[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, May 18, 1995
.1537 
[English]
The Chair: Order.
I welcome back the Secretary of State for Veterans Affairs and his officials.
Before we get to the secretary, I just want to say that we did have some items we wanted to go through today, but we're short of members. As a matter of fact, I think we must leave it until our next meeting. We wanted to adopt a couple of reports from the steering committee, but I think we will leave that until we get more members here. We also wanted to deal with the report of the main estimates on Defence, but we'll leave that as well.
You will also have received from Michel three reports, one on ferry command, one on benefits to merchant navy veterans, and one on the Newfoundland Overseas Forestry Unit. We just got those today. We will take some time to read them and then we will reschedule a meeting where we deal with that later on.
What we will do today, then, is simply deal with the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs, unless there is other business we should deal with before that.
Mr. Frazer (Saanich - Gulf Islands): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee ensure that the chairman uphold all rules and practices of this committee and in particular; a member's privileges to debate each issue before committee as provided for in the Standing Orders; a member's right to question witnesses; a member's right to seek advice from legal counsel; a member's right to request input from committee research staff; and a member's right to move motions in his/her language pursuant to Standing Order 65.
The Chair: We don't have a quorum. We have a quorum for hearing witnesses, but we don't have a quorum for taking votes.
Would you want to table the motion and let us deal with it at the next meeting? We could consider it tabled until we have enough people here to take a vote.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Frazer: I guess that would be acceptable, Mr. Chairman, providing you as chairman are willing to abide by the requests we have made.
The Chair: What happens if I don't? Is there a penalty? Do you get out whips? Do I get thrown into the brig?
Mr. Frazer: I would think so, yes.
We'll get into it a debate.
An hon. member: Off with your head.
The Chair: Walking the plank is out. I refuse to walk the plank. I'll submit to all torture short of that.
.1540
I think the simple answer is, yes, but let's leave the motion until we get a quorum we can deal with.
Mr. Frazer: I presume it's on the record.
The Chair: It's on the record. The clerk has made a note of it. It has been tabled.
I welcome the Secretary of State for Veterans Affairs, who has been representing us abroad at some very important, and I am sure very emotional, ceremonies. Many of us envy him and the people who went with him that experience, I'm sure.
We want to hear from him today. I give him the floor.
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Secretary of State, Veterans Affairs Canada): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, I would like to introduce the officials who are with me today: the Deputy Minister of Veterans Affairs, David Nicholson; Rhéal Bray, Director General of Finance; and Serge Rainville, Assistant Deputy Minister, Veterans Services, and Executive Director, Canada Remembers.
We also have with us the chair of the Veterans Appeal Board, Twila Whelan; the chairman of the Canadian Pension Commission, Marcel Chartier; and Evan Elkin, Deputy Chief Pensions Advocate, Bureau of Pensions Advocates.
Before I turn to the 1995-96 estimates, I would like to bring the committee up to date on events since my last appearance here. First I would like to thank the committee for its work on Bill C-67. The attention given to the legislation and many helpful comments and suggestions were appreciated.
Second, I trust all members have received the prisoner of war compensation costing provided in response to the committee's motion. While the practical reality is that the financial restraints rule out new expenditures of the kind indicated, I would underline that any disability or illness incurred while the veteran was a prisoner of war are fully covered by disability pensions.
This means that POW compensation, while it's automatic regardless of any disability, is paid on top of any disability pension received. This is in recognition of the pain, suffering, maltreatment, and indignities received while a captive of the enemy.
Third, Mr. Chairman, the minister and I have submitted the three-year outlook document for Veterans Affairs. The document confirms that we will be very busy indeed for the next three years serving veterans and their families. As the outlook document is a brand new initiative undertaken by the government, I would be delighted to receive any comments members may have.
Turning now to the estimates, I will cover some of the highlights and then I would be pleased to answer any questions. The total budget this year is again about the $2 billion mark. The biggest single expenditure is the disability pension program, where we expect to pay almost $1.15 billion to approximately 148,000 pensioners.
The health care program is the second-largest expenditure area. An estimated $570 million will be paid to or on behalf of veterans for their benefits, the veterans independence program services, and long-term care in department or contract institutions.
As committee members may know, Mr. Chairman, we have been working very hard to ensure that scarce dollars are being used in the best possible way. The result in the health care program has been outstanding. Better still, this has been achieved without affecting the delivery of needed benefits and services to eligible veterans. All members want veterans to receive what they need, but there can be no justification for excess, overlap, or duplication. Those are the areas we are determined to eliminate.
I want to turn to the war veterans allowance program. I understand the committee is particularly interested in the changes we are making as a consequence of the February budget. I will provide some details on those changes a little later in my remarks.
The war veterans allowance program, or WVA, as it's better known, began in 1930. It was intended to provide income support to needy Canadian veterans with overseas service. By ``Canadian veterans'', Parliament meant those who had served in the Canadian forces as well as those Canadians who had served in a formal military force of our Allies.
.1545
In the decades since, the act was amended to provide eligibility for non-Canadians who had served in formal military forces of the Allies, who had emigrated to Canada, and who had lived here for at least 20 years. That was later changed to 10 years post-war residence.
While this was all very clear in intent, an important veterans community had inadvertently been excluded, namely, American veterans. As the United States was not an Allied country as defined under the act, Parliament amended the legislation to make provisions for powers associated with the Allies.
It was that amendment, Mr. Chairman, specifically intended to provide eligibility for uniformed veterans of the United State forces, that quasi-judicial and judicial bodies subsequently interpreted as including resistance populations of enemy occupied countries. Parliament never intended any such thing, and that is why Bill C-76, the budget legislation, is asking Parliament to reaffirm what it had always intended.
The consequence will be that approximately 4,100 individuals receiving VAC benefits on the basis of service in a resistance force will see their eligibility cancelled. While no one likes to remove a benefit, the fact is, these individuals will continue to have access to a full range of federal and provincial benefits all Canadians enjoy.
The budget also announced that there would be no new WVA applications approved for Allied veterans on the basis of post-war residence alone. Pre-war residence in Canada will be required. This amendment, like the one pertaining to resistance service, is based on the fact that Parliament's original intent had been that Canadian veterans benefits were meant for Canadians who had served in Canadian or Allied forces. Bill C-76 will reaffirm Parliament's intent in that regard.
The final change pertains to the payment of WVA abroad. Up until 1960, WVA was only available to veterans living in Canada. If you moved to another country, the benefit ceased.
