THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON VETERANS AFFAIRS
OF THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE
ON NATIONAL SECURITY AND DEFENCE
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, June 10, 2009
The Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, to which was referred Bill C-33, An Act to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act, met this day at 1 p.m. to give consideration to the bill; and to study on the services and benefits provided to veterans and members of their families.
Senator Michael A. Meighen (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: We have a witness ready to testify on behalf of the Royal Canadian Legion. It is now 1 p.m. and we only have about 25 minutes left. Given the fact that we want to explore matters thoroughly with him, let us see whether there is some possibility of having him back. In doing so, we can give our full attention to his testimony during a full sitting.
Bill C-33 has been referred to this committee and it is very important — I do not think there is any argument — that it be passed before the summer recess. If we do not pass this bill, we will miss the January 1 deadline and these deserving veterans will not get their money until 2010, and onwards.
It comes down to whether we wish to do clause-by-clause consideration today and dispose of the bill or whether we wish to hear witnesses. If we wish to hear witnesses on the matters raised by Senator Downe, which concerned whether or not resistance fighters, among others, would be eligible, then I could try to get the minister to appear. However, I am informed that if questions were technical in nature, the questions would be better answered by Darragh Mogan, Director General of Program and Service Policy Delivery; and Kim Andrews, Acting Director, Strategic Program Initiatives.
I want to make one other remark, Senator Downe, with respect to the matters that you raised. Proposed subsection (4.1) of Bill C-33 reads as follows:
(4.1) An allied veteran is also any former member of His Majesty's forces, or of any of the forces, other than resistance groups...
I do not want to speak for you Senator Downe, but I suppose the question revolves around whether or not that line is adequate to avoid the difficulties that the previous legislation ran afoul of. You will no doubt want to answer that question.
Before I turn the floor over to Senator Downe and Senator Kenny, my whip has informed me that we can get permission to sit while the Senate is sitting so that we could have a meeting of the Veterans Subcommittee at some point, either Monday or Tuesday. We can also apply to the Senate for permission to have the matter dealt with later the same day.
I do not think it is critical to go to clause-by-clause consideration today. It would be helpful to dispose of the bill, but if there are matters outstanding upon which members want to hear witnesses, I am amenable to that.
Senator Kenny: Thank you, Senator Meighen. You have been very patient. I support this bill, as I believe all members will. I would also be in favour of supporting the suggestion that we sit while the Senate is sitting.
As you mentioned earlier, it is urgent that we get this bill out before we rise. I want you to know that we will do whatever we can to accommodate that.
The Chair: Would you like to hear a witness?
Senator Kenny: Since we have one present, I think that we should, just out of courtesy to the witness. We should hear the witness and then deal with clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.
The Chair: The witness was not called specifically to deal with Bill C-33. Could we hold that in abeyance until Senator Downe has commented?
Senator Kenny: That is fine.
Senator Downe: I very much appreciate the opportunity to speak. For the record, I am not a member of this committee but I do participate on a regular basis.
I raised two issues about this bill yesterday in the chamber. I recall Senator LeBreton, when she was in opposition, indicating a phrase "no minister, no bill." I leave that for the committee members to consider whether that is necessary in this case.
My concern is that, as you indicate in proposed subsection (4.1), resistance groups are excluded from the bill. However, since the original act was passed in 1930, it has evolved over the years. In the 1950s and 1960s, some changes were made to it. Part of the evolution was that the definition of the term "allied veterans" was interpreted by a review panel originally of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and later confirmed by the Federal Court, to include resistance fighters. That expanded definition caused tremendous grief not only for the Department of Veterans Affairs but also for the treasury of Canada, where there were allegations of serious fraud and expenditure of millions of dollars to people who were not entitled to these benefits.
Obviously, we all want our veterans to receive the funds to which they are entitled, but we want to try to avoid what the previous Liberal government tried to avoid when they eliminated "resistance fighters" and encountered significant problems.
I think the committee members would be wise to hear from someone, either from the department or from Justice lawyers, about whether this definition is firm enough to prevent the abuse that has happened in the past.
I bring to the attention of the committee that Australia has similar legislation and it has recently been interpreted to include resistance fighters, which was not the original intent. That was not the original intent in Canada, but that is where we ended up. We want to try to avoid that again.
Senator Banks: I concur with everything that everyone has said and that we probably should try to meet while the Senate is sitting next week so that we can deal with this bill because we all want to have it passed. It would be useful to have an opinion, at least from the Department of Justice, as to how bulletproof this exclusion is, if that is what we intend. We need to know that it will work.
In the definition respecting veterans of the Korean War in proposed subsection (4.2), the language is quite different. I am ignorant of this, but I wonder whether it would be appropriate to use the phrase, "His Majesty's forces, or of any of the forces, other than resistance groups, of any of His Majesty's allies," to be clear and consistent.
This bill has a coming into force clause that says that it comes into force on January 1, 2010. I want to pass the bill now but if, by some chance, the bill were to be passed in September, would it still not come into force on January 1, 2010? You said there was a problem of losing it.
The Chair: I was so informed.
Senator Banks: Do we know why?
The Chair: I was not given an explanation other than it would be impossible to bring it about on January 1.
Senator Banks: Maybe there is a mechanical reason.
The Chair: That is my understanding. I was given that assurance by a departmental official.
Senator Banks: I think we should have officials from Justice come here next week to tell how bulletproof this is next week. You should ask to meet while the Senate is sitting so that we can pass this bill with alacrity.
Senator Tkachuk: Can this committee meet before the Defence Committee meeting next Monday?
The Chair: I was thinking about that.
Senator Tkachuk: You had about one hour slated for the meeting here today. The Veterans Subcommittee could meet at 3 p.m. and then we could meet at 4 p.m. or else meet at 4 p.m. and then go later in the evening for the Defence Committee. We could then get it all done in one day.
