NDVA Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA DÉFENSE NATIONALE ET DES ANCIENS COMBATTANTS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, May 13, 1999

• 0903

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.)): I would like to call to order the 9 o'clock meeting of the SCONDVA committee. We do have a quorum, and our minister is here, with Deputy Minister Dave Nicholson.

Mr. Minister, welcome.

This morning, colleagues, we are going to discuss estimates with Minister Mifflin, the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I thought we'd follow the normal procedure of welcoming the minister to make some opening remarks, and then he'll be available for our questions.

I think we all know we're going to be interrupted at about 10.10 a.m. by bells for a vote at around 10.30 a.m. We're calling to confirm that. If we're not through with questions for the minister at that point, I guess we'll return, but that puts it pretty long into the day, and I'm not sure the minister will still be available at that point. I imagine that makes it pretty difficult. So I think we'd better realistically look to finish our questioning with the minister before the bells.

With that caveat, I welcome you, Minister, and welcome your remarks.

Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Veterans Affairs): I just want to clarify the time. I was told we would be here from 9 a.m. until 10 a.m. Clearly there must be some misinterpretation, because I programmed my day.

The Chairman: That's fine. That's very good.

Mr. Fred Mifflin: Okay.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, ladies, and gentlemen. Good morning. I'm sorry I'm a couple of minutes late. I just made a couple of presentations to cabinet and had to leave that early, so thank you for your indulgence.

• 0905

It's a pleasure for me to be able to speak to you today on the 1999-2000 estimates, the last time a Minister of Veterans Affairs will do so in this century—a century in which Canada would send over 1.5 million sons and daughters off to war, a century in which over 100,000 Canadians would pay the ultimate sacrifice, and a century in which our veterans would leave their indelible mark on Canada and the world.

I'll have more to say about this in a few minutes, because I feel it is both timely and right that we reflect on the service, the sacrifice, and the achievements of our veterans as we embark on a new century and a new millennium blessed with security, freedom, and prosperity.

With me this morning are Mr. David Nicholson, deputy minister; Ms. Verna Bruce, associate deputy minister; and Mr. Brian Chambers, chair of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board.

I should mention here that the board is independent, quasi-judicial, and an agency that reports to Parliament through the Minister of Veterans Affairs. As most of you know, it is responsible for hearing the appeals of disability pension and war veterans allowance decisions.

I would also mention, with the chair as my witness, that I as minister have no authority to intervene in an appeal, nor to amend or overturn a board decision. We're all very clear on that. The board is entirely independent, and that is why Mr. Chambers is here to respond to any questions your committee may have on the board's operations.

[Translation]

Mr. Chairman, this has been a very gratifying year for Veterans Affairs. Over the past 12 months we have introduced and passed Bill C-61; announced and paid compensation for Hong Kong veterans; and worked hand-in-hand with the department of National Defence in their Quality of Life initiative.

These are major accomplishments for veterans, their dependents and for serving and former members of the Canadian Forces.

[English]

This committee is well aware of the contents of Bill C-61 and of the fact that it responded positively to many key priorities advanced by the veterans' organizations. The provision concerning proportionate widows, as an example, was the Royal Canadian Legion's top legislative priority. The provisions enabling former prisoners of war to apply for an attendance allowance and to extend greater access to exceptional incapacity allowances were key priorities of another major veterans' organization, the National Council of Veterans Associations.

In addition, the amendments pertaining to merchant navy veterans reflected recommendations made by the Merchant Navy Coalition. I should mention that many of the merchant navy amendments in Bill C-61 were drawn from recommendations put forward by the late Gordon Olmstead. I wish here to acknowledge the key role Mr. Olmstead played in the development of this legislation and to pay tribute to his tireless work on behalf of merchant navy veterans and their dependants. He will be missed by us all.

The final point I wish to raise in connection with Bill C-61 has to do with the astonishing speed with which Parliament dealt with the legislation. It is a testament to the esteem in which veterans are held by Parliament, and I thank the members of this committee for their commitment to seeing this legislation enacted as quickly as possible, because after all, you too had the ability to either help or slow the process down. I want to thank you for your cooperation.

In keeping with that commitment, I am pleased to tell this committee that all provisions of Bill C-61 came into effect by Order in Council on May 1.

The committee is of course fully aware of the successful resolution of the Hong Kong veterans' claim for compensation in respect of the slave labour they were subjected to while prisoners of war in the Far East. As I said at the time, this was an extraordinary payment to extraordinary individuals who suffered extraordinary hardship. I was particularly pleased to be able to put this issue of 47 years finally to a close.

While I was delighted to have a lead role in this issue within government, along with my colleagues, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Justice, I have to tell you, ladies and gentlemen and colleagues, that the driving forces behind that initiative were Mr. Cliff Chadderton, patron of the Hong Kong Veterans' Association, and Mr. Roger Cyr, past president of the Hong Kong Veterans' Association. I salute both veterans and thank them for their outstanding work and the research they provided. Their efforts made it all possible.

• 0910

I should note in passing that the original estimate for this initiative was $18 million. This was based on what we thought was a very precise understanding of how many Hong Kong veterans or surviving spouses were out there. However, the committee will find it both interesting and instructive to learn that the announcement led to the self-identification of more than 200 widows of Hong Kong veterans who previously were not recorded, pushing the final cost into the vicinity of $22 million. Of course I'm delighted at the turn of events. Not only did that provide the spouses with the ex gratia payment, but it added some of them to our monthly benefit rolls.

The Hong Kong announcement also included a compensation announcement for the Royal Canadian Air Force veterans held at Buchenwald concentration camp. My view is that Canada needed to take action, however modest, pending a resolution of this issue by the German government.

Subsequent to the December 11 announcement, the Prime Minister raised the matter with the newly elected German Chancellor, and our Foreign Affairs officials have followed up with their counterparts in Germany. We're hopeful that the German government will examine this claim, and I know the KLB veterans share that hope. We will nonetheless have to await developments.

Quality of life is a subject well known to this committee. I commend the committee for its work on the subject, and I can say the committee's report was a highly regarded and influential document.

Veterans Affairs was pleased to work with the Department of National Defence on the recommendations pertaining to the report section on care of the injured. That work led to the announcement of some very important initiatives—initiatives that have brought us into the modern era and initiatives that were long overdue.

Specifically, legislation will soon be introduced, most likely this fall, that will eliminate the barrier to the payment of disability pensions to serving members of the forces in respect of disabilities incurred in non-special duty areas.

Second, the veterans' health care regulations will be amended to provide peacetime disability pensions, with eligibility for veterans' independence program services required as a consequence of their pension condition. This too is new.

Finally, I was delighted to join with my colleague, the Minister of National Defence, on April 13 at the opening of the Centre for the Support of Injured and Retired Members and Their Families. This centre will provide current and former members of the forces with a one-stop service for information on all Veterans Affairs and National Defence benefits and services of importance to them. No more “Sorry, that's the Department of National Defence” or “Sorry, that belongs to Veterans Affairs”. This centre has staff from both departments ready and able to cut through the red tape.

Mr. Chairman, the estimates before you and your committee today provide for an overall expenditure of $1.96 billion this fiscal year. The largest component is for the disability pension program, which is forecast at $1.2 billion.

Health care expenditures for the veterans' independence program and veterans' treatment are up slightly. This is a direct reflection of a point that cannot be emphasized enough. Yes, veterans now average in their late 70s, and their numbers are, I'm sad to say, declining. But now more than at any other time since the busy post-war years, they need their department and they need more comprehensive benefits and services. That was the case even five or 10 years ago. They will put considerable pressure on the finite resources available to the department in the years to come.

Having said that, I want to stress that we are here to ensure those needs are met and that our spending estimates reflect that commitment to those to whom we owe so much.