Parliament amended the act to provide, in effect, for exceptions to be made. If a veteran had to leave Canada for health or compassionate reasons, had been a resident in Canada for at least one year, and was receiving WVA on the day of departure, then the benefits could be paid outside the country. It was intended that this provision would apply to special case circumstances I just mentioned, and that there would be considerably little use made of the provision by Canadian veterans. This was in fact the case until recent times.
The growing number of Allied veterans qualifying for WVA, and their understandably greater tendency to move abroad, changed this. We are now paying almost $10 million in WVA payments abroad. Allied veterans account for two-thirds of that amount.
Again, Mr. Chairman, Parliament just did not intend this to happen. The budget therefore announced that Allied veterans receiving WVA outside of Canada would have one year to return to Canada to maintain their eligibility for WVA benefits. Veterans who do not return within the one year would have their benefits cancelled.
In recognition of the fact that the temporary absence provision of the WVA had gotten out of step with other social assistance programs, most notably guaranteed income supplement, the regulations are being amended to increase and permit absence periods from three to six months, during which payments may continue to be made.
In terms of program savings, the cancellation of resistance service will account for $30 million, and the elimination of the overseas payments, when that takes effect next year, is expected to result in a $2.5-million savings.
This has been a rather long explanation of the budget changes to the WVA program, but I trust my comments will help members understand the rationale behind each measure.
.1550
Before I close, Mr. Chair, I would like to say a few words about the Canada Remembers program. At the outset of this two-year program of commemoration, I frankly do not think anyone could have imagined how enthusiastically Canadians would have embraced the Canada Remembers message. Right across Canada, we have seen schools, businesses, governments, youths, seniors, anglophones, francophones, aboriginals, service organizations - and the list goes on - all becoming involved in events commemorating Canadian sacrifice and achievement in that horrible conflict 50 years ago.
Veterans Affairs Canada is honoured to have played a major role in the Canada Remembers program. Our commitment to the program will continue through the 50th anniversary this August of the victory in the Pacific and the liberation of Hong Kong prisoners of war this December. The commemoration of that event will conclude the program. Veterans Affairs will, of course, continue its usual commemoration program following the end of the Canada Remembers special commemoration program.
While the images of the absolutely incredible VE Day crowds in the Netherlands are, of course, fresh in our minds, we remember too the service and sacrifice at Dieppe, the battle of the Atlantic, the Italian campaign, D-Day, the battle of the Schelde and the liberation of the Netherlands. These were outstanding events for such a young country, and wherever Canadians served they brought honour and respect to our country. I salute our veterans, and I want to salute those who worked so hard on the home front to make that victory possible.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I know we all were impressed with the way in which the remembrance ceremonies were handled, both at home and abroad, and I think it was a moving experience for all of us.
Before I look for questioners, could I just ask you to do something for the committee? We heard from the Newfoundland Overseas Forestry Unit in a previous hearing. I think it is fair to say there is around the table a fair amount of sympathy for their cause. Initially, we are attempting to put a cost on what benefits might be, if they were agreed to.
We are wondering, Mr. Secretary of State, if you could ask your department to cooperate with our researchers in attempting to put a cost figure on benefits to the Newfoundland forestry unit. It will help us in our further discussions on that issue.
Mr. MacAulay: We can do that, Mr. Chairman, I can assure you. I am not sure if new dollars are available.
The Chair: Well, we will take old dollars. It doesn't have to be new dollars.
Mr. MacAulay: We would be very pleased to oblige you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chair: Everybody wants to ask a question here. Let's start with Mr. Leroux.
[Translation]
Mr. Leroux (Shefford): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Minister, gentlemen, we are very pleased to welcome you before our committee this afternoon.
My first question deals with the overall administration of your department. If we look at the figures, we realize that administrative services account for roughly 25% of the total budget. So, it costs roughly one fourth of the budget to spend three quarters of the budget. What does your department do to lower these costs? For the Bloc, such a ratio is somewhat excessive. What concrete steps do you intend to take to reduce these 25%?
[English]
Mr. MacAulay: I am not sure where that figure would come from. Approximately 93% of the budget in Veterans Affairs is paid out to the veterans, and I believe 7% is for administration.
[Translation]
Mr. Leroux: What is the impact of the budget cuts on the Veterans Affairs Department?
.1555
[English]
Mr. MacAulay: With the budget review, what we have done, and what we intend to do, is to be sure to eliminate any overlap or waste in any part of our department. There are many ways you can reduce spending without hopefully any amount of negative effect on our veterans.
There are some changes, as you do know. I basically feel if we don't make these changes now, in Veterans Affairs and all across government, we'll have no dollars to do anything. The fact is, Veterans Affairs has and will provide one of the best, if not the best, package of benefits to veterans in the world. That's what we will continue to do. But what we did do is to go through, as you know, program review. With program review we went through tightening up of some of the programs, just to eliminate some waste.
I guess you have the list. Resistance fighters alone will save about $30.5 million. As for funerals and burials, changes in that area will save about $5.7 million, and a number of other savings.
[Translation]
Mr. Leroux: Mr. Minister, when you talk about savings, you mean that these people are gone receive less money than last year from your department. Are you willing to admit it?
[English]
Mr. MacAulay: What I'm willing to admit is that in funerals and burials we're just taking a look at the total and tightening it up. Neither we, I think anybody in Canada, nor Sir Arthur Hair, when after the First World War he established the Last Post fund, intended that anybody that would be quite wealthy would be buried by the federal government. So it's just items like that.
Resistance fighters are people who were involved with the Allies, over...but not Canadians. No, I don't know of any other country other than Canada that paid resistance fighters. The legislation put in place by legislators did not intend for us to pay resistance fighters.
So with this change all we are doing - and it brings back $30.5 million - is bringing the legislation back to its original intent. With that, we also will be sure to be able to provide to veterans, and to Canadians, what they truly need and to be sure that we are in a position to provide the best package of programs in the world, as we are today.
[Translation]
Mr. Leroux: Mr. Chairman, the Bloc supported Bill C-67 because we feel it is possible, in spite of the fact that the department is gaining more power, to speed up the process. You know that the average age of veterans is about 73. I think you mentioned it in your brief. At that age, things must move quickly.
Do you sincerely think that if you realize that things are not running as they should, you will have the means to shorten the response time needed when they apply.
[English]
Mr. MacAulay: I think you are referring to the changes. What will happen there is that within two years the turn-around time will be cut in half. The average age of our veterans is 74 years of age. If we don't do this, we will be paying estates instead of veterans. The truth is that we do owe the dollars from the time they apply.
.1600
[Translation]
Mr. Leroux: With regard to the allowance program for the resisters and allies, approximately 4,100 people would be affected by the cuts. I'm told that two thirds of those people come from Quebec. Is that true? Can we have exact figures? What would be the number of people affected?
