SVET Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION

Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Monday, March 29, 2004

¹

1530

The Clerk of the Subcommittee (Ms. Angela Crandall)

Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.)

The Clerk

The Chair (Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.))

Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, CPC)

The Chair

Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, Lib.)

¹

1535

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, CPC)

The Chair

Mr. Jay Hill

The Chair

Mr. Jay Hill

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP)

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. Jay Hill

¹

1540

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. John O'Reilly

The Chair

Mr. John O'Reilly

Mr. Jay Hill

Mr. John O'Reilly

Mr. Jay Hill

¹

1545

Mr. John O'Reilly

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. John O'Reilly

¹

1550

The Chair

Mr. Jay Hill

The Clerk

The Chair

Mr. Jay Hill

The Chair

Mr. Rick Casson

The Chair

Mr. Jay Hill

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Jay Hill

The Chair

Mr. John O'Reilly

The Chair

Mr. Jay Hill

Mr. John O'Reilly

Mr. Jay Hill

¹

1555

Mr. John O'Reilly

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. John O'Reilly

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. John O'Reilly

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. John O'Reilly

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. John O'Reilly

The Chair

---

CANADA

Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs

---

NUMBER 001

l

3rd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Monday, March 29, 2004

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1530)  

[English]

    The Clerk of the Subcommittee (Ms. Angela Crandall): In conformity with Standing Order 106(2), the first item of business is to elect a chair. I'm ready to receive motions to that effect.

    Mr. Provenzano.

    Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): I move that Bob Wood be chair.

    The Clerk: Are there any other nominations? No. So the motion is that Bob Wood be elected chair of the committee.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair (Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.)): Thank you for your continued support, which I appreciate. As you know, I've done this a couple of times and I'd like to do this again. This could also be the shortest chairmanship around. This might be my only meeting, if we dissolve.

    I know if we do go past the Easter break we will have an opportunity to get into some issues. I know some honourable members have some ideas on what's going on.

    I know, Jay, in previous meetings you had shown an interest in veterans affairs and you had a couple of ideas that you wanted to put forward that we might want to have a look at.

    Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, CPC): Maybe more, Mr. Chair. On behalf of Mrs. Wayne, I know she wanted to see if there wasn't more that the committee could do, and I think there's support from both sides of the House for this, to further examine the veterans independence program.

    I see Murray nodding his head over there. I know he has spoken to that same issue before.

    So that's certainly one thought. Whether there's anything more that can be done about it, at least maybe we can have a better understanding of all the details on that.

    The Chair: Murray.

    Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, Lib.): The thing I would like to take and address with the veterans independence program is the means test. It's too low.

    The program was grandfathered in 1995, so we know the number who are in the program right now, and that number is actually diminishing.

    If single veterans in rural Canada make more than $1,058, they don't qualify. If a couple makes more than $1,300 and change, they don't qualify. So I think it's something we really need to take a look at.

¹  (1535)  

    The Chair: Okay.

    Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.): On the veterans affairs budget, their number of clients is going down and their budget is going up, and they have excess money. We're probably looking at the same thing. I still don't have answers from the questions you asked me that I passed on to them--who's going on the 60th thing, and all that. It takes months to get an answer out of them. It's frustrating, but....

    The Chair: Also, I think we agreed on the unanimous motion that we put through before the summer that all spouses would be eligible. Then they cut the date off at 1990--didn't they?--without any reason, really.

    I don't know if they had a reason or not. I don't know of any. Do you, Rick?

    Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, CPC): That was when the program originated. There was no program before 1990.

    The Chair: Oh, I see.

    Mr. Jay Hill: So I think the theory was that if anybody had expressed an interest in it post-1990, then they should be eligible, even though they might not be in it. But the problem I have with that is that I don't think we have any way of going back at this point in time and knowing how well it was advertised once it came in and whether it was widely known out there among veterans and their families that the program was available.

    So it just seems to me, to be able to come in and put that arbitrarily in there, there might be an element of unfairness to it that we might want to at least explore at some point.

    The Chair: Yes, the reason it was that way, other than that....

    Peter.

    Mr. Jay Hill: Peter, do you have something intelligent to say?

    Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): I would hope so.

    The Chair: Are we adjourning now?

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: Adjourn in France, that's nice.

