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, March 29, 2001

• 1607

[English]

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

We're very pleased today to have the Honourable Ronald Duhamel, Minister of Veterans Affairs, before us on the estimates. He has a number of officials with him.

Perhaps, Mr. Duhamel, you would like to introduce your officials for the benefit of committee members and commence whatever statement you have. You have the floor.

Hon. Ronald Duhamel (Minister of Veteran Affairs): Thank you. I have with me Larry Murray, deputy minister, and Darragh Mogan, director general of health care. I would also like to introduce Brian Chambers, chair of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, and Keith Hillier, assistant deputy minister, corporate services.

[Translation]

I am delighted to join you today to discuss matters concerning our veteran population, these men and women that fought with courage during past conflicts, and these valiant men and women who, more recently, helped contribute to preserve the peace in various sensitive locations around the world.

[English]

I would like to thank my staff who are with me here today and those back at Veterans Affairs for their continuous hard work and dedication, not only to me, but especially to the veterans we serve. I have to say that they do indeed make my job easier.

I also want to thank this committee for its impressive work on behalf of veterans. Indeed, you have also helped all of us with our work.

I would like to review briefly what we have done in the last year. It has been approximately a year since my predecessor, George Baker, sat before you, and there have been a number of noteworthy accomplishments. The Department of Veterans Affairs has been busy working hard to improve the quality of service to our valued clients. However, I cannot, nor will I, take full credit for all of the initiatives that have been undertaken within the last 12 months, as Mr. Baker was instrumental in getting a number of those programs underway.

I do not want to spend too much time outlining all of the department's activities. You will all have a copy of a more detailed, in-depth speech that I'm tabling today. But I will go through some of these accomplishments.

• 1610

[Translation]

May 2000, the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier.

[English]

a pilgrimage to France to repatriate the remains of the Unknown Soldier. This project was a partnership between the Royal Canadian Legion and the Government of Canada.

The creation of Canada's national Tomb of the Unknown Soldier was a significant historic event.

[Translation]

May 2000, the inaugural ceremony of work at Beaumont Hamel.

[English]

The construction is proceeding, and the official opening of the new interpretation centre will take place July 1, 2001, on the 85th anniversary of the Battle of the Somme, where the Newfoundland Regiment was nearly wiped out.

[Translation]

June 2000, 2,600 new long-term care beds.

[English]

An additional 2,600 beds for veterans would be available across the country.

[Translation]

August 2000, a $10-million grant for strategies to prevent falls.

[English]

Over a four-year period, my department will pilot a number of projects in Atlantic Canada, Ontario, and British Columbia to establish a new, community-based health initiative to help identify effective fall-prevention strategies for veterans and seniors.

[Translation]

October 2000, Royal Assent of bill C-41.

[English]

This bill amended legislation to allow Veterans Affairs Canada to extend veterans benefits to civilian groups who served overseas during wartime. Also, it allows us to provide pension benefits to still-serving members for disabilities that are service-related. This new benefit is an important part of improving the quality of life of Canadian Forces members.

[Translation]

October 2000, a $14-million grant to improve veterans' institutions in the Atlantic and a number of projects that I will not mention.

October 2000, the allocation of an additional $20 million for veterans from the merchant marine.

[English]

During the past years, you know the department has processed nearly 14,000 applications for the merchant navy special benefit. As of March 22, cheques valued at approximately $50.4 million at 60% payment have been sent to 7,046 applicants. Approximately 2,600 requests for a review of the original decision have been received. Those are nearly completed. As I have constantly said, once those reviews are completed, I will go back to cabinet, hopefully by April 30, 2001. I need to get the data. I need to prepare it for presentation.

[Translation]

November 2000, the inauguration of the Canadian Virtual War Memorial.

[English]

Some of you will know that this site is a searchable database and a permanent tribute to the more than 116,000 Canadians, including Newfoundlanders, who have lost their lives in major conflicts since 1884.

[Translation]

May 2000, pilgrimage to The Netherlands to mark the 55th anniversary of the liberation of The Netherlands.

December 2000, pilgrimage to Hong Kong to mark the liberation of former prisoners of war.

January 2001, national round table on Aboriginal peoples.

[English]

We are examining first nations veterans issues, and this report is due by April 30.

[Translation]

February 2001, pilot project on coordinating the transition.

[English]

We initiated a Veterans Affairs Canada transition coordination pilot project, located full-time on key bases, to help provide clients with a seamless transition from military to civilian life. I have the details on that for anyone who's interested.

[Translation]

February 2001, the veterans from the Buchenwald concentration camp in Ottawa.

[English]

Many of you will know that we have been working hard to bring to conclusion the compensation of claims of our remaining Buchenwald veterans.

[Translation]

Renovations to the veterans home in Laval, Quebec, with a total cost of $984,000, in order to increase the number of private rooms and upgrade the pharmacy, the courtyard, as well as various public service areas. New family facilities will be built, including a dining room, a lounge and a family room.

March 31, 2001, review of the table of disabilities.

[English]

A comprehensive draft of the revised table of disabilities is based on a model of whole-body impairment. The document will include revised assessment and entitlement guidelines. A national implementation plan and systems analysis will follow, and this is the first step in the promised review of the disability pension process.

• 1615

[Translation]

April 2001, telephone assistance service.

[English]

A 1-800 telephone assistance service will be implemented for former members of the Canadian Forces who, as a result of their military service, require professional counselling.

[Translation]

April 2001, Halifax Relief Commission.

[English]

I've instructed my staff to explore options to provide an economic increase to those remaining elderly pensioners.

[Translation]

We have accomplished much in a short period of time. When I say "we", I am referring to Mr. Baker, my predecessor. Obviously, I contributed somewhat, by I have only been the minister for five months. Also, I am obviously referring to the committee, this committee here, and others.

And I am proud to say that this is not all. Beyond these accomplishments, I am happy to make the following announcements.

[English]

We have created a director of quality care for Ontario. I have authorized the creation of a director of quality care houses in the Sunnybrook Health Science Centre and the Women's College Hospital in Toronto. This position will act as a Veterans Affairs Canada champion for top quality care in Ontario as a pilot project and hopefully for a similar national approach.

I now want to take a very short while to talk of the changing demographics of our client population that tell us a lot about our evolving priorities.

War-era veterans who receive benefits from Veterans Affairs number about 107,000. By the year 2006, that number is expected to drop by 22% to about 83,300. The sizes of other client groups, however, show no such decline. The numbers for family members, mostly widows and dependent children receiving benefits, will remain relatively unchanged, in the range of 68,000. As well, we expect to see an increase in the number of Canadian Forces members we will serve, from about 28,600 at present to approximately 31,700 in five years' time.

Veterans Affairs Canada has undertaken several initiatives to better serve these clients. I've mentioned a couple, but we have also recently established the Veterans Affairs Canada Canadian Forces Advisory Council to provide guidance and advice to me and to my department on the issues faced by our Canadian Forces clients and their families.

The council is comprised of experts including Dr. Peter Neary, Dean of Social Sciences at the University of Western Ontario, who is the council's chairperson; Lieutenant-General Roméo Dallaire, who knows many of these issues firsthand and only too well; and senior representatives of our major traditional peacekeeping veterans organizations and learned academics and medical experts.

The council will be meeting here in Ottawa in a couple of weeks. I look forward to working with them as we all work to improve our services to our newest veterans.

Mr. Chairman, the reference to our newest veterans was intentional. Today I am pleased that I had some help on this. I am pleased to tell you that Veterans Affairs Canada and the Department of National Defence are expanding the term “veteran” to recognize all former members of Canadian Forces who have met DND's professional occupational classification requirements and have been released from the forces with an honourable discharge. These requirements apply equally to those Canadian Forces members who have served in the reserves. Effectively, this recognizes a potential risk all Canadian Forces members are exposed to when they swear the oath of allegiance and don a Canadian uniform.

In making this announcement, I would like to emphasize that access to Veterans Affairs Canada benefits and services is based on need or another defined eligibility, not because someone has been recognized or is called a veteran. We know the term “veteran” and the recognition it carries is personally very important to former forces members.

I would like to take this opportunity now to thank every one of our Canadian Forces members, who have served their country well and proudly. I personally am extremely proud to call them veterans. I've done so in the past, but I do so now in a legal sense of the word.

[Translation]

I have gone on long enough. The challenges ahead are significant and are all about setting priorities and about striking a balance. There is a great deal to accomplish. Our veterans' achievements are timeless, but their needs are not.

• 1620

[English]

With your support and your guidance, we will meet together the challenges that lie ahead, and we will see that our veterans' needs are met with efficiency, compassion, sensitivity, and dispatch. As always, that seems the least we can do.

Thank you. I would be pleased to take questions.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Goldring, you have ten minutes for the first round.

Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East, CA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you very much for your brief, Mr. Minister.

