NDVA Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA DÉFENSE NATIONALE ET DES ANCIENS COMBATTANTS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, October 5, 2000

• 0934

[English]

The Chair (Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.)): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to welcome you here today.

Our order of reference is Bill C-41, an act to amend the statute law in relation to veterans' benefits. We're here this morning to do clause-by-clause, as was agreed to yesterday.

The Honourable George Baker, Minister of Veterans Affairs, is here before the committee, as is, of course, his parliamentary secretary, Mr. Provenzano, his deputy minister, and others.

Mr. Baker, I would ask you to introduce the people who are with you, sir. Then we'll start going through this bill clause by clause.

Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Of course, everybody knows the deputy minister, Admiral Larry Murray. Richard Brunton is our resident legal expert on this bill and all other legislation under the Department of Veterans Affairs. As well, Nathalie Bédard is our direct contact with the department.

Just very briefly, Mr. Chairman, before I get to your general questions concerning the bill, I want to especially thank the honourable members of this committee for their interest in this legislation and the way in which they have promoted the well-being of our veterans.

• 0935

I want to thank particularly the honourable member for Souris—Moose Mountain; the honourable member for Terrebonne—Blainville, who has been instrumental in pushing for a lot of the legislation we have brought forward; the honourable member for Saint John, who certainly, as every Canadian knows, has been front and centre on this legislation and other things we've done recently; and the honourable member for Halifax West, who has taken a special interest in all of veterans' affairs.

Mr. Chairman, I also want to thank the Royal Canadian Legion's Alan Parks and Bill Barclay; the National Council of Veterans Associations, especially Cliff Chadderton, who promoted this legislation in the very beginning, years ago; Brian Forbes, who was with us when the official announcement was made concerning the legislation; Peter Ambrosiak of the Army, Navy, Air Force Veterans of Canada, who took part in these negotiations; Louis Lang of the Ferry Command from Montreal, who was instrumental in promoting this legislation; and Mr. Lloyd Thompson of Newfoundland, on behalf of the Newfoundland foresters.

Mr. Chairman, the legislation itself is wonderful legislation. As you know, it does certain specific things. It cleans the slate in terms of the civilians who went overseas during the war and served Canada. It also does a couple of other things that I want to make special note of. There were concerns from members of this committee, specifically Mr. Pratt and Mr. Provenzano. These things include two of the following, which are very important.

This legislation clarifies once and for all the fact that if the department makes an error in sending a cheque to somebody, and it's a departmental mistake, then the department will not be demanding that money back. MPs right now have a lot of cases of widows who owe money to the Department of National Defence when it was an inadvertent mistake by the department. All members around this table know that this is a big issue with the employment insurance commission, where mistakes are made all the time. The person who had received the benefit has to pay it back. The same thing applies to old age security, the guaranteed income supplement, and the spousal allowance. These people have to pay that money back. This will be the first department of government that will put it in legislation that if this is an error by the department, then that money does not have to be paid back.

There is another part of the legislation that really sets a tone, I think, for provincial governments and other federal departments concerning social benefits and the social safety net. All income-tested programs of the federal government are based on last year's income tax return. You and I know what the problems are when somebody is on old age security and all of a sudden they have their guaranteed income supplement reduced, or their spousal allowance eliminated, because of money they received the year previous.

You and I know—every member of this committee knows—that when the federal government sometimes makes payments to people.... For example, in this retirement from the fishery on the east coast, the people should have been warned that if they took that money they would have their guaranteed income supplement reduced the following year.

• 0940

What this bill does is put in clear legislation that the income test will be what the veteran determines or estimates their income will be for this year coming, not what the income was last year. So this really sets the stage for all other agencies, mainly provincial but some federal, in treating somebody's income under a program that is income tested. It sets the standard now in saying, what is your income now, not what was it last year. If you received the lotto of $2,000 last year, you didn't know you were going to lose your spouse's allowance this year, and of course that's not the way it should be.