You know, Mr. Chairman, every department receives its share of knocks during the course of the year, and Veterans Affairs is no exception. However, I would remind committee members that Veterans Affairs is administering first-class benefits for veterans—benefits that many consider the best in the world. I've checked with some of my colleagues in other countries, and I'm firmly convinced that is the case.

Indeed I would like to share with the committee a letter I received from an aging veteran in eastern Canada that testifies to the world-class quality of care we provide to our veterans. It's important that I share this with you to put in perspective what we're doing.

• 0915

Dear Sir:

I am writing in appreciation for the help I have received from your department.

Being a depression era kid, you had to get out and start scratching early to survive. I have been totally on my own since I was fourteen years of age, and yours is the first and only helping hand I have ever had.

As my wife suffers from Alzheimer's, I must be on the job twenty four hours a day, giving her the love and care that is necessary to keep her contented as possible, under the circumstances.

The astronomical cost of specialized medication tends to make things a little tight. If it weren't for your help allowing me to get assistance to do the housework, I would go over the edge.

The people that do the work stagger their time; that gives me a few breathers during the week....

Of course, this would not be possible if it were not for my counsellor. I could see he was intuitive and was aware of my problems, and it was like discussing them with an old and trusted friend that empathised with your situation. At times things look bleak, but thanks to you Sir, your able administrators, and of course, my caring counsellor, you have made the road ahead a little smoother.

With deepest gratitude and appreciation....

I left out the names of the veteran and his counsellor on purpose, because frankly this letter is quite typical of many veterans who write us and the counsellors they praise. Indeed it's a constant source of pride for me and the department to see the dedication and excellence of Veterans Affairs staff from top to bottom, from coast to coast to coast.

Not that we plan to rest on our laurels. That has never been our style at Veterans Affairs. Indeed we are constantly alert to the changing needs of the veterans population. We not only respond to those changes; we try to anticipate them by looking ahead, by trying to stay one step in the future, so that when veterans need us, we're already there.

I've often said that one of Veterans Affairs' greatest strengths is the focus on the future as well as the past. That has truly kept this department and its programs in tune with veterans' real needs. We intend to keep it that way, even if, as I alluded to earlier, it will be a challenge in an era of limited resources.

In closing, it was my pleasure to address the Ontario Royal Canadian Legion convention in Windsor on Monday, and one of the points I made was that Canadians have a national duty to take care of those who took care of us—those who answered their country's call in a time of desperate need.

Indeed, when we reflect on this, the scope of Canada's wartime experience in this century was so comprehensive that our entire society was transformed.

Our contribution during the First World War would put Canada on the map as a country and earn this country a separate signature on the peace treaty that ended the war, for the first time in history.

Our Second World War contribution would, amongst other things, fundamentally alter our economy from an agrarian society to the diversified industrial society we know today.

And our veterans of the Korean War signalled to the world once again that Canada, in the forefront, was prepared to assume our full role in international affairs, and in so doing, lay the groundwork for the ongoing contributions to peacekeeping today.

That, colleagues, is just a hint of the impact our wartime experience has had on our country over the past century. I haven't even discussed the accomplishments of individual veterans in the fields of education, science, business, or even government as they try to make our country and our world a better place, free from the horrors of war they had to endure.

[Translation]

Indeed, it can be argued, and I would certainly argue, that no other group of individuals has had a more fundamental influence on our nation's evolution than our veterans of this century.

[English]

It can be argued, and I would certainly argue, that no other group of individuals has had a more fundamental influence on our nation's evolution than our veterans of this century. For that alone, they deserve to be remembered and supported as we reflect on our blessing at the dawn of a new millennium. That in a nutshell is exactly what Veterans Affairs has always been about and will continue to be about in the future.

This brings me finally to two very special commemorative projects we're involved in as we approach and enter the new millennium.

In alliance with the Royal Canadian Legion, we will be encouraging a two-minute period of silence at 11.00 a.m. on November 11. Within the bounds of safety and practicality, we will be asking all Canadians to stop and stand down from their day-to-day tasks to take a two-minute time-out to recall the memory of those who sacrificed their lives for their country.

• 0920

Then in the spring of 2000, we are planning, again in alliance with the Royal Canadian Legion, a very special tribute to those who have died in battle but who remain buried as unknown soldiers. On the site of the famous First World War battle for Vimy Ridge—the place where, many argue, Canada became a nation—we are bringing one such soldier back to Canada. The sacred remains of this unknown hero will be interred at the National War Memorial in Ottawa. We are still in the planning stages of course, but are quite enthused about welcoming the millennium with this first-of-its-kind act of remembrance in Canada.

That concludes my formal remarks, Mr. Chairman and colleagues. I look forward to answering any questions your committee may have. Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Minister.

I would share one fact with you and your staff while they're here, which I know my colleagues on the committee will recall. I'd simply tell you we've had a number of witnesses over the past few months at this committee, particularly in the last few weeks, who've expressed their gratitude and their pleasure over Bill C-61. It's been a much-appreciated bill, according to witnesses we've had here.

On the logistics of this meeting, we've had confirmation from the whip's office that the bell will start at 10.10 a.m., and it will be a half-hour bell until 10.40 a.m. If we leave around 10.30 a.m., we should be fine. The votes are going to take a good hour, so I think all of us are going to be pretty preoccupied this morning.

I don't know, Minister, if you can stretch your timeline until the bells or not. The clerk confirmed with your staff that we'd originally had it scheduled from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m., but I understand your time constraints. Anyway, I think we're all going to be answering to the bell at about 10.30 a.m.

Mr. Fred Mifflin: That's fine.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. We appreciate your flexibility and your opening remarks.

I'll go right now to the first round of questions for seven minutes each, starting with Mr. Goldring.

Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to share my time with my colleague, Mr. Cummins, due to the upcoming bells.

Good morning, Mr. Minister, ladies, and gentlemen. I want to say too for Gordon Olmstead that if there were some way the bill could be renamed the Gordon Olmstead Act, it might be very appropriate. He was significantly involved for a number of years in merchant navy veterans' concerns.

My questioning is more on the other issue that was resolved. If we refresh our minds, one year ago today in a similar meeting, there was no resolution to it, but it did happen, and it was good to see. The Hong Kong veterans were recognized for compensation as late as last December. That is progress, and I'm very pleased to see that. I'm also pleased to see that the Buchenwald veterans too were recognized in the same package.

Your comment during your speech was that there were discussions with the German government about some additional recognition. The payment to the Hong Kong veterans was an ex gratia payment made on behalf of the taxpayers of Canada for a very recognizable cause, but in reality, was that not Japan's responsibility? Have there been any discussions with Japan to in effect send this bill to Tokyo—in other words, to have Japan recognize responsibility for that sum of money? Has there been any initiation by sending an indication that this has been done or the amount that has been paid, or any communications at all with Japan?

Mr. Fred Mifflin: Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, of course Mr. Goldring raised this question when we made the announcement on December 11. Let's go back in history and see where we are with this and what caused this to move.

First of all, the parliamentary process was used in a committee like this, your sister or brother committee on foreign affairs and international trade. They made the recommendation that the Government of Canada should finally bring this chapter to a close.

After long discussions and much debate, Mr. Axworthy, as foreign affairs minister, in a public forum like this, tried assiduously to effect the payment through other means—that is to say, from Japan.

• 0925

We have been involved in this file for a very long time on the premise that we would make the payment from the country that was involved. Quite frankly, as the minister, and from discussion with my deputy minister and my staff, it was my personal belief that in conjunction over last summer with the foreign affairs minister and the justice minister, I wanted to pursue a course of action that would address this long overdue file for an extraordinary payment to extraordinary individuals who suffered extraordinary hardship at an extraordinary time.