I'd like to expand on your announcement with a little further explanation. I think it's interesting that you would call it “recognizing as veterans”. But you said this is for all members of the military. Does it apply to reserve units too? What other military factions would qualify here for veteran status?

Mr. Ronald Duhamel: I understand that it's all-encompassing. But I want to confirm that with my deputy minister, in order to make sure I'm not unintentionally misleading you.

Mr. Larry Murray (Deputy Minister, Veterans Affairs): Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. This applies to all. It was developed in consultation with the Canadian Forces, National Defence, and all veterans' organizations. It applies to regular and reserve-force members who achieved professional qualification as professionals in their classifications and have been honourably released from the forces.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Would it also apply then to the rangers or the cadets? Are they considered part of the armed forces? Does it apply to service or attachments there?

Mr. Larry Murray: The rangers are members of the reserve, and definitely it would apply to them. But the cadets are not members of the armed forces, and it would not apply to them.

Mr. Peter Goldring: What does this veteran status do for all these people? Does it give them any different access to the available VIP programs or war veterans programs and services? Does it give any additional attachments or directions that service people can apply to?

Mr. Ronald Duhamel: Before today, I think most of us, if not all of us, probably referred to these former soldiers as veterans. As of today, it conveys a legal status. That's a first step, if you wish. But as I mentioned before, there are eligibility criteria people must meet—based on disability, or the problems they experience. That does not change. If that were to happen, that would be a second and further step.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Given that this first step is a little baby step towards full recognition of war veterans, could you perhaps explain what the difficulty is in recognizing the soldiers who served in the gulf conflict as war veterans? These people served in the Gulf War, as the soldiers from Britain and the United States did, and those countries classified their soldiers as war veterans. What difference would that make to their entitlements?

Mr. Ronald Duhamel: That's under review as we speak. We've been talking about it, and we still need to do some additional analysis and work. I understand that most Canadians refer to these areas of difficulty in the world as “conflict” and “war”, and I think most people would talk about them as such. But there is a definite distinction that I pointed out to you just now.

As I indicated before and mentioned just a few moments ago, it would have to be a next step. That's being looked at. I won't go any further today.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Would you be inclined to agree that this veteran status is really semi-symbolic? It really has no impact, no additional accessing or sourcing privileges—it's merely symbolic, only a word?

Mr. Ronald Duhamel: You called it a baby step, a small step, a symbolic step, and perhaps it's all of those. I don't know. You're a member of the opposition. I see it as a positive first step, and so do the veterans who have seen it and who qualify for it. Those to whom I've spoken see it as a positive first step in the right direction.

I want to point out that many World War II veterans who were not wounded and who suffered no disability as a result of their wartime service received nothing more from us than recognition. So they're in the same category, if you wish. They will qualify for benefits depending upon the difficulty they're experiencing. We're anxious to do that for all of them.

We're also anxious to improve the quality of service. We already have, and we will continue to do exactly that.

• 1625

Mr. Peter Goldring: Could you explain to us what the timeframe is for the next step: recognizing the veterans of the Gulf War, of Bosnia, of other conflicts where there were indeed war-like conditions? When would that be expected?

Mr. Ronald Duhamel: Well, you're trying to get me to make some commitments, both in terms of time and in terms of completing the analysis before it's been done. I simply won't do that. I can tell you this, though: I'm committed to improving those services. I'm committed to doing everything we can for all veterans, as soon as possible.

Mr. Peter Goldring: But is there any active consideration of giving them that status? Is it under serious consideration at this time, or has it been put on the shelf? In other words, is that part two of this?

Mr. Ron Duhamel: No, no, it's not put on a shelf. The advisory committee I mentioned has been tasked to look at this, and to advise me, my deputy, and my other staff. That's what's going to happen. We're going to go through the process the right way, and we'll see what can be done at the appropriate time.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Yes, because I hope you can appreciate the disappointment of those who expected this announcement to include the words “war veteran”. I'm sure they would want to have some kind of idea about when that would be looked at seriously, so they can do some kind of planning and scheduling for the future.

Mr. Ron Duhamel: When I have more information, I shall gladly share it with my colleagues here.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Thank you.

Do I still have time?

The Chair: You have approximately four minutes left.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Oh, I thought it was seven minutes.

I would like to ask a question on the merchant navy situation. Have all the people applied, and have we closed off the applications, or are people still applying? Do we still have more to come?

Mr. Ron Duhamel: No. There was a deadline date, and I think we're past that. In fact, I know we are. As I indicated, there are roughly 2,600 appeals received. We're in the process of finishing that off, and I want to resolve it as quickly as possible. I know that a number of members of this committee have spoken forcefully about it—they want to see a resolution, and so do I. I've answered questions on it in the House as well, and I'm anxious to make sure that I can give you some response by the government—by the end of April, I hope.

The Chair: Mr. Goldring, I'm sorry, I was in error. You did have seven minutes, and you are over your seven minutes now.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Well, it was very nice of you. Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Bachand.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First, I would like to thank the minister for his presentation. I have noticed, among other things, that the document that was handed out contained many things that the minister did not mention. He probably skipped them because he was given less time due to the fact that we all had to go and vote.

However, the document contains other interesting things that interest me in particular, including the whole issue of the Gulf War Syndrome and uranium. I must say that I am somewhat surprised that you touched on this in your brief. This to me is proof that you are not afraid of challenges or sticky issues.

I would like to speak specifically about the definition that you provide for the word "veterans". I read here that you are working closely with the Department of National Defence, representatives of traditional veterans' associations and organizations that represent peacekeepers to agree on a definition for the word "veterans".

I presume that, like us, members of the opposition and possibly even other colleagues, you heard from a number of delegations, including those who fought in the Balkans. I remember very well that when they came to you, you told them that if they could demonstrate the merits of this claim, you would be prepared to include them in the definition of "veterans".

You stated earlier that you worked closely with the Department of Defence. Could you simply tell me if there were meetings that took place between representatives and those who went into certain countries as peacekeepers? Have there already been meetings to try to better define the concept of "veterans"?

Mr. Ronald Duhamel: Yes, there have been discussions, and obviously, meetings. But there are two things that I wanted to tell you.

First, you were right when you said that I had to shorten my presentation because of time. If I had used the first version of the speech, we would be here until after 5 p.m.

• 1630

Second, I want to make sure that I understood you. Today I announced the new definition of “veterans”. The traditional definition is soldiers from the First World War, the Second World War and the Korean War. This has now been changed; the new definition includes other soldiers who have retired from the Armed Forces, provided that they left on good terms and that they satisfied specific military requirements. Members of the reserve are also included in the definition. Thus, the definition of “veterans” has been broadened. It now includes this whole group.

It must be noted that the bill... And my deputy minister won't hesitate to interrupt if I make any mistakes. I am happy to be corrected. When Bill C-41 was tabled, it included a number of other groups that had not been included heretofore. For example, there were nurses who had served and had never been included. There were four or five groups that I mentioned in my brief, if you are interested.

That is what I wanted to say for now.

Mr. Claude Bachand: Okay. But you stated, Mr. Minister, that from now on those who meet two requirements will be included: that of the professional military group code from DND and that of honourable discharge from the Armed Forces. This means, obviously, that those who are called before a military tribunal and those who are laid off will not be entitled to benefits.

What I would like to know is whether soldiers who went to the Gulf War and those who went to the Balkans, and who returned ill, seriously ill, and blame their illness on the conflict, will now be considered as veterans.

Mr. Ronald Duhamel: Yes, they will be considered veterans according to the definition, however I mentioned earlier to my colleague that it is possible to be a veteran without being eligible for certain services. There are corresponding eligibility criteria.

Thus, they will still qualify for benefits for which they qualified before. There is a difference between the two groups, the traditional veterans and the new veterans. What I was saying earlier is that we're in the process of studying this issue. I do not want to promise anything because things are sometimes more difficult than we anticipate. However, can we take another step?

Mr. Claude Bachand: Okay. Thus, members of the military who went to the Balkans and who believe that they are sick because of that are not recognized, at this time, as being covered by the veterans' program.

Mr. Ronald Duhamel: No. They will be recognized as such if a doctor, obviously after having examined these persons, diagnoses that they require care. It does not have to do with the fact that they would have gone to the Balkans or elsewhere, or even that they are designated as veterans. It depends on their state.

Mr. Claude Bachand: I see. But what doctor has the last word on this? I will give the example once again of the people who have come to see me. There are four or five of them who went to the Balkans, they are all sick and their doctors say that this is the result of their service in the Balkans. Does this mean that they will be eligible for the veterans' program?

Is it you who determines if they are covered or do you base it on their own doctor's reports?

Mr. Ronald Duhamel: Obviously, we consider their own doctor's reports. This is the first step. They are qualified and competent professionals, but there is a certain procedure which must be followed.

