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]

Tuesday, November 24, 1998

• 1529

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.)): I'd like to call to order this meeting of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs.

Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.

The Chairman: All right, Mr. Wood.

Mr. Bob Wood: Just before we start, I know there's a lot of speculation and rumour, Mr. Chair, as to whether the members of the Canadian Merchant Navy Veterans Association will be appearing before this committee. As you know, the meeting for Thursday was cancelled, then rescheduled.

We believe it is important that these men have the opportunity to present their case to this committee as soon as possible. I would just like to say that thanks to the hard work of our clerk and the chair, and with the valuable assistance of Mr. Chadderton, who's our witness today, we've been able to clear the schedule to allow those merchant mariners to appear Thursday morning, and they have been informally invited to do so.

Obviously, I hope everyone will be able to attend the 9 a.m. meeting.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Wood.

• 1530

Is it agreeable to everybody that we would hear them at our normal time on Thursday, 9 a.m.?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Just on the cancellation, if I might, that was actually an error. Minister Fry cancelled her appearance, but there was no intention to cancel the meeting in its totality.

So there was an error there, and we apologize if that caused any confusion for the members.

Mr. Goldring, on a point of order.

Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Because of the changes, we had made application before on the request of Mr. Bill Riddell, president of the Merchant Navy Association, to appear before the committee.

Has consideration to his appearance been given? I have a confirming letter here, too.

The Chairman: From him?

Mr. Peter Goldring: From my own office on his behalf, on his request.

The Chairman: Well, I heard that Mr. Riddell wanted to appear. I spoke with him, as you did, after the last time we met, when he was here in attendance. He indicated he was going to forward some information to me. I'm not in receipt of anything yet, and, I assumed at that time, a request from himself.

A member may suggest a witness, but normally it's proper for the witness to make that request themselves, too.

But I don't have any problem in hearing Mr. Riddell. Has anybody—

Just for future reference for the members, you can suggest a witness, but it's still best if they themselves confirm that they wish to appear.

Mr. Peter Goldring: This letter I have here is on request of Mr. Bill Riddell, for me to ask. This had been sent over to—

The Chairman: Is this the letter here, Peter?

Mr. Peter Goldring: Yes.

The Chairman: What I'm saying is that he should really forward to the clerk his own request to appear.

That's just for future reference. I'm prepared to hear him.

Any comments?

Mr. Bob Wood: Maybe we should set some timelines.

If we're talking, Peter, with the merchant mariners, how much time are we going to give them, and then how much time are we going to give Mr. Riddell? I think it would probably be a lot better that way.

The Chairman: I would suggest we could allow Mr. Riddell five or ten minutes after the merchant mariners.

Mr. Bob Wood: Or more, if you want.

The Chairman: If there's more.

Mr. Peter Goldring: He's part of the group. I think that would be appropriate.

Mr. Bob Wood: Come on after the merchant mariners?

Mr. Peter Goldring: I would think so.

The Chairman: If the committee is agreeable, that's fine.

Just so we're clear, though, for future meetings, if you have someone you'd like to see appear, please ask that person to sign that to us themselves, because then we know for sure there's no confusion.

Mrs. Wayne.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Chairman, could someone just explain who Mr. Riddell is?

The Chairman: Mr. Riddell is a former merchant mariner himself, who is—

Mr. Peter Goldring: President of the Merchant Navy Association.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Past president?

The Chairman: You have a point of order, Mr. Laurin.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I would ask our colleagues to ensure that their microphones are turned on and correctly positioned when they speak. The interpreters often tell us that if we are not very careful in this regard, our statements may be inaudible. I would greatly appreciate your cooperation in this regard.

[English]

The Chairman: That's quite right.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Mr. Chairman, may I finish?

The Chairman: What also helps—and we're normally quite good—is if you keep your comments through the chair. Not only is it proper but it also allows just that little time lag for the translators.

Mrs. Wayne, would you like to continue?

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Yes; I didn't finish.

You have the president of the Merchant Navy Association coming in, along with Mr. Chadderton, who's coming in, and other veterans as well. I'm wondering why all three aren't making their presentation. It is the merchant navy president, who's been duly elected, who is coming in here to speak to you, with Mr. Chadderton. Okay? They are the ones we are to hear from, because we've heard from the coalition before.

The Chairman: Fair enough.

Of course, this is a committee of the House of Commons of the Parliament of Canada, and any Canadian citizen has the right to request to appear on any subject matter under our purview. So the request I view as legitimate, other than, I know— and I accept, Mr. Goldring; I will set that aside, but in future I want requests to come from the witnesses themselves, please.

I know Mr. Riddell does want to speak. I thought he was going to send some information and a request, but if the committee is agreeable, we'll add him to the meeting Thursday.

Is there any more discussion on that? Do members agree?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Mr. Bertrand.

• 1535

Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): I was just wondering if we will have time to—

The Chairman: Yes, that's right.

I'd like to tell members that we have a very important video, which is going to be aired nationally in the next few days, on post-traumatic stress. I think it would be very useful if this committee had an opportunity to see it.

I'm going to ask the committee if we can wrap up this discussion by 4.45 p.m. That gives our witnesses lots of time, gives us lots of time for questions, and allows us to see this video before we have to go and vote in the House.

Can we work to that time line? All right? Agreeable?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Chadderton, fellow witnesses, you know the drill here. Sometimes people go on and on, and then the committee doesn't have time for questions. With no offence intended, often one of the more valuable parts of the discussion is where we get a chance to probe a bit.

If you would bear that in mind, we'd appreciate it.

Welcome here today.

Mr. Clifford Chadderton (Chairman, National Council of Veteran Associations in Canada): Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen,

[Translation]

It gives me great pleasure to participate in your committee's deliberations.

[English]

I will introduce my fellow witnesses. Faye Lavell is the chief service officer for the National Council of Veteran Associations, and Brian Forbes is the solicitor for our association.

By way of a couple of opening comments, we have filed a number of documents with the secretariat of the committee. Of course, we don't intend to read them, but in my experience in this matter, which perhaps goes back over fifty years, plus or minus—this is my 67th appearance before a parliamentary committee—I have found in all those years that's it's not a bad idea to put everything you want to put down on paper, file it with the secretariat, and then when you meet with the committee, highlight.

