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]

Wednesday, April 29, 1998

• 1530

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.)): Good afternoon, colleagues. It's a great pleasure for us to welcome the Minister of Veterans Affairs and the Secretary of State for ACOA, Mr. Mifflin.

It's an honour, sir, for us to have you here this afternoon.

Just to give you an explanation of how things are done, we usually give you 15 to 20 minutes for a presentation and then we go to question period. We'll let you go at that, sir. Whenever you're ready, please start.

Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Veterans Affairs): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I want to tell you I'm also delighted to be here and to be back in my old committee in a different role. I have some indication of the kinds of questions I used to ask, but I'm not sure they're going to be asked the same way, so we're going to be ready for almost anything. Seriously, I'm looking forward to a good discussion, because I know there are some issues you want to air on all sides of the House, and I'm looking forward to the opportunity to be here with you.

I'm delighted also to see that we have a good representation of veterans here in the room. I'm very pleased about that as well, because it's a good opportunity for us to have the kind of debate I'm looking forward to.

I want to introduce, before we go any further, the deputy minister, Mr. David Nicholson. I think David is well known to the committee, and it's a pleasure to have him back here again with me. I've witnessed him on the other side of the table, and again, things are slightly different now.

I also have with me Leslie MacLean, a senior member of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, because pensions are a big item. When I was parliamentary secretary, Leslie and the deputy were involved with Bill C-67, which was on the Veterans Review and Appeal Board. I think at least a couple of members were on that as well.

So welcome, Leslie and David.

Before I begin, I want to say I have reviewed the highlights of the estimates, and while we're prepared to answer any questions on the estimates, I'd like to tell you I'm not going to get too much into the estimates in my presentation. I want to tell you about some of the exciting developments in Veterans Affairs, such as the ongoing innovations we have under way in delivering optimum service to veterans, and a little bit on upcoming pilgrimages and commemorative events, because they also are in our mission statement. But first I want to make some reference to the estimates, because that, after all, is why we're all here.

Committee members, I'd like to remind you that the mission statement of Veterans Affairs reads as follows, and it's very simple. It says my job and the job of my department is:

To provide veterans, qualified civilians and their families with the benefits and services to which they are entitled; to promote their well-being and self-sufficiency as participating members of their community; and to keep the memory of their achievements and sacrifices alive for all Canadians.

Quite simply, we strive to take care of those who took care of us—to take care of those who answered the country's call in times of desperate need—and our commitment to veterans has never wavered. This year, Canadians, through Veterans Affairs, will spend close to $2 billion in fulfilling Canada's commitment to its veterans.

[Translation]

Quite simply, we strive to take care of those who took care of us—to take care of those who answered their country's call in time of desperate need, and our commitment to veterans has never wavered. This year, Canadians, through Veterans Affairs, will spend close to $2 billions in fulfilling Canada's commitment to its veterans.

[English]

As in past years, our main expenditure in 1998-99 will be for disability pensions. The estimate is that just over $1.16 billion will be paid in disability pension benefits for veterans, survivor benefits, prisoner of war compensation, attendance allowance for veterans with exceptional care needs, and indeed other related pension benefits.

• 1535

While the pension population is expected to decrease over the next three years, I don't really expect to see an equivalent decrease in pension payments. That may surprise some of you, but that very simply is because, as the veterans age, they experience more health-related difficulties and are therefore more likely to seek pension entitlement. As well, as their conditions are likely to worsen with age, their pension payments will tend to increase accordingly.

On that subject, by way of contrast, the aging of the veteran population has resulted and will continue to result in an ongoing decrease in financial assistance paid out to veterans or surviving spouses in war veterans allowance benefits. That is really our main income support program. This is simply because most of the income support benefits for veterans and their spouses are received under the old age security legislation. Even so, we expect to pay in the order of $40 million to provide low-income veterans and/or their dependants with a guaranteed monthly income.

We believe veterans deserve special treatment when it comes to health care. With the aging of the veteran population, our role in providing health care benefits to eligible veterans has become of increasing importance. This year a significant portion of our budget will be devoted to the veterans independence program, health care benefits, and long-term care. These moneys help veterans stay healthy and independent in their own homes and communities, and they provide for benefits ranging from hospital, medical, and dental treatment to health promotion and home care.

While I am on the subject of health care, members may be aware that under the departmental policy, veterans who experience a change in their domestic or financial situation that causes them to lose their eligibility for health care benefits and services are granted a three-month grace period before their benefits are terminated. I appeared before the Legion Dominion executive, I think sometime in August, and I know this was a concern of theirs, and I know it has been a concern of veterans for some time.

I'll say parenthetically that while I am Veterans Affairs and you are all members of the committee, I don't think there's a politician alive who hasn't been involved in Veterans Affairs and helped mediate the various concerns they have regarding a number of areas, not the least of which would be pensions and items such as this.

Well, I am pleased to advise you today that we have been able to respond to that concern, and effective April 1 this year, veterans who lose their eligibility for benefits are going to be granted a one-year extension before their benefits are terminated. This change in policy will allow veterans more time to adjust and make alternative arrangements. I've been told by the department that this is a very popular measure, one of some that the veterans organizations, all four main ones, have been addressing. I was very pleased to be in the driver's seat to be able to execute this.

We're also improving the provision of health care benefits to veterans through changes to our prescription drug program. This new drug system, which is just in the process of being implemented, will consist of approximately 6,000 items, with an additional authorization formulary of over 1,000 items. I compare that to the average of all provinces, which I think is around 2,500.

Once the new system and proposed controls are in place, we will be able to better monitor drug use, thereby minimizing inappropriate and potentially dangerous drug use. The new system will better protect the health of our veterans, and at the same time it will result in cost savings, which can then be redirected to another departmental health care program or other programs.

I have provided you with an overview of the department's main expenditures. I'd now like to tell you something about the interesting activities at Veterans Affairs in the areas of commemoration, service delivery—which is a big thing with us—and legislation.

As explained earlier, an important part of our mandate at Veterans Affairs is to ensure that Canadians, particularly our young people, are made aware of the wartime contribution of Canadian veterans.

Again, as an aside, one of the most striking experiences of my life was when I did a pilgrimage in Holland a few years back. I was totally unnerved—that's the best word to use—totally surprised and absolutely delighted that the children in Holland, for reasons that would be obvious to everybody in this room, were so enthusiastic and so engaged in the fact that Canadian veterans were in Holland to commemorate an anniversary of their liberation. I said to myself, gosh, if only I could get the people in my riding, the children in my riding, to be involved in this.

• 1540

Veterans are getting older; members of the Royal Canadian Legion and other veterans' organizations are getting older. We have to do something while we still have the veterans to help us. It was before my time, but I'm certainly very pleased to continue it. The effort to involve young people in the memory of what the veterans and their organizations did for us and are doing for us right now, in addition to their education programs, which certainly surprised me when I was first briefed on them, has to be continued and has to be focused. Here's another area where I see we're going to be able to focus more activity.

I want to just give you one example. In 1996 we developed, produced, and distributed to approximately 6,000 schools across Canada a comprehensive package of educational material concerning Canada's involvement in the Second World War, from both a home front—what happened at home—and an overseas perspective. I've seen this kit a couple of times. It's called “Canada's Coming of Age 1939-1945: Canada Remembers Educational Kit”. It was completed with the input of teachers and Ministry of Education officials from across the country, and it received widespread support.

As a sequel to this educational kit, a second project, in the form of a CD-ROM, has been completed. I've seen part of that too. And planning is under way to create packages on the First World War and the Korean War. Department officials are in regular contact with educators and faculties of education in all regions of this country to keep them aware of these resources and to continue to seek their expertise in the development stage.

During Canada Remembers a couple of years back—I don't have the figures now, but I have to tell you—the hits on our web site, including information about veterans, battles, and Canadian campaigns, were in the tens of thousands. I seem to remember the figure of 80,000 hits in one year. That's a lot of hits on a web site, and I'm told they're increasing.

In connection with education and children's programs, I also want to mention Veterans' Week, which I had the opportunity for the first time in my life to do last year. This ties in very well with our educational initiatives by providing a week-long focus on the accomplishments of our veterans, with a particular focus on youth.

Committee members may be aware—and I know, Mr. Chairman, you recently did a pilgrimage with Veterans Affairs, and they're all special, but some of you may be aware—that Vimy Ridge and Beaumont Hamel battlefield parks in France were recently designated national historic sites. This is very significant, and I know the department is very proud of this. These designations are the first ever granted to sites outside Canada, a true indication of their great significance. This after all is part of Canada's living history, recognized worldwide—history made by Canadian veterans.

If you look at Vimy Ridge, a lot of historians—and I'm not a historian—would argue that Canada started to come of age at Vimy Ridge. The emotional experience.... Other members of course were on the Dieppe commemoration pilgrimage, but to stand at Dieppe and to watch.... We had two World War I veterans there with us. One has regrettably since passed away. To stand at the Beaumont Hamel memorial, which of course is of special significance to Newfoundlanders, leaves a poignant experience with you. If you weren't caught up in veterans and commemorations and pilgrimages before, you'd have to have a pretty hard heart not to be supportive of the kinds of activities we're doing here.

Given the success of this initiative, I believe it's safe to say we will continue to pursue partnership opportunities with DND, as we did in this case—they're always with us and greatly supportive; with Heritage Canada in the case of their parks, their heritage sites, and their designation of the first two outside Canada; with the National Archives; and indeed, as always, with veterans' organizations.

