[English]
EVIDENCE
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, April 6, 2000
• 0903
[English]
The Chair (Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.)): I would like to call to order this meeting of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs for consideration of the estimates of the veterans affairs department.
On behalf of the committee, it's a pleasure to welcome you back here, Minister Baker. We'd be pleased to have your opening remarks, sir, and then I know there will be questions from members, as you would anticipate.
To the officials as well, welcome, gentlemen.
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, I want to introduce the officials with me here. In a few moments the deputy minister, Larry Murray, will be here.
This is not Larry Murray to my left but Michaela Huard, the assistant to the deputy minister. I think that's the best description. She really runs the show sometimes with my office and is of great assistance to us.
Brian Ferguson is the assistant deputy minister of corporate services, and Keith Hillier is the assistant deputy minister....
You are the assistant deputy minister of corporate services; I'm sorry.
Brian is the assistant deputy minister of veterans services and Keith is the assistant deputy minister of corporate services.
• 0905
Of course, everyone knows the chairman of the Veterans
Review and Appeal Board, Brian Chambers.
I'm going to request, Mr. Chairman, that a copy of my remarks, which I think members have, be attached to the report. Is that okay?
The Chair: That's fine.
Mr. George Baker: I'll briefly summarize what I think are the most important issues.
The last time I appeared before the committee, it was concerning the merchant navy issue. I want to thank this committee for the leadership this committee showed on that particular issue and for your contribution, together with the veterans' organizations, into resolving the issue. I'm pleased to report this morning that we've issued 700 cheques to eligible merchant navy veterans or their surviving spouses as of March 31.
Now, I realize that this is a bit slow compared with what I had said during the press conference. I said two weeks, three weeks. Well, it's been longer than that. The reason for it is that I would much rather have this done correctly. There's nothing worse than having a department ask somebody who is in their seventies or eighties to pay back money they shouldn't have gotten. So the department is being very careful on this issue.
I might also report to you that 13,000 applications went out, of which 9,786 have been received. The percentage approved of those 9,786 has been slightly less than 50%.
The reason for this is that some applications coming in were submitted two and three times, perhaps by the veteran and the family and the spouse. Applications have come in from what we call “coasters”, or those around the coast. These are people who are perhaps receiving some allowance because they were in dangerous waters during the war but who do not meet the requirements of either going across the Atlantic or going in the gulf between provinces as per the guidelines set out by the veterans' organizations themselves.
I have encouraged and my office has encouraged everybody who inquires as to whether or not they qualify to apply. So has the department. That's why there is a large number of applications and the records show that, so far, less than half actually qualify. As I say, a lot of them are duplicates.
Before I conclude, I must say that the department itself has the most client-centred employees in the Government of Canada. I've never worked with a more dedicated group of people than in this Department of Veterans Affairs.
Our accomplishments to date, I think, are many in the short seven months I have been minister, and that's thanks to their efforts, the efforts of the veterans' organizations, and the efforts of this committee and the MPs around this table.
We'll soon be tabling amendments to the act to give the civilian groups who served overseas—the Red Cross workers, the St. John Ambulance workers, and those who helped with the war effort overseas—disability pensions and income support programs and health care benefits and the Veterans Independence Program.
That legislation, which will come before this committee very shortly, will contain other amendments that have been requested by members of this committee. I might just mention a couple of them now so that you'll be alerted in advance.
Of course, it'll include the overseas civilian groups. It will include giving disability pensions to personnel still serving, apart from the peacekeeping casualties who presently get it. It will make pensions available to personnel who are still serving. All pensioners, whether they served in special-duty areas or not, will be eligible for the VIP as it relates to their pension conditions.
• 0910
A couple of fairly large issues raised by members of
this committee will be addressed. One of them is
overpayments. I think three members of this committee,
including the official opposition critic, who is
present here today, had objected to the fact that when
the department makes an error and sends out a cheque,
and it's the department's error....
The example used by the MP, Mr. Goldring, concerned a widow who had received a cheque. In fact, if my memory serves me correctly, I think she was married to a veteran and then had remarried. At a very late age the veteran died, and automatically a cheque came to her.
Well, she didn't know if she was allowed to have two cheques or not. That was a mistake by the department. The department had to ask for that back.
That's being corrected under this legislation. In other words, if the department makes a mistake, then we have the right to erase that—as the lawyers say, to remit it, just like the remittance of a customs order—and say, okay, that's a mistake of the department, and this person should not have to pay back that money.
Quite frankly, I think this is a very positive step. All of you know of cases where.... With employment insurance, for example, when the department makes a mistake, it's the employee who has to pay back the money.
I think this is the first case where a federal or provincial government department has taken the step of saying, listen, if it's our mistake, you should not have to pay back the money. The widows of veterans and veterans themselves, after this legislation that will be presented to you goes through, will not have to pay back that money.
The second issue that some of you have raised with the department—I've gone back over some of your letters—is to clarify this business of a lump sum payment. In other words, when a veteran sells a farm, say, or sells property and receives a capital gain of some type, and there's a lump sum payment in that year, his income test is based on what he got in last year's income tax return, as you know. When you fill out that income tax return, if there's an income test down the road—and it's just like the guaranteed income supplement or spousal allowance—the lump sum payment then means you don't qualify for income-tested programs down the road.
We're going to clarify this and make it very simple. If a veteran receives a lump sum payment, then the next year or the year after—our payments are based on July 1 to June 30, I believe—what will happen is that the veteran will be faced with an income tax return that's come back saying they received $100,000 a year and a half ago, or two years ago, which will put them way above the income test of $1,000 if they're single and $1,500 if they're married.
What will be very clear and to the point in the act to clarify the matter is that you will take an estimate of that person's income. In other words, the veteran says, all right, I estimate my income to be this for the next year. And that will be the test.
Some hon. members: Bravo!
Mr. George Baker: There will be, of course, some miscellaneous amendments to the act that you'll all be interested in. I'll mention just a couple of things we're working on that have been brought up by Cliff Chadderton and the legion and ANAVETS with regard to seriously disabled veterans.
Cliff Chadderton brings up the point of a double amputee, a gentleman who lost both legs during the war. He's 80 years of age. He is at the point where he has a heart condition and water on the lungs, and in order to receive payment for his drugs related to that, he has to be able to prove that this is related to his condition of disability during the war.
• 0915
I can give you an example. Oxygen is not
covered under provincial legislation. Oxygen is very
expensive, and this gentleman has to purchase it. So I
agree with Mr. Chadderton that seriously disabled
veterans should not have to be subjected to this sort
of exercise, having to prove that this is related to
their wartime experience.
So what we're looking at is all persons who are in the disability category of 78% or more—those are the top five categories. We're working on it. That's one.
The second is that peacekeepers are not now eligible for chronic-care beds, and that's very strange. Peacekeepers who are veterans are not eligible for chronic-care beds like nursing homes, so there has to be a change made. I know this sounds very strange, but recently there was a case, and they are not eligible under the present act and regulations. So obviously we agree with the legion and we're working on that.
The next is that it's an irritant of the legion and of the veterans' organizations that a minor change in somebody's income will cut them off from veterans' benefits. You all know about that. In other words, if you see a minor change in somebody's income, all of a sudden the button is pushed. All of a sudden they're told that their TAPS card has expired, that they no longer qualify for their health credit card. To be quite honest with you, as is the case with the double amputee, where we nickel and dime veterans, in this case I think the cost of the bureaucracy is more than the saving you make. So this change of income halfway through the year that disqualifies somebody is something that should be changed, and we're working on it very quickly.