The other point I want to make, finally—and then I won't say any more about it—is this. If veterans and their spouses did receive an unexpected amount of money last year and that was in their income tax return, and all of a sudden now they're losing their guaranteed income supplement and their spousal allowance—and maybe they were receiving a pension from Veterans Affairs, income tested—what will happen after this bill passes? Yes, they'll still lose their guaranteed income supplement and their spousal allowance, but there's going to be an increase in their income tested program from Veterans Affairs. It will go up because this income test by Veterans Affairs is going to be based on what the person expects to get this year, and they know their guaranteed income supplement is going to drop because of what they made last year; they know their spousal allowance is going to be gone, so all of a sudden their Veterans Affairs income tested amount is going to rise.

I want to point out that these are the not-talked-about things in this legislation that I think are absolutely marvellous, and it certainly sets a standard for the other government departments to follow because this is the way it should be.

I suppose some of you want to ask about general subjects.

Mr. Chairman, do you want me to go into those things now that have been brought to my attention this morning or just ask for the questions?

The Chair: It's up to you, Mr. Minister. I think probably we can have a few questions and then we'll start going through the bill clause by clause. We'd like to get this completed as quickly as possible, but I don't want to forgo anybody asking questions. And the first question is going to be asked by myself.

You mentioned the income tested part of this bill. My office in Charlottetown is right across the street from Veterans Affairs, and I'm sure lots of times people get it mixed up; they come to my office looking for assistance from Veterans Affairs. If there are ten people who come into the office in a week, eight of them want to know about this business: why they lost their VIP; why they lost part of their pension; why their medical card is gone. This is very hard on people who have been used to receiving this and for some reason they've lost it. If this helps in any way, I see it as a big assistance to the veteran and their spouses in the future.

Mr. George Baker: Mr. Chairman, before I go to questions, I think the parliamentary secretary, Mr. Provenzano, gave you assurances yesterday that the amendment that was brought up by each one of the opposition critics here about the fact that the RCMP are excluded from this bill.... Each one of the critics said—the honourable member for Souris—Moose Mountain said it, the honourable member for Terrebonne—Blainville said it, the honourable member for Saint John said it, and the honourable member for Halifax West said it—they wanted this amendment to cover the RCMP while this bill is now in the committee, and they regard it as being rather strange that pensions under Veterans Affairs that govern the RCMP don't cover the RCMP. Members of the Liberal side also made the same demand.

• 0945

I think the parliamentary secretary pointed out yesterday that we couldn't entertain an amendment for it because a royal proclamation would be needed, that it involved an expenditure of public funds, and that I was going to cabinet to get this approved.

I want to report this morning that we do have the funding approved. The amount of the funding ranges from about $3.7 million a year, $3.8 million a year, and we received approval for that over a four- or five-year period, after which it would become a normal part of the expenditure of the department where it belongs. I'm announcing today that we will entertain that amendment at report stage in the House, when the bill goes back to report stage in the House.

I also want to point out one other thing. The House doesn't sit next week, and if we're going to get the bill, we're going to have to ask for unanimous consent, which each person in the opposition here has given, for this bill to be reintroduced into the House at report stage and third reading tomorrow.

The Chair: Or today.

Mr. George Baker: Report back today, I'm sorry.

The Chair: For questions, the rules are the same as they were the last time we met. There will be seven minutes for the first round and five minutes for the second round. The first person on my list is Roy Bailey from the Canadian Alliance.

Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance): Thank you. I have two observations, Mr. Minister.

In looking this over, I am reminded of the part the media has played in the various conflicts. I know it went from the early days, where it was simply the printed media. Then the radio came on stream. And now, of course, there are the dangers to the television cameras. These people play a very valuable part in democracy, in getting the front-line news and so on. Has there ever been a claim from the media or a related group about pensions, or an association, or a service being rendered in front-line duty and so on?