We are highlighting a number of significant wartime events this year, with pilgrimages to mark the anniversary of the Battle of the Atlantic—that gets under way in a few days' time; the 45th anniversary of the Korea armistice agreement; and the 80th anniversary of the end of the First World War. That is getting bigger by the day, and we will have more details on that later this year.

• 1545

Committee members may be aware of the efforts of the Royal Canadian Legion Dominion Command to promote the introduction of a two-minute silence on Remembrance Day at 11 a.m. I'm personally very pleased and I know the department is very pleased to advise you, Mr. Chairman and colleagues, that we fully support this initiative, and we look forward to continued collaboration with the legion to make the two-minute expression of remembrance a reality.

I mentioned earlier that we are working to ensure that veterans receive even more effective, efficient, and timely service. Through the benefits redesign project and a number of related initiatives, we are in effect reinventing the department to better serve veterans.

Efforts to this end include the review of veterans' care needs, which we'll probably be talking about later on. This is a national survey of over 1,600 veterans, Canadian Forces personnel, and their families aimed at providing a better understanding of the needs of the people we serve and the development of a client service approach, which is currently being pilot-tested at district offices across the country. If you want to discuss that further, I can get into more detail, but I think it warrants a few more words.

This approach will enable us to respond to the evolving and increasingly complex needs of the veterans we serve through a more case-managed, focused approach and more direct personal contact with the veterans. As they got older, as their disability pensions changed, and as their conditions required more information, it was reaching the point where it was starting to be unmanageable by a program. We are now essentially stove-piping it and doing it by veteran name. This is not inexpensive, but we were at the point where we were essentially forced to do it. Our doctors, nurses, area counsellors, and client service agents are working as a team to ensure an effective and holistic approach to veterans' needs.

Finally, the implementation this year of the initial phase of the client service delivery network will significantly improve our ability to serve veterans effectively and efficiently and give us one of the best case management systems available anywhere in veterans' organizations in the world.

As an aside, and in case this comes up, I would mention that we have initiated a year 2000 project to effectively address the need to convert our automated systems to ensure that departmental operations will not be disrupted by the change of century. Work in this regard is well under way and on target. In fact I take pride in advising the committee that Veterans Affairs is a leading department in its response to the year 2000 problem, and we are confident we will succeed in meeting the very real deadlines facing us.

As I alluded to earlier, we continue to see the benefits of the significant reforms made to the pension legislation with the passage of Bill C-67 in 1995, which considerably improved service to veterans by streamlining the disability pension application and the appeal process, and which focused on getting it right the first time. This initiative has been a great success, and we've seen turnaround times reduced by 68%, despite the fact that veterans are getting older and the number of cases has increased by 25% or thereabouts.

This accomplishment is very significant and is one in which veterans' organizations and the department take a lot of pride, as does the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, of course, a quasi-judicial board with which I have very little departmental contact but which I see the results of on a regular basis.

I'd like to congratulate Mr. Nicholson and his team for this outstanding achievement. As I mentioned earlier, Leslie MacLean is here representing the board and its members. The chairman, Mr. Brian Chambers, couldn't be with us today, regrettably.

On faster pension times, those of you who were on that board and the committee would remember that we were looking at a 50% turnaround time. In fact we've bettered that considerably.

I know some of you are interested in some of the amendments to veterans legislation, and you've heard talk of an item called the omnibus bill. I am pleased to advise you that Veterans Affairs is in the process of finalizing amendments, which are largely housekeeping, to update various pieces of legislation. Some of these amendments will address concerns expressed by merchant navy veterans, for example the transfer of all clauses referring to the merchant navy from the Merchant Navy Veteran and Civilian War-related Benefits Act to the veterans legislation itself.

• 1550

This will have no major impact on veterans' eligibility for benefits as they already have full veteran status and equal access to all existing departmental benefits. However, as a lot of us in this room realize, it is very symbolic and of great importance to them that they be under this act, as opposed to the present system, which goes back to 1992.

Last, I would like to bring the committee up to date on developments concerning the transfer of Sainte-Anne's Hospital in the province of Quebec in Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue. The transfer of this hospital will be the result of a long process that began in 1963 when we had 18 hospitals. As a result of the Glassco commission, we were ordered to reduce them on a long-term basis.

We have responded to that direction, and there has been no change in the cabinet direction since that time. We are just at the early stages of discussing with the Province of Quebec our long-term goal and high-priority needs that we insist on maintaining with that province. What we have in mind and what our prime concern is of course is service to the veteran.

[Translation]

For the past two years, a Veterans Affairs project team has been working to prepare the groundwork for the transfer of Ste. Anne's to provincial jurisdiction. Throughout the preparation to date, the team has been guided by a number of principles, the first of which is to ensure the maintenance of quality health care for veterans after any transfer has taken place. Another principle is to obtain guarantees that all veterans will be entitled to services in French or English—this is very important—as they wish. You may rest assured that I will be monitoring this situation closely as it evolves.

[English]

For the past two years, a Veterans Affairs project team has been working to prepare the groundwork for the transfer of Sainte-Anne's to provincial jurisdictions. I want to make sure that you understand I'm keeping a very close watch on this. I have met with the Quebec caucus. As you know, Mr. Chairman, I have met with individual members. There's a small committee formed. I have been to the hospital once. I've talked often to the director general there, and she's been down to meet with me.

I want to tell you that this is the last hospital and it is in Quebec. The meetings we've had with Quebec have been not many by this point. This was largely because of other interruptions. The ice storm set us back in the sense of what our project was going to be. But certainly the indications are, from the first few meetings, that there seems to be a spirit of cooperation with the common interest of veterans at hand.

Mr. Chairman, that is a brief overview. It took longer than I planned, but you have to forgive my asides. It's an indication of my enthusiasm for my job.

While this year does not see any major changes in our program, I'm excited about some of these new initiatives I mentioned. They're all aimed at improving the service provided to veterans, and I believe we're going to make great strides.

Veterans Affairs remains committed to giving our very best possible to those who took such care of us, and I look forward to any comments you may have. I appreciate the committee's invaluable contribution in supporting and strengthening the work of Veterans Affairs.

Thank you for your attention. Merci beaucoup. I look forward to the discussion.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister. We will now go to questions.

[English]

I would just like to remind the members about the way it works. I see that we have a few new ones here with us. Every party gets ten minutes. We start off with the Reform Party, then we go to the Bloc, Liberal Party, NDP, and PCs.

You can rest assured that I will be making sure that we don't go over the ten minutes, because I have been a little indulgent with some members, and I just want to be fair on both sides. Anyway, that's the way it works.

I believe Mr. Goldring will start it off.

• 1555

Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will start with three questions and then I'll pass it on to my colleague.

Thank you very much, Mr. Minister, for your presentation. I too agree that more should be done to educate our young in the war effort and what the valiant members of our armed forces have contributed to in lives and efforts throughout the world in peacekeeping duties.

My first question, Mr. Minister, will deal with Hong Kong veterans. More than 50 years ago, Canadian soldiers were forced into slave labour by Japan. In 1954 the Canadian government accepted a $1-a-day settlement, which veterans disagreed with. It was 6¢ per hour for brutal, torturous slave labour under horrendous, subhuman conditions. In December, an all-party foreign affairs and international trade committee unanimously recommended additional compensation.

Could you confirm when the compensation is coming and where in the estimates provisions there are provisions for this compensation?

Mr. Fred Mifflin: Are you going to give me all the questions at once?

The Chairman: Give him the three questions.

Mr. Peter Goldring: All right. The second question will be with regard to the merchant navy. In 1992 the veterans affairs Bill C-84 provided a $100 million compensation fund for catch-up disability pensions, income support, and health benefits. Could you please tell the committee how much of the $100 million remains in this fund? Is there provision in the estimates to continue this fund, and if yes, for how long?

The third question would be dealing with the Perley and Rideau veterans hospitals. You may very well have covered part of it in your presentation, but last week there was a visit to the Perley-Rideau Veterans Health Centre here in Ottawa. My understanding is that the committee was very impressed with the conditions and care being provided in light of the financial difficulties.

One major concern is the discrepancy in funding levels between various veterans hospitals. Funding per patient per day at Sainte-Anne's Hospital in Montreal is $256 and at Perley-Rideau in Ottawa it's only $167. Why are funding levels different for veterans in different parts of the country when the care services are the same, and how is this reflected in the estimates? That's the end of my third question.

Mr. Fred Mifflin: Thank you very much, Mr. Goldring. I appreciate the questions.

Let me address the issue of the Hong Kong veterans, of which I think you've spoken eloquently recently. I've heard some of the interviews you've done on various radio stations across the country. First of all, I want to say I don't think there's anybody in the room, least of all me, who doesn't share the great concern you have towards these veterans. I think they endured, as you said, horrible treatment, suffered tremendously, and carry the scars of that experience to this very day.

We at Veterans Affairs work closely, and have always done so, with Hong Kong veterans and their families. Even so, we could never claim to know the suffering they have gone through. I think this is what motivates all of us to refuse to let this issue die after 56 or 57 years. It is an issue that greatly troubles me, quite frankly. I've talked to my deputy minister about it on many occasions, and I hope some day we can come to grips with it.

You know the details of this, but for the members of the committee who perhaps would like to see where we are with this and how we got to where we are, I want to thank the standing committee and you in particular, Mr. Goldring, for raising this issue. I think it still needs to be talked about. I don't think it would serve any great purpose to go into the detail of how we got to where we are; I think that's generally well known. I think it's generally well known that while no compensation can ever suffice, the time that was spent as a prisoner of war of Japan is compensated for at at least twice the rate of a prisoner of any other enemy power.

I think what we're dealing with here is how to come to grips with an item that doesn't go away and that has appeared at many veterans affairs committees long before this one.