Does that mean that those people will be completely excluded? You say that they will still enjoy the benefit of living in Canada. Does that mean that they have already received something and that, from now on, they won't touch anything more?
[English]
Mr. MacAulay: It certainly had nothing to do with where they lived in the country. The war veterans allowance was not intended to pay for resistance fighters of foreign countries. I'm not sure if I have the breakdown of where.... They are mostly from Quebec and Ontario. About two-thirds are from Quebec and roughly one-third from Ontario, although there would be others. There are 4,100 resistance fighters who will be cut off.
The problem is, it's up to you and me and Parliament to pass legislation to pay if we so desire. The legislation that was put in place was not intended to do this, so when we passed the bill we brought the legislation back to its original intent.
[Translation]
Mr. Leroux: Thank, Mr. Minister.
[English]
Mr. Proud (Hillsborough): I welcome the secretary and the officials. Before I get to specific questions, I want to congratulate you and your department on the tremendous job I feel took place regarding the Canada Remembers program last year and this year and on into this fall. I attended some of the ceremonies. I think it was something we certainly had to do, something we probably could have done earlier in this regard - although not the 50th. I think there are more things we can do.
The only downside I have about the ceremonies was that no one informed the House leadership that VE Day was Monday, May 8, and people had to come back here for votes. I think that was a terrible error on our part - I say that on our behalf - because I believe the House of Commons should have closed that day. However, that's history. I just wanted to get that on the record.
Mr. Secretary, you just talked to Mr. Leroux about the changes to WVA. As I understand it, you've said in your statement that this was intended only for uniformed American people other than Canadians. Is this the original thought of that? Where the resistance fighters come into play, was a decision made by one of these boards you have now or one of the predecessor boards?
Is that a fair question to ask?
Mr. MacAulay: The legislation intended to pay uniformed Allies.
Mr. Proud: Uniformed Allies of any country?
Mr. MacAulay: Yes. If somebody wishes to get into the details of why a special provision was made -
Mr. Proud: No. The other question I really want the answer to is this. When was the decision made by the Canada Pension Commission or Veterans Appeal Board or whoever it was at the time? How many years ago was that decision made?
Mr. MacAulay: To pay resistance fighters?
Mr. Proud: Yes.
Mr. MacAulay: I don't have the information before me.
Mr. David Nicholson (Deputy Minister, Veterans Affairs Canada): If we could get the precise date -
Mr. Proud: But it has been several years.
Mr. Nicholson: It goes back at least to 1985. It was a decision of the old War Veterans Allowance board. It was a judicial decision that was taken as a result of the directions from the Federal Court.
.1605
Mr. MacAulay: Mr. Proud, I can assure you that both Houses were informed of the date. It was up to the House to decide what they would do. I believe you had a vote, and that caused some difficulty. We did our informing.
Mr. Proud: I just wanted to let you know that I wasn't very pleased with it, and I think others were of the same mind.
The Chair: Before we go on, our recording now is done electronically, and the committee Hansard is reproduced from a tape. Can we bear that in mind, because -
Mr. Frazer: That's been changed.
The Chair: Has it all been changed?
Mr. Frazer: Yes.
The Chair: So we don't have to worry about order and discipline now.
Mr. MacAulay: Do you want me to indicate if it was VE Day, or what?
Mr. Proud: The one other area of the Veterans Affairs programs I wonder about is the economic support estimates for 1995-96, $152 million; for 1994-95, $166.29 million. What is that?
Mr. Rhéal Bray (Director General, Finance, Veterans Affairs Canada): Economic support is basically WVA payment including the delivery cost of that program.
Mr. Proud: And that's decreasing?
Mr. Bray: Yes, it is decreasing, because there are fewer and fewer members. As people qualify for OAS and GIS, they get just a top-up of WVA.
Mr. Proud: With regard to the next two down, the departmental administration 1994-95, $43,506,000 going down to $29,569,000, is that part of the elimination of some jobs, which we see on another chart? Is that a part of where people will be cut back?
Mr. Nicholson: The job loss connected with the program review is reflected in the main estimates on the sheet that shows the reductions the department is going to have to find. The job losses are not large. For year one, I believe they're 37.5 FTEs across the country. The total amount of reductions for year one, including staff costs, are $59.5 million. They include the items the Secretary of State has already referred to: the resistance in Allied WVA; the Last Post fund changes when they're negotiated; some changes to the health care area; and some changes to travel allowances. So the job losses for the department over year one of program review are 37.5.
Mr. Proud: When you say full-time equivalents, did you say 59?
Mr. Nicholson: It's $59.5 million savings, and your loss is 37 - but that does not include retirements that would come into play, either. The actual loss of jobs would be very minimal within.
Mr. Proud: It would be less than 37?
Mr. MacAulay: Yes. If nobody retired or came on...it wouldn't be, but I'm just suspecting that somebody will retire.
Mr. Proud: I'm asking that -
Mr. MacAulay: I don't have right in front of me all who are going to retire, but somebody will.
Mr. Proud: - because some of these numbers from other areas, other departments, when you see FTEs and it says 37, it could be more than 37. Some of these are part-time people.
Mr. MacAulay: But this is full-time, handled by attrition.
Mr. Proud: Another chart shows here the financial requirement, Veterans Affairs portfolio 1995-96 and 1997-98. What you have included here in this is the Canada Pension Commission; the Bureau of Pensions Advocates; and the Veterans Appeal Board. Why would that be there if in fact we're changing that under the new act?
Mr. Nicholson: They reflect the current state of the organization. Until the act is passed and proclaimed, budgets are reflected against the current organization.
Mr. Proud: That will be changed, then, as this becomes law -
Mr. Nicholson: That's correct.
Mr. Proud: - when we merge the boards and bring the advocates into the department?
.1610
Mr. Nicholson: Yes. The next series of main estimates, when prepared, will reflect the changes. But budgetary adjustments can be made during the operating year when the bill goes through.
Mr. Proud: Will they be substantial?
Mr. Nicholson: No. We shall have to operate within these levels, these totals.
Mr. Proud: So you'll be back here next spring telling us what happened or how it proceeded.
Mr. Nicholson: Yes. You'll be able to see the differences when you compare the part IIIs for this year against the part IIIs for next year. But if you look at the bottom lines, there shouldn't be very many changes in terms of the total.
Mr. Proud: I have a question about something I think Mr. Rompkey might have alluded to. Given the current fiscal situation, how difficult would it be to increase some benefits to needy veterans or to extend benefits to a few more groups or individuals not now eligible for these benefits? I think you know the groups I'm alluding to. How difficult would that be?