Having said that, I would like to read the opening statement. That's the only one I will read, because it's sort of a wake-up call. It's really to let you know what we're all about.

We have been involved in this study for six months, and we've come to a rather interesting conclusion. The Canadian government requires a new, comprehensive program to meet the post-discharge problems of Canadian peacekeepers. In our 57-page submission forwarded to the secretariat of the House of Commons committee on national defence and veterans affairs on July 15, 1998, the 35-member National Council of Veteran Associations concluded that the mixed bag of current provisions represented an inadequate policy to assist released members of the Canadian Forces.

Our brief recounts the extensive peacekeeping operations of the Canadian Forces during the past 40 years, noting that Canada has been asked to play a role in supervising truce agreements since 1949 in some 53 countries, many of them in the Third World. In these missions, Canadians, often unarmed, were placed between extremely hostile forces who placed little value on human life. The inherent dangers, although on a much smaller scale, were no different from those faced in the many theatres of war in World War II and Korea.

I might add, Mr. Chairman, that I've seen the film the committee is going to see. My comment, when I saw it, was that after four months of combat in World War II, I never did see anything that bad. That will give you some idea of what we're getting at.

It is suggested that the Department of National Defence has done an extremely poor job of informing the public of the war-like circumstances in the areas occupied by our troops. This probably contributed to a lack of public sympathy in regard to the needs of these service men and women on discharge. It would appear as well that the senior officers responsible for policy have, until recently, given little thought to the needs of released members.

We draw the attention of the committee to the in-depth overview in our major submission to the re-establishment program for World War II veterans. We see no logical reason why a similar program should not be put in place for the current Canadian Forces.

• 1540

This is particularly important if Canada is expecting its current peacekeepers to uphold this country's reputation in maintaining the principles of human rights and peace stability. These principles were established partly in the Declaration of Human Rights, whose authorship is attributed to the late John Humphrey of McGill University.

I mention that because he was an honorary member—and an amputee—of our association. It should be a further concern that attention was drawn to Canada in regard to these initiatives when the former Prime Minister, Mr. Lester Pearson, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

We make no apology for the somewhat harsh criticism regarding the failure of the existing Pension Act in respect of its requirement to provide compensation where members of the Canadian Forces have sustained disabilities related to their service in the armed forces. This is a subject that has been studied by a number of government commissions and task forces, including the exhaustive examination by the committee that studied the organization and work of the Canada Pension Commission for three years, 1965 to 1968.

The author of this submission—that's me—was the executive director of this study, which was headed by the late Mr. Justice Mervyn Woods of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, a veteran of World War II. Other members were the Hon. Walter Lindal, retired judge of the County Court of Manitoba and a veteran of the First World War, and Colonel Gerard A.M. Nantel of the Judge Advocate General's branch and a veteran of World War II.

It seems essential to state that the legislation providing pension coverage for members of Canada's peacetime forces was enacted in 1924 to govern an extremely small permanent force. This legislation is totally inadequate to meet the much-expanded requirements of today's armed forces.

The major example is the failure of the current legislation to recognize that a member of the forces is on duty 24 hours a day. Being on duty is not a consideration in adjudication of pension claims.

Such adjudication is based on two premises. First, if death, injury or disease is incurred in the special duty area—for example, the Persian Gulf—the widow or member is entitled to the insurance principle that provides pension regardless of the circumstances involved.

If, on the other hand, the death, injury or disease did not occur in a special duty area, the successful claimant must pass the test that the incident arose out of, and was directly connected with, service. This is a difficult test.

The restriction that extends the insurance principle only to special duty areas is badly outdated, bearing in the mind in particular the contribution of members of the armed forces to such recent domestic crises as the Oka confrontation, the 1998 ice storms and the Manitoba flood.

Little or no attention seems to have been paid to the plight of the long-service members of the forces—for example, ten years or more—who are released from the armed forces. This problem is exacerbated by the current universality policy, which demands that a member of the forces be able to meet physical standards consistent with combat readiness, or be retired.

The comparison must necessarily be made between those released after lengthy and exemplary service in the armed forces and a person released by a civilian employer.

In the case of the former, there appears to be literally no provision by statute that would assist in obtaining new employment. The provincial Employment Standards Act, together with precedent cases in the court concerning wrongful dismissal, provide adequate provision for a transition until new employment can be found for those released by civilian employers.

We recognize as well the dilemma of those who have given excellent service in Canada's military in peacetime to the accepted use of the designation “veteran”. Immediately following World Wars I and II and Korea, “veteran” carried with it a recognizable connotation, which assisted in the return to civilian life.

On the other hand, we fully understand the concern of those who have given long service or who have been disabled in the peacetime forces and who are not entitled to use the term “veteran”. The title of “peacekeeper” does not, in our view, carry with it the same perception as “veteran”.

• 1545

We believe, therefore, the time has come to include those with long and/or exemplary service, whether in special duty areas—and there we're suggesting that special duty areas should include hazardous duties in Canada as well—or in Canada, to be entitled to the honoured classification of “veteran”.

That's just an opening statement, Mr. Chair. I also want to pay tribute to the committee with regard to your first report. This will not be long.

This is called, “Supplementary Introduction”, with your title, “Moving Forward”, as the subtitle. Again, I'm not going to read this, but I'm going to make reference to it.

My colleagues and I studied your report at length. We are going to comment only on the part of that report that deals with post-discharge problems.

Our first comment is that there seems to be a gross misconception among CF personnel concerning the amount of compensation payable under the Pension Act. I say that because so much time was taken to decide whether these people could qualify under the Pension Act. I point out that the average assessment today of people coming out of the forces in peacetime is only 20%, which would get them $343 a month. That is not going to solve their post-discharge problems.

The second point is that there is so much misconception between the difference between subsections 21(1) and (2) in the Pension Act. I'll just explain that, because it's going to come up again and again.

Subsection 21(1) is the special duty area. That's the insurance principle. The guy could fall off a bicycle while he's on the way to a downtown establishment, but if he's in the Gulf area, he's covered. On the other hand, the man could be in, let's say, the Manitoba flood, staying with a civilian. He could come out the front door, trip, break a leg, and he is not covered. That would not be considered arising out of, or directly related to, service.