What I want to stress again, because I do not want to mislead anyone, is that today, we are recognizing them as veterans. Based on what you are saying, you are trying—and I say this without any other motive—to link the benefits with the “veteran” designation. This is not the case. It all depends on the doctor's diagnosis.

I also said that we were in the process of examining these cases. I also announced the establishment of an advisory committee today, whom I asked to look into these questions. Obviously, I am not a doctor, but some of these people are no doubt very ill. Yes, we want to meet their needs. Yes, we have taken certain steps. Yes, we still have a lot to do. However, we do not want to undertake anything before having considered the opinion of competent professionals. That is the process that we have undertaken.

Mr. Claude Bachand: Have you given a deadline to this advisory committee? How much time will they have?

Mr. Ronald Duhamel: I can tell you honestly that there will be a meeting very soon. If you would like to know the exact date, I will have to ask someone. It is during the month of April, mid-April. Since I do not fully understand the complexity of this request that I have made yet, I do not really want to answer.

• 1635

I am sensitive to the fact that these people want solutions as soon as possible. I am committed, and my deputy minister and our team is as well, but it is very difficult to give you a precise date as your colleague has asked for.

Mr. Claude Bachand: Mr. Chairman, this is very important.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Bachand, you're over your time at this point—well over, as a matter of fact.

Mr. Price.

Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Minister, I'm happy to see you here. I won't give you any questions on the merchant marine, because I'm sure those will come from the other side.

Mr. Ronald Duhamel: I wouldn't want you to steal her thunder.

Mr. David Price: I really wouldn't want to do that.

But to continue on a little bit with the same general idea that Mr. Bachand was following, the way I understand it, with anything written anywhere now that says “veteran”, you have expanded the number of people who fit under that legally.

Mr. Ronald Duhamel: That's correct.

Mr. David Price: As another clarification, talking about the veterans hospital in Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue, we've heard a lot of people who we call veterans but who never went overseas—say World War I or World War II veterans who are still left around and have spent most of their lives in the military, actually, but have never been overseas—who would like to finish their final years in a place like Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue. They are not in very good condition and would like to be around their own kind of people, but they have no access. Is there any space in that direction in where you're going here? Is that being studied at this point?

Mr. Ronald Duhamel: Yes. In fact I will try to provide you with some details, but clearly, that is a problem.

You will recall what I said in my notes—and if I didn't say it in my shortened version, it was in the longer version—the announcement made by my predecessor of 2,600 additional beds.

If my memory serves me correctly, the reason that some are not in the facilities is that the spaces in those facilities are occupied by those who are on pension and therefore have priority. If I were 80-some years old and not well, I wouldn't necessarily be making the distinction that someone has been pensioned and I have not. I have a problem.

There is some sensitivity there, and again, I will ask my deputy for some precision. My sense is that we've released some of the pressure, that it's less acute than it used to be. There was a fairly serious problem. We have reduced those numbers substantially, but there are still some difficulties in different areas.

Perhaps my deputy could share the details—assuming that I haven't really turned around and given you an impossible task.

Mr. Larry Murray: Not at all.

In relation to the specific question of Canada service veterans, that has been a longstanding problem. As a result of the addition of the 2,600 priority access beds in communities across the country, we have regulatory changes underway that will provide Canada service veterans access to those beds when those regulations go through, which we hope will be quite soon.

At this juncture, it will not provide access to the 4,100 long-term-care beds in places like Sunnybrook, Perley-Rideau here in Ottawa, or Camp Hill in Halifax, but it will provide them with access to the vast majority of the beds, in other words, around 6,000 community beds of one sort or another across the country. In many cases, veterans prefer those, because they're in their communities and they don't have to move to Toronto or—

Mr. David Price: But with their own people...

Mr. Larry Murray: It may not be the perfect solution, but we do have a solution underway on that one.

Mr. David Price: Okay.

Going in another direction now, Mr. Minister, as you know, Remembrance Day services in our communities are extremely important. For example, I have 17 of them in my own riding. We have a major problem, in that we usually use our reserves to act as honour guards and do the different ceremonial things around these services, and where we have them, we use cadets also.

The problem right now is that, as you know, our reserves' training days are being limited. Preparing for and doing these parades usually involves, in my area, about six days for the training and the parade. They don't have those days available. So what happens is they're able to show up for one or two parades, and the others get left out.

• 1640

We realize this is National Defence on one side, but on the other side it's respect for our veterans, and there are fewer and fewer of them all the time.

I'm wondering if there is any possibility that Veterans Affairs could help out in a crossover to National Defence with extra training days so that our reserve soldiers could service these Remembrance Day ceremonies.

Mr. Ronald Duhamel: Obviously, you've raised this question with me before, so we've begun some work on it, as have others. In fact, there's a citizen, I suspect from your own riding, who you probably talk to on occasion who has raised it with me. Frankly, I know what you're talking about because I have a very similar situation in my own riding, as I think all colleagues do in theirs, where we have the reserves and the cadets give a hand.

What we've been doing in commemoration is focusing on major events. We have limited resources, so in terms of responding... It's not only the 17. I don't know how many I have in my riding. I don't think I have 17, but I have a fair number. If you multiply that by 300-and-some ridings, it represents a substantial amount of money.

But I'm caught between a rock and a hard place. Obviously, from an emotional commitment perspective, I'd like to be able to do something. On the other hand, I have limited resources, and I'm not sure I can. I'm prepared to explore, but I'm not making any promises. It's going to be extremely difficult, and I'd be surprised if I could respond in the kind of way you would want, not because it's not right, but because we don't have the resources to do it.

Mr. David Price: Maybe it's just a matter of the Minister of Veterans Affairs putting pressure on the Minister of National Defence. That's unfair, isn't it?

Mr. Ronald Duhamel: No, it's not unfair.

Mr. David Price: Since we're here to talk about estimates, I do have a question arising directly out of the estimates. I'm looking at the extra costs for the Veterans Review and Appeal Board. I'm wondering why there would be extra money in the supplementary estimates when in fact the number of veterans is on the decline.

The Chair: Perhaps we could have a very brief intervention since we're over time.

Mr. Brian Chambers (Chair, Veterans Review and Appeal Board, Department of Veterans Affairs): The quick answer to that is that our extension of funding on that one is related to the quality-of-life initiative by the Canadian Forces. We're involved very intensely in that initiative. In fact, we have a pretty extensive research program, which we've initiated with them, around the hearing-loss conservation program. That's why we've both contributed extra funds. In fact, most of the funds have come to us from National Defence to assist us in that activity. So that's where the difference is.

Mr. David Price: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr. Chairman, Elsie is going to catch a plane and I'm here tonight, so I'd like to give my time to her first. I'll follow her.

The Chair: Okay.

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

I know the minister is so pleased that Elsie is going to be able to speak.

Mr. Ronald Duhamel: Absolutely. It's going to make my day.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Mr. Chair, the minister stated that April 30 was the date with regard to the merchant mariners and the other 40% and how many would be getting it and that he'd be going to cabinet and what have you. I'm sure your deputy is aware, and he's probably getting the same calls I'm receiving. Of course, I have to say, Mr. Minister, and to the deputy, you know who I got a call from last night.

Mr. Ronald Duhamel: It wasn't I.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: No, it wasn't. It was from Ossie, bless his living heart.

Apparently, there was a meeting held in Montreal or in Quebec somewhere, and at that time their understanding and that of Mr. Ferlatte—because I've also been getting calls there—was that a final decision would be made on March 30. Maybe they misunderstood that, but they thought it was March 30. I'm heading back home. I want to work with you on this, there's no question about that. But is it March 30? Was that what was agreed to, Mr. Minister?

Mr. Ronald Duhamel: There are two dates. We said March 31, actually—but in theory it doesn't really matter—when the information on appeals would be completed. I said I needed roughly 30 days in order to prepare the paperwork. You'll recall that we had estimated a need for $50 million.

• 1645

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Yes, that's right.

Mr. Ronald Duhamel: You will recall that I had to go back for another $20 million, and you will recall that somebody said it was probably about $35 million that was required. So I don't want to go back and ask for $35 million, if it's $31 million, or $38 million—

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I understand that.

Mr. Ronald Duhamel: I have no guarantee as well. I want to say that.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Yes, I know.

Mr. Ronald Duhamel: But we're going to be working very hard to try to—

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: To resolve it.

Mr. Larry Murray: I would like to add to that. The meetings referred to were meetings with the leadership of the two principal organizations to reach agreement on the ground rules for the review process. I certainly understand their frustration, but my understanding is that the leaders agreed to the criteria and understood that it would take another 30 days to do that process properly. That was my feedback anyway.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: All right.

Mr. Ronald Duhamel: There are two activities here: one is to complete the appeals and have the data so we know exactly what we're asking for, and the other one, of course, is the formal request.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I have a letter that was sent to me, and I'm not sure, Mr. Minister, if you and your department are aware of this. Are you aware of the two news stories that have just come out about the Canadian war graves of the First and Second World Wars being desecrated, robbed and scavenged in Normandy? Are you aware of that?