I could see that if we were to pursue what we had been pursuing in the past, we would not get where we are now. The file would still have been opened, but quite frankly, we owed those veterans closure.

Mr. Peter Goldring: That is exactly correct, Mr. Minister, and I'm not questioning that. As a matter of fact, I would applaud the resolve by the government on this.

The Chairman: Mr. Goldring, if you are going to share your time, you're at four minutes.

Mr. Peter Goldring: My concern was this. Have there been equal discussions with the Japanese government on the responsibility for this amount, as you indicated there were discussions with the German government? Have there been equal communications with them indicating that this has been paid to the veterans?

Mr. Fred Mifflin: Quite frankly, the files are different and the timeframes were different. It is my belief and the belief of my colleagues that pursuing this any further would be fruitless.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Cummins, welcome. You have just about two minutes.

Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Thank you.

My concern has to do with peacekeeping vets, and I think Mr. Chambers may be quite interested in the question. Recently the Auditor General issued a report on the use of the anti-malarial drug mefloquine, which was administered to Canadian troops in Somalia. The drug was obtained through a clinical trial. It was given to the soldiers without the required measures to monitor the effects or keep track of its distribution.

The Auditor General found that its use was compulsory and that the military failed to keep records of its use or to monitor side effects. However, in a case that was before the appeal board, the appeal board found no evidence that a soldier took mefloquine in Somalia. In fact the appeal board arrived at an incorrect understanding of the effects of the drug and suggested that it was only used for treatment of malaria and not as a prophylactic.

Canadian soldiers suffered greatly in the use of this drug. We had one attempted suicide in Somalia and a suicide in Rwanda.

We made an offer to the appeal board to clarify the use of the drug mefloquine. We offered to bring people before the board to try to clarify the situation behind the initial rejection of this vet's application for an appeal. Our offer was rejected.

I would like to ask the chairman of the board if his board wishes to continue with a misunderstanding of the use of that drug and the impact it had on veterans, given that other veterans could come forward who have had problems with that drug. Or is he prepared to reopen that particular case and shed a little light at the board level on the problems that were associated with that drug, which the Auditor General made so public a couple of weeks ago?

Mr. Fred Mifflin: Mr. Chairman, normally I would have preliminary remarks before my officials would address our colleagues. In this particular case I'm going to be true to my word. Without preliminary comments, I'll turn it over to Mr. Chambers.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Brian Chambers (Chairman, Veterans Review and Appeal Board): There are really two issues here. As you may very well be aware, the case in question involved a determination before the Federal Court, Trial Division. That case was sent back to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board with specific instructions by the court to deal with that case on very specific grounds.

The trial judge, as I recall the judgment, did not deal with the issue of mefloquine at that time. What he dealt with was the legal interpretation of one section of the act on what constituted improper conduct. He corrected the board. We had arrived at a different interpretation of what that meant. We were directed by the court to rehear the matter on very specific terms set out by the court. We had no obligation other than to rehear it on that basis.

• 0930

That matter was remitted to a panel. They've awarded full entitlement to that particular soldier, and the full retroactivity allowable under the law for pension has also been awarded to that particular soldier.

With respect to the second part of your question—

Mr. John Cummins: Can I just comment on the first part?

The Chairman: You've gone way over eight minutes already, so we'll have to let him finish briefly and then move on.

Mr. Brian Chambers: The second part of the question, as I understand it, is would we look at evidence with respect to mefloquine in any particular case? The answer is yes. But largely that is determined by the lawyers or advocates who present the case. It lies within their particular professional expertise to outline the case in the fashion they want. Whatever evidence they want to introduce before the board, or before the department, for that matter, at first level, on that particular drug or any drug that may have a bearing on the outcome of that case, would certainly be looked at in those cases.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Cummins.

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin, you have seven minutes.

Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Mifflin, the committee is currently studying a request from the merchant navy veterans, who are hoping to receive compensation in the form of a lump sum payment. We know that a number of senior officials from your department will be testifying before our committee on May 25. Without making any presumptions about the senior officials' testimony and possible recommendations from the committee, can you tell us whether you have made provisions in your budget to grant this request from the merchant navy veterans?

[English]

Mr. Fred Mifflin: Thank you.

My response to that of course would have to reflect on the budgetary process of government. Spending has to be approved, not by government, but by Parliament. You have to, as a parliamentarian, approve that, and you can only approve programs that exist. Since this program does not exist, of course it would be very difficult to make approval for something that is in the discussion stage and part of the parliamentary process.

That was very much the case when I submitted Bill C-61. I couldn't allocate funds for Bill C-61 until in fact the bill was approved and given royal assent, and the vote through Parliament would include the money for Bill C-61.

So the answer to your question is I am not permitted, under the budgetary process and the rules of Parliament, to allocate funds to any elements of a program that has not been approved by Parliament.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: If we agreed to compensate the merchant navy veterans, would we have to wait until a new budget is tabled before we could pay them these allowances?

[English]

Mr. Fred Mifflin: I find it difficult to address myself to hypothetical questions. We will have to wait and see what the parliamentary process does. But I can assure you if the parliamentary process decides and Parliament agrees to a course of action, as we did indeed with the Hong Kong veterans, the money will be found to address the situation.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: On a completely different topic, I would like to discuss the litigation between veterans and the Department of Veterans Affairs. For example, one dispute has to do with interest paid on trust accounts, while another has to do with stopping survivors' pension to the widows of veterans who remarry. Did you set aside monies in your budget, as one usually does, to pay these amounts if your department loses these lawsuits? If so, how much money have you allotted to meet your obligations in this regard?

[English]

Mr. Fred Mifflin: My response to that is...well, not exactly the same as the response to the other one.

I don't believe your question wanted me to discuss the litigation. I don't believe that was your intent.

• 0935

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: But of course it was, that was basically the point of my question. When someone challenges the department's actions before the courts, you have to set aside monies in case the courts rule against the department. That's how it is done in the private sector. In my opinion, the department should have done what is done in the private sector. I would like to know how much it will cost the department if it loses these cases.

[English]

Mr. Fred Mifflin: Well, I can't answer that question. It's impossible for me to answer it, because we are looking at this particular case. I can't get into the details, because it is before the courts, and it is a high-level situation.

And I can't give a sum, even if I could or would, for Veterans Affairs. It is a class action, so this involves not only Veterans Affairs but other elements of the government.

The principle of the case is that money that was put into a particular account was not permitted to be paid by the rules, by the laws of the land. Subsequently it was put into a different account, which allowed interest to be paid. This pertains not just to Veterans Affairs but to other similar circumstances in other branches of government. So in effect we are dealing with a class action that could amount to a sum of money that it would be improper for me to even put in any kind of ballpark.

I would like to close the loop on that. If money is not appropriated in the budget, there is provision for Treasury Board to go to the consolidated revenue fund and provide money to a department on a short-term basis. The provision exists so that this could happen.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: Mr. Chairman, I'm having a hard time understanding why the department did not provide for these possibilities, because when someone takes the department to court, you have to know just how much money is being claimed. If you had thought that these amounts were minimal, you would have paid them out, and the whole matter would have been settled and not even brought before the courts. The department decided to defend itself before the court because they thought that the amounts involved were large. I would like to know what amounts the department thought it would have to pay out if ever the complainants won the case. This is not a hypothetical question; you will have to deal with a possible obligation. It seems to me that the department must have assessed the amount of money involved.

[English]

Mr. Fred Mifflin: I think what might be helpful is something that's outside my department. There is a quarterly review by the justice department on litigation against the government, and I think they've attached some contingency to that.

What I'm saying to you is there is no provision in the department to put aside sums for something that might happen. In this particular case, the litigation, which happens to be a class action that involves other government departments, would be considered in the Justice quarterly review of litigation.