That, I think, is one of the big issues that was explored in your first report, but I am suggesting that we should really revise it or go a lot further.

I think I will leave the rest of this. We elaborate on it.

I did want to compliment your committee, Mr. Chairman, because I realize how much work was done.

I mentioned earlier I had been involved in this work for fifty years. For seventeen of those years I was the director of the Canadian army financial welfare program, so I don't think many people can tell me very much about the terrible circumstances under which the members at the lower ranks of the Canadian Armed Forces lived. Your committee is the first time, in my experience, that anybody ever looked at what was happening with these people in permanent married quarters, or these people who lived on the economy outside of Gagetown, and I for one am very pleased that your committee looked at that. It is an excellent report.

I filed with the committee last July a 58-page report. Some of your researchers have had this report, so I'm naturally not going to go into it, but I did for today prepare what I'm calling a “revised synopsis”. I think if we use this as a document of discussion, we can get right to the essential problems we're facing.

On page 1 I've simply listed those organizations that belong to the national council, for whom I am speaking. Some of you are members of some of these associations—for example, air force, nurses, fighter pilots, prisoners of war. They're all under this national council that I happen to be the chairman of, and I have the privilege of speaking to them.

• 1550

I'm now on page 2 of this synopsis.

First, as I've said, I commend to the committee a study of this 57-page document. A lot of people have had it on a kind of ad hoc basis, and they've told me that this is darn good reading. They told me there's a lot stuff in here about what's going on in the CF today that should be public knowledge. It should be the basis of your discussions.

Second, I am making reference to the re-establishment program for World War II veterans, because frankly, I see very little difference. I have listed on page 2 some of the things.

When we came out of the service in World War II, there was a complete vocational or professional program available. If you could meet the requirements, you could be a plumber, you could be a doctor—you name it.

There was reinstatement in civil employment, which meant that the man had to get his job back if he had one before the war, and at a rate that he would have achieved.

There was pension for injury, death or disease.

There was something called the assistance fund, which was kind of a slush fund. A guy could walk into DVA, he could be in trouble, they could issue him a cheque for $25 and say, “Come on back”. A war veterans' allowance was also available for him if he could not retain and maintain employment.

They had what was called “out of work” benefits. I want to talk about employment insurance and the lack of it. We didn't have UIC in those days, but they did have out-of-work benefits for a whole year.

They had training on the job, which was a wonderful program, because employers could get help from the government, take a veteran on, and give him some training. At the end of that, if he was any good, the employer would keep him.

Of course, they had complete medical treatment.

There were business and professional loans. That meant that a lot of people who wanted to start a small cornerstore could do it.

There was the re-establishment on the farm or small holding, called the Veterans Land Act.

There were re-establishment grants, which meant that if you had a re-establishment idea in mind, you could go to DVA and, within limits, depending on how much service you had, that could be covered.

As well, there were re-establishment credits that depended on length of service.

I'm simply saying that this is what was available for those who served in World War II. I see very little reason why we should not fashion a program that is going to help those who are discharged from the Canadian Forces today—assuming we all agree that these people are doing a tremendous job.

I mean, I can't even imagine what it's like to be sent to four different countries in two years. You leave your wife and children at home, and all these types of things.

So that is the basis, really, of what we're putting up to you.

This is coupled with what I consider the draconian universality policy, but we have to live with it. And I think you know what that means. It means that in the Canadian Forces today, if the member cannot meet the requirements for combat readiness, then that person will be discharged. That, with the fact that we have no discharge program available for them, is causing just tremendous problems.

The following points should be made about what our members do in the CF. Now, I know you've studied, from the people you've had before you, what their situation is, if they're in married quarters or what have you, but I didn't see anything about a complete review of what they've been doing.

I've been studying it. I'm a patron of the Conference of Defence Associations, all of the organizations, so I'm quite aware, and I think in a position to bring it out.

First—and I don't think the public knows this—the Canadian Forces, when they're on these missions, are required to protect civilians. We didn't have to do that in World War II. That is part of their job.

They're supposed to supervise a truce between two warring factions.

Three, they're required to operate where there's an avoidance of creating political incidents. Imagine saying to a corporal, with maybe a grade nine education, that they'd better be careful, because if they don't do their job, and they make the party they're supposed to be protecting mad, or the party on the other side, it's going to be the whole United Nations, and that type of thing.

• 1555

We have placed a terrible imposition, if you like, on these troops, right down to the rank of corporal or private.

The next point is that these people are dispatched in foreign service and they are not prepared. Those of you who have had combat service, or near it, will understand what I'm getting at.

In World War II, we knew that eventually we were going to have to fight. For a lot of these people who join, and who say, yes, I want to join the armed forces, their ideas are very sound, but are they ever really prepared for what you will see if you see this film this afternoon? Ask yourself that.

I don't know if there's any kind of preparation for the circumstances where a young, 18-year-old kid is standing there on the sidewalk, and along comes a Hutu who slices off the head of a Tutsi who's three years of age. I'm being dramatic, but that's what we're up against, having to view this genocide.

There seems to be—and I'm concluding here—a hesitancy on the part of the government to accept the fact that peacekeeping operations are war related, and I don't know why. I mean, I was in a war. I'm not jealous of the fact that a guy who served after World War II should be considered as war related. I have a case of a man in the Gaza Strip who lost his leg. I fought for five years to get DVA to give him a veterans independence program; they said it was not war related. So there's a hesitancy there.

I'm getting to a synopsis of some of the recommendations. I'll give them as quickly as I can.

The Pension Act, which is currently intended to cover service in a theatre of war, or injuries in training, should be amended to provide pension for any injury, illness or death incurred on duty, and that members be considered as on duty 24 hours a day. Special duty areas, as we understand them—that's outside of Canada—should be expanded to include service in any situation where the member's health is in danger.

Two, where a pension is granted to a member of the peacetime forces, it should be put into payment immediately, regardless of whether the pension was incurred in a special duty area.

Yesterday afternoon I spoke to the Signal establishment out here in Leitrim, five miles from here. I met a man who had lost his fingers in the Hercules accident in Alert. He has been awarded a war disability pension, but he cannot claim it until he gets his discharge from the armed forces. That doesn't make any sense to me. I think it's something your committee has to look at.

