Veterans Affairs Committee on May 23rd, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Thank you very much, Mr. Bishop and committee.

I would just add that everybody has been talking about what goes on, and we have a wonderful little club down in Nova Scotia, in Yarmouth. It's called the Memorial Club. They are all volunteer students and they go around doing special events. They did memorial stones for those who passed away in Afghanistan. Next week, they're doing a very special event recognizing Korea, which is going to involve several hundred people.

[John Bishop]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Thank you for being here.

We're going to suspend for two minutes so everybody can say goodbye to Mr. Bishop. Then we're going to come back in public to discuss the letter.

Two minutes, please, members.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

We're back in session. We're doing the letter in public session. We then have some business looking forward, for which we'll go in camera.

You all have a copy of the letter from the ANAVETS. They could not appear but they did send along their comments. Everybody has a copy of that. If there's anything from that you want reflected in the letter, I'd appreciate you passing it along to us. It's pretty straightforward.

As you know, I'm obligated to write back to the chair of the finance committee with comments or views that came from our session. We're asked to provide comments. I have drafted some the staff prepared. I'd like to read it out. If it's the will of the committee, we will adopt the letter. Certainly, if there are any comments or points to be made, we can do that before we do the adoption.

Dear Mr. Rajotte, On behalf of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, I would like to thank you for your letter inviting our committee to consider the subject matter of Bill C-60, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures and more specifically the subject matter of Clauses 156 to 160 (Pension Act and War Veterans Allowance Act) of the Bill. After careful consideration of your request, our Committee agreed on Thursday May 9, 2013 to undertake a study of the subject matter of the said clauses and has met in this regard on Tuesday May 21 and Thursday May 23, 2013 in order to hear from senior officials at the Department of Veterans Affairs as well as several veterans organisations including: Canadian Veterans Advocacy, Air Force Association, the Royal Canadian Legion, ANAVETS, Aboriginal Veterans Autochtones and the Korean Veterans Association. Their contribution to this study has been very valuable and informative. After hearing from the witnesses, and considering the provisions contained in clauses 156-160, the Committee wishes to inform you that it has no amendments or recommendations to forward to the Standing Committee on Finance for its consideration.

That is signed by myself as chair of your committee.

That is the draft letter that we have prepared. It's certainly open to comment and the committee's wish as to what they wish to do with the letter.

Mr. O'Toole.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I move the adoption of your letter as read.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Okay, it's been moved and seconded by Mr. Zimmer. It's certainly open to comments.

Mr. Casey.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

With respect, Mr. Chair, I think it's quite presumptuous to offer a conclusion to Mr. Rajotte before we've had any opportunity to discuss what we've heard, what we feel about the amendments, what we feel about the sections in question. I have submitted amendments. The letter says there are no amendments.

Frankly, I find it borderline offensive that we would draft a letter that purports to speak for the committee before the committee has had any discussion. All we've done so far is question witnesses. Nobody here knows what the committee feels about what they've heard. Nobody here knows what the position of any individual member is with respect to any of the sections before us. To jump over hearing people's views, to summarize their views, to report their views, I think it is very bad form.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

As always, I appreciate your input, Mr. Casey.

My job is to make sure when this finishes today that we have reported back, or we will not be accepted by the finance committee as of Monday. I think I made that clear. I'm not trying to assume what the committee believes at all. You made assumptions, I gather, by putting in amendments before you heard witnesses today. You probably would be in the same category, then, if you're trying to be abrasive in that form.

What I'm saying is that my job is to prepare a draft letter, which I've done. It's up to the committee as to what it wishes to do with that letter. I've opened it up to the committee. That's my job and that's what I've done to this point.

It is open for discussion or comments. There's been a motion to accept. But, certainly, it's open. For anybody who wishes to comment on where we are, certainly I'd welcome those comments now.

Mr. Zimmer.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Yes, certainly I'd like to proceed the way the letter states, and continue. I think the timeliness of it is necessary. We need to get this through again. We see it on the other end. There are real veterans at the end of this who will receive benefits as a result of this passing, from my perspective.

Mr. Casey said all members haven't. I certainly agree with this. I do. We should move forward and pass this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Yes.

Mr. O'Toole.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Casey raises a good point that we haven't had a formal discussion. But at the same time I sit across from Mr. Casey and listen to him intently. I've listened to Ms. Mathyssen's interventions. I think I can ascertain their position rather well, as have you, Mr. Chair.

In essence, to state the position of the NDP, it would be general agreement with the provisions. They would want to pull it outside of the budget implementation act, which I don't think is reasonable. But if it goes to the heart of the amendments themselves, it sounds like there's general consensus on that. Mr. Casey's questions have really been related to litigation and things prior to this act or what may have led to the act, but there seems to be consensus ad idem on the provisions themselves. That's essentially what the letter addresses, and it will get these benefits moving faster. So I think we call a vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

We have a couple more hands up.

I don't know who was first. I saw both hands up.

