;

NDVA Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, May 23, 2002

1530

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

Hon. Rey Pagtakhan (Minister of Veterans Affairs)

1535

1540

1545

1550

The Chair

Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East, Canadian Alliance)

1555

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan

Mr. Peter Goldring

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan

Mr. Larry Murray (Deputy Minister, Department of Veterans Affairs)

1600

Mr. Peter Goldring

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan

Mr. Larry Murray

The Chair

Ms. Girard-Bujold

1605

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan

Mr. Larry Murray

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan

Mr. Larry Murray

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

Mr. Larry Murray

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan

1610

Mr. Larry Murray

The Chair

Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.)

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan

Mr. Bob Wood

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan

Mr. Bob Wood

1615

Mr. Brian Chambers (Chair, Veterans Review and Appeal Board)

Mr. Bob Wood

Mr. Brian Chambers

Mr. Bob Wood

Mr. Brian Chambers

Mr. Bob Wood

Mr. Brian Chambers

1620

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP)

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan

Mr. Larry Murray

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan

Mr. Peter Stoffer

1625

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan

The Chair

Mr. Peter Goldring

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan

1630

Mr. Peter Goldring

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan

Mr. Peter Goldring

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan

Mr. Larry Murray

The Chair

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan

1635

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan

Mr. Larry Murray

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

The Chair

Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.)

1640

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan

Mr. Larry Murray

Mr. John O'Reilly

Mr. Larry Murray

Mr. John O'Reilly

Mr. Larry Murray

Mr. John O'Reilly

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan

Mr. Larry Murray

Mr. John O'Reilly

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

1645

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan

Mr. Larry Murray

1650

The Chair

Mr. Bob Wood

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan

1655

Mr. Bob Wood

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan

Mr. Brian Chambers

The Chair

Mr. Peter Goldring

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan

Mr. Larry Murray

Mr. Peter Goldring

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan

Mr. Peter Goldring

1700

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan

Mr. Peter Goldring

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan

Mr. Peter Goldring

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan

The Chair

Mr. Peter Goldring

Mr. John O'Reilly

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan

Mr. Larry Murray

1705

Mr. John O'Reilly

The Chair

Mr. John O'Reilly

The Chair

Mr. John O'Reilly

The Chair

Mr. John O'Reilly

The Chair

Mr. Pagtakhan

1710

The Chair

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan

Mr. Keith Hillier (Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services, Department of Veterans Affairs)

1715

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan

The Chair

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

The Chair

Mr. Bob Wood

Mr. Brian Chambers

Mr. Bob Wood

Mr. Brian Chambers

Mr. Bob Wood

Mr. Brian Chambers

1720

The Chair

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

1725

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan

The Chair

1730

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs

NUMBER 058

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Thursday, May 23, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹ (1530)

[English]

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

It's my pleasure to welcome here today the Honourable Rey Pagtakhan and a number of departmental officials from the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Minister, before we get started and give you an opportunity to introduce your departmental officials, there is a quick item of housekeeping business we'd like to deal with. It concerns the travel of the subcommittee on veterans affairs, in relation to their study of long-term care for veterans. I have two motions that perhaps we can deal with fairly quickly, before we move on to the minister.

The first is that in relation to its study on long-term care for veterans, the subcommittee on veterans affairs be authorized to travel to eastern Canada from September 22 to 26, 2002, for a fact-finding mission with the necessary staff, and that the proposed travel budget in the amount of $66,320 be adopted. This motion has come from the subcommittee on veterans affairs, so it has been discussed by all parties at that level.

It is moved by Mr. O'Reilly.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: The second motion is that in relation to the study on long-term care for veterans, the subcommittee on veterans affairs be authorized to travel to the United States of America from October 21 to 24, 2002, for a fact-finding mission with the necessary staff, and that the proposed travel budget in the amount of $71,932 be adopted.

Do we have a mover for that? Mr. Stoffer.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Minister, I apologize for the delay in getting to you. It's my pleasure to again welcome you. I understand this is your first visit before the standing committee--you have appeared before the subcommittee in the past--so a special welcome for your first trip here. We look forward to your comments.

Hon. Rey Pagtakhan (Minister of Veterans Affairs): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and bonjour.

Certainly to have two motions passed in less than a minute is a real milestone in the life of this institution, so I congratulate you on your success, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

I am delighted to join you today. As you indicated, Mr. Chair, it is my first opportunity to appear before the entire committee. I'm keen to hear your views on the important matter of serving Canada's veterans and our other clients, through either your direct comments or questions.

I would first like to introduce to committee members, with your permission, the officials who are here with me today. Mr. Larry Murray is deputy minister of Veterans Affairs Canada; Mr. Brian Chambers is chairman of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board; Mr. Keith Hillier is the assistant deputy minister of corporate services; Brian Ferguson is the assistant deputy minister of veterans services; and Ms. Michaela Huard is the director general in the department.

I had the pleasure on March 13 to meet with a number of you on the veterans affairs subcommittee. At that time I was able to discuss some specifics of our long-term care initiatives in support of the institutional and specialized health needs of our wartime veterans. I note you are continuing to study this particular issue, as indicated by the two motions I just heard. I will review some of those aspects a little later.

I also indicated at the March meeting my intention to return, at the invitation of the subcommittee, to provide them with information on the many initiatives in support of our Canadian Forces veterans, still-serving members, and their families.

Support to our CF members and families is as paramount in our minds as our commitment to the quality of life for our war-era veterans. The sad and tragic loss of the lives of Canada's sons, and the injuries suffered by eight others in Afghanistan recently, heighten even more the importance of our support and commitment. VAC is working closely with the Department of National Defence to ensure the needs of the family members and the injured CF members are met in a timely and compassionate way.

As you know, these hearings are almost by definition about facts and figures, projected expenditures, and program content. Certainly my officials and I will be pleased to talk very specifically about any of the numbers you find in our estimates report.

I thought you might find it useful if I started by sharing with you my department's plans and priorities, from the perspective of the needs of veterans and their surviving family members. But let me first put those needs in the context of our latest demographic figures that the portfolio takes into consideration as it determines best practices and outcomes.

The demographic profile of our clients is changing. For the fiscal year 2002-2003, they number slightly under 200,000. Between now and 2005, the total number for all our clients will remain relatively stable, decreasing by only about 4%. However, the number of war-era veteran clients is expected to decline by about 10%. Conversely, the number of Canadian Forces veterans we serve is expected to increase by about 25%, from less than 25,000 in 2001 to more than 30,000 by 2005.

¹ (1535)

The reasons for the shift are fairly clear, and I will touch upon them as I discuss the unique needs of each group. Our budget this year is a little in excess of $2.2 billion, a figure that we anticipate will also remain relatively stable over the next few years. Disability benefits alone take up a substantial share, some $1.38 billion. Another large portion comes in the form of funds expended for health and long-term care benefits that are not already funded by provincial mandate. That accounts for another $600 million. As our war veterans population and their survivors decrease in numbers, income assistance in the form of war veterans allowance is also shrinking. This year we will spend some $28.4 million on war veterans allowances. The challenge for us as a department is to make sure we are spending these and other dollar commitments to the maximum benefit of our veterans and other clients and their survivors or dependants, especially considering the rapidly changing needs of these clients.

Of course, the trouble with putting the case in terms of dollars and cents and numbers and percentages is that they tend to obscure the human dimension behind them. For ease of reference, we may call them clients, but in the short time that I have been with the department, I have learned that the men and women we serve are seen as families--families that cannot easily be reduced to numbers on a page or even to the whole estimates report in front of you. Cognizant of this reality, let's look at those facts and figures in the context of how the department and veterans alike might well express their most pressing concerns.

Let's start with our war-era veterans. Now approaching 80 years of age on average, they understandably worry about their health as advancing age begins to take its toll and demands its unique needs. They want to know that their health care problems will be taken care of when they are sick. They want to remain as independent as possible, for as long as possible. In fact, in cases where we are providing at-home services and treatment benefits under our veterans independence program, VIP, there is a marked preference on the part of our veterans to stay at home as long as they are able.

For over 20 years, VIP has been very popular among our clientele, and it is also very cost efficient. As a national home care program, it works for everyone. If they finally do need long-term care, veterans want to be assured that there will be a home for them in a facility that affords them dignity, respect, comfort, and care, and where family and loved ones are as close as possible. They also want to be assured that their spouse or dependants will be cared for after they are gone.

VAC is committed to meeting these expectations and to ensuring that the benefits we provide in Canada remain among the best in the world. With substantial input from stakeholder groups, my department formulated our residential care strategy to respond to concerns about the quality of care provided to veterans. Over the years we have developed considerable expertise in encouraging excellence in long-term care, bolstered by the professional advice provided by our Gerontological Advisory Council.

Our strategy emphasizes three major themes in caring for the very old--dementia care, palliative care, and respite care. We particularly want to see that state-of-the-art dementia care is delivered to our residents. To that end we have been helping long-term care facilities review their care of dementia cases, and in some cases we will consider providing funding to ensure that they're able to meet the current standards in this unique field.

As you may be aware, especially those members of the subcommittee who visited Ste. Anne's Hospital last April 18, we have initiated a major renovation project to ensure that the facility meets provincial standards. The renovations represent an investment of $67.7 million, but clearly represent dollars well spent considering the project includes the restructuring of the main building and the construction of a new 103-bed annex, among other improvements. This is an important investment, as Ste. Anne's Hospital and its staff have an international reputation and considerable expertise in the specialized clinical care of the elderly, particularly in areas of dementia and mental health.