Three, where a pension is awarded, but justification is not present due to misconduct, the award should be denied except that pension be paid to the dependants on a compassionate basis.

For example, a soldier may take a military vehicle for unauthorized use. He cracks it up against a telephone pole, he sustains a serious injury, and he's discharged. He should be allowed to apply for pension. That pension, if it's considered as being on duty, etc., or if it's considered as reasonable, can be paid, but it can be then set aside under the misconduct provisions of the act.

But what are we going to do for the dependants? That's the important point. That's something that in the present act has to be tied down.

I don't want to mention the Matchee case, the fellow who hung himself, but that's really what it's all about. I mean, sure, he hung himself; there was misconduct involved, probably; but he has a wife and children. Should they be penalized or should they not, considering that what he did was in the special duty area?

Five, employment insurance benefits should be available. I still have problems trying to explain to my friends that a member of the Canadian Forces today—and I talked to a sergeant yesterday—pays $75 a month in employment insurance coverage deductions. Yet when that man is discharged from the regular force of the Canadian Forces, he will not be able to draw unemployment insurance until he secures a job and is in the job for either six months or a year, depending on the circumstances.

• 1600

How can we justify taking $75 a month out of the pay of a corporal in the armed forces for unemployment insurance, and then say to him, when he's out of the forces and no longer has a job, “Sorry, but you can't claim that”? That's one of the real injustices in the post-discharge situation of our members.

Five—

The Chairman: If I might, Mr. Chadderton, we have a bit of a time constraint here. The committee has agreed that they want to see this video, which you're highly recommending. If you're to read and comment on each of the 22 recommendations, we won't have much time for questions.

You're experienced, so you were wise enough to submit all this.

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: Very good.

The Chairman: The members, I assume, have read them all. How do you want to proceed? There won't be much time for questions, which is my only concern.

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: All right. Let me finish with one or two of the more important points, if that's okay.

On the Canada Pension Plan disability benefit, everything I've read in the report so far indicates that these people are not getting that information, and yet if they're out of the service and totally disabled, they can apply to the Canada Pension Plan for a disability benefit. I think that's another big injustice.

On the question of priority in employment, I have been in the national employment offices. I have had questions as to whether they're giving any kind of consideration to a member who's had 20 years in the armed forces. The answer is “no”. And I think that's something you're going to have to look at.

I have just two more points. Post-traumatic stress disorder is the most misunderstood term in history, as is the application of it.

With regard to pension, if a member goes to Veterans Affairs and wants to make an application because he has emphysema and he thinks it came from post-traumatic stress disorder, he would be told to get what's known as a diagnosis from a doctor. He goes to a civilian doctor and the civilian doctor says, “You have emphysema”. He says, “Yes, but it arose and was due to stress while I was in the Gulf”. The doctor doesn't know anything about conditions in the Gulf, and consequently he's out.

Now, I've listened to DVA—I was at a big conference a few weeks ago down there—and I think what we have to do is take a pretty good look at it and we have to say, “Short-circuit it”. If the information is there that this man was through these conditions that caused post-traumatic stress disorder, and if this man has a condition that he did not have when he enlisted, and he came back, and this was the reason he was kicked out, I think Veterans Affairs could do the same as they do in Australia. They could automatically say, “You suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder, and we are going to grant you a pension”. It's not that simple, and I think your committee has to look at it.

Finally, there's this question of who is a veteran and who isn't a veteran. This may not be a big issue, but it certainly is for a lot of the peacetime members, and discharged peacetime members, I speak to. I just wanted you to know that as far as the 35 organizations I represent are concerned—and we had our annual meeting last Saturday—they certainly feel it is not just they alone, because they served in World War II or Korea, who should be entitled to this term “veteran”.

I hold my submission at that, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. We appreciate your cooperation in trying to help us facilitate the meeting the way it's structured.

• 1605

I'm going to go to the first round of questions, but given that we are going to go to the video at 4.45 p.m., I'm going to make the first round a five-minute round, but the normal process, and then we will start into a second round as time allows.

Mr. Goldring for the Reform Party.

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

Thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Chadderton.

You had listed in your brief a number of the issues and concerns that are addressed by a person who left under war service. So during World War II, when they came back they were given consideration for education, reinstatement of employment and pension, and these other things.

Now, this may be dealing with a side issue, but it still deals with what the veterans aren't getting today. These could all be summed up, from the Second World War with the merchant navy, as years of denial of equality. These are things they didn't receive.

Is that correct?

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: I think the difference is that the legislation was in place for World War II veterans, and the problem was that the government didn't recognize merchant seamen.

I think what I'm saying—and I don't want to mix apples and oranges—is that people, the government, should look at the circumstances under which the Canadian Forces are serving today, and they should decide which of those benefits are justifiable to assist the transition from 10 or 20 years of service in the regular forces today to civilian life.

Mr. Peter Goldring: But this seems to be a fair list that would have some substantiation to it, if this was conducted from World War II until today, the argument being that there are real benefits here that some got and others didn't.

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: I think the difference was that for the first ten years after Korea, people looked at the Canadian Forces—or the permanent force, as we called it—the same as people did in the permanent force between the two wars. I mean, they rode horses and learned to dance the cotillion, and that was about it. They were never sent outside of Canada. But when we started to send our forces outside of Canada, everything took on a different hue.

I'm saying—and I think you'll agree with this—that at that time somebody should have taken a pretty good look and said, “If we're sending these people off to the Gaza Strip, we'd better decide if we do or don't have a discharge program in place for them when they come back”. And we did not have one.

Mr. Peter Goldring: So I would lead that into these other comments of your with the Gulf War syndrome; now we're off to the Gulf War. We haven't addressed any of these concerns with the Gulf War or other peacekeeping missions.

I would tend to agree with you, too, that when people do go off to war, not all of them are fighting on the front lines for the four years they're serving. Some might only be there for a period of months. So you have a situation, whether it's the Gulf War or World War II or World War I, where some have indeed been exposed to short-term horrendous action that is traumatic, and is traumatic for the rest of their lives.

