[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Wednesday, March 27, 1996
.1534 
[English]
The Chair: Order.
Welcome, Mr. Minister. I'm delighted to have you here, the Hon. Lawrence MacAulay, Secretary of State for Veterans Affairs. I wonder if you would be so kind as to introduce your officials.
Mr. Frazer (Saanich - Gulf Islands): Madam Chair, before we begin with today's agenda I have a point of order regarding some procedural irregularities that arose during our organizational meeting. Beauchesne's sixth edition, point 822, states:
- Procedural difficulties which arise in committees ought to be settled in the committee....
- It is my hope that by raising these issues, the chair will be alerted to obvious procedural
shortcomings and will look to our learned clerk for guidance in this area when matters of
procedure are raised.
Specifically, I refer to the chair's ruling regarding my colleague's point of view of debate during the election of the opposition vice-chair. During that debate, the member for Okanagan - Similkameen - Merritt raised the issue of the Bloc's October 26, 1995, communiqué as evidence of his serious concerns with respect to electing a member of Her Majesty's loyal opposition to the vice-chair of this committee. Before he could make his case, the government whip interrupted and wrongfully advised you that this line of debate was out of order because this item was on the floor of the House.
Without seeking the advice of the clerk -
The Chair: Mr. Frazer, if I could just interrupt you for a moment, I think you have raised a matter that is of some importance and that should be discussed at this committee. I do, however, know the minister's time is short. I would ask you if you'd mind holding your point of order. I will entertain it after the minister has made his presentation rather than have the minister sit here while we go through what could be a fairly long procedural wrangling. I would be happy to entertain it after the minister has made his presentation and taken questions. Would that be agreeable?
Mr. Frazer: Madam Chairman, in deference to the honourable minister, I would agree to that.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Frazer.
I was going to ask you to start, Mr. Minister, but in actual fact I do have to first bring forward the first report of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs.
I believe all of members of the committee have a copy of this report.
An hon. member: I so move.
The Chair: Do I have a seconder?
Mr. Cannis (Scarborough Centre): I so move.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Cannis.
Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chair: Mr. MacAulay.
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Secretary of State (Veterans): Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm certainly pleased to be here to discuss the estimates for 1996-97. First, though, I'd like to congratulate you on your election to the chair of this committee. I know you're a good friend of Canada's veterans, and I look forward to working with all the committee.
I would like to introduce David Nicholson, Deputy Minister of Veterans Affairs, and Brian Chambers, chairman of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board.
All committee members will see from our estimates that the Veterans Affairs budget will be about the same this year as it was last year. That is because while the veterans population is declining, more veterans need benefits and services. As well, of course, many who are already receiving benefits require additional services as they get older. So our workload has remained about the same. That is not likely to change in the 1996-97 fiscal year.
While the details are in part III of the main estimates, I do want to talk about some of the major expenditures within the overall budget of $1.9 billion.
The disability pension program is once more the largest part of our budget. More than $1.1 billion will be paid out in disability pension, survivor pensions, prisoner of war compensation and other benefits provided for in the Pension Act.
Health care benefits, including the veterans independence program, or VIP for short, and the institutional care will total about $542 million in the next fiscal year.
I might mention here that in the coming year, the VIP is expected to help more than 75,000 veterans remain healthier and far happier in their own homes and communities. This program has proven to be a trailblazer in the health and home-care field and represents a significant saving over institutional care. Eight veterans can be helped at home under the VIP compared with keeping one veteran in an institution.
Economic support, which includes the war veterans allowance program, is expected to come in just over $100 million. This is a decrease of about $35 million from the 1995-96 estimates. That is explained mostly by the budget and program review measures.
.1540
Measures were taken to restore the war veterans allowance program to what Parliament had originally intended. That intention was to provide a guaranteed monthly income to eligible Canadian veterans, as well as to those who had left Canada to serve in the formal military forces of our allies.
These are the highlights on the expenditure side of our estimates. On the program side there are some points that I would like to mention.
I think all members of this committee are well aware of the Canada Remembers program. I am personally delighted by the program's success, and the minister and I were honoured to have taken part in many Canada Remembers events. Certainly a highlight of last year was the overwhelming reception Canadians received in the Netherlands during the ceremonies that marked the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II in that country. Our Prime Minister attended a special commemorative ceremony at Groesbeek Cemetery on May 6, 1995. He was joined by Princess Margriet of the Royal Dutch family.
We all felt deep and sincere appreciation shown by the people of the Netherlands for Canada. I might say, too, that most Canadians at home had the same feeling because of the really monumental efforts of the CBC and other Canadian media.
August 1995 marked the 50th anniversary of the end of the war in the Pacific, and the liberation of prisoners of war was also a highly emotional event. It was made particularly so by the awarding of the Hong Kong Bar. Canada's Hong Kong veterans deserve that special recognition, and they wear their bars proudly on the Canadian volunteer service medals.
With the end of the 50th anniversary commemorative period, we are now winding up the program. I want to take this opportunity to thank all members of Parliament and senators for their enthusiastic support for the Canada Remembers program. At the same time, I would like to express my sincere appreciation to the Canada Remembers team. They did a wonderful job, and they ensured that every event brought pride and honour to Canada's veterans.
Within the Veterans Affairs portfolio, the big issue has been pension reform. Bill C-67, the legislation behind the pension reform measures, came into effect September 15 of last year. We have moved very quickly on all components of that legislation. The Bureau of Pension Advocates has been merged with the department and continues to provide first-rate legal service to veterans appealing pension decisions. The new chief pensions advocate, Mr. Simon Coakeley, is here today, and I'm delighted to introduce him.
You may know that the Department of Veterans Affairs is now responsible for first-level decisions taken in the pension approval process. I am pleased to report that as of last month we began processing a higher volume of pension applications than ever before. In other words, we are advancing at the rate expected and we are determined to stay on track.
I might also mention that the Assistant Deputy Minister of Veterans Services, Mr. Denis Wallace, is also here today. He has the program responsibility for the implementation and operation of first decision process.
Members will recall that our goal is to cut pension turnaround time in half within two years of the September 15, 1995, start-up date. We're just getting our feet wet, but I can say that all signs look good for meeting that very important target.