I'll just let my deputy minister say a little bit more about that. You seem to be interested in the detail, so I'll allow him to amplify.

Mr. David Nicholson (Deputy Minister of Veterans Affairs): Thank you, Minister.

As the minister has indicated, it is a class action. It's alleging a breach of fiduciary responsibility having to do with the interest on accounts that are in an administered trust situation.

In an earlier case against the federal government, it was found by the Federal Court that there was no legal obligation for the federal government, including the Department of Veterans Affairs, to pay interest on these administered accounts.

In the Department of Veterans Affairs, in all cases, we are administering these accounts because the owner of the money, the veteran, is in a health situation in institutional care, in many cases in a catatonic state. So we pay for the full cost of his institutional care.

In terms of Veterans Affairs, I would expect the quid pro quo would be that the taxpayer is paying for the care, we're managing his money, but it is not in an interest-bearing situation. As the minister has said, there are other departments of government that also administer trust accounts under the same legal framework.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Laurin.

[English]

Now we'll go to the majority side. I have three names so far: Mr. Proud, Mr. Bertrand, and Mr. O'Reilly.

• 0940

Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome, Minister, Mr. Nicholson, Mrs. Bruce, and Mr. Chambers. It's always good to see you here, and I know you always look forward to appearing before this committee and that it's one of the highlights of your yearly work.

By the end of 1991 there will be approximately 383,000 war veterans, and of those, approximately 106,000 receive benefits, as I understand. What kind of anticipation do you have on the rest of these, the other 177,000? Do many of them come forward during a year, these people who have never claimed a benefit? Do you have a way to scale how many of these will come and seek benefits for something that's claimed during the war?

Mr. Fred Mifflin: I can address that, Mr. Chairman and my colleague.

You're absolutely right. By the end of this fiscal year, we expect that we will have somewhere in the vicinity of 383,000 veterans. At the end of March, we had 409,000. To give you some indication of what percentage we are looking at, presently we are paying pensions and benefits to a total of 205,000 people. Of the 400,000 veterans, 106,000 are receiving benefits. We have 70,000 survivors, mostly widows, receiving benefits. And you may find it interesting that 29,000 members of the Canadian Forces are receiving benefits.

If we project this to the year 2007, about seven years ahead, we expect that the veteran population will be reduced by about 48%, the survivors will remain practically constant at about a 2% increase over those seven years, and the Canadian Forces will increase by 35%. So seven years from now, we will be in a position where the number of veterans will be less than the number of survivors and Canadian Forces members together.

To more precisely address your question, it's very difficult to know when veterans are going to come forward. I personally find the number of 106,000 being paid benefits or being involved in some form of compensation from the department, out of a population of 400,000, to be remarkably low. It's very difficult for us to predict how many will come forward in the next year, or indeed in those seven years.

My own personal belief is that as time goes on, we will see more and more of these veterans coming forward. As our programs, with the dynamic changes we're looking forward to, become more responsive to elder veterans, whose average age now is getting on to 77 years, I believe we will see progressively a larger percentage of the survivors of veterans coming forward, not just because of their age and their infirmity, but because of programs we will have in place by that time.

Mr. George Proud: Thank you.

For these people who would come forward, these veterans who have never applied for anything, who never went for VLA, never went for anything, if they applied, let's say, for a back problem or a hearing problem or whatever the case may be, what kind of retroactivity would they get? Would they just get retroactivity from the time they applied? How does that work?

Mr. Fred Mifflin: It's from the date of application.

Mr. George Proud: It seems to me the costs associated with the programs are appropriate and make sense in the light of changing demographics. Can you tell me whether or not DVA is achieving its objectives?

Mr. Fred Mifflin: I would answer that in the affirmative. I don't know if you've had the opportunity to review the Veterans Affairs estimates and the report on plans and priorities, which in fact is a performance report and fairly new in the evolution of government and how we report.

I believe, as the person the Prime Minister has put in charge of Veterans Affairs, and in consultation with my deputy and my senior officials, that while we don't profess to be perfect, we are improving with time. As veterans get older, our programs are getting more in tune with the requirements. I hope we will achieve as close as possible to matching veterans' needs with our programs.

• 0945

Mr. George Proud: I know you people are leaders in this area, but I'd like to know the percentage of the operational systems that are Y2K-compliant. And if there are any negative impacts on the delivery of services, how will the department handle these?

Mr. Fred Mifflin: Thank you. That is a good question, because it's very timely and it's a concern of many Canadians, not just in the department and the government, but universally.

Largely through some forward planning and because of a new system we are introducing, which essentially introduced computer literacy a decade ago in the department, due to the foresight of people such as Mr. Nicholson and some of his predecessors, we are involved in programs in the department. If you're interested, we can discuss them in detail.

Essentially our program for delivering client services is changing from a stovepipe system, where you identify a veteran not necessarily by the veteran but by the program the veteran has, to an entirely different client service delivery network, which basically looks at a veteran and can tell you what the programs are for that veteran but can also say what the needs are. It goes a little further. If we don't have a program for that particular veteran or that particular survivor, we can then go on to the province or another program in government, or indeed municipal programs, to address the needs of the veteran.

To be more specific, as a result of both the foresight and the involvement in computer literacy, computer familiarity, and information technology, I am not bashful in saying we have led the department in the top 10 in all government departments in our readiness for Y2K. As we talk—in fact I did a check last night—we are at 96% readiness, and we fully expect to be 100% compliant well before the end of this year.

The Chairman: You may ask one last, really quick question, Mr. Proud.

Mr. George Proud: On page 3 of your introduction, Minister, you talk about the new legislation to be introduced this fall. Are these changes coming about as a result of the quality of life study done by this committee?

Mr. Fred Mifflin: Absolutely.

Mr. George Proud: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Proud.

Mr. Earle for seven minutes.

Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the minister and his officials for appearing before us today. I want to thank the minister also for using, as an example of a veteran showing his appreciation, a letter from a Nova Scotia veteran. Nova Scotians have a way of showing their appreciation when things are going well.

My first question is concerning the Buchenwald situation. You mentioned that this matter has been presented to the German government and you're hopeful that they will examine the claim, but nonetheless we'll have to await developments. I recognize that there's quite often a matter of waiting in some of these negotiations, but on the other side of the coin, on the proactive side, just so that the matter doesn't get shoved to the back corner by the German government, is our government actively pursuing this? Are presentations being made, either through your department or through Foreign Affairs, to make sure this matter is carried forward by the German government?

Mr. Fred Mifflin: Yes.

If I could build on my response to Mr. Goldring's question, I did see in the Hong Kong and the Buchenwald veterans some similarities, but also some differences. I wanted to address both, to bring some form of closure.

As you know and as you indeed said quite eloquently, the German file is still open. It's still open for reasons that I won't burn up company time explaining, because we're both aware of why.

Yes indeed, the Prime Minister raised it with the new Chancellor very recently. In the mind of Mr. Axworthy, the Minister of Foreign Affairs—and I think I can speak for him—the file is very much open. I would say, in the presence of all our colleagues, that as I think you are aware, this file, in my mind, has never been on the back burner. There were times that organizations thought it was on the back burner, and I've made it very clear it was not on the back burner. As long as I'm Minister of Veterans Affairs, it will not be on the back burner.

So it's very much a live file, it's very much an active file, and I'm hoping we will be able to bring closure to this in a timeframe we can all identify with.

Mr. Gordon Earle: Thank you.

Second, why is there such a difference between the total expenditures indicated in the 1998-99 estimates and the actual expenditures listed in the current report on plans and priorities? It seems to apply to all the lines of business, but in particular to the corporate administration, which was supposed to show a reduction in the budget, according to the past estimates. So why is there $30 million more shown being spent under corporate administration than was estimated?