¹ (1540)

For our veterans in care we have adopted the accreditation standard of the Canadian Council on Health Services Accreditation. You will be pleased to know that 93% of our priority access beds are now in accredited facilities. We would like that figure of course to be 100%, and we will assist in cases where resources are the only barrier to full accreditation. Furthermore, in January this year we signed a contract with the Council on Health Services Accreditation that will result in my department's ten care outcome standards being incorporated into the accreditation process.

We also conduct our own client satisfaction survey--this is the second way of ensuring quality care--annually at the facilities where we have contract beds for veterans around the same ten care outcome standards, including such items as safety and security, food quality, personal care, and spiritual and recreational care. These items are very important to both the veterans and their family members. Client satisfaction survey results for the year 2000 show a 92% satisfaction rate across the country.

We are not alone in the business of providing health care to seniors. A cross-section of partner Government of Canada departments deliver $2.4 billion in health services to some 950,000 Canadians. Veterans Affairs participates in the health care coordination initiative, which seeks to develop innovative, cost-effective solutions to meet the needs of all Canadians who receive health care from federal departments. For example, VAC and Health Canada have jointly contracted home oxygen therapy in British Columbia, which has resulted in cost savings of about $1.1 million per year.

You may also recall our partnership with Health Canada, in which we have allocated $10 million over a four-year period to a falls prevention initiative. It is an undertaking that seeks to promote the independence and quality of life of veterans by preventing a number of falls or reducing their severity when they happen. When you consider the fact that falls cost an estimated $2.8 billion a year to the Canadian health care system, the money slated for this initiative certainly is money well spent.

Finally, as the lead department, we, along with eight federal partner departments and two provinces, have guided the development and launch of the Seniors Canada On-line website. This portal, www.seniors.gc.ca, offers an efficient and reliable way of providing one-stop information for seniors and caregivers about the array of federal programs available to them. Many seniors have embraced this technology, and it has proven to be invaluable for those not as mobile as they used to be.

Now let me turn to our Canadian Forces veterans. They continue to be called on to serve in harm's way in nations whose peace and freedom are threatened or actually are in peril. More recently, we are all acutely aware of the tremendous contribution and human sacrifice they are making in the fight against the forces of terrorism.

As a percentage of our overall clientele, the number of Canadian Forces veterans who come to our offices across the country continues to climb. By the year 2005 they will represent more than 15% of our clients, in excess of 30,000 men and women.

I know many of you are familiar with some of the critical issues for these men and women. Through previous estimates hearings you are aware of our response to your committee's 1998 report and of subsequent initiatives taken that include very specific tools to help Canadian Forces members and their families deal with stress, injury, and illness as a result of their service. I am pleased to tell you that I have recently approved this year's response to the quality of life report. It will soon be tabled in Parliament.

¹ (1545)

I would like you to be aware that the issue of post-traumatic stress disorder has seized my interest. In fact, departmental officials are looking at how we can expand our assistance to people who suffer from this particular disability. While some of the work is still in its formative stages, it is my hope that we can be more proactive in our approach in the very near future, so we can help prevent or alleviate the disability and care for those who develop the disorder.

The bottom line for all our Canadian Forces members is that they are entitled to most of the same pension and health care benefits as their war-era comrades. To underscore the point, the department provided briefings to all deploying personnel to Afghanistan--before they left to fight the war on terrorism--to ensure they and their families were aware of the benefits and services to which they may be eligible as a result of their service.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me turn to a concern of all veterans--in fact, of all Canadians. I am referring here to our Canada Remembers program. I am pleased to report that we are advancing our programming on commemoration, with a particular focus on in-Canada activities involving our youth. As the majority of you know, for many years the department concentrated much of its commemorative efforts overseas, with pilgrimages of veterans returning to old battlegrounds, monuments, and cemeteries, so they could pay tribute to their comrades who fell and remain buried in foreign soils. Some of you have participated in these pilgrimages and know what an incredibly moving experience they are.

I participated in a trip recently in honour of the eighty-fifth anniversary of the Canadian victory at Vimy Ridge. I was truly moved. Words can hardly express the pride of being a Canadian, as you stand before the magnificent Vimy monument and wonder at the nature of the valiant sacrifice made by our veterans at that wall, and for the values they stood for.

I was also so very proud of the 13 young Canadians, representing all of Canada's provinces and territories, who were with me on that trip. As we begin to lose our eye witnesses to Canadian participation in the wars of the last century, it is very important that our young people pick up the torch and become ambassadors of remembrance to succeeding generations.

That said, over the past seven or eight years, we have begun to pay increased attention to commemoration here at home. With the institution of Veterans Week in 1995, the department--through its promotional activities and with the support of veterans organizations as partners--asked college communities to get involved in honouring their local veteran heroes. Each year, these commemorative activities increase in number.

Two years ago, with the installation of the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, along with incredible media coverage, Canadians were very clear in their response to the notion of remembrance as an activity not just reserved for Remembrance Day, but as something that ought to be preserved for posterity.

Of course, I am delighted that my colleagues in the House have been seized with the same notion of increasing our commemorative profile here at home. Most recently, we witnessed this in debate on motions encouraging the government to help fund the preservation of cenotaphs and monuments in Canada. Some of you who proposed that motion are here today. At the time, I indicated my own interest in the proposition and asked my officials to investigate options. I believe we are making progress on this file, and I hope to be able to respond more fully in the very near future.

In the meantime, we cannot neglect the magnificent monuments overseas, which are suffering equally from the ravages of time and mother nature. The beautiful symbol of Canadian wartime sacrifice, the Vimy Ridge monument, is perhaps the most noticeable. Our commitment of $30 million to the restoration of the Canadian National Vimy Memorial, and 12 other First World War monuments, gives visible proof of our commitment to the symbolic value provided by these monuments.

Our Canada Remembers program is fully seized with the task at hand, both at home and abroad. In addition to the initiatives I have mentioned, they also issue honours and awards, fund funerals and burials, and provide learning materials and public information.

¹ (1550)

We are particularly excited about the continuing potential of the Internet to increase knowledge and public awareness of the contribution of our veterans, with such innovative technologies as the Canadian virtual war memorial.

In conclusion, the possibilities are endless, and we are determined that our youth especially have access to their birthright, a knowledge of their military history and heritage.

Ladies and gentlemen, in the very short time I have been with the department, I must say, I have been most impressed with its efforts. I hope and I trust you share that sentiment. But there is much more to be done. Ensuring our clients receive the right services at the right time is our commitment. With your support and guidance, I am sure we can meet the challenges ahead and thereby fulfil our collective vision and live up to our values in the delivery of our programs.

I would be pleased to take questions from the members.

Merci.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Minister. On behalf of all the committee members here, I'd like to express our appreciation for your broad, yet very informative, overview of your department.

Before we get to questions, I would like to note the presence in the room today of Mr. Cliff Chadderton, who is well known in the veterans community.

Mr. Chadderton, it's good that you could be here with us.

Unfortunately, Minister, we do not have our full complement of regular committee members. Many of them are away on a NATO delegation. So we have a number of committee members here who aren't regulars. For the purposes of this committee, we'll call them “reservists”. But we welcome them as well.

At this point, perhaps we could get the questioning under way.

Mr. Goldring, for seven minutes.

Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps we're “rangers”.

Mr. Minister, I'm delighted with your presentation today. I would like to take this opportunity for belated congratulations on your appointment. I'm sure your life's experiences, particularly your medical background, will give you particular insight in dealing with veterans affairs.

First of all, I'd like to question about a recent event or occurrence that's stated to be happening in Europe, where they're exploring the building of an airport in the war graves cemeteries of France.

I would like to know--recognizing this is probably War Graves' sphere of influence and operation, I would certainly think Veterans Affairs would be having some say in it, because we have a great number of Canadian soldiers who are lying in the graveyards in France--if you have had discussions with them, and, should this proceed on to the actual moving of these gravesites, if you're allowing for contingency funding in your budget to be able to accommodate it.

In other words, what is happening on that situation? Are you at the table to have the discussions? Maybe you could give us your opinion on whether you're in agreement with what they're doing or have considered the matter.

¹ (1555)

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: First, thank you, Mr. Goldring, for your kind words of congratulations, belated that they are--better late than never.

On the issues you raised, yes, that issue has seized my interest, because I believe, as we all do, that the integrity of the burial site should be maintained. To that effect, as we know, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission is very much in charge of the sites in Europe.

In my recent trip to France, I did raise the issue, because of my interest and the department's interest. I did seize the opportunity as well to speak to my counterpart in the Government of France. He shares my concern as well. I spoke to our Canadian embassy officials and again raised the issue.

I have noted in the media recently--and I trust they're accurate--that in fact there is a thinking on the part of the Government of France that they are reconsidering the whole issue of the airport site and looking at other options.

To your question as to what would happen if in fact they would proceed, I would say when that situation happens I will address that question and perhaps, with your permission, decline to respond in a hypothetical way, since at this point there is a sentiment shared in the media that indeed the plan is being reconsidered. I'm also aware that in the history of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, it is very much committed to maintaining the integrity of the burial site, that a relocation has to be done only under the most compelling of circumstances.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Well, Mr. Minister, it's very good to hear that you are monitoring the situation very closely. Obviously, all of us wish to maintain the status quo; the war graves should remain where they are now out of respect for those who stood up and defended our country. That is good news, and I'm glad we don't have to discuss contingency efforts here.