I do find it unbelievable as well that our men and women coming back from the Gulf War or peacekeeping duties where they've experienced some horrendous action are not given the same consideration they were given in World War II, when we didn't have half of the knowledge we have today.

Is this just an obvious— that somebody has arbitrarily written a line in the sand, and said, “World War II is war”? It took so many years for Korea to be considered a war, and so on. At what point should a field of conflict be considered a war?

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: Well, this is why I'm suggesting that this committee has the responsibility to take a look at what happens when we kick these people out of the Canadian Forces today. Is there not the same responsibility as there was after World War II and after Korea to at least put into position some kind of a re-establishment or rehabilitation program for them? It's that simple.

The Chairman: This will be your last question.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Yes.

With that in mind, too, obviously it sounds like this is something that should be instituted for the armed forces in general, rather than just being selective about it. We should have this instituted in general, whether our soldiers are serving in the Middle East or whether they're involved in the forest fires in B.C. It sounds as though each case would cause limitations or circumstances of trauma.

• 1610

Now, when the people do leave, would you also assert here that they should be given preference for hiring in public service? How do we institute that area of giving them some help to adjust to civilian life?

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: I have made 24 recommendations, and that is one of them, that they should certainly be entitled to some type of preference in employment through the national employment service, in the public service, etc. It's just one of a 24-point program that I think they need.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Do you have any idea—

The Chairman: Excuse me, Mr. Goldring, but we'll go to the next questioner and try to come back.

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin, I'll give you five minutes.

Mr. René Laurin: In your opening statement, when you were dealing with the issue of designated work places, you gave the example of a service member who was told by an NCO to cut his hair. You are saying that since the member was ordered to go to a barber, he should be considered on duty while he's getting his hair cut. I looked for other examples, in order to get a better grasp of your point of view. If a commanding officer ordered someone to go to sleep because he seemed to be too tired to continue his work, would you consider that he was on duty while sleeping since he had received the order from his CO?

[English]

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: The answer to that is “yes”. I'll qualify it this way. You can't slice it two ways. You can't say he's on duty in these circumstances and he's not on duty in those circumstances. What would happen is, “What was the accident, and did this accident happen while he was on duty?” If the answer is “yes”, then he should qualify.

The big problem arises out of the fact that in the armed forces, if there's an accident they have a board of inquiry, and they decide whether he's on duty or whether he's not. That's fine. But when it comes down to the Pension Act, the words “on duty” do not apply at all.

I'm saying, after 50 years experience with it, that the only way to do this is to say, “He is on duty”. That doesn't necessarily mean he gets a pension, but give him the consideration that he is on duty, and then decide whether or not the accident is one that could be compensated. It's a very difficult area, but I'll give you the alternative, if I may.

The alternative is this. An adjudicator sits down and says, “Did this arise out of, or was this directly connected with, service?” I've argued many cases before the Canada Pension Commission. Half of them would say yes and half of them would say no.

So I think if you remove this stigma, if you say he's on duty, that's the first thing. Secondly, we decide whether or not it's a pensionable disability. But being on duty 24 hours a day is the only way you can get a start into this.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: Mr. Chadderton, you are solving the problem in a very simple matter by saying that members should be considered on service 24 hours a day. You are proposing a blanket solution that covers all situations. But I don't know any other instances where such an interpretation would be applied. Even fire fighters could be considered to be on duty when they are sleeping at the station, but they are not on duty seven days a week. They officially work only four days per week to compensate for the time that they are asked to sleep at the station.

You seem to be recommending that we recognize that service personnel work 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. Is this a correct interpretation of your request?

[English]

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: Yes, it is, sir. Again, just allow me to quickly explain. I mentioned the firemen. In terms of the Woods committee, in three years three very prominent lawyers could not really come to any real conclusion about this.

• 1615

They said, okay, wait a minute; if the fireman is there, he's protected by a union, he's protected by “rules of engagement”, as they call them, and he's protected by what he's supposed to be doing.

On the other hand, take what happened in the Manitoba flood. They just picked these people up, put them in transports, brought them to Winnipeg, and said, “Get out of the trucks and go to work”. If they had incurred some kind of an accident not directly in connection with fighting the flood, they were not covered at all. And yet if they said, “Just a minute; why am I in Winnipeg?”, the answer would be because they enlisted in the armed forces, and the armed forces said they would go to Winnipeg and do what they were told to do.

“On duty” doesn't necessarily mean, sir, that they get a pension. “On duty”, though, gets around having to decide this horrible dilemma of whether it arose out of or was directly connected with.

The Chairman: Thank you, Monsieur Laurin.

I'll now go to the government side. There are four members but five minutes.

Mr. Proud and then Mr. O'Reilly.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chadderton, and your colleagues, for coming before us today. As you said, there are probably not many people, or anybody around this table, who knows any more about this issue than you do. You've been around here a lot longer than most of us.

I was interested in your submissions. I would just say to you that throughout the piece, I have, as a member of this committee, asked that these people be deemed to be veterans. This was something that was a project of my own, I guess, and that I took onto myself. I succeeded in convincing the committee, to some degree, that this take place in our recommendations that went before the House.

The problem I guess some people have with it is that we wondered what your organizations felt about it. Obviously, according to you, your organizations agree that it should take place. I think there was some concern that the Legion may not agree with it, or some of the members, because the only people who were recognized were, as I understand it, the Boer War, the First and Second World Wars, and Korea, and then the special duty areas come into place.

I can't see either, for instance, why the special duty areas within the country of Canada can't be deemed to be areas that these people would be qualified for.

On the idea of people being first in line for employment, or the employment guarantee, to go back a little bit, to 1994, when we did the special joint committee on defence policy—and this was mainly dealing with reservists—we asked this question. I for one was really surprised that there wasn't the support for it. I was sure we'd have a lot of support.

The only support we got for it was from a gentleman in Alberta, who made a presentation to us in Edmonton. His Rotary club, in fact, had passed a resolution that this should become a law. But as far as the rest of the country went, there was no one actually in favour of this. And this was just for reservists.

So as for people getting out after 10 or 15 or 20 years in the forces, I don't think you'd have any problem selling it around this table. But you might; I'm just looking at the people around here; I don't think you would. But you'd have a hell of a lot of problems selling it in the House of Commons. I think it would be quite a thing.

