NDVA Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, October 9, 2003

Á

1105

The Chair (Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.))

Mr. Ivan Grose (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs)

Á

1110

Á

1115

The Chair

The Chair

Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance)

Á

1120

The Chair

Mr. Ivan Grose

The Chair

Mr. Roy Bailey

The Chair

Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.)

Á

1125

Mr. Jack Stagg (Deputy Minister, Department of Veterans Affairs)

Mr. Joe McGuire

Mr. Ivan Grose

Mr. Joe McGuire

The Chair

Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ)

Á

1130

The Chair

Mr. Ivan Grose

Mr. Jack Stagg

Mr. Claude Bachand

Mr. Jack Stagg

Á

1135

The Chair

Mr. Claude Bachand

The Chair

Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Roy Bailey

Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC)

The Chair

Mr. Bob Wood

The Chair

Mr. Claude Bachand

The Chair

Mrs. Elsie Wayne

The Chair

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP)

Á

1140

The Chair

Mr. Bill Blaikie

The Chair

Mr. Claude Bachand

The Chair

Mr. Bill Blaikie

The Chair

Mr. Bill Blaikie

The Chair

Mr. Claude Bachand

The Chair

Mr. Claude Bachand

The Chair

Mr. Bob Wood

Mr. Claude Bachand

The Chair

Mr. Claude Bachand

The Chair

Mr. Claude Bachand

The Chair

Mr. Claude Bachand

The Chair

Á

1145

Mr. Claude Bachand

The Chair

Mr. Claude Bachand

The Chair

Mr. Bill Blaikie

The Chair

Mr. Bill Blaikie

The Chair

Mr. Bill Blaikie

The Chair

Mr. Claude Bachand

The Chair

The Chair

Ms. Susan Baldwin (Procedural Clerk)

The Chair

Á

1150

Mr. Roy Bailey

The Chair

Mrs. Elsie Wayne

The Chair

Mrs. Elsie Wayne

The Chair

Mrs. Elsie Wayne

The Chair

Mr. Bill Blaikie

Mrs. Elsie Wayne

The Chair

Mrs. Elsie Wayne

Mr. Bryson Guptill (Director, Program Policy Directorate, Program and Service Policy Division, Department of Veterans Affairs)

Á

1155

Mrs. Elsie Wayne

Mr. Ivan Grose

Mrs. Elsie Wayne

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.)

Mr. Ivan Grose

Mr. Bryson Guptill

Mr. Alan Tonks

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks

The Chair

Mr. Bryson Guptill

The Chair

Mr. Bryson Guptill

Â

1200

Mr. Jack Stagg

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks

Mr. Alan Tonks

Mr. Jack Stagg

Mr. Alan Tonks

Mr. Bryson Guptill

Mr. Alan Tonks

Mr. Bryson Guptill

The Chair

Mr. Bill Blaikie

Â

1205

Mr. Jack Stagg

Mr. Bill Blaikie

The Chair

Mr. Jack Stagg

The Chair

Mr. Jack Stagg

The Chair

Mr. Jack Stagg

The Chair

Mr. Bill Blaikie

The Chair

Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Roy Bailey

Mr. Bryson Guptill

Â

1210

Mr. Roy Bailey

The Chair

Mr. Claude Bachand

Mr. Ivan Grose

Mr. Claude Bachand

Mr. Jack Stagg

Mr. Claude Bachand

Mr. Bryson Guptill

The Chair

Mr. Bryson Guptill

The Chair

Mrs. Elsie Wayne

The Chair

Mrs. Elsie Wayne

The Chair

Mr. Bill Blaikie

The Chair

Â

1215

The Chair

The Chair

Mr. Bill Blaikie

The Chair

The Chair

Mr. Bill Blaikie

The Chair

Mrs. Elsie Wayne

The Chair

Mrs. Elsie Wayne

The Chair

Mrs. Elsie Wayne

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs

---

NUMBER 038

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Thursday, October 9, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1105)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.)): I would like to call this meeting of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs to order. Today's order of business is consideration of Bill C-50, an act to amend the statute law in respect of benefits for veterans and the children of deceased veterans.

    We are pleased to welcome here one of our colleagues serving in his capacity as parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, Mr. Ivan Grose. Unfortunately, the minister is not able to attend today because of the Asper funeral in Winnipeg. I gather that a number of members are going to be attending that.

    Mr. Grose, we are very pleased to welcome you here in your capacity as parliamentary secretary. We're also pleased to welcome Mr. Jack Stagg, who is deputy minister of the Department of Veterans Affairs; and Mr. Bryson Guptill, who is director of program policy directorate, program and service policy division of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Welcome to all.

    Perhaps we can get immediately into the business at hand. Mr. Grose, I understand you have a statement on behalf of the minister.

    Mr. Ivan Grose (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs): Thank you.

    Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am here on behalf of the minister, who had to fly today to Winnipeg to attend a funeral. Mr. Izzy Asper was a great personal friend of the minister. He was also a great philanthropist and a great Canadian.

    I will be reading from the remarks the minister would have made, so when I say “I”, that means the minister.

    It has not been long since we met to review the departmental estimates. Today's detailed review of Bill C-50 is a continuation of our ongoing discussions on how we can best meet the unique needs of Canada's veterans, particularly our wartime veterans.

    As we examine the bill more closely, you might find some of the highly technical details a bit of a challenge since so many of them make reference to other acts; give authority to changes in schedules; or revoke, invoke, or change regulations. The clause-by-clause description document will help guide you, but please feel free to call on these experts who can answer the specifics on any single clause in the bill that you might need clarification on.

    For the purpose of my remarks today, I will speak to the big picture concerning our intent with this legislation.

    As the minister indicated during our hearings last April, our client profile is changing dramatically. Over the next decade we will be seeing a persistent and precipitous decline in our wartime veteran population. In fact--and this is a sad fact--only one-third of the estimated 305,000 war veterans in Canada will still be living in 10 years. We will also experience an increase in our Canadian Forces clients, both retired and current, as disabilities related to service bring them into our sphere of operations.

    These demographic realities of life will have considerable impact on how we deliver service to our clients. In fact, they have required us not only to reconsider and revamp our policies and programs, but where necessary to update and upgrade our legislation and regulations to meet our new demographic realities.

    What has really driven the need for most of these changes has been the increasingly extreme old age of our wartime veterans and their spouses. Their average age is now in the early eighties. The urgency, severity, and multifaceted nature of their care needs can be such that my department's skilled staff must make decisions quickly. Some of our current programs limit their ability to do that.