I would like to say just a few words about the merchant navy veterans. As members of this committee know, merchant navy veterans had a 47-year wait to finally obtain full access to all available benefits. That wait, and the many obstacles and setbacks they had to overcome over the years, must have been a bitterly frustrating experience for them. I understand that and officials of the department understand that, so we can also understand there is still some reluctance on the part of a few to believe they now have equal access.
.1545
Parliament made it very clear in 1992 that the merchant navy veterans were veterans and that they were to enjoy the same access to all veterans benefits currently available. As of December 31, 1995, about 2,100 merchant navy veterans, out of a population estimated by the Merchant Navy Coalition to be in the order of 3,000, were receiving benefits from Veterans Affairs, and that is about 70%. I think that number speaks itself for the question of veteran statistics.
Still there are merchant navy representatives who continue to realize that there are flaws in the legislation. No actual cases have arisen to show the validity of these claims - none. At the same time, officials continue to monitor the operation of the legislation to see whether any clarifying amendments might be advisable. If they are, amendments could be introduced in the future miscellaneous amendments bill.
I want to point out to the committee that there is a big difference between concerns about theoretical problems and actual cases of individuals being denied benefits. I have issued a standing invitation to the merchant navy veterans representatives to let me know if they encounter any such cases.
Finally, Madam Chair, I would like to say for the record that the estimates before this committee represent a considerable amount of work by the number of departmental staff, particularly within the corporate planning division and the corporate services branch. With me today is the Acting Assistant Deputy Minister of Corporate Services, Mr. Ray Bray. He is the expert in detail on our estimates.
I thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister. We have a number of questions for you and for your officials, and I would ask Mr. Leroux to begin.
[Translation]
M. Leroux (Shefford): Well, Mr. Secretary of State, I'd like to welcome you to our committee. As the tradition is that the Minister answers our questions every year, I'd like to begin with the merchant marine.
As you point out in your presentation, since the passage of Bill C-67, the people from the merchant marine are now considered as possible beneficiaries of those pensions and other available programs.
As you know, it took many years of waiting before they were taken on and accepted. Is any kind of compensation in the works for those people? A lot of them are dead, but there are others who perhaps should have been getting those services. And even those who are now getting them may perhaps have lost, during the last 10 years, income they might have been entitled to, either because they were sick for some other reason. Is your department looking at any kind of retroactive payment for those people?
[English]
Mr. MacAulay: No, there is not. I would ask my deputy.... It went back much before 1992.I would say merchant navy veterans have been receiving benefits from the department since when, David?
Mr. David Nicholson (Deputy Minister, Department of Veterans Affairs): For any disability incurred in wartime service they would be able to apply and receive a disability pension.
Mr. MacAulay: Yes, and it would go back much before 1992.
Mr. Nicholson: Yes.
Mr. MacAulay: It doesn't mean that the first benefits they receive would be in 1992. They received long before that, but if the government ever got into the situation of retroactivity.... Where do you stop? Somebody could claim a pension for 50 years. It just couldn't be done.
[Translation]
Mr. Leroux: Well, sir, perhaps this would be just righting a wrong then. All the members of this committee have received letters from those people. For years they've been asking for that equity that has finally been granted them, although a little late, and you'll admit that as I do. So I think that your department should be making provisions for some compensation for them.
.1550
[English]
Mr. MacAulay: The situation, as I indicated, is that they were considered full veterans in 1992, but that wasn't when compensation started for a merchant navy veteran. Anybody who had a disability connected to a theatre of war would qualify for a benefit since the war. It doesn't mean that they didn't qualify, nor does it mean that they weren't receiving because they were receiving benefits much before 1992. This was passed through Parliament in order to make sure that they were officially recognized as veterans.
[Translation]
Mr. Leroux: In another connection, did the merger of the Canadian Pension Commission and the Veterans' Appeal Board of Canada in any way increase the backlog of hearings?
When we examined Bill C-67, we were told they were to be merged to accelerate the process to serve the applicants as quickly as possible. Are things now going more swiftly, or are we faced with the same delays? You know that at that age, when you need money, you need it right away. Those people can't wait indefinitely. So do you have the impression that they are now getting better service?
[English]
Mr. MacAulay: First, thank you very much for your question and concern. The truth is that, as of now, the situation is better than it was previously. But as you realize, immediately following when the changes were made on September 15, there was a period of training and adjustment. As of this date, we are processing more last month than we did a year ago.
Of course, we must still improve. What we have to do is reach what we at least indicated, which is to cut the turnaround time in half. That's because, as you well indicated, the department or the government does not want to pay benefits to estates, nor should they; they should pay them to individuals.
That's why when I was sworn in as Secretary of State for Veterans and saw the situation, I came to the realization that we had to do something in order to speed up the process. That's why this was done. It has sped up the process, and it will speed it up more.
[Translation]
Mr. Leroux: Minister, you're saying that within a year we'll perhaps be in a better position to evaluate whether Bill C-67 has met certain expectations. Is that it?
[English]
Mr. MacAulay: You're absolutely correct. God help me if it didn't improve.
[Translation]
Mr. Leroux: Concerning the health care budget, why is the item "medical, surgical and dental treatment and prostheses" the one that was subjected to the most stringent cut of about $20 million?
[English]
Mr. MacAulay: Here's exactly what was taking place in the department. Say a new hearing aid or type of glasses was advertised, there was no limit on the number of times you could, let's say, receive a new set of lenses or any of these other things. One of the major changes we made was to put a limit such that you could only receive a new pair of glasses, let's say, once every two years unless the prescription changed and it was needed.
The only thing we had to do in order to meet the assessment the government put upon us and to make sure dollars were spent wisely was to make sure the veteran was served, but served properly, making sure there was no waste.
Sometimes, as you might understand, if things are advertised, such as very expensive equipment, then veterans feel that they probably need it. We just put guidelines on that to make sure that dollars are not wasted. That's why the reduction is in those figures.
[Translation]
Mr. Leroux: You're saying there are limits, aren't you? The services are still being offered, but subject to a schedule. They're entitled to a pair of glasses every two years and, if the prescription changes... There won't be any rationalization or cuts.
.1555
[English]
Mr. MacAulay: Absolutely not, no. I can assure you that if the veteran needs it, he gets it.
Mr. Leroux: Thank you very much.