• 0950

Mr. Fred Mifflin: I can answer that question, and Mr. Chairman and colleagues, I can identify with your conundrums in reading these books, because sometimes it's very difficult. I completely and totally bombard my officials every time I look at them; I say, “What does this mean and why is this happening?”

The answer really addresses one of the questions your colleague had. In brief, $22 million of that was for the Hong Kong veterans and the Buchenwald veterans. For the other $8 million, I'm going to turn to my deputy minister and ask him where he found that other $8 million.

Mr. David Nicholson: Well, Minister, it wasn't actually found; I had to borrow it.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. David Nicholson: It's a loan we obtained from Treasury Board to handle our Y2K coding and conversion so that we're compliant by the end of this calendar year. There's a little extra money in there as well, to make up the $30 million, for planning and preparing for the implementation of the universal classification system. So it all totals up to $30 million.

Mr. Gordon Earle: Third, some of the programs and services available to veterans are income-related. I think, for example, of people wanting yard work done or widows wanting to get grave markers for their deceased husbands. We quite often get people who just fall a little bit over the threshold in income. In this day and age, with money not being of the same value it used to be, has any consideration been given to raising that threshold so that more veterans will be able to be provided with those kinds of services?

Mr. Fred Mifflin: Thank you.

As Mr. Earle might know, through funding, we have devolved the burial responsibilities to the Last Post Fund, and I may say that's proceeding very well. We have recently reviewed and I expect we'll continue to review the threshold. In the last review, we believed the threshold was still on the right side of propriety, if I can use that expression. It's not over-generous, but our belief in our last review was that the present system is working well and there's no intent to change it—at least not in the coming fiscal year.

Mr. Gordon Earle: Thank you.

I have a final question. Some veterans have expressed some concern about the availability of hospital beds. This seems to be an increasing issue, particularly in areas where people have spoken to me. I note that we talk about quality long-term care and so forth in hospitals across Canada, but there seems to be a shortage of hospital beds for the veterans in some areas. Is this being addressed by the department?

Mr. Fred Mifflin: As I'm sure you know, we have two kinds of beds. We have priority access beds in 75 institutions—76, actually, if you include Sainte-Anne's in Montreal. The total is 4,082. These are priority access beds in centrally located institutions—76 of them. We do have also 3,500 veterans in 1,500 other institutions, and you may be referring to the smaller institutions.

I would preface any other comment by saying that the health care needs of veterans, as they get older, are becoming the major concern. They have been for a long time, but especially now, they are a major concern of the department.

We are looking at different methods of accommodating veterans, and one of the initiatives the department has taken in the last year or year and a half—and I announced this at the Dominion convention in Winnipeg last summer, for which they were most grateful—is that we are trying to move away from the larger central hospitals to community beds. In fact we have done that. In northern Ontario we have allocated, I think, 100 beds, and in Manitoba we are moving from the central locations and have allocated 60 beds.

We're in the process of doing other things, but because of elections and timings, I don't feel I can respond to the details of that.

• 0955

To answer your question, there is usually a waiting list. I recently visited Camp Hill in your city, and at that particular time I think there was a waiting list of.... I don't remember what it was, but it was manageable, and the average time was somewhere in the vicinity of six months to eight months, I was told. That's a long time if you're waiting for a bed, and it's an area we continue to improve.

I personally would like to have it where there's no veteran waiting for any beds. We haven't achieved that yet, but we're certainly working on it. I really believe that as we go to the communities and have veterans being accommodated in beds in their own community long-term care centres, that will go a long way to helping resolve this problem.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Earle.

Mrs. Wayne now for seven minutes.

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

I'm very pleased to see the minister and his staff here this morning. I have a couple of questions.

The Hong Kong veterans appeared before our committee, Mr. Minister, not too long ago, and they talked about the urgent need for more funding for veterans' hospitals. I have major concerns, because as you know, the veterans' hospital we now have in Saint John, New Brunswick was taken out of the DVA hospital and put into a small one, which was fine, and they were receiving excellent care, but the province put the mental hospital on the same piece of land.

A letter I received just this week here in Ottawa, Mr. Minister, was from the wife of one of the veterans. God bless those who are in the mental institution, but they're allowed out and they're going into the veterans' hospital. They have asked if there is some way to put a fence or to do something, because they want to let their veterans out when the sun is shining too, to get some fresh air. And this is not working.

Mr. Minister, maybe the deputy minister has heard of this and the problems they're having, but they've come to ask me to ask you for some help to correct this situation. And by correcting it, they're not saying take down the new mental hospital that's there, which is about the same size as our veterans' hospital. They're saying somehow we have to find a way to separate the two, whether it's just with some sort of fence or something, to protect our veterans as well as those who are mentally challenged.

Is there something we can do?

Mr. Fred Mifflin: I thank Mrs. Wayne for her question. Her concern for veterans is well known, as is the concern of all members of the committee.

We are forever looking at local needs and local adjustments, if they are within our resources, which we are prepared to even stretch to accommodate veterans, because after all, that's the business we're in.

May I ask you if you have contacted your local regional director general in the Saint John area?

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: The lady who wrote to me I believe is president of the association that works with them, and she has informed me that they have been in touch with the person, and they're getting absolutely no cooperation. So they felt they had to go a step higher to try to get someone to assist them, and that's why she wrote to me and asked me if I could come to you people to see if you could somehow correct this situation.

Mr. Fred Mifflin: So as I understand it, you haven't actually spoken—

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Not personally, no.

Mr. Fred Mifflin: Usually my experience is that when people have problems, they often deal with the local organizations, and often corrections and improvements are made that, quite frankly, I never hear about. But these are the kinds of things we'd want to address.

Maybe the deputy minister, who has had much more experience in these kinds of activities, would like to amplify my comments.

Mr. David Nicholson: Perhaps, Minister, I'd make just a comment or two.

I hadn't been made aware of this particular case in Saint John, but clearly I'll undertake to look into it immediately. But from time to time, the shoe was on the other foot. I do have a case now where a very large hospital in Canada is seeking funds from the department to put some protective infrastructure around our patients who are suffering dementia and are wandering the hospital halls. So it's a problem that goes both ways, and we try to seek accommodation with the administration of the hospital. Sometimes we're seeking from them some assistance, and in other cases they're seeking it from us.

In this case I'll follow up on it. If anything can be done, we'll do it.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I only have one other question. I really appreciated reading the letter you received from a veteran in Nova Scotia. We have another one from Nova Scotia. This just came to me, because yesterday I asked John, who works with me, to get me a copy.

• 1000

This gentleman, God bless him, is a veteran, but he is now at a point where he needs to be cared for 24 hours a day, and sometimes it takes two to three nurses at one given time. But because he did not serve in what we call a war zone, he can't qualify for a veteran's bed in Springhill. However, he was transferred by ship from Saint John, New Brunswick to Halifax through submarine-infested waters during the war, and I'm wondering if this shouldn't qualify him for maximum benefits.

I have to say, they've shown me and told me they are bankrupt now, because of the services they've tried to give to him to take care of him. His wife, at their age and in her health condition, cannot do it.

I know of others who have been deemed qualified due to their transfer by ship in Atlantic waters, and I'm just wondering why he has been denied continually. She's at a point now where she's desperate.

Usually when they come to one of us, no matter which side of the House, it's because they've gone through the whole routine they know of and they're desperate. These people are desperate, Mr. Minister.

So I'm just wondering, because he was transferred through submarine-infested waters, is there not a way for us to assist them?

Mr. Fred Mifflin: I'm going to ask my deputy to comment on that, but I will say a number of things.

Even though we don't have our client service delivery network in place, if you recall my comments earlier, that's exactly what that will do. It will say we do not have a program to address that, but we don't stop there; we go on. We still do that, but it's more difficult to do. We will have release two of this program available this summer, and we will be closer to addressing these kinds of issues.