I received a recommendation in December from the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, who heard veterans from the Hong Kong Veterans' Association. One of the recommendations was that recognition be given to the justification for the claim made by the veterans against Japan regarding the forced labour carried out during World War I. They had recommendation 2 and recommendation 3 that flowed from this recommendation itself. I think the first one is the one that really counts.

• 1600

If you look at the testimony and if you look at the details of this particular issue, here is what really ties our hands to move right now. The 1952 peace treaty with Japan settled all claims of the Allied powers and their nationals, and I have to use the words here, “arising out of any action taken by Japan and its nationals in the course of the prosecution of the war and provided for compensation”.

So it was considered, as I understand it, to include the claim in respect of forced labour. I'm not saying I agree with this. I'm saying this is what we are dealing with.

Mr. Peter Goldring: But a dollar a day?

Mr. Fred Mifflin: I didn't make the claim. It was $1.20 a day, wasn't it? I didn't agree with it, but I wasn't there. They have said that the claim is settled, and I believe the government said the claim is settled.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Do you not agree they would have a responsibility for making such a settlement on behalf of the veterans, if it was an unreal settlement to be making? Do you not agree they should share some responsibility for correcting this very low settlement?

Mr. Fred Mifflin: Do you mean the country of Japan?

Mr. Peter Goldring: I mean our Canadian government. The Canadian government accepted this pathetically little settlement at the time, and for slave labour. Do you not feel they have a responsibility to correct that wrong?

Mr. Fred Mifflin: I wasn't in government at the time, Peter, and I can't....

Mr. Peter Goldring: If you have an opportunity to correct this, wouldn't you?

Mr. Fred Mifflin: I'm not sure I do, and this is what I'm talking about right now.

With respect to the committee itself, and I had to go back to some of their testimony because the letter was very short, I talked to some of the members of the committee, not just the chairman.

Were you on that committee, by the way?

Mr. Peter Goldring: No.

Mr. Fred Mifflin: Okay. They were aware that the compensation provided for under the peace treaty was paid to the Hong Kong veterans in the form of two lump-sum payments, realized from the sale of Japanese assets abroad and allocated in Canada through the War Claims Commission. So there was one, followed up by another. You are aware of that, of course.

Mr. Peter Goldring: This still amounted to 6¢ an hour for compensation, which doesn't come anywhere close to ordinary labour rates, let alone labour conditions as brutal and horrendous as they were in: forced labour.

Mr. Fred Mifflin: I don't disagree with that, and I hope my preface indicated my sense of frustration, along with you, that this has all been done by the government of the day; this was accepted, plus a further payment was made.

If you take these facts together, this is why it's very difficult for the Government of Canada to recognize that there is a justification of the claim against Japan, because we accepted what Japan had done at the time. If you want to go back to Foreign Affairs and try them, through Japan, again.... There doesn't seem to be any movement to do that.

It's very difficult for me in Veterans Affairs to go back and say to Japan, I disagree with the treatment you had in 1952, in addition to the lump-sum payment we had.

Having said all of this and having a recognition of what you've talked about, precisely because of the great respect we have for these veterans, which is tangibly demonstrated by the extensive benefits provided under the veterans' legislation, it would be my wish for the following, and I choose my words very carefully here. While I have not been able to do anything with it now, and I certainly am not in the habit of making a commitment that I can't honour, it would be my wish that the spirit of the committee's recommendation may be able to receive consideration in due course.

Mr. Peter Goldring: What does that mean?

Mr. Fred Mifflin: It means, mentally, I have not closed the door on it.

Mr. Peter Goldring: All right. Spiritually I have difficulty with that.

Mr. Fred Mifflin: You might have difficulty with it, but I am telling you I cannot make any commitment because of the history of the settlement, including the United Nations Human Rights Commission, which looked at their case, and that wasn't successful.

I am not in a position to be able to provide compensation as Minister of Veterans Affairs. I have no funding for it.

• 1605

Mr. Peter Goldring: So factually there are no provisions in this estimate for compensation and there is nothing coming down.

Mr. Fred Mifflin: Not at this time.

The Chairman: You have one more minute.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Spiritually, what could we look forward to in the future?

Mr. Fred Mifflin: Spiritually, I look forward to it the same as you do.

Mr. Peter Goldring: And my second question on the merchant navy, the continuation of the $100 million?

Mr. Fred Mifflin: Colleagues and Mr. Chairman, I would really like to get into this because I think this is worth it for the committee. Often ministers don't have any personal knowledge of why things were changed. I have personal knowledge of this. It was the fall of 1991. Three members of the opposition, including myself, took it upon ourselves to address what I personally had felt had been an injustice for many, many years, and the other members agreed with me. These three members were the member from Hillsborough, Mr. Proud, who's with us today, Mr. Rompkey, who was then the member of Parliament from Labrador, and somewhat later Mr. Les Benjamin, who was an NDP member of Parliament from Regina—Lumsden.

Mr. Peter Goldring: I'm very sorry, Mr. Minister, but we're running short of time here. I'm wondering if you could confirm to me whether these estimates will be continuing this Bill C-84, this $100 million, and how much of it is left.

Mr. Fred Mifflin: Why would you want me to address the $100 million?

Mr. Peter Goldring: Because they're so concerned there may be a date ending to it, that it was a temporary.... Will it be continued?

Mr. Fred Mifflin: Veterans benefits?

Mr. Peter Goldring: The $100 million compensation fund for the catch-up of disability pensions, income support, and health benefits—Bill C-84.

Mr. Fred Mifflin: I'm not sure why you go back to that. I've checked with five other countries that introduced legislation after the war, some very close to the time that we have, and I have seen absolutely no case of retrospective legislation.

When the legislation was passed, which was difficult to get as it was, when we convinced the government of the day that this was a wrong, that it had to be addressed, then the government of the day provided from the day the bill was passed the same benefits for merchant seamen as was provided to veterans.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Could you tell us how much money is left in that fund?

Mr. Fred Mifflin: There is no retrospective money left. The money that was spent was the money required to spend on veterans' benefits. There is no retrospective legislation to go back and spend any of that money, because the money that is spent is spent on veterans' benefits that apply to war veterans, to uniformed veterans, the same as they apply to those in the merchant navy.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Would you comment quickly on the hospitals?

Mr. Fred Mifflin: I want to thank the committee for visiting the Perley Hospital. I wish I had more time, but somebody may want to get into this later on.

We provide different levels of care—federal 2, federal 3. You're probably all aware of that. In essence, the Perley is funded differently because it's a different organization.

You compared it to Sainte-Anne's. Sainte-Anne's is run by veterans. It's in a different province.

I'm making a judgment based on the reports I get from the review of care for veterans' needs, which is an ongoing issue, an ongoing study. From my knowledge, while the funding hasn't reduced to the level I think you mentioned, and there is some difficulty going on legally with Perley, despite the funding levels, because they are different kinds of hospitals I believe this would account for the major change in funding.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Care services will remain the same, though.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Fred Mifflin: That's my belief.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Okay. Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Godin, do you have a question?

Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Yes, I do have a few.

It is a great pleasure for me to see you here, Mr. Minister. I am in total agreement with everything you said in your presentation and with the initiatives you are suggesting. Indeed, nobody wants to show disrespect for people who risked their lives to defend our country, and particularly the veterans who suffered war injuries.

I took part in the consideration of Bill C-67. In 1993, we had to address many issues. By exploring all this, I am becoming aware of the fact that, in certain cases, we keep having the same problems over and over. If I may, I would like to read out a list of those problems and maybe you can give me some information.

• 1610

At the time, with Bill C-67, all lingering issues with case management were supposed to be addressed within 12 months. It was taking three years to settle cases. It was thought that after a year, we would achieve a rate of effectiveness of 100%. Am I to understand, however, that we have achieved only a 50% effectiveness in the management of those cases. At the time, a computer system was supposed to be set up to have a central file on each individual in order to speed up case processing. I would like to know what the situation is right now.

In the field, in our ridings, we keep getting the same complaints we have been hearing since I was first elected: problem in receiving help and services, veterans are getting old and they live by themselves. They need help and services to look after their homes.

We are also getting a lot of complaints about a lack of information. They are having a hard time finding their way around within the system. The veterans would like to have one document containing all useful information on services that are available so that they can benefit from those services as they get older. Some veterans are really complaining because they are given cards for various services, only to be told when they show up to inquire about services, that their card does not give them access to all services.

I would also like to say that veterans of the Canadian Legion in my riding and in other ridings too, bought buildings a few years ago where they could meet and have recreational activities. I must say that it was very good for them both physically and mentally.

Of course, these buildings have aged and they are now in need of repairs. The veterans would have liked to receive some support from the Department of Veterans Affairs to help them with building repairs. In some areas, they are even thinking of closing down the building even though it is the only place where they can meet for work or recreation purposes.

If at all possible, I would also like to know what is the time frame for the buildings. I remember that there was a lot of talk about Ste. Anne's Hospital at the time of Bill C-67. I would like to have some target dates, if possible. It seems that we are having many of the same problems we had in 1993.

[English]

Mr. Fred Mifflin: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Godin, I just want to make sure that I understood the question with respect to veterans' review and appeal boards. Was the focus of your question that despite the 68% increase and turnaround time and the increased load of 30%, there are still complaints that the turnaround time is still not acceptable to some of your constituents? Is this what you're telling me?

[Translation]

Mr. Maurice Godin: Yes. I would like you to confirm that you have reached your goal of processing claims within a reasonable time period and that the complaints I got were really isolated cases.