On the second part of this, I noticed in your presentation that funding has been allotted for the repair of the Vimy Ridge memorial. Like you and anybody else who has ever visited it, I found it a wonderful site. It is absolutely incredible. You can see that monument in a thousand pictures in books and never grasp the real sense, significance, or meaning of it unless you're standing there looking at it. For too many years it was in great disrepair, and I'm delighted to see that you've allocated $30 million. I would trust that it has been properly examined so there will be a full renovation to the monument, because in the past they were doing some patchwork on it.

I'd like to know if that monument funding extends to another monument that is of great significance to the Princess Pats, the PPCLI, in Kapyong, Korea. I know you had talked about the monuments in Canada and the Vimy. Is the Kapyong, Korea, monument coming under that same renovation program? It is in need of repair also.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Mr. Goldring, my understanding is that the capital budget under the Canadian battlefield memorials restoration project on that one line in table 2 is earmarked for Vimy. I would ask the deputy minister to give us a more definitive answer as to whether in fact the one in Korea is included.

Mr. Larry Murray (Deputy Minister, Department of Veterans Affairs): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Minister, no it is not. The Veterans Affairs Canada responsibility for monuments within our mandate is strictly restricted to Vimy and the 12 other European monuments. The PPCLI monument in Korea is, I presume, a regimental monument, and it's not a monument for which this department is responsible. We do, in those situations, try to assist where possible in terms of commemorative activities and that sort of thing, but in terms of your specific question and our mandate, the answer is no.

º (1600)

Mr. Peter Goldring: That's very unfortunate because that monument too is in need of repair.

My final question has to do with war veteran status and recognizing that we did give veteran status recently to serving members of the military. But the question is still out there on the Gulf War, and it's also outstanding on so-called “peacekeeping”, which is really putting our soldiers between warring factions.

Now we have in Afghanistan a situation where our soldiers are actually on front-line duty, whether they're in the Arabian Sea as floating targets or they're actually inland in Afghanistan itself. In other words, they're in war conditions, and we're calling that one a war.

Has there been a reconsideration and thinking about Afghanistan veterans being classified as full war veterans and being called that? Being called that is very important to the soldiers, and let us also reconsider the Gulf War veterans and our peacekeepers in warring conditions being given entitlement to that classification too.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Mr. Goldring, I will again ask the deputy minister. It is very important.

Before I yield the floor to the deputy, let me just add something about the Vimy memorial. You alluded to the fact that you hope it is not patchwork. Well, I can assure you that it will be a very thorough, five-year project and that we will ensure the integrity of the monument and the safety and security of the staff and visitors as well.

In terms of war veteran status for peacekeepers and others involved in special duty operations, certainly there is a need to give them appropriate recognition. As to recognition, we are working on there being a book of remembrance as well. We do not yet know the exact name of that book of remembrance, but the process is under way.

On the specific question of whether they will be called full status veterans, I will request the deputy minister to respond in light of his total knowledge of the history.

Mr. Larry Murray: Thank you very much, Minister. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The definition of veteran that has evolved and was enunciated, actually, at this committee--I think in March of 1999--drew on input from the Canadian Forces and from veterans organizations, including input from Mr. Chadderton, who is here today. It drew on our historical background of World War II, where a veteran was a veteran and is a veteran, whether that veteran's service had been in Canada only or overseas.

Mr. Chadderton, for example, is a veteran. He's also an overseas veteran. He's a Normandy veteran. He's a veteran of the Scheldt campaign.

In the case of modern--if I can call them that--Canadian Forces veterans, there will be SAR technicians who have executed 500 SAR missions, and they are veterans. I suspect the veterans of Afghanistan will be referred to as Afghanistan veterans.

But I think the term “veteran” is all about recognition. In coming up with this definition, we tried to draw on the history of this country, and it's very much in step with that history. In fact, when we discussed the definition with people like Mr. Chadderton, they came down very definitely on the side of the kind of definition we came up with, which, as I say, is that definition.

So I believe that a Gulf War veteran is a Gulf War veteran. He's also a veteran, and these other people are veterans as well.

I take Mr. Goldring's point, but that's really the background. As I say, we believe that the new definition is well-founded on historical precedent.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Goldring, for holding your tongue there.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Oh, thank you very much.

The Chair: The response was...[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Madame Girard-Bujold.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): In your department's strategic plan for the period 2001 to 2006, it states that it will be necessary to, and I quote:

Undertake a fundamental review of the disability pension process to take into account client concerns and bring about durable improvements;

Where are we with that fundamental review? That's my first question.

º (1605)

[English]

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I will ask first in terms of the program.

Mr. Larry Murray: I can start, and then I would ask--

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I will ask for a progress report of the most up-to-date plan.

Mr. Larry Murray: The last major review of our pension program was done in 1995. In fact the current chair of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, Mr. Chambers, was part of that review. We are required to review this program I think every five years, but because of the changes and the nature of the needs of new veterans, as the minister mentioned, the Gerontological Advisory Council has given us advice in a variety of areas. We also have a Canadian Forces Advisory Council.

In this examination, which has been launched, we are revisiting a system that has grown since 1919 to try to ensure that it addresses the needs of the 21st century veteran in a most holistic, comprehensive, and perhaps less bureaucratic manner.

I would ask Brian Ferguson to say a few additional words on that--and actually, Mr. Chambers may wish to as well.

Mr. Brian Ferguson (Assistant Deputy Minister, Veterans Services, Department of Veterans Affairs): Thank you very much, Deputy Minister and Mr. Chair.

I would simply add that the studies we've carried out on veterans' needs have been very, very comprehensive. We've looked at the needs of the aging veteran in institutions, the aging veteran in the home, and also the modern Canadian Forces veteran. We are attempting within the department to address the needs as defined in a very proactive and practical manner.

On the Canadian Forces side, for example, we've launched a whole series of initiatives with the Department of National Defence to try to offer what we call “seamless service”, so the transition for a Canadian Forces member to civilian life is supported by both institutions in a much more proactive way than had been done in the past.

I'll just give a couple of examples. We've created the DND/VAC Centre here in Ottawa for the care of the injured. That's a very, very important information resource for members who are looking for answers to questions they have if they've suffered injuries. Secondly, we've created an assistant service for veterans. It's a call line, a hotline, they can use if they're having problems in their own lives and they need some immediate support.

I could go on. We have a whole list of these examples. In fact, I think we have a document on this available to the committee.

Mr. Larry Murray: To give a couple of examples that perhaps will help us cut to the chase, it doesn't necessarily make sense to us that a veteran who needs glasses should have to go through a disability pension process, or one coming through the door suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder should have to go through a five-month period to get a disability pension before we can provide the needed medical care. So we're trying to come to grips with some of those things that don't make a lot of sense to us, recognizing that the system that is in place is very good and has stood Canada in good stead.

Having an 80-year-old veteran avoid waiting eight months for an adjustment for a variety of process reasons that don't necessarily all make total sense in 2001 is what we're trying to do.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: You mention post-traumatic stress syndrome. You also mentioned it in your presentation, Minister. You said:

Departmental officials are looking at how we can expand our assistance to people who suffer from this disability. While some of the work is still in its formative stages...

Within the terms of reference you gave your officials, will there be a review of those policies and methods concerning the attribution of allowances with a view to ensuring that the physical, personal and social circumstances surrounding the victims of post-traumatic stress syndrome are considered in their treatment?

Moreover, Minister, I'd like to know if the cooperation you're getting from the Department of Defence on this is good.

Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Yes, in fact, Mr. Chairman, we have an excellent collaborative relationship with the Department of National Defence on this particular file. Soon after taking office, I undertook an initiative to develop, hopefully, a network of excellence on this very issue. As I said in my presentation, we are pretty close to coming to fruition on this initiative. There are a few more things to reconcile.

As for the third point you raised, there will be a policy review relating to this issue. Part of an ongoing commitment to any new or existing program is the need for evaluation and self-evaluation, to ensure the quality of the program for the public. If we have to enhance it, we have to do it. If there is no need, then there is no need to do it.

On the question of compensation for people suffering from this, I would suggest they would fall within the ambit of pension disability considerations. But I will look into this more specifically, to address your specific question.

Would you like to add to that, Deputy?

º (1610)

Mr. Larry Murray: Yes, the minister's initiative is part of an evolutionary attack on this whole process. We have been doing a total review of our table of disabilities. Because of the nature of this particular ailment, we actually expedited it for post-traumatic stress and introduced a new protocol in February 2000. Since then, we have had very rapid handling and a yes decision on nearly 89% of submissions for this. The resulting pensions have resulted in health care.

We're trying to treat PTSD as it relates to the whole person and whole family. Obviously, this is a little more challenging. The minister's initiative will hopefully give us the ability to build expertise across the country and move forward more aggressively on this. But it's definitely a pension condition. I believe we're addressing it more quickly, fairly, and holistically.

The Chair: Thank you, Admiral Murray.

Merci, madame Girard-Bujold.

Mr. Wood.

Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just quickly to the minister and the deputy minister, I don't know if you're aware of the case of a gentleman by the name of Duncan Graham. Mr. Graham is, I believe, the president of the Sunnybrook Veterans Association. Mr. Graham found out he was eligible for some benefits he wasn't getting, and he was allowed these benefits. I think they amount to maybe a little over $300 a month. Correct me if I'm wrong, but retroactivity only goes back six months. Because Mr. Graham feels he is owed benefits further back, he has appealed the decision, which is his choice.