I have two final things, and then I'll let you ask questions.
Of course, in the last case, it's just like if you lose your spouse. If you have two people and all of a sudden one dies, then because the income is over $1,000—the single rate—that person loses their veterans' benefits. That has to change.
The other issue I want to mention—and Mrs. Wayne was very concerned about this—is the Viagra question. I know of her criticisms on my decision on providing Viagra. But what was in effect before was that we paid for, in some cases, very invasive surgeries to accomplish the same thing. We were doing it, but we were doing it through the existing medical practices. I would say that the cost of doing that would be perhaps just as much as supplying the Viagra pill.
On the depleted uranium—I expect some of you would have questions on that—I tell you right now that the policy of this department is that we have identified two places that are certified to test for depleted uranium in Canada, and for each person, the department will pay for two separate samples to go to two independent labs. In case there is any question about one, it will go to two independent labs. I think this will probably address the problem.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I want to say it has been a great pleasure for me to work with this committee, and I look forward to resolving some of the future issues you bring up in a fast manner.
• 0920
I want to say again, in conclusion, that I think the
Department of Veterans Affairs is made up of the most
dedicated public servants in this country, and we look
forward to meeting the new challenges in the future.
Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister. Just before we go to questions, I might say I certainly concur with your comments on your staff in Veterans Affairs. In my riding in London, Ontario, Parkwood Hospital is a major hospital with a number of veterans. I'm there fairly often, and I see the excellent care our people get right across the country, as they deserve. The tone is set with you and your staff here in Ottawa, and it goes all the way to the people on the front lines. So I concur with your thoughts.
Minister, I have just one comment before we go to questions. From time to time I've seen you in the gym setting a pretty good pace on a treadmill, but you've certainly set quite a pace in the short time you've been minister in the compassion you've shown for veterans and the tough issues you've had to deal with decisively. I think some of us wondered just how you would do that so quickly, but I don't think I'm out of turn here by saying we certainly commend you for taking on those tough issues so decisively, as you have done.
With that, let me start questions, a first round of seven minutes. I'll call you by the right name this time, the Canadian Alliance Party, Mr. Goldring.
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Good morning, Mr. Baker. I too would like to add my voice and commend you for your very successful intervention into some long-outstanding issues. It's my pleasure to be involved with a committee that is moving issues such as these along. I want to pass along that the merchant navy concerns certainly have been outstanding for far too long, and even though they are seemingly running a little slowly right now, I want you to know we'll be patient on it. I may have some specific questions to move on that, but that will be to follow.
I want first to touch on what you just mentioned, which was the depleted uranium. I would like to know whether there are any plans by your department to do some investigation into it, not just provide the medical sampling. Has your department plans to do investigation into the concerns, in other words, some scientific investigation? Are there provisos to do that?
Mr. George Baker: Okay, let's go to one of the experts. Which person would like to take that?
Mr. Ferguson.
Mr. Brian Ferguson (Assistant Deputy Minister, Veterans Services, Department of Veterans Affairs): Yes, we're very concerned about the scientific aspects of this question. The Department of National Defence has the lead role in addressing these kinds of scientific questions, and we work very closely with them in a collaborative manner to determine what kinds of impacts the latest scientific evidence may have in making determinations of disability and the health needs of veterans who apply to our department.
Mr. Peter Goldring: Are there any results from that, any report, that could update periodically on whether these concerns are coming to...? Ultimately, it ends up with the veterans being affected. They're the ones coming back from these conflicts. With all due respect, even though it is the Department of National Defence, it is our veterans who are showing symptoms or suggesting there are problems related to battlefield conditions.
Mr. Brian Ferguson: We are, as I said, working very closely with DND, particularly under our quality-of-life initiative, and we are examining ways to get better information on this subject. I should add at this point that we do not connect the positive or negative decision relative to a disability pension to what causes the disability. We actually look at the symptoms and determine whether or not an individual's life has been affected by whatever service they've given to Canada. If it can be connected to their service, then what caused it is not really a determining factor. We will give the right decision based on the actual effect on the life and lifestyle of the individual.
But we are, I should mention, very interested in the research that's going on. We have a research capacity in our department and we are collaborating very closely with DND. I'm certain, as we collectively find more information on this subject, we'd be pleased to make it available to you.
Mr. Peter Goldring: Well, it would sound as though you're more reactive than proactive to the issue. Is it not of concern for the veterans of the future to initiate something, or to initiate comments to DND, particularly on whether they are still using depleted uranium weapons? Can we not at least ask Canada's military to not use those weapons for the time being, until you can come up with a resolution?
• 0925
Mr. Brian Ferguson: I think in that instance, that question clearly would have to be directed to the Department of National Defence. In relation to your earlier question about whether we are being proactive, I can assure you we are being proactive on the health issues with the Department of National Defence and looking very clearly into what could cause the different illnesses that affect our Canadian Forces veterans. We're being very proactive on that front.
Mr. Peter Goldring: A second question, if I could, relates to the concerns for the payment of interest on trust accounts. I do acknowledge receiving a letter from Mr. Minister on this thing. I would like to have a little more detail and an expression of whether there isn't a responsibility here on the part of the department.
I was executor of a relative's estate and I was informed wholeheartedly of what my responsibilities were. I was not to take on that job unless I maximized the return on the estate, and I could be responsible for it. Is there not that same responsibility from Veterans Affairs due to those veterans after all these years?
Mr. George Baker: We have a copy of the report. Let's release the official report we have received on this and give it to all the committee members. It's all in there. It was your request in the beginning, as I recall, on this. What I did, Mr. Goldring, was I sent it to the veterans' organizations. I had intended next week or the week after to table it in the House, but we'll give it now—it was your request that started the thing. So it's all contained in there. It's the report that's been done concerning the entire issue.
Mr. Peter Goldring: In your point of view, is there not some fiduciary responsibility to acknowledge some responsibility for the affairs?
Mr. George Baker: You weren't around at the time; I was. It was many years ago when we passed this legislation. Or were you around?
Mr. Peter Goldring: I'm just a young fellow.
Mr. George Baker: When we passed the legislation there was much debate over this, and over the particular clause—I think it was 27(a)—where it said retroactivity was terminated from the date of January 1, 1990. I don't recall the exact dates. But there was very extensive debate over this question.
I'm sure if you go back over the debates you'll find that I was at that time asking the same questions you're asking now, because I was in the opposition. It was the government of the day, the Tory government, that put down the firm fist, and it had some pretty good reasoning behind it. I think the legislation answers the question.
As to the study that was done, which created a little bit of a furor, we have done a complete investigation into that, as we promised you, and those are the results of the investigation.
Mr. Peter Goldring: In 1990, when this debate occurred, what was your line of support at that time? Were you in favour of going further than 1990? How did you vote, in support or not?
Mr. George Baker: Mr. Goldring, I would prefer if you would go back over the records and read it for yourself.
The Chair: Thank you. With that, your time is up, so thank you.
[Translation]
Mr. Bertrand, you have no questions at this time?
[English]
All right. Now we come to Mr. Pratt, please, for seven minutes.
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would also like to welcome the minister here and congratulate him on his accomplishments to date, which I think are many.