Mr. George Baker: What do you mean? I don't follow you, Mr. Bailey, sorry.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Has there ever been a related claim such as you have, for instance, for the Ferry Command, which is related to the war? Has the media ever considered themselves in any part as being part of the war front necessities?

Mr. George Baker: The media itself?

Mr. Roy Bailey: Yes, the war reporters.

Mr. George Baker: I'm sorry. I'll pass this to my deputy, the admiral, and see what the admiral has to say. He has a longer history than I do in the forces.

Admiral Larry Murray (Deputy Minister, Department of Veterans Affairs): I'm not personally aware. I'd actually ask Richard Brunton, who is our historian, to answer.

Mr. Richard Brunton (Director of Portfolio Legislation, Department of Veterans Affairs): I'm only aware that the war correspondents were specifically included in the rules for war medals if they served in the necessary theatres of war. I have never seen any claim that they may have made for benefits.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Thank you. The reason I ask this question is that they were very important historically. More than just historically, they were very important to civilians. I ask that question because I know that some of them have written books and have personally benefited from photography and so on, but many of them lost their lives as well. That's why I asked the question.

The other comment, Mr. Minister, is this. Are you not somewhat concerned about the precedent setting of your remarks this morning in terms of the income tested programs, in that if you do make a mistake it's the department's fault? I'm not so much concerned about the jealousy from the other departments, but I'm thinking about citizens out there. Once they learn this, especially those with Revenue Canada and so on.... I wonder, how did you get consensus among your colleagues in the other cabinet portfolios for that particular method of operation?

• 0950

Mr. George Baker: The cabinet, of course, always agrees with whatever a cabinet minister announces in a committee such as this.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. George Baker: The average age of the veterans and their widows is 79.5 years. It's great that we're setting a precedent for those people.

Mr. Roy Bailey: So you do not expect a backlash.

Mr. George Baker: Well, it certainly wouldn't be from members of the Liberal Party. But no, I'm not really expecting it.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Okay. I guess it's bothersome. I'm looking down the road.

Thank you very much, Mr. Minister.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bailey.

[Translation]

Mr. Mercier.

Mr. Paul Mercier (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I have two points I want to raise. I was the first of those who, in the House, pointed out the irregularity concerning the RCMP and I am happy to see it will be corrected. So I'll accept the clause concerning this provision.

Mr. George Baker: I am having a problem with the interpretation; what's the number of the English channel?

The Chair: You do understand French?

Mr. George Baker: Yes, but...

[English]

Once, Mr. Chairman, when I appeared before the last committee I answered a question in French, very carefully. Of course, the media there thought I could speak French, so they all came around me after the committee meeting, and I said,“Excuse me, I have to go to the washroom for a few minutes.”

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Mercier: Until the interpretation system is working again, I suggest that we let the others speak and come back to me after.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Minister, we're going to go to Mr. Price now. He's going to speak en anglais.

Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Minister, I'm very pleased to have you here.

It's very interesting for me to start out on this committee with such a nice, positive piece of legislation.

Just a couple of questions—I'll get right to the point. You talked about how, if there's a mistake made in the cheque that goes out, it wouldn't have to be paid back. Now we've heard of some cases in the last several years of a decimal point being misplaced and some rather large cheques coming out. Is this an instant lotto for some people? Are there any safeguards set in there?

Mr. George Baker: No, we haven't had any cases such as that, and if it ever happened, I'm sure the veteran would notify Veterans Affairs that they shouldn't have gotten a million dollars.

Mr. David Price: Okay, thank you.

The other question is one that's come up several times in several committees. If I look at the clause-by-clause, we're looking at changing the regulations, as far as any regulations being made after, and there are quite a few sections that refer to regulations to be made. I was wondering what the minister has in mind as far as the committee is concerned when it comes to regulations. Is there any thought of regulations coming back to this committee or at least this committee having a chance to review the regulations? I don't see anything here. Perhaps it's here, but I haven't found it.