Mr. MacAulay: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Leroux. Monsieur Bertrand.
[Translation]
Mr. Bertrand (Pontiac - Gatineau - Labelle): I would also like to welcome the Secretary of State and the witnesses with him.
According to the estimates, sir, the Veterans' Review and Appeal Board expects to hear about 9,600 cases in 1996-97. How does that figure compare with those under the old method, where you had the Canadian Pension Commission and the Veterans' Appeal Board?
[English]
Mr. MacAulay: It compares reasonably favourably with the previous year.
[Translation]
Mr. Bertrand: But if I've read your notes properly, the hope is to cut the time down to half with the new Board.
[English]
Mr. MacAulay: Yes, it will, by September 1997, but it's going to take some time to reach that date. As I indicated, we heard more cases last month than we did a year ago last month. It's going to take time to get up to that rate. Mr. Chambers, who was the chairman of the Review and Appeals Board, has taken the cases that are there the longest. If there are cases that have been there three and four years, the four-year case is the one that's gets heard.
As you might realize, that doesn't do very much for our percentages until we hear those cases. Once we hear those cases, you indicated that in about fourteen months or so they should be cleaned up
Mr. Brian Chambers (Chair, Veterans Review and Appeals Board, Department of Veterans Affairs): We think it'll be much before fourteen months. Probably within the twelve-month period those cases will be moved out of the system.
Mr. MacAulay: Then that will mean the time period or turnaround time figures will be much easier assessed. It's quite difficult to assess time periods when you have to start with cases that are there three or four years. That's exactly what it's like now. If we don't hear them, those people would be passed on before they'd ever receive benefits or be refused.
[Translation]
Mr. Bertrand: Do we have any comments from veterans who have had dealings with the new system? Do they find it better than the old one? Have they sent you any comments?
[English]
Mr. MacAulay: I have not received any congratulatory comments or any negative comments. Mr. Chambers, possibly you could respond to that. Normally, if there's no problem, you hear nothing. If there's a problem, you hear something. Perhaps you have something to add.
Mr. Chambers: Certainly, where we would receive comments back would be from our client groups like the Royal Canadian Legion, because they're a big provider of services in that area. To date, the kinds of improvements we're implemented and gone through with them have been very well received by them. A number of them have been new and certainly more creative ways of providing hearing services.
I can give you an anecdote. Maybe that helps. One of the people presenting at the appeal level, who's in Charlottetown, became very ill. He's the legion representative in Charlottetown. They couldn't do their hearings because they didn't have anyone in Charlottetown to replace him.
So we set up and conducted a video hearing. They appeared in Ottawa and we heard the cases in Charlottetown. Four of their people appeared, which saved them enormous costs for travel and transportation. Those hearings were kept on schedule. They didn't lose one week in the process.
Those kinds of innovations have been well received by the legion and other groups as ways in which we can begin to address the problems of an aging clientele and how we can best serve them.
The Chair: Merci. Mr. Frazer.
Mr. Frazer: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I'd like to welcome the minister and his department assistants. It's nice to see a bunch of old faces - no, not old faces - long-time, friendly faces.
.1600
I would like to pick up on something Mr. Bertrand brought to you, and that was with regard to appeals. One of the things that bothered me about appeals was that 70% of those appeals were, in the end, granted. That meant to me that initially the judgment was wrong because if it was right after appeal, then it should have been right after the first time.
With the new introduction of the format after Bill C-67 went through, is there any evidence to date that there are going to be fewer appeals, thereby indicating the system's working better for people?
Mr. MacAulay: You're absolute correct. That was one of the major problems. You and I talked many times, and I indicated that the big priority was to get it right the first time. I know you're not asking for an assessment of how it's working, because we're just getting our feet wet. But, yes, it looks as if it tends to indicate we are doing a better job of getting it right now than we were with the previous set-up. It would be improper with just getting going to give you a definite answer, but it looks as if the procedure is much more efficient.
Mr. Frazer: I'm delighted to hear that, because as you said yourself, it's much better to give the claim to the live person rather than -
Mr. MacAulay: I think you said it too, Jack.
Mr. Frazer: Yes, I did, on a number of occasions. If I have my figures right, the normal caseload that comes in each year is about 10,000. The last time we discussed this we were talking about a 13,000 backlog. As a result of the reorganization, has there been some sort of forecast as to when we can see that backlog gone so the 10,000 cases can be dealt with forthrightly?
Mr. MacAulay: As Mr. Chambers has indicated, I believe it would take about the year.
Mr. Frazer: To get rid of those 13,000?
Mr. MacAulay: Yes.
Mr. Frazer: Plus handle the additional 10,000 that are coming in?
Mr. MacAulay: Does that handle the 10,000, Mr. Chambers?
Mr. Chambers: It will handle part of the new influx, but we have to sensitize ourselves to some of those figures. Somebody may file an appeal, but the applicant or the appellant may not be ready to proceed even within that year. They may be gathering additional medical evidence, discussing issues with their lawyer, requiring additional material. So even though it's filed with us, it's not necessarily ready to go on. Those that are will clearly be making a dent in those numbers.
Mr. Frazer: Basically, some are beyond the capability of the system because the people just aren't ready.
Mr. Chambers: Again, if we're looking at it purely on the numbers at the moment, all we can say is we see we're making significant inroads. We believe that given the 12- to 24-month time period the turnaround times will certainly be much reduced and people will not be feeling as if they're in the system for an excessive time.
Mr. MacAulay: Another thing that can happen, Jack, is they might apply for perhaps three or four different problems or conditions. One could be approved, three could go to appeal, one could be approved and then they might appeal the assessment. There are so many things in order to get the proper figures. It's nearly impossible until we get through some of the backlog. Even then because of the complexity of some of the approvals - but in another year we should certainly know exactly where we are on turnaround. It's going to be a lot better, that's for sure.
Mr. Frazer: Thank you. I'd like to move to merchant navy veterans for a moment. Like you, I've had a number of merchant navy people come to me and say they weren't being accorded equal treatment and so on. What I have done is I think similar to what you've done. I've said, give me a specific instance and I will go forward with it to my diligent minister, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, and he will give us an answer. I have yet to receive any of those specific cases, and this is several months now.