[English]

Mr. Fred Mifflin: I hate using statistics. In a qualitative sense, because we all have veterans, including myself in my riding, I sense that you seldom get accolades for a system you improve, but I'm getting a sense of greater satisfaction, in general, from veterans.

• 1615

You will always have some who are having difficulty, as some of them are more public than others. I never like to build up their expectations and I never like to blow horns unless I can substantiate it.

Perhaps in more than a few isolated cases...in fact before I became Minister of Veterans Affairs, when I was Minister of Fisheries I called the deputy minister and asked, what about all those promises you guys were making? Have we seen the results of it? I'm pleased to report today, as I said earlier, the average processing time for the entire pension program was reduced by 68%, not to 68%. At the time they were promising 50%.

As you know, the previous system was a very burdensome one. It was set up after the war and it took an interminable time. I think the percentage of acceptance for the first pension application was less than 30%. It was something very low. It became apparent to the department that this was unacceptable, particularly since veterans were getting older each year and their infirmities were increasing. So something had to be done. This was essentially the genesis of Bill C-67.

Each level of the pension process achieved a processing time saving of greater than 50%. I will quote some figures so you can have it for your records and your constituents: from 18% to 5.6% for first applications; for appeals, from 12 to 3.6 months for reviews,

[Translation]

so down from 12 to 3.6 months and from 8 to 3.5 months for appeals.

[English]

So I think in all cases they were even more significant than we had promised. I think they were spectacularly so, because the rate of incoming claims, because of the increasing age of veterans, was down by 30%. So that 60% in fact is a more significant figure.

I would just remind the committee that the Veterans Review and Appeal Board is quasi-judicial, so I can't get too close to it. I have to be very careful. I can tell you that the estimated number last year was close to 15,000 applications—14,776 to be precise. They are generally increasing over time.

I hope that addressed your question in general. I often get questions from individual members from all sides of the House on why this person didn't get their increase in their application or get their percentage of disability increased. I would like to be able to answer those questions. Regrettably, the quasi-judicial nature of the board precludes me from interfering in any way, shape, or form.

My advice is always this. Please advise your client to go back to the board for another review, if necessary, or an appeal, whatever the case may be. I know you've been with Veterans Affairs long enough that I'm sure you exercise this advice.

A more difficult question is the one we all run into from time to time. If I understood you correctly, Mr. Godin, were you concerned about the condition of some of the legion buildings and what were we doing to address that?

[Translation]

Mr. Maurice Godin: Yes.

[English]

Mr. Fred Mifflin: Again, I wish we were in the position to be able to help with the capitalization of buildings, but regrettably there is no provision in our mandate. There is no provision in our funding to look after Royal Canadian Legion branches throughout the country, of which there are thousands and thousands. In my riding alone I have 19.

You're right some of them need repair and some of them need refurbishment. Some of them are going back to many years, but regrettably, very seldom do we even get an application for that. There is no mandate for the funding and therefore no funding.

[Translation]

Mr. Maurice Godin: My intention was not to have the department take care of everything or pay for everything, but simply get some funding to help them deal with all the problems. These people are getting older every year, of course, and they would like to have their buildings repaired.

• 1620

We are giving out significant amounts of money for commemoration and I agree with that, but I still think that these buildings they own are like a second home to them. It is a place where veterans meet and get together. It is truly a service we can provide to them. I also think that it is directly related to their physical and mental well-being.

Therefore my question is would it be possible for you to free some money to help them. I think that veterans meet two, three or four times a week in those places, but there are also some veterans who spend practically all day at the Legion buildings. I think that their physical and emotional health is important and for that reason I am asking you to consider freeing up some funds to give them some support.

I have two other points concerning the computer system. During consideration of Bill C-67, it was said that a system would be set up so that all the information on a Canadian, a veteran could be found. I would like to know where things stand. I would like to know also what is happening with Ste. Anne's Hospital.

[English]

Mr. Fred Mifflin: Thank you very much. I don't have enough time to talk about the veterans' redesigned package, but one of the items that you will see in the estimates—you've already picked it up—is the profile that justifies the kind of expenditure we are making. It's $95.2 million for this benefit redesign project. I got approval from Treasury Board last October.

One of the first briefings I got when I joined the department in early June was on what was happening with.... The work had already started. There was some adjustment in funding and some contracts that had to be reviewed. But you're right, the project has taken place. And as I suggested earlier, what was concerning the department.... In very much the same way as the old Veterans' Review and Appeal Board was in need of change, so too was our program-oriented system of computers.

It said this is the program for veterans' disability pensions, and you go down the line and find that your constituent is there. Then you go to a particular program—the Veterans' Independence Program—and you find out who the clients are. To change that to a client-based approach, what is called stove-piping in the business, your constituent goes on the program and you look up his name and it says this veteran is available for the following issues. It sounds simple when you say it, but it costs $95.2 million, and we had to do some profiling at the Treasury Board so that we could move at the pace we felt we needed to move at.

I hope you don't consider this extraneous information, but we are considered by Treasury Board, and they will back it up, to be one of the lead agents in coping with the year 2000. This would have happened anyway because we are so dependent on computers and having it right. But the ability to get approval for the benefit redesign package was doubly helpful because it did focus for us, perhaps earlier than otherwise would have been the case, the necessity of addressing the year 2000 problem. That's one of the reasons we are as far ahead as we are.

With respect to Sainte-Anne's Hospital and my visit there last September or October, I had a good meeting with the director general. I spoke to a large percentage of the veterans, and there was a certain anxiety because of the transfer of the hospital. I expect others had happened in the previous 17 that we had transferred.

• 1625

I met with some of the veterans groups and the staff and spent a lot time talking and observing and getting briefed on what was happening with the changes. I have tried to assure the veterans and the staff that we will maintain.... Our first concern with respect to Sainte-Anne's, as with any hospital, as I said to Mr. Goldring, is that we want to see the same standard of care for veterans.

I have been assured that this can be done. I also want to ensure that there is service in both languages, which is very important to the veterans in the west end of Montreal, as you would be aware.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mr. Richardson.

Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to welcome the minister, the deputy minister, and the member from the appeal board to our meeting.

It's a little more tranquil this time around, Mr. Minister, than it was the last few times. The indicators that I have—visiting the army and navy clubs and the legions and the caseload in my office—suggest that complaints have dropped significantly. The caseload in the office is down by over 50%. So the servicing that's coming from your streamlining of the operations is paying off. There certainly seem to be fewer complaints in Perth—Middlesex, and that's a fairly significant group of people of over 100,000. I'm pleased with it, because I know the struggle you had to put everything on-line, and it has obviously speeded up. Speed seems to be the word with veterans, because they don't have a lot of time to wait around for service.

That said, maybe you could shed some light on some of the things that we are seeing now. We're jumping from real live wars into the situations confronting members now serving in the forces. We've been looking at the quality of life and all the bases. We're not missing any base. We're hitting everything in Canada.

Sometimes Veterans Affairs pops up, particularly among injured serving members, whether navy, army or air force. During the committee's visit, one individual complained that Veterans Affairs insisted that an injured member of the forces be examined by a Veterans Affairs doctor, even though National Defence doctors had examined them.

Why are so many medical examinations required to obtain a disability pension? This is just one question that appeared on a recurring basis. If you could answer that now, we could take it back for an answer in our defence committee.

Mr. Fred Mifflin: Thank you, Mr. Richardson. I'm glad you raised that. I was in the military and I had trouble with this. I really did. What I would like to clarify, and I think this may make it easier for follow-up questions, is that there are two principles with respect to serving members. A serving member who serves in a special-duty area is covered under the insurance principle. If that member is injured—24 hours a day, 7 days a week—that is considered to be as a result of a pensionable or a military activity. A lot of us are not familiar with that, but it brings that serving member as close as you can to a World War I, World War II or Korea veteran.

Since the beginning of peacekeeping, we haven't had many special-duty areas. We've had some. Some have and some haven't been, as you know, as you've served yourself in some of these.

More common is the coverage by what is called the compensation principle. All members of the Canadian Forces who are not in special-duty areas have to be on military service to receive a pension. I can't and I will not comment on the pros and cons of this, but this is why you see a special-duty serviceman still serving, sometimes with a disability pension—they can get the pension and still serve. Many of them leave shortly afterward, but they can be in area and still get a pension. For those who are in uniform but not in special-duty areas, their pension often takes longer.

• 1630

The definition, stemming usually from the summary investigation or board of inquiry, has a lot of difficulty deciding whether the member was on duty as such. If you're leaving a ship and you get hit by a car just as you're about to step off the jetty onto public property, is that on duty? It may seem clear to you and I and other members of the committee, but it may not be clear to others.

If a member is in a ship or an airplane or a military vehicle of any kind, it's cut and dried. It's those grey areas that cause us difficulty. This may not be specifically what you're concerned about, and there's a more general concern. This often causes the difference between the insurance principle and the compensation principle.

So, generally speaking, I would have to agree with you, Mr. Richardson. As part of the conditions of service, those members of the Canadian Forces, either still in uniform or recently released on a medical pension or a through medical board, have had difficulty dealing with two departments. Sometimes it's a question of medical records and the medical records being difficult to find. Some may be in Petawawa, some down in Gagetown, or on one ship or another. I'm never one to castigate my own regiment, but even I had service records all over the place. But that's another story.

Notwithstanding this, I'm not going to make excuses for it. I think we can do better, because we want to serve not just veterans but those who are in uniform. I'm very much aware of the conditions of service that are causing everybody in politics great concern. To address this I have had a member of the Canadian Forces attached to my office to set up a better system of liaison between those who are still in uniform and those who are veterans. I think we'll see a lot of progress between now and the end of the year, if not before.