Mr. MacAulay: On speculation, it would not be easy.
Mr. Proud: Is it possible?
Mr. MacAulay: Anything is possible, but you'd have to go to Treasury Board.
Mr. Proud: You'd have to go back for a reappropriation.
Mr. MacAulay: Well, we can only spend dollars we are legislated by the House of Commons to spend. If it's not legislated to spend, we can't do it.
Mr. Proud: Most of your budget is under legislation, right? Some of it is outside of -
Mr. MacAulay: There's some of it under.... What's the word I'm looking for?
Mr. Nicholson: I call it ``quasi-statutory''.
Mr. MacAulay: Yes, that's right.
Mr. Proud: But all of your benefit money is legislated money.
Mr. MacAulay: In order to apply for a pension or anything like that, we can't extend or decide we're going to pay somebody we're not authorized to pay now, no.
Mr. Proud: So if it were determined you could do this, you'd have to go back, first of all, and get another appropriation.
Mr. MacAulay: Would you have something else to say on that?
Mr. Nicholson: Yes, I would.
In terms of finding the resources to provide services to additional groups of clients, it would have to be funded from within departmental appropriations. There are no program or policy reserves that one can address any more. Under the new expenditure management system, the directions are if you're to fund another area of programming or take on a new class of recipients, then you have to find the resources from within your budgets. So it's extremely difficult.
Mr. Proud: I have one last question.
You've been negotiating for some time with Ste. Anne's and Saskatoon. What's the status of those two institutions at the present time?
Mr. MacAulay: Ste. Anne's is very preliminary at the moment, to say the least, and hopefully next year Saskatoon will be going into private hands.
Mr. Proud: What kind of savings dollars would you be looking at freeing up in those instances if that became a reality?
Mr. MacAulay: With an institution, in order to put it into private hands, it generally costs us substantial dollars in order to put it in condition for a provincial government or some other body to take it over.
Mr. Proud: It would be a number of years before you'd realize the savings.
Mr. MacAulay: A number of years, yes.
Mr. Proud: Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Hart (Okanagan - Similkameen - Merritt): I'd like to congratulate the Secretary of State, the deputy minister, and the assistant deputy minister for the pilgrimage to Holland. I attended, and it was an excellent event. You folks sure did a great job of looking after the veterans. I do congratulate you for that.
I would like to make one comment for the record. It's my feeling, and I think the feeling of the Reform Party, that when we send a representative on a pilgrimage such as that - and this goes for all the parties - we feel the Liberal Party and the representatives from the Parliament of Canada should have the opportunity to lay a wreath on behalf of the Parliament of Canada. Maybe the same suggestion would go towards the senators who attended, that they lay a wreath on behalf of the Senate of Canada.
I know all three of you made an effort to have us lay a wreath in one particular ceremony. I know your hands were tied and there wasn't the ability to do that for more of the ceremonies, but I'd just like to mention that for the record, because we would like to maybe have the opportunity to do that in an official capacity.
.1615
One of the questions I have is in regard to TAPS benefits being cut off for veterans. I have had a number of calls, and when I get these calls I quickly turn them over to the Secretary of State's office as well, so I know he's received the same concerns. But many of these people apparently have been receiving these benefits for several years. I understand the reason they are being cut off is because of the means test that's applied.
What I am finding is that the people who are being cut off apparently get cut off if they are receiving more than $926.36 for a single person, or $1,410.03 if they are married. If they are over and above those thresholds, they are ineligible for the TAPS benefit.
In British Columbia, you can figure that there is probably a $500-a-month rental for an apartment, utilities that come in at about $60, $150 a month for food, transportation at $50, and basic living expenses. Looking at those costs, there's not much money left over out of $926. My figures estimate about $160.
Can you make any comments regarding that? Why was it changed, or what is going on right now in the department that causes these to be so drastically reduced?
Mr. MacAulay: I'll let my deputy answer that question.
Mr. Nicholson: Mr. Hart, I'd like to answer the question by stating that there hasn't been any change recently in the area of the program that establishes eligibility for health care or the use of the TAPS card.
I believe the figure you've just given us is the single WVA rate. That is the gateway. If you are in receipt of WVA, it is the entry, if you will, for our health care programs - including some institutional care - and for non-insured health benefits.
We have a class of recipients called ``near recipients''. I know it seems to be a term in conflict with itself. In fact, it almost sounds like someone who should be on the football field. But a near recipient is a person who would be in receipt of WVA if he were not in receipt of OAS and GIS. What this means is that he certainly could be receiving more than the single rate of WVA, $926.32 - I think that's approximately what it is right now - or the married rate of around $1,400. Those ceilings are elevated, however, so that they can still receive their TAPS cards up to an extra limit. They are not cut off at that rate.
There is what we call an upper income cut-off because if they're not in receipt of WVA, and if they are getting OAS and GIS and other income from investments, all of that is totalled. If it hits a certain ceiling then, yes, they lose their entitlement to the non-insured health benefits through the TAPS card.
Mr. Hart: We've had a number of people who have the TAPS card and who were receiving. It has little Xs across the two rows, and they've lost their benefit to the bottom row.
Mr. Nicholson: Yes.
Mr. Hart: You know what I'm talking about.
Mr. Nicholson: I would like to take the opportunity to finish my answer, which I should have done in the first instance.
For quite some time we didn't have the ability or capacity to calculate the income of these recipients, so we introduced an eligibility control system, which is an electronic data processing system, that now does the income calculations for us. This has been in play for two years, so over the past two years we've been able to determine that some of our recipients should not have been getting the program. We've therefore taken them off.
Mr. Hart: Oh, I see. So they shouldn't have been receiving it in the first place.
Mr. Nicholson: No. They had too much income or savings or investments, but we had no way of calculating that until we introduced the eligibility control system program.
Mr. Hart: That's a hard pill to swallow for somebody -
Mr. Nicholson: Yes, it is.
By the way, Mr. Hart, in regard to the fields you are referring to on the TAPS card, I believe there are 13, and there are two rows, ``A'' and ``B''.
Mr. Hart: Yes.
.1620
Mr. Nicholson: Those fields set out the entitlement for a particular benefit. For example, if a war amputee were on disability it may require that he get certain salves, stump socks, certain braces and other supports. One of those fields would be filled out for that.
For a legitimate WVA recipient who has no income and no means for an uninsured health benefit support, the whole field would be filled out. So he would be assisted with eyeglasses, dental work, prescription drugs and a host of other things he might require. That's what those cards are for. They actually specify the entitlement to a specific non-insured health benefit.