My question to you, Mr. Minister, and maybe to the deputy minister, is why couldn't Mr. Graham have been paid his six months in benefits retroactivly and the appeal process continue from where he thinks he has been unjustifiably slighted, or whatever? Apparently they're holding up his money.

We were there three or four weeks ago, but, to my knowledge, I don't think it has been cleared up. I hope it has. I don't know.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Mr. Chairman, I certainly congratulate the member for his keen interest in this particular case.

Mr. Chair, once I start discussing this in a public meeting of the committee, I think it will be very difficult. I will make an undertaking to discuss this particular case with the member, because of his specific interest. So any comment I make at this point--particularly in a case you said has been appealed--could jeopardize our long-standing tradition of not commenting on cases before the review and appeal board.

Mr. Bob Wood: I understand.

All I want to do is to bring it to your attention and have you look at it.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: You have done that.

Mr. Bob Wood: Most of my comments are going to be directed to Mr. Chambers. Some of them come from a meeting or hearing we had here with the legion. The legion is quite concerned that the chairman apparently sometimes sits as a board member on cases where they have been represented. The legion goes on to say that:

...we could not have asked for a person who applied benefit of the doubt, all of the statutory requirements, better than he did. So we know that not only is the chairman fully aware of all of the provisions but also, when he personally sits as a board member, that's what we see in his decisions and in his treatment of veterans.

I guess what the legion is in a bit of a quandary about is that Mr. Chambers then sits as a chairman. When he is doing his operational role as a board member, then we see the board seemingly going somewhere else. I guess the legion, or anybody else, is not privy to the direction the chair gives to his board members. They hear periodically from board members on this particular thing.

Is this the right thing to do, Mr. Chambers?

º (1615)

Mr. Brian Chambers (Chair, Veterans Review and Appeal Board): If I understand your question, sir, are you asking me whether I discuss any cases before a panel of board members?

Mr. Bob Wood: I'm just saying, do you think it's proper for the chairman of the appeal board--which you are--to sit as an ordinary board member at times? Shouldn't you elevate yourself above this?

Mr. Brian Chambers: I'm both chair and a member. I have dual status on the board.

Generally when I've sat in the past--and I sit very infrequently because of time constraints--I do it for two or three reasons. I'll give you an example from last Christmas.

Three or four members were ill during Christmas week, and we would have had to cancel all those hearings if I didn't sit as a panel member. So I sat on those, at last-minute notice; otherwise we would have had to tell 25 or 30 veterans that they would have to wait until sometime late in January or February, until we got around to them.

The second situation was during the period of 1995-96, when pension reform was on. We had a backlog of about 8,800 cases. At that time I volunteered to go out and do single-member panels, which was a negotiated agreement between the legal representatives and the board to expedite cases. By sitting as a single-member panel member for a number of weeks, we were able to clear off that backlog within a 12-month period. So it was a matter of trying to do it as expeditiously as possible.

The only other circumstance where I infrequently sit with colleagues is when they're in training. It's to give them feedback in performance responses, in my capacity as chair. That's done only during their period of nurture, until they get their wings. But other than that, I want to make it really clear that I do not discuss the case at all with the members who are seized with any case. They are free to make whatever decision they want, and there is no influence or coercion, or any kind of activity on the part of the chair--nor should there ever be--to let them freely make the decision they want to make.

Mr. Bob Wood: Fine.

You wrote this briefing note, did you?

Mr. Brian Chambers: Yes, it was prepared by my board.

Mr. Bob Wood: Okay, good.

At the top of page 4 in this briefing note, 58.8% were approved at the review level and 33.9% were approved at the appeal level. This would indicate to me that about 90% of the applications that were rejected at the first level were overturned. If this is correct, then I would suggest that the first level of criteria probably needs to be reviewed.

Mr. Brian Chambers: As a matter of calculation, this has always been a problem in understanding the process. Often what occurs is not because the department hasn't done a very thorough job; they've done an excellent job in fact with what they've had. The difficulty is often that the evidence never came before them that was crucial to the case. So often as the case is unfolding, people bring the evidence before us.

A second, equally important point is that they don't have the opportunity that our board has. We get to see the veterans in front of us, and we get to hear their oral testimony in their communities, whether it's in B.C., Ontario, or in the Maritimes. That's crucial, because often it's when they tell us their story and tell us the events that we get the additional details that will give us sufficient background to allow us to award the case.

In many other situations--and I think this comes up--what we attempt to do is provide guidance to the department in certain types of cases, to be helpful, and I think we have ongoing transmission of our information or our cases to them. We say these are particularly important or useful cases that they should hear, and then go on.

But as far as the statistics are concerned, I guess I see that as a healthy part of the process. I guess I'm more encouraged that we're able at the end--because our mandate and my directions to all my members are that we have to dig to find a basis on which we can give a pension, not just simply say, if they don't bring enough to us, well, then, go away, you don't have enough. Oftentimes we try to point out to them where the gap is, and if they can fill that, come back and see us and we'll certainly do our best.

º (1620)

The Chair: Mr. Chambers, I'm going to have to cut you off there, and Mr. Wood.

We have Mr. Stoffer for seven minutes.

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and again, thank you, Mr. Minister and your associates, for coming today.

I have a couple of questions for you, sir, one on aboriginal veterans. As you know, Perry Bellegarde has been raising the issues to all of us in correspondence about the concerns they have for aboriginals, especially about the Korean vets. I'm wondering what the department is doing to address their issues, which they've mentioned time and time again.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: The issue of first nations veterans has seized my attention, and I am in frequent consultations with my colleagues and departmental officials. I hope we will find a resolution to this case soon. Unfortunately, at this point, that is the extent to which I can comment on that issue.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Very good.

Also, sir, as you know, although this particular preamble is not the responsibility of your department, it does affect it. The changes to the disability tax credit that were announced last September by CCRA indicate that if you can go 50 metres on a flat surface with a device, you no longer qualify for the disability tax credit. Last September, 106,000 forms were sent out, and many of them went to veterans who are disabled or mentally challenged. A lot of them are being cut off their disability tax credit.

Has the Department of Veterans Affairs or yourself had an opportunity to speak to the revenue minister to address the concerns on behalf of the veterans who have been so shamelessly cut off from their disability tax credit?

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I must say that I have not been seized with this issue. This is the first time I have heard of it, but I will make an undertaking to look into it. I would invite some of my officials to comment if they would like to. Deputy.

Mr. Larry Murray: I think we need to look into it, Minister.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I will look into it, and I will get back to the committee.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I greatly appreciate that.

A while back I had a private member's bill in the House about Veterans Affairs establishing a monument dedicated to the participation of women in the war effort overseas and at home. A beautiful monument dedicated to this has been established in Winnipeg, your home town. Unfortunately, the bill wasn't deemed votable. Has the department looked at establishing a monument in every capital city in Canada to honour women's efforts in the war, those who kept the home fires burning and those who served in medical services and on active duty overseas?

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Monuments and memorials for veterans reflect all veterans, whether they are men or women. To date we have not made any particular delineation as to gender, because we believe their service has been of equal value and importance.

Would you like to add to that, Mr. Deputy?

Mr. Larry Murray: No.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: The reason I ask that is because many women's organizations within the veterans' world have asked specifically for that. They don't mean to denigrate the monuments that are there now. This one isn't just for veterans who served in the active service, but also for women who worked in the factories and the fields and kept the home fires burning. As you know, a soldier who goes overseas doesn't have coordinated efforts back home. It was mostly the women who looked after the children and all those other services. They were looking at trying to recognize that effort during the war. That's the reason they asked for that.

º (1625)

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I congratulate you on raising this issue. I must say that a colleague in the Senate has also spoken to me on that particular issue of trying to see how we can give appropriate credit and recognition to those who were working on the home front. I will continue to look into that issue to see in what way we can heighten and promote the important role they played, not necessarily by way of a monument but certainly by some other kind of program.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you.

Turning to another issue, in many small communities throughout the country, the legions are suffering because of a lack of membership and also the fact that the buildings they occupy are starting to falter. They need either their roof fixed or the windows replaced, something of that nature. I spoke earlier to Mr. Hillier, and there's nothing in the estimates to indicate that Veterans Affairs might be able to provide either no-interest loans or low-interest loans to assist the legions that are having difficulty obtaining funding to renovate their buildings to keep them up to standard. In an area such as Sheet Harbour, Nova Scotia, for example, the legion is used for many purposes other than remembrance ceremonies or legion events. They're having great difficulty obtaining funding to do what is required.

So I was hoping that quite possibly the department might look at something of that nature in the future to assist these legions in order to keep the remembrance alive as we go along.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Firstly, I must say that indeed we have to continue to give recognition to the legions. They have been doing, as you indicated, a great service, and in fact they have been in the forefront of nation building.

I recall, however, that there was a time a few years ago that because of their desire to be independent they did not want that kind of help. Now, of course, there are infrastructure programs that the government over the years has provided where a city or municipality would recommend and the federal government could take that into account. I'm not saying they should, but certainly one indirect avenue, through the infrastructure program, is possible. But in terms of having a program now, we do not have that, and if there is any discussion on that, I would be prepared to listen.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Stoffer. Thank you, Minister.

Mr. Goldring, five minutes.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Minister, this matter has been through the courts for some time, and I hope you can comment on it from the basis of the estimates and the budget, and whether you're making allowances for it should the case be to the detriment of the department.