    In the House, the minister recently outlined some of the regulatory changes we have put in place to give us more flexibility in serving these veterans. Today I'm going to limit my comments to the specific amendments of this bill. There are two of substance.

    On re-establishment of the education assistance program, while the package of proposals I announced last May focused primarily on war veterans, I felt it important to include a recommendation to re-establish the education assistance program that targets Canadian Forces veterans. The dangers for 21st century service life are becoming self-evident by the nature of the duty we place upon our military personnel, whether we ask them to fight raging fires in British Columbia, or serve for freedom and democracy in hot spots like Afghanistan.

    The most recent tragic deaths of Sergeant Robert Short and Corporal Robbie Beerenfenger, killed by a land mine in that tragic war-torn nation, are a stark reminder of that reality. These two paratroopers from the 3rd Battalion of the Royal Canadian Regiment were but two of the 1,900-force Canadian contingent still serving in that dangerous territory. For the families of the two brave men who lost their lives just one week ago, it is an unimaginable sorrow, and our hearts and prayers go out to them. We can take some small comfort in knowing that at least one of the provisions of Bill C-50 will have a positive impact on the families of these men, who gave their lives for the peace and freedom of a very troubled land.

    All Canadians would agree that such sacrifices made by our fighting forces in service to the country and the world entitle them to the best care Canada can provide. That includes financial protection for their family members should the very worst occur.

    You will recall that in the House I said this program was removed by the 1995 budget legislation when it was felt that other avenues of funding, such as the Canada student loan program, were adequate. That was then; this is now. I believe that educational assistance for children of deceased members is part of the broader debt the Government of Canada owes to veterans who die either as a result of military service or with a disability pension assessed at 48% or greater at the time of death.

Á  (1110)  

    So we have reinstated the program, and you will find clauses 2, 3, and 4 most pertinent here, as well as clauses 11, 12, 13, and 14. We have made the provisions substantially more generous to reflect the higher costs for post-secondary education than when the program was discontinued. Specifically, there's an annual $4,000 maximum for tuition, and we have allocated a monthly allowance of $300 to go toward students' living expenses. These amounts are indexed to the cost of living.

    I was also concerned about the apparent unfairness to those who, during the eight-year interim when the program was cancelled, incurred education costs on their own. We are tracking those students who applied and were turned down. We are prepared to make lump sum payments to compensate them for at least some of their out-of-pocket and tuition expenses. I am sure this will be a welcome relief to those who might still have outstanding student loans. We are even covering those who did not attend post-secondary schools, perhaps because the education assistance program was cancelled. Those who now want to reconsider their education will be eligible for a maximum of four years of post-secondary assistance at the new rates we indicate in this legislation. Eligible students can qualify for assistance until their 30th birthdays.

    There is enhanced compensation for POWs, or prisoners of war--a term you don't hear very often any more. In recognition of the terrible psychological and physical conditions of wartime incarceration, we are proposing to enhance the compensation to benefit short- and long-term POWs. As you know, the legislation currently provides a difference in coverage to prisoners of war, depending on whether they were Japanese POWs or European POWs. For both categories we have created a new 5% pension for those who were incarcerated for a period between 30 and 88 days. Like the other categories of disability payments, these amounts are indexed to the cost of living.

    For prisoners other than those incarcerated by the Japanese, we have increased and added levels of compensation: from 25% to 30% of a basic disability pension for those who were prisoners of war for between 911 and 1,275 days; from 25% to 35% for periods between 1,276 and 1,641 days; and from 25% to 40% for periods totalling at least 1,642 days of imprisonment. This additional compensation will most benefit Dieppe POWs, many of whom were incarcerated from 911 to 1,275 days, and merchant navy POWs, who were often incarcerated for even longer periods of time. These amounts will also be indexed and are tax free.

    It seems to me at this stage of their lives this extra money will be most welcomed by POW veterans.

    Now we come to the definition of a veteran. This may sound a little odd, but I think you'll see what we're getting at here. There is another item that is both significant and yet relatively minor. I know that sounds like a contradiction in terms, and it is. Let me explain what I mean.

    You'll notice that we have fixed an anomaly in service recognition for the purposes of eligibility for our war veterans allowance. It was an anomaly that sparked much debate in the media last year. Veterans and their organizations perceived a couple of Federal Court rulings interpreting what type of service had to be included when applying for the definition of a member of the forces under the WVA Act. Indeed, quite a number of veterans took the time to write and express their heartfelt view that the outcome, if left untouched, would truly result in a denigration of the recognition of their wartime service. We can safely say that there has not been a flood of applications from persons in this similar situation.

    I was convinced that legislative change was needed to ensure the proper intent of the original legislation could be achieved, and we have done that. It was understandably a sore point with our veterans, so we fixed the wording. As was said in the House at second reading, we owe our courts and quasi-judicial bodies the clearest legislation possible to administer or make judicial rulings on. We have now done that with this small change to the language of the act.

    On the changes in this bill and the increased coverage as a result of the changes to regulations, I just want to touch upon their financing. The department will fund these proposals through internal reallocation by modifying the attendance allowance program.

Á  (1115)  

    This program, which has been in place since 1919, is a monthly amount that may be awarded to an individual who is receiving a disability pension and/or prisoner of war compensation. The individual must also be totally disabled and in need of attendance because of his or her physical or mental disability. Over time, the eligibility had expanded to include significant numbers of veterans who do not strictly meet these criteria. It is opportune now to return to the original purpose of the attendance allowance.

    Current and revised programs will cover most contingencies the allowance used to cover. The money freed up by modifying the old program will be used to increase legitimate benefits for the very beneficiaries we are discussing today. In short, the changes I have been discussing will provide a better way of meeting the urgent needs of veterans through the use of more appropriate tools while maintaining the AA program itself. No one will be taken off the allowance, as current recipients will be grandfathered.

    I want to add that veterans' organizations are in agreement with how we are reallocating our funds. They think we will now be making much more effective use of our money, targeting the right people with the right programs. I hope, my colleagues, that you agree. I would be glad now to take your questions.

    I would like to add on a personal note that sitting up here doesn't make me one bit smarter than sitting down there, and I would ask that you direct any technical questions to our officials, who can certainly handle them in a better manner than I can.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Grose.

    Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

    The Chair: I would hope we all think that when we're sitting around this table we're all a little bit smarter.

    Perhaps we could proceed in the way we did when we considered Bill C-37. What I'm suggesting, if colleagues are in agreement, is that we have questions on various aspects of the legislation and then go into clause-by-clause.

