NDVA Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA DÉFENSE NATIONALE ET DES ANCIENS COMBATTANTS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, December 1, 1998

• 1528

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.)): I call to order the meeting of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs.

I welcome our witnesses for today, Mr. Jim Rycroft and Mr. Parks. Who would like to begin?

Mr. Allan Parks (Chairman, Veterans Service and Seniors Committee, Royal Canadian Legion): I will start, Mr. Chairman.

The Royal Canadian Legion is pleased to have this opportunity to present our report on veterans issues to the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs.

I am Allan Parks, chairman of the veterans services and seniors committee. I am accompanied by Jim Rycroft, director of the service bureau, Dominion Command.

Pension reform, formally implemented in September 1995, has had a marked impact on veterans. By veterans we refer to those who served in World War I, World War II, and in Korea, and in the allied or Commonwealth forces during wartime and in special duty areas. It also impacts on currently serving and recently released members of the Canadian Forces. For the most part, the effects of pension reform have been positive.

• 1530

Departmental adjudicators of Veterans Affairs Canada are at the focal point of a humane and compassionate system. Dialogue between Legion service officers and adjudicators in individual cases helps us resolve matters quickly and efficiently without the need for formal recourse either through the department or through the Veterans Review and Appeal Board. The complaint is much better served as a result.

Veterans Affairs Canada has been responsive to suggestions for change. A prime example is omnibus legislation that is now being tabled to implement changes to the Pension Act, which will eliminate a problem in obtaining a fair assessment in respect of surviving pensions. The widows proportionate issue was a number one priority of the Legion through its resolution process. Veterans Affairs Canada is to be commended for its veritable and timely response.

Another positive milestone by the department is the passing of legislation to restrict increases to room and board rates at departmental facilities and cap them to the consumer price index.

Additionally, a recent policy change allows service officers to register the date of first contract and client by telephone. This allows a date protection of disability pension benefits in an effective way. Before, it had to be done in writing.

All of this is very positive. However, problems remain and I will ask the director of the service bureau to talk about some of the outstanding areas of concern.

Mr. Jim Rycroft (Director, Service Bureau, Royal Canadian Legion): As Mr. Parks has mentioned, the departmental response to pension reform has been very positive. While we haven't received as an organization all of the changes that we have suggested, there is a continuing dialogue. As a result we feel we are being consulted in a meaningful way.

Another example of this is the department's having agreed to provide access by Legion service officers at provincial and dominion command to their electronic system of all the client information that is held on our clients. This gives us the same resources as the pension officers and the Bureau of Pensions Advocates lawyers who work for the department have, so that we may all better serve our clients. We expect implementation of this within a little over six months from the present time.

Unfortunately, in contrast our relationship with the Veterans Review and Appeal Board has not been as positive. The most troublesome issue revolves around hearing loss cases.

Section 19(2) of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act has allowed the board to classify as frivolous, trivial and vexatious almost 900 hearing loss claims since pension reform in 1995. Clients are therefore being effectively denied recourse to a meaningful appeal process if they are not successful in their application for pension to the department at the first level of adjudication. It's particularly disappointing because during the parliamentary hearings on Bill C-67, the legislation that implemented pension reform in 1994, when the Legion expressed concern about the potential excessive use of section 19(2), we were told that it would be used rarely.

The Veterans Review and Appeal Board has stated that it has adopted departmental policy on hearing loss. That policy is reproduced in its entirety as chapter nine to the table of disabilities, which is enclosed as an annex along with chapters one and two extracts, so that you can have reference to the appropriate material during this presentation.

The part of the policy that refers to hearing loss being established if there is a certain decibel loss at specified frequencies is relatively simple to apply. It is a question of doing the arithmetic and if a result meets the policy then pension is granted. Otherwise, one has to look to the rest of the policy. Under that part of the policy, departmental adjudicators may, and often do, consider other medical evidence either from the file of the individual who is putting the case forward or by way of expert medical evidence that's adduced by the client.

In contrast, the Veterans Review and Appeal Board does not consider such evidence in that way. Moreover, it categorizes any attempts to bring forward such evidence as frivolous and vexatious, citing section 19(2) of the VRAB Act. Therefore, even though a disability is widely defined under the act, section 2 and departmental policy which the VRAB has adopted allows for consideration of other evidence, under the current practice of the board, the client has no chance of success. The board simply won't consider additional evidence.

• 1535

Further, if he or she has to advance the case through the board with this evidence, even if the policy changes in the future, the client will have wasted his or her chance and will not be able to go before the board again simply because the policy has changed.

Legion service officers and Bureau of Pensions Advocates lawyers have shared their hearing loss case experience at the respective conferences held separately but at the same time in Charlottetown at the end of October. As a result of their observations, subject to the instructions of the client to proceed in any event, even though there's no chance of success, we have withdrawn the hearing loss cases I've referred to from the review and appeal level of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board until such time as the application of this policy as interpreted by the board changes.

Appropriate cases that haven't yet proceeded through the review level will be referred back to the departmental authorities for ministerial review under the Pension Act. Experience has shown us as representatives that departmental adjudicators may consider such other evidence, specifically expert medical evidence, and arrive at a favourable result for the client.

Until this matter is resolved however, in those cases where the department does not respond favourably to these clients and their evidence, they are without recourse. Clients will not succeed in front of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board. That's the universal observation of all of the Legion service officers, and all of the Bureau of Pensions Advocates lawyers in the cases particularly in the last year that they have presented that are of this nature.

To break the impasse, the Legion, in consultation with other veterans organizations, the Bureau of Pensions Advocates and the Canadian Forces, will be requesting clarification from the Veterans Review and Appeal Board by way of interpretation under the VRAB Act. This is a process the act allows for. The board would then formally state how it applies the act and this policy to the act.

The proposed questions for this interpretation procedure are included as an annex to this presentation. Those questions which you see included are not necessarily the final ones we will go with to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, but give you an indication of the kinds of issues we want to raise with them. We will probably have something that's a little more simplified than the page there, which is somewhat complex.

If the Legion is not satisfied with the principles adduced by the board in its interpretation of the act as it applies to this hearing loss policy, then our further recourse could be to the Federal Court. Unfortunately, previous attempts to entreat the Veterans Review and Appeal Board to exercise its powers in accordance with the principles and requirements of the Pension Act have not resulted in success.

An example of this is the Federal Court case of MacKay, and I've included a copy of the decision by Mr. Justice Teitelbaum in the materials. In that case, Justice Teitelbaum admonished the VRAB for its rejection of new expert evidence in the client's case.

The learned justice directed that the Veterans Review and Appeal Board should accept Dr. Murdock's evidence and give the applicant the benefit of every reasonable inference on the basis of this evidence if it finds the evidence to be credible, and that it's bound to do that under the legislation.

He went on to say that if the VRAB is not prepared to accept the evidence as credible, it should provide reasons for its refusal and its conclusion of non-credibility, and still always bear in mind the dictates of section 3 and section 39 of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act.

Those sections refer to a liberal construction of the statutes to be applied to disability pension cases; the duty to draw every reasonable inference in favour of the applicant or appellant; to accept any uncontradicted evidence presented to it by the applicant or appellant that it considers to be credible in the circumstances; and to resolve in favour of the applicant or appellant any doubt in the weighing of evidence, as to whether the applicant or appellant has established a case.

These are very, very powerful sections in the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act and the Pension Act that are almost unparalleled in any other tribunal system. It's a very generous statute towards veterans, but the interpretation of that statute has to follow suit with the intent.