I'm speaking about the veterans trusteeship case that's before the courts right now. There are some concerns that Veterans Affairs, your department, and government departments are trying to negatively impact it. I'd like to know what your viewpoint on it is, what your position on it is, and whether you have allowances in your upcoming estimates for dealing with this situation. How will it impact your future financial budgetary estimates? Could you comment on that, please?

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Certainly the case is now before the court. In fact, the Government of Canada has filed a leave to appeal. We're awaiting the result of that decision. And since it is a case before the court, I'm a little afraid that anything I say at this time might be construed as in fact commenting on a case before our courts. So I would decline, Mr. Chair, at this point. But, yes, the leave to appeal has been filed.

I must add very quickly, Mr. Chair, that we had been paying interest on the so-called fund since 1990. Two, we have continued to provide services to them, even those cognitively impaired, and I must say--and it is public knowledge--that even at the time before 1990 we were able to deliver and give them all the needed and appropriate services that the veterans needed.

But on the case now before the court, I will decline comment.

º (1630)

Mr. Peter Goldring: All right, thank you. I can appreciate that, Mr. Minister.

I'm pleased to note in your presentation that Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue is coming under serious renovations and remodelling. There was a comment in there of adding 102 beds. Could you tell me what the total capacity of that facility will be? Will that be another 103 beds, additional to the beds they have, or are we downsizing it or increasing it? In other words, from the capacity that it had, how many beds are being renovated, or how many beds will be there when it's completed?

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: The deputy has just advised me that in fact, yes, the number has been reduced from 550 to 460. But I must add very quickly that we built the annex of 103 rooms, and the arrangement has been made such that it will attend to the needs of our veterans. And secondly, the centre will be a model in the country.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Yes, and having visited the facility, it certainly was long overdue for a good renovation and needed to be improved for the veterans.

There was some talk at one time of having this turned over to the provincial health authorities. There were ongoing discussions on it, and there was some chance that those discussions might be resumed again. They were stopped at one point in time. Have they been resumed, or is there consideration of doing that, or are they permanently halted?

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I'm not aware of any discussion ongoing at this time, but I will ask the deputy to comment.

Mr. Larry Murray: Thanks, Minister, and Mr. Chairman.

The discussions to which you refer have concluded. The policy of the government, following the Glassco commission report of 1963, is to continue to move toward transferring all the veterans affairs hospitals to provincial jurisdiction. However, the Province of Quebec, at the moment, is not interested in the transfer. It is interested in partnership arrangements, as is the Régis in that region, so we are now working closely there with the local regional authorities.

As the minister said, the transition from 550 to 460 beds will meet the needs of veterans. The vision of the department, so as not to lose that wonderful facility, is to work toward a partnership arrangement at some stage of the game. Then at some point in the undefined future, if the department no longer had need of that long-term care facility for veterans and the province were interested, post-renovations, the transfer might proceed. But at the moment, the discussions are around partnership, as opposed to transfer.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Goldring. Your time is up.

Ms. Girard-Bujold.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Minister, in your address, on page 3, you mentioned the VIP, the Veteran Independence Program providing home care services to protect the independence of our veterans.

You know that the wives of these veterans who greatly helped by keeping their husbands at home and putting a lot of time into it, get no help at all when their spouse dies. I don't know if there's been a review in that area or if the decision was maintained not to extend to veterans' surviving spouses the care they might need.

[English]

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: It is always difficult to stop services to which any given family has been used to. In consideration of the transition, on the death of a veteran, so that benefits continue to the surviving spouse for a year, the veterans officials are very active in finding resources and services in the community, under provincial jurisdiction, for which they are eligible, which we undertake to offer to them.

This is one of the three issues I raised with the three major veterans organizations. Anything we do for this kind of program, such as extending it beyond one year, will have an impact on our other competing priorities. So we are in consultation with the major veterans organizations, in the context of the total needs of all veterans.

º (1635)

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: In my riding, there are a lot of veterans' wives who made representations on this. They feel they've been dismissed out of hand by your department. That's the message I was to transmit to you.

I would also like to add to the question put by my colleague from the NDP. There are four or five Canadian legions in my riding of Jonquière and one of their sources of funding was to rent out their establishments. Right now, there are fewer and fewer members in the Canadian Legion and the buildings are crumbling for lack of repairs. They find it quite curious that the Department of Veterans' Affairs isn't helping them.

You said before there was an infrastructure file. To my knowledge, that file is a tripartite agreement between the province, the municipality and the federal government. However, at the present time, they make a bit of money to help their members by renting out their buildings.

Minister, I'd like you to examine closely if you could help them because I find it's very important for them and Canada's image in each of our ridings. I have nothing against our veterans. On the contrary, I've always had great respect for them because they went and defended Canada when they went to war. Right now, I find that they're being dismissed out of hand. I would like you to examine this very closely to find a way to help them in this matter as a way of thanking them.

[English]

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Certainly, I will look into that since you've raised the issue. I must say we do give grants to the legion for services and programs, though. Isn't that right, Deputy?

Mr. Larry Murray: We are partnering with the legion in a number of areas, such as a housing program in a number of regions in the country, to try to assist the legion. In fact, we have seconded a full-time staff member to the legion to try to move that initiative forward. It's going forward relatively positively, as I understand it. We're partnering on an information-gathering initiative relative to seniors housing with them, and we're also partnering on seniors computer learning opportunities.

But in terms of supporting the legion branches themselves, we are not. In fact, until 1995 the department provided the legion with a $9,000-a-year grant. In 1995, Dominion Command of the legion, in order to maintain an arm's-length relationship, requested that the government cease that grant, and since then we have not provided it.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Minister, just one little question?

The Chair: Ms. Girard-Bujold, your time is up.

Mr. O'Reilly, five minutes.

[English]

Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for appearing, Mr. Minister. I'll follow along on Madame Girard-Bujold's line.

Veterans Affairs and community aid organizations, such as Community Care in Ontario, are certainly in partnership on capital projects for housing. It's one that is showing a lot of success with the legions and will be something that can be built on in all provinces as a model, certainly the one in my riding, and I have 18 legions in my riding. There are a number of projects going on that are progressing very well, and I think some of the younger members of the legion are working very hard on those projects. If you look at that as a model, you'll see it's one that can work.

You'll really hear this from all over the place. I have a commercial from Alan Tonks, who couldn't stay. He had indicated they had to tear down a part of his veterans legion village on Kingston Road in Scarborough. He was asking if it could be monitored as part of the projects Veterans Affairs would look at for the Scarborough legion village and whether in fact there were any capital projects. Having gone through the budget, I believe that capital projects for Veterans Affairs come mostly under community partnerships and under the infrastructure program. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's the way they go.

Of course, Mr. Stoffer had indicated earlier something about capital funds. I'll tell him how that's done, but he's in the wrong caucus. There is certainly a way to put pressure on the Prime Minister to have him recognize certain projects. There will be some announcements coming along shortly on things such as Juno Beach. I'm sure we're looking forward to that.

Also, I wanted to know the difference between the United Nations Memorial Cemetery in Korea and the monuments in various places in Korea that are regimental monuments. I think Mr. Goldring asked that question earlier. I wanted to know what the difference was in that project and why one is looked after and one isn't. Is that something you can inform me on?

º (1640)

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I will ask the deputy for the answer to that very technical question.

Mr. Larry Murray: The only memorials in Korea for which the government is responsible and really has a mandate are the Commonwealth.... I'm not an expert. I know there is a UN war graves cemetery there and that we make a contribution as part of the $7.2 million a year we give to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. With the exception of that contribution for their work around the world, the only monuments for which our department has a mandate and a responsibility are the Vimy memorial and the 12 other European monuments.

I believe that after World War II there was a conscious decision, as I understand it, of government to invest in memorial rinks and so on across the country and not to invest in memorials, as had been the case after World War I. That's my understanding, but certainly I would be very pleased to confirm that understanding and provide a more detailed response to the committee if I have it wrong.

Mr. John O'Reilly: I took it from your 2002-2003 main estimates, a figure regarding the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, and then right underneath that, the United Nations Memorial Cemetery in Korea has a line of $70,000. That's what I was asking about.

Mr. Larry Murray: Yes, we do have a responsibility for the Commonwealth war graves for that cemetery.

Mr. John O'Reilly: Is that a single monument in Korea?

Mr. Larry Murray: I believe it's a cemetery, sir.

It has been confirmed. That is the cemetery at Pusan, which I think many of us have been at.

Mr. John O'Reilly: All right.

In total, how many do we look after? I've been to Vimy and Beaumont-Hamel. I want to know about the crew of the Halifax bomber who are buried in Belgium. Is that listed somewhere as a memorial that we look after?

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: No, it's not.

Mr. Larry Murray: That's a separate issue.

Mr. John O'Reilly: Okay. It's a separate issue.

When you're in this room, by the way, one of the best paintings in Ottawa of Vimy is right behind you. So you're being looked at very well there.

The Chair: Mr. O'Reilly, we're going to have to come back to you.

Mr. John O'Reilly: But I just started. You give the opposition all the time.

The Chair: We're going to go to Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: In your brief you mentioned the war-era veterans. Veterans, before they pass on, also want to make sure their spouse and their dependants are cared for after they're gone.