Minister, as you know, some of the recent deployments that Canadian soldiers have been involved in have put them in some very dangerous places, and I'm thinking of Bosnia, Kosovo, and East Timor. I noted in your written comments that you submitted before the committee that there are new guidelines within the department that are going to apply to post-traumatic stress disorder. I was wondering if you could elaborate on how those new guidelines might be applied to soldiers returning from these theatres of operation.
Mr. George Baker: First of all, before I answer that question, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make just a brief reference to post-traumatic stress disorder.
• 0930
The worst air disaster in Canadian history involved
Arrow Air and took place in the late 1980s. I
think about 300 people were killed in that crash.
There were not just bodies but parts of bodies that had
to be cleaned up in that area and identified. A huge
hangar was set aside for that purpose.
The aircraft was of course returning from the Gulf and had a lot of ammunition aboard, a lot of strange cargo, as well as about 300 people. Of the men and women who were there for two days immediately after the crash, there were firefighters and RCMP officers. All of the firefighters I knew personally because I had gone to school with them. This happened in Gander, Newfoundland.
These chaps were pretty tough fellows, and one of the issues at the time, for two years after that crash, was the illnesses that occurred with those firefighters.
Being a member of the opposition at the time, I took a personal interest in this and demanded an inquiry take place. Health and Welfare Canada took some medical experts from medical universities—Dalhousie, the University of Calgary, and other universities. They brought them together and went down to Newfoundland.
They spoke to and examined all of the firemen and RCMP officers. They were having extreme problems with their joints, they were bleeding, and their liver enzyme counts were sky high. Of course, if you go back over the record, it's no secret I claimed at the time that those problems were due to the material that was aboard the U.S. military aircraft.
The conclusion they came to after their study was PTSD. I disputed it publicly at that time and said it was due to the cargo, the ammunition and whatever else was aboard that aircraft.
I knew that subject intimately, and when I was being briefed on PTSD and just what could happen to an individual in Croatia, where the solders were going out and picking up bodies and parts of bodies in body bags for days, with snipers firing at them and so on, I could understand the briefing I was receiving and the effect that has on the immune system, whether or not it was the smoke, gas, materials in the air and so on—the chemicals Mr. Goldring pointed out, or not. In Veterans Affairs, we deal with the fact that they are ill and the degree of their illness.
So on the PTSD—and I don't want to belabour the point—the department has set up a special team of people who specialize in it. This team of people, headed by a medical expert, will take the applications straight through as they come in; they won't go through the normal process.
Quite frankly, I looked at the record and listened to the peacekeepers, whom I met with. They said, “Look, here's my record. I have a 60% disability. I had a medical doctor tell me I had a 60% disability, but when I went through the process they said, no, you are at about 20%. Then an argument took place, and three years later I was back up to 60%.”
• 0935
What was missing there was the identification of PTSD
in the table of disabilities. Now it is in the table
of disabilities and there are clear guidelines as to
percent of disability. Basically, that's what the
department has done.
Mr. David Pratt: Do I have time for a supplementary question, Mr. Chair?
I know it's very hard to predict, based on the deployments the Canadian troops are involved in, and where they might be involved in the future, because you never know when the next hot spot is going to flare up, but based on the numbers that have come through the department at this point, are you projecting an increase in the number of PTSD problems or do you expect it to remain fairly constant? Are there any projections whatsoever on the extent of the problem and what we can expect in the future?
Mr. George Baker: I can't give you an exact figure, and I don't think any of the officials can. If they can, I will certainly appreciate it. But the number of peacekeeper veterans is going up. In the past year, 2,550 peacekeepers have been recognized as new veterans, while the number of veterans from the Second World War has gone down by 9%.
I don't think we have an exact figure on the number of PTSD claimants, but I would say that the number is going to go up because our soldiers have been in some very demanding situations, especially in southern Croatia and parts of Bosnia.
The Chair: Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Pratt.
Now we'll come back to the opposition. It would normally be Mrs. Wayne's turn. Of course, we all know her dedication to veterans' issues. She's worked very hard on those issues, as have other members of the committee. She's absent at this point in the meeting because she's chairing the national prayer breakfast here on Parliament Hill, but she should be joining us later.
That brings us back to you already, Mr. Goldring, if you have some more questions. We'll start with five-minute rounds now.
Mr. Peter Goldring: Mr. Minister, is there such a thing, or does the department issue grants and contributions to veterans' organizations or other groups at all? Are there any provisos by the department to do that? If so, is there a list of grants and contributions made available that can be accessed? Are there grants that are issued by the department?
Mr. George Baker: Our vice-president of corporate services should be able to give us an answer to that question.
Mr. Keith Hillier (Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services, Department of Veterans Affairs): The grants and contributions are listed in the main estimates. For the most part, I guess it would depend on what you would call a veterans' organization, so to speak. Things such as the Commonwealth War Graves Commission are listed in the main estimates as organizations to which grants and contributions are made. That's the extent of the list.
There is a summary. I don't have it with me, but there is an actual listing of particular organizations, which could be provided. If you look at the list, most of our grants and contributions have to do with the pensions and war veterans amounts we pay, and also the Veterans Independence Program. Under the Veterans Independence Program, of course, we're paying funds to a variety of service providers to the veterans.
Mr. Peter Goldring: I have a secondary question.
While I appreciate the attention that was given to the unveiling of the monument in Ortona last fall, my question is about the plaque unveilings by the heritage department. Is there a reason why there are two ministries present for officiating at them? It strikes me it would be more economical to have you, as the Minister of Veterans Affairs, along with the veterans' groups and organizations. After all, they're the people whom the plaque is really commemorating. I would think the veterans' organizations would be front and centre on issues like that. Is there a reason why there are the additional costs for the heritage ministry to be present at those functions? If so, who's paying for that?
Mr. George Baker: First of all, I presume you're also referring to the ceremony that will take place here in Ottawa?
Mr. Peter Goldring: Yes.
• 0940
Mr. George Baker: I want to make reference to the extensive media coverage that was associated with the fact that there were certain accusations that MPs and their spouses, all these dignitaries from the Departments of National Defence, Heritage, etc., and senators and their spouses would be occupying all of those spaces at the ceremony to take place in Ottawa this summer.
Mr. Chairman, I want to say that the space for MPs and senators and their spouses should only come after all of the veterans' organizations are represented on stage and after all of the veterans have found a seat. In other words, for the MPs and their spouses and the senators and their spouses, there is standing room at the back at all of these occasions. I'm sure the members of this committee would second that motion.
An hon. member: Bravo!
Mr. George Baker: There you go—bravo.
The Chair: They will stand, Mr. Minister, and give their seats to the veterans. Absolutely.
Mr. George Baker: Okay. So on your behalf I'll write a letter to the MPs and the senators and their spouses saying that there is adequate standing room at the back and that as long as there are veterans there, they should occupy the seats.
Voices: Hear, hear!
The Chair: Absolutely. I imagine you could say that unanimously for this committee.
Mr. George Baker: Is that a unanimous unofficial motion?
The Chair: It's unanimous. All right.
Mr. Peter Goldring: I would also like to have a quick answer to the other part of the question, which is about the trips to Europe and the trips to unveil plaques, for example, on the beach, the various plaques that are unveiled by Heritage Canada. Who is paying for Heritage Canada to come on the trip? That seems to be an excessive expense that really takes away from the veterans. It takes away from the veterans' groups that are there to put their sincerity into the commemorating and unveiling of a plaque.
Mr. George Baker: Who pays for it? To be quite honest with you, Mr. Goldring, I'm not too up to date on that because I've never, ever been on a trip overseas as the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Perhaps I should be on a lot of these trips, but I usually ask MPs or members representing the political parties to do it.