Mr. Ronald Duhamel: I am not. I don't recall anyone having shared that with me. When did you get this information, if I may ask?

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: This was given to me yesterday at my caucus meeting. They did send a letter to your office and it must be there. It is unbelievable what these people are doing over there. These are the men a lot of whose graves are under water. But they've gone in there and taken wedding rings and other items. Some they put in museums, but others they're selling. These are our veterans.

I didn't think you knew about it, but I'm going to make a copy of this. It was just given to me yesterday. I will get it to all of my colleagues and, more importantly, to the minister for him to work on this, because this is a very serious situation.

The Chair: Perhaps, Mrs. Wayne, you could provide a copy to the clerk of the committee and she will make arrangements to have it translated and distributed. That information is certainly very disturbing.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Okay.

Mr. Ronald Duhamel: Yes, I would like to respond. Clearly I appreciate you raising it with me. We'll follow up immediately to see what's been done and what can be corrected.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I have a last question, but I won't take too much time, because my buddy has shared his time with me.

Yesterday the Sun newspaper reported that a nationwide probe of veterans hospitals was never undertaken, despite a clear indication from not you, but your predecessor, that such a review was in fact going to take place. Mr. Minister, can you speak to this issue, particularly the committee made by your predecessor?

Mr. Ronald Duhamel: The commitment was made and it was followed up. Every single facility was checked out, so it's incorrect information. In fact, we do this on a regular basis, but because of the concerns of my predecessor we accelerated it and we did even more. It's been done and the results are extremely positive.

Having said that, I don't want to indicate that there are no improvements that are possible, but it's extremely positive.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I spoke to the minister just in passing the other day because we are having an expansion at our veterans hospital in Saint John, and in regard to the chapel that's there I was doing a call-in show and a woman called me and said “How do you expect all those veterans in wheelchairs to go to the chapel, Mrs. Wayne, when it's only going to be 11 feet wide?” I've checked, and it is 16 feet and 25 feet long, or something. Therefore, Mr. Minister, I think everything's going to be okay, and I thank you very much.

I will call Ossie as soon as I get home.

Mr. Ronald Duhamel: Please do.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Stoffer, you have seven minutes.

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

Mr. Minister, thank you and your staff as well.

First of all, I want to compliment your department, especially the staff who work in the Charlottetown area. We've been dealing with them now for over three and a half years, and never once have we had any concern to raise a complaint or anything. They've done their job extremely professionally, especially when they're dealing with seniors and many widows who are left. And the information is very quick and fast. You can pass my congratulations on to all of them for the great work they're doing.

My question, sir, stems from a comment that was made in the Senate by the government leader in a response to a question from a senator from Nova Scotia. The governent House leader said that $35 million was going to be allocated, or was already there, to settle the merchant mariners issue.

• 1650

Of course you have come out and said no, that's not necessarily correct; we still have to finish the review process and then go to cabinet. I suspect what you're saying is absolutely correct, but my question to you, sir, is have you discussed this with the government leader in the Senate as to where and how she came up with that comment and that figure?

Mr. Ronald Duhamel: Thanks for complimenting the staff. I share, as do many others, your views about their competence and dedication and commitment.

With respect to the comment of the government House leader in the Senate, it was inaccurate information. There was an estimate with respect to this, and unfortunately it was communicated in such a way that it appeared it was a *tifait accompli. My version is the correct one. And if you were to look at the minutes, I think the next day you would see a correction on the part of the government House leader.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Very good. Thank you, sir.

Another question I have for you, sir, is there's a private member's bill brought on by the member from the Gulf Islands, I believe, advocating the wearing of medals—

Mr. Ronald Duhamel: Yes.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: —by a relative, in the event of a veteran having passed on, on their right side on Remembrance Day only. The Canadian Legion has come out, at least in letters we've received, as saying they oppose that. I'm wondering, does the department have any position on that proposal at this time?

Mr. Ronald Duhamel: I believe they do, and I believe it's my position, which has been around for some time.

It's a colleague from Thunder Bay, whom I've known for some significant period of time. We've discussed it. I said I would side with the veterans, obviously. They consider this a distinction they've won, which they have.

There are a number of other issues I could mention to you. A whole lot of people don't understand the difference between wearing it on the right and the left and it could be misused and what have you. So the position is it is the way it is now. It will continue. There are a number of other countries that have this.

We have not been persuaded. I have not been persuaded that this needs to be changed, and I have no intention of so doing.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Very good.

Sir, most of our Legions across the country, especially in smaller communities, are really falling apart, and they don't have either the base or whatever in order to maintain their stature or structure in the community. I didn't notice it in the estimates, but is there any move afoot within Veterans Affairs to assist the Legions across the country in either helping rebuild the cenotaphs they have or giving them either no-interest loans or some grants in a small way in order to assist them to rebuild their Legions?

Mr. Ronald Duhamel: You raise an interesting comment. To my knowledge, no. And the reason for that is... Let's see if my deputy sees it differently. If he has some money, I'm prepared to move in that direction. It is under review with the commemoration review. That's the correct information.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you.

Lastly, sir, Elsie just sneaked one last question, so I'll ask you about that.

Mr. Ronald Duhamel: Of course, she would.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Some veterans want the department to increase its rates for funeral services and burials to reflect the cost-of-living increases since 1993. Has the department, or will the department, look at increasing its rates in the near future?

Mr. Ronald Duhamel: It's been examined. I believe I have one recommendation and there are still others to come. It's something that will be addressed.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: And lastly, sir, I have a statement. We, along with the Dutch prince, were there for the 55th at the new memorial that's in front of the Halifax Camp Hill hospital in Halifax. I want to congratulate all the people at Veterans Affairs who had a hand in bringing that forward. It was a huge success and wonderful, and the veterans who are still there with us really appreciate that being there. So thank you.

Mr. Ronald Duhamel: Thank you. And the deputy wants to add something.

Mr. Larry Murray: I would like to add something, too. In addition to the commemoration review we're doing around memorials and all that, in relation to the Candian Legion, we're actively partnering with them on a variety of areas. We're partnering in a housing pilot with them, which we can provide more details on. We're also piloting in getting computers across the country with health care information on them. It's been very successful. I think we're working towards 18 sites in Ontario and 26 sites in the rest of the country. So we have a very active, ongoing dialogue to take advantage of their organization and the outreach they have, and recognizing their fiscal challenges.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you.

I just remembered one last question for you. When a veteran passes on, and a widower is left in most cases, the benefits the veteran had received, like snow shovelling and all that stuff, seem to disappear with his death. Is that right?

Mr. Ronald Duhamel: It lasts for one year, I believe.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yes. Right now they have a certain standard of living, and then that standard drops a year after the veteran dies. Is there any move afoot within Veterans Affairs to look at this issue?

• 1655

Mr. Ronald Duhamel: It's been discussed. It's being discussed. It's one of the priorities of the veterans organizations. Look, there are a number of good points that have been raised today. If we had more resources, we would move very boldly and quickly on some of those.

There's some sensitivity there. I've known some people who were in that situation. Clearly, if there was something that could be done in the future, there's an open mind to it, and an open spirit.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you, sir.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, CA): Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: You have five minutes.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Just before I get to my questions, Mr. Chair, last week I asked for unanimous consent of the committee to allow a witness—the mother of Corporal Christian McEachern, Paula Richmond—to appear before the committee. It was an unscheduled thing, so I very properly asked for unanimous consent of the committee to accept this witness. Now I'd like—

The Chair: Mr. Benoit, we have a very limited time with the minister here. He has to leave in approximately five minutes. I would like to deal with that issue at the end of the meeting, if we could, and make the best use of the minister's time while he's in front of us.

Mr. Leon Benoit: If you will assure me that we can deal with it at the end of the meeting.

The Chair: Absolutely.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Great.

I have a question for the minister on the Canadian War Museum. The Canadian War Museum is under the control of the Canadian Museum of Civilization. This is unfortunate, because the two museums can cater to quite different clientele, I would suggest, and have very little in common.

In order to advance its interest more effectively, the War Museum must have its own autonomous directors, I believe. All museums, pretty much, receive 100% of their funding from government. Why is it that our vets, after risking their lives overseas and who want to perpetuate the memory of their accomplishments, have to go out and raise $15 million towards their museum when most other museums are getting 100% funding? For example, there's a new portrait gallery going into the old U.S. embassy, and it's getting all of its funding from government.

The veterans have raised $10 million so far. When they were soliciting funds, they told the donors that the location of the museum would be in Rockcliffe, adjacent to the National Aviation Museum and near the military cemetery. Now, out the of blue, this government has said they're going to relocate this museum in LeBreton Flats on a smaller piece of property and probably at greater cost because the site has to be cleaned up.