Following the Federal Court decision, the Veterans Review and Appeal Board about a year later, on April 27, 1998—and that decision I've included in the material as well—again considered the MacKay case in the light of the directions given to it by the Federal Court. The board members then dismissed the medical evidence as not credible, citing in part that it is based on the appellant's unsubstantiated claim relating to a motor vehicle accident.

This would suggest that the board has found Mr. MacKay's evidence not to be credible, since they have apparently not accepted his evidence about his accident and have chosen to conclude that the lack of documentation and records is fatal to a successful resolution in his case. That's contained in pages 6 and 7 of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board decision in MacKay.

• 1540

This approach to evidence puts the veterans in an impossible situation. Military records of World War II veterans, Korea veterans and those who have served their country since that time even now invariably contain large gaps through no fault of the applicant for disability pension.

Reports on injuries are not done when they should be. Paper is misfiled or it's not initiated when it should be. It could even be filed on the wrong individual's docket. As a service officer, I have encountered the wrong person's information and have had to point out that it had to be removed to the right docket.

If the board is not prepared to accept the client's evidence—and I must say this is sworn evidence from the client—as potentially probative in filling the gaps, then the board denies any effective recourse to an applicant.

In our view, the board has a duty to assess the credibility of the applicant and other witnesses at the review hearing when the evidence is given under oath. If it is credible, the evidence must be accepted. If it is not, because the board is not bound to accept everything, it should make a finding to that effect. It cannot say as a board in all fairness that the evidence of the client, even if believed, is incapable of filling the gap in evidence. That apparently though is the current state of affairs.

What I'm suggesting then is that going to the Federal Court is not a meaningful way of proceeding. It simply has resulted in the board making a decision which confirms its original decision notwithstanding the direction of the Federal Court.

The chairman and members of the board are governor in council appointees. They are responsible to cabinet and the Parliament of Canada.

In this submission, we have brought to your attention what we believe is a significant problem in the functioning of this board which results in an injustice to those who come before it and who have the right to the benefit of the doubt and every favourable inference being drawn in their favour. That is what the act says.

Your intervention to correct this injustice is urgently solicited. We invite any questions on the material.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

There will be questions, I am sure. I will start with the Reform Party: Mr. Goldring for ten minutes.

Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Thank you very much, Mr. Rycroft, for your presentation.

In the early part of your presentation you mentioned veterans. Are you referring to merchant navy veterans as well?

Mr. Jim Rycroft: Yes, I am. The same system that applies to the uniform veterans as of 1992 applies to merchant navy veterans.

Mr. Peter Goldring: With the merchant navy veterans, we had a committee meeting recently. I'm sure you've been involved with some of the concerns that the merchant navy veterans have had. If I were to ask you some specific points that we're trying to clarify for future use for this committee too, I am wondering if you could help me by clarifying with a yes or no or comments on them. We are rendering the points down to four points that seem to be of specific concern to the merchant navy veterans.

Mr. Jim Rycroft: I believe so, Mr. Goldring. We met with the merchant navy coalition relatively recently on this and other issues. We try to keep attune with the merchant navy. We as an organization are in support of the merchant navy as veterans.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Very good. That was the first question, is it your opinion that they wish to be recognized as war veterans?

Mr. Jim Rycroft: Yes. In fact it's our opinion that they are recognized as war veterans through the Merchant Navy Civilian War-Related Benefits Act and that when that act is brought over through the omnibus bill into the Pension Act that will have achieved both the perception and the reality of that recognition of veterans.

Mr. Peter Goldring: The second item they had is that they wish to receive full prisoner of war benefits.

Mr. Jim Rycroft: Yes. That's an issue we covered at our national convention held in Winnipeg in June of this year.

A resolution was passed to extend prisoner of war benefits to those who were incarcerated in excess of four years. We didn't specifically say the merchant navy, but we know that most of those incarcerated for more than four years were merchant navy veterans. That resolution was designed to correct what we perceive as an injustice in the compensation system for prisoners of war.

Our chairman will be taking that resolution in the very near future to the department and exhorting the department to change the prisoner of war compensation to allow compensation for merchant navy veterans and others who were incarcerated for long periods of time.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Very good. To be compensated for the years of inequality, the years that they did not have full status and benefits that other services had, some form of contribution.

Mr. Jim Rycroft: Yes, the Legion feels that some form of compensation is appropriate. The difficulty we have is in tying it to a specific dollar amount, say $30,000. We believe that more work has to be done to look at the basis for such fair and reasonable compensation.

Mr. Peter Goldring: But to look at compensation.

• 1545

Mr. Jim Rycroft: Absolutely. We would like to be part of that process because we have represented merchant navy veterans for a number of years now in the disability pension process, assisting their widows and so forth, as we have with all veterans.

Mr. Peter Goldring: The fourth specific point was to receive recognition on ceremonial days.

Mr. Jim Rycroft: Yes. We met with the merchant navy coalition and explained in detail the Legion's position on the vice-regal party. We understand the merchant navy coalition no longer is pressing to be part of the vice-regal party.

Mr. Peter Goldring: For them to have the recognition on ceremonial days seems to be important to them.

Mr. Jim Rycroft: Absolutely, Mr. Goldring. Specifically, we looked at the material given to the press. We made sure there were more references made to the merchant navy in that material so that if the CBC or the other media representatives covering it have access to more things, they would be able to address them during these ceremonies that are covered by the media.

Mr. Peter Goldring: So to cover it, your organization would be in agreement and in support of the merchant navy concerns under those four headings.

Mr. Jim Rycroft: Absolutely, to the extent I've laid out.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Very good.

To go on to another matter, dealing with Legion Magazine, are you comfortable that all the issues have been addressed that will retain Legion Magazine? I understand there is legislation before the House. Are you comfortable that Legion Magazine is not being unduly affected by the legislation? Maybe you could give the committee some idea of what circulation it has and how important it is to your organization.

Mr. Jim Rycroft: The issue you are referring to I believe is the postal subsidy for Legion Magazine. If the general rule in Canada were to apply, it would cause Legion Magazine, which is the principal organ by which we go out to our some 500,000 members, to have a really heavy financial burden placed on it.

The government has indicated there will be an exception made for Legion Magazine, because of its purposes to advance the efforts of veterans and their dependants. There will be consideration, postal subsidy, and with the rather complicated formula, the details of which I don't have with me, we will be in as good a position as we were prior to the subsidy being removed.

That is my understanding from my colleagues in CanVet, the Legion Magazine directors. The concern is, if my I read my colleagues correctly, that we're vulnerable to somebody changing the system at a moment's notice and that subsidy then coming off and the burden again falling on the shoulders of the members.

As you can probably imagine, it's very expensive to produce a magazine of the quality of Legion Magazine for our 500,000 members. Right now we do it very effectively and efficiently. We would hate to see the postal costs exceed the entire other costs of producing that magazine.

Mr. Peter Goldring: What would the circulation of that magazine be?

Mr. Jim Rycroft: It's approximately 500,000.

Mr. Peter Goldring: How many times a year is that?

Mr. Jim Rycroft: Five times a year.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Perhaps you could give us the size of your organization. I understand you're opening the new membership drive up to other areas. This was discussed and resolved at your convention. Maybe you could give us an idea how broad it is being opened up. Is it just ex-military?

Mr. Jim Rycroft: I think Mr. Parks could talk to the membership issue. He was, prior to his present position, the chairman of our membership committee.

Mr. Allan Parks: After our national convention in June, we put a resolution on the floor that would open our doors to an organization that we certainly don't want to see die. As you know, unfortunately we are losing our veteran population.