You know a lot of the counsellors in Veterans Affairs. I've always been impressed, as I said in my opening remarks, with the compassion they show. I know personally of cases—and I expect you do and maybe other members here—where the counsellor will say, “I'm sorry. With the present rules, you don't qualify for this. But we'll do something for you.” I know we've all had personal examples like that.

Again, the deputy minister, who's been involved in these activities for many more years than I have, perhaps could comment on that as well.

Mr. David Nicholson: Thank you, Minister.

It's true that not all veterans qualify for the range of programs within the department. There are eligibility criteria for entry to the programs. That's probably a follow-up to Mr. Proud's observation that out of 388,000 veterans, at the end of this fiscal year, 106,000 were receiving services. But in a case such as that, Mrs. Wayne, it always merits a second look, and I'd be pleased to undertake that.

But I would like to observe to the committee that I'm somewhat surprised that the Canadian health care system wouldn't accommodate a situation such as that, because of universal access and the support services that are available through the provincial health care systems. Perhaps in this case, one of the things we could do is broker on behalf of this veteran to see that his needs are met, although we may not be in a position to meet them all ourselves.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mrs. Wayne. I appreciate that.

Now we'll go to a second round of questions, for five minutes each, starting with Mr. Goldring again.

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

Mr. Minister, you said the Hong Kong veterans' settlement and the Buchenwald settlement were taken as individual settlements, and no consideration was given, in recognizing the settlements, to the Government of Germany or the Government of Japan. They weren't influencing factors on the settlement.

Looking at the merchant navy concerns that are before committee, I would take it then that the consideration for settlement of the merchant navy concerns would be taken on the merits of the case, the recommendations coming forward from the committee, and then your final decision on the matter. It wouldn't be influenced by outside considerations.

There has been some suggestion that it might be precedent-setting. It's my feeling that nothing should be considered on the basis of whether or not it is precedent-setting, because it should be considered on its own merits. Could you comment on that, please?

Mr. Fred Mifflin: We're getting fairly close to a subject that is of great interest to this committee and all of us.

What I really want to say is that historically, all governments have expressed concern about the cost of retroactive compensation and the precedent it creates for other veterans' and civilian groups. Your own hearings indeed have highlighted these concerns. I read the evidence on a regular basis.

• 1005

That having been said, I know you're not finished hearing witnesses, and I don't wish to interfere in your ongoing deliberations. As one who has consistently encouraged merchant navy veterans, particularly the hunger-strikers, to pursue a parliamentary course of action—a course that all parties have agreed to pursue—I really want to respect that process. I would be hesitant to get into any detailed discussion today that could in any way prejudge your committee's deliberations, because after all, I and my cabinet colleagues will be judging the results of what takes place in this parliamentary process, and I'm not sure it's right that I would judge my own testimony.

Mr. Peter Goldring: It would not be my interest to interfere with any deliberations or judgment coming forward. It was merely on the basis of a policy on how this issue would be viewed as compared to other issues. I was seeking reassurance that it would be taken on an individual basis, not influenced by the consideration that it's precedent-setting or by the fact that the Hong Kong veterans might have had some deliberations with the Japanese government, or that the Buchenwald veterans might have had some deliberations with the German government. I would like to see it be taken on its own merits and the decision made on that basis.

The Chairman: Mr. Goldring, I'd just say I think the minister has answered your question as far as he can within the parameters of this meeting. Your question was valid, but we have to be careful not to stray into the issue of the merchant marine, because it's still ongoing before the committee, as we all know. So I think the minister has answered your first question well, but for him to go any further into this is prejudging. We haven't even come up with a recommendation. So I just want to caution the members to keep discussion within the parameters of the estimates today.

Mr. Peter Goldring: That's fine.

I would like to allow a final question for my colleague here at this time, but I have one quick question to do with a plan for a veterans' hospital in Calgary, the Colonel Belcher Hospital. There have been ongoing negotiations for land to be provided by the federal government from the Currie Barracks—surplus land that the Calgary Regional Health Authority had earmarked for a new, much-needed Colonel Belcher Hospital.

There have been suggestions that that land may now have been sold out from under their feet to a private developer. My understanding is that it's first and foremost offered to the province, then to the municipality. Could you tell me what has happened to that land allocation and if this surplus land is indeed going to be earmarked for the use of a much-needed new Colonel Belcher Hospital?

Mr. Fred Mifflin: Thank you. Yes, I can address that issue.

I have to go back a few years, because in 1996 the Calgary Regional Health Authority established a 20-member task force involving all the stakeholders, as my colleague probably knows, to address three major challenges that were facing the future of veterans' care in the Calgary area: changing needs, as we've discussed here indeed, and the expectations of veterans and their families; a need to ensure a health delivery system that provided accessible and appropriate services, making the best use of the dollar; and the aging, inefficient Colonel Belcher Hospital building, with its increasing need for major repairs. On the basis of an evaluation of three options, the task force concluded that a new building would indeed be the most effective option.

Current status on that is that decisions on funding and any new facilities in Alberta have been placed on hold for over 18 months.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Mr. Minister, is the land being allocated from the surplus Currie Barracks military land? In other words, is that land still earmarked for that project? It's surplus land. It will directly affect the funding and raising of funds for a new hospital. Is that land still earmarked for the veterans' hospital?

Mr. Fred Mifflin: If I could just finish off, you can't take anything in isolation. It was the belief of Veterans Affairs that DND could be convinced to provide some land, as you suggested, on the base at Calgary, at a somewhat reduced price and as a means of inducing the Alberta government to look favourably on the project.

The decision ultimately taken by Public Works, because of the time involved and because of the freeze put on by the Alberta government, was to sell the property at market value, thus eliminating the former base property as an option.

If I could just conclude my remarks on this, the Alberta Ministry of Health has advised that no decisions will be taken on this matter until the fall of 1999 at the earliest. Veterans Affairs will continue to work with the Calgary Regional Health Authority and the Ministry of Health in a very concerted effort to see progress made on this issue.

• 1010

Mr. Peter Goldring: So the land is gone.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Goldring.

Mr. Cummins, ask a really brief question with a brief response, please.

Mr. John Cummins: Regarding the issue I raised before, the tribunal has more latitude than a court, and a court, if it wants to hear extra evidence, will appoint a friend of the court. To this point, on the issue we were discussing previously, the tribunal has refused to hear more evidence. What you've done is you've allowed a Canadian veteran to be labelled a coward and a murderer. You found that he intended to commit suicide.

I want to ask you if that's what you want to leave on the record. You found there was no evidence to confirm the soldier took, under orders, a mind-altering drug. You want this most shameful incident in Canadian history to remain as it is. This veteran has a wife and parents who were affected by it. He has a young daughter. Is that the way you want to leave it, or are you prepared to reopen this case and set the record straight on this matter?

Mr. Fred Mifflin: Mr. Chairman, I am going to make some preliminary remarks on this one.

The Chairman: Go ahead.

Mr. Fred Mifflin: I know the honourable member, and I have a lot of respect for him, but I think the tone of the spillover onto the Veterans Review and Appeal Board.... It is quasi-judicial, but it works in the best interests of veterans. I'm somewhat surprised and somewhat disappointed by the tone of the member. I just want to make that preliminary comment before I ask Mr. Chambers to answer the question.

Mr. John Cummins: I just need to know—

The Chairman: I'm sorry. We're over now.

Mr. Chambers, could you answer his question as briefly as you could? I know that's sometimes difficult. Take the time you need, but....

Mr. Brian Chambers: Mr. Chairman, I attempted as best I could to answer it last time. We were under instructions from the court to rehear the matter on a very specific basis as to the interpretation of what a particular section of the act meant. We did it according to what the court required us to do. In light of that, we granted a full pension with full retroactivity.