Just to expand upon my answer, in the list of program reductions you'll see under health care some millions of dollars. We've been examining the frequency limits for certain types of non-insured health benefits in consultation with the veterans organizations.
For example, we were pretty opened-ended for many years on eyeglasses. Whenever a veteran came in, whether or not he had need of a refractory change, we would just provide the glasses. But we are now building in certain frequency limits. We are now saying that unless you have a new prescription to be filled with refractory change, then you should get one pair of glasses every two years - I think it's every two years. But if your eyesight is changing monthly and your doctor prescribes new eyeglasses, we will give them to you monthly. Those are the types of limits we are building in.
Mr. MacAulay: Generic drugs is another area. They'll do the job for fewer dollars. We're trying to do the job as well with less expenditure.
Mr. Hart: My next question is about Canadian army personnel who were exposed to DDT in Korea. I've had a few calls from people who are concerned that while they were in Korea DDT was regularly sprayed on their sleeping bags and latrines to alleviate the spread of Manchurian fever. There's apparently no treatment facility available in Canada now for the effects of DDT. Is the department looking into that? What are we doing for those people?
Mr. Nicholson: We have the chairman of the Canadian Pension Commission with us now. If a serviceman who served in Korea suffered ill effects from a chemical that could be related to his service time while in Korea, he could make application to the Canadian Pension Commission for perhaps respiratory problems or some skin problems as a result of that. His claim would be adjudicated the same as any other claim.
If it were found that this particular disability or illness was attributable to his service, then he would be pensioned. If he needed treatment he would seek treatment, and if the treatment wasn't available in Canada - and I'm not sure whether or not it would be - then in certain situations the department could assist in finding the appropriate treatment, wherever it might be.
Mr. Hart: Is there any dispute over whether DDT was used? It would seem to me that if DDT were used in Korea there is medical proof that you could have a number of ailments down the road resulting from that, although it seems that some people are being turned down.
Mr. MacAulay: Our hands are certainly tied. We have the chair of CPC here, if you wish to hear from him.
Mr. Hart: Sure. Is there a dispute though, over whether DDT was used?
.1625
Mr. Nicholson: I haven't heard.
Mr. MacAulay: I haven't either.
Mr. Nicholson: We could only comment that if the individual claims he was subjected to DDT, then he was. I spent some time in the service, as you did, and I know when I was in the service they used DDT quite regularly. They sprayed around the campsites and what have you; there's no question. I guess DDT may have been used in Korea, and there may be some ill effects. But I would say the only way that can be addressed is if he comes forward with a claim for disability.
Mr. MacAulay: If he can tie his medical problem to the service, then he's eligible. It's up to the board to decide that. He has to take his information to the board.
Mr. Hart: How could you prove it's the result of DDT if it has been such a long period of time, unless there's a dispute between -
Mr. MacAulay: I think I should let Mr. Chartier explain, but when you apply you have a medical paper filled out explaining why it happened, what caused it and that type of thing. Medical experts evaluate the case, as a board.
Perhaps Mr. Chartier would like to come forward.
Mr. Hart: I just wanted to state that if there is a dispute, I have with me the Handbook of Army Health from 1950, which talks about how to apply DDT in latrines and for the soldiers -
Mr. MacAulay: I have to be honest with you; I don't know if there's a dispute or not. But all I can tell you is if it were used and it caused a medical problem that can be related to his or her service, then the person qualifies.
Mr. Marcel Chartier (Chairman, Canadian Pension Commission): We received a few of those claims, but we didn't have enough evidence to conclude favourably. It's like any claim before any civil court, because you have to have medical evidence from an expert to establish a link between the disease itself and the service. Otherwise we cannot conclude favourably.
Mr. Hart: Isn't there already a link between humans having DDT sprayed on them over a period of time and things like cancer appearing later in life?
Mr. Chartier: You're right. Some doctors have made a link already, but you have to study every case specifically. That's the problem. If CPC and experts here in Canada can establish a link, then we will conclude favourably. We cannot conclude favourably only by doctrine, because it's too vague.
You could ask that question to a lawyer here. I'm a lawyer, but Mr. Evan Elkin presents the claims.
Mr. MacAulay: That's fine.
Is that okay with you?
Mr. Hart: Yes, that's fine.
Mr. Frazer: I also would like to welcome you -
The Chair: I just wanted to intervene to say that we did get the outlook document from Veterans Affairs. It was delivered to our offices yesterday. I'm assuming you've read it and you will include it in your questioning, because we have to report this by June 23.
While we're going to have the Minister of Defence with his outlook document at a later date, we will not get another opportunity to question the Minister of Veterans Affairs on his outlook document. However, with the exception of the three-year projection, perhaps the material in here is included in other materials we have.
I just wanted to interject with that, because you will have to build into your questioning - I'm assuming you have - your reading of this outlook document.
Mr. MacAulay: The Deputy Minister of Veterans Affairs will be appearing again before you.
The Chair: Yes, so I understand.
Mr. MacAulay: He and his officials will be quite pleased to provide to the committee any other detailed information you need.
Mr. Frazer: I would anticipate, Mr. Chairman, that not only has he read it, but he probably wrote it, being the Secretary of State for Veterans Affairs.
.1630
I would like to welcome both you and your able supporters, Mr. Secretary. If I may, I would like to reiterate something my colleague said a moment ago with regard to representation at Canada Remembers ceremonies, or any official ceremonies recognizing the service of our war veterans. I think it's important because what we're doing is recognizing the valour and sacrifice that Canadians made in service to their country. And despite our philosophical differences, I think the aim of having all parties represented there is to indicate that this comes from all Canadians - not just from the Department of Veterans Affairs or from the Parliament, but from Canada.
I therefore urge you to do whatever you can to try to incorporate a procedure into the ceremonies whereby all attending parties can be represented in order to show the people, the veterans who are there, that they are in fact being appreciated by Canadians from coast to coast, and from all walks of life and from all parties.
Mr. MacAulay: Jack, may I respond to that? I am not saying it won't or it will happen, but I, or whoever goes, will represent all the members of Parliament. I think it's awfully important that members of Parliament are there. You have been on one yourself, and Jim certainly participated, although he didn't lay a wreath. Each regiment sends its own group, but all regiments don't lay wreaths at all ceremonies either.
I guess what you would be requesting is that each MP lay a wreath.
Mr. Frazer: No, sir, not at all. I would see a group of the representatives there laying a wreath on behalf of Canada.
Mr. MacAulay: We did offer that - I went way out on a limb this time - but you can get your nose trimmed pretty quickly by veterans if you're not careful.