    We'll start with Mr. Bailey.

    Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I will say, through you to the entire committee, that I am somewhat disappointed this morning. As you will know, there were 10,000 veterans' widows who started receiving the VIP benefits for life as a result of the changes made to those regulations. That took place on June 18 of this year.

    Of course, our argument at that time, Mr. Chairman, was that if two people were to come under the veterans independence program, then surely one made it more logical, and we were very pleased to see it extended. But, of course, as you know, there were approximately 23,000 widows whose benefits were cut off after one year, and this legislation does not pertain to them.

    It is estimated the cost of the VI benefits for the 23,000 widows would be in the range of $50 million to $60 million a year. This committee cannot make an announcement requesting funds; that must come from cabinet. However, the committee can ask for unanimous consent that these funds be granted; or, secondly, for unanimous consent to recall the minister to committee with the request that the amendment be brought into the bill at that time. Failing that, Mr. Chairman, unanimous consent can be asked in the House for extra funding to be given to widows.

    It is unlikely—and I'm being realistic—that unanimous consent would be given. But I suggest it's very difficult for me as an individual to go through clause-by-clause and give unanimous approval to the bill when intrinsically my heart says the bill is not complete. And to have to go to the amendment later on and to the debate in the House is very time consuming. That's my submission, sir, at this time. I personally feel that while I like the bill, and I think most members of this committee like what the bill has done, this terrible exclusion casts a dim light on 23,000 people and all their relatives. I think unless we can gain some assurance such as I mentioned in the two particular options, to me it's a bit redundant to proceed with the bill, because I can tell you right now my heart really isn't in it.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Á  (1120)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bailey.

    Is there a response?

    Mr. Ivan Grose: I'd like to assure Mr. Bailey that I have found in long experience here that you never get exactly what you want; you have to take it a nibble at a time.

    This bill and the additional benefits in it were done within budget. We're operating within a budget. We spread the money in the best way we could and in consultation with veterans' organizations—they realized what we were up against.

    Now I'll go to the next step. The Prime Minister, as everyone here knows and as has been reported in the press, promised to look at extending the bill. That's all I can say, except to say that the minister and the department are fully in favour, as am I.... This is a priority item, and we have assured the Prime Minister that that's how we feel. At that point you'll have to take the assurance of the Prime Minister that he will look into the situation and leave it at that.

    I would urge you, though, to vote for this bill and to support it, because it does what we can do within the budget. Outside the budget is beyond our control.

    The Chair: Mr. Bailey, is there anything further?

    Mr. Roy Bailey: I thank the parliamentary secretary, and I appreciate this.

    I have for years revered November 11. It has been part of my history that you don't have any discrimination whatsoever. I practice that in life, in the other life, and in this House as well. The exclusion of 23,000 widows is discrimination—top-rank, first-class. That's my opinion. For us to meet here as a committee and pass a bill in the hopes that on some promise this is coming back.... I've been around the scene in public life for many years, and often my hopes have been bashed to pieces. I have a bit of a fear that could happen here.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bailey.

    Are there any questions on the government side?

    Mr. McGuire.

    Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Congratulations to the parliamentary secretary for his presentation and to the government for these very progressive measures you're taking in Bill C-50.

    I have a question on the Children of Deceased Veterans Education Assistance Act. Could Mr. Stagg or Mr. Guptill tell us how much that's going to cost? What would be budgeted for that particular amendment?

Á  (1125)  

    Mr. Jack Stagg (Deputy Minister, Department of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Chairman, it's about $900,000, both in terms of those who might have benefited from 1995 and those who will benefit, we think, over the next five years. It comes to just shy of $1 million.

    Mr. Joe McGuire: You're going back and picking up offspring from veterans after 1995. You're able to go back in time for that one, but not for the VIP. Is there any reason except financial for going back for the students and not for the widows?

    Mr. Ivan Grose: It was a question of priorities. What we did was re-examine the budget, which any well-run business or well-run department does from time to time. I ran my own business and examined my budget virtually every day.

    We then had to decide how the money was to be allotted. We sat down with the representatives of various veterans' groups, and they decided in concert with us that this was the best way to spend what we had.

    There was a terrible choice in there. It's a case of setting an arbitrary date for the VIP plan, or probably the safer way would have been not doing it at all and putting the money elsewhere. We decided not to do that, because it was a plan that should be extended, and hopefully in the fullness of time it will be extended

    Mr. Joe McGuire: I think on this side of the House, Mr. Chairman—I think on all sides of the House—we fully support the department and the government extending those benefits to include all widows of veterans. We hope for good news in the near future on that, sir.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. McGuire.

    Monsieur Bachand.

[Translation]

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

    First off, I want to thank Mr. Grose for his last-minute presentation and for being such a worthy substitute for the minister.

    I'd like to begin by voicing my disagreement over the way the committee has chosen to proceed this morning. Overall, the bill contains some very sound provisions for veterans and their children and for 10,000 widows of veterans. I agree with Mr. Bailey that there is a problem. Several persons in our ridings have indicated to us that their friends are entitled to a pension, while they are not. We're told that the Prime Minister promised to deal with the matter during a caucus meeting that took place two weeks ago!

    In my opinion, it's crucial that provisions of this nature be included in draft legislation. Maybe you have faith in the Prime Minister, but I don't. However, when the legislation is enacted, these provisions will be enshrined in the act and compliance will be mandatory. If the act's provisions are violated, a person can seek a court decision, as was the case with the definition of “veteran”. Moreover, everyone knows that the current Prime Minister wields very little influence right now. So, I don't accept being told that the Prime Minister is going to take care of this matter.

    In so far as the definition of “veteran” is concerned, earlier you gave us an example of two soldiers being killed and three being wounded. According to the current definition in the bill, soldiers currently on duty in Afghanistan would not be considered veterans because they are not on duty in a designated theatre of war. Therefore, I'd like the definition of veteran to be expanded.

    With respect to procedure, I'm tired of seeing the opposition being treated shabbily and being handed a sheet of paper listing all of the items on which votes are scheduled. What I really want is to hear from witnesses. Many people disagree with the current definition in the bill and regardless of what veterans' groups may have said, some widows have advised me that they are willing to come to Ottawa to give testimony. As I see it, the government is hell-bent on passing the bill as quickly as possible, without listening to anyone or considering my motion to amend the definition. Furthermore, 23,000 women are being told to wait, on the off-chance the Prime Minister will do something for them.