You made a commitment sometime ago to consider a housekeeping bill that would lump the merchant navy veterans.... Since there's no difference with the veterans, would it not be wise to do that just to put to rest forever the view that there is a disparity of benefits under one or the other program?
Mr. MacAulay: It's something we're certainly reviewing and in a position to do. Is there a large amount of dollars involved in that?
.1605
A voice: No.
Mr. Nicholson: Perhaps I could just add a point or two to that. I believe the centre of the concerns expressed by some of the representatives of the merchant navy is that the bill is entitled Merchant Navy Veteran and Civilian War-related Benefits Act. It seems they have some concern in being associated with the civilian side of that act, but I point out that the Korean War veterans also ushered their eligibility through the same act.
Mr. Frazer: No, I'm not arguing that. All I'm saying concerns the visibility of the whole damn thing. If we can correct it, why not correct it? If there are no differences, why don't we put it all under one umbrella and go with this?
Mr. MacAulay: It's a good point. It won't, as you know, change anything.
Mr. Frazer: No, I understand that.
Mr. MacAulay: And I'm not sure it will change any criticism either.
Mr. Frazer: It would have to do away with that criticism, or at least I hope so. Although with some of them, I'm not sure.
I wonder if you would care to discuss the case of the Hong Kong veterans who were incarcerated in the Japanese prisoner of war camps. They have claims against the Government of Japan, which have now been thrown out because Canada signed a peace agreement in 1952. It was deemed by the United Nations panel considering it that this thereby did away with any claim beyond that time.
The Geneva Convention doesn't go along with this. It says, in fact, that when a power uses prisoners of war to work in their industry, those prisoners must be compensated at the same rate at which their own workers are being compensated. This is not a penalty they're asking for; it's pay for what they should have been paid.
The Geneva Convention also says that a country cannot sign away those rights. They are not ``sign-awayable''. This has been raised because Canada had signed away those rights and the United Nations ruled against the prisoners of war.
What I'm wondering about is this. Canada now, it appears to me, has to accept an obligation for those people to say that it made an error and that it should have fought harder against the Japanese government to say that they do owe that money.
Again, going to the point of paying the individual or paying his or her estate, is there an obligation on the part of the Canadian government to provide them...? What they're asking for is an average of $20,000 as the pay that they should have received in compensation for the work they performed in the coal mines and so on.
Mr. MacAulay: But that's the compensation from the Japanese government.
Mr. Frazer: What I'm saying is that Canada made a mistake in signing away their rights, because it can't do that. Therefore, it appears to me that Canada has an obligation to those people to honour that and then seek compensation from the Japanese government through diplomatic channels.
Mr. MacAulay: From what I understand, the Hong Kong veterans are not seeking money or there's some kind of a mix-up as to whether they're seeking money from the Canadian government. Some of them, at least, are not a bit interested in receiving dollars from the Canadian government.
But the whole issue would be a Foreign Affairs issue. I don't think it would be appropriate for me to -
Mr. Frazer: Except that you would speak on behalf of the veterans.
Mr. MacAulay: In the line of being a privy councillor, it's under the jurisdiction of Foreign Affairs. If I understand it correctly, I don't believe it would be appropriate for me to respond in something that would be under the jurisdiction of another department. But I understand exactly where you're coming from.
Mr. Frazer: The case would be much stronger if the Department of Veterans Affairs were to say that the research is there and the Geneva Convention is there. You could examine it, come up with a case and say to the Minister of Foreign Affairs that we pooched on this one.
So again, if we don't pay the people, we're going to be paying their estates downstream. So to say that we'll fight it out with the Japanese over the next five or ten years is great, but the people who are being fought over will be gone.
The Chair: I think you've had your time now. Thank you.
Mr. Nicholson: I just want to make a point, Mr. Frazer. If I heard you right, I believe you said that it was your understanding that the international human rights tribunal ruled against the Hong Kong Veterans' Association.
Mr. Frazer: Based on the fact that Canada had signed a peace agreement in 1952.
Mr. Nicholson: You may be correct, but it was my understanding that they refused to hear it.
Mr. Frazer: No, that's wrong. They heard it and declared against it because Canada had signed a peace agreement.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Cannis is next.
Mr. Cannis: Thank you, Madam Chair. Let me begin by congratulating you on your election as chair, as it is my first meeting.
Minister, welcome, and Mr. Nicholson and Mr. Chambers as well.
.1610
Minister, you mentioned in your presentation the Canada Remembers program and the fact that it was being wound up. I don't have all the highlights here before me, but certainly there are a few of the highlights in your presentation that you mentioned. We all can agree on how successful it was and what pride we had as Canadians in not just reaching out but hearing from many veterans and their stories. I think that did a lot to bring us all together.
My question: is there any merit in maybe continuing such a program? Is there something there to which we could look forward in the future? Is there a similar program, something parallel to the Canada Remembers program, that you can tell us about?
Mr. MacAulay: I certainly appreciate your kind words about Canada Remembers. It has been a great success.
As far as it being a Foreign Affairs promotional tool, I wouldn't know of anything that would be any better. But the Canada Remembers program itself has reached its termination time, and will terminate.
However, there are many programs that have been started in the school system and in other areas that we are very interested in continuing. As you're well aware, unfortunately, school children in this country do not have the awareness of children in Europe of what took place during the Second World War.
I think our Canadian veterans would say they're very pleased, in fact, that they don't have this awareness, because in order to truly understand it you would have to go through it. That's so true. But I think it's important for us to have a basic understanding, in fact, of the pride. I mean, it's just unbelievable.
Jack, you were there going into a city of 100,000 people, with everybody waving flags and just wanting to touch the veterans. What a promotional tool for Foreign Affairs. I couldn't see anything that would be better.
To answer your question, there are many smaller programs that have been started because of the Canada Remembers program. We are now looking at some way within the department to see that these programs continue. In my opinion and that of many other people, they're invaluable. We must be sure that we keep the awareness more than just alive; they must become aware of what the people did, because it's quite the thing.
I remember a lady of about 60 telling me she couldn't understand that a boy of 18 jumped in a boat and came far over the sea just to kick out the enemy and tell her that she could live her life as she felt. Those people will never forget, particularly those in the Netherlands. They'll never forget what we did. If we could just get a portion of that back into this country, we'd certainly be more proud of ourselves.