We put a resolution on the floor. Any member that is basically associated in any way with the Legion as far as having the aims and objects of the Legion at heart we call fraternal members and have no voting privileges whatsoever. These people have the aims and objects at heart. They are interested in the same things we are interested in, so we said let's put a resolution on the floor. They would start out as affiliate non-voting members and after two years of service in the branch they would become affiliate voting members. This would give them every privilege within the ranks of the Legion to work their way up and hopefully keep the organization alive and well long into the future.

• 1550

That was the whole attempt at it. The convention floor has accepted it wholeheartedly. We certainly hope to see our numbers go up. We've certainly been losing on average between 40,000 and 50,000 members per year over the last 10 years. The numbers of recruits we're bringing in are certainly not over and above that. We're not increasing; we're staying between 500,000 and 550,000. We hope that we'll increase those numbers by that new resolution.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Very good. Just a general observation or question. This year you had the Remembrance Day services on the Hill because the war monument area was under construction, I believe. Because it was such a nice turnout on the Hill, are there any ideas or intentions to have the service on the Hill, or would it be back to the war monument next year?

Mr. Allan Parks: We have a meeting coming up this weekend. Unfortunately I will not be at it; I will be away. It was something we discussed on our walk over here this afternoon.

It was the first time I actually had the opportunity—or second time, sorry—to watch it on national TV. Of course it was the first time I saw it coming from the Hill. It was very impressive. We feel that we had much, much larger support, larger crowds. It seemed better all the way around. I know that will certainly be discussed at our meeting, but the whole intention was this was temporary and the national war monument is there and that's what will be used. That could change. It will certainly be discussed.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Very good. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Goldring. We'll go to the Liberal side, Mr. Bob Wood, parliamentary secretary for veterans affairs.

Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.): Mr. Rycroft, at the conclusion of your submission you ask that we as a committee intervene to ensure that the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, VRAB, correct this problem of access to hearing loss claims. Everybody knows that the VRAB is a quasi-judicial board that acts at arm's length from Parliament, actually in order to avoid interference by MPs. I'm not sure that what you're asking can be done directly. However, if you have any suggestions on how best to proceed, I would certainly welcome them.

Mr. Jim Rycroft: I thought perhaps that the chairman of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board would like to respond since he was the author of Bill C-67 fortuitously before his appointment. He authored various provisions of the legislation. I thought it may be possible to ask him for his report on the legislation, on its intent and so forth. If he were to make a statement about the principles that the board did apply, this would serve as a public record for his members to look at.

If I could be frank, the problem we have is that board members are coming to us privately and saying that they feel constrained by the interpretation the chair has put on the policy with their board. If the chairman were to make a public pronouncement, either through the interpretation route or before this body, of how the legislation should be interpreted and if that allowed for consideration of the evidence as we suggest the law should allow it, that would solve the problem.

Mr. Bob Wood: Okay. The Auditor General's report came out earlier today. I have not yet had the opportunity to read all of it. Veterans Affairs is mentioned.

The report congratulated Veterans Affairs for reducing the waiting period for disability pensions from eighteen months down to five months. However, it also states that the department needs to clarify and update the medical guidelines—I think that's what it says—it uses to assess the extent of an applicant's disability. I suspect that you would agree with the statement that it complements the issues you raise in your brief very well. Are there any other specific medical guidelines, like hearing loss, that could be better clarified or applied more judiciously?

Mr. Jim Rycroft: Yes, there are, Mr. Wood. The one that comes to mind immediately is post-traumatic stress disorder. In fact the Legion sponsored a post-traumatic stress disorder symposium in Charlottetown just a little over a month ago. We had all the senior levels of the department, all the departmental adjudicators attend and so forth. We had Dr. Ruth MacKenzie, who I believe is being contracted by the department to look at the criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder, present the direction in which the department seems to be going. However, what we need is to translate that into an action plan.

• 1555

We need to take the material they've looked at and put that in the table of disabilities so that we know what criteria we have to meet when we're advocating in these kinds of cases. Regrettably with the large number of troops that we're sending to areas like the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, post-traumatic stress disorder is increasingly part of our business. That is one area.

A second area is we would like the department to revisit the hearing loss policy. For the purposes of the presentation this afternoon, we've taken the policy as a given and said even then the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, which has adopted that policy, is not applying it the way that the department is or the way that we submit a quasi-judicial body should. We would like to sit down with the department and revisit some of the criteria so that we make sure that medical evidence in Canada has been canvassed to fairly represent what constitutes a hearing loss.

For example, there's a glaring inconsistency now. A person can be released from the Canadian Forces for having hearing that is below the standards for the Canadian Forces and yet not be eligible for compensation because they do not have a disability under the Veterans Affairs table of disability. That to me is a tremendous gap which has to be covered in order to make this system fair.

The Chairman: Mr. Proud, you have five minutes.

Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): I'd like to welcome Mr. Rycroft and Mr. Parks.

I wanted to follow up on this business of the hearing loss. I believe that we should have the now chairman, Mr. Chambers, come before us. I remember quite vividly and I begin to feel old because I'm probably one of the few who was around this table when this bill went through. I seem to be finding this out more and more each day as I come to these hearings.

One thing was stressed to me specifically. I asked a specific question about these frivolous and vexatious cases that they had before them and I wanted them to determine to me what that would be. Mr. Chambers said this would not be taken into consideration very often, there would be times for it.

I can tell you there was a case in my riding of a gentleman who was a veteran. He had hearing problems and he had other problems as well. They made him walk up and down stairs, do the stress test. The man could hardly walk along the street let alone do that. He said “That's not the problem. I have a hearing problem.” We pushed the envelope. He went back through the system again. The next time he went back through the system he got a retroactive payment of approximately $40,000 plus a pension of $1,054 a month. This led me to believe that this couldn't have been frivolous and vexatious, he must have been able to have that.

I would like to hear from the people on the board. I'd like Mr. Chambers to come before us and explain to us why this is happening. When you look at the number, 900 hearing loss claims, that are trying to get before this board, I think something is wrong here. They all can't be frivolous and vexatious. I can't believe that. I can't believe that's part of the problem. As I said we were assured at that time that this wouldn't happen. I would like to hear from the people who were here at that time also.

Mr. Jim Rycroft: Thank you, Mr. Proud. I was there and heard the same thing as you did. That's what has caused concern now. There was a very clear statement from Mr. Chambers that it would be used rarely.

The approximately 900 times is because of the policy application. It's a simple principle. Basically the board has said any additional evidence no matter what it is, is trivial, frivolous and vexatious.

We had the opportunity to have the board address us when we were in Charlottetown. The chairman gave us a dissertation. He made it very clear what his philosophy was in determining this frivolous, trivial and vexatious issue.

In the omnibus bill the wording is going to be changed. It's no longer going to be trivial, frivolous and vexatious. My understanding is the words are going to be kinder, but the result will still be there. It's still a very powerful tool which in our view should be used very rarely. Again I would hope that the chair will be able to explain it.

The chair will tell you, I am sure, that he commissioned an independent consultant's report to look at his use of the section. He provided us, the Legion, and other organizations with a copy of the consultant's report. If he does, I would ask the members here to consider that the Legion was not consulted by the consultant or we would have been able to make some observations on this use of the section.

• 1600

In effect, in our view, the consultant's report that the chairman uses to justify the use of this section is, regrettably, somewhat self-serving. I would ask the members if they see that consultant's report to look very closely as to why the consultant did not see fit to talk to veterans organizations before forming the conclusions.

Mr. George Proud: I think that we should have an opportunity to view this. I note Mr. Wood has said we can't have direct access to the members of the board because they are a quasi-judicial organization and we're not supposed to have any input whatsoever. That's why they're there. But I do believe that the message should get out.