    This is unacceptable to the opposition and I disagree with this approach. I want a list of witnesses and I want to be able to submit a potential list as well. If you give me until 3 p.m. this afternoon, I can come up with my own witness list, otherwise I will vigorously object to our going ahead with a clause-by-clause vote today.

Á  (1130)  

[English]

    The Chair: Okay, thank you very much for that representation, Monsieur Bachand.

    Just so that we all understand very clearly the sorts of parameters we're working under here, I'll repeat that the issue of the possible extension of benefits to those widows not covered under the veterans independence program is not a subject of this legislation. It has been dealt with in the past by regulation. So strictly speaking, the bill we have in front of us does not touch that particular issue.

    I understand that in the minds of members, these issues are very closely linked; they're closely linked politically as well. But we have a piece of legislation before us on which, I think it's safe to say, there exists within the veterans community a significant consensus that it is something that should be done—and, if I might add, that should be done fairly quickly in order to ensure that these benefits apply as quickly as possible—and that we get the legislation through.

    You talked about the issue of witnesses. There has been as well very, very significant consultation, I understand, with various veterans groups, including the Royal Canadian Legion. And of course any organization or individual who wishes to appear before this committee has the right to make a submission to this committee. At this point, we have had no requests to appear on this particular legislation. When I say no requests, I mean no requests from the Royal Canadian Legion and no requests from the army, navy, and air force veterans associations.

    As far as I'm concerned, there is this interest in having the legislation move forward.

    In terms of individuals, we did get a message from Professor Foster Griezic, who is no stranger to this committee; he's appeared before this committee on veterans issues in the past. His message to the clerk, as I understand it, was that he would like to see this legislation passed as quickly as possible. So that's the situation we now have.

    Mr. Grose or Mr. Stagg, did you want to respond to Monsieur Bachand's comments? There were some procedural issues there, but—

    Mr. Ivan Grose: There are a couple of technical points that I would like Mr. Stagg to cover. But as far as reducing it to trusting the Prime Minister, it doesn't rest with the Prime Minister alone, as you probably well know. If it were done, this would be outside our present budget. That means that other people are involved; the whole financial section of the government has to agree that this is possible, that it is doable, and that it is not going to be money we have to borrow to do it. I do trust the Prime Minister, and he is the Prime Minister and is a working Prime Minister.

    As for the other points, I think you raised some very, very good points about the soldiers who are currently in Afghanistan. I think Mr. Stagg can answer that most effectively.

    Mr. Jack Stagg: Mr. Chair, my understanding is that where Canadian Forces serve in a special operations area, the recent changes provisions cover them as veterans. For instance, if you take the educational provisions in this bill, current serving members within Afghanistan have their children covered under the education assistance provision. So there is a provision for that now, and it's been fairly recent, but this is a special operations area, and they would be covered.

    Mr. Claude Bachand: And the Gulf and Bosnia...? Would they be covered?

    Mr. Jack Stagg: Yes, apparently so.

Á  (1135)  

    The Chair: Monsieur Bachand.

[Translation]

    Mr. Claude Bachand: Do I have any time remaining?

[English]

    The Chair: You're over your time actually by about 15 seconds.

    Mr. Wood.

    Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I was a little late getting here, but I get the feeling that we're mixing the issues a bit here.

    What I would like us to do is pass the motion, which I think everybody around this table agrees with. I think you could have unanimous consent to pass the motion to have this committee ask the government to cover the cost of including those veterans' widows that are back....

    We're all concerned about this oversight, and I think there's been a lot of good faith on everybody's part to get the money and to make sure this oversight is corrected. I don't know how to go about it, but if we can pass a motion with unanimous consent...I think everybody around this table agrees.

    The Chair: Certainly, the text of what you're suggesting is generally along the lines of what Mr. Bailey was talking about.

    But Mr. Bailey, strictly speaking, you never asked for unanimous consent.

    Mr. Roy Bailey: I thought my time was up, but I will simply mention that I concur with Mr. Wood. I will certainly mention that it is one thing we could do, and with your permission, I would move that motion now, that this entire--

    Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Can the rest of us have an opportunity to speak before you move the motion?

    The Chair: We have to move the motion before it gets on the floor, Mrs. Wayne, and then we'll have some debate surrounding that motion.

    I should add that if the committee decides to deal with this by way of unanimous consent...first of all, we have to have unanimous consent to deal with the motion and then have a vote on the particular motion. But we would have to provide to the House a separate report on this as well, separate from the bill itself. I would suggest that we do that concurrently and file two reports with the House on this matter.

    Do you have anything further, Mr. Wood?

    Mr. Bob Wood: No, I just think we should do this and get on with it. We can go around here talking about it, but let's do it.

    The Chair: Is there unanimous consent then to deal with this motion?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

[Translation]

    Mr. Claude Bachand: I'd like to speak. S'il vous plaît, monsieur le président.

    We're moving too fast, in my view. I want to see what the impact would be if the committee unanimously consented to asking the government to sweeten the pot. I'm unclear as to the legal significance of such a request and I wouldn't want to be obliged to invoke the Official Languages Act to argue that I shouldn't be reading this document because it's only in English. However, I'm prepared to take that step because I think we're moving too fast.

    I want to hear from some witnesses. And while we may have heard from the Royal Canadian Legion, the Saint-Jean and Iberville legion branches object to the proposed legislation. Maybe the Royal Canadian Legion is misinformed about this in some way. I find we're going too fast. What harm would there be in waiting two more weeks in order to hear from witnesses after our one-week break and then taking a vote? Something smells fishy here. It's all moving too quickly.

[English]

    The Chair: I'm going to permit Mr. Blaikie to make a comment, and we'll have a very brief comment from Mrs. Wayne on this, because unanimous consent has been denied, so this motion is not before the committee at this point.

    Mrs. Elsie Wayne: It may not be denied. What we have to do is explain to our colleague just exactly what this is all about and to take some time. You can't do that in a minute and a half.

    The Chair: Mr. Blaikie, any further comments?

    Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that we're being needlessly difficult with each other here. We have an opportunity to speak as a committee to the government on an issue on which there is widespread--in fact I believe unanimous--agreement. We don't have an official motion before us, so we don't have a motion before us in either official language at this point.

    What we've had is a procedural botch-up, because if Mr. Bailey wanted to seek unanimous consent, he should have sought it, and he didn't.

    So someone needs to seek unanimous consent.

    This is incoherent. The committee can ask for unanimous consent that these funds be granted. Well, we don't ask for unanimous consent that the funds be granted. We, by unanimous consent, request that the government provide these funds. So someone should seek unanimous consent to move such a motion.