However, I don't disagree with it. I just want to forewarn you. You've seen these pitfalls many times as you've come before these committees.

You mentioned the employment insurance. This is something that was brought up the other day by another group of people. We could talk about the employment insurance commission and its rules all day. There are many reasons for them. Whether they're good reasons or not, I don't know.

It's the same thing in the private sector. If you leave a job for retirement, per se, and you have money that's coming to you, severance pay, then you can't draw employment insurance, and all these things. There are all kinds of reasons for it. I don't know whether they're right or wrong. That happens to be the way it is at the present time. Maybe there are some changes that have to be made there.

With regard to the government's problem with war-related issues and not reporting them, this is an issue that we brought up with some of the people who appeared before us from the Department of National Defence. If you wanted to talk, for instance, about the Medak pocket, that was one that should have been put out to the public. It never was, and they felt that was a bad thing to do. I think it was a terrible error on their part.

• 1620

All in all, Mr. Chadderton, with your recommendations and everything, you're talking to the converted when you're talking to me.

I just wanted to make those comments and thank you for appearing before us.

The Chairman: Thanks, Mr. Proud.

Mr. O'Reilly, there's a minute left there for you.

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

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. John O'Reilly: Mr. Chadderton and witnesses, thank you very much for appearing. But I'm starting to feel old; I've now been on three things that you've made presentations to.

Maybe I've been on this committee too long, Mr. Chairman.

The resistance, I find, for some of your recommendations is that some people would say that combat troops, or people who are put in fields of operation, have different roles. I wonder how you define them, when you're talking about people, separating combatants and people who are sent to be the support staff. Some of the support staff don't see the atrocities and aren't involved in what goes on in the field. Then there's the difference between a cook and an ambulance operator, or the difference between, in the private sector— you know, a taxi driver being unable to obtain their licence, that type of thing.

When you want everyone to be defined as being on duty 24 hours a day, some of that resistance will come where, say, a married couple wants to live off-base. If they have an accident going back and forth to the base, are they on duty or are they off duty?

I would be interested in your comments on that. Some of the conclusions you've drawn here can be—

You know, there are people in private life who are sent home because they don't have a haircut if they're working in the fast-food industry. If they get into a car accident going to get a haircut, the answer to them is, “You should have come in with the haircut, and then you wouldn't have had the accident”.

You know, the same rules may be applied here, and maybe that's where this resistance comes from.

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: What I'm suggesting to the committee is that the present situation is atrocious. We look at these people, they come out of the armed forces after 10 or 20 years, and literally there is not very much, if anything, for them.

I am suggesting that a whole new, comprehensive program should be put together. I am only suggesting some of the pieces of that program. Naturally, I've been around long enough to know that some of it you might not be able to sell, some of it you might. But if you take a look at it right now, the special duty area was a cop-out. What really happened was that they said, “Oh, we're going to send these people off to the Gaza Strip”. They had the same coverage as people in Canada. They said, “No, you can't do that”. So they said, “Okay, we'll have the special duty area”.

Now, in the special duty area, a guy could be a cook, slip and break an ankle, and have a pensionable disability. It didn't matter whether he was a cook or a front-line gunner, he was covered. So once the government started on this slippery slope of saying “special duty areas”, then what you did was create a situation for people who served in Canada only, gave tremendous service, may have had a similar kind of accident, but the guy in Canada had to prove that his accident arose out of and was directly connected with service, whereas for the cook, say, in the Gaza Strip, there was no test. He didn't have to provide any kind of proof.

I'm not suggesting that everything in this brief should automatically be adopted. I am suggesting that there are so many areas here of discrimination, shall we say, against various groups within the armed forces that somebody has to put together a plan that will give these people a fighting chance when they get out, regardless, as long as they had what I call “long and exemplary service”.

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

Mr. Earle, for five minutes.

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

Mr. Chadderton, I would like to thank you for your presentation and for the very adequate documentation associated with it.

I have three questions. If I keep my questions short, and you can keep the answers short, we should be able to get them all in.

The Chairman: Very good.

Mr. Gordon Earle: First, you talked about the use of the term “veterans”. Expanding that, would that include the merchant marine?

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: Absolutely.

Mr. Gordon Earle: Okay.

Second, you talked about pension benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder and the idea of a medical diagnosis that would be acceptable as the basis of an application, without a formal diagnosis.

Could you expand a bit upon that?

• 1605

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: Yes.

The documentation comes to me, an adjudicator in the Department of Veterans Affairs. I say, okay, this fellow has emphysema. He has several other problems. But he served. He served in Bosnia. Maybe he had two trips to Bosnia. I should be able to look at that and say, “What is post-traumatic stress disorder?”, having placed these people in these kinds of conditions for which they were not prepared. And I would say, “Yes, this man should be pensionable”. That's it.

Mr. Gordon Earle: Thank you.

My third question is around EI benefits. We had another group that made a presentation around that issue as well. Could you elaborate a bit on that? You say that EI should be available. Are you saying under all circumstances, or are you saying simply that when a person leaves through no fault of their own, they should have an opportunity to have EI? That's as opposed to someone who serves, let's say, their required 20 or 25 years and then quits.

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: For a very quick answer, sir, members of the armed forces, on discharge, who, after all, have paid in, should be entitled to the same benefits as the person who was discharged from civilian employment.

Mr. Gordon Earle: Okay. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Earle.

Mrs. Wayne for five minutes, please.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Thank you very much, Cliff, and your other two representatives for coming today.

Cliff, with regard to the reproductive system problems you referred to, the first part of that briefing material, which refers to it, talks about the reproductive problems of those who served in the Gulf War. Then, in the last part of the research I see here, it says that Mr. Gilroy also noticed that the rates for both groups of the military were self-reported, whereas the Ontario rates were based on outsider observation at birth and during the first year of life. Hence, the comparison of the military with the general population was flawed.

Was there a follow-up on that, to that report?

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: No, there was not. Very quickly, I would say this. The Goss Gilroy report did certainly indicate that for those who had served in the Gulf War there was a higher incidence of birth defects among the offspring. That was enough for me. I said, okay, if they have found that, then there's time to go back and revisit that and find out all the ands, ifs and buts.