In the questioning before, you said the benefits go on for up to a year and that's it, and you're looking at other avenues for it. But what happens is--my colleague is absolutely right--a war-era veteran, as you would know, as Mr. Chadderton would know, and anyone who served in the service, could not serve in the service if he did not have the support and love of his family. Many of these widows whose husbands are now deceased sacrificed sometimes six or seven years of their lives with their families, with their children alone, while their loved ones fought in War World II or in the three-year service of Korea. They felt as much a part of the military in Canada's sacrifices as anyone else. When the loved one dies and they only get a year after that, they very quickly slip into the abyss of poverty. That's what happens to them.

It's not personal against yourself or your department, but it's against us as a society that we allow that to happen. These people were as much an integral part of the services as the fighting soldier, him or herself. I think, sir, anything you could do to convince the government to change that around, to ensure that these widows and dependants are cared for until their natural life ends, would be a great tribute to the sacrifices they endured while their husband or wife, or whatever the case may be, went overseas.

Lastly, sir, when we were at Ste. Anne's, we were told it's six days to get a bed; at the Perley, we were told it could be anywhere from two to six months. One is operated solely by Veterans Affairs, the federal government, and the other is operated by the province. You have a problem here, and it needs to be dealt with.

Veterans fought for Canada. They didn't fight for the individual province or the city; they fought for Canada. My belief is that any veteran in the country should have the same type of access to a bed as they do at Ste. Anne's.

º (1645)

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Well, I think I can say with great confidence that, except on certain occasions, we have really a good number of beds accessible to our veterans. In fact, we have also the at-home pilot program. In case, in the situation we're in, in a given instance, no priority access bed exists, there will be an opportunity to be given the services in another community hospital or at home, and with a quality that is high.

In fact, I have asked the department to look into this issue specifically. We have a table here that I will hand out, because this is an issue that has seized my attention as well, and for a greater understanding.

Certainly when you look at this, the witness information--this is last month's data--and you look at the first one there, “Willing to be admitted” to the hospital, and this is taking the Perley-Rideau Veterans Health Centre as the site--you will see the four levels or groups: the pensioners/income qualified basis; the at-home pilot; the wait list management project; and those who receive no assistance at all. As you can see, there is a column for those who have not returned the VAC's call, and we look at that column as well.

Of the 161 veterans who were asked on this list and called, 25 of them....

Maybe I would ask.... Who made this table, the deputy?

Mr. Larry Murray: In this table we've tried to come at one long-term care facility. The minister has made the offer. If there are other facilities in the country where members of the committee want us to do the same thing, we're quite prepared to do it.

We looked at the 161 veterans on the wait list for the Perley-Rideau Veterans Health Centre and did a detailed phone survey. In relation to the phone survey, all but the 30 in the left hand column, or 117 out of the 161 veterans on the wait list, preferred the services they were currently receiving. There were 14 veterans we couldn't reach.

As you can see, the income-qualified pensioners on the top were receiving VIP at home. The overseas veterans at home pilot project participants were receiving VIP services at home. More than 90%--67 out of 73--preferred to continue to receive VIP at home rather than be admitted to the Perley-Rideau.

That pilot is across the country now. Twenty-five of thirty preferred to stay in the facility they were in. The wait list management initiative is code for “in a community facility other than Perley-Rideau, but a long-term care facility”. And zero were getting no assistance at all.

So when one looks at these wait lists, I think it's very important to look at them in detail. We don't know what the situation was with 14 of the 61. We couldn't contact them. But the point is that only 19 of the pensioners on VIP would have liked to have had a room in Perley-Rideau. Six of the at-home veterans in the at-home pilot would have preferred to be in Perley-Rideau, and five from the wait list management project would have preferred to move from the community facility they were in to the Perley-Rideau.

In terms of the timing of those numbers, using last year's numbers, 88 beds in Perley-Rideau become available every year. In relation to Mr. Stoffer's question, this does say that, statistically, for any one of those 30, it would take about four months to get a bed. But the point is there were only 30 of those who would have preferred to be in Perley-Rideau. It is a four-month wait, but in every case they were receiving some level of care.

That's not to say that our goal isn't to try to get them in as quickly as possible, but I think on this wait list business it's extremely important to look at the details. The minister has made the commitment, in other fora and here, that if there are particular facilities across the country where members become aware that there's a problem, we would be delighted to go through it in detail and try to get the facts, because it really helps us to try to come at the problem.

That is what we're trying to do in relation to Perley-Rideau.

º (1650)

The Chair: Thank you, Vice-Admiral. I'm going to have to go over to Mr. Woods for five minutes at this point.

Mr. Bob Wood: Thank you.

I want to just touch on section 82. Section 82, obviously, is a review under the Pension Act that allows someone who has been turned down to go back to the department--not the Veterans Review and Appeal Board but the department. In effect, it gives a second or perhaps third look at the situation.

And frankly, I believe the Bureau of Pension Advocates and the legion lawyers have found that people whose cases have failed the first time are far better off to take them forward again to the departmental adjudicators under a section 82 review, rather than going to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board.

I believe the legion lawyers have started to do this, and so has the Bureau of Pension Advocates. They have done it to such an extent that if you have a look at the statistics for the cases now before the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, I believe you will find there are significantly fewer, but at the same time, you also have to look at the number of cases going through the department under section 82. I believe those are rising, because that's where the advocates see their best chance for success.

But is this the right answer? Shouldn't the appeal process be the place to go? It's the one that is legislated. Shouldn't it have the most generous application of the law, or give the benefit of the doubt and every favourable inference in favour of the applicant?

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I would answer the question of section 82 by saying I would leave the issue on how the board would handle that to the chairman of the board. Certainly when there is new evidence or there are new pieces of information vital to the resolution of the case in favour of the veterans, I think it is a much simpler process, personally, to invoke section 82--because there is no real quasi-judicial hearing; it is the departmental officials looking again, in light of the new information--and reserve the cases that go to appeal to those where there is an honest difference of opinion between the veterans and the department about entitlement to the benefits in questions.

So I would favour, in fact, Mr. Chair, a situation where if new information is obtained by the veterans claiming the benefits, it would go first to the department for reassessment so that the appropriate action may be taken. I agree with what you said, Mr. Wood, that the Pension Act puts the onus of responsibility on the department to ensure, if there is any doubt at all, that it must be resolved in favour of the veterans. But of course we have guidelines and regulations to allow for consistency of application as well.

º (1655)

Mr. Bob Wood: Okay.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I would leave the question of whether it should go to the board, and if Mr. Chambers would like to comment on it, I will invite him to comment.

Mr. Brian Chambers: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister. I think there are two points I need to make.

First of all, we actively encourage the representatives to take their cases on section 82 back to the department. They're only taken back on one basis, and that's that new evidence has appeared that wasn't before the departmental officials at first instance. What we're saying is they can very quickly rectify the situation and put a pension in pay at that stage of the game, instead of engaging in setting up a hearing with us, where we have to convene the hearings and there's the expense of doing them, while everybody in the system knows that person with the new evidence in a week or two week would get paid. So we actively encourage that the section 82 procedure be undergone.

In fact, when we have seen it we have often called up the solicitor or the lawyer of record and said, “Listen, I think if you just take this straight back to the department, you can get it resolved very quickly and get it done.” The name of the game here is speed and getting the cheque out to the person.

Second, if the proposition is that there's an increase in activity in section 82, we hope there is, first of all, but secondly, proportionally there's not. To take the number of cases--and I'm going by memory here--the department had roughly over a year ago somewhere in the neighbourhood of 19,000 first applications in their system. It's now jumped to 22,000. The number of section 82s has stayed clearly in proportion to the increases in those numbers, so there's not an increase.

The other final point--I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, to be going on so long--is that section 82 only involve new evidence that's produced. In other words, if there is interpretation of the law or there are other matters involving a mixed law, in fact they have to come on appeal to us; that's the nature of the system. So it only involves that very small segment of cases, to be quite frank.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Chambers.

Thank you, Mr. Wood.

Mr. Goldring.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to return, Mr. Minister, to the wait list information for a little clarification. The first question I'd like to ask is, how many beds does the Perley have devoted to veterans at present? And how many of these beds on average come up for vacancy each year? Maybe you could answer those two questions.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: There are 250 beds at the Perley-Rideau.

And coming up for vacancy in a given year?

Mr. Larry Murray: It varies, but last year it was 88.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Okay, eighty or so.

Now, on this list here, where it says, “declined admission”--and I'm taking this as the veterans themselves having declined admission--the question I would ask is, why are they on a waiting list? Is there a reason for them to be on a waiting list for admission when they're obviously declining it? Are we maybe not trying to combine things we shouldn't have combined here? If they don't want admission, why are they on a waiting list? Is this for some future date?

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: No. In fact, you have identified the issue, Mr. Goldring. Ordinarily they would be considered as on a waiting list. My concept of a waiting list is that they're out there needing services, but there are no services available in terms of beds, so they're not getting the care that's required. Because of the home pilot project, for example, and the wait list management project, we feel we are providing them with the services.

I requested that the department examine these 161 veterans on the waiting list and ask them directly, “Since you're getting the home pilot services and you're under the wait list management system, were there to be a vacancy at the Perley and Rideau, would you rather go there?” This is what I alluded to in my presentation, that in fact the vast majority would prefer to stay where they are, receiving the services.

Mr. Peter Goldring: With that in mind, Mr. Minister, recently there were some serious concerns by local veterans about the Perley and Rideau being turned over to the province and about how that is affecting the services. I visited the Perley several times myself too and talked to people who had strong concerns. Would one of the reasons for them preferring home service over going to the Perley have anything to do--and has the question ever been asked of the veterans--with concerns over the level of service at the Perley and Rideau, or have those concerns been all resolved and are we talking about two different issues here?