• 0955

Mr. George Baker: No, there's not. It just enables.

Richard, do you want to...?

Mr. Richard Brunton: We are working on the new regulations that implement the details of some of the changes in the bill. In fact, there's a draft on my desk that's about to go to the Department of Justice.

Mr. George Baker: But he's asking if the regulations would go back to the committee.

Mr. Richard Brunton: They don't normally come back to committees.

Mr. David Price: Since the committee has gone through this piece of legislation and would like to probably follow up on regulations that are made, would it not be interesting to have the regulations? I'm not saying the committee has to pass the regulations...but realize that we're trying to take out some of the paperwork there. Just the fact that the regulations do go by the committee...so the committee has a chance to see the changes because regulations end up being changes in the bill, in a way.

Mr. Richard Brunton: With the regulatory process as it has been for the past ten years, regulations are pre-published. So I think we might be able to make sure that the chair and the other members get copies of the draft regulations when they're pre-published. If members would like to be briefed, either individually or with the minister, would that...?

Mr. David Price: Yes, I think that's exactly what I'm looking for.

As you know, with the amount of paperwork we see going through, the regulations could very well go right across our desk and we would not see them. If they comes across the table here, we are going to be aware of it.

Mr. Richard Brunton: Are they pre-published in the Canada Gazette?

Mr. David Price: I think so.

Mr. Richard Brunton: We'll make sure you get copies.

Mr. David Price: Okay, thank you.

Those are the questions I have for now. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: We'll try

[Translation]

in French, Mr. Mercier.

Mr. Paul Mercier: Mr. Chairman, I have two points to raise.

First, I would like to remind you that in the House I was one of those who pointed out an irregularity concerning the RCMP and that is the fact that it is excluded from certain benefits. I am happy to see that this irregularity will be corrected by an amendment that you will be tabling yourself and I approve of the corresponding clause.

However, here's the main point. War ended in 1945 and this is the year 2000. So it is only 55 years later that we are recognizing that the merits of these people are equal to those of our veterans. Now, in the wording of the bill, nothing is provided to compensate for the fact that we waited so long to recognize those merits.

The seamen got a retroactive amount, a pension, some compensation in the form of an indemnity. I think it would have been equitable, one way or another, whether through retroactivity of the bill or some form of indemnity, to see taken into account the fact that, for 55 years, those people got nothing while the veterans were getting a pension. It seems to me there is an injustice there. We're having these people pay for our delay in recognizing their merits.

I would like to know if you are suggesting a correction to this abnormally considering that they've been deserving this since 1945 and that we are only recognizing this in the year 2000, at a time when a lot of them have in fact disappeared.

• 1000

[English]

Mr. George Baker: First of all, Mr. Mercier, I want to congratulate you on the speech you made in the House concerning the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. Several people have mentioned to me this remarkable address you gave in one or two minutes in the House.

Concerning retroactivity, there is always a problem with retroactivity. Are you talking about retroactivity as far as benefits are concerned or about retroactivity as far as cash payments are concerned? What type of retroactivity are you referring to?

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Mercier: I would like to point out the difference between the way the veterans are treated, as they have been receiving pensions since 1945, and the treatment reserved for those whose merits were recognized today and who will only be getting compensation as of this date, or at least those of them who are still lucky enough to be alive.

I know very well, as you were saying, that the average age is 79.5 years. That is just about my age and I know that we're still very young at that age but the fact remains that a lot of them have disappeared. In the other hand, those who are still with us got nothing during 40 or 55 years.

Could you consider correcting the injustice due to the difference in treatment between the veterans as such and those whose merits we are recognizing today, the former having had the benefit of a pension for 55 years while the latter did not.

[English]

Mr. George Baker: Are you referring specifically to the money that was granted at the end of the war? Are you making specific reference to the moneys we're now giving to the merchant navy? Let me tell you that this is an ex gratia payment. That is an exception to the rule of legislation.