Mr. Cannis: Thank you. The other question I have is this. I know that in our last budget we were addressing the veterans now living abroad. There was a review addressing that concern. I don't know where that's at, but I do know that the committee that visited the veterans in two different countries came back with certain data as to the cost and what have you.
I was wondering if there was any up-to-date information on these veterans who reside in various other countries, and if we're close to any decision.
Mr. MacAulay: Well, as you're part of it, you're well aware of what the report said. As a result, the decision to discontinue the payments has been deferred because of stress and perhaps health costs that would be incurred by the country. You saw the report. There are many other things that this country would have to pick up if they did come back. So it's been deferred and reviewed. Thank you.
Mr. Cannis: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Just before I go on to Mr. Jacob, the researcher has handed me a publication of the War Amputations of Canada, Mr. Chatterton's organization. What it basically says with regard to the issue that Mr. Frazer brought up and to which Mr. Nicholson responded, was that the human rights tribunal denied the claim on jurisdictional grounds, which to me means they wouldn't hear the merits. So in a sense, in the best of both possible worlds, gentlemen, you are both right.
.1615
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Chair: I like things that end like that.
Mr. MacAulay: Nothing like a chairlady.
The Chair: Who's always right. That's right.
Mr. Jacob.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacob (Charlesbourg): Welcome, Minister and Deputy Ministers. I have three questions for you.
You remember that last year there was a lot of discussion surrounding C-67 and the changes to the pensions and the disability process. On the other hand, we also looked at the estimates. If I refer to the 1995-96 budget, I see that the estimates were a bit higher than in the 1994-95 budget. In the 1996-97 budget, there is a slight decrease of about $61 million, as compared to last year's budget.
Expenditures were less than estimated for health care and financial support in 1995-96, and this year's estimates, 1996-97, have been brought down to last year's level. As for operating costs of the Veterans' Affairs Department, there's a decrease of a bit more than $7 million.
Now for my question: There's a slight decrease in the overall budget, but I think that in your government's cost restriction process, the decrease in the operating budget is barely 1.8%. Have you provided for or do you foresee any substantial decrease or will savings be accomplished through a decrease in financial support to health care with the demise of a number of veterans?
[English]
Mr. MacAulay: You're asking me if you feel there would be any more reductions in the operational part of the budget.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacob: The department estimates expenditures of some $500 million that won't be going to veterans for family support, health care and so forth. These $500 million will be spent by the Department for its internal operations. This year, that budget is $491 million, and last year it was $502 million.
[English]
Mr. MacAulay: I know that a number of the cuts that could be made in that area over the last number of years were made. I'll let the deputy minister explain it, but I don't feel there can be many more cuts in that area.
Mr. Nicholson: First of all, if we look at our overall budget in two categories, there's the budget that is dedicated to providing support and services for veterans and there's an operational budget that enables the department to do all the work it does in terms of delivering those services.
I'd like to set the record straight immediately, Mr. Jacob. That is not a $500-million-per-year amount. If you look at the total expenditures of the department, let's say for the 1996-97 main estimates, it's $1.9 billion. Out of that global budget, $542 million in the health care area goes out in direct payments to and on behalf of our clients. In terms of pensions, $1.159 billion goes out in direct payments to pensioners. In terms of economic support, $100 million goes out in direct payments to the recipients. That means this department has an operational cost, if you will, of about 7% related to the total in terms of our delivery and administration.
Now, in terms of the organization itself - the establishment, the people, the full-time equivalents involved with the department in terms of delivering these programs and services - going back to 1993-94, we have been meeting an ongoing reduction year over year on the operational side, beginning 1993-94 with 10% and then 5%, 5% and 5%. In terms of program review one, the decisions that were cast in the February 1995 budget, the department's three-year commitment in total is $182 million.
.1620
[Translation]
Mr. Jacob: In the report prepared by our research services, it says the last hospital that is still the property of the Department of Veterans' Affairs is the Hôpital Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue. I know that since last year the minister has had several meetings about giving this hospital to the province. Could you tell me briefly what stage we're at in this?
[English]
Mr. MacAulay: There have been some discussions, but there have been no negotiations as of yet. They are still very much in the discussion stage. But you are right, it's the last hospital, and the mandate of the department was to turn the hospitals over.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacob: According to management of Veterans' Affairs, it is less costly to have health care paid for by the provinces rather than keeping their own hospital. I believe that's what you explained to us last year.
If it is costlier to keep it, why aren't there any ongoing negotiations to either get rid of it or decrease costs?
[English]
Mr. Nicholson: If I may, Madam Chair, since Mr. Jacob has referred to my testimony last year, perhaps I could pick up on the question.
At one time the department operated 16 very large acute-care hospitals across Canada, most of these located in the major cities. The difficulties experienced in operating and managing these hospitals were that the federal government, not being the front-line provider of health care services in Canada, was not really equipped from a regulatory sense to properly and thoroughly operate these facilities.
In 1963 the then government, through a cabinet decision, provided an authority for the then Department of Health and Welfare and the Department of Veterans Affairs to divest themselves of these facilities. Since that time, the Department of Health and Welfare and the Department of Veterans Affairs have both been seeking out opportunities to make arrangements with other management boards, generally supported by the provinces, to take over the operations of these facilities.
As you probably now know, Mr. Jacob, the Department of Veterans Affairs has just one major hospital left. It's the one to which you've just referred, Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue. At one time it was a 920-bed facility providing acute care and also some psychiatric care to patients. Our patient load has declined somewhat over the years. We're down to about 640 patients now in the facility.
Recently, going back a year to two years,there's been some interest expressed by the Province of Quebec and by the Régie in the west end of Montreal Island, in looking for long-term care beds that would meet their future needs.
The opportunity as we see it is that we have a situation where we have a declining patient load and on the other side, we see a situation where they're seeking out some additional long-term care beds. We have opened discussions with the province and with the Régie, but we're not into negotiations yet. We've not gone forward seeking a mandate from Treasury Board to open negotiations, but we fully intend to do that as long there's an interest.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacob: I have one last question together with a suggestion. In his presentation, the minister said that after five and a half months of operation, the new pension approval process seems to have reached cruising speed.