Mr. Frazer: Exactly, but I think it's important that they -
Mr. MacAulay: They're a great group of people, Jack, but they're not humble.
Your request is well taken, and I would be surprised if it is not adhered to. I think each party going up to do it at one time at one ceremony is proper.
Mr. Frazer: Jim hasn't let me participate yet, but....
My concern, Mr. Secretary, is with the veterans. It's been said here a couple of times, depending on who you listen to, that their average age is either 73 or 74. Obviously, many of them are not going to be with us much longer. I know we're not debating Bill C-67 here, but I have to admit to some concern that your ability to achieve what you say you're going to achieve will be met by Bill C-67.
I wonder whether consideration has in fact been given to beefing up the boards, both for a first hearing and for appeal boards, to try to get rid of this bulge of 13,500. I think you're also anticipating a further 10,000 claims a year.
I don't know what sort of steady-state number of cases you feel you can handle, but wouldn't it be worthwhile to hire sufficient people with enough experience, even if it's only for a year, so that they can judge fairly and according to all the regulations in order to get rid of this whole bulge that is now holding people up? As you said, maybe you're not going to be paying people but will instead be paying estates.
Mr. MacAulay: Jack, you're absolutely right, and that's exactly what we are doing. We get no definite figure on how many board members there will be, but what we want to do is to have enough there to do the job. We're in a position to put people in for two years, or whatever, so that the job will be done. I am committed to it and it would not be very good for me personally if it didn't happen, not to mention what it would do to our veterans. Your concern is well taken, and we are in the position to have extra people should they be needed. You are absolutely right; we owe the dollars no matter who we pay them to.
It's what I want to do and I know it's what you want to do. We want to pay it to the veterans and not to the estates, and that's exactly what we are trying to do.
Mr. Frazer: So we can anticipate that there will be an increase in the number of people available to sit on boards, whether they be a first hearing or an appeal board?
Mr. MacAulay: The first hearing, of course, will be heard by the department. The appeal board -
Mr. Frazer: I guess that's where I'm going. The backlog is not affected by the first hearings, because they are people who are in their claims. I guess where I am coming from is the fact that, despite the current involvement of the Bureau of Pensions Advocates, which is putting more effort into the first claim than will henceforth be the case, we're still getting a 30% first-time acceptance - in other words, a 70% reduction - but on the first appeal we're getting a 70% approval rate. Obviously something is going askew here and is causing appeals that apparently should never have happened.
.1635
What I'm now concerned about is the fact that with all the help they have, we're getting 70% turned down. How are we going to get a higher number through with less help?
Mr. MacAulay: I will let my deputy answer that.
Mr. Nicholson: Yes, let me take a stab at that, Mr. Frazer.
If we had the same number of members we have today, we would still make productivity gains, we would still make improvements, and we would still cut the backlog, because the first applications will be done by the department, thus freeing up the members for the appeal area. They'll sit on more appeals, if you will, so there'll be some gains there.
We do have a capacity, if necessary, to contract consultants to help out for shorter periods of time. So as you've heard both me and the Secretary of State say previously, we're absolutely committed. In fact, we're out there with a public statement that we will reduce these turnaround times by half within two years, which means within two years of the date of proclamation of the bill. Whatever resources are available within this department will be used, and we will free up resources wherever we can to help, because that's got to be our number one priority.
Mr. Frazer: I guess with the large rejection rate of 70% that exists now, and even with all the help that's put into it, I still have this concern about how on earth we are going to get a higher acceptance rate without the initial input from the Bureau of Pensions Advocates.
Mr. Nicholson: Some of the things we have planned in terms of first-level decision making should improve that percentage of favourable decisions. We're able to get on the telephone. We're able to ask for additional information.
If it comes to the first level and we feel the file is not complete enough and extra evidence is required to make a decision, rather than going through the whole rejection and appeal process, we're training our people to go back to the kitchen table if it's necessary in some cases, in order to get this additional information. We're looking at administrative reviews, coupled with first-level decision making. With all of this, we're convinced they are going to be able to help us meet our objectives.
Mr. Frazer: If I read you correctly, what you're going to try to do is be proactive here. Rather than finding ways to reject it, you're going to be trying to find ways to get the claim through. Is that correct?
Mr. Nicholson: Yes. It would of absolutely no advantage for us to reject it because there would be two appeals. If anybody was concerned about saving dollars, there would be no gain for the department to be in the position of not paying because it would immediately go into the board's hands anyhow.
Mr. Frazer: If I may, Mr. Chairman, my Bloc colleague doesn't often make a mistake, particularly with arithmetic. Therefore, it did raise my eyebrows when he asked you about the 25% that was used for administration, because I had read the documents. But what he was in fact referring to was page 2-4 of the estimates. It indicates operating expenditures $449,832,000, which does in fact equate to almost 25% of the total budget. I presume expenses such as maintenance costs for hospitals, taxes and that sort of thing, are included in this. Is that correct?
Mr. Nicholson: Absolutely, and a third of our employees work in hospitals.
Mr. Frazer: They would not be included in the administrative charges that are shown.
Mr. Nicholson: Yes.
Mr. Frazer: Okay.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Translation]
Mr. Leroux: Mr. Frazer's comment has made me think that I should change my question. I was going to ask about the budget. But now I think I have a better understanding of the situation.
With your permission, Mr. Chairman, rather than asking a question, I would like to make a comment and ask our guest to respond.
Living in society means making choices. While I have no intention of making a speech here, I do think that in a society such as ours, and in a system like the one we have here which, as you know, does not give a great deal of power to house committee... The fact is that we meet with the Minister about once a year, at which time we have a discussion that lasts three or four hours. We are essentially put before a fait accompli. We ask questions even though personally, I don't believe the process is all that useful. My question is quite a comprehensive one. Do you not think, Minister, that we should consider changing the system so that we can spend two or three days together in future, and thus be in a position to go through the estimates point by point?
.1640
As members of Parliament, we represent the people. The fact is, one often has the feeling after a committee meeting like this that the two hours spent in discussion have not really gotten us that much further ahead.
Do you not think it would be a good idea - and I imagine your answer will probably be yes - to make some changes? Our system here in Canada is clearly deficient in that respect. I think it really should be improved. I'd be interested in hearing your reaction.
[English]
Mr. MacAulay: Anything that will improve the system or improve our knowledge is very important. This is the system set up by the Parliament of Canada. There could possibly be some changes made, but it certainly wouldn't be up to me or my officials to make them.