Of course, there's a famous case now before the courts concerning interest paid on moneys that were held by the department. We went through this argument as far as retroactivity of benefits was concerned back in 1990 when the Conservatives were in power.

Normally, Mr. Mercier, these things are not retroactive. That creates its own group of problems on retroactivity.

So this would come into force on the day the bill is proclaimed?

Mr. Richard Brunton: Yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Mercier: You will however recognize that there is an irregularity that looks very unfair, since those people suffered because we took so long in recognizing their service. They are thankful you were the first minister to take care of them, but the fact remains that those people got nothing for 55 years.

I would like to know if they could get some sort of compensation one way or the other.

[English]

Mr. George Baker: That's true, but they will be treated exactly the same as all other veterans were treated. In other words, as you know, legislation has changed over the years to allow, say, the benefits to be given to the merchant seamen.

This will now mean that these civilian groups who served overseas will now receive the same benefits the merchant navy received...in what year?

• 1005

Mr. Richard Brunton: In 1992.

Mr. George Baker: In 1992. We had no retroactivity in 1992 for the merchant seamen. So they will be treated exactly the same as all other veterans.

The Chair: Thank you. Merci, M. Mercier.

Mr. Earle.

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

I just want to follow up a bit on that retroactivity, because it is an issue that was raised by some of the legions. The point they were raising was whether it would be possible to make the legislation effective retroactive to the date of the official announcement. I think you mentioned the official announcement during your remarks.

In that sense, I think once the announcement is made, there are many people whose expectations are that the injustice will be corrected and they will start receiving benefits as of that date. Is that not a possibility?

Mr. George Baker: Again, retroactivity presents some very big problems.

Take, for example, a major section of this bill, which enables people in the armed forces to receive their disability payments while they are still members of the forces—in other words, in addition to their regular salaries.

If this were to be made retroactive, which is not the norm, then I suppose you could define people who were judged to be.... The problem with that is that right now somebody can't receive both—it's illegal for them to receive both. So you go back and you say, well now, you could have received both back in March of last year. You could have received both if you had this disability. And the person says, yes, if that were possible, I would have gone in to the doctor, and I would have had my disability recognized. But I couldn't, because I was receiving.... I was in the regular forces. I could have been judged to be unfit to serve; therefore I didn't do it.

So it's a very complicated thing, and it would lead to other people who would say, well, you know, I could have done this.

It's difficult from a logistical point of view to go back to March of 1999, so that's why we go with the precedents that are set in legislation. None of the other veterans received retroactivity, so in this particular bill we're not going back to when the announcement was made, but to when the legislation is passed.

Mr. Gordon Earle: The second question concerns the merchant marine. I know we're not talking specifically about that in this legislation, but it is related. The concern I have there is basically a concern that has been expressed to me by many merchant mariners or their widows. They have some concern that, first of all, they may not receive their final payment, that the $50 million cap may have been reached before they receive their final payment. There are some who have not received anything yet.

I've heard you explain about the number of applications you have—around 14,000—and the number of people you have working on them, and it's not my intention to put any pressure or discredit on the people who are working on these. I realize it takes time. But I guess the concern is that, as you mentioned, the average age is around 79.5 years for veterans. These people are not getting any younger, and some are dying while this process is taking place.

So I wonder if you could assure us, first of all, that they will get the complete amount that is due to them if they qualify. Whether that means going back to cabinet for more money or whatever, they will get their complete payment. Secondly—if necessary, you may have to hire some more people to process these things a bit faster—this will be dealt with as soon as humanly possible.

Mr. George Baker: I'll say a couple of things.

First of all, if we find that the money is not sufficient, I do make a commitment to you now that I will immediately go back to cabinet to seek the additional funds.