Does the Minister of Veterans Affairs have any influence at all in cabinet to persuade cabinet to act on behalf of the veterans on this issue? How much is it going to cost for this new property to be developed, and what's the timing because of that?

Does the minister personally favour the Rockcliffe location?

Mr. Ronald Duhamel: First of all, I can certainly bring your comments to the attention of the government, and I would be prepared to do that, and to the ministers who are involved directly.

I can't confirm—and I don't say this with any intention to be sly—whether or not the information that you shared is in fact factual because I'm not involved in the file directly. I've obviously heard some talk about it. But I will share it with others and see what can be done. I'm sensitive to the comments that you made.

Mr. Leon Benoit: We're here today on the estimates, and, with regard to this issue of the cost, I realize the Department of Canadian Heritage has a role to play in this. There are maybe other departments involved. But certainly the veterans want this to be under their control, under the control of Veterans Affairs.

As the Minister of Veterans Affairs, do you favour the Rockcliffe location?

Mr. Ronald Duhamel: As a minister who does not have that file, I will not make a comment on that question.

Mr. Leon Benoit: So you really don't have the information on, or you haven't looked into, this issue of the museum? It's a pretty important issue to a lot of veterans.

Mr. Ronald Duhamel: No. It's an important issue. I'm aware of some of the points that have been raised and some other points as well, but it is not for me to make that decision.

I have enough on my plate with the responsibilities that I have. I'm not about to go beyond that.

The Chair: Mr. Benoit, it's clear as well that this is not an area that is under the minister's administrative responsibility. He has been kind enough to provide a few comments on it, but I would ask that, in terms of relevance, you stick to issues that are under the minister's responsibility.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I recognize, Mr. Chair, that probably the Department of Canadian Heritage has control over this file.

The Chair: It does.

Mr. Leon Benoit: That's one of the concerns, though, that veterans have. They think that in fact it should be separated, removed from the Department of Canadian Heritage and put under the control, at least, of Veterans Affairs.

Mr. Ronald Duhamel: Your comments will be shared, and I would encourage you to speak to the minister responsible for Heritage Canada.

• 1700

Mr. Leon Benoit: So there is no money, then? I can confirm that there is no money under your budget, Mr. Minister—that it would be all under the Heritage Canada budget and therefore covered under the estimates from that department?

Mr. Ronald Duhamel: I have no funds for this particular project, this particular initiative.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Okay.

The Chair: Mr. Bachand.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: I only have two short questions. I wanted to get back to the advisory committee. I understand that the committee will advise you on the scope and on the breadth of the services to be provided. I understand the committee's terms of reference.

Now, would it be possible to find out who will be on this advisory committee? Will it be possible to ask questions directly to the advisory committee or would you prefer us to address them directly to you?

Mr. Ronald Duhamel: First, I would say that yes, we can give you the names and it would be our pleasure to do so. I have already mentioned a few names today, in passing; this is no problem.

With respect to your second question, I would like to consider it. I will say that I take this committee's recommendations very seriously. I am told that you are an efficient committee that takes to heart the fate of veterans. Thus, any work that you do here, in committee, or elsewhere, I would gladly forward. I think that it might be wise to make your recommendations on behalf of the committee as a whole and to make them to me. As far as I am concerned, I could share relevant information with you. I will consider the question.

Mr. Claude Bachand: Very well. If I understand well, Mr. Minister, your terms of reference do not include any deadline.

Mr. Ronald Duhamel: No, and I would like you to understand why. It is because this is a very complex situation, from what I understand. I do not understand it fully enough. If that were the case, I would not be asking for the assistance of an advisory committee. Thus, I want to be cautious. I do not want to impose an impossible task on them.

Would you like the names of the members of the advisory committee or would you rather that I forward them later?

Mr. Claude Bachand: Yes, give them to me later, because I have a second question. I want to be quick.

With respect to your contributions to the transfer to the provinces, which has fallen considerably from what I can see, there were agreements to transfer hospitals, to the provinces I presume. I know that your contribution went from $1.3 million to only $17,000. I imagine that these agreements contained dollar amounts so that these agreements could justify—

Mr. Ronald Duhamel: Construction projects, major projects requiring capital.

Mr. Claude Bachand: Okay. Is there any way to see these agreements or do they come under—

Mr. Ronald Duhamel: You would like to know where the difference between the $1.3 million and the $17,000 has been allocated?

Mr. Claude Bachand: You read my mind.

Mr. Ronald Duhamel: That is no problem.

Mr. Claude Bachand: No problem?

Mr. Ronald Duhamel: No. We will provide you with a list of the projects. The number was quite high in British Columbia in particular.

Mr. Claude Bachand: Were there some in Quebec?

Mr. Ronald Duhamel: Were there some in Quebec?

Mr. Larry Murray: Only the work to be done in the hospital at Sainte-Anne. There are major renovations to be done to this hospital in the very near future.

Mr. Claude Bachand: Soon?

Mr. Larry Murray: Soon.

Mr. Claude Bachand: Does this justify the drop from $1.3 million to $17,000, this year?

Mr. Larry Murray: Yes.

Mr. Claude Bachand: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Ronald Duhamel: But most of the major projects are construction projects. If you would like to see them, there's no problem.

Mr. Claude Bachand: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: You have no further questions, Mr. Bachand?

Mr. Claude Bachand: No.

The Chair: Mr. O'Reilly.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Minister, and your people for appearing here today. We appreciate your candidness. I know some tactics went on today in the House of Commons that are going to cause us now to sit on Saturday and Sunday, but I suppose that's not a big inconvenience.

I have three areas I wanted to ask about. One concerns the pension eligibility of Gulf War veterans. The disability pension that applies is at a rate that is 55%. I just wondered why it's that low. That's my first question.

Secondly, I've been to Vimy and seen that it's deteriorating at a rapid rate. I think it's time that it be rebuilt, and I know that you're looking at that. I just wonder what the timeframe is on that reconstruction, what the cost is, and where the labourers will come from, because it's going to require some fairly talented artisans to put it back together.

• 1705

My third point is one that's a favourite for me, and that is the Juno Beach project that is ongoing at the present time. There are five points of landing that make up the beaches of Normandy, and Canadians landed at Juno.

There's a group now put together under the 14th Field Regiment Children's Association to build a memorial building and they're receiving funding from veterans groups and most recently Wal-Mart stores have come onto the scene in a big way. I encourage members here from all parties to approach their Wal-Mart stores and ask them to get on board and raise money.

I've been at a couple of the openings. Every June 6 there's a memorial at Juno Beach, but on June 6 every year we seem to have trouble getting people from here to go. And on June 6, 2002, there will be the opening of this memorial.

Now, there is money from the government. I hate to agree with Mr. Benoit, but there is a clash of power groups and I'm not sure how we work it. There is a Heritage Canada group, and there's Veterans Affairs and there's National Defence and there are museum boards. And when you start going around and organizing something, or find out who is responsible, it gets passed over.

I know that all of us share the frustration of trying to find out who is in charge of what so that we can approach them. As a result, we approach everyone and sometimes get no answers.

I know this isn't your file, but Veterans Affairs, I would think, would be in support of any veterans groups or organizations that come forward. I'm told that it's under Heritage Canada, yet the Vimy memorial is actually under Parks Canada. So perhaps you could shed some light on that.

Mr. Ronald Duhamel: I don't know how much light I can shed. Clearly there are some complexities and clearly, I would think, because there are resources involved and decisions, some people probably shy away. I'm as guilty as the next minister if there have been others who have shied away.

With respect to Juno, I am pleased that Wal-Mart has made a contribution, and other organizations, although I'd like to take a look at it, because there again, it involves resources. I'm going to be extremely prudent. We might be able to contribute something to the official opening, which you mentioned is June 2002.

Mr. John O'Reilly: June 6.

Mr. Ronald Duhamel: June 6, of course.

Mr. John O'Reilly: We'd like someone there June 6 this year also.

Mr. Ronald Duhamel: Let's take it one at a time here. Maybe you'd like to go with me—

Mr. John O'Reilly: We're volunteering, definitely.

Mr. Ronald Duhamel: —and see Paul Martin tomorrow morning. We'll make that arrangement right away.

With respect to Vimy Ridge, with all of the monuments, and I will ask the deputy to give you more information, we've located stone, because there is some special stone. I think that stone is in the process of being transported if it's not already there. We've identified artisans, some at least.

It seems to me, Deputy, that I'd seen a figure of $29.6 million for all of the efforts that were undertaken with respect to Vimy and some others to which we've made commitments. I'll just address the other one, and perhaps you can fill in the details.

With regard to the 55%, as I understand it, and I want to be very clear on that, we've had a system that assessed impairment of the body of the person, the veteran, and so much is given for the various impairments. We're looking at a new table of disabilities, and that will be looking at the overall impairment, as opposed to... I'm not saying it will go beyond 55%, but I think that figure is a total cumulative number.