    If we were to hear witnesses, we would hear witnesses who would come before the committee and say to the committee, please request to the government that the VIP benefits be extended to all the widows. Well, the committee already agrees. There's no point in having witnesses come and tell us to do something we've already all agreed to do. So let's do it. Why don't we just do that? That would increase the likelihood that this would happen.

    By waiting two or three weeks until the Prime Minister is even weaker than he is now is not going to help the situation, so time is of the essence, given the political context. The sooner this committee can report concurrently to the House that it has passed this legislation and it unanimously requests the government to move on this issue, the more likelihood there is that the government will move on it before Paul Martin becomes the Prime Minister. Don't forget, Paul Martin is the guy who cut this thing in the first place. Who wants to wait around for him? Let's have somebody who might have some mercy for the veterans, not the guy who slaughtered them in the first place.

Á  (1140)  

    The Chair: As chair, I can only deal with the issues that come before me through the committee. If I don't receive requests for unanimous consent in the proper form, I can't deal with them as chair.

    Mr. Bill Blaikie: Do I still have the floor?

    The Chair: Actually, since the request for unanimous consent was denied, that motion is no longer on the floor. The only way I could possibly entertain it is if Mr. Bachand had any second thoughts whatsoever in terms of granting unanimous consent. If he doesn't, then we'll proceed with the consideration of the bill.

    Mr. Claude Bachand: What's on the floor, Mr. Chair?

    The Chair: There's nothing on the floor right now other than the legislation we have before us.

    Mr. Bill Blaikie: Well, Mr. Chairman, why are you creating a problem? Obviously Mr. Bachand is willing to reconsider, so all you have to say is--

    The Chair: I didn't hear that from Mr. Bachand.

    Mr. Bill Blaikie: Well, you heard it.

    The Chair: Mr. Bachand, are you ready to entertain this motion, by unanimous consent, right now?

    Mr. Claude Bachand: Entertain what motion?

    The Chair: We have to ask for unanimous consent because there's a notice provision at this committee that we have to receive a motion 24 hours before it can be considered. However, that rule can be waived by unanimous consent. If the committee is prepared to give unanimous consent, we can waive that rule and deal with Mr. Wood's motion.

    Mr. Claude Bachand: And what is Mr. Wood's motion?

    The Chair: He read it before.

    Mr. Wood, would you read it again?

    Mr. Bob Wood: I hastily wrote some things down here. I move that we have this committee ask the government to cover the cost of including those veterans' widows who were supposedly excluded from the veterans benefits program.

[Translation]

    Mr. Claude Bachand: To my understanding, that won't be included in the bill. The committee will be deciding unanimously to ask the government to extend coverage to all widows. Correct?

[English]

    The Chair: Yes.

[Translation]

    Mr. Claude Bachand: I see. Would it be alright then to suggest adding a provision to the act to extend coverage to all widows?

[English]

    The Chair: No, because we're talking about two different things. Changes to the veterans independence program are done by regulation. We would be sending a report to the House with a motion asking that the government cover the costs of the extended benefits to widows under the VIP.

[Translation]

    Mr. Claude Bachand: Mr. Chairman, I don't wish to belabour the point unnecessarily, but I did consult...

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Bachand, if I could, I'll also add something. There's the issue of the royal recommendation, which is contained in the bill as well. We're not in a position to amend the royal recommendation in terms of the amount of the appropriations required. That would have to be done at report stage of the bill.

[Translation]

    Mr. Claude Bachand: I sought the advice of counsel and he suggested a formula that would extend coverage to all widows. Before we seek unanimous consent, I think it would be quite appropriate to consider this motion. Basically, what we would like is for the government to acknowledge that it has taken note of the committee's unanimous consent and that, because it disagrees with this position, it will not include this notion in the bill. From a legal standpoint, I'd like to see some kind of connection.

    I'd like to propose an amendment which would extend coverage to all widows. I make no secret of the fact that the proposed amendment would negate the regulations that came into effect on June 18.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Bachand, I think it's more than safe to say that the procedural advice you're getting is faulty on this. You cannot move any amendment to this bill that would be in order in terms of increasing the benefits under the veterans independence program for those widows who are not covered.

Á  (1145)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Claude Bachand: Do I have leave to move the amendment, Mr. Chairman? If deemed out of order, you can reject it. I have copies of the amendment in English and in French.

[English]

    The Chair: If you would like to read the amendment, it might be helpful to committee members, but as I say, I think we're going down a dead end street here.

[Translation]

    Mr. Claude Bachand: Can I pass copies around to my colleagues while I read the text? That would enable them to follow along with me.

[English]

    The Chair: Sure, you can distribute it.

    Mr. Blaikie.

    Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Chairman, we seem to be in the middle of a debate about whether or not we have unanimous consent, and it is now morphing into a debate about the appropriateness of Mr. Bachand's amendment.

    The Chair: Well, we have unanimous consent to deal with Mr. Wood's motion.

    Mr. Bill Blaikie: So what is being debated now is--

    The Chair: A possible amendment to that and/or an amendment to the bill. We don't have it in front of us yet.

    Mr. Bill Blaikie: An amendment to Mr. Wood's motion is not an amendment to the bill; it's simply an amendment to the motion. The amendment to the bill is an amendment that's already in keeping with the motion, so I don't understand how there could be an amendment to the motion to agree with the motion.

    The fact of the matter is, and I say this to Mr. Bachand, if we pass this motion of Mr. Wood's, the likelihood increases that something will be done sooner rather than later. Also, it doesn't remove the possibility, Mr. Bachand, of moving such an amendment at report stage in the House. In fact, that would be a good time to move it, because if you try to move the amendment now--and you're not going to succeed now, obviously--then you're not going to be able to move it in the House. But if the committee expresses itself now and there is unanimous consent for the principle of what you're doing, someone might move an amendment in the House at report stage. Hopefully, by that time whatever political machinations have to happen within the Liberal Party will have happened, and that amendment might carry whether it's moved by you, Mr. Wood, or anyone else.

    To insist on the amendment now is a self-defeating strategy. That's what I'm trying to tell you. Let's get the committee on the record and get the thing into the House.

    The Chair: Mr. Bachand.

[Translation]

    Mr. Claude Bachand: Mr. Chairman, my strategy is not to self-destruct. I'm merely trying to move the debate forward, which is the role and raison d'être of committee members.