The problem is that the deadline was July 30, and this is what a lot of people fail to remember. The deadline for submitting applications was only nine weeks ago. There were, as you say, 14,000 applications. I was wrong in my estimate of the number of applications when we came before your committee. The veterans' organizations were all wrong. They estimated 3,500 to 4,500 people. I figured around 4,000. I said that publicly. I believed what I knew to be the case at the time, and so did the veterans' organizations.

• 1010

So we were all wrong. Now with the success rate running about 50% for the applications received, and an appeal procedure that is going to be in place, obviously it's not going to be 4,500. The number would probably be somewhere around 7,000.

So that's number one. But only 60% of the applications have actually been processed.

Now, $31 million has been paid out—the last time I checked—of the $50 million. How many times would I have to go back to cabinet or Treasury Board? I want to do this just once. Don't forget what the original plan was. We sat down with the veterans' organizations. We came up with the rules, because we had to be careful.

The reason the veterans' organizations didn't approve of this years ago was because they didn't want to just make a blanket statement and have somebody who, say, went across a cove fishing in a boat qualify for this payment.

The veterans' organizations have to be so careful. If you establish a figure, say, of $20,000 to compensate somebody for being in a prison for four years overseas, then you have to be careful about what the value is that you place on somebody's risk of life in a particular circumstance that was not in a prison camp or was not of that extreme situation.

So the veterans' organizations wanted to be happy that they were agreeing with the proper type and amount of compensation, and they wanted to make sure the right people got it. So they placed in there, for example, the war risk bonus requirement—that you must have received a war risk bonus.

Now, the reason this has taken so long is that the records were not kept. We have people going through the archives, and people having to go to the Allies, because this also covers service on Allied vessels. A lot of the records in the forties were hand-written by the shipping companies.

So, during the war, in order to receive a war risk bonus there had to be some approval somewhere, because as you know, wage and price controls were on. Any increase in payment for somebody going into dangerous waters had to be approved. It had to be somewhere on the record that they were receiving that. In some cases it was not on the record. In some cases, chaps are coming in with their cheque stubs from 1942 and saying “Look, I did receive the war risk bonus, but this was never on the records of the shipping company”.

So in a lot of cases, the people submitting the applications do not have the records to back up their claims. What did we say? We said “Look, we will help you with this; we will look for it for you, on your behalf”. That's what the department is doing, and in some cases it's taking a very long time to actually get the evidence.

Now, as you will recall, the veterans' organizations themselves sat down and determined the level of compensation. The only input I had was I recall saying to the department, “Look, if there's one thing I would never want to see, it's a payment of $10,000 or $20,000 being made to some widow, and you having to say the next month `You've got to pay it back; we made a mistake”'.

Now, if this legislation were through, it would be a different ball game, wouldn't it?

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Earle.

Mrs. Wayne.

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

All I want, Mr. Minister, is some assurance, as my colleague, Gordon, has asked for. I'm getting calls—I even got some today, this morning, before I came here, and Wednesday afternoon again—about the other payment. With all this publicity....

• 1015

[Technical difficulty—Editor]

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: What is that? They have me charged up, darlin', I can tell you that. And it isn't because of Viagra.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Anyway, they're really concerned that if an election is called and the other money hasn't been allocated, afterwards we may have a real problem. They're really concerned about that. I don't know when the election will be called, and none of us around the table knows, but the whole thing here is that if it's in the next couple of weeks and this isn't resolved, putting that money.... I think it was $130 million or $103 million or something you had to get allocated, George, for what's before us. Certainly, we're all in favour of seeing these people treated fairly, but still we have to make sure the merchant navy men are receiving their second cheques and that the surviving spouses will as well.

Also, you mentioned prisoners of war. I think you all know who I'm getting the call from: Willis Marsolais. Have you resolved the business of whether they were in the military...? With Willis, it was just a matter of a few months. He was 15 years old, and when they found out he was 15 years old, they kicked him out of the military. But he was a prisoner of war. My God, what he went through as a prisoner of war was unbelievable.

Still we're waiting. So there are major concerns there. We want this to go through and we support you fully, but we also want to be assured, and we want them to be assured, that everything's going to be worked out there, George.