Mr. John Richardson: To follow up, these brought out some other outstanding situations, but clearly not all are the fault of Veterans Affairs. The Major Henwood situation, where he was severely wounded in a landmine incident, and many others that have come up.... He came, but he didn't seem to feel that he was being satisfied. Most of it was not aimed at Veterans Affairs this time, but at NDHQ and his complaint. But eventually he would have to be turned over to Veterans Affairs, because he was on duty in a place of harm and received those injuries. He felt badly that it moves so slowly.

The slowness did not start with Veterans Affairs. Procedurally it was within National Defence Headquarters as what to do with him, who was going to handle the case. Eventually we got to the fact that he would be handled by Veterans Affairs. It left a very bitter taste in his mouth, because he felt he could do something even though he was a paraplegic. He felt that he was churned out as quickly as possible, but he went through all kinds of stumbling blocks before he got into the hands of Veterans Affairs. Then he got a comfort level in getting some kind of attention on this.

There's a man of a field officer rank who almost died in a serious mine accident and he never received a thank you for his service—that kind of thing. That struck home with all of us here. It was a case where he felt delayed but satisfied in the end—not totally, but satisfied. I want to pass that on to you as well, because it's a case that we saw, and it was on television across Alberta at the same time.

• 1635

Mr. Fred Mifflin: I'm familiar with this case. I certainly remember it—not the case with respect to the pension but the sad case itself. I wouldn't want to leave you with the impression that we're addressing this problem just by getting one person and putting that person in the chair and saying let the problem go away. I want to reassure you that not only have we done that, but we are now going to scan second career networks. When people have six months to four months to leave the service, we have our people there tell them what's in the veterans affairs program. We are working with base surgeons and with ADM offices.

I wasn't the only one; the department recognized this some time ago, but I think it's more focused now because we have more peacekeeping veterans, more special duty people coming out, and more of those who have been injured who maybe are not in a special area. As I said, I've seen much more progress in this because of the focus between now and the end of the year.

Mr. John Richardson: Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Mr. Proctor.

Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Welcome, minister and officials.

I wanted to confine my questions to the merchant navy vets and begin by sincerely congratulating you and George Proud, Les Benjamin, and Mr. Rompkey for the initiative you took back in the early days of this decade. Justice for the merchant navy has been around for a long time, as we all know very well; however, we still seem to have some problems in this area. As you concede in your remarks, there needs to be some housekeeping on the omnibus bill that the merchant navy vets were placed under in 1992. I just wondered if you could expand on that. I wonder in retrospect if it could have been done better back in 1992 when the legislation was introduced and brought in.

Mr. Fred Mifflin: I suppose anything can be done better. If I were back in opposition now I would have fought for that, but fighting for the principle at the time was very difficult. I think it was helped by the fact that other countries had come to the recognition that the losses among veteran merchant seamen were staggering in the case of our seamen because Canada was the third largest allied navy and therefore had commensurate more ships going across.

I didn't have any relatives as merchant navy seamen, but in my role as a senior military officer I often went from function to function, such as the Battle of the Atlantic in Canada, which is coming up in a couple of days' time. I would visit a legion or visit a social event and have a merchant navy veteran come up and say to me, never in a gruff voice and never with a sense of frustration, “Isn't it time somebody does something for us?”

I agree with you 100%. Again, I will say for the merchant navy what we said about the Hong Kong veterans or any other veteran for that matter: We can't do enough for them. It was that motivation that essentially caused us to take up the case.

I will tell you on behalf of the government of the day that once we got in committee and once we started to have these groups in front of us, some of whom may be here today, the move was very quick. There was a focused effort to get it completed. Of course, during the consideration we ran into how the compensation would be decided and we ran into definitions, which I'm sure you're aware of. Essentially what we wanted to end up with was a system in which the principles of veterans' benefits to merchant navy seamen would be exactly the same as those who served in the war and in theatres of combat since the war, and those who were in uniform.

We're all aware of the difficulty many veterans and their organizations have. Mr. Goldring raised a point with respect to the $100 million. I'm very much aware of that. As I think Mr. Goldring knows, there is no $100 million. I don't know what was put away for the compensation at the time, but I do know from following this issue very closely, not just now but always—you're always interested in things you take a hand in—that one of the concerns of merchant seamen veterans is that they say they deserve compensation to make up for those benefits that were available to veterans in uniform but that they didn't have.

• 1640

As I've pointed out to groups, and we've had groups come and deal with my staff, our example.... Certainly the order of the day, which was passed by the Conservative government, did not consider...and quite frankly, neither did we on the committee. I have to tell you, I remember that committee almost word by word. It might be worthwhile and instructive to get out the Hansard, which was written up in those days, to make sure they got all their benefits.

I have to tell you, to my recollection—and you may want to check it out in Hansard—the idea of retrospectivity really never surfaced as a major discussion issue. I think one of the reasons why this may have happened is that in the examples of other countries—the United States, I believe Australia, France, and other countries, and I haven't got all their names with me now—there was no retrospectivity involved in that.

I know the concern we are going to address with the omnibus bill is that veterans feel they want to be full veterans in the sense that those in uniform are. I think that's a legitimate concern, and I will address that when I put the bill forward, and you'll get a chance to debate that bill in the House.

There are other items that I have some trouble with, for example, although I'm not denying they're legitimate concerns. Most concerns—all concerns of veterans are. If they're not legitimate, they're certainly from the heart. I'm not denying that.

But you get into items like, for example, the laying of a wreath by the Minister of Transport. I believe that is one of the irritants. I can understand that, and I'm sure the minister would be quite happy to do that.

Just to explain the way the system works, the merchant navy veterans, as you know, lay a wreath at the monument. As far as I'm concerned and as far as the system is concerned, the Royal Canadian Legion, which organizes the service—we used to organize it, but they do it—lays a wreath on behalf of all veterans, and they represent all veterans. The Prime Minister is there representing all veterans, including merchant navy. The Governor General is there. The Minister of Veterans Affairs, when he's not abroad because of state requirements, is there.

I can understand what would be perfect, but I believe the system we have set up is, if not adequate, certainly appropriate to the needs of all veterans.

There may be other items that you might want to address, either later today or at another time. But I have to tell you—and Mr. Goldring says speaking from the spirit, and I think he knows I speak from the spirit—if I felt legitimately that there was something I needed to do as veterans affairs minister, I would have the department do it like that.

I haven't been convinced that there is a need for it. I haven't been convinced. Neither have I been shown a case where one veteran who is now a merchant navy veteran has not received the benefits that those in uniform have received. I would then be quite prepared to have a good look at it. I have not had one of those cases yet—not one.

Mr. Dick Proctor: What is the timetable for these housekeeping amendments?

Also, on this $100 million, the Merchant Navy Coalition for Equality says—and I'll just quote it:

The 1992 civilian merchant navy act was introduced in the House with a $100 million budget spread over five years.

You're saying there's no $100 million. So we have a major difference of opinion here, have we, on that?

Mr. Fred Mifflin: Well, I'll say it slightly differently, and I'll try not to be political about it. I'm not going to weasel-word. I wasn't involved in the funding at the time. I was just interested in having merchant navy veterans get the same as those in uniform.

I think one of the problems the government of the day had was exactly what the benefits would amount to, how many would apply, and precisely how these benefits would pan out. I wasn't privy to why x number of dollars was put in the budget. It isn't in the budget now, because veterans from the merchant navy are included with the other veterans, so there's a global figure for them.

Once again, I didn't question the budget of the day, because I had moved on to something else. I didn't stay with Veterans Affairs at the time, as critic. Mr. Proud took over.

To me, as Veterans Affairs now, there is no $100 million. The funding that veterans are getting, since there is no retrospectivity, and there certainly was never on the part of the committee, nor was there in the legislation.... The $100 million doesn't—I mean, it doesn't exist.

• 1645

I don't know what happened to it, Peter. It may have been there. I don't know that it was there. I'm not being funny. It's quite conceivable that there may have been more than was required, but don't forget the number of veterans at the time was very uncertain. I remember even the members of the government, once we got going on this, said let's get this through; let's get the bill through. We started in the fall, but not really seriously until February, if I got it right, and we had the bill passed by June 1992, I think it was.

Mr. Dick Proctor: What is the timetable on these housekeeping amendments you refer to?

Mr. Fred Mifflin: I don't mind telling you that I've seen the second draft to cabinet. There was a memorandum to cabinet shortly after I got back from commemorating the Korean veterans at Radar Hill on Saturday afternoon. We've made some further amendments to that, and I'm hoping to go forward as soon as possible, to get it into the legislative agenda. My goal is to have this before the summer recess. If I can do it any earlier, that would be great.

Of course, we look forward to all the members, government members and opposition members, giving us all their cooperation so that we won't have difficulties getting this bill through. I expect we should get it through in a week.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Proctor. I just want to congratulate you because you're the only one who is close to 10 minutes so far. All the other ones have gone way over.

Now we go to the leader of the Progressive Conservatives.

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

I would probably shock the minister if I didn't deal with merchant navy, so like my colleague, that's exactly what I am going to deal with.

With regard to that $100 million that was referred to, there was a press release on June 4, 1992. It referred to that $100 million budget, which was to be spread out over five years. It was later reduced to $88 million.

According to the merchant navy veterans, the DVA does not keep separate records of the wartime merchant navy vets who are receiving benefits. They only have estimates that a fraction of the money has been spent. So somewhere, I would say through your deputy or someone, they should be able to find out what happened to the $88 million. It went from $100 million down to $88 million, and that money definitely was put there for them.