The secondary question is with respect to wanting to reopen it and rehear the whole matter. The only suggestion I can make is if that's what the parties to that situation want, they will have to go back to the Federal Court, ask the Trial Division to reopen the case, and then re-argue it on that basis, and then direct us to look at it on that basis. But under the current terms of the court order, we don't have latitude to do anything other than what we've done.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Cummins.

Now we'll go to Mr. Bertrand for five minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I too would like to welcome the Minister and his officials.

First of all, I would like to ask you about the status of your discussions with the province of Quebec regarding the transfer of Sainte-Anne Hospital.

During your opening remarks, you told us that the Centre for the Support of Injured and Retired Members and Their Families was opened on April the 13th, exactly one month ago. I had the pleasure of attending the opening ceremonies for the Centre, and I would like to congratulate you and the Minister of Defence. Could you tell us how many applications the Centre has received to date and how many have been dealt with?

Thank you very much.

[English]

Mr. Fred Mifflin: Thank you very much.

Just to refresh the memories of the members on the background of Sainte-Anne's Hospital, Veterans Affairs owned 18 hospitals back in the 1920s. As a result of the Glassco commission and other initiatives before, we were basically ordered to get out of the business of running hospitals. Over time, we have divested ourselves of all hospitals. Sainte-Anne's is the last hospital administered by Veterans Affairs, and we have been working on this issue for some time.

What essentially has happened, Mr. Chairman and colleagues, is that the Province of Quebec, which was experiencing a shortage of long-term beds, expressed an interest in opening negotiations to come to some agreement with Veterans Affairs to collectively work out a deal, if you like, that would allow the province to, like the other 18 hospitals in conjunction with Veterans Affairs, be involved in the administration of the hospital.

• 1015

We fast-tracked that in the hope that the anxiety of the veterans and the staff—because anxiety is always involved in change—could be relieved as quickly as possible. The situation right now is that Sainte-Anne's Hospital is a 710-bed hospital, and we have about 550 veterans now. Over time, we will have fewer.

We are still working with the Quebec government. We have regular meetings with them. It's really important for me to tell you that the guiding principle—and I've told our Quebec colleagues this and I'll tell our colleagues here publicly—has been that the quality of veterans' services will remain exactly the same as it is now. I think this has relieved the anxiety of the veterans and of the staff.

I was hoping to see maybe some more progress, but this is something that has to be done deliberately. It has to be done in a manner in which we are very sure of each step we take. I have a very senior and competent official working on this. But I have to tell you that if we don't make progress in the next three or four months, I may have to look at another way of working out with Sainte-Anne's Hospital.

I don't know what those answers are right now, but I've asked my staff to discuss the issue so that we can see, with the progress of the talks right now, whether we will be able to achieve what we set out to do. Or maybe there are some other things we can do in conjunction with the province to bring the situation to some sort of agreement perhaps a little earlier.

On the second one, I don't have figures for the centre, as it's now called, but I have been in touch with Lieutenant-Colonel McLellan, who wrote that terrific report. I have been told business is booming, and I think it will be more booming in the near future.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to add these remarks, without trying to endear myself unnecessarily, because I would have done that at the beginning if that were my aim. Having worked with DND in uniform for many years and having been in this business for, not many years, but a decade or so, I have to tell you I have never seen anything move as quickly as your committee report moved to the cabinet, to Parliament, and to the happening. I haven't actually tracked the time, but I know if we did, we would find it would compare with any action in any government in this country at any time. So once again, congratulations for setting the fire under the system so that it operated well.

The Chairman: Thank you very much for those remarks. Of course Mr. Bertrand chaired almost all of that process. I simply did the clause-by-clause.

Minister, just to add, it speaks very well of how this committee has tried to function on as non-partisan a basis as possible. With few exceptions, we've been able to do that, and we hope to continue to be able to do that. So thank you for those comments.

Now we go to

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin, please go ahead.

Mr. René Laurin: Mr. Mifflin, as part of a client-oriented approach, you had planned to implement a number of pilot projects before March 31, 1999. Can you tell us about these pilot projects? Can you tell us if they have been implemented and which sites were chosen and how you made those choices?

[English]

Mr. Fred Mifflin: Thank you very much.

If I had more time, I could go into the genesis of this, for which I'm most proud of the department. I mentioned earlier the client services delivery network, which is leading the pack, if you like, in health care. We're quite proud of that.

You realize of course that on a project such as this—for which we've had to borrow money from the Treasury Board, which we're paying back, to answer one of the questions—we want to make sure it works well. So we have been very deliberate in our releases to ensure we're not going to do anything that would disrupt the services of veterans' benefits.

• 1020

To that extent, we have what we call release two this summer. We haven't decided on the date yet, but I expect it will be in mid-summer or maybe August sometime. As part of this business, we do have pilot projects. We have them in Victoria, Calgary, Peterborough, Quebec City, and in Cornerbrook and St. John's, Newfoundland.

What these pilot projects will do is, as I suggested earlier, using the new client service delivery network, when a veteran comes in.... I'll take Mrs. Wayne's case as an example. Say a veteran comes in and gives his name and his official number and says, “I need help.” Under the present system, it would have to be done by checking files out, going back, and basically spending a lot of time deciding on what the veteran had, what the veteran was entitled to, and what could be done.

In this particular case, literally at the push of a button, we can say, “Okay, this is when you got a particular benefit, this is what you're entitled to, and with your present condition, we can send you back to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board.” Or if indeed the veteran has no entitlement to any of the benefits, we can then, as part of this program, call up what is available in other federal government programs, provincial government programs, the interface with medicare, or indeed if there are municipal programs in the case of social services, if that is a requirement.

These pilot projects are very important to us, and quite frankly I'm very excited about them. I hope to get a chance to, if not visit them all, visit some of them. I have to say it's a great boost in the arm for the staff, who see themselves as being involved in modern technology with the end result of making the care of veterans even better than it is now.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: In practical terms, how do these centres operate? Are they like employment insurance offices where people can meet with officers who provide them with information, or is information only provided over the telephone?

[English]

Mr. Fred Mifflin: No, it's personal interface. It isn't an information technology kiosk. We have people face to face, talking with other people, with information technology to back us up. It is not done by telephone. You could look at it as a person-to-person, one-stop shopping for veterans. That's what it is.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: Do these centres just process applications for benefits in the case of illness, or do they offer an entire range of services to veterans? For example, if the widow of a veteran is having a hard time receiving allowances, can she turn to these centres?

[English]

Mr. Fred Mifflin: Perhaps the best way to look at it is that it's basically like the system we have in our district offices, except it's computerized and it's much more up to date. When I say it's a one-stop shopping for veterans, I mean it covers any of their needs or requirements. With our education and health program and our systems we have to educate veterans in parallel with this new technology, we're hoping they will be able to respond to what is there.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: Apparently this centre is located in Quebec.

[English]

Mr. Fred Mifflin: Yes.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: Where is it in Quebec?

[English]

Mr. Fred Mifflin: In Quebec City.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: Oh, in Quebec city. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Laurin.

[English]

Mr. Fred Mifflin: I would invite you to visit this centre and tell me what you think of it.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: All right, thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[English]

Colleagues, that's the half-hour bell. If we stop at 10.40 a.m., that will allow us time to get over to the House. Maybe there are matters of personal distress you want to attend to or whatever; that will give us time. So we'll stop at 10.40 a.m., and that will still allow some more questions.

Now I go to Mr. O'Reilly for five minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Minister, for coming and bringing your fine support staff with you. They seem to be able to answer all the questions we ask.

My specific question is on the progress of the quality of life report. I want to know exactly where you are on that, what legislation is being introduced to cover it, and at what point in time the recommendations of this committee will be answered fully in that report.