» (1700)

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Yes, I see your point. To my knowledge, that is not an issue. The preference to stay at home is because they are getting services of at least equal value and because at the same time they are closer to their families and friends.

Mr. Peter Goldring: It's totally unrelated to their past concerns, then?

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: In fact, according to the client survey of those at the Perley and Rideau, there's an excellent level of satisfaction.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Thank you.

This would follow through with the statistics from Ste. Anne's Hospital in Montreal, where there's a very short waiting list, whereas this one is very long. Would you be doing comparable statistics? I would think that this would give us a comparison, because with Ste. Anne's we're looking at the concerns of today. Let's compare Ottawa and St. Anne's. If we have the same relevancy of documentation and investigation, this could at least make us feel a little more satisfied that the concerns are similar. Maybe St. Anne's has been addressing it differently with their recording.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: In fact, now that you've raised that, certainly we would like to do the same analysis. I can give you a table of the turnover rates in the various facilities, Veterans' Memorial, Ridgewood, Ste. Anne's, Sunnybrook, and Parkwood, in addition to Perley. If you like, and with your permission, Mr. Chair, I can, in the interests of time, table this particular table for the perusal of the members at a later date. Also, Mr. Chairman, should you wish to table this table, I would offer it--Mr. Goldring has shown an interest for greater clarity--in both official languages. Would you like me to table this for clarification?

The Chair: Okay.

At this point it's Mr. O'Reilly's turn.

Mr. Peter Goldring: I would appreciate that very much. Thank you.

Mr. John O'Reilly: I want to go back to the pension plan because that's where we as parliamentarians have trouble dealing with things that are covered or aren't covered, such as survivor benefits. There are certain rules that are made--and of course we only hear about things that don't work. We very seldom get a phone call telling us we're doing a great job, and I'm sure you get the same.

Under the Pension Act, coverage for members is subject to their being on duty at the time of a mishap. Is it still our policy that members not on duty are not covered 24 hours a day, seven days a week, while they're in the forces? In other words, there's controversy around the fact that they may be on a rest period. Even though they're posted overseas, the fact that they're on a rest period means they could possibly not be covered.

I have this problem, so maybe you could answer that first.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Before I ask the deputy to answer that specific question, a thought just occurred to me when I was thinking about the VIP program, and it is that the survivors do continue to receive of course the pension benefits. I'd like to put that on the record.

Mr. Deputy Minister, please respond to the question of Mr. O'Reilly.

Mr. Larry Murray: Thank you, Minister and Mr. Chairman.

That actually is a very significant issue within the Canadian Forces in terms of serving members. The reality is those members who suffer any disability from whatever cause while serving within what is known as a special duty area, for example, the area around Afghanistan at the moment, are covered as they would have been covered in World War I, World War II, or Korea. However, if they are injured in Canada...if a search and rescue technician is injured in a search and rescue operation, he or she is covered. If they are injured driving their car to the base, they're not covered, and it is in the definition around things like sports injuries in support of physical fitness and how do we define and deal with those.

In relation to all of that and post-September 11, since his arrival the minister has directed us to examine the whole issue of special duty areas. There is a study under way as we speak on seeing whether there is a possibility of bringing what I would call a more common-sense definition to the table on something related to special duty operations so that at least everyone involved in a special duty operation would be covered more broadly throughout the operation. In other words, the Hercules crew, flying from Trenton, wouldn't cross some magic line over Afghanistan and be covered. They would be covered throughout. That is under study right now. That is basically the two definitions. They are called the “insurance principle” in special duty areas and the “compensation principle,” which is very similar to Workers' Compensation, outside special duty areas.

» (1705)

Mr. John O'Reilly: I have a problem with this, because if I joined the Canadian services, I would be considered a member of those services 24 hours a day, seven days a week. When I'm elected a member of Parliament, as we all are, we're members of Parliament 24 hours a day, seven days a week. If I get hit by a car in Ottawa, I'm in Ottawa because I'm a member of Parliament. So if I'm in the services and I have an accident, I would expect that I would be covered because I'm in the services, whether I'm riding my bicycle back and forth to work, or I've taken a lunch break, or whatever. You are there and you are injured because you are in the services. You'd be somewhere else in life if you weren't there, and therefore you wouldn't be subject to this.

You're going to find a very hostile committee when it comes to not covering people 24/7. It's just not going to fly with this committee, in my mind. It would seem to me that if I'm on service in Bosnia and I'm forced to take seven days of leave, and I go to Greece or someplace for the seven days, or three days or whatever it is, I'm still in the services. If I have an accident over there, why am I cut off from that? I want to know. It may be outside a special duty area, but I think when you are in the forces, you're in the forces. When you're a member of the Canadian military, you're a member of the Canadian military, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Tell me when you're not a member of Parliament. Is there a time after you're elected that you're not a member of Parliament?

I've used that to fight for benefits for members of Parliament quite successfully, and I would hope that I will make some impression on you to that effect, because I think it is very important that we remain mindful that when people join the military, they have taken that part of their lives and turned it over to the service of their country. Because of that, I think they should be treated in an appropriate manner, and we shouldn't be trying to designate something as not part of their service and not related to their military duty.

The other one is, just quickly--

The Chair: Mr. O'Reilly, you're already well over your time.

Mr. John O'Reilly: But it was a good time, wasn't it?

The Chair: I let you go because you were on a bit of a roll there.

Mr. John O'Reilly: Fine. The other one--

The Chair: I would like to allow the minister time to respond to those comments.

Mr. John O'Reilly: The other one is very important.

The Chair: Yes. Go ahead.

Mr. John O'Reilly: Under CPP and QPP, no survivors benefit is payable to a spouse or a partner who is less than 35 years of age. Think about that now. Is that applied to the people who were killed in Afghanistan?

The Chair: They're very important questions.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First, on the specific question you raised on insurance coverage, I'm sure the department and I will be very open to discussing the need for 24-hour coverage. It is an insurance policy issue. If the committee has any collective sentiment on this, please let the department know, and we will look into it very seriously.

On the question of whether someone less than 35 years old would be eligible when they died, my understanding is they would be. Looking at the issue in the greater context, I should add that the survivor benefits of the soldiers killed include a lump-sum payment equivalent to two years of wages, because of the supplementary death benefit. There is also the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act lump sum benefit, which is about $3,000 per month for the first four years of service in the force.

Of course, the CPP plan Mr. O'Reilly alluded to is age-dependent. The spouse has to be 35 and over. Of course, we also have the Veterans Affairs Canada non-taxable benefit, depending on one's age.

So the benefits the survivor receives are over and above those received from the CPP and from Veterans Canada, because they include the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and the supplementary death benefit, which also depend on whether or not they have dependants.

» (1710)

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly.

Ms. Girard-Bujold.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Minister, how can we determine, as it is done in the 2002-2003 Report on Plans and Priorities, that there are other people eligible for subsidies to veterans? How can we determine that, for health care facilities, the treatment allowances and extended benefits relative to military service will be as constant? The estimates for 2001-2002 and the three following years are exactly the same.

Either you're accomplishing miracles or you've forgotten to consider certain things. We know that health care costs have been rising constantly for years. I'd like to have more details on that, please.

[English]

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: There may not be one answer to that.

You are right that increasingly complex needs for care, because of the aging of the war-era veterans, will increase demands for health care. We know, equally, that as we lose them from aging, the number of veteran patients who need to be served will be less. How they will compensate for each other is a phenomenon that will happen.

At the same time, we continue to improve our service delivery in terms of efficiency and effectiveness. I think we can be confident that the benefits and quality of services we provide will continue to be top-notch.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: On page 5 of your presentation you say:

As a percentage of our overall clientele, the number of Canadian Forces Veterans who come to our offices across the country continues to climb. By 2005, they will represent more than 15% of our clients—in excess of 30,000 men and women.

So you foresee your clientele increasing, but you say that your budget will remain constant for the next three years. I find that somewhat odd.

[English]

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I will ask our finance expert, Mr. Hillier, to please comment on that.

Mr. Keith Hillier (Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services, Department of Veterans Affairs): Thank you, Minister and Mr. Chair.

The numbers you see in the budget are estimates at a point in time. These figures are reviewed every year through the annual reference level update. We go through a process with our colleagues at Treasury Board--as do all other departments--where we examine, in-year, both the costs for the year and the costs for subsequent years. These are based on statistical predictions. In fact, when you go out three years, it is very difficult to tell. That's why we do the reference level update annually.

The payments we refer to--the pension amounts and amounts paid for medical items and the VIP, etc.--are basically statutory or quasi-statutory payments. This is why we have to do the in-year update and forecasts for future years, because whether or not a veteran receives a pension, for example, is not dependent on the budget. As we see the changing demographics, and through our reference level update....

As new information comes forward, we go back to the Treasury Board minister and show the changing demographics and costs. I would suggest these numbers will probably have changed a little by the time we're back before this committee next year.

Thank you.

» (1715)

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: I am happy to hear, Mr. Minister, that it is not carved in stone, because I think that otherwise, some clients would be penalized. You say that the clientele will increase, and you know that veteran services, home care services, and everything relating to new diseases will be increasingly costly. I am happy to hear that these are just long-term forecasts and that other amounts could be injected.

Is that really what you are saying?