Is the Department of Veterans Affairs Canada able to account for this $88 million? If not, why not? It must have gone somewhere.

A voice: General revenue.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: It better not have gone into general revenue, because it was supposed to be for them. That's according to the press release. That was there.

Also, my understanding is that the Merchant Navy Coalition met with Veterans Affairs Canada on May 6 and 7, 1997, on October 7, 1997, and on March 23, 1998 to discuss legislation and compensation. What I would like to know about the draft legislation you're referring to, the omnibus bill, is when this bill comes forward and we debate it in the House, and if it becomes legislation, will they then come under the War Veterans Allowance Act? Is that where they'll be?

Mr. David Nicholson (Deputy Minister, Department of Veterans Affairs): In existing legislation they're cross-referenced against the civilian or war-related War Veterans Allowance Act. Now they're coming in under the same legislation that covers uniformed veterans.

I would like to make a point on this. I would like to remind the committee that the Canadian veterans of the war in Korea came in under the legislation that the merchant navy are currently under. We've had no complaints that there's been a lack of service, benefits, or disability pensions for those veterans.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I'll say this, Mr. Minister. I had to go over and meet with the Department of Veterans Affairs in my riding because we had a large list of merchant navy veterans who were not receiving the benefits. We sat down and I had the representative from the merchant navy organization with me. On that list of names, the people who were not being treated equally were not from my riding.

In the end, after we left, it only took about a month and a half. I congratulate the people who work there, because they did take up the cause. I believe we were able to resolve six of the eight, but for some reason, before we went, they were not being treated in the same manner. Now, for whatever reason...only the merchant navy boys could tell you that.

• 1650

This is why they feel very strongly that there are restrictions. As you know—and I wrote to you, and I know a lot of them had to do with the situation prior to that—the veterans did receive special compensation when it came to training, education, and so forth that the merchant navy didn't, and rightfully so, I have to say. Of course, they are now looking for some kind of a settlement in that regard. But the merchant navy veterans have had access restricted to many of their programs over the past several years.

So I would say this to you. I am pleased that you are bringing in the omnibus bill. We hope they will be equal after that. I'm sure that if they don't feel that way, we're going to hear from them.

But is it true that your department...? I know they have made some improvements, but there are still several problems. One of those problems is with the veterans independence program, which seems to have some holes in it. An example would be the treatment of spouses. Now, if a veteran and a spouse have been in receipt of VIP services for a number of years and the veteran dies, the benefits will only be extended to the spouse for a period of one year.

Mr. Minister, this particular policy is indicative of a larger indifference at the Department of Veterans Affairs towards spouses and caregivers. There are caregivers, but the poor spouse is really a caregiver as well.

So the role of the spouses is not really recognized in any departmental policy, regardless of the immeasurable cash savings the department has and will realize because of their contribution.

I would like to get the minister's comments on this, Mr. Chairman, if I could.

Mr. Fred Mifflin: Well, Mr. Chairman, how long do I have, because the leader of the fifth party has introduced a lot of questions.

The Chairman: You have about three minutes, sir.

Mr. Fred Mifflin: I'll try not to repeat myself, but let me address the $100 million. I don't know where the $100 million came from. I would suggest that it was an estimate in the department, and where the $88 million comes from....

I have to tell you that the main concern of the committee, and I would expect of the government of the day, was to ensure that the merchant navy veterans finally would get the recognition for the tremendous and courageous part they played in the Battle of the Atlantic and other high-seas areas of combat to help give us the freedom we have today. That's the first point I'd like to make.

The second point I want to make is that whatever money was there was to address this principle. Okay?

The third point I want to make is with respect to veterans independence programs and spouses. I have to tell you that whether it's veterans independence programs, whether it's the allowance that veterans get, the more well-known allowance—although veterans independence programs are a pretty well-known allowance—they get the same benefits that a veteran has.

Now I want to address another item that really proves my point. Don't take my time off for this, Mr. Chairman, because I want to thank the honourable member for her great work on the part of veterans. I have to recognize that here. She genuinely means this. She was on a pilgrimage with some of us here, and she made the veterans feel much better just from her being there. I would have to give her that credit, and I want to thank her for it. After all, that makes the job of the minister, who's always on these pilgrimages and is pressured into a fast-time movement, and indeed the job of all the department officials, including the veterans.... It allows all of us to do our job better, and in so doing in fact makes it better for veterans. So I want to acknowledge that.

But I also want to acknowledge, Mrs. Wayne, that you and I have had frequent discussions on this subject. I have to ask you if you recall me saying in the Green Park in London, fine, if you have any names of merchant navy veterans who can show that they are not getting the same as a veteran in uniform, please provide us with them and we will make sure it is rectified.

• 1655

You've done exactly what I asked you to do, and I think that's wonderful. That's very much appreciated.

I guess the other point I would like to make is that the department feels awkward about this. Often the impression is created.... Look, veterans allowances are very complex: the percentage disability, whether you get attendant care, and how the veterans in the program.... I mean, it is not an easy subject to understand.

Quite frankly, I have great empathy and sympathy for and understanding of merchant navy veterans, like all veterans. But sometimes the impression is created that the Department of Veterans Affairs, which goes out of its way in its heart and soul and spirit to look after veterans, whether it's commemoration, whether it's a program, or whether it's giving them the benefit of the doubt.... The impression is created often in the public.... I've seen the exchanges, even in your own case, and I know that it wasn't intentional in your case. The impression is created that these veterans who helped save us and gave us freedom are not being treated fairly because they are not getting the same benefits that those in uniform have. Well, we all know that this is not true.

That is really the only thing that makes me feel very uncomfortable with respect to their treatment, what the department has done, my role and that of others, and my continuing role as veterans affairs minister. I have to understand that there will always be some measure of dissatisfaction with any program, and we see it in the media on a regular basis.

I had to put that in perspective, but the good things the department does, which, I would say, are pretty close to the 95% plus....

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to go on a little longer.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: If I could just close with this, I know I wrote to the minister on April 20. He acknowledged my letter. I listed the 40 restrictions. He's going to address all 40 restrictions. I haven't received that reply yet. I am waiting, and when I get that reply, then I'll be able to address whether or not they're totally equal.

I'm hoping that after the omnibus bill comes in, they will be totally equal in my eyes as well as in your eyes, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Fred Mifflin: Of course I can expect your support?

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: If they're totally equal, yes.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

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

We now go to the five-minute rounds.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoit.

[English]

Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good afternoon, Mr. Minister, Deputy Minister, and Ms. MacLean, who is Executive Director of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board.

Mr. Minister, I think in response to Mrs. Wayne's question you said if she is aware of a veteran who has a problem, she should provide you with the name and you'll deal with it. Is that—

Mr. Fred Mifflin: A merchant navy veteran who is not getting the same benefit as a veteran in uniform.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Okay. If another veteran who is recognized would come to me, if I were to write to you with this person's name, would you speak on behalf of that person with the veterans appeals board? For example, say there had been an appeal and we were at the stage of a final appeal with the veterans board.

Mr. Fred Mifflin: Thank you very much. As I mentioned, not once but twice, because I wanted to make sure everybody here understood my role, and notwithstanding anything else I might want to do in the department, I think we've seen examples where there has been difficulty caused with ministers interfering with quasi-judicial boards.

I have to be very careful in the sense that when the process starts and there is difficulty with the process, or success, whatever the case may be, any application to me has to be referred back to the Veterans Appeals and Review Board. I cannot get involved.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Your parliamentary secretary then would deal with that?

Mr. Fred Mifflin: No. You would get a letter back saying that if this is a result of the appeal process, I can't call Ms. MacLean and say, I want you to look at A, B or C, because the moment I do that she has to report me to the ethics commissioner and I lose my job.

Mr. Leon Benoit: You or your parliamentary secretary?

Mr. Fred Mifflin: Yes.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Okay, Mr. Mifflin, I'd just like to refer to a letter.

Mr. Fred Mifflin: And I don't want to lose my job.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I'd like to refer to a letter written by you, and it's on your letterhead as parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Defence and Veterans Affairs. This letter is actually written to the Newfoundland subregion of the Department of Veterans Affairs, a Mr. Walsh. In this letter you specifically ask for a decision to be overturned in the final stage of appeal, on behalf of a Mr. Harold Tucker of St. Jones, who is a constituent.

• 1700

In that letter you explain why this person, even though he was eight to 11 years old when serving on a ship with his father, should be eligible for a pension. You wrote that letter, Mr. Minister, when you were parliamentary secretary.

Mr. Fred Mifflin: Excuse me. I didn't write that to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board. I wrote that to the regional office. I didn't deal with the Veterans Review and Appeal Board.

Mr. Leon Benoit: You wrote it to the director, Newfoundland subregion.

Mr. Fred Mifflin: He is not a member of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board. He's not the executive director or the chairman or one of the 29 board members.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Well, then what I have here—and this was sent to us in a brown envelope—is an actual copy from the Veterans Review and Appeal Board of the appeal of Harold Tucker from V.J. Murphy, presiding member, and others. Under the basis of claim—and this is on that appeal, Mr. Minister—it says this:

On June 26, 1994, Mr. Tucker wrote to the Board indicating that he wished to appeal the Review Committee's decision. He states that his application was declined because he was “too young” to serve as a full-fledged crewmember but he believes that while serving as a cabin boy, he was in as much danger as any crewmember. In support of this appeal, Mr. Tucker provided a letter from Rear-Admiral Fred J. Mifflin, dated July 8, 1994, who writes that it was not uncommon for young children to work on cargo vessels with their fathers; and that the duties performed by young cabin boys may seem trivial to many but they were essential to a Captain and his crew.