So there are three issues, Deputy, you have to follow up on or where you have to provide information: anything new on Juno, anything more on Vimy and others, and the pension of 55%, the new veterans classification.

The Chair: Perhaps we could get to that at some later point, Mr. O'Reilly, because you're well over your time.

Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Chair, with your indulgence, I'll let the question go from Mr. O'Reilly. I have a very short question.

The Chair: Admiral Murray, go ahead.

Mr. Larry Murray: Mr. Chair, I'll be as quick as I can.

In regard to the Juno Beach memorial, after World War II governments in the war, the allied governments, decided, set a policy, that unlike after World War I, they weren't going to build memorials on the ground in Europe. That was a policy decision. And that's why Canada, unlike what has happened for Vimy and the other European monuments, is not in the business of building monuments. But we do, from an education and so on point of view, try to help those initiatives.

• 1710

The other reason the minister has the commemoration review underway is to try to come to grips with who does what to whom, so it's clear to people who they go to for what. So hopefully that will fall out of that.

As to Vimy, we've spent about $800,000 to date on it. As the minister says, it's a very complex project. We had to find stone in Croatia. Part of the reason for some of the problems is that the stone used previously in repairs, when it interacted with the Croatian original stone, was causing problems. We do, as the minister said, have excellent artisans, and we have one of Canada's foremost experts involved. I expect it will happen over four or five years, though, because it will take time to do it.

The bill, as the minister said, in round figures, for all the European monuments we think is about $30 million. But for Vimy I think it's somewhere between $11 million and $17 million. The number varies, depending on the estimate for the repair. We're not absolutely certain of that, but I can get back to you with the right number.

As to the 55% pension, I must admit I missed the essence of the question. We are moving forward with a table of disabilities, because of the complexities we're getting from the new veterans, to try to deal with the whole person, so they don't have to come back eight times for eight different things. But I'm sorry, I missed the question.

Mr. Ronald Duhamel: Could you repeat it? It's an important question, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. John O'Reilly: It was the eligibility for disability that has a 55% approval rating.

Mr. Ronald Duhamel: Oh, I misunderstood. I apologize. I was under the impression that we were talking about accounts.

Mr. Larry Murray: If we look at applications through the whole process, we think that it's about 87%. I think it is now higher than 55% actually—we can get back to you on that. The real challenge, in my opinion, is to get the first answer right, because it's difficult and emotional for people to have to come back three times. But the end result to date is about 87%.

One of the things we're very proud of is putting in place a new PTSD protocol. Since we put that protocol in place for, we're at something over 80% yeses first time around. It's much simpler for the people coming through the door.

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

The Chair: Mr. Stoffer.

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

Mr. Chairman, at our last committee meeting we heard from a medical officer who was talking about the concerns with depleted uranium. He mentioned—and correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Chair—that what he would like to see is a long-term study, where they follow the veterans to see the long-term effects of DU or any other concerns. Would that follow under your purview, in respect of responsibility once they are out of the service? And if indeed that is the case, would your department have the funding or resources to do those long-term medical studies?

Mr. Ronald Duhamel: It could come under a number of departments. Veterans Affairs could be one, the Department of National Defence might be another, and we could go on. But we have in fact undertaken some activity. Let me just mention two or three elements. There again I'll get the deputy to bring some additional precision to it.

We are concerned, obviously, as many of you are. We are watching very carefully the international research that's going on. We have undertaken a project where we're in contact with universities and other experts to see what is happening. In fact, I believe we're seeking additional resources in order to look further at the question.

Mr. Larry Murray: That's absolutely right. We have traditionally relied almost entirely on DND, because they have medical expertise and they're still working on this issue. It's very troubling for everyone. We're expanding our research capability as well. We think we can bring a perspective to it. Both departments are heavily engaged in following all the international activities in this area with NATO, the U.S., the Brits, and everyone else. But we are expanding our research activities and capability in this area.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Finally, sir, with the Buchenwald vets, in the unlikely event that some of them pass on, say from here until the fall, when we can hope to get some compensation for them, will their widows or their estates be entitled to any compensation?

Mr. Ronald Duhamel: The widow or widower will, I believe.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: But not the estate.

Mr. Ronald Duhamel: It's my understanding that is not so.

• 1715

Mr. Larry Murray: It's a unique situation at the moment. If it were a Canadian situation, like the merchant navy thing, they absolutely would. That's something we'll have to look at on the day. I think we're going to have to use a little imagination with aspects of that one in any case, to make sure it is addressed. I have confirmed that it's within the minister's authority to do some of those imaginative things.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I have a question regarding the Authorson class action suit and the estimates for this year, as to whether there's been any money put aside in case the government should lose this suit. It could amount to an awful lot of money the government will have to pay out to veterans in interest and so on if they should lose the case.

There is concern on the part of veterans that if there's a large pay out as a result of this suit, funding for other programs will be reduced. I'd like the minister to comment on whether or not, if the government does have to pay this interest, it will affect the Department of Veterans Affairs program in the future. If not, where will the money come from? Has the government made any allowance for a judgment against them?

Mr. Ronald Duhamel: As you well know, there's a class action suit. The Government of Canada decided to contest it, because they felt the decision was not an appropriate one, that it was “trespassing” on legitimate government terrain. You will know that we pay interest since 1990.

In theory, the answer to your question is yes, if there were a large payment, it might have an impact, but there's no direct relationship. With respect to the funds, it is not my department that would pay out, it would be the Government of Canada, as I understand it. I don't want to go any further, because it's before the courts. I don't want to get into a whole big nasty mess.

Mr. Leon Benoit: If that's the case, though, if it isn't coming out of your department, can you assure me and the veterans that there would be no impact on the Department of Veterans Affairs budget?

Mr. Ronald Duhamel: I can't give any assurance of that kind, but I can tell you I don't want it to have that kind of impact. We all know there are a limited number of dollars to be spent. We also know what the veterans' priorities are, and we're trying to do our best to meet them as quickly as possible. But I would be dishonest if I were to say yes or no to that question. Nobody knows the answer to the question you've raised.

Mr. Leon Benoit: So is the department doing anything in anticipation of a potential judgment against the government? You're just saying there's a lot of uncertainty there, and it could affect the department and programs. If it could, then what plans have you made to deal with that?

Mr. Ronald Duhamel: No, I did not say it would affect us, I said there's not a direct relationship, in my opinion. We know what the veterans' priorities are. We're trying to reach out and meet them. I did point out, though, in all honesty, that there's a limited amount of funds to be spent. So whether or not one would draw the conclusion “Therefore...”, I don't know. But the government has taken the appropriate precautions for whatever the possibilities are.

Mr. Leon Benoit: But money could come from the Department of Veterans Affairs?

Mr. Ronald Duhamel: No, I don't believe that.

Mr. Leon Benoit: They'll pay out that fund?

Mr. Ronald Duhamel: I don't believe that.

Mr. Leon Benoit: But it is possible?

Mr. Ronald Duhamel: No, I don't believe that.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I'm getting mixed messages, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Ronald Duhamel: We have a $2 billion budget, which is primarily pensions and health benefits. I don't know what the contribution could be, unless there was a very small judgment.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you.

Mr. Ronald Duhamel: Mr. Chairman, I have to tell you that I am beyond the limit—not my emotional or physical limit, but I really need to attend to other matters. I've extended it by 20 minutes. I apologize, but I do have to exit.

The Chair: Minister, I was surprised you were sticking around, because we understood you were going to be leaving at five o'clock. So I'm sure the committee appreciates your staying here and answering additional questions. Am I to understand that your officials may be able to—

Mr. Ronald Duhamel: I believe they could probably take some last questions. There may be some pressing questions, and my officials are prepared to do that.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Minister.

Mr. Ronald Duhamel: Thank you.

• 1720

Mr. Leon Benoit: Are we going to deal with the motion now?

The Chair: We will if there are no further questions to the officials.

Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, this is simply a plea for more money to be put into commemorative activities. We're losing our corporate memory. I'm hearing it from our schools. Our veterans just don't have the capacity any more to be doing the things they need to do in the schools. The information that Veterans Affairs produces is excellent. At a time when we're losing firsthand accounting, I think we need to put more money into those activities.

I'll make that plea to the minister as well.

Mr. Larry Murray: You wouldn't be surprised to know that in our review we had 5,500 contacts outside the department. Those contacts were with not only veterans organizations but also Canadians at large, and a variety of different people. Of those contacts, 87% felt we should be doing more in this area. That was the message we received consistently, across the board.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I'm surprised it was that low.

The Chair: Any further questions from committee members?

Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I started to explain before—

The Chair: Before you go on, I'd like to thank the officials for being here.

Mr. Hillier, Mr. Chambers, Admiral Murray, and Mr. Mogan, your answers were very much appreciated.