    However, I see that I will have to table the amendment at the report stage in the House. As my colleague Mr. Blaikie pointed out, it's obvious I won't get the opportunity to table it today. I am therefore prepared to give my unanimous consent in the case of Mr. Wood's proposal, in the hope that all committee members will urge the government to extend coverage to all widows. Since I prefer to place my trust in the legislative process, I will move my amendment at the report stage in the House of Commons.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bachand.

    Now I'm going to call the vote on Mr. Wood's motion.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: It's unanimous. Thank you, Mr. Wood, Mr. Blaikie, Mr. Bachand, Mr. Bailey.

    I've had a suggestion here, which I think is a good one, from the clerk and the legislative clerk, and that is to perhaps take that motion.... Would you like to speak to the committee on this and revise the wording of the motion to convey exactly what we want to convey to the House? It just means some wordsmithing on the motion, presumably.

    Ms. Susan Baldwin (Procedural Clerk): I was thinking that perhaps what the committee would like to do is have the researchers do up a very short report on this matter. Then the committee, perhaps at the next meeting, could look at the report to make sure that what goes to the House is exactly what they would like to have.

    The Chair: Actually, in connection with a report, I think we would want to have the report that comes from this committee concurrent with the report on the bill so that the two run in tandem, rather than have any delay between the two. I think that's extremely important, but if you want to provide an additional report at some later date just in terms of the general issue, we can certainly entertain that, I believe, if that's the will of the committee.

    Mr. Bailey.

Á  (1150)  

    Mr. Roy Bailey: When we refer to all widows we have to be careful. Our intent is to deal with those widows who were previously recipients of the veterans independence program. To talk about all widows is a very wrong concept. It's those who were previously recipients. They qualified before and they would qualify again.

    The Chair: Your comments have been noted, and I think we can include that in the wording of the motion. They're just minor wordsmithing issues. The committee has agreed.

    Now we can get on to the issue of the bill itself, presumably. Are there any further questions on the bill?

    Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I have not had an opportunity to speak on the bill. I'm the only one.

    The Chair: Is that in the House or in committee?

    Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Right here.

    The Chair: Well, that's what this meeting is for.

    Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Damn right it is. I'm waiting.

    The Chair: Mr. Blaikie, do you have any questions or comments with respect to the legislation?

    Mr. Bill Blaikie: I do, but we should probably observe the proper order, Mr. Chair. Mrs. Wayne had her hand up and wanted to go on, and protocol, unfortunately, is for her to go first--after that by-election.

    Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Thank you very much, Mr. Blaikie. It was always that way.

    The Chair: Unfortunately, our speaker sheets don't reflect the results of that by-election, but they will from now on.

    Thank you.

    Mrs. Elsie Wayne: First and foremost, I would just like to say that the chairman had stated that none of the army, navy, air force, legions, or anyone else had made any negative comments on this. Mr. Chair, I have had many letters from the National Council of Veterans Associations about this situation, and I got the latest one just two days ago about the added compensation for widows. This was sent to the minister, it was sent to the Prime Minister, it was also sent to the Minister of Finance, and it was sent to the Auditor General's office, and it states:

Your legislative Bill which came into effect May 12 provided a continuation of housekeeping and groundskeeping for widows but only under circumstances where the veteran died after an effective date. Undoubtedly you are familiar with the public reaction to this, which has been extremely critical.

    And it certainly has. Cliff Chadderton, in his submission sent to Mr. Pagtakhan on September 30, suggested that at the very least this was because not all widows were being treated...and he was trying to heal some wounds. The provision for added compensation, continuation of VIP, should be extended at least to the widows of that group of pensioners under the Pension Act who received a 100% pension, exceptional incapacity allowance, and attendance allowance.

    I just don't understand. That's only a thousand more people. Why were they excluded? I'd like to ask Jack or Bryson why they were excluded.

    Mr. Bryson Guptill (Director, Program Policy Directorate, Program and Service Policy Division, Department of Veterans Affairs): There were a number of proposals to look at how to include the number of veterans and each veterans organization had a formula. Mr. Chadderton's formula was one that related to the most seriously disabled, but there were a number of other elements to his proposal that made it administratively very difficult.

    We had discussions with the veterans organizations around what the fairest approach would be, and the proposal that eventually came forward was the one that covered all widows, if the widows had been receiving the one-year continuation. That's the proposal that went forward.

    To select out a particular group would make it very difficult for others, as I'm sure you would appreciate. So that's the reason we ended up with the formula we had.

Á  (1155)  

    Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Well, the only thing I can say is that I know many people have received all kinds of letters, and I have received letters from British Columbia right through to Newfoundland, with regard to this issue.

    My concern is, yes, we're going to go and adopt this today, and when we do, is the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance then going to say they've adopted what has been put on the floor and we don't need to do any more?

    Ivan, is that what's going happen, even though we'll put forth another motion saying every widow should be treated equally?

    When I get up in the House and say that May 12 was the blackest day in Canada, it was the blackest day, because I have a lot of war widows right in my riding. As you know, back in New Brunswick, we played a major role--a major role--when it came to World War II, and so on.

    I have a lot of them, and they are so hurt, Ivan. They can't believe this is happening to them. Do you think if we pass this today and then we have this amendment that Bob Wood put forward it's going to make a difference?

    Mr. Ivan Grose: Your question was, is it the desire to add to the VIP program the widows who you feel are excluded? My answer is, as long as I'm breathing the desire will be there.

    I would also like to mention that there has been some mention about veterans organizations being represented here. As a matter of fact, the Royal Canadian Legion is represented here. I'm a regular member of the Royal Canadian Legion and past president of a branch, so their viewpoint is heard here every time the committee meets. But I can assure you that as long as I am breathing--and quite frankly, the minister has expressed the same thought--it will be done.

    I'm not telling you it can be done tomorrow or next week, but it will be done.

    Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mrs. Wayne.

    Are there any questions from the government side?

    Mr. Tonks.

    Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

    Just to clarify a couple of points--and I did appreciate the presentation made by the parliamentary secretary, and thank you very much for that--when we talk about the merchant navy, it was established for a long time, within the definition and cases that went through the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, that all rights and privileges for veterans would be inclusive of the merchant navy. Is that correct?

    Mr. Ivan Grose: My understanding is that's true.

    Mr. Bryson Guptill: The provision applies to merchant navy veterans, yes.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: All right, and in this particular piece of legislation--I'm just reading page 6 in what we have been provided with from the research bureau--the wording was kind of difficult for me to understand. It says:

However, Bill C-50 does not reverse past decisions to grant Veterans benefits to someone who never enlisted or served in the merchant navy.