I think it just scares everybody when you think about what they were exposed to, and you have soldiers running around saying, “Well, should I get my wife pregnant?”, and wives running around saying, “Should I allow my husband to, because he was in the Gulf?”

All I am saying about the Goss Gilroy report is that they definitely did isolate and indicate that there was a higher incidence of birth defects, and let's not leave it at that. It's very simple for them to take on now a further study of what they were getting at.

I wasn't convinced—I mean, they said it—that they had enough detail to back it up.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Okay.

I know you're a very strong proponent of increasing the compensation coverage for those who have disabilities, and that can be related to service conditions. I support you fully on that.

I want to tell you that my office and I have been working on a case for some time in which a man broke his back while in service. His benefits were reduced from $2,000 per month to $900 per month. Now his wife has left him, and he can't really afford to live. By the time he pays his rent, his lights and his heat, he has no one to feed him.

So there's something wrong, really. We're all finding this, no matter what side of the House we sit on. It's almost like everybody says “no” to the servicemen when they first come in. They have to prove, then they have to appeal, and so on.

The committee has been studying the quality of life issues for some time now, and I was wondering if some of what they have been bringing forward has responded to any of your concerns regarding the post-discharge.

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: We have tried to draw a distinction. Our feeling was that what you were looking at was the quality of life as it existed for those members who are still serving. On the other hand, who was looking at their problems post-discharge?

• 1630

So that's really what we have confined ourselves to. We were not making any comments at all except to say you made a great report.

If you look at the post-discharge problems, they are just enormous, and they certainly have some effect on the morale within the armed forces today. Anybody who thinks that's not true is dreaming in technicolour, really.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I have one last question.

Cliff, are there any re-employment assistance programs in place right now, and if so, are they staffed with any former military personnel?

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: No. There are no formal programs at all.

If you look at what happened when we had a million people to get out of the forces at the end of World War II, the only way they did it was to bring in employment specialists, part of the armed forces, who started three months before the date of discharge and said, “Let's get working on you. How can we train you? How can we put you on the right path so that when you do go out the door, you have some plan in mind?”

That's why I felt, when I read a lot of the reports, that this should be part of the Canadian Forces system right now. The man should be able to go to an employment office or an employment discharge officer.

The other thing I would ask you to take very careful note of is that whatever he says does not go on his file. It has to be confidential. Because of the universality system, it would be terrible if a man went to a re-employment officer and said, “What would be my chances if I went on Civvie Street?”, and that got onto his file. If his CO took a look at it he'd say, “Let's get rid of this guy”.

So it has to be confidential and it has to be within the forces. It happened in World War II and it can happen again.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Wayne.

We'll go to a second round. We've agreed to stop at 4.45 p.m. for the video, so I think the fairest thing, in a second round, is if we can ask for a question and then go back and forth from each member.

Mr. Hanger from Reform.

Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Chadderton, for being here. I do apologize for being late.

I have a question in relation to the Gulf War syndrome, and the use of mefloquine. There seems to be a need to clarify the effects of the drug, and the label of “Gulf War syndrome”. There seems to be more information needed.

I'm curious to know how you would see this handled, how it should be investigated, and what kind of body should do that. It just seems to hang there. Nobody wants to talk about it, and yet there is some evidence that supports that's there's a problem here. How would you see the process unfolding?

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: I made a major submission to Veterans Affairs and National Defence some time ago. What I said was that you have exactly the same situation in the Gulf War as you had for your Hong Kong veterans. When these people came home from Hong Kong, they had whatever it was they were exposed to, all kinds of diseases, malnutrition—you name it. The government went 25 years; we fought that battle and we finally won when they said that automatically, anybody who served in Hong Kong would get a 50% pension.

Now, what we have said about the Gulf War— and I've read all the studies. If you go to the Internet, it will take you three days to read them all. All of the studies indicate there's something out there. We don't know what it is.

What we have suggested is that if the person served in the Gulf War, give him a straight 5% pension—they gave Hong Kong 50%—for Gulf War syndrome. That starts him down the way, and it least it removes the stigma that he's just as complainer or what not. Because I don't think the Gulf War veterans are complaining at all, but I suggest to you it's a very difficult problem.

• 1635

Look at what happened to Hong Kong. They finally decided to put a word on it, “avitaminosis”, and gave them all a 50% pension.

I think we could save an awful lot of time if we took those people who served in the Gulf and told them, “If there's something wrong with you, you apply, and we'll give you a basic 5% pension”. That's $85 a month, but it gets their foot in the door for treatment. If they don't get any worse, that's fine.

That's the answer.

Mr. Art Hanger: Should there be an independent body, though, set up to examine—

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: No, I don't think that's required at all. I think the Canada Pension Commission could make their decision tomorrow.

The Chairman: Thank you.

To try to get as many members in as we can, we'll try to be snappy.

Mr. Richardson, and then I'll come back to Mr. Laurin and so on.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chadderton, for being here today.

I want to zero in on one thing that was the biggest shock of my life. It concerns not properly serving justice to a person who was harmed. I am talking about Major Henwood. That case has to be classic. It concerns the meanness that was shown to a man who lost his legs and was waiting for new limbs.

I get upset when I talk about this. Some of the people involved were people I'd served with. I asked how in the name of goodness they could deny this man justice and not react as quickly as possible to see that he was well served. And everything they did was to slow it down.

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: Right.

Mr. John Richardson: Now, I don't know if we'll ever get that cleaned up over in DND. I'm not sure. But I think that case should be put up to anybody who takes the job, and they should be told, “We have to do better than this”.

I think in the eyes of the public— I mean, this man is married. He appeared before us in Edmonton and I think brought tears to all of us. We knew about him before we were going to get there.

But he wasn't the only one we heard about. We heard about lesser cases where the whole machinery was slowed down. It was almost like they were trying to stall this person from justice.

Now, I don't know how we do this. And I don't think the people in DND realized they were doing this to the person. I honestly believe that. But the system was doing it to them, and these people were part of the system. When we have people who were injured in that manner, they should be fast tracked and then not be batted back and forth, as Major Henwood was, between the Department of Veterans Affairs and National Defence.

