Publication Search

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd also like to thank the witnesses for joining us this evening and answering our questions.

Ms. Migneault, we understand that you are a bit disappointed with the amount of the caregiver relief benefit. A question came to mind. Would you have preferred to have the benefit included in the veterans independence program, which you do not qualify for either? It's meant for activities such as housekeeping and yard maintenance, in order to give caregivers a break.

If the benefit had been included in the veterans independence program, would it have been helpful to you, given that you also have fairly young children at home?

Thank you.

My next question is for Mr. Thibeau.

Mr. Burke talked briefly about the retirement income security benefit. His preference would have been to have the earnings loss benefit set at 100%.

Would you be in favour of an amendment to establish the benefit at 100% as opposed to 70% and to continue providing the same amount to veterans after the age of 65?

Mr. Burke, you also answered this question in your opening statement. You would have preferred to see—

Ms. Migneault, I'm going to come back to you. I'll give you a chance to take a breath first.

Am I out of time?

Fine.

What would you have liked to see in the bill, in terms of giving you some relief?

Do veterans have problems with housing?

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would also like to thank the witnesses for being here today.

Mr. Mac Culloch, your French is very good. It's perfect.

Absolutely. I had the opportunity to speak a few words with him, but I wasn't entirely sure. Now we have proof.

For the second or third time, thank you, Mr. Chair. All things come in threes.

I would like to thank our witnesses for being here today. You are the second group that we are receiving as part of the study on Bill C-59, or at least the part relating to veterans.

You all seem to be unanimous and all seem to support the provisions included in Bill C-59, which was previously Bill C-58. This morning we heard from the ombudsman and another group of veterans who described this as a half measure or a step in the right direction.

In a short sentence or in one word, I would like you to give us your understanding, perhaps more directly, of the provisions we are currently studying in the context of Bill C-58 or Bill C-59. Are you encouraged or disappointed when you read these provisions? Obviously, this is the first bill that follows on the report tabled almost a year ago now. How do the members you represent feel about this? Are they encouraged, shocked or disappointed? I will leave it up to each of you to perhaps describe this in a short sentence.

Mr. Mac Culloch, what is your opinion about this?

Mrs. Lowther, what do you think?

Thank you.

It's encouraging, of course, but I find it somewhat disappointing in several respects.

Let's start with the retirement income security benefit.

What is included in the bill is not at all what the committee recommended. In the case of SISIP, the committee recommended at least 90% of the bonus for injured individuals. So it was more than 75%. The bill also indicates that this new retirement income security allocation is 70% of the proportion of 75%. So it's very little.

I'm wondering if you're satisfied with this provision. Would you support an amendment that would be proposed asking that this new income allocation be equal to what veterans would receive before age 65?

That's fine. I will now take the time to correct what I said earlier.

In fact, Mr. Forbes is the one who mentioned this afternoon that these were half measures. The previous group seemed to be quite encouraged by the legislative measures. You seem a little more critical than the previous group. I somewhat agree with what Mr. Gray said.

The department introduced a bill that will help the most seriously injured people and people without income after age 65. However, it will benefit a very small number of veterans. I think Mr. Gray mentioned that this measure will benefit only a very limited number of veterans.

Mr. Bruyea, Mr. Blais, Mr. Mckenna, do you share that point of view, as well?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd also like to thank the witnesses for joining us today and answering questions.

Right off the bat, Mr. Butler, I'd like you to tell us what the new retirement income security benefit will entail. Will it encompass all of the amounts veterans are entitled to, meaning the earnings loss benefit as well as the permanent impairment allowance? Will the 70% formula apply to all the amounts that the veteran was entitled to before turning 65?

Okay.

If I understand correctly, then, certain amounts are being deducted. I'd like you to specify exactly which amounts are being deducted from the calculation you described.