• 1025

Mr. Fred Mifflin: Thank you.

We've skirted around the edge of the quality of life and indicated some of the things that are happening now, and you know the background, so I'm not going to go through that.

The Chief of Defence Staff has observed that both studies indicated a high level of dissatisfaction with the two previous studies that led to this. That has given the impetus to move perhaps more quickly than governments are known to have moved. On the part of DND, the Chief of Defence Staff expressed DND's determination to restore confidence and pride in the system. This is one area he is using in the new pride and commitment in the Canadian Forces.

As you know, we worked with DND very closely, my colleague and I. I've never seen a memorandum to cabinet go through so quickly. It addressed the issues reflected in your reports. The government has approved the MC, and we've seen visible evidence, such as the quality of life issue and the centre I spoke about in my opening remarks, which is proceeding extremely well.

The government has approved proceeding with amendments to the Pension Act, which, once royal assent is received and the change in legislation comes into force, will advance the timing of disability pensions and payments to those pensions as a result of non-special duty area service to the date of their application or the date of the coming into force of the amending legislation, whichever is later.

I'm absolutely thrilled—and I'm very serious about that—that we are essentially, with some differences, going to recognize the non-special duty area personnel in a much more compassionate manner than we looked at them before. Special duty area personnel—and there are many of them designated—were certainly highly satisfied with the benefits available to them and their treatment. The non-special duty area people, who were not adequately covered, will now see a tremendous difference in the way they are looked at with respect to their time on duty.

I remember, as a military person, reviewing many a summary investigation, and the biggest determination of this summary investigation was, for a non-SDA person, whether in fact they were on duty or not at the time of the accident or the occurrence. If they weren't, they got nothing. That was a hard judgment for members of the summary investigation to decide. Now the onus is on the government to give the benefit of the doubt to the non-special duty area person.

The other big difference of course is that it was almost unheard of for a serving member to be receiving benefits in the Canadian Forces. If you were at that stage where you had to receive a pension, generally speaking, you were released on a medical pension.

There is a more enlightened manner of dealing with members of the Canadian Forces. Although they are special and they are not in the same category as workers' compensation, it is the same principle. If a soldier, sailor, or airman loses a finger, thumb, foot, or something that is less than totally debilitating, they can remain in the Canadian Forces, perhaps in another trade, and will be able to receive benefits at that time and will continue to receive benefits until that condition has either changed or worsened. Therein is the big difference.

I still have a few contacts out there in uniform, and this is hailed as one of the most compassionate things that has been done for members of the Canadian Forces in the last 20 or 30 years.

Mr. John O'Reilly: Can you explain the difference between the main estimates and the forecasts? In some business lines, the numbers that I thought would be lower are higher. Can you tell me why under corporate administration they're higher?

Mr. Fred Mifflin: It's $30 million higher, and $22 million of that was to pay the Hong Kong veterans and the Buchenwald veterans, and the remainder was paying back to Treasury Board our loan to make sure we are Y2K-compliant.

Mr. John O'Reilly: How much was that loan?

Mr. David Nicholson: The loan spans over two and a half years, and the amount that's reflected as part of the $30 million is the drawdown. I think it's about $7.5 million for the year.

Mr. John O'Reilly: Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly.

We have time for two more questioners: Mr. Earle now and then back to this side.

Mr. Gordon Earle: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On page 47 of the plans and priorities booklet is table 2.2, which talks about the planned full-time equivalents over the next period of time. I note that for the fiscal year 1999-2000 there's an increase of over 200 FTEs for the benefits and services business line, and over 30 for the corporate administration business line. So in that year, we'll have an increase of 230 FTEs. Then it goes down for the next two years, so by the time we get to the year 2002, we're down to just slightly above what it was for 1998-99.

• 1030

Can you explain why there's that fluctuation, why there's the increase for the upcoming fiscal year and then the subsequent decrease?

Mr. Fred Mifflin: Mr. Chairman, in response to Mr. Earle's question, I could explain it, but he would understand it better if the deputy minister explained it, so I'll ask Mr. Nicholson to address that.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. David Nicholson: Thank you, Minister.

First of all, I should say that in order to establish the count for the FTEs, which are full-time equivalents, we simply take the salary package and divide it by the current annual salary. That then projects out to a total number as a budget.

For example, in the year 1998-99, when we did that transaction, we established a number that was really 200 higher than we utilized. Even though for the estimates year we're looking at 3,380, we anticipate our utilization to be at least 200 less than that.

As you understand, Mr. Earle, an FTE is not directly related to a given employee. An FTE can hire 12 people for one month or two people for six months or four people for three months. So we projected it this way to provide flexibility, to be able to move people into situations that require additional resources at any time during the year. When we come back here next year, when we look at this year's utilization, it will be less than what's projected at 3,380.

Mr. Gordon Earle: So why the decrease then? It would seem to me that if you project 3,380 based upon the salaries, the math should carry through similarly for the next few years and you should be at the same level, but it's gone down. So what happened? Have people had a decrease in salary?

Mr. David Nicholson: No, no. That's directly related to our projection of what is needed in terms of our establishment to do the business in those outer years. There are fewer people.

Mr. Gordon Earle: Thank you.

The Chairman: Okay, you're all done?

Are there any questioners then on the majority side? Did Mr. Richardson or anyone have questions on this side? No? If not, I'm going to go to Mrs. Wayne, so this is your last chance. Okay, seeing none, Mrs. Wayne then will be our last questioner.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Thank you very much.

I know the minister probably nearly fell off his chair when I didn't mention the merchant navy.

Mr. Fred Mifflin: Mr. Chairman, I have to say that nothing the honourable member would do or not do would surprise me.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I do want to thank the minister for putting the merchant navy under the War Veterans Allowance Act.

We really appreciate what you've done there, Mr. Minister; we really do. Although we have another little bit to do, I won't deal with it, because the chair has asked me not to, so that's fine.

But I would like to ask you this. You know we've sent troops to the Balkans. Hopefully that situation will be resolved quickly and our boys will get home. But if any of them come under the veterans act and become veterans, or if anything happens there, what will that do? Have you looked at that when you're dealing with your budget? That's all I want to know, just to be prepared for that.

Mr. Fred Mifflin: Again, Mr. Chairman and colleagues, there is a process. We respect the process, but I would go through any means to do anything for the process to look after the care of veterans.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mrs. Wayne.

Just before we leave, I'm very happy to recognize a point of order from Mr. Proud.

Mr. George Proud: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd just like to make the committee aware that tomorrow, Mr. Nicholson, the deputy minister, is receiving the Prime Minister's outstanding achievement award. This shows us what kind of person he is.

Congratulations.

Voices: Hear, hear!

The Chairman: Mr. Proud, thank you very much for bringing that to our attention.

Mr. Nicholson, on behalf of SCONDVA and I'm sure all members of Parliament, thank you very much for your contribution. Congratulations.

Monsieur Laurin does have one final point before we leave, and we're just about out of time.

Monsieur Laurin.

• 1035

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: Mr. Chairman, early in April, some witnesses from Treasury Board appeared before us, and we asked them a number of questions that remained unanswered. We were promised written answers, but it seems to me that these answers are taking a long time to get here. Two weeks ago, I was told that the answer was ready and that they were just waiting for the Minister to sign off. It shouldn't take two weeks for the Minister to sign a letter in response to a question asked in committee.

[English]

The Chairman: Those are valid points. The clerk will pursue that. You all know that we've had a clerk who was ill, and we've had quite a change in our clerks. So we've had some logistical problems, but we will pursue that this morning with the clerk here. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Minister, and to your staff. We appreciate your time.

Mr. Fred Mifflin: Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: The meeting is adjourned.