There was another thing we were assured of, as you remember, during the hearings on that bill. Some people were concerned about the benefit of the doubt and that the benefit of the doubt obviously is not going in favour of the veteran. Really, Mr. Chairman, this upsets me.

Some good things came out of that bill, there's no doubt about it. The turnaround time has been cut in half. Other good things have happened. But by the sound of this, there are some things somebody has to take a serious look at. We should have the members of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, or some organization, maybe some of the bureaucrats, come before us to explain the situation to us.

Just one other item, if I might.

The Chairman: You can have a quick question, Mr. Proud.

Mr. George Proud: Did I understand when Mr. Goldring was questioning you that you people said that you agree with the retroactive payment the merchant seamen are looking for?

Mr. Jim Rycroft: No, not the one they're looking for, because we haven't seen the justification for that. We agree with the principle that if there was unfairness in their treatment, then there should be appropriate compensation.

If I can expand on that just a little bit, one of the issues, for example, is whether education allowances or Veterans Land Act benefits should be provided. One has to remember that members of the uniform forces didn't all apply for those benefits. So is it now fair to go back retroactively and give everyone who could have conceivably applied a lump sum equivalent? That has to be viewed with great caution.

On the other hand, we're not against the principle of retroactivity in the appropriate cases. If after this situation is looked at there is a basis for fair compensation, quite frankly it's going to be difficult to determine who should be eligible. Who would have applied for Veterans Land Act? Not everybody did who was eligible. Who would have applied for the education benefits?

The other issue I would like to address is whether it is fair to base it on length of service. Veterans Affairs Canada has gone out of its way and the Legion has been very much supportive of the concept of basing its programs on need. One should perhaps be very cautious about saying if you served for six months, you get a certain amount, if you served for six years, you get a greater amount. Translate this into veterans care. Do you say you only get the veterans independence program for three months if you served for a couple of weeks? It should be based on need.

The Chairman: That's it for now, Mr. Proud. We can come back.

Mr. George Proud: Put me down again.

The Chairman: I will.

We'll go to Mr. Earle now, ten minutes.

Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Just a quick question for you, Mr. Chairman, before I proceed with the witnesses. There were several mentions made throughout the presentation to annexes and appendices and documents. Were those sent with this, or was this all that was sent to us?

The Chairman: Some time ago, the clerk informs me, the information referred to was sent to our offices. Sometimes this information comes in shortly before, sometimes quite a bit before, and as soon as the clerk gets it, it is sent out so the members will have a chance to look at it.

Mr. Gordon Earle: Thank you.

I want to thank you for your presentation. It seems very clear and to the point.

I notice in the first part of the presentation when you speak about the department, you indicate that you are getting good response from the department on issues.

You did mention, however, under pension reform, the issue of the widows proportionate issue. You indicated that is going to be addressed by the omnibus bill. Since I haven't seen the omnibus bill yet, could you tell me what that widows proportionate issue is about and how you see it being addressed by this bill?

Mr. Jim Rycroft: Yes, Mr. Earle, I'll be pleased to do that.

For a number of years, the Legion has pointed out an inconsistency in the Pension Act. If a widow was in receipt of her late husband's pension—I'll use that because most of the veterans were male—and that pension was paid at a rate of 15%, that widow was not able to go back later through the system and say “I have evidence to show there was a mistake made. The evidence supports medically that that pension should have been paid at 20% or 25%.” Because of the legislation, the way it was written in sections 48 and 49, that widow could not even get in the door to make the argument. The legislation precluded it.

• 1605

In contrast, that very same widow, had her late husband put in for no pension at all, would be able to come in and make an argument that she should have 25%, present the evidence, and go away with 25%. That seemed like a really strange anomaly. Why should a widow whose husband did nothing be able to go out with 25%, which is her due, while the widow whose husband did half a job but not quite right, be stopped from getting the fair compensation?

I must compliment cabinet for sharing with veterans organizations the bill which is in cabinet confidence form, so that we were able to see it and comment before it is passed into legislation. I am very comforted having reviewed the legislation that Richard Brunton from Veterans Affairs Canada presented solves this problem. We are very, very pleased with that result.

What will happen now is service officers and those who represent widows will take a look at cases which we believe are under assessed. Clearly, we don't want to flood the department with every last case. In most instances widows are getting the proper amounts. But in those cases where it looks like there's more evidence on the file, that they have medical evidence that was never presented to the department, we'll look at that and we'll suggest that they present that.

Mr. Gordon Earle: My second question relates to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board. That seems to be where the problems rest insofar as the determination of certain cases goes. You mentioned specifically hearing loss claims. I think in response to a question from the other side, you mentioned post-traumatic stress disorder being another area.

Are there any other areas of disability where you were finding problems in dealing with the board?

Mr. Jim Rycroft: Actually, if I could just clarify that, the issue with the post-traumatic stress disorder is one with the department in the table of disabilities. We have no particular problem in the way the board is reviewing post-traumatic stress disorder appeal cases. They are reasonably successful when we present them to the board.

The broader issue with the board is one of evidence. We've used hearing loss as a very specific example because there is a mechanical formula which the board applies. The chairman has told us flat out that the reason the board has adopted this policy is so that he can have consistency of results. You can have a hearing in Victoria or St. John's, Newfoundland, and you will always get the same answer because the only part of the policy the board members will apply is the mechanical one. You don't have to assess subjective opinions and medical evidence.

Regrettably, the board also applies this evidentiary principle for other things. In the process at the review level, an applicant is able to give testimony under oath. That applicant might say, “I did 500 parachute jumps. Now I've got leg problems. My records show that I was at a parachute school, but I don't have records of all of those 500 jumps.” The board would say, “Well that's too bad. We can't find any documentary evidence in corroboration of your statement. We believe you had 500 jumps, but it's not here on the evidence in front of us. We're sorry, we can't make a positive decision for you.”

That's the sort of concern we have. It's a treatment of evidence.

Mr. Gordon Earle: Your suggestion to remedy that is if the board determines that the person is credible, then they should accept that as being sufficient to justify the claim.

Mr. Jim Rycroft: Absolutely.

If I could make another observation, what we really find is an anomaly is the chairman sometimes sits as a board member. My service officers present cases in Legion House here in Ottawa. When the chairman sits as a board member, we see him giving the benefit of the doubt. We see him drawing every favourable inference. We see him assessing credibility. We see him doing all of the things that the statute requires. But we have the board members who say that they are not permitted to do so. That's the irony.

The Chairman: Mr. Price, do you have any questions?

Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Yes, just a couple of questions.

You were just talking about the omnibus bill. As you are probably aware, we haven't seen it, so you are privileged.

I don't know how I can ask this, but based on what you have seen in the bill, do you find there could be an improvement in the way information is handled back and forth between National Defence and Veterans Affairs?

• 1610

Mr. Jim Rycroft: Absolutely, if you're referring to the sharing of information by Veterans Affairs. If I might, I'll draw on General Dallaire's concept of the extended family.

Sharing of information from the many sources of material, and I refer to it in this submission a little bit about sometimes the military records are missing documents and file material, that's when we find it. But with a person who is still serving with the Canadian Forces or has been recently released, those documents may be anywhere of a dozen places. Particular units and so on may have difficulty finding them or thinking that they should be sharing and so forth.

A lot of steps have been made. If you had asked me this question a year ago, I would have been fairly pessimistic. You ask me the question now and I think the department has identified the issue very nicely.

Brigadier General Boutet, who was a former judge advocate general, has been appointed as a senior liaison person between Veterans Affairs Canada and the Canadian Forces. He has been very effective in bringing these issues, the document-chasing exercise that we have to go through, to the forefront. We haven't solved it yet. We still have problems getting documents and getting the right information.

I recently wrote to Major General Couture asking if the forces would consider sharing electronic information that they have on their clients. I just got a call from his representative today setting up a meeting for Thursday. We'll sit down and discuss ways in which Legion service officers can have access to this electronic information, very much as Veterans Affairs has given us access to all of their electronic information on our clients. I think we're really making some progress here.

Mr. David Price: It is one item that was brought up a lot in our quality of life studies.

I have one other question actually for Mr. Parks on the membership. It may be a little off subject.

As far as the Legion itself is concerned, is there anything being done about maybe sitting down and talking with the army and navy and getting a little closer together with them? There always has been a bit of a tearing apart there. You are two groups with basically the same names. What about veterans from peacekeeping missions, from some of the Canadian missions we've had, like the ice storm? Would you recognize them as full members of the Legion?

Mr. Allan Parks: I'm not sure what status they have. You're talking about veterans of—

Mr. David Price: Regular force and reserves.

Mr. Allan Parks: —regular force. Yes, they automatically qualify now—

Mr. David Price: Now they do.

Mr. Allan Parks: —and did even before this new resolution went through.

Mr. David Price: Okay. Anyone coming out of the forces full status.

Mr. Allan Parks: Yes, or still serving, they would be automatically.

What I was talking about was the common everyday person on the street who has no direct family connection with a member who qualifies to be a Legion member. In other words, I qualify as the son of a veteran, as an associate. The fraternals we had qualified strictly as a fraternal with no privileges, no rights. They could come in the branch and work but had no rights to go to meetings or hold office.

Mr. David Price: Social members.

Mr. Allan Parks: Yes. What we've done is after two years of service to the branch, that social member can become a full voting member.

Mr. David Price: And you do recognize a reserve in a certain period of time.

Mr. Allan Parks: Yes, and cadets as well.

Mr. David Price: As far as amalgamation possibilities with the army, navy, air force, is there anything?

Mr. Allan Parks: We're certainly talking with the groups all the time. If there's any way we could make our forces stronger we certainly would.

As you know, talking to different groups out there is like talking to municipalities. Everybody has their own mayor or their own chairman. Nobody wants to give up their little domains. Right now we all work within our own. We all work together. We're all there to benefit the veteran in any way we can, whatever organization they belong to. We've taken those steps. Hopefully down the road this is the way it will go.

Mr. Jim Rycroft: About 40% of our business now is post-Korea veterans.

The other point I'd like to make is that membership in the army, navy, air force association or a specific peacekeeping association isn't inconsistent with being a member of the Legion. In fact we encourage people to be members of the specific organizations.

We're the only ones with enough members to have a full-fledged service bureau. We actually represent at all levels of the system everybody, whether they're Legion members or not. Obviously we like it when they're Legion members because that assures our future, but that's not a skill-testing question when you ask for our help. We'll help anybody who has a right under the disability pension system.

• 1615

We had our colleagues at the post-traumatic stress disorder symposium from the Army, Navy, Air Force Veterans in Canada Association, from the National Council of Veterans Association, from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. We always try to cast a wide net.

With our clout with almost 500,000 members we're perhaps able to do more and spend more money on some programs which we then invite our fellow organizations to participate in.

Mr. David Price: If the two organizations were together, there would be much more clout. On infrastructure alone, the cost of the two infrastructures has to be up there.

Mr. Jim Rycroft: It would. But there are some specific interest items. Peacekeepers for example are interested perhaps in having discussions as a subgroup. In fact I can tell you that we've approached the Canadian Forces Peacekeeping Association to ask them if they would like to partner with us. They're certainly actively considering that option. It's a very good idea.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Price.

Before we go to a second round of questions, colleagues, I just want to indicate that after we are through with questions to the witnesses, we have an important motion to pass, hopefully, by the committee.

I would also like to indicate that Thursday's meeting will be in 306 West Block from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m., our regular time. It is with the Halifax Rifles Armouries Association. This room is unavailable, so it will be 306 West Block, but the same time. You may have received a notice about some juggling of rooms, but it's the same time in 306 West Block.

Mr. Peter Goldring: The time is 9 o'clock.

The Chairman: The time is the same time, 9 a.m.

Mr. Peter Goldring: That was changed, and I keep changing my plane flight to accommodate this.

The Chairman: I know.

Mr. Peter Goldring: No further changes.

The Chairman: No further changes. That's right. That's a good point. The clerk and I have just discussed it. What we're going to endeavour to do because of that very point you raised, we know what schedules are like around here so wherever possible, we will never change the committee time. We may have to change the room occasionally. We will try not to change the time. If a time change is ever necessary, it will be a very last resort.

We'll go to the second round of questions now where we alternate sides, of course. We will start with Mr. Goldring of the Reform Party for five minutes this time, please.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Mr. Rycroft, just to confirm or review your position, your position is that the merchant navy veterans are due some form of compensation and if they are due some form of compensation, it would be reasonable to have a committee struck to review all of the parameters of that compensation. In other words, we're hearing some stories ranging from 5,000 to 30,000 to 80,000 and I tend to agree with you there has to be some substantiation to it. The main premise first of all is to understand that there is a legitimate claim and that the parties should address that claim with some formal recognition.

Mr. Jim Rycroft: That's correct, Mr. Goldring. We also must consider other veterans that we don't want to disadvantage with this. I would suggest that ferry command are in an equal position, those people who flew the aircraft overseas in very dangerous conditions who are perhaps not as vocal as the merchant navy but were equally disadvantaged.

The other group that I would ask to be considered is the Hong Kong prisoners of war. That is a number one Legion priority. If we were to look at the actual needs and the priorities for veterans, we would place the Hong Kong prisoners of war at the head of that list.

Mr. Peter Goldring: You made some comments on this omnibus bill. Here again as other members have said, we're kind of disadvantaged not having all the full details on it.

My understanding is that there is an article in there that says that when the pensioner dies his pension is deemed to be paid in full. Is this what you were alluding to, that it makes it difficult for the survivors to approach for any compensation?

Mr. Bob Wood: A point of order.

The Chairman: A point of order, Mr. Wood.

Mr. Bob Wood: Just for clarification to Mr. Goldring, the witnesses are not allowed to talk about that.

The Chairman: Okay. I was not aware of that. Thank you for that clarification.

We'll ask you to withdraw that question, Mr. Goldring.

Mr. Peter Goldring: All right. I'll withdraw the question.

Mr. Bob Wood: You can rephrase it.

Mr. Peter Goldring: All right.

• 1620

Mr. Rycroft, could you explain to me the concern you have with the bill? Was it that there is concern that the widows cannot receive additional claims?

Mr. Jim Rycroft: The comment, and I hope it wasn't misconstrued, was that the legislation will fix the deficiency and we're satisfied that this deficiency will be addressed when the omnibus bill is passed and the widows will no longer be disadvantaged.

Mr. Peter Goldring: But has this been addressed now?

Mr. Jim Rycroft: It is in the omnibus bill, which when passed will solve the problem. That's our understanding of it.

Mr. Peter Goldring: This will be repaired before the ominbus bill comes to the House?

Mr. Jim Rycroft: No, it will be repaired when the omnibus bill is passed.

Mr. Peter Goldring: So we in effect have a flawed bill coming to the House.

Mr. Jim Rycroft: Not in that respect.

The Chairman: I would say that the bill is not before the committee. I understand Mr. Goldring's questions, but we will be receiving that bill in the near future as a committee and we'll have an opportunity to delve into it.

The problem is we're speaking to the hypothetical. You've appropriately had some input, as you mentioned. As members we have appropriately not had that yet, but we will soon. We just have to hold on to that.

Mr. Jim Rycroft: The comment I would like to make is that I do not have concerns on behalf of the Legion as a result of our discussions on the omnibus bill.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Fine.

I will ask some questions on health care. There are some concerns.

Perhaps you could tell the group some of your concerns about the Perley and Rideau Veterans Health Centre and whether those concerns would be reflected by some discussion of turning the control of Sainte Anne de Bellevue over to the province of Quebec. Could you tell us a little bit of the background on that and what your concerns are specifically?

Mr. Jim Rycroft: The problems with the Perley and Rideau Veterans Health Centre probably typify those that we've observed as an organization for those institutions that Veterans Affairs Canada has transferred to the control of the provinces. There are varying degrees of problems with all of the transferred institutions perhaps because of flawed transfer agreements. Veterans Affairs has lost effective control over the operation of institutions it previously managed.

If you look at Sainte Anne de Bellevue, it is managed by Veterans Affairs directly. They are responsible for it and they do an excellent job. With the other institutions such as Perley Rideau, or its predecessor institutions before they were transferred, Veterans Affairs was doing an excellent job. The difficulty is once they gave away control, they gave away the ability to do an excellent job.

In some cases, the provinces are picking up the slack and so the problem is not too bad. But in Ontario at Sunnybrook and at Perley Rideau, there have been some significant problems lately, as you may well know.

The Legion has suggested to Veterans Affairs it should not even consider transferring Sainte Anne de Bellevue until it can demonstrate that it can recoup lost control and lost ground in the institutions that have already been transferred.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Would a way to achieve that be to have national veterans health care standards set in place so that you would have some yardstick to go by when transferring a facility to a province? You would have some national standards that can be addressed.

Mr. Jim Rycroft: Absolutely. The Legion sent a fact-finding mission to Sainte Anne de Bellevue on August 20 of this year. One of the reasons we went there was to get those national standards.

Unfortunately, although we observe Sainte Anne to be running at a high degree of efficiency with a lot of heart, giving all the services to veterans we could possibly imagine, and we were very impressed, we were not able to find anything in writing that gave us a national standard. We commented on that saying that what we would like to walk away with was how they are achieving what they are achieving.

We've told the director general of health care in Veterans Affairs Canada that we think this is a deficiency. If Veterans Affairs is going to succeed, it is going to have to draft those national standards and then have them implemented through the transfer agreements in all of the institutions it has currently transferred.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Before the transfer.

Mr. Jim Rycroft: Before the transfer of Sainte Anne's could be endorsed by the Legion.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Absolutely. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Goldring.

There are four members on the Liberal side. We'll start with Mr. Richardson.

Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): I'd like to welcome the witnesses here today. I appreciate the clarity of your answers.

• 1625

A series of items came up in the discussion that I wanted to ask you about. One is you mentioned the prisoner of war recognition of 30 months. It seems to me that the clock should start ticking whenever a person was a prisoner of war. Some of them were in for longer than 30 months. Not many. What surprised me is that they weren't recognized because they aren't a large cost. I think most of them were merchant mariners who were knocked out in 1940 and were incarcerated as the earliest prisoners of war in the second world war from the Canadian Forces. They were in there sometimes for more than a full year before anyone else went in yet they don't get much. I wonder why you didn't take a stand that the clock starts to tick when they went through the gate.

Mr. Jim Rycroft: The Legion has. We recognized that the first 89 days or so need to pass before one is eligible for compensation. The injustice as we perceived it and the one that's reflected in our resolution is that the clock stops at the end of a period of time, which I think is 911 days. I don't have that material in front of me so I may be wrong on my numbers. The longer periods of incarceration don't result in further compensation. That's the injustice.

You're quite right in your observation. Most of those incarcerated for those longer periods of time are merchant navy. But the Legion is always very careful to try to make sure that the system works for all veterans including merchant navy veterans. We haven't distinguished that there should be a different system for merchant navy.

Mr. John Richardson: No, but by accepting the 30 months, you have distinguished a difference.

Mr. Jim Rycroft: We haven't accepted that. Our resolution proposes that prisoner of war compensation continues to the extent of the duration of incarceration.

Mr. John Richardson: You've made that as a rebuttal to the 30 months?

Mr. Jim Rycroft: That's correct. That's our resolution, to extend those benefits.

Mr. John Richardson: I wasn't aware of that.

Mr. Jim Rycroft: I'm sorry if I wasn't clear on that. The intent of the resolution is to extend it for as long as the incarceration occurred. The formula now cuts off.

Mr. John Richardson: I have one more question, but that one was the easiest in evidence to come by. I have one more, but I'll pass to the next member.

The Chairman: Mr. Richardson, if you find it, we'll come back.

Mr. Bertrand, Mr. Proud, and then Mr. Wood.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Mr. Rycroft, you seem to say that your concerns rest more with the tribunal than with the department. If I understood correctly, you are quite satisfied with the work the department has done so far.

Mr. Jim Rycroft: Yes, we are satisfied with the work of the department. As I indicated, only the appeal and revision tribunal seems to pose a problem.

Mr. Robert Bertrand: Is your relationship with the public servants reasonably good?

Mr. Jim Rycroft: Yes. We don't always find the exact solution we're looking for, but there is good dialogue between the two organizations.

Mr. Robert Bertrand: You spoke earlier of Perley, Rideau and the Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue Hospital. How many hospitals are controlled by the Department of Veterans' Affairs?

Mr. Jim Rycroft: There is only one, that of Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue.

Mr. Robert Bertrand: Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue.

Mr. Jim Rycroft: Yes, that's correct.

Mr. Robert Bertrand: You spoke earlier of standards. If I understood you correctly we are somewhat behind in this regard if we only have one hospital left.

Mr. Jim Rycroft: Yes, but standards are for the other hospitals which already have been transferred, which are controlled by the provinces. There have to be national standards which must apply in each institution where there are veterans.

Mr. Robert Bertrand: Could we go back and reopen these agreements?

Mr. Jim Rycroft: I think so. The agreements allow for renegotiation.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay. We'll come back to Mr. Proud when we come back to the other side.

[Translation]

Mr. Godin, do you have any questions?

Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Good afternoon. It had been said that the Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue Hospital might be handed over to the province. Do you know where that issue stands?

• 1630

Mr. Jim Rycroft: According to the department, negotiations haven't started yet. There is simply an indication that the department might be interested in carrying out this transfer. Mr. Simon Coakeley, of the department, has the details.

Mr. Maurice Godin: You don't know any more about it?

Mr. Jim Rycroft: No. I only know that it is not going to happen in the short term.

Mr. Maurice Godin: Very well. Are you aware of any other negotiations between the province and the department?

Mr. Jim Rycroft: I know that there have been some discussions, but I am not aware of the details.

Mr. Maurice Godin: Very well. Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Proud for five minutes.

Mr. George Proud: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions on the Canadian Forces and the Legion. Before doing that, I would like to ask a question on the merchant seamen.

The Legion now very well supports the issue of the merchant seamen, but there was a time when the Legion didn't support them, as I understand, according to the merchant seamen, that is. I wonder if you could give us an update as to when this changed and when the Legion decided that these people should become veterans. I know there was a time according to the groups that appeared before us that the Legion wouldn't even let them in the Legion.

Mr. Jim Rycroft: I'm afraid, Mr. Proud, that's one view of history.

Our view of history is that since 1926, merchant navy, starting with those of the First World War, have always been entitled to be regular members of the Royal Canadian Legion and many took that opportunity. But there was always a fringe group who felt that they were not being fully supported. Part of that, I suggest, occurs because the Legion wants to represent all veterans and not especially advantage one particular class. If a group of veterans were to come to us and say that they're special and they want particular benefits, they would get the answer that a veteran is a veteran and we are here for all veterans for fair process.