As for who pays for the heritage department's trips, our legal expert tells me that Heritage pays for Heritage's expenses.
Mr. Peter Goldring: Thank you.
The Chair: Mr. O'Reilly, please, for five minutes.
Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Minister, for attending. We go back a long way, and I want to congratulate you on the advancements you've made on the file.
I have a couple of things going back to the estimates, which is why we're here. In terms of the reductions in the budget and in the portfolio that are predicted, can you give us an idea of exactly how that is going to take place? Will the department downsize with losing one-third of its clientele between now and 2005?
Mr. George Baker: First of all, I realize that the Government of Canada and the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Finance appreciate the fact that we're not on a continuous rise as far as expenditures are concerned. The clientele, the veterans we serve right now, the war veterans from the Second World War, are getting older.
An interesting figure to keep in mind is that only 2% of men and women between the ages of 65 and 74 are in institutions today in Canada. When you get to men 80 years of age, over 20% of them are in institutions in Canada today.
As the veterans' ages go up, the cost of their care goes up substantially. When you add that increase in costs because the veteran is getting older to the new veterans, peacekeepers, 2,500 a year now coming into the system, you find that your costs balance out. You also find that there's a great need to modify the rules and regulations pertaining to health care so that they receive better health care. As we're working toward a continuum of health care services, that should be a part of the rules.
• 0945
So your costs are increasing, you have new entrants,
and, yes, you're seeing a decrease in the numbers. On
average, 7,000 veterans pass away, if you look at the
past year. There are 2,500 new ones coming up. You're
seeing a difference of 4,000 to 4,500 people you serve,
but the costs of serving them have gone up
substantially. The costs of the peacekeepers, for
example, of these new illnesses, of new protocols and
so on, are quite substantial and quite different from
the cost of the war veterans from the Second World War.
You find both costs rising substantially.
If you look at it now, it's all evening off so that you won't see a decrease in the budget for Veterans Affairs. At least I hope we don't see that decrease.
Mr. John O'Reilly: Thank you, Mr. Minister.
Perhaps you should put on your schedule that the first overseas trip should be in June of this year, with the Juno Beach project, the Canada-Normandy thing. I can put you in touch with Garth Webb, who's running the thing on behalf of the 14th Field Regiment. I think that would be a good one for you to start with, to go over and do some unveiling and spend money and have a good time there. Maybe you can take Pat and me with you.
Voices: Oh, oh!
The Chair: Let's get ready.
Mr. John O'Reilly: That would be a good one for you to start off with, Mr. Minister. It would have a lot of meaning for the people, particularly the veterans in Canada who were in the Second World War and were in that landing party.
Going back to the estimates, of course the client comment card.... You indicate in here that this portfolio will continue. It gives solid feedback. I wondered how many cards come back. What are the results and what are the main issues?
Mr. George Baker: We now have the deputy minister, Larry Murray, here.
Mr. John O'Reilly: I saw that, and I'm certainly glad he's not still running the military, coming in at that late hour.
Welcome, Larry.
Mr. George Baker: He has a good excuse. He was at the national prayer breakfast this morning.
Mr. John O'Reilly: Oh, that's excusable. Here comes his date.
Voices: Oh, oh!
Mr. George Baker: Mrs. Wayne just walked into the room. She chaired the special prayer breakfast this morning. She was praying for us.
Deputy Minister Larry Murray.
Mr. Larry Murray (Deputy Minister, Department of Veterans Affairs): I'll ask Brian Ferguson to give the specifics on the number of cards. We're quite pleased. I think we have a more extensive system than any other department in government, not that everybody isn't working in that direction. Obviously our clients are more easy to identify. I would like to say that of the cards we've gotten back, 90% rate the services they're receiving from the department as good or very good, which is something the department and every employee in the department takes great pride in.
Brian, perhaps you could give a few details on numbers of cards.
Mr. Brian Ferguson: I can let you know what the numbers are. They're currently being compiled by our corporate planning group. What we could do is very quickly, within the next couple of days, get the specific numbers out to you, in terms of the numbers that have come in. I can confirm, as the deputy has indicated, that over 90% are giving us a very positive reading.
The Chair: Thanks, Mr. O'Reilly.
Mrs. Wayne indeed has joined us from the prayer breakfast, which I mentioned earlier that she was chairing. Nice to see you and have you here again, Mrs. Wayne. We'll go right to you now if you have some questions.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): I just have a couple of questions.
I'm going to go, if I may, to the merchant mariners situation. My understanding is that you've received around 13,000 applications. The deputy minister or the minister can confirm this. Not all can qualify for the compensation package. I'm not sure just how many will, but we still think it might be between 4,000 and 4,500, or around that.
As you know, the records were in Transport and then were transferred over to the Department of Veterans Affairs. I don't think all the records were kept that well in Transport. I know it's a big job, but can you just...? Really, my phone rings off the wall. Can you, Mr. Minister, just please tell us whether they're going to in the end get the 100% compensation package?
• 0950
Mr. George Baker: Well, let me just bring you up to date. There were 13,000 applications sent out. There were 9,700 returned. At the rate they're being processed....
We're finding that a great many applications were duplicates. We're finding that a great many applications were from coasters—that is, fishermen and other people of related duties who had gone across, say, Bonavista Bay or gone to a part of Notre Dame Bay or part of the Labrador coast. Some of those people perhaps were in dangerous waters and are receiving some compensation from Veterans Affairs, but they don't meet the guidelines of this program. And none of the veterans' organizations intended that these people would meet those guidelines, because the guidelines were fairly strict.
So what we're seeing is, because a lot of coasters applied, there were a lot of duplicates; there were a lot of applications from this one or that one. The department encouraged everybody who phoned to apply. I encouraged them to apply. But I also said to the department—and they would do this on their own—“For goodness' sake, don't go making errors so that we have to ask for money back from a veteran or the spouse.”
So in processing the applications, we're finding less than a 50% success rate. If that is the judge of what's happening here, then we have absolutely no worries, because what does that mean? That means if in fact what we've seen so far is the way it is, then the estimate on the numbers of merchant navy veterans who qualify are closer to what the merchant navy organizations said, rather than the department.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Yes, well, I'm not surprised about that.
Mr. George Baker: You're not surprised about that? Oh, well.
Voices: Oh, oh!
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Excuse me.
Mr. George Baker: We're being careful.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: As you and your deputy minister and Mr. Wood know, I gave some documentation to Bob, because one of the key persons who received their cheques for $6,000 was over. Really his time was longer than what was for some reason on the record, and we have to prove it.
Mr. George Baker: Yes, but Mrs. Wayne, I tell you, in some of those cases where, say, two years are missing, the application is filled out by the applicant. The record is supplied by the applicant, and the applicant could say, “Well, now, look, this is not right, because I actually served a bit longer.” Then there's a procedure whereby there are perhaps sworn affidavits, but there has to be some verification somewhere before that's recognized. But we have a good appeal procedure.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I just will be pleased when we get that resolved so that I don't have to sit up here in July on the steps on a hunger strike. I know I'm overweight, but glory be to God, guys, I'm the only.... Oh, there are two of us. Thank God, there are two women here. Thank God.
Voices: Oh, oh!
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Anyway, were there cutbacks in anything with regard to health care for the veterans?
Mr. George Baker: Only increases.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: That wasn't for Viagra, was it?
Voices: Oh, oh!
