Veterans Affairs Committee on Oct. 29th, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Now that it's been presented in that way, I'm told it can be presented as an amendment. You don't need the subamendment because it is contained within the content of the amendment; it doesn't change the amendment, just some of the wording.

Rather than vote on a subamendment and an amendment, if everyone understands, we're going to vote on the proposed amendment.

Is that clear?

Mr. Rafferty.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Chair, before we do, I wonder if the analyst would like to make a comment about this amendment as it stands and how that refers to our discussion we just had about Ms. May's amendment and Mr. Valeriote's concerns.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Just so it's clear, though, that is a question that certainly staff can also respond to. I think that's what you're asking.

[Jean-Rodrigue Paré]

My understanding is that it would cover some of the intention presented by Ms. May, but it would restrict it to spouses of former members who have received either a pension or a disability award. The spouses of former members who have died as a result of service, within the understanding of the new Veterans Charter or the Pension Act, would be included.

The risk here is that not only the understanding would maybe go too far as to include spouses of those who have died, who are receiving a pension or a disability award but who did not die as a result of these injuries. Do you see? That would be the ambiguity here.

To me, that would involve a lot of interpretation of different consequences of the act.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

We would welcome some comment or clarification from our visiting friends today.

[Sandra Lambe]

Yes. As I understand, the amendment you're proposing would significantly broaden the definition of survivor, so it would extend preference in the external appointment processes to survivors of veterans who died during service or who had a disability award or a disability pension, and died of that injury or illness for which they received the award or pension.

I'll just defer to my colleague at the Public Service Commission as well.

[Michael West]

If I could repeat what Ms. Lambe had mentioned earlier, a surviving spouse does have a priority entitlement under the existing regulations, and that is a higher order provision than the preference that is being discussed with regard to this section.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Is that clarified now for everybody?

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

Let's vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Is everybody ready? There are no further comments.

It's not a subamendment, but it is an amendment with some wording adjustment.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

As we said earlier, there is room for a further amendment.

I believe Mr. Valeriote would like to do just that.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will refresh our memory about the conversation moments earlier with Ms. May, me, and others around the table, with respect to subclause 12(1), on the definition of “survivor of a veteran”. The amendment I'm proposing is to change paragraph (e) to proposed paragraph (f). The intent of that amendment is to include spouses of a member veteran.

We've had the opportunity to look at this legislation. We've had the opportunity to review the new Veterans Charter.

The comments I make around this table about this change are not intended to undermine or diminish in any way the goodwill that exists around this table. Just because we disagree doesn't mean it's intended to diminish goodwill. At the same time, we shouldn't miss an opportunity to make good legislation better.

If this will accommodate the surviving spouses, which was something that was brought to our attention time after time during our discussions of the new Veterans Charter, then we should seize the opportunity and not foreclose the opportunity and rely on some review over the next 30 days. Once this legislation starts moving forward, let's face it, it's highly doubtful that anyone from the government is going to come back—and I'm not saying there's ill will there—and start toying and tinkering with this legislation at that time.

For the very reasons that Mr. Galipeau himself had stated and I support, and I suspect everyone around this table supports, I would beg that if we change anything, one letter in this whole piece of legislation, it would be paragraph (e) to proposed paragraph (f) in subclause 12(1), “survivor of a veteran” definition—that's all I ask.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

It is, as you pointed out, changing paragraph (e) to proposed paragraph (f), so you have to make sure you've looked at both paragraph (e) and proposed paragraph (f) to understand the outcome. We are open to comments or questions, because the amendment is acceptable to be considered for a vote.

Are there no further comments or questions? We're all ready to vote.

Everybody understands, then, it's a new amendment introduced by Mr. Valeriote to change paragraph (e) to proposed paragraph (f) in the spousal interpretation bit.

A rapid debate still continues. Was there anything further from the commission or are we okay?

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

We're voting on (f).

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

We're voting on the proposed amendment just put forward by Mr. Valeriote.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

So clause 12 is without amendment.

We now move to clause 12 itself. Is there any comment on the clause?

You have a comment, Mr. Stoffer?

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

I just wanted to reconfirm Mr. Gill's concern that within 30 days we'll have some kind of response regarding our previous talk.

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

I said we will get the response, but I just didn't agree to the 30-day period.

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

Okay. That's fair enough.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Fair enough. I'm sure Mr. Valeriote will be watching very carefully. I just want to warn you on that.

(Clause 12 agreed to)

(On clause 13—Priority)

Clause 13 has two proposed amendments, first one from the Green Party and then one from the Conservative government party.

Ms. May, would you like to give a brief explanation, please?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

I suspect, Mr. Chair, that this amendment will face the same ruling of being beyond the scope of the bill as my first amendment did.

The attempt here is to ensure that the medical reasons for discharge are not restrictive. I go again to the rationale of the Veterans Ombudsman, that all medically released members, regardless of the reason for medical release, should be able to avail themselves of this program. I suspect the ruling will be the same.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Thank you for your comment and your understanding of what the ruling is going to be, because you're absolutely correct. But I do have to read this into the record—with great affection.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Bill C-27 aims to amend the Public Service Employment Act to provide increased access to hiring opportunities in the public service for certain serving and former members of the Canadian Forces, and to establish a right of employment in priority to all other persons for certain members of the Canadian Forces who are released for medical reasons that are attributable to service.

The proposed amendment, PV-4, would remove the specification that a priority in hiring would be reserved for those whose release for medical reasons is directly attributable to service. The scope of the bill as adopted at second reading by the House of Commons on June 3, 2014 is explicit in restricting the priority to those individuals, and the amendment therefore falls outside the scope of the bill.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, states on page 766, “an amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill”.

In the opinion of the chair, the amendment is therefore inadmissible.

That amendment is off the table, so we have one proposed amendment, and I would ask for a brief explanation of the amendment, please.

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is very similar to my previous amendment. All this does is basically clarify that the Minister of Veterans Affairs makes the determination, for the same rationale as before.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Are there any comments or questions?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 13 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 14 and 15 agreed to)

Shall clause 1, the short title, pass?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed