NDVA Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, May 8, 2003

¿

0905

The Chair (Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.))

Hon. Rey Pagtakhan (Minister of Veterans Affairs)

¿

0910

The Chair

Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain)

¿

0915

The Chair

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan

The Chair

Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, Lib.)

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan

Mr. David Price

Mr. Brian Ferguson (Assistant Deputy Minister, Veterans Services, Department of Veterans Affairs)

Mr. David Price

The Chair

Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ)

¿

0920

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan

Mr. Louis Plamondon

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan

¿

0925

The Chair

Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.)

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan

Mr. Robert Bertrand

¿

0930

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan

Supt John Nikita (Director, Occupational Health and Safety, Human Resources Programs, Royal Canadian Mounted Police)

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan

The Chair

Mr. Robert Bertrand

The Chair

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP)

¿

0935

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan

Mr. Bill Blaikie

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan

The Chair

Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC)

The Chair

¿

0940

Mrs. Elsie Wayne

Mr. Brian Ferguson

Mrs. Elsie Wayne

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan

LCol Brian Sutherland (Canadian Forces Liaison Officer, Department of Veterans Affairs)

Mrs. Elsie Wayne

Supt John Nikita

Mrs. Elsie Wayne

LCol Brian Sutherland

Mrs. Elsie Wayne

The Chair

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan

Mrs. Elsie Wayne

¿

0945

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan

The Chair

Mr. Roy Bailey

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan

The Chair

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan

LCol Brian Sutherland

¿

0950

The Chair

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs

---

NUMBER 025

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Thursday, May 8, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿  (0905)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.)): I'd like to call this meeting of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs to order.

    I'm very pleased to welcome the Honourable Rey Pagtakhan and guests to the committee this morning. The minister is going to be making a statement to us on the provisions of Bill C-31, an act to amend the Pension Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act.

    Minister, we're hoping for a few more members to arrive, but I think we can get under way with your comments. We look forward to your introducing the officials who are with you and your statement.

    Hon. Rey Pagtakhan (Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Chair and honourable colleagues, I have always enjoyed being at committees. I have spent a good many years serving on many committees. Getting a quorum is not an easy task sometimes, and a few colleagues are still engaged, I'm sure, in other duties or obligations and are unable to be here. They will easily catch up, Mr. Chairman.

    I am pleased to be here to discuss Bill C-31, an act to amend the Pension Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act. I have a number of individuals with me today who have been involved in the preparation of this particular bill, and I would like to bring to your attention that this has been a collaborative initiative and we have worked closely with our colleagues at the Department of National Defence and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Joining me today are Brian Ferguson, the Assistant Deputy Minister of Veterans Services, Lieutenant-Colonel Brian Sutherland, the DND liaison officer with Veterans Affairs Canada, and Superintendent John Nikita, the director of Occupational Health and Safety for the RCMP.

    As we speak, our servicemen and -women continue to serve and put their lives on the line to help bring peace to war torn nations, to keep warring factions apart, and to stand on guard for all Canadians and the world against acts of terrorism. Their families, as do all military families, stay at home and worry about their loved ones who are sent abroad. The military and RCMP members, I am sure, think of their families at home as they embark on their missions. One of the components of this bill will ease some of the anxiety these family members must feel when they see their loved ones walk out the door to go on long-term deployed service. Members themselves will have peace of mind knowing their loved ones will be cared for should harm come their way during their missions.

    We can help lessen this anxiety somewhat by having our Canadian Forces members know in advance that the area to which they are being sent is a special duty area or the mission on which they are being sent is a special duty operation as newly-defined by this legislation. In knowing that in advance, they can rest assured that they have round-the-clock disability pension coverage against any and all perils.

    We know the regulatory process of designating SDAs by means of an Order in Council seems to take an inordinate amount of time. I can imagine no situation in which the Canadian Forces member would not have de facto 24/7 coverage on an overseas deployment where there is elevated risk, even if the official designation of an SDA has not gone through all the legal requirements of a completed Order in Council designation process. That said, speeding up the process with the granting of this power to the Minister of National Defence, or the Solicitor General in the case of the RCMP, in consultation with the Minister of Veterans Affairs is a positive step.

    The other part of this legislation involves travel to and from SDAs or SDOs and training. Up to now disability pension coverage for service in an SDA did not apply to travel to and from an SDA during authorized leaves of absence from an SDA or for training for such deployment. This bill is definitely more than administrative. This is quite a specific broadening of the insurance protection for overseas service in an SDA or SDO, one I believe all of us strongly would favour.

    The tragic events of September 11, 2001, have changed how we all look at the world. All of a sudden, the world of elevated risk is closer to home. No longer are the threats to our safety and way of life guaranteed to be on some distant shore to which we send our servicemen and -women off to fight. In fact, September 11, 2001, introduced a new type of warfare for us here in North America, one where the conflict settings are constantly shifting and where deployments cannot be defined by a static border framework. This new world has required us to rethink how and under what circumstances we deploy our forces, and such considerations lead us to make sure they have round-the-clock disability pension coverage.

    Hence we come to this new designation of a Special Duty Operation. An SDO is a new service title designated under the Pension Act, to ensure appropriate pension and health coverage for members of the Canadian forces who are deployed to operations that are not geographically contained and expose them to elevated risk. Members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who are deployed to SDOs will receive coverage similar to that of their military comrades.

    We must be clear on the difference here between the two service types. A Special Duty Area is also a service type, as specified in the Pension Act, describing a geographic area outside Canada where Canadian forces members are exposed to elevated risk. This designation enables Veterans Affairs Canada to provide deployed members with the broadest coverage possible under these programs and services. Members of the RCMP who are deployed to SDAs receive coverage similar to that of CF veterans and members. An SDO is not limited geographically and covers all those involved in the elevated risk operation, regardless of their location, as SDOs can be designated both inside and outside Canada. SDAs can only be used to designate areas in which operations take place outside Canada.

    It is not envisioned that SDOs would replace SDAs. Rather, the two would be complementary processes. The SDA designation would remain for area-specific deployments, whereas the SDO would provide the Minister of National Defence and the Solicitor General with another option for situations that are less area-specific and more functional in nature. For the most part, SDOs would also be designated outside Canada. However, some domestic operations, disaster relief in the case of severe storms or flood, for example, or search and rescue operations, could be declared SDOs if it is felt that those involved are being exposed to conditions of elevated risk. In addition, when the RCMP serve with Canadian forces in SDAs or SDOs designated by the Minister of National Defence, RCMP members exposed to conditions of elevated risk comparable to those of CF members are similarly covered. The deployed RCMP members will have access to the same degree of comprehensive disability pension coverage as CF members.

    That's it in a nutshell, Mr. Chairman. This is not complicated legislation, I'm sure you'll agree with me, nor do I think it is controversial, to go by the all party support on second reading. It is meant to streamline and broaden coverage for the men and women who serve us in uniform. Through the creation of the new category of Special Duty Operations, the Pension Act and the RCMP Superannuation Act are given a new flexibility that recognizes the realities of service in the 21st century. I think, if we put ourselves in the shoes of a family member of a loved one serving abroad or in the shoes of the Canadian Forces or RCMP members being deployed anywhere in harm's way, we know the passage of this bill is the right and proper course for us to take in this place. I trust Bill C-31 will receive a speedy passage. It is for those who serve all Canadians and continue to protect our values.

    We may now proceed with examining the bill together, and we will be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

    Thank you.

¿  (0910)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

    Mr. Bailey.

    Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Mr. Minister and guests, from what I said in the House in speaking to this bill I just want to repeat a few things. This bill is right with the time, and it's also right with the future. I believe the designation of an SDA or a SDO can and must be done quickly. I brought this to my own caucus and they took a look at it, and I can assure you now that you do have our support, as I stated on the floor of the House.

    As I mentioned at an earlier meeting, I believe this bill will lead the way, and already I've had requests from some other organizations, such as the firefighters. When you have municipalities the size of our larger cities, even though they're under a different scheme and a different government, mainly local government, I do believe you will see what we have done here in this bill taken up by larger cities in respect of both the firemen and some special designated operations, even in their own police forces.

    So I'm very pleased to be here and to support this, because it's a bill that's long overdue. The period of time to have a designated service area, as much as a year, seemed almost redundant. Here it is May 8, which is VE Day in Europe, and we haven't really changed much in many ways in legislation, particularly with the armed forces, since that time. This is probably one of the major steps forward. When you think that VE Day came less than a year after D-Day, June 6, 1944, you get some idea of the rapid movement of the forces, with the Canadians who were involved. I think this bill brings us back to a period where we say we have to recognize these special duty areas. We will do it with this bill, and I'm pleased to support it.

¿  (0915)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bailey.

    Do you have any comments, Mr. Minister?

    Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I would like to acknowledge the support of the member, and I am touched by his observation that this could be a precedent for other requests in the future, if we are to serve as a model--and why not? I would only say, indeed, our experience in the past has given birth to this present, and I agree that the present will give birth to the future. So I again underscore what the member has observed, that by streamlining the process, we'll be able to make the designation with speed.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

    Mr. Price.

    Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Minister, for being here today.

    I think Mr. Bailey is absolutely right, this is something that is overdue. I just have a couple of short questions.

    First, this bill will come into effect, I see here, right after royal assent. At that point--it may be in there and I missed it--is there any retroactivity, and about how many cases do you have now that would actually fit into SDOs that were pending and didn't fit into any actual area?

    Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I would ask the official to deal with the statistics. You have correctly observed that this is effective following royal assent, because there is no provision in the bill on automatic effect through final passage in Parliament. As to retroactivity, yes, one can designate special duty operations in particular as far back as September 11, 2001.

    Mr. David Price: Okay.

    And the numbers?

    Mr. Brian Ferguson (Assistant Deputy Minister, Veterans Services, Department of Veterans Affairs): We have currently, I think, about 10,000 clients from previous SDAs. I'll verify that, but I think that's about the number. We expect that this measure will engage another small, but very important group of clients.

    Mr. David Price: Thank you.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Price.

    Monsieur Plamondon.

[Translation]

    Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ): Briefly, it's no secret that the Bloc Québécois supports the bill. However, we do have some questions about the fact that the Minister of Defence, after consulting with the Minister of Veterans Affairs, may designate a special duty area or special duty operations. I would have preferred opting for another way of designating these areas.

    Furthermore, in the case of any UN mission in which Canada takes part, the mission or area to which military personnel are deployed should automatically be designated under this jurisdiction.

    In conclusion, Minister, I'd like to remind you that aboriginal veterans are not even able to receive adequate compensation from the federal government as things now stand. At the same time, Métis, non-status Indians and Inuit are still waiting for some kind of decent offer. I hope this bill is only a first step and that the other groups of persons mentioned will also be able to benefit from the government's generosity. I use the word “generosity”, but what I should say is I hope they receive “fair treatment” from the government.

    Thank you.

¿  (0920)  

[English]

    Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Thank you, Mr. Plamondon. I thank you again for your support of this bill.

    As to why DND, in consultation with the VAC, should designate this area, I can only submit that in the reality of things, the Department of National Defence is in a unique position to know precisely, since it will be the troops under the command of this department who will be deployed. Hence it has the authority to designate a particular operation or area to which the troops would be exposed at elevated risk. What we have put in place here is the mechanism for consultation, because the Department of Veterans Affairs will be involved in the delivery of the benefits and programs for those who get injured or develop an illness. So I think it is an appropriate mechanism, but any approach other than this coming from this committee we will look at. At the moment I can think of no better approach than allowing the DND to consult with Veterans Affairs Canada. We have a process of consultation and partnership between two departments of government to ensure that the most effective and appropriate decision is made, taking into account all the circumstances, the deployment, and the benefits that may be required thereafter.

    With respect to your comment on the first nations veterans, as you may know, we announced a goodwill package for them. Each member will receive up to $20,000, including their spouses. More than the 1,800 we anticipated would be applying have applied. The determination of eligibility is currently under way. A significant number have already been determined as eligible, and so cheques have been mailed to them.

    On the Métis, discussions are currently under way with them, and I am doing this in collaboration with my colleague Minister Goodale, who is the interlocutor for the Métis people.

[Translation]

    Mr. Louis Plamondon: With respect to the first part of my question concerning the Minister of National Defence making designations after consulting with the Veterans Affairs Minister, what concerns me is the discretionary authority granted to the Minister. Occasionally, for budgetary reasons...The mission could be a dangerous one, but for budgetary considerations, the department may repeatedly hold off making a decision. However, if decision-making authority was vested in an independent, non-political body using criteria-based analyses when dealing with a dangerous area, once a mission was deployed, it would be possible to determine if the area in question corresponded to the criteria set out in the legislation. Determining whether or not an area is dangerous would not be something left to the Minister's discretion, even though the Minister would still act on the advice of his officials. However, I think a non-political body would be in a better position to determine if an area has been properly designated.

[English]

    Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Certainly, discretion is always a matter of judgment and a matter of trust, and I believe we have placed this discretion with the Minister of National Defence because he has at all times the interests of the troops under him. I don't think budgetary considerations, important as they are, would ever hinder a legitimate need to designate an area of operations as special, where the exposure would involve elevated risk. Perhaps because of the need to have care and caution when we designate an area or an operation special and the budgetary consideration, we have the Minister of Veterans Affairs to indicate that indeed, this is not all of a sudden two dozen operations and areas that could be beyond, in any given fiscal year, the capability of the Department of Veterans Affairs to respond. Following the consultation process, I am sure steps would be taken to ensure that this challenge could be met by the government of the day.

    So I think, at the end, we will have the ability on the part of the Minister of National Defence to always safeguard the interests of the troops under him, and at the same time, the caution that has to be exercised by any government of the future to ensure that when we make a pledge and a promise, we can fulfil our obligation in respect of payments required for benefits and health care.

¿  (0925)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Monsieur Plamondon.

    Monsieur Bertrand.

[Translation]

    Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

    I have two quick points, Minister. We have all heard rumours to the effect that the RCMP will be asked to monitor the situation in Iraq in the coming days or weeks. I simply want some assurances that the provision of this new legislation will extend to RCMP officers deployed for this purpose.

    Secondly, has any thought been given to expanding coverage at a later date to perhaps include members of other police forces who may be called upon to do monitoring duty? I recall a specific incident in 1997 or 1998 where members of two or three different police forces were deployed to do monitoring duty in Haiti. I'm thinking in particular about members of the Gatineau and Montreal forces. Would they be covered under this bill?

    That's all, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

    Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: They are certainly very excellent questions. Would the RCMP deployment to Iraq likely be covered by this, or would it be designated as a special duty operation or area and therefore be covered? Since the law says it would be the RCMP who make the determination, I would like to trust the judgment of the RCMP to make this determination taking into account everything that is pertinent. But certainly, when designated, it would be covered, because that is the type of operation that is eligible for designation. I guess the RCMP will take into account all the necessary elements, but it is eligible for designation.

    The answer also applies to monitoring of any UN peacekeeping operations. Whether it is peacekeeping, enforcement, supervision of troops, or policing, when you are exposed to an area of elevated risk, that is eligible for coverage. If it is specifically designated by the responsible authority, there is 24/7 day coverage.

    I have just been reminded that in fact, Iraq is still an SDA now, so coverage applies.

[Translation]

    Mr. Robert Bertrand: I'll repeat my second question concerning other police forces. Would they be covered, perhaps at some later date, by this bill? I gave you the example of members of the Montreal and Gatineau municipal police forces who were deployed to monitor the situation in Haiti. If these individuals were asked to return to that country, would they be covered under this bill, or by UN provisions?

¿  (0930)  

[English]

    Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: John, would you like to take the question, just to be clear?

    Supt John Nikita (Director, Occupational Health and Safety, Human Resources Programs, Royal Canadian Mounted Police): In the past the RCMP has made a request to a specific police service, whether it's Sureté du Québec, the police from Gatineau, or the Ontario Provincial Police, no matter. We enter into a memorandum of understanding with each individual police service, bring officers from that police service under the umbrella of the RCMP, and provide them, through a memorandum of understanding, with precisely the same coverage we enjoy.

    Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I'm sorry, I missed the police forces. You were making a distinction. Thank you, John.

    The Chair: You have nothing further, Mr. Bertrand?

[Translation]

    Mr. Robert Bertrand: No, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

    The Chair: Merci.

    Mr. Blaikie.

    Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Thanks to the minister for being here today, and to Mr. Bailey for mentioning that today is the anniversary of VE Day. It seems an appropriate thing to recognize in the context of a Veteran Affairs committee meeting and in the presence of the minister. I'm reminded that 58 years ago today my father was in Ayr, Scotland, with the fleet air arm of the Royal Canadian Navy on VE Day. It's a story I've heard a number of times.

    I have just a few comments. Certainly, we support this legislation. I indicated that in second reading debate in the House. I would just say that it seems to me some elements of what we have here are overdue. They don't come necessarily as a result of September 11, 2001, these are things that could have been in place before that and would have been justifiable. Sometimes too much is made of September 11, 2001, in that respect. There are certainly elements of expanded insurance coverage for armed forces personnel and RCMP in areas of elevated risk that could and should have been in place before, and better late than never. With September 11, 2001, being used as a justification, it sometimes sounds as if there was really no need for this before. Well, there may well have been a need for this in some context before.

    I will resist the temptation, Mr. Chairman, to try to expand the debate about this bill into a larger debate about the role of Parliament in decisions about deployment, because I think, to the extent that this bill streamlines the decision-making process and takes things out of Order in Council and puts them in the hands of the Solicitor General or the Minister of National Defence, that's probably a good thing within that paradigm. But there's the larger debate about whether or not there should be an expanded role for Parliament in deciding, in certain cases, whether or not Canadian troops should be deployed, particularly to special duty areas.

    You've indicated that this is retroactive legislation, and I wonder whether you've had discussions with the Minister of Defence about another area where retroactivity is required. You'll recall that the Minister of Defence made an announcement not so long ago about expanded coverage for lower ranks, having to do with injuries or accidents in which they lose limbs, but this was not made retroactive. Here we have the principle of retroactivity being invoked and established by legislation. I wonder if the minister could tell us whether he's in discussions with the Minister of Defence on when the same principle will be enacted in respect of the people who fell unfortunately into the category of people who were injured before the minister made his announcement recently.

¿  (0935)  

    Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I have not been in discussion on this specific issue with the Minister of National Defence, so I would not know all his thoughts. Having said that, I think what he has done, at least in correcting and addressing that particular grievance, creating equal application of benefits, irrespective of rank, is a huge advance. I will not comment on what he might or might not do on retroactivity with respect to that particular issue. Certainly, should there be the opportunity, I will discuss this, because it's a matter of interest.

    On your first observation, that we should not ascribe changes here to September 11 as though that is the dominant or sole reason for these amendments, I will agree with you that it is not the only basis for making these changes now, but that particular event, as serious as it was, captured the imagination of most of us, so we felt we would allude to that. I'm reminded here of allergies in medicine. You expose an allergic patient to one kind of allergen, there is no reaction, then a second one, there is no reaction, and on the third one, the same kind of allergen, all of a sudden there is this allergic reaction--what we call the eliciting dose. Perhaps September 11 was the eliciting dose that captured our imagination, so we now address these very important issues.

    Mr. Bill Blaikie: I want to thank the minister for the medical metaphor. I'll have to consult my medical experts to see if I can come out with a counter-metaphor. But I don't want to take the minister on when it comes to medicine, because he's a doctor, and I'm not. Perhaps we'll leave it at that.

    On retroactivity, some of the people who would benefit from a decision to extend that decision to cover all ranks, if that were made retroactive, would now actually be veterans, would they not? In which case it would come under your jurisdiction. I'm not asking you to butt in where you're not wanted or poke your nose into some other minister's business, but it seems to me that this is a legitimate area for the Minister of Veterans Affairs and the Minister of Defence to be in consultation with each other, that's all. I asked whether this was under discussion, and that's all I was referring to.

    Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Not on this particular issue, but certainly, we are in close consultation with the Department of National Defence as to how best we can harmonize our approach to the granting of benefits to Canadians who have served in the forces, and in this instance also the RCMP

    The Chair: Thank you for those points, Mr. Blaikie.

    Mrs. Wayne.

    Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

    Before I begin, I think all of our colleagues, including the minister, are probably aware that Ivan Grose, a member of our committee, has had a heart attack, and he's in London, England. I hope you have sent a message over from all of us. I want to get the address before I leave here today from you, Mr. Chair, because I want to send something to him. Okay?

    The Chair: For the committee's information on that point, Mrs. Wayne, as I understand it, Mr. Grose may be transferred back to Canada in the not too distant future. I'm not sure exactly when he is going to be transported, but we'll get that information. Rest assured that I will transmit a message on behalf of the committee to Mr. Grose. Thank you for raising that, because I know, especially over the course of the last couple of days, this has been on our minds.

¿  (0940)  

    Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Yes, definitely. Thank you very much.

    Mr. Minister--and probably Brian can answer this as well--has the government increased our Veterans Affairs budget to include the RCMP, or do we have the same budget now as we had before? Have they come up with extra money for us?

    Mr. Brian Ferguson: For the administrative costs of the RCMP activities we've taken on, they're actually paying us. They viewed it as a business case decision to improve the delivery of services in an area we're specialists in and transferred that administrative funding. Program funding for RCMP veterans is covered by statute and continues to be provided, there's no impact on the available funding for that.

    Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Our firemen have been up on the Hill many times, as you know, with regard to such issues as this. I want to clarify the situation, because the same thing would have to apply with the police and the firemen and so on, and I'm not sure just how much more our Department of Veterans Affairs in P.E.I. and their staff can take on. Certainly, we want to look after everyone, but if we're going to continue to expand, we have to look after our Department of Veterans Affairs and make sure they have the staff, the budget, and so on required to do the job.

    I had in my constituency office the little Brownies from Saint John, New Brunswick. They brought me bracelets they had made for the children of Iraq. I'm trying to get the bracelets over to Iraq for these children and I don't know whether our armed forces should take them or, if the RCMP are going, they would take them. I made a promise to the little Brownies that I would get them to the children in Iraq. Perhaps you could tell me what is the best route for me to go.

    Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Mr. Chairman, I would ask Mr. Sutherland and Mr. Nikita to respond to that particular direct request.

    LCol Brian Sutherland (Canadian Forces Liaison Officer, Department of Veterans Affairs): I'll have to look into that matter.

    Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Will you let me know?

    Supt John Nikita: I'll get in contact with the officer in charge of our peacekeeping operations and ensure that he contacts your office.

    Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Thank you very much.

    I certainly support your bill. The sooner we get it passed, the sooner we get it into effect, the better. As you know, we travelled across the nation looking at our veterans hospitals. We were in P.E.I., and at that time they updated us as to what was happening with the RCMP, and we really appreciate, Mr. Minister, what you and the Minister of Defence have been doing with regard to this situation. The veterans don't have a problem with this at all, do they Brian?

    LCol Brian Sutherland: No, not at all. The average service member believes and always has believed they will be taken care of, and it's not expressed in any more detail than that. They have absolute faith in the Government of Canada and the departments that are entrusted with their care.

    Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Thank you very much.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mrs. Wayne.

    Minister.

    Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I acknowledge the kind words of Ms. Wayne, speaking for the staff of Veterans Affairs, and I would only add that come next budget time, I would like Ms. Wayne to speak to the finance minister.

    Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I have no problem with that whatsoever, dear. I happened to be in Belleville, Ontario, yesterday morning speaking to the Kiwanis Club with regard to the 60th anniversary of the Battle of the Atlantic. All of the veterans were there, God love them, and merchant navy men were there as well. It was really a very emotional time. I feel badly that we would send our men over to Afghanistan without any guns to protect themselves. I could send them with bracelets, but that isn't what I want to do, I want to send them with the tools to do the job. So I'll speak to the Minister of Finance, no problem.

¿  (0945)  

    Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: The Minister of Finance, of course, has been very supportive of the department, let me be clear.

    I'd just like to indicate to the committee that Mr. Grose was to participate in the celebration of the Battle of the Atlantic in Liverpool, England, when this medical ailment fell on him. I spoke to his wife as recently as yesterday, and he is in good spirits. He was en route to the Hammersmith Hospital, where further tests and likely treatment approaches are being considered.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Bailey.

    Mr. Roy Bailey: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I just want to make one thing clear, because of some questions that were asked. The Department of Veterans Affairs works under a different budget of the federal government, as does the RCMP. Other police forces come under municipal government. The understanding we put out--I certainly did in my press releases--was that this bill would make no additional funding necessary for Veterans Affairs. Further, when you enter into agreements between the RCMP and municipal authorities, the funding for any insurance that would go to other municipal police forces would therefore come from those police forces. So we don't get mixed up, we're dealing with three different departments. The additional funding does not touch Bill C-31. That's the message we've carried out, and I think we have to make that abundantly clear.

    Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: However, when a statute defines a particular need for funds, those statutory obligations will be fulfilled as required by that law, and therefore funding will be necessary from time to time to fulfil that legal obligation.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bailey.

    Minister, I have a few quick questions with respect to coverage of the legislation and perhaps clarification on these points. There's the situation with respect to pilots flying in and out of special duty areas, whether or not the coverage would extend to them. There's the question of whether visitors from, let's say, the Department of National Defence, if there's an accident and an investigation is required, would be covered under the legislation. And let me throw a third instance at you as well, in connection with reservists who are perhaps transported from the special duty area to a base, let's say Petawawa for the sake of argument. In the past, I believe, they've had cooling-off periods, a week or 10 days. at the base. Would they be covered at the base and subsequently during the period when they go from the base back to their home regiment?

    Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I will only say by way of introduction that if they are all designated as part of the particular deployment, they would be covered, but I would ask Mr. Sutherland to give us the detailed answer.

    LCol Brian Sutherland: I'll work backwards, sir, on your list of observations.

    Reservists, for the purpose of employment on operations, receive the same coverage and benefits as members of the regular force. Your question, as I understand it, concerned the time after their return from an operation, as they go back to the base where they did their preliminary training and from where they were deployed, before going back to their home units. As I understand the amendment contained in Bill C-31, the SDA or SDO coverage only applies to and from, and it would, I guess, have to be examined in detail as to where their end point is. They have not returned to their home unit, and that will have to be examined. Is the return point the supporting base or their home unit?

    Visitors and pilots, people who go in and out for a short duration, as far as I know, should be covered if they're in a special duty area, because they're there for a bona fide reason. Their coverage should be quite straightforward.

¿  (0950)  

    The Chair: In the interest of expediting the legislation, perhaps you could get back to us with an answer on the third example. We look forward to getting that, just for clarification purposes. Perhaps, if there are any issues related to that, you could come back to us with an explanation as to how they're going to be dealt with.

    Is the committee ready for a clause-by-clause analysis of the bill?

    (Clauses 1 to 7 inclusive agreed to)

    The Chair: Shall the title carry?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: Shall the bill carry?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: Shall I report the bill to the House without amendment?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: Okay.

    Minister, I'd like to thank you and your officials for being here today and responding to our questions. I think it has been a very helpful exercise. We like to believe around this committee that we do things with military style efficiency. I think we've lived up to our reputation today. I thank all the members of the committee for their cooperation.

    Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Certainly, you did respond very favourably, and I thank all members.

    The Chair: Thank you again, Minister.

    The meeting is adjourned.