The Chair: That would be great. I do not know what the chair of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence had in mind for next Monday in terms of witnesses. Can you comment Senator Kenny? Would there be time do deal with Bill C-33?
Senator Kenny: I am not sure that there would be time. I think the surer course is to sit when the Senate is sitting. I placed a call to Mr. Rigby from CBSA and he has not returned my call. His first answer was negative.
Senator Wallin: Meaning he would not be attending?
Senator Kenny: In the past, he said he was available; he now says he has a delegation visiting. I want to clarify that with him.
Senator Tkachuk: Chair, my point was that our meeting is from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. If we had the Veterans Affairs Subcommittee at 4 p.m. then we could meet from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m.
Senator Kenny: My preference would be to meet on Tuesday.
Senator Tkachuk: This is a Veterans Subcommittee matter. Senator Meighen can figure out a time if we all agree and we could have the meeting.
Senator Kenny: You asked me for my preference. I am giving you my answer.
Senator Tkachuk: I am just trying to move this along.
Senator Manning: My only preference is if we meet on Monday, we should deal with this before we go in to the main committee's meeting.
I will not be here on Monday night.
The Chair: There are problems about transportation and getting in on time, and so on.
If the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence has a limited number of witnesses, might this committee be able to proceed on Monday? If you have a full slate, then we will have to seek permission to meet on Tuesday. I understand that the permission would be forthcoming.
Senator Manning: We can meet earlier.
Senator Wallin: Can you also check for 3 p.m. on Monday or 3:30 p.m.?
Senator Manning: We have met on earlier on Mondays.
Senator Wallin: Yes. Just put it at the front end of the meeting, which will allow us to deal with this bill at the front end of the main committee meeting.
The Chair: All right. Often there are briefings, and so on, before the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence. If members are prepared to come at 3 p.m., then we will do it at 3 p.m., provided we can get someone from the Department of Justice. We probably should have one or both of these individuals from the department. I am not sure if we can get the minister on such short notice, though, Senator Downe.
Senator Downe: You can try.
Senator Day: I would like to hear a witness explain why the cut off under the transitional rule, clauses 6 and 7, you can only apply for these benefits until December of 2010. I do not understand that aspect of this bill. Is this just, like the stimulus package, only for a couple of years and then it will go away again?
I would like someone to tell us the costs from 1995 forward to bring everyone up to speed on this, if someone has done any costing on this issue.
The Chair: What is your first date?
Senator Day: The law was changed in 1995 and this legislation provides that the right for applications by these allied veterans is retroactive, but only retroactive until the date that the Conservative government came into force.
The Chair: That is right.
Senator Day: Why was that date chosen as opposed to going back to 1995? There was obviously a cost issue. I would like to hear from witnesses on this; otherwise, we will have to ask for an undertaking and we will not be in a position to proceed with clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.
We should never proceed with clause-by-clause on the same day as we study the bill unless we have all of the information. As all honourable senators know, it is disagreeable to proceed to clause-by-clause consideration without having thoroughly studied the legislation.
The Chair: Agreed. It would be equally disagreeable not to proceed with this legislation in the interests of the allied veterans.
Senator Day: We hear that every time. With all due respect, we hear that from the government all the time, namely "You have to pass this now." We must not pass legislation that is half-hearted and does not achieve what we want it to achieve.
The Chair: Each honourable senator must make up his or her mind.
Senator Day: I would like to finish my aspect of this intervention with January 1, 2010. We have lots of time, the way I read this, to do the job properly. There may well be some mechanical reasons, however, as you discussed with Senator Banks. I would like to know the mechanical reasons that would prevent its implementation in January if this bill were passed in October, November or December.
Senator Manning: To follow on Senator Day's comment, this is an important piece of legislation — certainly for the people who will benefit from it. We have made arrangements to have earlier meetings before. Maybe we can meet at 2 p.m.
We want to do due diligence to this piece of legislation. We want to get it passed before the House of Commons and the Senate rises for the summer. I am sure we can all do our best to be here for 2 p.m.
The Chair: Do your travel arrangements allow for that time, Senator Day?
Senator Day: I will make sure that I am here. For veterans’ legislation, I will be here Sunday.
Senator Banks: I wish to advise you that I cannot get here Sunday. I come even further than Senator Manning. My plane will arrive at about 2 p.m. I will come to the meeting as soon as I can, if you convene it.
The Chair: Perhaps we might compromise to 2:30 p.m., which will give us 90 minutes.
Senator Day: Sure.
The Chair: If that is all, I want to express the apologies of the subcommittee to our witness, Colonel Allard, who has been sitting here very patiently. I am sorry this happened.
If the members agree, perhaps we might see whether you are available next Wednesday at the same time.
Senator Tkachuk: No, next Monday.
The Chair: No, next Wednesday; that is our normal slot.
Pierre Allard, Service Bureau Director, The Royal Canadian Legion: I will have to check.
The Chair: If you are not, I quite understand and reiterate our apologies for asking you to come here today and not extending you the courtesy of hearing you. Please excuse us.
If you let me know whether you can be here next Wednesday at the same time, if it is possible, I will convene a meeting to hear your evidence. Thank you again.
Senator Downe: Following up on Senator Day's point about the legislation, this legislation was not reviewed by any House of Commons committee. The MPs passed it in a matter of minutes. We have a greater responsibility than normal to give it careful consideration, to hear witnesses and discuss the points that are raised to get the legislation right, unlike the MPs who did not do their job in the first place.
The Chair: Not the first time or the last, I suspect, Senator Downe.
Senator Day: Not the first time.
The Chair: If there are no further matters to bring before the subcommittee, I will adjourn the meeting.
(The committee adjourned.)
|