I mean, this has to stop. We hear these things, and it really makes us feel sad as a group. We're not partisan on that. We're unanimous in our decision that we need this kind of system, where we give fast tracking to those people who serve in special areas, and are treated the same as our people in the Second World War—bang, we got them into medical services; bang, we got them into limbs; bang, we treated them with care, and they got forward.

I just wanted to put that forward, because I know you know a lot about it.

The Chairman: Would you like to comment, Mr. Chadderton?

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: Yes.

We spoke to Major Henwood this morning. If it had not been—and I want to say this for the record—for the War Amputations of Canada, he still would have been fighting his own battles.

Now, that's why I said at the start that a comprehensive program needs to be put in place that brings all the agencies together and gives Henwoods and all of the other justifiable cases the requirements.

Right now he's doing very well, but tomorrow, if he loses the job he's in, what's going to happen to him?

I'm glad you mentioned Henwood, because that gets me right to saying, “Why do we need a more comprehensive program?” We need it, Mr. Richardson, because this is what is happening to the troops. Mind you, he's a very outstanding case. You won't find all of them who had that much sympathy. But I have as much sympathy for a guy who loses a finger as a guy who loses both legs. I mean, we're not treating them correctly.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Laurin, one question, please.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: I have no other questions at the moment.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Proud, one question, please.

Mr. George Proud: Thank you, Chairman.

Mr. Chadderton, you talked about the re-establishment credits that were put in place after the Second World War. You mentioned that probably something of this sort could be arranged now for people who served.

• 1640

In 1991, when the Gulf War started, this subject was brought up to the people, and they said that because these people were professional soldiers, and in the Second World War they were all volunteers— This is the thing we get from this type of thing.

I mentioned the fact that a lot of these people who go to the Gulf were going to be reservists, and why couldn't they have some kind of re-establishment program the same as the Second World War, Korea?

I wonder, do you really think that for us to put this forward is a realistic thing, that we can hope that we can get some resolve from it?

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: I certainly do. I believe the members of the regular forces today, if the public took one look—and this is a graphic description of all the places they've been—they'd say, my God, we can't use these people this way to preserve peace in the world, preserve our place in the world, and then turn around when they're finished and say, “Thank you very much”.

I'm simply saying that something should be put in place, because they have earned it. If he's in two years, then it's graded, but if he's been in 20 years, or 10 years—

Mr. George Proud: A reservist.

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: Well, I'm speaking about full-time. With the reservists, they took their chance, they went in, they knew what they were doing, and they got out again. I think it's too big a problem to put any kind of a re-establishment program in place for a person who goes in from the reserve, serves his two years or whatever, and is out again. I'm talking about those people who have enlisted, given their full time, their full energies, to this country for ten years or more. They deserve something better than what they're getting.

The Chairman: And when they're in there on all these missions, pay them better and treat them better. But I'm not supposed to comment.

Mr. Earle, one question.

Mr. Gordon Earle: You mentioned in one of your recommendations that information should be made available regarding the disability benefit under the Canada Pension Plan. I know, from working in the constituency, that getting disability under that plan is one of the most difficult things—to establish the disability, the number of appeals that people are put through, the length of time and everything.

Are you saying there's an added impediment here for people in the services, and that they're not even getting the information about the plan and about the disability benefit? Where is that breakdown coming in?

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: I don't think they know it exists in the first place. Secondly, if the medical people in the armed forces have the records, and he's being discharged as being totally disabled, if those records are there it will help in the initial adjudication. If he doesn't get it there, it will help in the appellant process.

Again, if you read my full report, I'm saying that some of them do get a little bit of information. And you know the saying, “A little information is a dangerous thing”. So they get a little information and they say “Oh, well, when I get out I'm going to qualify”.

They can be helped when they're in the forces, but I think the whole counselling system should bring this to their attention, that there's one more provision you might qualify for. But just to throw them out, totally disabled, and then say, “Go down and make an application”—

So you're quite right. You've been through it in your constituency office, so you know it's a tough row to hoe.

The Chairman: Thanks, Mr. Earle.

We have time to finish this round with brief questions.

Mr. O'Reilly and then Mrs. Wayne.

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

There's a medical dilemma here. We have pre-engagement stress, post-traumatic stress—or “disorder” now—and Gulf War syndrome. Now, when you deal with a syndrome, you deal with an inconclusive body of evidence, which is the medical term for it. A disease is treatable.

With that in mind, I want you to give some thought as to how you would recommend we proceed in overcoming that barrier between disease and syndrome. The medical people I've dealt with in the Gulf War syndrome field always use the inconclusive body of evidence, untreatable and so forth. Yet we all know, if you go to the Internet, or any Net—

How would you recommend that we proceed? I guess that's my question.

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: Well, your escape hatch is built right into the Pension Act. They could grant the pension, they could call them back for a re-board six months later and say, “I'm sorry, but you're better”, and he's out. You see, when you grant a pension, it doesn't have to be for life.

The Chairman: Thanks, Mr. O'Reilly.

The last brief question goes to Mrs. Wayne.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I don't really have a question, just a short statement.

Mr. Chadderton, I want to thank you very much for your report today. We have a job to do here on this committee, and I think you'll find that everyone around this table, as was said by Mr. Proud earlier, recognizes—perhaps because of our ages—

• 1645

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: —the importance of looking after our veterans.

But I would also say, as George has stated, we do have a lot of young people around who really don't understand. You know about that as well as the rest of us. That's the sad thing.

But certainly we will take under advisement, as I'm sure the chairman will say, your recommendations here. We thank you very much.

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: I have one final comment. Thank you very much for the appearance.

I'm awfully glad you're seeing that film. What I have said about the conditions we're throwing these people into, and why we need a comprehensive program, will be seen on that screen.

Thank you, sir.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Chadderton, and the other witnesses, for your appearance and your submission. Thank you for your kind words for the committee on our report, and thank you for the good work you do. We appreciate your being here.

Now we'll go to the video.

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: I've seen it. You'd better be ready for a shock.

The Chairman: I'm not sure if we are ready.

We should be finished before the bells, colleagues.

• 1646

[Editor's Note: Video presentation]

• 1715

The Chairman: The meeting is now adjourned.