Mr. Larry Murray: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Mr. Chair, at last Thursday's committee meeting I brought to committee, with no notice whatsoever, a witness who I thought should be heard by the committee. This witness was Paula Richmond, the mother of Corporal Christian McEachern, who, in an attempt to commit suicide, drove his vehicle through the wall of a military building on the base in Edmonton.

We had at committee that day Colonel Ken Scott as a witness. He was talking about depleted uranium. He said in his comments that a lot of the things that are being attributed to depleted uranium are really caused by certain types of stress, including post-traumatic stress disorder.

Now, Corporal McEachern was diagnosed two and a half years ago as suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. For that reason, I thought it was very appropriate to bring the mother of this corporal, who is in desperate straits right now, to the committee.

I did that in the proper format. I asked for unanimous consent of the committee. Under those circumstances, that's all I could do. Unanimous consent was denied. The notice of motion I sent in yesterday was noted as received. I understand it isn't in order because I'm an associate member of the committee. That's something I had overlooked.

My only recourse, again, is to ask for unanimous consent of the committee to move this motion now and to have it supported by the committee right now.

I move, Mr. Chair, that Paula Richmond be invited to appear before the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs within the next four weeks to present the case of her son, Corporal Christian McEachern, and to discuss her concerns regarding post-traumatic stress disorder, as it is affecting members of Canada's forces.

I ask for your unanimous consent.

Mr. John O'Reilly: On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I believe the motion is out of order because of Mr. Benoit's stature. But I would want the motion to be moved, and certainly I would move it on his behalf, without any hesitation, as long as the mover recognizes a few things. First, we're dealing with someone's medical file, with someone's personal information. Second, we're dealing, very clearly, with a case that could be coming before the court and where charges may be laid, and therefore we would be denying due process of the law. I don't think the committee would want to do that.

• 1725

If Mr. Benoit would agree that this item be referred to the steering committee under those circumstances, I think it would be very appropriate for the steering committee deal with it in terms of setting up a meeting. I would also suggest that the steering committee look at in camera for the meeting until those two legal items are dealt with.

By the way, the objections from members of the committee were on those grounds.

So I see nothing wrong with this being referred to the steering committee and dealt with.

The Chair: I think the proper way to do this would be to have a member move it and have it on the floor of the committee, and then to move a separate motion for the referral.

Mr. John O'Reilly: I would so move.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes, I moved that motion—

The Chair: Mr. Benoit, you're not permitted to move the motion.

Mr. Leon Benoit: No, and for that reason I ask for unanimous consent of the committee to pass this motion without the normal notice.

Mr. John O'Reilly: You can't introduce it.

The Chair: I don't think there is unanimous consent to pass that particular motion.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Well, I'd ask the chair to ask for unanimous consent. This committee governs its own destiny.

The Chair: Strictly speaking—and I thought there might be some manner of working around this problem—you can't even move the motion, Mr. Benoit. You can't even suggest that the motion be moved.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I can't ask for unanimous consent of the committee? I understood that the committee was in control of its own destiny and that I could ask for unanimous consent for the committee to do anything it so chose.

The Chair: Mr. Benoit, in terms of the rules, my understanding is that you cannot do indirectly what you can't do directly, and what you're attempting to do is to do something indirectly.

Now, there has been an offer made by Mr. O'Reilly to have the matter come to the floor of this committee. With due respect, I think it's a reasonable approach to this situation. Is that an approach that is not acceptable to you? Because Mr. O'Reilly can move that motion—

Mr. John O'Reilly: I have moved the motion, so...

The Chair: Actually, I've just been advised that it's a subsidiary motion, so Mr. O'Reilly's motion is in order.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I have a point of order.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: It can't be a subsidiary motion if the first one wasn't a motion.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I was asking for unanimous consent of the committee. While I'm waiting for the chair to ask for unanimous...

Sorry. Do you have a ruling?

The Chair: I'm seeking some advice from the clerk.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Mr. Chair, perhaps you can rule on this point. I have asked for unanimous consent of the committee to bring Paula Richmond to appear before the committee.

The Chair: Mr. Benoit, I've just been advised by the clerk that your request for unanimous consent is in fact a motion and it cannot be put on that basis, on the basis of the fact that you aren't a full member of this committee. You had the opportunity, through your whip, to provide us with the necessary paperwork so that you would have been a substitute member for this committee, but we don't have any paperwork from you in that regard.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Mr. Chair, you should know that in fact we have provided all that we have to provide, as an opposition party, so that any member of our caucus can come to this committee without any paperwork and be recognized as a full member, as a substitute. We have in fact done that work. I'd ask you to look into that.

The Chair: Mr. Benoit, I'm advised by the clerk that she has not received any substitution forms. We had a substitution form from Mr. Breitkreuz earlier today, which would have allowed him to move the motion. We required that from you as well, and it was not forthcoming.

Mr. Leon Benoit: So I don't require the paper to come to the committee and be recognized and ask questions?

The Chair: You can speak at the committee, you just can't move motions.

In terms of the procedural aspect of this, it is very clear. Page 858 of Marleau and Montpetit, referring to committee members or substitutes, says “they do not have the right to present motions, to vote or to be counted in the quorum”. It's very clear.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Who doesn't, committee members or substitutes?

The Chair: It says “Members of the House attending committee meetings who are not committee members or substitutes”, and you are not a committee member or a substitute, based on the fact that you haven't provided your forms. They may, at the discretion of the committee, participate in the deliberations. However, they do not have the right to present motions, vote, or be counted in the quorum.

• 1730

Mr. Leon Benoit: Mr. Chair, if I misunderstand the procedure here, then I apologize. I will certainly talk to our whip and House leader and get their views on it. It is my understanding that everything was done that had to be done for me to be able to present a motion, and if I misunderstood, then—

The Chair: Mr. Benoit, I'm afraid you were misinformed. One of your colleagues clearly understood the rules and provided us with the documentation, and I'm rather surprised, quite frankly, that you did not. We were expecting it over the course of the meeting and it never arrived.

So we do have a motion from Mr. O'Reilly in connection with this case.

Mr. O'Reilly.

Mr. John O'Reilly: I want to make sure the committee deals with this item of business. I move the motion that Mr. Benoit presented so that it is on the floor and it's seconded.

The Chair: Okay. Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Excuse the ignorance of the following question. Mr. Benoit has asked if I can move the motion, so I would assume I could move this. Is that correct?

The Chair: Well, I'm afraid Mr. O'Reilly has already moved the motion.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I know, but the reason I'm asking that is if Mr. O'Reilly's motion passes, will it then nullify this one?

The Chair: Well, it's the same motion. We can't have two members moving the same motion. Mr. O'Reilly was duly recognized.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yes. I was just asking a question.

The Chair: So the motion is properly before the committee on that basis.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Mr. Chair, exactly what motion has Mr. O'Reilly moved?

Mr. John O'Reilly: The motion that you read.

The Chair: It forms part of the committee's record in terms of our deliberations here, and Mr. O'Reilly...

Mr. Leon Benoit: I thought... I may have been wrong. So he has moved the motion to have Paula Richmond appear before the standing committee?

Mr. John O'Reilly: Yes.

Mr. Leon Benoit: So just for clarification, Mr. Chair, has Mr. O'Reilly backed off on the idea of having this go to the steering committee and be dealt with in camera?

Mr. John O'Reilly: I moved the motion, so it's on the floor, Mr. Benoit.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: It's on the floor. Now we discuss it.

Mr. Leon Benoit: That's a very pleasant change of heart, Mr. O'Reilly.

Mr. John O'Reilly: I didn't have any change of heart, Mr. Benoit.

The Chair: I would ask the members to direct their comments through the chair. We can have a debate on this particular motion. It's in order to debate the motion.

Mr. O'Reilly, would you like to speak to it?

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

My concerns are and have been that this committee is dealing with a situation it has dealt with before—post-traumatic stress and Gulf War syndrome, and making sure the concerns of the affected people... If Mr. Benoit had read the minutes of the last meeting, he would know that I experienced similar circumstances in my own life. I want to make sure that it comes properly before the committee and that everyone is heard. Therefore, I see no problem with making sure it's discussed by the committee and that we do bring these witnesses.

But I think you have to realize that you're dealing with the health and medical records of an individual who is over 18, who has the right of privacy under the law. So to spring a person who is going to expose that without the other person's knowledge or permission is not right. And looking at the alleged case that now has charges pending, we're dealing with a police investigation, and I don't feel we should interfere with due process of the law.

So are we as a committee going to deal with this with cameras going, or are we going to go in camera and deal with it, first as a steering committee, and second as a full committee? I think those items have to be answered by this committee.

• 1735

I don't think anyone here is trying to obstruct anything. I think it's incumbent upon us to hear everyone that we can, and I've said that right from the start. But I think due process has to take place, and we don't want to interfere with the privacy concerns and laws that exist.

Those are my concerns, and I speak to the motion under those terms.

The Chair: Okay.

