That's the one.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

In the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, it states on pages 767 to 768:

Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.

In the opinion of the chair, which is me, the amendment proposes a new scheme that seems to alter the terms and conditions of the royal recommendation. I therefore rule the amendment inadmissible.

Mr. Stoffer.

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

I won't personally challenge you on that, sir, if that's the ruling, but I will say this. We were told by Mr. Butler that in the interpretation of “may” it would almost be an automatic “shall”. But the reality is that in every single one of these clauses, the minister may or may not do something. That's the problem with the new Veterans Charter. This is at the nub of the problem.

Mr. Butler, you may reiterate exactly what you said for the record, if you don't mind, but the reality is there's the word “may”.

I again go back to the committee. I realize it's not going to change, but the word “may” is very weak. The minister may do something or the minister may not do something. This is the problem.

We heard that it will be interpreted to mean “shall”. No, it's not interpreted to mean “shall”. With great respect, Mr. Butler, it is not interpreted to mean “shall”. This is the problem.

The department still has the overriding objective at the very end to say yes to a veteran or no to a veteran, even with concrete medical evidence indicating that's the concern.

But I respect your ruling and I'll abide by it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Butler, I'll let you respond, and I'll then go to Ms. Gagnon.

[Bernard Butler]

If I might endeavour to respond to that, Mr. Stoffer, this is a classic example, I would argue, where it would be inappropriate to have the word “shall”. Why? Because this section is simply saying that the minister may on application provide rehabilitation services and vocational assistance to a member or veteran survivor, but you then have to go to other sections of the act in terms of defining what the rehabilitation programming provides, what the vocational benefits are. If you said “shall” here, arguably you may have a situation where the minister is being mandated. He “shall”, but yet they may not meet the other requirements of those programs.

You have to read this in the context of the act as a whole. You could read into it that the minister “may” if the individual meets the other requirements of the legislation. If the individual does, the minister “shall”. That is how you would read that here. This is not to be interpreted in any way as saying that the minister may or may not at his discretion simply decide one day he's going to give this benefit to one individual and not to another.

I would suggest to members that if you read it in the context of the act as a whole, it might be a little clearer as to why it is more appropriate in this section that you have “may” rather than “shall”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Very short, Mr. Stoffer, because--

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

I certainly don't want to take up Mr. Butler's time all day, because it would take dinner, a bottle of wine, and a whole bunch of discussion to do this vote. I'll buy that argument for now, although I would disagree on the other aspects of it.

I do thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Ms. Gagnon, please.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

You stated that the overall legislation determines whether an individual satisfies certain conditions.

However, the chair of the committee alluded to the matter of the royal recommendation and costs. The word “may” means “peut“, while “shall“ means “doit“. Sums of money are involved. I understand that there are monetary considerations to weigh.

As I see it, if we go with the word “may“ rather than “shall“, there is less of a will to allocate enough money to this purpose and to allow this type of request. You are taking us in another direction.

I think that choosing between “may“ or “shall“ is a somewhat arbitrary decision for the committee.

It brings into play the matter of the royal recommendation, because of the monetary considerations. That's what we were told earlier.

[Keith Hillier, Assistant Deputy Minister, Service Delivery, Department of Veterans Affairs]

There are two things we need to think about here. My colleague has talked about the “may” and the “shall” and how that may be interpreted.

My counsel to you is that we need to be very careful. This legislation has been gone through by experts in the area of legality, and just changing one paragraph without thinking about what it means further down the road....

With regard to the financial implications of “may” or “shall”, I'd just like to remind honourable members of the estimates process and that all estimates, whether they be the main estimates, supplementary estimates (A), supplementary estimates (B), or supplementary estimates (C), have to go through the House. They have to receive approval and they have to come to this committee. So with regard to whether it's a “may” or a “shall”, we still have to go through a main estimates process and have our amounts approved.

(Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Okay. We move to clause 8.

Mr. Stoffer.

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

In clause 8, on proposed subsection 38 (1.1), gentlemen, I was wondering if you could explain:

(1.1) A veteran who has received or is receiving an exceptional incapacity allowance under the Pension Act is not eligible to be paid a permanent impairment allowance.

I was wondering if you could elaborate a bit more on what that specifically means.

[Bernard Butler]

Under the Pension Act, pensioners who are assessed at 100% disability and who have exceptional care needs are eligible to receive the exceptional incapacity allowance. That's under the pension legislation.

Under the new Veterans Charter, another allowance was created called a permanent impairment allowance, which is somewhat similar but not completely analogous to the old exceptional incapacity allowance.

All this provision is saying is that you can't qualify to receive both the exceptional incapacity allowance under the Pension Act and the permanent impairment allowance under the new Veterans Charter. It is simply stating very clearly that if your benefits accrue under the old act, that's where you will receive them. If they accrue under the new act, you will receive compensation under the new Veterans Charter.

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

It doesn't appear in any way with the earnings lost benefit, which is not part of this bill, right?

[Bernard Butler]

Not directly, no. This would not.

(Clauses 8 to 12 inclusive agreed to)