.1625
Could the minister send a report to the committee on the benefits of the new process and the decrease in the backlog of cases? That would be useful for the committee. Maybe it will be less useful for me if it's only sent in September or October, because the Reform Party may have hanged me high by then.
[English]
Mr. MacAulay: Yes, it would be quite possible for us to report to you. We would be very pleased to do so.
The Chair: Mr. Richardson.
Mr. Richardson (Perth - Wellington - Waterloo): Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
Mr. MacAulay, it's a pleasure to see you, your senior officials and the other members.
It's almost like a good news story today. By the way, congratulations in the sense of the good news story being that there aren't as many outstanding concerns as we've heard in the last year.I think that bodes well for you.
I would like to pick up on something Mr. Frazer stated. On the surface it looks like quite an easy blend to make - I'm not sure how easy, because sometimes things that look easy aren't as easy to achieve as they seem to be.
Where the merchant navy and the other persons under that section receive benefits, if everything is now equal could they not be blended into one act? I think Mr. Frazer used the word ``blended''. Then you wouldn't be dealing with two and the perception would be that all being served are being served as veterans. I don't know what can be done. It just seems like a possibility. But sometimes when you get a gem of an idea and you delve a little deeper it's not as easy as it seems.
Mr. MacAulay: Yes. Thank you very much. Your concern is the same as Jack's.
First, when I became responsible for the Department of Veterans' Affairs the number one problem I saw within the department was to try to see that the people who truly deserved compensating dollars through the pension process received them.
It was certainly obvious to me that when you have such a backload, a building backload, that it would become the major priority. It certainly became my major priority to see that the dollars were delivered to the people who should receive them and not to the estates of the veterans. That was my priority.
Both you and Mr. Frazer are absolutely correct. I am considering that. A housekeeping bill would take care of the situation. Now that we have Bill C-67 and the department is rolling quite well, we will be looking at it.
Mr. Richardson: Thank you.
Mr. MacAulay: Of course, when we do it we also have to look at more than the merchant navy. As the deputy indicated, there are the Korean veterans. It would be a housekeeping bill to try to tie everything up, if we could.
The Chair: I have one question and I know Monsieur Leroux has another one.
With regard to the home care program for veterans, you mentioned that you can look after eight veterans at home for the cost for one in a hospital. Is respite care available? In other words, is there something for the caregivers and the relatives who are at home to give them a break from the home care?
Mr. MacAulay: Yes, there is. But if you want some detail on it, I'll let the deputy answer.
Mr. Nicholson: Yes, Madam Chair, as part of the program we do provide respite care for the caregiver.
The Chair: Is that a nationwide program?
Mr. Nicholson: Yes. The veterans independence program is nationwide. It's our program.
The Chair: Yes. I understand that.
Mr. Nicholson: It's not a provincial -
The Chair: You're not locked in with a provincial one. This might be interesting. Does it work well?
Mr. Nicholson: Yes. Of course, in most cases the caregiver is the spouse and is on duty 24 hours a day. One can just imagine how difficult that becomes year after year. So when there's an opportunity for the caregiver to take some time off, a week or so or a weekend, we can make arrangements to back them up.
.1630
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Mr. Leroux.
[Translation]
Mr. Leroux: I would briefly like to share my views with you after sitting two years in the House and almost as long on this committee.
Mr. Minister, I find that we are managing rather well with the aging process of our veterans who went to the defence of Canada. To those who are entitled, we offer services to improve their physical and economic well-being.
But I find that that is not enough. I find that your department isn't giving enough consideration to a dimension... You know, as you grow older...
Here is an example. In Granby, the Canadian Legion has 75 veterans who went off to the Second World War and Korea. The legion house is in total disrepair. The roof leaks.
This Canadian symbol of ours is crumbling away. If I'm telling you this, Minister, it is becauseI represent all voters in my riding. They have to replace the windows, but they're not getting any subsidies. There is practically no funding. On the other hand, I am told that there might be some possibilities.
Those people went to war to defend freedom. They spent four or five years of their lives, maybe the best, when they were 18, 19, 20 and 21 years old defending our country. Today, they have to fight just to get decent windows for their centre.
This year, they're going to be hosting the whole Quebec group, and their meeting place isn't up to standards. I find that your department doesn't give... You know, physical well-being and welfare isn't the be-all and end-all. Those people like to get together. Of course, they sing God Save the Queen and O Canada - that's another story - but they do like to get together for a little chat.
Now, their meeting place is falling to pieces and it's going to have to be closed even if there are some survivors left. We offer them the necessary health care, but I find we're not doing much for their minds or for the humanitarian aspect. We're not concerned with meeting their common recreational needs.
I am repeating myself, but those people went to fight for our country and our freedom, and they are now in a state where they almost have to go begging or organize brunches to get a bit of money together just to plug up the worse leaks, because they can't repair everything.
I'd like to know what you think about that. I think we should be doing more for those people.
[English]
Mr. MacAulay: I appreciate your concern and understand it well. I have been approached many times all across this country but I must proceed with the mandate that I have. It would take many more dollars - that I don't have - to respond to all the requests for veterans' organizations, buildings or whatever.
The Department of Veterans Affairs provides one of the best packages of benefits for the individual, if not the best. And I know that's not what you're talking about, but my mandate is to provide the package of benefits for the veterans.
I can understand where you're coming from, but the truth is that across the nation you would be talking millions if not billions of dollars. There would be no end because the legion roof would lead on to other things. Nothing would please me more than to be able to fulfil all the requests, but there are limits and that's where I am.
.1635
[Translation]
Mr. Leroux: Shouldn't the Department of National Defence try to find some way of pairing today's military with the members of the Canadian Legion? Shouldn't they be trying to find a way to organize activities for our veterans? In my riding, there are four cadet units that might perhaps be able to undertake activities...
[English]
Mr. MacAulay: Again, I understand and I couldn't answer for what other departments might do, but as you know, they pay dues to their legions and that's what is supposed to take care of their building.
I understand exactly where your heart is and I appreciate it, but the problem is that I do not have the mandate or the dollars to fulfil those requests. It would be beautiful if we did, but in the end there are limits, unfortunately. But I will also tell you that although we do provide a good package of benefits, there is no way the dollars can compensate for what our veterans did. It just makes their life somewhat better. I would never want to indicate that we're compensating, because you cannot.
