Veterans Affairs Committee on May 21st, 2013

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Butler, all parties recognize the significance of veterans who are receiving long-term care, and our government is determined to take action for veterans requiring long-term care. Will the changes to the war veterans allowance provide any additional financial support or subsidies for long-term care to veterans?

[Bernard Butler]

Mr. Chair, based on our assessment, there will be about 2,000 veterans who are currently in long-term care facilities who will receive a greater subsidy for their care as a function of these amendments.

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Those are individuals who are already receiving the WVA.

Can you tell us how many more veterans and survivors will qualify?

[Bernard Butler]

We think that overall there will be about 3,000 or more veterans and survivors who will now qualify for the allowance as a function of these changes.

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Thank you very much, Ms. Adams.

Mr. Casey, now, for five minutes, please.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Butler, in preparation for many of these meetings, we receive a briefing note from the Library of Parliament.

I don't know whether you've had a chance to read it.

[Bernard Butler]

I haven't seen it, no.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

The very first sentence in our briefing note says, “The amendments introduced by Division 8 of Part 3 of Bill C-60”—that's what we're talking about today—“result from the Federal Court decision dated 1 May 2012 in the Manuge case.”

Do you agree with that?

[Bernard Butler]

Mr. Chair, the Manuge decision, as you know, was related to a SISIP insurance policy. In the decision, the court did pronounce very clearly that it did not have a direct impact on Veterans Affairs Canada's Pension Act, because in the terms of that piece of legislation, as I understand the court ruling, it was within the authority of the government to be doing the offsets under the pension legislation.

The Government of Canada at the time—you'll recall the announcement back in the spring of 2012—and our own minister made it clear at the time that notwithstanding that nuance, if you will, the Government of Canada would nonetheless move forward to ensure harmonization between Veterans Affairs Canada programming and the SISIP programming, which was certainly the subject of the Manuge case. To that extent, it's indirectly connected, I would agree with you fully.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

If the government, after being forced by the court to compensate veterans who were SISIP clients, then treated the veterans who are covered by these changes differently, you would agree with me that this would put the government in, at minimum, an unpopular and certainly an untenable position, considering what the court said in Manuge.

[Bernard Butler]

Mr. Chair, I would think this strays well beyond my expertise and competence, if you will, before this committee to comment on that. But as I say, I think it was clear in the Federal Court ruling that it was very specific to the SISIP policy, and that evidently the Government of Canada made the decision at the time that it would move to ensure harmonization between Veterans Affairs Canada programming and SISIP.

Certainly, as this committee would be well aware, both of those programs service Canada's veterans, and harmonization would certainly be an important outcome.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Butler, you'd agree with me that if the court weren't so critical of the government's position in the Manuge case, there would have been very little motivation or incentive to make these changes.

[Bernard Butler]

Mr. Chair, I would again suggest that this is a question that I'm certainly not able to comment on or not prepared to comment on, believing it to be outside my scope.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Okay.

At the same time as the Manuge case commenced, the same law firm commenced an action on behalf of RCMP veterans with respect to clawbacks. These amendments do not ameliorate the complaints set forth by the RCMP, do they?

[Bernard Butler]

That's correct. They do not address those issues.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

What legislative changes would be needed in order to make right the complaints that are alleged in the RCMP litigation?

[Bernard Butler]

On that very issue, Mr. Chair, all I can tell you is that we are looking at that very issue ourselves right at the moment and trying to better understand what are currently the implications of that proceeding. So right at this moment in time I can't give you an answer, because I really don't know. But we are looking at it to better understand it.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Are there other federal or provincial statutes or programs that reduce the amount paid under the war veterans allowance or the pension? I guess that's my question: if a vet is in receipt of, for example, workers' compensation benefits, CPP disability benefits, employment insurance benefits, or provincial social security benefits, are they set off?

[Bernard Butler]

That's a very good question, Mr. Casey, and offhand I'm not sure of the breadth of the offsetting of these various programs. That was actually on my mind as I came in here this morning in anticipation of a question of that nature. We can get the answer for the committee if it would be helpful. We'll look at it.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

I'd appreciate it.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Thank you very much.

Now we'll go to Mr. Hayes for five minutes, please.

[Bryan Hayes, Conservative, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm hoping you can help me out a little, just in terms of the implementation plan again, and you can clarify that process for me. Mr. Chicoine touched on it. I'm hoping you can elaborate on that a little more for me, please.

[Bernard Butler]

Mr. Chair, effectively, in terms of implementation, assuming the legislation is passed by the House and by the government, we will be proactively looking at all the files of all of the WVA recipients currently. We'll be doing a comprehensive review to ensure that every current recipient who qualifies for any of the flow-through effects of these changes is notified in writing, and their accounts will be adjusted accordingly. It's an effort basically to proactively manage the impact of these legislative amendments. We did touch on, earlier, the issue around a communications strategy. So that will be included, too, to ensure that Canada's veterans are aware of these changes to the legislation, to encourage them to come forth as required.

[Bryan Hayes, Conservative, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

I'm curious as to the timeline for this to happen.