    That's a funny way of expressing a point. Would you just clarify? I would like to know, given that wording, is it still--

    The Chair: In fairness, Mr. Tonks, you're asking people who did not write that document to respond to something that's in the document.

    That document was done by our researchers, and I presume they're referring to the Trainor case.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: Then whoever can answer it.... It seems to be contradictory.

    The Chair: Maybe the officials would like to respond on the issue of the Trainor case.

    Mr. Bryson Guptill: The clarification we're seeking in this particular provision is to ensure that someone who is eligible for the war veterans allowance actually enlisted and was discharged. The difficulty with the Federal Court interpretation was that the way they were applying it for a particular case, someone who had in fact not enlisted ended up receiving eligibility for a war veterans allowance. So we were trying to clarify that someone has to actually have enlisted.

    The Chair: The issue there was travelling through a theatre of war to enlist?

    Mr. Bryson Guptill: And the provision for travel through a theatre of war would still apply. The question, however, went further than that, which was that this individual not only was in a theatre of war, crossing Northumberland Strait, but also had not in fact enlisted. So there are several cases of people who have crossed the Northumberland Strait who were already in, but this was the only case where someone had not in fact enlisted.

  (1200)  

    Mr. Jack Stagg: Mr. Chair, what this does basically is say you have to enlist, attest, and be honourably discharged in order to take benefits. It's really a clarification.

    Anyone who in fact had qualified because of the Federal Court judicial review prior will receive them; anyone henceforth will not, once this bill is passed.

    The Chair: I should say that it may seem small from the standpoint of the amount of money involved, but for veterans it's a very important symbolic feature of this legislation.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: That's why I wanted to clarify that, Mr. Chairman.

    I'll just ask my question one more time. So all rights and privileges that are entrenched in this legislation that applied to veterans also applies to members of the merchant navy?

    A voice: Yes.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: Okay, thank you.

    I have just one final question. I'm sure that administratively this is the best way to handle the issue with respect to prisoners of war who were incarcerated by other countries, in terms of percentage of benefits according to the number of days they were incarcerated, but is there any other provision with respect to a more qualitative approach in terms of the nature of suffering of veterans who were incarcerated? There could be veterans incarcerated for x number of days, but compared to someone who had been incarcerated even for a shorter period of time who had been subjected to barbaric treatment, is there any qualification that's given to those circumstances?

    Mr. Jack Stagg: There are two things, Mr. Chairman.

    One is that, of course, if someone were incapacitated or disabled because of the treatment, there are a variety of benefits that would go with that to the veteran.

    Also, in terms of the sevenprovisions that will be financed by the attendant allowance, now a totally disabled POW will receive VIP veterans and dependants program benefits, and so will their spouse, for a lifetime.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: I'm just not sure of that answer. Are there any other provisions with respect to a veteran who would be totally disabled? Are there any other mechanisms?

    Mr. Bryson Guptill: As to the eligibility for POW compensation, the sliding scale is equivalent to a pension. Essentially what happens is that someone who gets the POW compensation is eligible for benefits that come from the pension program. So if they have health care needs as a result of their condition, they will get those health care needs met as a result of this connection to the pension relationship.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: I see.

    Mr. Bryson Guptill: Your point is a good one. The reason Canada has POW compensation--and we're one of the very few countries in the western world that does--is because there was research done back in the early 1970s that indicated that individuals who were prisoners of war in fact had worse health outcomes than other people. So this was in part to recognize that and give them eligibility for health care benefits when they needed them.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Tonks.

    Mr. Blaikie.

    Mr. Bill Blaikie: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Some of my questions have already been answered, and that is good.

    I want to say to the parliamentary secretary for the record that he's not the only member of the committee who is a regular member of the Royal Canadian Legion. I'm a regular member of Transcona Branch 7. My late father and grandfather were both members and life members of their respective legions.

    I'm a member on the basis of my service in the Queen's Own Cameron Highlanders of Canada in Winnipeg. I say that because the Camerons were at Dieppe, and as a result of being in the Camerons for five years I knew a lot of Dieppe veterans. In fact, one of the people who taught me how to play the bagpipes—the pipe major of the Cameron Highlanders, Alec Graham—at the time was a piper at Dieppe and actually played the pipes on the landing barges as they were coming in on the beaches of Dieppe, if you can imagine a more difficult situation in which to be playing the pipes. He was taken prisoner of war.

    Pipe Major Graham is no longer with us, and this prompts me to say, Mr. Chairman, I'm glad these benefits are finally being improved. It just so happens that all the POWs I know, whether they be Hong Kong POWs, of whom again there were many from Winnipeg, through the Winnipeg Grenadiers or the Camerons, are all dead. It's too late.

    Obviously there are POWs who will be in receipt of this, but it's 61 years since Dieppe, and the number of veterans and POWs who will benefit from this enhanced benefit is small indeed. So at the same time as one welcomes it, one is almost ashamed that it would take this long.

    The chat in the legions, and I'm sure you know it, is “The fewer of us there are, the better the benefits get, because they don't have to extend them to very many people.” It's terrible that this has to be the kind of talk in legion halls, but it's not unjustified.

    I say that I welcome the extension of these benefits, but I think it's too bad there were many POWs who won't benefit from these because the government took so bloody long to get around to this.

  (1205)  

    Mr. Jack Stagg: Mr. Chairman, our figures are that there are about 4,000 POWs from Dieppe who are still with us, and in addition, this legislation will increase the number who get benefits by about 700.

    Mr. Bill Blaikie: That's good, but all I'm saying is there's a hell of a lot fewer than there used to be.

    The Chair: Mr. Stagg, would you repeat that number again?

    Mr. Jack Stagg: It's 4,000, and in addition, I guess it's 700 now.... It's 4,000 in total.

    The Chair: Is that 4,000 POWs from Dieppe?

    Mr. Jack Stagg: Yes—or, sorry, beyond Dieppe, in Hong Kong as well, and from the other theatres. There are 4,000 altogether from war service.

    The Chair: That would make sense, because there were only 5,000 who landed in Dieppe.

    Mr. Jack Stagg: And there are 700 additional with this legislation.

    The Chair: Okay.

    Mr. Blaikie, is there anything further?

    Mr. Bill Blaikie: No, I just wanted to say that.

    The Chair: Thank you for your comments, Mr. Blaikie.

    I can't resist the opportunity to put in a little bit of an advertisement for my Legion Branch 593, Bells Corners.