The Chair: Mr. Frazer.
Mr. Frazer: At least once and perhaps twice this committee has recommended that because the maximum compensation limit for prisoners of war at the moment is 36 months, and we know that some merchant navy prisoners of war were in there for 50 months, there should be an extension of that benefit to those people who obviously deserve it. Can you give me any status on where we're going on that one?
Mr. MacAulay: Again, we can't compensate properly for what was done. But unfortunately with the day that we're in, with the dollars so scarce, to find new dollars in the department to compensate more would be extremely difficult at this time.
Mr. Frazer: Mr. Secretary, this is a situation where obviously there is a disparity. The payment of compensation for being in a prisoner of war camp is based on the length of time you were incarcerated. There is no question about the length of time. You know, 36 months may have been fine for air force and army or even some navy people, but these people were captured early in the war, and I think 50 months is the maximum I've heard of. Surely if the rate of compensation is based on the time incarcerated, they should be considered for inclusion. I don't think it requires a lot of money because there aren't that many of them left, but surely out of fairness they should receive the same compensation that other people did.
Mr. MacAulay: I don't know what the dollars would be. I'll let the deputy answer. Would you have the figures?
Mr. Nicholson: No. I can get the figures, but if you like, Mr. Secretary, I will provide a comment.
I think this question comes up on an annual basis as we defend the estimates. You're quite right, and my answer has always been the same. There is a cut-off at the other end as well. You have to be incarcerated up to 89 days before you receive compensation, so that's the other end of it. It's very difficult to put a price tag on the level of pain and suffering these people went through. We're just saying that someone has to develop a limit at some time or other. The parliamentarians who approved this many years ago decided at the time that the 89 days and 30 months would be the limit.
Mr. Frazer: If I may, Mr. Deputy Minister, they weren't considering merchant navy veterans at that time because they weren't even included in the legislation. Now that we are aware of it, they are acclaimed as the fourth arm of the service. There is no question that they provided vital input into our war effort. Since we're going in six-month increments, as I understand it, surely they should qualify.
Mr. Nicholson: You've provided me with an opportunity first to deal with your point, but also to touch upon a point made by Monsieur Leroux previously when he referred to Bill C-67 and merchant navy benefits. Bill C-67 really had nothing to do with merchant navy benefits. The merchant navy had been receiving certain benefits since the time of their involvement. It was only in 1992, effective July 1, that the full range of veterans benefits was extended to the merchant navy, and it's important that we clear that point up.
.1640
The point was made, why not compensate on a cash basis for the intervening years between 1945 and 1992? We all know the answer to that - it's just not on.
In terms of your point, the merchant navy were considered during those years the prisoners of war. The fact that the parameters of 89 days and 30 months were placed on the compensation was something that was considered at the time it was enacted. That's all we have. As you know, I'm not a policy maker; I just provide you with advice on what the legislation is and that's it. As the secretary has indicated, it comes up each and every year. We're just not in an environment now where you'd ever advance something like that.
The Chair: I'm going to go to Mr. Bertrand, Mr. Frazer, and if there's time....
Mr. Bertrand: In the 1996-97 estimates you list factors that influence planning and one of them - and I'm surprised to see it - is judicial and legal factors. Veterans affairs legislation is currently the subject of litigation, including charter challenges in a number of cases. The issues involved are major, and decisions in favour of the plaintiffs would have significant financial consequences for the government. Could you give me a rough idea of what we're talking about here and how much money we're talking about?
Mr. MacAulay: The legal department deals mostly with you, Mr. Chambers.
Mr. Chambers: I think it might have been in a former life or former capacity.
I can give you examples of two where there is significant exposure financially for the government. We've had claims in our system for same-sex spousal benefits, which is not a new issue for members of Parliament. It's being discussed and that particular case is heading for Federal Court, or that was the last stage. There could potentially be a significant exposure there in terms of the increase in the number of people who may be eligible for benefits, whether it's war veterans allowance in terms of income support or whether it's on the disability pension side.
Another piece of litigation at the moment that we can talk about is the war veterans allowance case in which we concluded through the legislation in 1992 that we would not provide certain resistance fighters with benefits. They were taken out as a definition. That legislation has been challenged before the Federal Court of Appeal in western Canada. We're still waiting for that to go to trial. It would involve potentially...for example, in front of my board there are 235 cases on that one issue that are impacted by the outcome of that decision. If that decision goes against, depending on which side you're on, if it goes against in the sense that we are found to be in a situation of greater exposure, then I can't give you an estimate. I think there was a contingency figure.
Mr. Bray may be in a better position than I am to talk about the contingency figure they've set aside if that legislation were to be unfavourable to the government. But I can say that several tens of millions of dollars annually would be involved if that particular challenge were upheld.
There are other pieces like that, but they usually involve groups. Where there are groups of people or classes of people, obviously the annual pay-outs for these pieces of litigation can be fairly significant.
The Chair: Mr. Frazer, did you have one tiny question?
.1645
Mr. Frazer: Just to bring me up to date, if you can. As you recall, there was a variation made in the hearing policy as of July the year before last, I believe, and that was then later rescinded because there were many claims coming in and so on.
It caused a blip in the system. I've had many people who were disgruntled by this and felt they were treated unfairly because some people who applied early enough were granted the additional benefits for hearing. Those who applied outside those timeframes were told, no, we're changing the policy back again.
I have heard you are reconsidering that because the new limits fell in line with the Workers' Compensation Board and the American limits and so on. Is there any truth to this or are we back to it?
Mr. Chambers: Since we're most to blame or responsible, depending on which way you look at it, we adopted a new hearing loss policy at the board around September 20, just for the record. If you are in the high tone areas, which is 3,000 to 6,000 to 8,000 hertz, if you show a 50-decibel loss in those areas during time of service - it's regular force - that would make you eligible for pension entitlement. We have an audiogram on discharge showing a 50-decibel loss in those areas.
Then we assess the level of the hearing loss, based on the problems in conversational ranges. Or, the other end of it, in the conversational ranges, which we call 500 hertz to at the present 2,000 hertz, if you show a 25-decibel loss or greater in those areas, then that is pensionable.
We regularly resort to specialists in the field to get their feedback. We've compared that to the American hearing society and also to Workers' Compensation.