The Legion fought long and hard to get the legislation that resulted in 1992 in the Merchant Navy Veteran and Civilian War-related Benefits Act. The merchant navy, some elements, felt that didn't go far enough. But the Legion I think can state with pride that it was one of the reasons that legislation was passed, perhaps too late, but it was passed.

Mr. George Proud: That was one of the sore points they had when they first came before us back in 1991. I wanted to hear your comments on that because I think successive governments have been chastized for not recognizing them, and rightfully so. I wanted to make sure that we're all singing from the same hymnbook.

Mr. Price asked a lot of the questions I was going to ask on the Canadian Forces. Do you people have a lot of input today into the people who are applying for benefits through Veterans Affairs, people who are still in the Canadian Forces or people who have been released from the Canadian Forces and are trying to seek some kind of compensation?

Mr. Jim Rycroft: Yes, we do. We put a considerable amount of effort into making sure that those members of the forces are aware of what we and Veterans Affairs Canada can do.

There are second career assistant network seminars which are held across Canada at Canadian Forces bases. The Legion has put service officers in front of those audiences, which are about to be retired members of the forces, to explain exactly what benefits are available, what we're able to do for them, and what Veterans Affairs is able to do.

I can give you an example. I try to get out of my ivory tower sometimes and go into the field. I was at a SCAN seminar, second career assistance seminar, in Calgary about a year or so ago and presented a session jointly with the Bureau of Pensions Advocates counsel, Nancy Hobson. The pension officer of the department was present and our service officer from Alberta was present. We talked about the system. We had an audience of about 200 members of the Canadian Forces.

I think the Canadian Forces can say that it has about 1,200 or so of its members each year hear from the Legion with what the Legion can do. In Gagetown at the combat training centre, we put a Legion service officer on the base at least once a week to do interviews with those who think they have disability pension assistance. We have just recently arranged to do the same thing at Petawawa.

With respect to how to get the system to improve, I've lectured at the basic medical officers course in Borden to let new medical officers know what the system is so that they make our job easier when we're dealing with pension disability situations years down the road. If the doctors get it right, get the records right, our job is easier and the troops are better served.

The Legion is doing its best to influence the Canadian Forces. We also have had discussions with Major General Couture. He was very supportive of our post-traumatic stress disorder symposium. He sent his chief psychiatrist from Borden to it, a psychologist from the post-traumatic stress disorder clinic. There was excellent support.

• 1635

The only thing the quality of life project hasn't done is it hasn't accepted the Legion's offer to second a service officer to it at our expense so that we could have direct input and access to help the members of the forces. We have asked them to take another look at that.

Mr. George Proud: Could you give me an update? You're talking about documentation or the lack of it. This is something we heard a lot of in the quality of life review.

What recommendations can you give us that we can pass on that could help to resolve this situation. I assume that with somebody who gets heard or whatever the case may be, the last thing on their mind at that particular moment is to fill out papers. I know that this is a hang-up with the military. It's a hang-up of every bureaucracy in government. I wonder if you could give us your views—probably you have already and I missed it—on what we could do to help this process be accomplished.

Mr. Jim Rycroft: Firstly, it's unrealistic to think that the Canadian Forces or any military will ever get enough paperwork to satisfy a paper driven system.

The Dutch sent a delegation to the Legion a few months ago. We mentioned that we couldn't prove that one of our members we were trying to assist was even in the former Yugoslavia during the time he said he was on a peacekeeping mission because his records didn't show that. The Dutch delegation said, “Well, what a surprise; we've had cases like that too”. I think it's an international problem.

The solution is to have a system that doesn't get driven by paperwork. In theory the disability pension system is like that. You should be able to get up, state under oath that a certain thing happened and unless there's evidence to the contrary, that should be enough to convince the decision-maker.

We've worked with the adjudicators and the chief adjudicator. One of the pension managers came to Ottawa and was shocked to find that the report on injuries that the military is supposed to fill out when something happens isn't done correctly or at all 40% of the time. In a system like that, how can you possibly be properly representing people unless the adjudicators are prepared to accept oral evidence under oath. In a lot of cases they are, but the board, as I have mentioned, is not, and that's a problem.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Proud.

From the New Democratic Party, Mr. Earle. You have five minutes.

Mr. Gordon Earle: I have one quick question.

There has been a lot of talk about membership and veterans and who is represented and who is not, merchant marine and so forth. I'm a little bit confused as to exactly who is entitled to be a member of the Royal Canadian Legion. What are the criteria to determine membership in the Legion?

Mr. Allan Parks: Right now, with the rules and regulations that we have, it certainly changed after the June convention. Up until the June convention you were either a veteran who served in the wars, or serving or ex-serving personnel, or sons or daughters of veterans. Every year and so on it has extended to policemen, policemen's sons, etc., down the line.

Then in June of this year we opened the doors up. Now anybody in essence can become a member of the Royal Canadian Legion. If you do not have that military connection or family connection, you are going to start out as a non-voting affiliate member. After two years you will become a voting affiliate member and will have full rights that every other Legion member has.

I'd just like to make a point on the difference, though, in our veterans service operation. The veterans service operation is there to serve every veteran, not members of the Royal Canadian Legion. It has nothing to do with members of the Royal Canadian Legion. That whole criteria fall under the veterans service.

Mr. Gordon Earle: In essence, if say because of community interest and the importance of the Legion in a given community I wanted to become a Legion member, I could join, and after a waiting period I would eventually be able to vote.

Mr. Allan Parks: Yes.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Earle.

Are there any questions from the Liberal side, Mr. Richardson?

Mr. John Richardson: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to go back to one or two comments that were made.

It was a very nice parade over in front of the House of Commons. It is a parade ground. There are lots of military events during the summer. But I would caution you from abandoning the national monument. I think the national monument is beautiful.

• 1640

Other countries, particularly those who fought in the war in Turkey... That event has now moved from there to the cold as hell spot down on the Ottawa River. I've always got cold there anyhow as the sun came up around five in the morning.

It is a beautiful monument, and I'd hate to see the veterans not use it on November 11 as a focus for our nation.

Mr. Allan Parks: Just in reply to that, I certainly hope I didn't mislead you when I said it would be discussed. What I was actually trying to say in that respect was it will be discussed because of the different summations that have come in from across Canada on how large the gathering was and how nice it was in that area.

The main national monument I cannot see ever being turned away on behalf of the Royal Canadian Legion as far as having our memorials there. As you know, in 2000 or 2001 we are looking at the tomb of the unknown soldier, which will be embedded at the foot of the national monument. We are making arrangements for that now through government as well as DND.

It would never be in that aspect, and I would not want anyone around the table to take me out of context on that. What I meant was we do have a sub-executive coming up this weekend. I know it will be debated around the table, all the different queries that have come in on it. I can never see us going away from the national monument.

Mr. John Richardson: I am pleased to hear that.

There is one other thing I'd like to mention. I'd like to compliment you on your early intervention on prisoners of war, on behalf of those veterans. I salute you for that. You deserve recognition for your work in that area.

One of the things I did notice at my November 11 parade in my constituency is that the merchant mariners were allowed to parade but they weren't allowed to be recognized as a veterans group in that parade. I don't know why. Was it a matter of miscommunication? I've just come back from the Hill and we've been discussing it. It was apparent that they weren't recognized as a veterans group but they were on parade as a group. You may want to encourage people at the branch level that it is now recognized as a veterans group and we are cognizant of their being seen to be recognized.