Mr. George Baker: I'm going to pass it to the deputy in a second, but let me say this. Forty per cent of the applicants have not had their applications dealt with yet. If we were to make the other 40% payment now, you could probably do it with the money that's left there, and the people who are processed would get their payment.

Let me give you an analogy. In the public servants' pay equity case, they received 45% of their money in the first payment in May. Then the pay equity cheques that went out last month didn't cover all of it either. The rest of it is yet to come. As I understand it, it wasn't that the government didn't have the money, because the money was there, but that a process had to be gone through. Everybody's being dealt with fairly on the first round and all the investigations made that this person really deserved this payment and so on, and then they get to giving another 40%, and then they get to giving another 20%.

Now, in this particular case, what the understanding was—and let's use the example of somebody who was in the regular forces as well as in the merchant marines. You're right, there was a requirement in there that if you served in both, then you could not receive this payment. Every veterans' organization I know of has made representation—and you're right, that should be changed. That's a change in the rules that would cause perhaps a minor increase in the amount being paid out, a minor readjustment.

So the understanding of the veterans' organizations, along with me, was that a payment would be made, after which we would then know how much extra money would be needed for the 40%. But included in that was supposed to be enough money for a minor readjustment like that. It couldn't be done any other way. So—I'll be very short in the answer—if you understand where we're coming from, it had to be done in this way.

• 1020

When the entire 60% is paid out, hopefully very soon, then we will know if we require more money. I'm not saying we will. If we require more money, I will go back to cabinet and ask for the additional amount of money. But in the process we should take care of the case you're talking about, which means a minor change, just a refinement, to the rules. Maybe there are other cases that should be refined, and that's why we decided to go with two payments.

We're being caught up here now because people are saying we're not processing this fast enough, but we had agreed to do the investigations on people's behalf. They put in their applications by July 31. They didn't have the records with them. But I told them, we will do the research work for you. So now we're caught trying to get the work done, not knowing exactly how much money this is going to cost in the end, because we were all wrong, all the veterans' organizations were wrong and I was wrong. The department, I must admit, was more correct than any of us.

The Chair: Thank you.

Now we'll go back to Bill C-41.

(Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to)

The Chair: Shall clauses 3 to 15 inclusive carry?

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Mercier: On division for clause 6.7.

[English]

The Chair: We have asked that clauses 3 to 15—

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Mercier: I am sorry. That's part of clause 16 on page 12 of the French version. It is clause 6.7 as moved.

[English]

The Chair: I can't hear you on this.

Mr. George Baker: He excused himself because it's clause 16 he's waiting for.

The Chair: Okay.

(Clauses 3 to 15 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 16)

The Chair: There's a government amendment. Mr. Provenzano, please read the amendment.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): This is basically a housekeeping amendment of a technical nature. The French translation is not precise. It reads that Bill C-41 in clause 16 be amended by replacing, on page 12, lines 6 to 8 of the French version with the following:

[Translation]

une personne visée au sous-alinéa 4a)(i) pour déterminer ses états de

[English]

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 16 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 17 to 40 inclusive agreed to)

• 1025

(Clause 41 agreed to on division)

(Clauses 42 to 50 inclusive agreed to)

(Clauses 51 to 60 inclusive agreed to)

(Clauses 61 to 80 inclusive agreed to)

The Chair: Shall clauses 81 to 101 carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall the title carry?

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Mercier: On division for clause 86.

[English]

(Clause 84 agreed to on division)

The Chair: Shall the title carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall the bill as amended carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall I report the bill with amendment to the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: I want to thank everybody for being here this morning. I want to thank you for your support of this bill. I thank the minister and his staff for being here.

I do hope that when we come back to this room, which we will do many times, that the translation operations will be in working order. Many times we came here last year the translation wasn't working. So I hope it's repaired.

The meeting is adjourned to the call of the chair.