[English]

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Yes. I think the key point is, as Mr. Hillier has said, there is a legal obligation on the part of Canada that if in fact we have underestimated the need, then there will be additional funds to be provided by the Government of Canada, because it is a statutory duty that it is provided for. As Mr. Hillier has said, these are budgetary estimates. But sometimes they come pretty close to their budgetary estimates.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: I would like to go back to the question I asked earlier on the Canadian Legion. I was not talking about housing. You know that the Canadian Legion buildings are not housing units. I am talking about the recreational facilities that belong to the Canadian Legion. The Canadian Legion has a building in each municipality. That is what I wanted to talk about. My earlier question was misinterpreted. Why don't you help them to repair the buildings they own?

[English]

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I was just being reminded by the deputy minister that in fact in 1995 we used to give a significant amount, on their request an amount that was not specifically allocated for anything. They had the discretion to spend it in the best way they felt at that point, but the legion has declined to receive it in light of its need for independence. That is the situation.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Girard-Bujold.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: I have another short question.

[English]

The Chair: I'm afraid you're already over your time.

Mr. Wood.

Mr. Bob Wood: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chambers, I just have a quick question. When we travel around, sir, we see a number of veterans. Sometimes when they get turned down, when they're denied, they say there's no reason why they're denied. I just noticed in the letter you sent to Mr. Pratt that it said:

Following the hearing, the Board endeavours to send a written decision to clients within 30 days of the hearing....

Do these written decisions contain reasons, sir?

Mr. Brian Chambers: Yes, we're obliged by law to include reasons in the decision, the same as the department is. That's a statutory obligation.

Mr. Bob Wood: That's what I thought. Why are these veterans saying they get turned down, but there's no reason on why they were turned down? This is what they're telling me.

Mr. Brian Chambers: There are sometimes differences between the reasons we offer and the ones they are prepared to accept.

Mr. Bob Wood: That's true.

I just want to know about hearing loss. Of course, that's a big bugaboo with lots of people--namely me, of course. My question, sir, is this. Are the requirements a case of black and white? In other words, are the criteria too strict?

Mr. Brian Chambers: We believed it was when we took over in 1995, and we were instrumental in changing the threshold from an 80-decibel loss down to a 50-decibel loss. We regularly consult with Canada's leading experts in hearing loss, who advise us if there are any scientific changes in the hearing loss literature or research. We attempt to incorporate those as quickly as we can into our decision-making.

Hearing loss has always been a controversial topic. I have a hearing loss, and my father has a hearing loss from the military, so it's an issue in our family. I'm not saying the department and ourselves are as generous on hearing loss as we possibly could be, but we've done an extensive review with our hearing loss consultant, and at the moment the only people we can identify who aren't receiving pensions for hearing loss are people who don't have hearing loss. We've gone through it very carefully, so when people tell us hearing loss is a problematic area, we invite them....

I'll give you a very quick example. This is how we roll in World War II. Let's say you got out of the service in 1945-46, and in 1999 or 2000 you came to us with an audio-gram that showed a hearing loss. Most of us know that aging will probably be a fairly significant factor at that time in a person's life, but we disregard all that completely. If the clinician or the ENT specialist believes a small portion of that loss is related to acoustic trauma, that's enough for us. We take it as sort of judicial notice that they served in a noisy war, so we don't even ask them to give testimony on the noise exposure they had in World War II, and we give them a pension.

Frankly, using that kind of criteria just on the World War II and Korean veterans, I don't see how we could be any more generous. The only people denied pensions would be those whose audio-grams showed no hearing loss.

So I'm in a conundrum. I hear people make statements, allegations, and assertions, but quite frankly I don't see them produce the evidence. We've said this over and over. Produce evidence case by case. Show us where we're making decisions contrary to what we've been doing all along for everyone else. We're not there to deny anyone a pension; we're there to try to give them a pension.

I don't mean to take up too much of the committee's time, but our studies within the last 18 to 20 months show our pension system collectively on hearing loss is ten times more generous than any other compensation scheme in North America--not just Canada--whether it's Workers' Compensation, health care, or a private system.

So I think people need to know that as a benchmark, in order to understand where we've gone and what we've attempted to do.

» (1720)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Wood.

Mr. Minister, a brief comment.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: It's one of the issues I have requested my officials to look into. As you may know, Veterans Affairs Canada and the appeal board are not there to oppose patient entitlements but to ensure the claim is within the meaning of the Pension Act. To ensure the absence of inconsistencies in the interpretation of this, I have asked my officials to review the whole issue of hearing loss policy, so we can have consistent interpretation and clarity.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Minister.

I think the information being provided is certainly important, especially for those veterans who may watch this committee meeting at some point in the future.

Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Minister, I want to put on the record that the folks you have at Veterans Affairs Canada in Charlottetown and in Halifax, in our dealings in the five years I've had here, do an outstanding job. They really do a great job for the vets of Atlantic Canada. I just wanted to put that on the record.

One of the concerns I wanted to mention is this. When the veterans hospitals were turned over to the provinces, the provinces then administered the care. They also hire and fire the people who work in those buildings. When we were at the Perley-Rideau and Ste. Anne's--and I've been to Camp Hill many times--one of the concerns the veterans have always expressed is they get very familiar with their care workers. They develop, really, a loving relationship with these people. But what happens when the province does cutbacks is some of these people end up on the chopping block, and thus the veteran, who may be in a facility for several years, loses a personal friend.

I'd like your comment on what the federal government can do to try to mitigate that kind of sad state, when a veteran who has served this country is in failing health and is befriended by a care worker--they do an outstanding job, these care workers; we've all seen it--who then because of cutbacks is gone. Now this veteran has to have a brand-new person. It really confuses them and their care. What can the federal government do to mitigate that kind of reduction?

» (1725)

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: First I'd like to thank you for acknowledging that the staff of Veterans Affairs in Charlottetown, in particular, and here in Ottawa are making a difference in the life of veterans.

Two, I agree with you that veterans, like any patient, if I can use the medical model, do identify with their caregiver after a period of time. To the extent we can continue this, we encourage it. Of course, our role would be one only of persuasion when the administration of a given health care facility is within another jurisdiction; we will try to use the persuasive influence we can.

But to give importance to this issue, and to underscore equally our concern about it, when we have a transfer of veterans in one of the provinces, most recently from an old to a new facility, we ensure, in fact, that the staff transfer first and familiarize themselves. When they have gone to another facility within our jurisdiction, they literally have the same staff for the same veterans, to underscore the need for the continuity of care with the same caregivers.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Chair, I'd like to give the remaining minute to my colleague from the Bloc, who had a very important question to ask.

The Chair: The remaining two minutes.

Ms. Girard-Bujold.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Earlier on, I talked about the Canadian Legion, and the deputy minister gave me a document which refers to an agreement reached with the Canadian Legion in the past. Seven years have now gone by. Are you not more open than at present, Mr. Minister? People from the Canadian Legion would very much like you to participate in that. Sometimes, all they need is between $5,000 and $10,000. That is not much, but it would enable the veterans to continue to use a building that represents them. These people do not have high incomes.

So I am appealing to your sense of recognition for veterans, Mr. Minister.

[English]

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I like that you continue to pose the question. It certainly underscores your care for and sensitivity to the issue. I share that sentiment as well.

I would only like to add that, of course, when we hear the concerns and submissions from the veterans on a number of issues, obviously, at some point in time we have to look back and say, “Okay, where is our budget”? These are all priorities we are trying to serve. That is why we have instituted a process in the department where we consult with the major veterans organizations. Knowing our fiscal situation in any given year and knowing the other competing demands, we consult with them. I hope this particular issue will reach the troops.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Minister, you are aware that we currently have huge budget surpluses in Canada. I think that recognition for our veterans could be part of this government's new way of doing things. We have to have heart from time to time.

I would also like to talk about veterans' surviving spouses. Could you not provide them with more assistance after their spouse dies? I would greatly appreciate your opening your heart to that, Mr. Minister. Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Mr. Chairman, my heart has spoken.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: In fact, we have brought this issue up in consultations with our advisers and with veterans organizations. At the Gerontological Advisory Council there is a study ongoing by Dr. Keating precisely to look at the impact on the caregivers. We are awaiting that study and its specific recommendations. Yes, it is particularly the VIP for the spouses, and I'm interested in that.

The Chair: Mr. Minister, did you have anything else to add?

» (1730)

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I wanted to say that indeed a lot of veterans have given submissions to us, and I must say that the most recent group I met with is in fact the group headed by Mr. Cliff Chadderton--I don't know if he is still here. We get input from them to see, in the context of all the demands for the heart, how we can address this in light of the realities of all those priorities.

The Chair: Mr. Minister, the committee has noted the fact that you have a large, red, open Liberal heart, and on behalf of all of the committee members here, we'd like to thank you for your appearance and the appearance of your officials before us. I think it's been a very useful exchange, and we've received a lot of good information. Once again, on behalf of committee members, thank you.

Before committee members leave the table here, I have one very brief housekeeping item. A request has come to my attention, actually from the Minister of National Defence. Committee members will know that some years ago when we did the quality of life report there was a separate report that we requested on quality of life issues.

The minister has asked that what's left on the quality of life report be incorporated in future annual reports of the Chief of Defence Staff. Personally, I have absolutely no difficulty with that request. It makes sense I think from a logistical standpoint.

Do we have a consensus to allow the minister to proceed in that fashion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Thank you very much, committee members, Minister, officials.

The meeting is adjourned.