Mr. Casey first, then Ms. Mathyssen.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Through these amendments the government is doing what it has to do as a result of what the court ordered it to do. I don't think there's any question about that, and I don't think there's any question that complying with a court order is something that should be supported. However, it doesn't address adequately the problem that gave rise to the litigation in the first place. What gave rise to the litigation in the first place is this whole idea of clawbacks. What the amendments do is they lessen the amount of clawbacks, but they don't eliminate them. That's why I've put forward these amendments.

In clause 156 there's a deletion of the words “war veterans allowance”. So the war veterans allowance is no longer factored into the clawback scheme, but the only words that are taken out are “war veterans allowance”. The words that are left in are “relief or unemployment assistance from the Department.”

There's also a reference to subsection 30(2) of the act. Subsection 30(2) references welfare payments paid by provinces. This letter has been drafted without having had the chance to say, “I believe that factoring in welfare payments in clawbacks is unfair”. That's probably the first time you've heard this before the letter was written, but they're still there. There are still clawbacks for people who receive assistance from provinces. There are still clawbacks for people who receive unemployment assistance from the department. There are still clawbacks for people who receive relief. For us to pass clause 156 as proposed, it authorizes the continuation of those clawbacks. It's good that it eliminates one, but it's bad that there's a bunch still there.

I believe we need to have a discussion. We need to have the government members say that they're happy the Government of Canada continues to claw back from unemployment relief from the department, and that they're happy the Government of Canada continues to claw back from welfare. That's what we need to hear. Once we hear that and they vote that, then my view on this will be in the minority and that's what the amendment will be. That's clause 156.

Clause 157 allows for a continuation of clawbacks of amounts that are paid through the Veterans Review and Appeal Board. It also allows for a continuation of clawbacks that are justified within the regulations. If the government is happy to take out the reference to war veterans allowance but to allow for clawbacks to continue to VRAB awards, and if the government is happy that they can continue to put things into the regulations that authorize further clawbacks and that necessitate further litigation or that give rise to further litigation, fine, let them say it and then it will pass in that light.

That's the discussion that we need to have, because that's what these amendments do. They go partway. The steps they have taken are positive, but they don't go far enough. If the government feels that they do go far enough, let them say it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Thank you, Mr. Casey.

I should be pointing out that our committee will not be offering amendments per se. Committees that are providing information back to the finance committee do not provide amendments. It's the right of any committee member, if they want to pass information directly on to the finance committee, to pass it along. We can make note of the fact that not everybody feels that it's gone far enough or whatever. We can offer that kind of commentary, but the reason we have our legislative counsel here is to point out the committees offering information and advice back do not make amendments to a budget matter. That's done by the finance committee.

We're simply asked to provide our opinions on what's going on, which is fair game. I will also point out that each party has membership on the finance committee and that can be raised there, which is probably a more appropriate setting because the finance committee will be looking at, I assume, suggestions or amendments, and so on.

My point is that we have to send a letter saying we've looked at it, we've dealt with it. Even if there's not 100% agreement I'd rather hear you say—rather than “Are they happy or not?”—that you feel it should go further, that you aren't comfortable with where it is in terms of what's been achieved. That's fair enough. Governments will always have to deal with that reality. But I don't want to get into the sense that one side is good and one side is bad, because I feel the committee has looked at this within the limited timeframe we've had and are trying to say, in as simple a form as possible, that our committee has looked at it and here's our general suggestion.

It's certainly appropriate if you want to provide additional commentary directly through your membership in the finance committee that it be done that way. But this committee will not be looking specifically at amendments, that's not our responsibility. This is all I'm trying to emphasize. We are not in a position where we can start amending or proposing amendments to the budget. That will have to be done at your finance committee.

Ms. Mathyssen.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I did want to say that I appreciate your position. I understand that it is necessary for you, as chair, to fulfill your obligations and draft the letter. But I do think that there should be a discussion. I am cognizant that we cannot make amendments because it's a budget bill, but it does feel rather premature to hear the letter without hearing the discussion. I understand Mr. Casey's concern around that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

What time does finance committee have to get it back?

We'd have to meet again before Monday at 9:00 a.m., which I'm willing to do if that's what the committee wants to do, but we do have a time limitation today. I just want to remind the members of that and I think we have a few more names.

Mr. Hayes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I guess my challenge is—and we all heard the witnesses—I didn't hear one single witness say that we should not do this, not one single witness. To me, your letter captures my thoughts completely. It's like you pulled it right out of my brain.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

That's a scary thought.

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

It was, really, a well-done letter. The witnesses are supportive of this legislation, that was so obvious.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Thank you.

Ms. Adams.

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

Yes, it wasn't simply consensus; it was unanimity. These changes will provide increased long-term care for over 2,000 veterans. They will provide, for the first time, the war veterans allowance to over 3,000 new veterans, and will see nearly $100 million spent to invest in veterans through the war veterans allowance.

I'm in full concurrence with this letter and I would call the vote, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Thank you.

Mr. Lobb.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

My comments were going to be along the lines of your comments, so I don't have anything else to say.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Okay.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

You were one step ahead of me.