You and I, as we sit in the House of Commons, if there's another way, a better way.... I certainly want you to know everything about the department, and I'm certainly sure you will, if you decide you're going to find out. I'd be only too pleased to do anything I can to help inform you in a better way, but as to how the procedure could change, I think that would be really up to Parliament.
Two or three days of me in the hot seat would be interesting.
Jack, don't nod.
In all fairness to my officials, I don't believe they would like to.... It's up to the Parliament of Canada to decide to make changes.
There are many things we do. The Canada Remembers program, for one thing, I think is so important. We are changing our focus. We are changing what we're doing and we are involved with the youth of Canada. I think everybody supports this.
It's so important, when you go to a place like Holland and see, as did Jim and representatives from all parties, how enthusiastic the school children are about our Canadian veterans. They quite likely know more about our veterans than our own school children do. The veterans are truly heroes over there.
We have started to make some changes in that area. We've had an insert put in a teacher's guide, explaining the involvement of the Canadians in the Second World War, about the Netherlands and the Italian campaign and many other things.
It's pretty shameful if we have people, supposedly well educated, who don't know what VE Day is, or who don't really understand the price that was paid. Only because a lot of people who were involved have died they seem to think it's not important any more. Possibly, as I've indicated a number of times, it's because we have never lost our freedom that we take so much for granted.
That's what we are trying to do. We're trying to spend the dollars as wisely as possible and take care of veterans as well as we can. I am sure that is your desire too. In order to do that, we must be sure a younger generation truly appreciates and understands, and that when the veterans are not here any more we don't have to go through what they had to go through, so you and I can live as we so desire, and can speak as we so desire in this House of Commons. That's part of the direction we are trying to come from in the Department of Veterans Affairs.
I think it's a major role for us and a challenge for you and I and all of us over the next number of years. Veterans Affairs is not very political. Everybody - I know all parties - wants the same thing. We might want some trifling and different ways of doing it, but in the end, we want to see that our veterans get everything we can give them. That's what we're trying to do.
.1645
Mr. Frazer: This is a specific sort of instance, but I thought I wouldn't have a better opportunity to get an answer.
I have a constituent who has come to me with a problem that will be arriving on Mr. Hart's desk shortly, and I'm sure it'll be on yours sometime downstream. It concerns compensation for hearing degradation.
I don't have the exact details, but basically, as I understand it, last July a decision was made to lower the hearing range, for ability to claim for it. The notification went out to people who then applied. In fact, a number underwent testing, and they did qualify for either for compensation or for higher compensation, but sometime around November it was decided that either this was costing too much money or too many people were applying and therefore the program was shut down.
In the meantime, there were people who had undergone the hearing check, and were then told when they got there that, yes, they qualified, but the compensation was no longer there.
Obviously there's some dissatisfaction with this. Are you familiar with this case?
Mr. MacAulay: Not with this specific case, Jim.
Mr. Frazer: Not with the specific case, but the problem, I think, is that this individual applied and was tested, although the results didn't come back until after the decision was taken to say the program has ceased. His concern is that here you have some people in exactly the same situation getting compensation, and he and subsequent people will not. He considers that an unfair disparity.
I wondered what your procedure would be in a case like this.
Mr. MacAulay: What is the specific -
Mr. Nicholson: I'm aware of the issue, and I'll be very careful, Mr. Frazer, on how I -
Mr. Frazer: I'm not asking you to judge. I'm just asking you to -
Mr. Nicholson: The fact of the matter is, that situation did arise. There was a change in the scale in terms of the decibel for degradation of hearing, and some got through under the new scale. The scale wasn't something that had been agreed upon by the total department or the total portfolio. So not all people were subject to the new scale.
The new scale was rejected. Some slipped through. You're absolutely correct, to my knowledge. We have the agencies here. That's what happened. I can understand if someone feels they're not being treated equitably in this area.
I may only suggest to you, sir, that you could pass it along to us and we'll do what we can to try to explain it to the gentleman.
Mr. Frazer: Yes, sir. As I say, it'll take its time but it will wend its way.
As well, I'm not familiar with exactly what changes you've made to funerals and burials. Could you enlighten me, please, as to just what the reduction in expenses you talked about entails?
Mr. MacAulay: Do you have something you want to add on that last one?
Mr. Nicholson: I've just been informed by Mr. Chartier that we have never lowered any of these at all, so in terms of the hearing loss effects you had -
Mr. Frazer: I beg your pardon. They've not been lowered?
Mr. Nicholson: No. That's the information I've just received from the chairman of the Canadian Pension Committee.
Mr. Frazer: They were not lowered, sir, but some were not granted. Previous ones were granted and later ones were not. The later ones are asking why others are getting it and they're not, and whether they're going to lower the previous ones.
Mr. Nicholson: Mr. Chartier is the proper gentleman to answer that. That's his area.
Mr. Chartier: We have never yet lowered any pensions. We never have. What could have happened is that a veteran didn't get as much as his friend did because of that disparity in our appreciation, but we never did lower.
Mr. Frazer: What he's saying is that he underwent exactly the same test, and that they were exactly the same conditions as the other peoples'. He came out with exactly the same results, but he's being paid less than they are.
Mr. Chartier: You're right. That did happen. I agree with you.
Mr. Frazer: He is asking if that is going to continue or if these people will be put down to the original level he is at.
Mr. Chartier: No, we're not going to lower them. Once we grant it, we leave it there.
Mr. Frazer: Then you may have some arguments from him.
Mr. Chartier: He's lucky, that's all.
Mr. Frazer: He's unlucky, you mean.
Were you going to discuss burial and funeral costs? Could you enlighten me as to just what the changes are there?
Mr. MacAulay: As you're probably aware, after the First World War Sir Arthur Hair was the man who established the Last Post fund. That was only because there were veterans, if I understand correctly, who were not getting the proper burial. The proposal we are making now is that if the veteran has less than $12,500 cash in his or her account - and that used to be $25,000, but then the spouse was not considered, either.
.1650
The problem was, Jack, that the government was burying people who were very wealthy. We felt that was not what it was intended for. So we're bringing it back as much as we can to the original intent. You can have $10,000 or $11,000 in your account, a car, a nice home and everything else, and we'll still do it, but we just wanted to tighten it up, to be fair and to make sure we have the dollars to do what we need to do.
Mr. Frazer: But a down-on-his-heels veteran doesn't have to pay.
Mr. MacAulay: Absolutely. A down-on-his-heels veteran will be fully taken care of.
Mr. Frazer: Good.
The Chair: I want to thank the minister and his officials for being with us.
Mr. Minister, we're still going to deal with some Veterans Affairs issues later this month. We haven't concluded our investigation completely, but we want to thank you for appearing today.