What they're saying, Mr. Minister, in this document is that in fact as a result of your letter, the appeal was overturned. In fact if you look at the document, it says that in final stage the appeal was overturned, clearly as a result of the letter you wrote as parliamentary secretary.

The Chairman: He didn't write it to the....

Mr. Leon Benoit: But it was referred to in the decision given by the Veterans Review and Appeal Board—and I have the documents—that in fact that was the reason, specifically that was the reason this decision was overturned.

Mr. Minister, do you feel it was proper for you as parliamentary secretary to have written this letter?

Mr. Fred Mifflin: I wrote many letters as parliamentary secretary. I wrote many letters as a member of Parliament. I will always come to the defence of veterans. I did not write the Veterans Review and Appeal Board.

The reason we have an appeal process is so members of Parliament can take their considerations and go to bat for veterans, as we all do here, to veterans' organizations. This veteran was, I think, looking for a civilian war allowance for a coaster, which I think had been part of recent legislation. I wasn't aware of the details. I didn't know why the case was overturned. And I suspect you'd find many other letters, if you wanted to get your research department to dig enough.

I make no apologies for working on behalf of veterans, as I have done always, and I make no apology for writing for my veterans to help them. I did not—did not—write the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, I was not involved in the appeal process myself, and I challenge you to show that I did any wrong.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Well, Mr. Minister, I think for you to argue that that wasn't intervening is really stretching things.

Mr. Fred Mifflin: I think you're stretching things, quite frankly, because I didn't do anything wrong, and if you can prove it, I'll answer your charges.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Mr. Minister, if you look at the ethics commissioner, which has been set up by the Prime Minister, the basic principle is that ministers shall not intervene or appear to intervene on behalf of any person or entity with federal quasi-judicial tribunals.

Mr. Minister—

The Chairman: Excuse me. He didn't write to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board; he wrote to the district manager.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I understand.

The Chairman: And I presume that the letter was passed on.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Mr. Chairman, I'd like the minister to respond to this.

This letter was referred to in the judgment as the reason for overturning the judgment, Mr. Minister. Clearly your letter from when you were parliamentary secretary resulted in this decision being overturned. That's clear.

Mr. Fred Mifflin: How do you know that?

Mr. Leon Benoit: It says right on here. It refers to it in the actual appeals document. It says under the basis of claim that the reason they're overturning is your letter. That's the reason, and that's the only reason.

• 1705

Mr. Fred Mifflin: I'm sure you don't want to spend too much time on this, Mr. Chair.

I don't concern myself with why the Veterans' Review and Appeal Board overturns anything. They take all the evidence they can find, but from my understanding of how the board works, they go back and examine the documents and the person. I'd like to show you the number of letters I sent where nothing happened. If you are saying that any member of Parliament wouldn't do everything within the legal system to assist veterans, then I think you are not representing veterans to the best of your ability.

The Chairman: Just a minute, Mr. Benoit. Your five minutes—

Mr. Leon Benoit: I would just ask the minister to table a document, if you don't mind.

The Chairman: Your five minutes has passed. You can come back with a question later.

Mr. Pratt.

Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, Mr. Minister. It's good to see you hear.

Mr. Fred Mifflin: Thank you, Mr. Pratt.

Mr. David Pratt: I'd like to ask you about the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and how it operates. One of my constituents has been associated with that organization in the past. One of the concerns he brought to my attention was the fact that Canada pays a significant amount of money to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission to look after the graves of Canadian soldiers in many parts of the world, and that rather than us giving that money to the commission, perhaps the Canadian government should put those services out to tender to see if we could get better value for our money. Do you have any comments on that?

Mr. Fred Mifflin: Yes. This is not the first time this has come up. I won't waste the committee's time by going through the number of commonwealth war graves. We spend roughly $6.6 million a year, if I remember correctly.

On one of the three pilgrimages I've undertaken so far, I had an opportunity to meet with the organization in Maidenhead, with Air Chief Marshall Joe Gilbert. I had most of the day with him, along with my deputy and other members of the pilgrimage—the departmental officials. Somebody asked the same question before: could we do a better job if we invested our money in a different manner?

Have you been on a pilgrimage?

Mr. David Pratt: No, I have not.

A voice: Well, you should go on one.

Mr. Fred Mifflin: We have to be careful what parliamentary secretaries do these days.

David, I hope you will get a chance to go on a pilgrimage with me before long.

Regrettably, most Canadians have no concept of the sacredness, the memorial attitude, and the chill that goes up your spine when you see the loving care the Commonwealth War Graves Commission takes with the graves of our dead that have been killed overseas. Some just etch the names of those whose bodies can't be found.

On the pilgrimages that I've attended—Mr. Nicholson has attended perhaps more than we could count in his day.... I think I can speak for the whole department in saying that the genuine feeling—that is the best word I can find—the commission puts into our war dead, whether in Korea, Japan, London, Belgium, Beaumont Hamel, although Beaumont Hamel is not a war grave....

I have thought about this and we discussed it with Air Chief Marshall Gilbert, but I think it's one of the best investments we have ever made. I don't see how we can come close to doing it for triple or quadruple the sum.

Maybe someday we'll be able to put it on our web sites, our Canada Remembers, and our children's education programs, because there's nothing more solemn than to be standing at the war graves of these young Canadians, some of them 18, 19, 20 years of age, who lay beneath you with a little tiny cross that says this soldier, sailor or airman gave up his life for the freedom of his country. It is very simple, very austere, and very effective.

• 1710

Mr. David Pratt: My other question relates to some of the educational material produced by the department. I have heard comments from individual writers who are attempting to get works published in relation to the First and Second World Wars, or the Korean War, that the department is competing with them. They are trying to do this as a private sector venture, and they have no way of competing with the resources the department has. Is there a better way to work with individual writers and publishers who may be in that business so that we're not going head to head with these people in terms of producing educational material about Canada's contribution in the First and Second World War and the Korean War?

Mr. Fred Mifflin: I don't think we go head to head with them. In some cases we subcontract to them in a small way, but the bulk of the work is basically done by the department. The Canada Remembers series was certainly done in-house, but we had some help from the outside.

The material that I just referred to, “Canada Comes of Age 1939-1945”, was produced by Len Dent, who was finished and was in his last year in the department. He has gone out and will probably be involved in these kinds of things in the future. I'm not singling him out; I'm just saying there are people who have been in the department, who are aware of these, who we sometimes call in to assist us. I am very proud—we don't want to do anybody out of work—that we have the ability to do this in our own department.

Having said that, we have already looked at two or three projects that have been given to us by individuals. Most of them have been millennium projects, I think, and some of them have been ambitious. Some of them have given us ideas that we may want to pursue. But to my knowledge we do not have a policy that says we won't consult with smaller companies, or maybe big companies. Like other departments, we try to do as much as we can on our own. At this time we have the staff to do it, we're geared to do it, and it's part of our mandate.

Mr. David Pratt: Have you perhaps looked at a granting process in cooperation with Heritage Canada where these sorts of projects that are aimed at commemorating Canada's wartime contributions could be funded in a small but meaningful way?

Mr. Fred Mifflin: Yes, we look at them and sometimes they occur, but—and I'm not being facetious here—if I can use in-house services, I try to keep the money in Veterans Affairs for the benefit of veterans. I don't know what my deputy would say, but I'm very fussy when somebody says we're going to spend money somewhere else. My first question is, what does that do to veterans' benefits? Are we going to have to cut back a little bit? So that would be my concern.

Mr. David Pratt: I wouldn't suggest that for a second.

Mr. Fred Mifflin: No, and as I say I'm not being facetious, but that would be my concern. If we can do it in-house, I like to do it in-house.

Mr. David Pratt: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mrs. Wayne.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Thank you very much.

I would like to make one comment before I ask a question. If you have an opportunity to go on one of the trips, I think you should go. I had the opportunity to go to Dieppe, as did the chairman, and it was one of the greatest learning experiences of my life. To see the cadets that came—and I hope you're always going to take the cadets, because it was wonderful for them as well. Young cadets back home, the little girl who was there—the minister invited us to a dinner so that she could tell her story about Dieppe.

My question is with regard to the Last Post Fund. A lot of our veterans have been having a difficult time because the program is only available now to those persons with a combined income ceiling of under $12,000. A lot of them can't afford to bury their spouses. It's been very difficult. Perhaps you could look at increasing that back to $24,000 as the combined income. It would make it easier.

• 1715

My other question is about the east-west veterans memorial building. We understand there are renovations going on there and they're looking at taking off the word “veterans” and just putting “memorial building” there. I didn't know if you were aware of that. I see your deputy is shaking his head that he isn't, but that has come up, and we would like very much to see the word “veterans” remain there in the east-west veterans memorial building.

Could you just tell me a little something about whether we're doing anything for the Gulf War vets who have Gulf War syndrome? Are we able to do anything for them?

Mr. Fred Mifflin: How many minutes did you say we had?

Let me talk about the Last Post Fund. My staff always have these little notes to give me, but I happen to know the Last Post Fund. I think most members of Parliament are involved in one way or another. Quite often we get requests, but sometimes we can't do as much as we would like to do. As you're aware, we spend around $16.4 million on that, if I remember correctly. I don't have a good head for figures. Up to now, what we have done is we have been involved ourselves and we've split that with the Last Post Fund. We've taken some responsibility.

I wouldn't say they were the organization of last resort because they're not. In both cases we do a means test. I don't think it's important for me to say what the means test is, but there is a means test.