Mr. George Baker: Well, I explained the Viagra before you came in.
An hon. member: [Inaudible—Editor].
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Yes, I know all about it. All right, I'll get that from the chair. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you, Mrs. Wayne.
Mrs. Longfield is next, please.
Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Thank you.
I'm actually very pleased that Mrs. Wayne joined the committee, because I'm not quite as lonely, although I had no complaints before she got here either.
Minister, I just want to add my voice to those offering congratulations. You certainly have worked at the speed of light in solving a number of problems that had been there before your arrival. On behalf of veterans in my community, I want to pass on their sincere thank you.
I'm concerned about long-term care in hospitals across Canada. I want to know if there's a mechanism to monitor the quality of veterans' care. Are there minimum standards with respect to this, and how do we enforce them? And then finally, what's the status of the transfer of the Ste. Anne's Hospital to the Province of Quebec?
• 0955
Mr. George Baker: Well, I'll ask the officials to comment on both those things, with just a brief comment from me at the beginning.
There is no immediate prospect for the transfer of that hospital to the Province of Quebec. I just leave that there. I'm in no hurry, and that means the department is not in any hurry.
On the second question, we did embark on what you might call a check on the services supplied to our veterans in the hospitals across Canada, in a very extensive survey of the veterans, and if the veterans themselves cannot answer the questions, then the spouses or the relatives of the veterans are answering the questions. As I said before as well, we're also communicating with the standard setters of the level of care in hospitals across Canada.
So all in all, you might say yes—I say yes—to the question, are we attempting to have national standards for our veterans? The answer to that question is yes.
Would any of the officials like to comment on that? Deputy Minister.
Mr. Larry Murray: Thanks, Minister.
We have been doing a lot of work in this area, and we do work with something like 155 regional medical authorities across the country, so it's much more complex. As a relative neophyte, having joined last August, I thought we would be working with the provinces, but there is a real range of folks out there and there's a real concern for standards. We have been working with veterans' groups who are very concerned about this as well. And as the minister indicated, we have launched a major review, which is producing a number of things, including the continuum of service initiative, which he alluded to a few minutes ago.
In terms of standards, because we are dealing with these various standards and there is this concern to have some standards, we have launched on our own a major questionnaire across the country that deals with ten areas, and we get feedback from clients, or families in the case of veterans who don't have adequate facilities to make judgments in the questionnaire.
But as the minister also said, we're working with the Canadian Council on Health Services Accreditation. They like our approach on the standards business, and we would hope to be in a position to have, for those institutions that have veterans as clients, an add-on into their accreditation package such that when a hospital—let's say Sunnybrook in Toronto—got its accreditation, a component of that would deal with veterans. That would give us the ability to have a sense of whether we are delivering something resembling an acceptable standard—and I think that's generally true, because we have people in these places all the time—but at a similar standard across the country for veterans.
We have discussed this strategy with the legion. They're very pleased that we're heading in this direction.
So although it won't be perfect, it is a significant step. Certainly the minister has been pushing us hard on this one as a very high priority, so we're working hard on it.
The Chair: Are there any other responses to Mrs. Longfield's questions?
Does that cover it, Judi?
Mrs. Judi Longfield: Given the track record of the department so far, my money is on the minister. I know we'll have that standard in place very soon.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Goldring, you're getting a lot of time today. That's the way the ball bounces sometimes. So it's back to you again.
Mr. Peter Goldring: I earn my paycheque.
Mr. Minister, I have just a quick comment on Viagra. Some say it really is a counterbalancing for the saltpetre we were fed in the military. At least that was the standard joke when I was in the military in the 1960s, that the mess hall somehow put saltpetre in the food. However, I do understand the purpose of it, and I do agree that for medicinal purposes it is only fair and proper to do that too.
But my question is this. Page 13 of part III of the estimates mentions that Veterans Affairs maintains battlefield memorials in Europe. What memorials are these? Is this not something Heritage would be maintaining? What exactly is meant by the memorials, and how extensive is that?
Mr. George Baker: Deputy Minister.
• 1000
Mr. Larry Murray: The memorials referred to there are the Vimy Memorial, for which we're responsible, Beaumont Hamel, which we're working on, and I think 13 smaller memorials around Europe. I'll confirm that number, but Vimy is the major one, and there's Beaumont Hamel and a number of smaller ones.
To go back to an earlier discussion, which was going on when I joined the meeting, we're doing a joint review. Minister Baker and Minister Copps have launched a joint review of commemoration, to come to grips with and sort out how to do it adequately, but also to sort out who's doing what to whom, which I think would answer a portion of the earlier question.
Mr. Peter Goldring: I guess that's where I'm leading to in my question. With the Vimy Memorial and Beaumont Hamel, Heritage was there with the veterans affairs ministry for earlier commemorations, and that too seems to me to be an unnecessary duplication, particularly if the memorial itself is under Veterans Affairs' jurisdiction. Would you agree?
Mr. Larry Murray: In terms of the jurisdiction, I think the issue is one of ensuring that we do appropriate commemoration as Canadians both abroad and in Canada. That's something we're looking at, trying to ensure we do that. Part of the question there is in relation to, in Canada, the issue of the maintenance of memorials across the country, which is a major issue for Heritage, and in our case, as you're probably aware, the maintenance of Vimy is becoming a challenge. So we're trying to come to grips with this, and at the same time trying to put adequate resources to educate young people.
In terms of jurisdiction, I think that is something that will be sorted out over the course of the coming months between ministers who are responsible for the subject.
Mr. Peter Goldring: I have a secondary question. On page 29, part III of the estimates, it is mentioned that the spending will drop permanently by about $75 million. Is that directly related to the merchant navy, or what specifically is that $75 million drop in expenditures related to?
Mr. Keith Hillier: Thank you for that question.
The drop in the expenditures relates to a number of factors, one of which is the compensation for merchant navy vets. Also, in our reference level, we were working for the Y2K solution, and as part of that solution we were advanced funds by the Treasury Board that are subsequently being taken back out of our base. So it's a combination of having the one-time amount for the merchant navy and then taking back the base amounts for things on the technology side in terms of repayment of our loan for Y2K and the partial repayment of our loan for the major crown project that has been identified for improved client services.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. Bertrand, you have five minutes, please.
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): I would like to congratulate the Minister for the excellent work he has done. I am convinced, Mr. Chairman, that he will continue to do excellent work.
Mr. Minister, I would like to go back to a question asked by my colleague on the Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue Hospital, in Montreal. You say that nothing more is happening and that there are no further discussions. Is the dialogue with the Department of Health still underway or has it come to a standstill?
[English]
Mr. George Baker: Deputy Minister.
[Translation]
Mr. Larry Murray: Thank you, Mr. Minister and Mr. Chairman.
We discussed the transfer with the province for years. These discussions are over for the time being. The province is no longer interested in the transfer. The province, or the Board, would like to discuss partnerships, etc. For example, our requirements for beds for veterans might not decrease this year or next year, but we might well start discussions after that. It is still a federal hospital, a veterans' hospital, but if there is room, there might be a good business case for both to enter into a partnership. When might that happen? I don't know exactly. Perhaps there will be other discussions on the transfer when most veterans have died. For the time being, we plan to start renovating Sainte-Anne so that veterans hospitalized there have the same level of service as in the rest of the country, for example in Sunnybrook.
• 1005
Mr. Robert Bertrand: Mr. Minister, we discussed these issues with your predecessor. He talked about renovating the hospital at a cost of about 30 to $40 million, if I remember correctly.