I have Mr. Stoffer, and then Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Again, I base my comments on ignorance and not knowing all the parameters of the rules and the procedures. I guess my concern—and correct me if I'm wrong—is that all she wanted to do, and I realize it was very last second, was just state her case on her son's behalf. She didn't ask us to ask any questions. I don't assume she was going to ask us to do something.

I can understand the legal concerns that Mr. O'Reilly has expressed—and this is something I've overlooked myself—about the sensitivity of anything in a court case. I understand that Parliament or a committee should not be interfering in that process, and I can appreciate his wisdom on that. But from my understanding—correct me if I'm wrong—all she wanted to do is just state her case on her son's behalf. That was it. She just wanted to be heard. I'll stand corrected if I'm wrong, but I assume that's what it was.

Seeing that the woman came from quite a distance away—and I assume at her own expense—and that really, we're all here to hear people and to help them out where we can, or at least to be a sounding board for their concerns... There's also the fact that I assume she was very concerned for her son, and that the gentleman in question probably wasn't in a great mental state of mind when he allegedly did that incident.

I guess I look for advice, Mr. Chairman. I don't know if this has ever happened before. It's never happened in any committees I've ever been at before. But in this situation, barring any legal concerns that I'm unaware of, wouldn't it be proper just to hear her, say thank you, and then she'll go on her way? Then we could decide what to do with that information.

The Chair: Mr. Stoffer, if I could paraphrase what Mr. O'Reilly is saying, I think the concern that was felt on this side of the committee room was that Mrs. Richmond might say something that might prejudice her son's case. The matter was and is currently under investigation, from what I understand, by the military police. Mrs. Richmond may, either advertently or inadvertently, say something that might prejudice the case one way or another if charges are laid.

From my perspective as chair of the committee, there was a significant amount of prudence displayed by members of the government in that respect, because they don't want, first of all, to interfere with an investigation; they don't want to prejudice the potential rights of a person who may be charged with a crime; and they don't want, again, whether advertently or inadvertently, to violate privacy laws. And I'm sure you can appreciate that when someone is in a situation—and I'm not referring to the particular individual involved—where there may be mental health issues at stake, I'm not sure that we want to potentially violate that person's rights to privacy in the context of this committee.

I should add—and I think this is an important point, because this committee has certainly demonstrated a tremendous amount of compassion and sensitivity in the past with respect to PTSD issues—that we have heard, through the quality-of-life hearings, probably close to three dozen witnesses. At least that's my guess, and I spoke to our researcher on this.

We spoke to Lieutenant-General Roméo Dallaire. We spoke to Lieutenant-Colonel Jim Calvin of the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, and we spoke to troops that were involved in the Medak pocket incident. I think we have very thoroughly canvassed some of these issues. But at the same time—if I could just finish, Mr. Benoit—I think there's a recognition by members of the committee as well that this work is ongoing. This is something we expect to continue.

For new members of the committee who haven't had the benefit of hearing the testimony we've heard in the past, I think it would be very important for them to learn more about these PTSD issues.

Mr. Benoit, you have the floor.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Mr. Chair, I get a little uncomfortable when the chair gets involved in the debate the way you have on this issue—

The Chair: Mr. Benoit, Mr. Stoffer asked for some advice and I provided that advice.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I think you went a little bit beyond providing advice, but that's fine, Mr. Chair.

• 1740

I'd just like to correct a couple of things Mr. O'Reilly said. First, he said that Corporal Christian McEachern had not given approval to his mother—

Mr. David Price: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, we're getting into a debate here. This is a debate that should be happening in the steering committee. It's not the place at all to be dealing with this. We're talking about bringing a witness forward. We've always been very open as a committee—you know that, Leon. Sitting on the other side, when I asked—

The Chair: Mr. Price, I'd ask you to direct your comments through the chair.

Mr. David Price: Sorry.

Sitting on the other side, when I asked for somebody as sensitive as the late Chief Justice Dickson, the committee accepted. We put a lot of witnesses forward who we had no trouble getting through, if they were pertinent to the cases we were dealing with. I think the matter here should be dealt with in steering committee, to see if this is the witness. We're on the public record here, stating the reasons. We've already gone further ahead than we normally would in any committee meeting—we're dealing with steering committee subjects here.

The Chair: Mr. Price, I'm going to have to cut you off there, because strictly speaking, I don't have a motion to refer the matter to—

Mr. David Price: I am moving that we refer this matter to steering committee.

The Chair: Okay. Mr. Benoit had the floor. Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: The chair indicated that debate on this issue was in order, and I'd like to make my points in that debate.

Mr. O'Reilly, Corporal Christian McEachern had given his mother, Paula Richmond, consent for her to come here and present his case to the committee. He also had given that to Scott Taylor from Esprit de Corps. So that consent had certainly been given.

Second, in regard to the issue of charges having been laid—I know the member didn't say they had been. In fact, there have been no charges laid to this point.

The third thing is that... I apologize, Mr. Chair, I lost my third point—it is getting late on a Thursday. As consent was given, it's appropriate for us to debate this. In this motion it says we will debate this within the next four weeks. I'm surprised Mr. O'Reilly would make this motion if he doesn't feel comfortable with that.

The Chair: Mr. O'Reilly.

Mr. John O'Reilly: I don't want to get into a debate on this, because I don't think it's the proper place for it. But we didn't have that information, Mr. Benoit. You didn't supply that to us. You come in at the last minute trying to hot-dog on someone's despair. You should be ashamed of yourself to even think of doing that to someone, then trying to blame it on someone else. You're just despicable. I'm ashamed to think you would act that way.

I know Mr. Regan wants to move that this be referred to the standing committee. I think that's the proper thing to do, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: We have a motion from Mr. Price on that. Are there any further speakers on this?

I think, under the circumstances, we'll give Mr. Benoit a response.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Mr. O'Reilly, what's despicable is that you denied unanimous consent for that woman to have her say, when she took all the trouble to be here. Don't accuse me—

The Chair: Mr. Benoit, I would ask you to direct your comments through the chair.

Mr. Leon Benoit: —of some wrongdoing for the actions I took.

The Chair: Mr. Benoit. Can I also say that it's not in order to reflect on decisions that have been made by the committee.

Any further speakers?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: The decision is unanimous.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Chairman, do I have to wait to pass my motion on those two witnesses I had? Or is that for the next meeting?

The Chair: Your motion, Mr. Stoffer, was brought to the attention of the committee, and I believe it was given to us with proper notice. It's been translated, and the clerk will distribute copies to members.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: After what we did in the House today, I'm sure it will have sweeping approval from the members of the Liberal Party.

Mr. John O'Reilly: You have a day off.

• 1745

Mr. Peter Stoffer: This is a good one for you too, Geoff.

The Chair: Mr. Stoffer, the motion has been distributed. Would you like to speak to it?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Basically, ladies and gentlemen of the committee, this is part of the operational readiness preparation we're doing for our study. The future of the location of the Sea King, the maritime helicopters, is crucial to the area of HRM and/or Greenwood. There have been some public comments in the paper by a gentleman named Colonel Hanley of Greenwood. I have spoken to Mr. Hanley, and he was more or less taken out of context. He gave a speech to a group of officers and said the Sea Kings could be moved to Greenwood. Of course, we're very concerned over the future of the Shearwater Air Base, and all this motion does, in order for us to prepare for operational readiness in this, is to ask, if possible—I'm not even sure the minister would allow it... Yes?

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Do you want to make an amendment to your motion? You should refer it to steering committee. If we're talking about witnesses, they go to steering committee.

A voice: It's automatic.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: There you go.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: If you want to move the friendly amendment, I'll take that.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I would move the friendly amendment that we send this to steering committee.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I'll accept that, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Any further comment, Mr. Stoffer?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: No further debate.

The Chair: Okay. Any further comments?

Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Chair, just for my information, I assume it's in order.

The Chair: Yes, yes.

Mr. Peter Adams: Has there been notice of motion given, and so on?

The Chair: Yes, notice has been provided. It's properly before the committee.

Mr. Peter Adams: Okay, thank you very much.

(Motion as amended agreed to)

Mr. David Price: I have a comment, Mr. Chair.

Maybe in the future, Mr. Stoffer, you should just bring them directly to steering committee. You don't have to go through this whole process. We're very open in steering committee to suggestions for witnesses. It has always been the way of this committee.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay. Mr. Price—through you, Mr. Chair—I did say at the last meeting I was going to prepare a motion to ask the two colonels of the bases to appear before the committee. I did say that verbally, and I wanted to ensure that.

The Chair: Yes. It's important, though, that when notice is being provided, it be provided to the clerk in writing.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Which I did.

The Chair: Oral notice is not sufficient for the purposes of the committee.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Right. I just wanted to give them all a heads-up.

The Chair: That was appreciated as a courtesy. Thank you.

With no further business, the committee is adjourned.