Mr. MacAulay: Thank you. It's been my pleasure.
Mr. Hart: I'm sorry, I didn't realize we were finished. Could I ask another couple of questions?
The Chair: I thought we had reached the end of our questioning.
We have some votes before us that I want to try to deal with. I would like to deal quickly with the two reports of the subcommittees; the fifth and sixth reports of the steering committee. You have them in front of you. Some of you were at those meetings.
Is there concurrence on the fifth and sixth reports of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure?
Mr. Proud: I so move.
Motion agreed to
The Chair: I would like to have votes today on the main estimates, votes, 1, 5, 10, 15 and 20.
NATIONAL DEFENCE
- National Defence Department
The Chair: Shall vote 1, less the amount of $1,871,047,750 voted in interim supply, carry?
Vote 1 agreed to
Vote 5 - Capital expenditures $2,673,951,000
The Chair: Shall vote 5, less the amount of $668,487,750.50 voted in interim supply, carry?
Vote 5 agreed to
Vote 10 - Grants and contributions $174,673,000
The Chair: Shall vote 10, less the amount of $43,668,249.50 voted in interim supply, carry?
Vote 10 agreed to
- Emergency Preparedness Canada
The Chair: Shall vote 15, less the amount of $257,550 voted in interim supply, carry?
Vote 15 agreed to
Vote 20 - Grants and contributions $5,709,000
The Chair: Shall vote 20, less the amount of $1,427,250 voted in interim supply, carry?
Vote 20 agreed to
The Chair: Shall I report the main estimates to the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
There is one more motion before us, moved by the Reform Party. Mr. Frazer moved it earlier and we tabled it.
.1655
I would like to say that I understand why he made the motion, and I understand why it's here. I didn't realize until today that there had been an incident in another committee, but evidently there had been.
I understand also that a committee of the House - I think it's the committee on procedure - is dealing with that situation and hopefully will come up with ways to ameliorate a situation like that should it occur in the future.
All I wanted to do here was simply to comment on method, and on the appropriateness of a motion that enjoins one chair for something that happened in another committee.
My feeling has been that, really, in this particular committee, all of the things the motion calls for have been adhered to. I don't know of any situation that has occurred where a member's privileges have been breached or denied or where a member's rights have been denied.
All I'm commenting on is the appropriateness of doing something in one committee because of what happened in another.
I used to be a teacher in my previous incarnation, and it was always my feeling that the whole class should never be punished for the misdemeanours of one particular student. I don't know ifMr. Leroux agrees with that, but -
Mr. Leroux: I absolutely agree with you.
The Chair: I don't have a great-grandchild yet, but I can imagine my great-grandchild, if I ever do get one, saying, ``Mommy, look, that nice Mr. Frazer; why did he move a motion censuring Grampy in the defence committee in 1995 when he hadn't done anything?''
Mr. Frazer: Mr. Chairman, first of all, there was no intent to censure. I think I said previously to you that I was going to move a point of order, or introduce this motion, but didn't think it really was required in this committee.
Notwithstanding that it isn't required in this committee, I see no reason why you wouldn't agree, or the committee wouldn't agree, to passing it, because there's nothing in here that we don't do all the time.
This motion, incidentally, will be moved in every committee in which we are participating, so it's not as though we're singling out this one. It was a decision taken by virtue of our extreme dissatisfaction with what happened last night. There certainly was no intent to cast aspersions on your chairmanship or on this committee's cooperation.
Mr. Proud: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to second what you have just said regarding this committee. I listened to the presentations in the House this morning by the member for Fraser Valley East and also the rebuttal by the government whip and Mr. Ménard, I believe, from the Bloc Québécois.
However, there are three sides to every story. No doubt there were some things that happened in that committee last night that would lead your party to be upset about the way the procedures took place. I am convinced this committee - and Mr. Rompkey sat on it longer than I did, and I've been on it since 1990 - has always done those things you have put forward. I think this committee is one of the leaders in the House of Commons in the way we do our business. I don't know if you need to put that forward. I certainly know this committee has complied with all of those suggestions you made.
Now, there are things that happen. If a person comes to the committee and isn't duly signed, then they have to do that. If the chair wants to exclude them from that, if it's a busy meeting and things are heating up, he or she has that prerogative. I think the chairs have to take on a role no different from that of the Speaker of the House of Commons and make sure everybody has their fair day in court but also that the rules are followed by the members of both the majority and minority sides.
.1700
The Chair: Are there any other comments?
Mr. Frazer: I have none, Mr. Chairman, other than the fact that because you already, in your extreme wisdom and knowledge of the English language, always do so many things so well, I see no -
The Chair: You have lots of time, by the way.
Mr. Frazer: - concern to pass this motion. Yes, it specifies that the committee will do it, but this committee has always done that. So I see no reason that anybody would disagree with it.
The Chair: No, I don't want to pursue the argument. The argument could be made both ways.
We do have the motion on the table. Is it the wish of the committee that we now move to -
Mr. Proud: Do we need to do it?
The Chair: Well, it's tabled. Mr. Frazer has made the motion. The motion has been duly made, and if Mr. Frazer wants us to have a vote on it, then we will have to have a vote on it. I assume it'sMr. Frazer's wish that we vote.
Mr. Frazer: I would prefer that we do that, yes, Mr. Chairman.
The Chair: Unless you simply want to leave it on the.... Would it appear in the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence?
Well, let's call the -
Mr. Leroux: Mr. Chair, perhaps we could wait. I don't really know what happened, and before I vote I'd like to know what happened in that particular committee.
Mr. Frazer: Mr. Chairman, notwithstanding what happened in that committee, this is simply applying to this committee. It's just following the procedures we normally follow. It's certainly not a departure from your normal procedure.
The Chair: All in favour of the motion?
Motion negatived
The Chair: Is there any further business?
Let me ask the clerk to tell us what's in store for us in the future.
The Clerk of the Committee: The next meeting of the committee is on Tuesday, May 30, at 3:30 p.m. in room 209 West Block. It will be with officials from Veterans Affairs, dealing with the Allied resistance pensions and also with questions on the outlook document.
Mr. Leroux: Why do we have to do it on that date?
The Clerk: If you want to report the main estimates for the Department of Veterans Affairs, you have to do them on May 30, because the last date is May 31.
The Chair: Then what's on June 13?
The Clerk: On Tuesday, June 13, at 3:30 p.m., it looks to be almost completely confirmed that we will have the Minister of National Defence, Mr. Collenette, on the outlook document. That's the date we have for him.
The Chair: Thank you.
The meeting is adjourned.