Mr. Larry Murray: Yes, those are more or less the figures, Mr. Chairman, but I must point out that the decision to review the matter and start the work was made a month or two ago. We are currently trying to come up with the best solution for the renovations. I think the costs will be in that general vicinity.
Mr. Robert Bertrand: My second question deals with the DND-VAC Centre for the Support of Injured and Retired Members and Their Families. Mr. Minister, I know that on March 30, you went there to celebrate the first anniversary of the opening.
I would like to know if there are more or fewer people using the service than you had anticipated in your forecasts.
Mr. Larry Murray: That is a good question. I know that it is quite busy. As for projections, I don't know because the Minister and I were not at the department at that time. Perhaps Mr. Ferguson can answer that question. Thank you.
[English]
Mr. Brian Ferguson: What we're doing now is looking into the operations. We did not have precise estimates set out at the beginning of the process in terms of exactly how many we forecast to come through this centre. We're now looking at the numbers and doing an evaluation jointly with the Department of National Defence to see whether the needs we wanted to be met through the centre are in fact being met. We should have that evaluation done in a few months.
We'll actually look at numbers at that point, in terms of the numbers that came through, how many people got their needs met effectively, and whether there are any changes necessary to the operation of that centre.
Mr. Larry Murray: If I could leap in as well, Mr. Chairman, that is only part of the answer. I want to be very clear. We've just put out a video that is being distributed across the country. We have people on bases. I'm leading briefing teams. We're trying to get to all levels of the organization. This is an area the minister mentioned in his speaking notes as one of his top priorities, and a whole lot more work of the nature that is being done at the centre has to be done at the centre but elsewhere right across the country. So we're working hard on that.
So although the centre has been quite successful, it's certainly not the whole answer—although the people there are doing a wonderful job.
[Translation]
The Chairman: A short question.
[English]
Mr. Robert Bertrand: My last question is on the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. I know from past estimates that the amount we contribute is around $6 million. Is that amount the same, or has it increased?
Mr. George Baker: The deputy minister of corporate services.
Mr. Keith Hillier: The issue with the Commonwealth War Graves Commission is that the amounts will fluctuate because of the currency exchange, which is based on the value of the Canadian dollar, the payment schedule, and so on. But the amount is basically set, and it's the currency fluctuations that cause the changes.
Mr. Robert Bertrand: About six or seven months ago, I remember reading in the newspapers about some Canadian soldiers being buried in South Africa during the Boer War, and there were some complaints about the graves not being kept up. I know they're not part of that organization, but are there funds available for taking care of that cemetery?
• 1010
Mr. George Baker: When the matter was raised, Mr. Chairman, we sent a team of people down to correct the situation within a matter of weeks.
The Chair: Very good. Thank you, Minister.
[Translation]
Thank you very much, Mr. Bertrand.
[English]
Mrs. Wayne, five minutes, please.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: According to the Ottawa Citizen, and of course Mr. Griezic, who doesn't really see everything the way we do, there are six merchant navy vets, they were saying, who were left out in the cold. These were army, navy, and air force veterans' associations and the Royal Canadian Legion, and I don't know really where they stand on this, but apparently these six merchant navy men became prisoners of war in the far east. They were torpedoed and their ships were sunk, and they became prisoners of the Nazis and the Japanese military. They're saying that they will not be given that extra $4,000 as prisoners of war. Is that true?
Mr. George Baker: Mrs. Wayne, as I understand it—the deputy or the officials can correct me if I'm wrong, although I don't think I'm wrong—what we announced was that they would be given—do you remember that at the press conference?—the $4,000 extra. That was my recollection, and that's what we announced. So I imagine what has happened here is that these prisoners of war probably qualified under the Hong Kong settlement. Is that right?
Mr. Larry Murray: That's correct.
Mr. George Baker: Didn't we announce that they would get the money?
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Yes, you did.
Mr. George Baker: Well, should the money be given? Let me ask you.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Yes.
Mr. George Baker: It should be given...?
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Yes.
Mr. George Baker: Does everybody agree that it should be given?
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Yes!
Mr. George Baker: Well, then, it's going to be given.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Good for you.
You must be some glad I had that press conference, eh?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Chair: You must have been praying very effectively over there this morning.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I have one other little prayer, and I hope it's going to be answered.
As it stands right now—
Mr. Robert Bertrand: Soon.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Is it going to be answered soon? In just a couple of seconds...?
Our other merchant navy men will be receiving their 100% package, won't they? That should be no problem at all? God bless them.
Mr. George Baker: With the numbers I'm looking at now.... I don't know if the officials want to comment. I think our commitment was pretty clear—
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: It was.
Mr. George Baker: —to the veterans' organizations.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Yes.
Mr. George Baker: Would anybody want to comment on this before I make another statement?
Mr. Larry Murray: Mr. Chairman, I probably should.
We have $50 million. The way the numbers are coming in now, we believe we will be fine, but we will not know that for sure until mid-May. At the moment, what is approved by the government is $50 million, which is why we're doing it in two payments. We have had something over 900 cheques out to date. We're moving it out as quickly as we can, and what we're putting out is all the non-controversial stuff.
At the end of the day, we have to work our way through the number of applications we have there, but I think at the moment we're cautiously optimistic that the merchant navy's estimate of their numbers was correct. If it is correct, we're just fine, but we—
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: The only thing on that—and I say this to all my colleagues and the chair—is that if the minister needs our support to go back to the government for just a little more, because we can't really make an announcement that this is your compensation package and then in the end.... Glory be to God, you'd never win the next election if you ever did that. You'd be finished. Oh, dear God, you'd never get elected if you did that, Patrick.
Oh, my God, Mr. Minister, you can't say they're going to get $20,000 and give them a little bit less. Oh, you'd have to go back for sure.
A voice: You're right.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: So I'm going to tell them yes, you're getting it, because, please, mother of God, I'm going to have to.... Okay? All right.
Can you just tell me who you sent the questionnaires to? You were saying you sent out a questionnaire with regard to veterans that you were having—
Mr. George Baker: You mean the hospitals...?
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Yes.
• 1015
Mr. George Baker: On the question of the adequacy of the service they're receiving in hospitals across Canada, what we've done is we've made up a very extensive questionnaire. In other words, it's not just about the type of care they're receiving but also about whether they receive recreational facilities, if they receive this, this, and....
In other words, we're looking at just what services are being supplied by hospitals. Then, with the hospital accreditation board, which we're working with.... This is all in answer to the question of national standards for veterans care.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Did that just go to the executive of the hospital or did it go to the veterans? Who's filling it out?
Mr. George Baker: Oh, just to the veterans. No, I wasn't interested in the hospitals. It was sent to the veterans, and if the veterans couldn't answer the questions, then it was sent to the relatives of the veterans.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: [Inaudible—Editor].
Mr. George Baker: Oh, yes.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Because I have to tell you that they did take away our program at our veterans hospital, and when you talk about recreation, I mean, there are certain things I can do, but I'm not very good at basketball or soccer or something like that.
Mr. Larry Murray: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I think we owe you a response to the detailed number question. When we do that, we can also send you copies of the questionnaire so the committee can see what we're after.
The Chair: Thank you.
Thank you, Mrs. Wayne.
There's a 30-minute bell calling. We still have two people who've indicated they wish to speak.
Mr. Clouthier is next.
Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Larry, if you're a little bit hesitant about speaking after George Baker, you're in good company, because the Prime Minister of Canada absolutely hates it when he has to speak after George. He announced that in front of 2,500 people a few weeks ago.
Mr. Minister, you seem to be attaining hero status here. I agree that you've done an absolutely outstanding job, but I'm thinking of something that a former political soulmate of yours, Joey Smallwood, once said when they were saying he was a hero because he brought Newfoundland into Confederation. He said, “Listen, don't call me a hero, because as soon as a person starts to be a hero, they'll start writing a tragedy.”
The tragedy that I believe could happen to Veterans Affairs, Mr. Minister, would be if you did not go on some of these overseas trips with the veterans. You've indicated that you haven't gone there yet. I was very fortunate last year. I was at the 55th anniversary for D-Day with the previous minister, Fred Mifflin. And I see Terry Tobin here, who was there. I just could not believe how much the veterans really appreciated the minister being there. It certainly dignified their position and paid respect to them.
So I would strongly encourage you, Mr. Minister, especially considering your rather ebullient personality.... I believe they would just absolutely love it if you'd take some of these overseas trips. As a matter of fact, I'd be prepared to pass a motion. We should order you to go on some of these trips, because it's just great for Veterans Affairs.
Now, there was a tragic situation—and I know that we touched on it and you certainly seem to have sewn it up—with our merchant mariners. I would like to ask you one specific question, Mr. Minister. Since some of the merchant mariner organizations were involved with the process.... I know you held consultations with them last summer and that as a result of that we came together with a package.
Now that you've sent out these applications and are starting to scrutinize them—you said there were probably a little less than 50% being approved—are any of those organizations still involved a bit with the appeal process? Perhaps there are situations that we, the government, really never thought about that could come into play.
It's not only just a good public relations move. I'm just wondering. If there were certain circumstances, would people like Cliff Chadderton and other people be apprised of it and asked for input, just because they might know something that we—meaning the department—don't know? I know they were appreciative of the fact that you involved them initially. I'm just wondering if they have been involved in any of these appeal processes.
Mr. George Baker: They have been involved on a continuous basis concerning how this is going. At the end of the six-month period, they will be involved again in order for us to seek their advice. You see, our problem here is that it's a very.... We had to send out people to search through the archives in various provinces. They were searching through the archives because, as was pointed out by Mrs. Wayne, the transport records of those ships were not complete.
So here we are, in a very imperfect world here. Nobody knows the numbers of merchant navy veterans that are there. Nobody knows. The merchant navy organizations apparently made a good guess, an approximate guess.
• 1020
The department, in trying to be careful now as to the
amount of money, made a guess of 7,000; the merchant
navy organizations around 4,500 to 5,000, according to
the application. They were involved in the guidelines,
because you have to be careful. This is almost like a
balancing act. You shouldn't pay money to somebody who
didn't do something that's being recognized. There's a
very fine line in that. What ships did you sail on
under which you should be compensated?
So various guidelines were developed, and they're very complex. The ship would have gone between provinces. The crew members would have received danger pay—things like that. So there's a whole list of complicated things. This is not cut and dried, and anybody who says it is doesn't know the subject. It's a very complicated procedure. But I think it's working out.
In answer to your question, there's constant consultation now, and there will be more at the end of the six-month period, of course. Let's be fair here...I don't want to talk about this. I'd rather talk about this privately, but we might as well talk about it publicly.
Suppose there's money left over. The veterans' organization said to me, “Look, we had to go with very fine lines here. If there's money left over, shouldn't this little group or that little group also receive compensation because they did approximately the same thing?”
A line has to be drawn somewhere. I hate admitting this publicly, but the veterans' organization suggested we build in little bit of leeway. On the one hand, you have to go back and ask for more money. On the other hand, there may be a little left over for you to be as generous as perhaps you should have been in the beginning but weren't, because you didn't want to open the thing up to the sky.
That's why the consultation is there. That's why it's necessary. Perhaps there might be $1 million left over. Who knows?
How much did I spend a few minutes ago when I said these people would be covered?
Mr. Ian Murray: $24,000.
Mr. George Baker: Well that shouldn't break the bank.
That's why the constant consultation is there.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Clouthier.
Mr. Goldring, do you have more questions?
Mr. Peter Goldring: I have just a final question, if I could. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Minister, you alluded to national standards for veterans' health care. What exactly will they be? Will they be published standards that will be adhered to by veterans facilities across the country, or just a guidelines rule book? Will they be something you'll be asking all areas across Canada to adhere to, or will they be merely suggested guidelines?
Mr. George Baker: The Department of Veterans Affairs and the taxpayers of Canada pay for those services to the hospitals. Of course, we expect a certain standard. That standard has changed over the years; it's gone up, not down. We have recognized over the years that as our veterans got older they deserved a certain level of care. We accept as being fact today that if the care for a veteran is not provided under the provincial care system, other things that are needed are supplied by Veterans Affairs.
We spoke a few minutes ago about this great push by veterans' organizations so the care will be complete. In other words, it shouldn't be just what the Canadian Legion, Cliff Chadderton, and ANAVETS say. The care should be there, but not just restricted to the pensioned condition. So if somebody needs an oxygen tank, has two legs gone and that's their pensioned condition—100% pension—should we be nickeling and diming them and saying, “Well, you know, that's not related to your pensioned condition so you shouldn't get it”?
Our system is evolving into a more comprehensive system and our standard is constantly rising. Some people object and say, “Perhaps you're going too far with this”. I don't think we're going too far with this. The contribution was made and we have to recognize it.
• 1025
Mr. Peter Goldring: Would that same standard level be applicable to the building condition itself, for example? A lot of rural hospitals are changing from having open wards to having individual and semi-private rooms. Having visited Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue in Montreal, I've seen that they still operate with a large, 16- or 20-bed ward system. It's like a barracks. There's the suggestion that there should be more private rooms, at least semi-private or four people to a room, rather than the very impersonal ward system. Would that standard be applicable to the building structure as well?
Mr. George Baker: Let me answer the question this way. If you look at it historically, the Department of Veterans Affairs has been the forerunner. They have set the standard.
The Department of Veterans Affairs, after the Second World War, instituted a system similar to our medicare system. It was the forerunner of medicare. The Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act, passed in 1958, gave the federal government a 50% expenditure into the maintenance of hospitals and the operation of those hospitals and so on. The Department of Veterans Affairs was the one that actually started that after the Second World War, learning from the mistakes we had made after the First World War, in which we didn't provide those services.
What I hope will happen is that these new initiatives by Veterans Affairs could perhaps be the forerunner of new improvements, ways of dealing with the aged, and so on. Again, Veterans Affairs would lead the way in setting standards that perhaps we should be having in Canada with the provincial health care systems.
Mr. Peter Goldring: Facility standards, too?
Mr. George Baker: All standards, yes.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Goldring.
Now back to Mr. O'Reilly, please.
Mr. John O'Reilly: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Minister, the complexity of the department is something that has always annoyed me when you come to dealing with the.... Maybe you've touched on it in the estimates. You are responsible directly for 16 acts of Parliament, some of them going back as far as 1920. You share six with Transport, Finance, Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the Solicitor General, and Treasury Board. Then you have another 30 associated regulations that are direct and another three that are shared with National Defence, Transport, and Treasury Board.
There are some things in here that are so outdated that I'm sure they were brought in before the Dead Sea was even sick, as the saying goes. Is there some way that when you're bringing forward your omnibus bill, your new regulations, you could combine...? With some of these regulations and some of the legislation that has come through, there is so much duplication and combination of various acts that I wouldn't know how your department would be able to interpret them and in fact why some of them are not combined into some type of less complex bill or act.