My concern, whether it's the Last Post Fund or whether it is funding from the department, is that no veteran will go without a dignified burial because of lack of money. That's my concern. In fact, to help that out we have agreed with the Last Post Fund that they will manage our money. There will be one point of contact. Quite often I have found confusion about who looks after this and why it isn't being done by one organization. I think this will go a long way to improve the effectiveness of the organization.

As you know, the funding has been changed, but not that greatly. If I can be shown, again, that there is a requirement for the principle of a dignified funeral for any veteran, then I'd be quite prepared to have a look at it.

On the Gulf War syndrome, very quickly, I have numbers and figures to give you, but in principle we're concerned about all veterans. You know, Mrs. Wayne, that Gulf War syndrome hasn't been universally recognized as a condition. We have somewhere in the vicinity of 245 Gulf War veterans who have come to see us and and the Department of National Defence, and there's a committee on which we have a member. We don't say look, we don't think you have Gulf War syndrome. We take each case individually, and of those 245, a large percentage of them have been granted pensions. Some have not been granted...I think 19 or 20 have been withdrawn.

We look at a Gulf War veteran, a member returning from the Gulf War, as we would any veteran to see what is their condition. If there is a condition, we will certainly address it.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Are you going to look after the building?

Mr. Fred Mifflin: I think you surprised us. Could you tell me which building this is? Is it our old office?

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Yes, the east-west veterans memorial building on Wellington Street.

Mr. Fred Mifflin: I know that as the leader of the fifth party you wouldn't want to divulge your information, but could you tell me where you got this information from?

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: We got this before at a meeting we were at. It came up at the last meeting we were at, where the veterans were speaking. We had representatives there. With regard to the memorial building we have for our veterans now, they were going to make changes there and they were going to change it all over, including the veterans' museum, the War Museum. This came up at that time, when those discussions came up. They said this was going to happen also and they wanted steps taken to prevent this from happening. The presentation was made at that time.

Mr. Fred Mifflin: I thank you for bringing it to our attention. We'll certainly make some discreet inquiries.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Okay, thank you very much.

The Chairman: Mr. Clouthier.

• 1720

Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'm absolutely delighted that the minister is here today.

Minister, I have in my riding a veteran who I guess, if you wanted to take the toughest drill sergeant the army has ever seen, would make the sergeant look like a boy scout. Apparently he was after the member before me, who had been there for 30-some years...railing against the veterans for years and years. He has nothing but effusive praise for the way you've handled this ministry since you've taken over, and I must say I concur with him.

I know the leader of the Conservative Party asked questions of you, 40 questions, and I believe it was April 20. She'll probably get her answers in a couple of days, because I do know whenever I direct questions to your ministry...very prompt and very efficient, and I thank you very much for that.

Having said all that, Mr. Minister, some of the veterans in my riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, which encompasses base Petawawa—and I have a large contingency of veterans—seem to be concerned a bit with the Perley Hospital. I know earlier in your statements you indicated that you would like to talk a bit more about the Perley Hospital. I guess in particular they're concerned about the funding not being quite the way it was, and I tried to explain to them that funding cutbacks seemed to be the way of the day, not only in the military but throughout the entire governmental system.

If you could, I'd like you to bring me up to speed so I can inform them with a little greater clarity on the future of the Perley Hospital. Some of them are afraid that it's going to shut down, and I don't believe that is the case. I know some of them visited there, and I know it's a tremendous hospital; we had a visit a couple of weeks ago. I'd just like you to elucidate a bit on the Perley Hospital, if you don't mind.

Mr. Fred Mifflin: Thank you very much, and again I thank the committee for visiting. Veterans always love to see...whether it's a committee or a minister or departmental officials.

Before I talk about Perley, and I know we don't have much time, we have in place a regular audit system, where either trained nurses, members of the staff, or the regional director...there is an ongoing concern. Always in hospitals there are committees, and we have veterans on most. Some we don't, and we're always in the process of changing that.

In the case of Perley, as you probably know, we have 250 priority access beds. What you're involved in here is regrettably, if not a misunderstanding—and I have to be very careful because this is a court case. I can't comment on that, but because there is a court case obviously there is some concern.

What may not be well known to the committee, Mr. Chairman, is that the Perley was built some time ago and then rejuvenated and modernized. In the process the designation was changed from being under the Public Hospitals Act to the Charitable Institutions Act. That itself I think was cause for concern to some veterans. The associated reduction in the level of funding was I think $185 per diem to $130 or $140.

The funding had gone down over time. I have to be very careful here, particularly in view of some of the questions from the committee. That is related to the funding. Whether it will be restored or whether there will be a change in funding, I'm not at liberty to say right now. As you know, we are not involved; we stayed away from the action.

I have to tell you that we have an action plan to address these items; I think it's a nine- or ten-point action plan. If you're interested we can give you the plan, because veterans' care, whether it's in Perley, Colonel Belcher Hospital, in Burnaby, British Columbia, or indeed in St. John's, Newfoundland, is a major concern to us.

There are items I think we're going to have to address. The level of care is still good; if it weren't, we would be doing a lot more than we're doing. We're going to monitor this court case and see what the result is.

Perley is a special hospital, because it's in the national capital area. The veterans there often see VIPs, and they have an opportunity to express their concerns. I gather their general feeling is that they appreciate the care and it is good, as I think Mr. Goldring said, but I go on the principle that we don't have anything that can't be improved.

I have been briefed particularly on this hospital, and on some others as well that have come up. We have around 4,000 veterans in 77 priority access beds, including those in Sainte-Anne's Hospital. This is one that we have on the radar screen, and we're going to keep it there for a while.

• 1725

Perhaps I can leave it at that. I think you understand what I mean.

Mr. Hec Clouthier: My next question is very short.

I guess it's out of self-interest and it's a request, Mr. Minister. I did notice that you said to the member to my left that perhaps you would want to take him on a pilgrimage. Far be it for me to box in the minister, but I humbly and respectfully request that I go along also. We can leave Proud at home, because that sanctimonious attitude hasn't seemed to transcend to George.

We don't have to get a response to that one from Mr. Pratt immediately.

Mr. Fred Mifflin: Mr. Chairman, I think I would be out of order if I responded to either the first part of his comment or the second part.

The Chairman: We now go to the last questioner, Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Benoit, I just want to remind you that if you're going in this, I hope you're not going in the same line of questioning as before. I wouldn't want you to be imputing motives or casting aspersions on the witnesses.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I'll just ask questions, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Leon Benoit: My first question, Mr. Minister, is with regard to the issue I dealt with before.

What was the purpose of writing this letter, and other letters it sounds like, to the Newfoundland subregion of the Department of Veterans Affairs? What was the purpose—

Mr. David Pratt: On a point of order, we're dealing with the estimates here; we're not dealing with a personal attack on the minister or something the minister did while he was parliamentary secretary. I think that's completely out of order. We should be dealing with the estimates.

The Chairman: I agree. I would ask that your next question deal with the estimates, Mr. Benoit, please.

Mr. Leon Benoit: As you know, Mr. Chair, when the minister is before the committee, members are free to ask questions on any issue they want to ask questions on. That's generally accepted.

Mr. Hec Clouthier: On a point of order, Mr. Chair, whenever the member opposite is going to make what I believe is flagrant accusations against the witness, I believe the other members of the committee should be privy to what he is reading from. He should give us proper notification of what he is reading from. Far too often they've sat at the table opposite and said, “I've got this here and you've said this.”

I personally believe, Mr. Chair, on a point of order, that it is only right and reasonable that all members of this committee have in their possession the letter, so we can review it.

Mr. Fred Mifflin: Mr. Chairman, if you rule it out of order, of course I won't be able to answer, but I'm comfortable answering it.

Mr. David Pratt: Mr. Chair, I think we have rules in the House of Commons for a reason, and the committees are subject to those rules. Yes, a minister is responsible for responding on any aspect of his departmental responsibilities.

The question Mr. Benoit raised has nothing to do with Mr. Mifflin's responsibilities as minister. It dates to a period before he was minister. Again I would insist that from the standpoint of order, we stick to the estimates and departmental activities.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Why don't the members of the Liberal Party just ask their minister to table these documents? They can get all the answers they want.

Meanwhile, Mr. Minister, if you wouldn't mind—

The Chairman: Really quickly, Mr. Benoit. I will allow one short question and one short answer from the minister.

Mr. Leon Benoit: The other members should not be allowed to cut into my five minutes of time, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Well, you're using up your time—

Mr. Leon Benoit: But they've been using up my time.

The Chairman: Mr. Benoit, you've got roughly two minutes.

Mr. Leon Benoit: What was the purpose, Mr. Minister, of writing this letter? It sounds like you've written many others. What was the purpose?

Mr. Fred Mifflin: Is the question out of order? I wasn't sure what the ruling was on it.

Mr. Leon Benoit: You say—

The Chairman: Mr. Benoit, please.

I did rule that he could ask it, Mr. Minister, if you would like to respond.

Mr. Fred Mifflin: I already responded, and I'll respond another time. My goal then, as now, is to help veterans in any way, shape, or form that I can within the legalities and the vicissitudes of the system.

Mr. Leon Benoit: You say in this letter, “I feel that he should be granted his request for a veterans' allowance.” You're specifically asking that this request be granted, even though the appeal board would not grant it, Mr. Minister. Do you feel that's proper?

And when you—

The Chairman: Mr. Benoit, I will not allow that line of questioning.

It is now 5.30 p.m. I want to thank you, Mr. Minister, for coming before us. Thank you very much.

Mr. Fred Mifflin: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the members, Mr. Chairman, for fair questions and those questions that bring out in all of us the real need for veterans. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

The meeting is adjourned to the call of the chair.