Our particular hearing loss policy is far more generous, far more accommodating than either of those two to the point, in fact, that even our hearing loss specialist said you don't necessarily have to go that far if you don't want. You can justify it by moving closer to the American or closer to Workers' Compensation Board levels.
We decided, because of the difficulty in adjudicating claims at our level, that this was fair. It was reasonable. It was something that could be applied without a great deal of problem. We're seeing a lot of cases going through now that previously didn't get entitlement that are now getting entitlement based on this.
The last point I want to bring to your attention is that hearing loss policies are issues of constant review. I have a policy advisory committee of my board, for example, who are currently looking at that particular issue because there are any number of new problems that we're looking at. If we can be systematic and fair in the development of a policy that we apply in our adjudication, that's the direction we're intending to go.
I feel very comfortable that what we have in place now is certainly a very good policy, very fair. That doesn't mean that's where we're stopping in terms of looking at this particular issue.
Mr. Frazer: You have revised it vis-à-vis the new one, sir.
Mr. Chambers: It's revised.
The Chair: Mr. O'Reilly.
Mr. O'Reilly (Victoria - Haliburton): Thank you, Madam Chair, and Mr. Minister, it's good to see you again. Thank you, witnesses, for attending.
This may not be the proper venue, but the committee some time this year, I hope, will deal with this problem.
I would like to ask you if there is consideration in the main estimates to accommodate the emergence of the veterans of the Gulf War, or whether your mandate is up to and including only the Korean War, as you stated.
Mr. MacAulay: It does involve them, and it would be my mandate, yes.
Mr. O'Reilly: Is there any consideration in the main estimates to accommodate that emergence? Many people now are claiming Gulf War syndrome, which is considered to be similar to other syndromes, not diseases, of course, so the body of evidence is inconclusive on a syndrome,I understand. Could you enlighten this committee as to what's going on in that area?
Mr. MacAulay: As you're aware, the Americans have indicated that Gulf War syndrome as a syndrome is not a disease. We don't consider it a disease as of yet. But of course, if you can identify a disability connected to your service, then within that you can receive a disability pension.
Mr. O'Reilly: I understand the difference between a syndrome and a disease, but there are many veterans who have a hard -
.1650
Mr. MacAulay: Are you asking me if we are going to allot dollars to pay for the syndrome itself?
Mr. O'Reilly: I'm asking if there is consideration in the main estimates to accommodate these emerging veterans who have serious medical problems.
Mr. MacAulay: Yes.
Mr. O'Reilly: Thank you.
The Chair: Mr. Secretary, thank you very much. I thank your officials as well. We hope to see you before this committee again. I thank you for your participation.
Mr. MacAulay: I hope to appear again. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you, gentlemen.
Mr. Leroux: It's been a pleasure.
The Chair: Mr. Frazer, we'll deal with your motion. I have a suggestion. Would you like to read your motion into the record? Then I would suggest that we ask the clerk to give us an opinion and bring it back. Would that be good for you?
Mr. Frazer: I think you'll find, Madam Chair, that it might not provoke a lot of discussion anyway.
The Chair: Then if you would read your motion into the record, we'll ask the clerk to take it under advisement and give us an opinion.
Mr. Frazer: Would you like me to commence at the beginning or where I left off?
The Chair: Where you left off, because it's already on record.
Mr. Frazer: I believe I left off, Madam Chair, with regard to the intervention of the government whip who interrupted and wrongly advised you that this line of debate was out of order because this item was on the floor of the House.
Without seeking the advice of the clerk, you ruled my colleague out of order. When I asked, ``...would you mind giving me the quote from Beauchesne's that rules it out of order?'', the chair replied, ``I will just tell you that if you wish to find it in Beauchesne's, Mr. Frazer, look it up.''
Madam Chair, this response not only displayed a lack of respect for my legitimate right for clarification but it also was a violation of basic procedure.
Standing Order 10 states in part:
- In deciding a point of order or practice, the Speaker shall state the Standing Order or other
authority applicable to the case.
- Further, Standing Order 116 states:
By combining these two Standing Orders, it is clear the chair violated procedure. It also should be noted that the government whip was incorrect in his assertion that my colleague could not raise the issue because ``...it's presently on the floor of the House of Commons to be voted on. It is out of order''.
Madam Chair, in researching this matter and conferring with senior clerks at the committee directorate, we can find no Standing Orders or other authority to uphold the government whip's point of order. Therefore, the chair not only violated procedure in regard to this matter but she also erred by accepting an erroneous point of order.
I would also like to bring to the chair's attention citation 819 from Beauchesne's sixth edition:
With the exception of proceedings on private bills, the Chairman of the committee may vote only when there is an equality of votes.
However, the records show that the chair did in fact vote in the elections of the vice-chairs. When I questioned the appropriateness of such actions, the chair replied, ``...because this was the first vote to set up chairs and vice-chairs, on the advice of the clerk I voted''.
As I have already stated, the procedure for the chair to cast a vote is clearly spelled out and I find it difficult to believe our clerk would have counselled the chair to break the rules.
Based on these clear violations of procedure, I am well within my rights to appeal the election of not only the opposition vice-chair but also the chair, as prescribed in citation 821(1), that ``All rulings of the Chairman may be appealed to the committee.''
I do not intend to appeal your ruling at this time, but I do want to inform the committee about the procedural errors and put the chair on notice that these type of deviations will not be tolerated in the future.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chair: So you have no motion.
Mr. Frazer: No, ma'am.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Do you have something you wish to say, Mr. O'Reilly?
Mr. O'Reilly: I have no comments.
Mr. Frazer: Do you have a couple of minutes we could spend here, since this is the first meeting of the committee since the elections?
The Chair: To do what?
Mr. Frazer: Just to discuss the way we operate, for a moment.
.1655
The Chair: I'm not really prepared to do that. We were scheduled to be here only until 5 p.m.
Mr. Frazer: I thought it was 5:30 p.m., but okay.
The Chair: I think it would be best, since I know some people have to leave, if we had these discussions with the full committee.
In future, if you want to put something on the agenda, Mr. Frazer, you let us know. We'll be happy to accommodate you.
Mr. Frazer: Thank you.
The Chair: We adjourn to the call of the chair.