If I remember rightly, in 1978 there were a large number of changes brought through in the act. Is it not time to combine this legislation and to update it?
Mr. George Baker: Absolutely. I'll tell you what the department calls this stovepipe legislation that we have all over the years. It leads to confusion, it leads to inequities. You know, the whole system should be....
For example, there was an 80-year-old man in a hospital in Calgary. He had been there since 1945 in a chronic care institution. He has since been released to a group home because it was more convenient for him and the family. But because we have this stovepipe legislation, he only qualifies for chronic care facilities. The Department of Veterans Affairs cannot pay for his stay in a group home.
• 1030
You have situations where today you have people in
very expensive chronic care facilities who do not
qualify for a community facility, which is of lesser
cost, because of this stovepipe legislation, all over
the years, as you pointed out. The time has come to
consolidate and to simplify and to remove these
inequities in the system.
We have a bill coming. Deputy, do you want to comment on that?
Mr. Larry Murray: I think the minister's most compelling point was about bringing some sense to this. We hope this continuum of service initiative he's referring to will do that.
In terms of legislation, in terms of the omnibus and other bills, we will be repealing a number of obsolete acts. If you would be interested, Mr. Chairman, we could give you a detailed response to that over time.
The Chair: I'm sure we'd be very interested in that. Thank you.
I have to follow our pattern and give Mrs. Wayne another chance, and then I'll go to Mrs. Longfield.
Do you have any more questions, Mrs. Wayne?
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I just have one.
You were talking about your questionnaire. When I was at our veterans' hospital back home for a meeting, which was not too long ago, they had a craft program that you wouldn't believe. I used to buy the crafts the veterans made for Christmas gifts. They had to lay off the lady.... This kept them busy; this kept them motivated and gave them something to look forward to, and now they don't have anything to do.
If you're just sitting in a wheelchair and all day long you can't do anything, the time is very long. That doesn't help their physical condition. It really doesn't. I'm wondering if we're going to look at this sort of thing. Are we looking at that?
Mr. George Baker: That's precisely why these very complex questionnaires have gone out. They cover the very thing you're talking about. I received complaints from all across Canada when I first became minister seven months ago. Of course, this was necessary and this is what we've done. We asked them their opinion on all of those things.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: The other thing is that we still have our chef.
Mr. George Baker: Pardon?
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Well, they were going to take the chef out and fly in the fried eggs from Ontario. I said, “You're not doing that. I'll come out and fry the damn eggs myself”, so they kept the chef. We've got our chef and we fry our eggs right on the spot. You're bloody right.
Voices: Oh, oh!
The Chair: They'd be pretty hard boiled by the time they flew in from Ontario.
Colleagues, we'll soon be needed in the House, so I'm going to give the last question to Mrs. Longfield before I thank the minister.
Mrs. Judi Longfield: Minister, in our quality-of-life report, one of the recommendations made by the committee was that military personnel who'd served in a special duty area be classified as veterans. Where are we with that study, and what might we expect?
Mr. George Baker: You're absolutely correct in your recommendations.
Deputy, you have the legal man.
Mr. Larry Murray: We are examining that, and veterans' organizations are examining it as well. Indeed that is one of the resolutions at the biannual convention of the legion in June in Halifax. The minister is waiting until they reach their resolution, and then we will take action on it, with the support of the veterans' organizations.
One thing that has become very clear in relation to the peacekeeper issues that are troubling all of us, which your report was invaluable to start addressing, is recognition as part of the cure. This is more than lip service; this is really important, in my view. We're waiting. The legion actually has a resolution that recommends that SDA-serving peacekeepers and Ferry Command be considered as veterans. That happens in June, and we will follow up on that.
• 1035
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Longfield.
The last, très brève question goes to Monsieur Bertrand.
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand: I would like to ask the Minister if this year on November 11 the department will pay for wreaths. I know that last year the department paid for the wreaths.
[English]
Mr. George Baker: Yes, and did you notice the improvement in the size and so on?
An hon. member: They were wonderful.
Mr. George Baker: I knew you'd appreciate the increase in size.
An hon. member: Absolutely. We noticed an improvement.
The Chair: Minister, Mr. Hanger has joined us and has promised a very short question despite—
An hon. member: That's hard to believe.
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
The Chair: Even though Mr. Goldring's had a huge amount of time, we're going to give Mr. Hanger a very short question.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much.
Minister Baker, I have to say that I appreciate the report that you and Minister Eggleton submitted. Both of you signed this report on the quality-of-life issues for the military. I just wanted to ask one question in reference to the housing portfolio. I know you both collaborated on this particular report with respect to the health and safety repairs that were specifically directed from the government to accommodate a better living condition for the members themselves and their families. It goes like this. The department has provided to CFHA an additional $50 million to implement a dedicated married quarter health and safety repair program. How much of that $50 million is spent, and how far along is this examination of the married quarter accommodation?
Mr. George Baker: You're referring to PMQs?
Mr. Art Hanger: Yes.
Mr. George Baker: Unless the deputy knows something more about this than I do, it is my understanding that the Department of National Defence maintains that responsibility. What happens in their budget is that each one of the base commanders submits a budget every single year for repairs to PMQs. That budget goes up the line to headquarters, and decisions are made in Calgary.
Mr. Art Hanger: I thought the housing agency was responsible for the repairs.
Mr. George Baker: It's whatever housing agency it is that's with Department of National Defence. I don't think we have any input whatsoever, but I'll ask the deputy.
The Chair: Just briefly.
Mr. Larry Murray: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
That is a very important issue and a very important question, but in relation to our responsibility and the minister's responsibility in the quality-of-life initiative, we were responsible for sixteen recommendations with respect to injured, retired, and veterans. Therefore, the report that was generated was generated with that same accountability in mind. In other words, the ministers shared in the report, but only for those areas for which they were responsible and accountable. In the case of PMQs, they are Minister Eggleton's responsibility.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hanger.
Minister I want to mention your parliamentary secretary, Bob Wood, and also Mr. Bertrand, the national defence parliamentary secretary, and thank them for the good work they do at this committee. I want to thank your officials and you for joining us this morning and for sharing so much of your time.
I do have to second my colleagues who have encouraged you to go on pilgrimage from time to time. I had the opportunity to personally go on one, the Battle of the Atlantic, two years ago with former Minister Mifflin. Frankly, I thought he did an outstanding job on those pilgrimages. It was much appreciated by the veterans, and I know you could do equally as well. So I add my encouragement for you to do that.
I say thank you from all of the committee, and I'll give the last word to the minister.
Mr. George Baker: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I also want to point out what a great job Bob Wood has done as parliamentary secretary. He's just been fantastic.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
Mr. George Baker: Everybody appreciates Bob, the veterans especially.
I also want to thank the officials. As I said before, we have a fantastic deputy minister, and the assistant deputies are just as fantastic. The department is the most dedicated group of people in any government in the world. They're dedicated to providing service for our veterans.
• 1040
I want to say in conclusion what a tremendous job
this committee has done. I mean, just imagine it. Over
seven months, look at the number of motions you've
passed and the activity you had in terms of being
directly involved in making decisions. You made
another decision here today, and I think that's the way
it should be.
Thank you very much.
Voices: Hear, hear!
The Chair: Thank you, Minister.
The meeting is adjourned.