Mr. Jim Rycroft: It's a little alarming. If you have any details about specifics, we'd be glad to discuss it with the branch.

Mr. John Richardson: I'm a member of the branch, so I'll bring it up at the next meeting.

The Chairman: Mr. Price, any questions? Five minutes.

Mr. David Price: Yes. A little clarification probably. Is it the Royal Canadian Legion Service Association? What is it called?

Mr. Jim Rycroft: I'm the director of the service bureau. That's a group of service officers who represent people at all levels of the system. It's about a six-tiered system if one exhausts all the remedies.

Mr. David Price: Okay, but it is tied to the Legion.

Mr. Jim Rycroft: Oh, yes. I'm a paid employee of the Legion. As the director of the service bureau I'm responsible that our representation is second to none. It has to be as good as or better than government is able to provide or I'm not doing my job.

Mr. David Price: I guess this is what will clear things up as far as the difference between membership and the people you serve, the veterans you serve. Who is recognized as a veteran under that?

Mr. Jim Rycroft: Basically anybody who is conceivably eligible for disability pension benefits is somebody who can be represented by us. It could be a widow. It could be a dependent child. It could be a current member of the Canadian Forces. They could be injured in Bosnia or they could be injured in Canada. Anyone who could possibly get benefits under the Pension Act is a potential client of ours. We will not ask them to be members of the Legion. We will simply represent them because they've earned that from the country.

Mr. David Price: Just a little follow-up on John's question regarding November 11. In my particular riding I've got about ten legions and I have two army-navies. Wreaths were sent out. Wreaths are funnelled through the Legion. The army-navy don't receive any.

• 1645

Mr. Allan Parks: The wreaths that are funnelled through the Legion are all purchased or donations are given to legions for those on behalf of companies or organizations. There's no reason why they cannot have them.

Mr. David Price: But we buy them.

Mr. Allan Parks: Yes, the same as the Legion does.

Mr. David Price: But they have to go through the Legion.

Mr. Allan Parks: Yes.

Mr. David Price: This is what we're told.

Mr. Allan Parks: Yes.

Mr. David Price: Yet to get our wreaths for the army-navy, we usually go to the Legion and buy them for the army-navy. We can't get them through...

Mr. Allan Parks: No, you cannot get them direct. The poppies and so on are patented by the Legion.

Mr. David Price: Yes, the poppies I realize, but the wreaths themselves, I was wondering about that.

Mr. Allan Parks: DVA used to. As you know, it was sponsored by DVA, and this is how the wreaths and so on were all made. When it was given up by DVA it was taken over by the Royal Canadian Legion. We franchise that out to a company to make the wreaths for the Royal Canadian Legion. We distribute them throughout Canada and to the rest of the world.

Mr. David Price: Again on veterans that are having trouble with claims and the problem of evidently getting information records back and forth, do you feel that if the representatives handling this had a little more military background, rather than being strictly civil servants, it might be easier to handle?

Mr. Jim Rycroft: The interesting thing is that our Legion service officers fit exactly that model. For example, I had 30 years in the Canadian Forces and have now been with the Royal Canadian Legion for a little over four years. I consider my 30 years of service as a training ground for what I do now.

I have one service officer in Ottawa who is a retired colonel with 32 years of service and has been with the Legion for a little over a year. I have one who is a retired military nurse with 20 years of service who uses her medical expertise as well as her Legion service office expertise.

Mr. David Price: They understand the background.

Mr. Jim Rycroft: We try to have service officers who have exactly that mix. We find that is the most appropriate thing to relate to the soldiers or the World War II veterans or the modern-day servicemen. In some cases the department is able to have people of that ilk too, but unfortunately it's more by accident than by design. We do it by design.

Mr. David Price: The department does it the other way.

Mr. Jim Rycroft: I should also clarify that our representational services are without charge. We're paid by the poppy funds. Those wreaths and so on contribute to our organization.

The Chairman: We've finished two rounds. We have a bit more time. We'll have a few brief questions and then we have to move on to the routine matters.

Mr. Goldring.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Mr. Parks, I wanted to clarify, and here again I'm not making a pitch for the Hill for November 11, but I am at a bit of a disadvantage. It's been wrapped up in construction for the length of time that I've been here on the Hill, so I haven't been here to see what the ceremony at the monument has been like. I'm sure you'll make the right decision on it.

I wanted a fast question on the international relationship and your British counterparts. In dealing with the Hong Kong veterans enslavement claim, is there collaboration with your British counterparts on that? Do they have the same concerns as our veterans have? Is there a name for the British group?

Mr. Jim Rycroft: My counterpart in the Royal British Legion is the head of pensions, and I have been liaising with him.

Unfortunately, what we have found is that our British counterparts are not able to influence their government on some issues quite as well as we have. Perhaps to put a positive spin on it, the Government of Canada has been more responsive to veterans organizations than the government in the U.K.

While we talk to our British counterparts, they are no more successful; in fact they are less successful on this and other issues.

Mr. Peter Goldring: The name of that British counterpart is what? What are they called?

Mr. Jim Rycroft: The Royal British Legion, and the head of pensions is the equivalent of the director of the service bureau.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Goldring.

Mr. Proud, did you have a general question?

Mr. George Proud: I have a question on the members. Maybe you've already alluded to it. Of the Canadian Forces, what percentage would be members of the Legion?

Mr. Allan Parks: I don't have the numbers with me.

Mr. George Proud: It's no big deal.

Mr. Allan Parks: It's low.

Mr. Jim Rycroft: I surveyed across. When I talk at a SCAN seminar I invariably ask them how many are Legion members. In Esquimalt, for example, where there is a real thriving branch, I would imagine that about half an audience of 200 people put up their hands. I ask the same question in Comox and I'm lucky if 10 people out of an audience of 75 put up their hands. If I went to Borden, which is a training base, and asked the same question, I'd be lucky if there were 20 people in an audience of 200 that were members. We've got a long way to go as an organization to attract members.

• 1650

Mr. George Proud: But there's a great potential there.

Mr. Jim Rycroft: Absolutely. I've mentioned a number of the initiatives we're taking to show that we're relevant.

We recently had an initiative with the Canadian Forces. We were able to achieve indexing of medical pensions for medical releases, because it was the right thing to do, but also to show the Canadian Forces that when they tell us they have a problem, we can get it fixed. This is an example.

The Chairman: Gentlemen, thank you very much for your presentation here today. We appreciate your attendance and helping us with these matters. Thank you.

Committee members, you have before you a motion that we need to have someone move.

Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.): I so move.

The Chairman: It is moved by Mr. Clouthier that the committee authorize the chair to seek a supplementary travel budget of $2,520 for its travel to Germany from January 24 to 31, 1999.

I would just indicate to you that the German government has agreed to fund the additional members, the travel portion, to have as much of the committee as possible. I thought that was generous of them. So this represents per diem for three additional members.

Are there questions about this motion?

Mr. Peter Goldring: How many members are going in all now?

The Chairman: I believe it's nine now.

Mr. Peter Goldring: What's the breakdown of it from the members of the committee to support?

The Chairman: Which members of the committee are going?

Mr. Peter Goldring: Yes.

The Chairman: I believe Monsieur Laurin, every member of the opposition except the Reform Party, which I guess has a conflict with their caucus that week. At this point we'll have most of the Liberal members. I guess it's about four or five of the Liberal members.

Mr. Peter Goldring: That's nine, is it?

The Chairman: It's nine, yes.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Okay.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: We mentioned the new meeting place. I will endeavour to make sure the time is never changed except as a last resort. We do have to understand that sometimes even the time may have to change, but it will always be as a last resort.

Thank you. The meeting is adjourned.