    Are there any questions from the government side?

    Mr. Bagnell.

    Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): I just want to put in a word for my legion in the Yukon. Thank you.

    The Chair: Okay. Mr. Bailey

    Mr. Roy Bailey: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Two Saturday nights ago I met with the reunion of the South Saskatchewan Regiment that landed at Pourville with the Camerons and three other regiments. I wanted to say that a number of people living within my constituency will benefit greatly from this.

    My question, Mr. Chairman, to the group is, was the division of time according to the rate of pay or the length related to the various theatres of war? It seems to me it was, and if that's so I would like to get a comment on it.

    Mr. Bryson Guptill: The formula that was developed was not based on theatres of war but on where the prisoners of war served or where they were held in incarceration. It also applies, incidentally, to people who evaded capture. So if you evaded capture for the same number of days as a prisoner of war, you'd get the same coverage.

    The formula works for the European theatre of war and it works for Japan. The POWs of Japan generally had much worse health outcomes, so the formula was slanted initially in the direction of the POWs of Japan. That's essentially the way the formula was struck.

    The formula was arrived at, I think, back in 1976, when there was a report called the Herman report, which actually looked into the health outcomes, as I mentioned to the member earlier, and said people had much worse health if they had been in a prisoner of war camp.

  (1210)  

    Mr. Roy Bailey: Thank you.

    The Chair: Are there any questions from the government side?

    Mr. Bachand.

[Translation]

    Mr. Claude Bachand: Mr. Chairman, getting back to the definition of “veteran”, I'd like to read clause 10 of the bill:

...having enlisted and having the enlistment attested, served in a theatre of actual war during World War I or World War II and was discharged from the service in which he or she was enlisted...

    Are you with me, Mr. Stagg? I'm reading clause 10 on page 3 of the bill.

[English]

    Mr. Ivan Grose: I'd like to--

    Mr. Claude Bachand: I haven't asked the question yet. I'm waiting for the guy to find what I'm asking for.

[Translation]

    Earlier, you said that personnel serving in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Afghanistan—you gave as an example those who lost their life in Afghanistan—are or will be veterans, as far as you're concerned. Yet, based on what I'm reading here, the designation is restricted to those who served in a theatre of actual war during World War I or World War II. What is the basis of your claim that the definition of “veteran” extends beyond what is written in this clause?

[English]

    Mr. Jack Stagg: My understanding, Mr. Chair, is that of course in special duty or special operating areas we don't have veterans available for all services. What we're talking about is the amendment to the war veterans allowance, meaning primarily those who'd served in the First and Second World Wars and in the Korean War.

[Translation]

    Mr. Claude Bachand: But this means that the personnel who served or who are currently on duty in Afghanistan, as well as personnel who served in the first Gulf War or in Bosnia-Herzegovina, will not be entitled to these benefits.

[English]

    Mr. Bryson Guptill: The clause the member has mentioned, clause 10, relates to changes to the War Veterans Allowance Act. The clarification we're seeking in this legislation applies specifically to that act. The War Veterans Allowance Act provides a benefit like a welfare payment to people who served in war zones--World War I, World War II, or the Korean War. So the WVA, the War Veterans Allowance Act, and this change applies only to people who are getting this income replacement, and it applies to war veterans only.

    The Chair: This does not affect the benefits dealing with veterans of other UN or NATO operations, or Afghanistan?

    Mr. Bryson Guptill: That's right. It's separate legislation, a separate category.

    The Chair: Okay.

    Are there questions on the government side?

    Mrs. Wayne.

    Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I just wanted the honorary chair, Mr. Grose, to know...do you see this pin I wear? I'm the honorary gunner of the 3rd Field Artillery Regiment, the only honorary female gunner in Canada, and I'm the honorary president of three Royal Canadian Legions back in Saint John. So you see, we're very much involved with our legions across this country, and Dominic knows all about it.

    Thank you very much, sir.

    The Chair: Mrs. Wayne, we never had any doubt that you were a big gun.

    Mrs. Elsie Wayne: That's right. I've been shooting from the hip for a long time.

    The Chair: Any questions from the government side?

    Mr. Blaikie, anything further?

    Mr. Bill Blaikie: Let's get on with it.

    The Chair: Perhaps we could deal with the clause-by-clause then. I'm sensing from committee members that there is no difficulty with the bill at this point. Perhaps we could do clauses 1 to 14 in bulk, collectively.

    (Clauses 1 to 14 inclusive agreed to)

  (1215)  

    The Chair: Shall the title carry?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: Shall the chair report the bill to the House?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    Mr. Bill Blaikie: Agreed, with the understanding that concurrently with the report to the House the motion that was agreed to earlier will also be reported at the same time.

    The Chair: Absolutely. In fact, so that we're entirely clear on the issue of the motion, and understanding the urgency of getting the motion attached to the legislation before the House, I would like to make sure that every party is informed on the wordsmithing we're going to do on the particular motion. We'll be in touch with each of your offices to ensure that it adequately conveys what the committee wanted to communicate.

    Shall the chair report the bill to the House with the accompanying report?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: We have one other item of business.

    Thank you very much, Mr. Grose, Mr. Stagg, and Mr. Guptil, for your very helpful comments today, for the information that you provided to the committee.

    What I would like to do is a relatively routine piece of committee business. We have this before us. What we've been forced to do in terms of airline schedules is to amend the committee travel to the United States to delete Colorado Springs. I need a motion to rescind the previous budget and another motion to replace that motion, which would reduce the amount of money required.

    Mr. Blaikie.

    Mr. Bill Blaikie: I want some explanation. You're saying we're not going to Colorado Springs now? Is that the idea?

    The Chair: That's right. The flight schedules would only allow us to be on the ground for less than six hours, and I don't think most committee members would feel they would get a lot out of that trip as a result.

    Mrs. Elsie Wayne: So we're going from November 16 to 21?

    The Chair: That's right. We have a fairly restricted amount of time to do this. For those committee members who haven't been to Colorado Springs, at some point we'll organize a trip down there. We will be able to get a considerable amount of information on what's happening in Colorado Springs, especially in the area of missile defence, in Washington. So we're hoping to be able to cover that off as much as possible in Washington, although I can say without question that going to Cheyenne Mountain and seeing the operation at NORAD is a bit of an education in itself.

    I need a motion by someone to rescind the original motion.

    Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I so move.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: I need another mover to replace that motion.

    Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I move it.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: I would like to thank committee members for their participation today.

    The meeting is adjourned.