    I have a couple of things to say. When you speak to veterans organizations back home, they know that this is a subcommittee of the defence committee, and they don't like it. They like the idea of this committee being a full committee on its own. That's one. They know that ever since the cutbacks to veterans affairs the role of the minister has been used as a minor position within the government. That's the way it's perceived--I'm not saying it's the reality. When you speak to veterans, we all know how emotional it can get. Sometimes reality and perception get clouded between the two. I would like to see this committee, if anything, become a full stand-alone committee, and not the subcommittee of something else. That's one.

    Two is the concern we have over disabled veterans, not the ones from the war but the ones who come back from peacekeeping missions--or Afghanistan or Bosnia, for example--and the difficulties they have trying to reconcile concerns, or whatever benefits they have for themselves and their families, with a particular department.

    You all know the story of the department going after that McEachern again for $220,000, who admittedly has post-traumatic stress disorder and says so through the ombudsman André Marin. To go after him for over $200,000 in a lawsuit sends a message to other disabled veterans, or ones who get hurt in the field or at home, that this department is going to come after you for every penny if you ever claim to be sick, psychologically or physically. I think it's something we should look at, at least to ascertain for people whether this committee would seriously take those issues as they come up.

    The Chair: Yes.

    Mr. Jay Hill: On that, Mr. Chairman, there are two schools of thought. On whether or not this should be a full committee standing alone on its own, I think it shouldn't take a researcher very long to dig up a couple of facts on that. I don't know whether it was ever a stand-alone committee. I've always heard of it as SCONDVA, which is Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs, but I may be proven wrong. I haven't been here forever. I've only been here ten years.

    Second, what would that cost? I don't know what it costs to run one of these committees. So to move from a subcommittee.... I mean, I know I'm always a bean counter and I worry about costs, but it would be interesting to know, if we were to advocate that as a committee, what would we be looking at as a cost to the taxpayer?

    If I might just pose a question to my colleague on the last issue, I'm not exactly sure what you're asking for. Certainly I've spoken on the McEachern case as well, on what would appear to be a lot of unfairness in that particular situation, where it's at least questionable that he has an illness that was induced through his service to his country. But what would we do? What are you proposing, a study of what?

¹  (1540)  

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: It's not just his particular case. I have three peacekeepers in my riding who have left the military on medical discharges because of injuries. Almost every month I get a call from them or their families about another difficulty they have with the veterans affairs department--for example, trying to get the proper shoes or physiotherapy or assistance for something else. It's constant.

    When you go to the veterans affairs office in Charlottetown, they say, “Well, Peter, we're working on it”. But we shouldn't have to be treating them in this manner. There should be a way of addressing their concerns with a quicker and more pragmatic approach. And I'm sure I'm not the only one who goes through this. We have a lot of them.

    Before he passed away, a friend of mine--Shaun McCormick, who you may know, Bob--was one of the few civilians to ever receive a meritorious service award through the department. He set up the disabled program for insurance and what to do for military personnel who were injured in the line of work. He set that up.

    He passed away just recently, but his wife keeps a very close eye on all of these things. She says it's gotten a lot worse in terms of communication and cooperation for current service personnel who become injured and leave the workforce. When they try to get information back--either medical or whatever--to the department, they say it's almost as if, once they're injured, they're no longer any good and are thrown out the door. That's their perception.

    The Chair: Next we have Mr. O'Reilly, then Mr. Hill.

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

    On the committee, I think at one time it was a full ministry and a full committee with veterans affairs, because at one time it was a big, big thing. In looking at some of the history of it, I thought it was a full committee, but because it kind of diminished and there are fewer and fewer veterans, it was just thrown into the other one. I think at one time it was a full ministry and at one time it was the secretary of state who was--

    The Chair: Lawrence MacAulay was the first to do that as parliamentary secretary, and then it went to a secretary of state.

    Mr. John O'Reilly: Yes, and now it's back to a full ministry but without a parliamentary secretary, so I'm not sure which way they're thinking of it. But yes, at one time it was a big committee and there were a lot of things.

    But the problem with a lot of this stuff is that the veterans and the Department of Veterans Affairs rely on the Legions to have their rosters. Their meetings are usually held in Legions, so veterans have to come to the Legion. Some of them won't go near a Legion, and I think they get lost. I've had people tell me they won't go into a Legion; they never would. They didn't want to relive the war stories and all that stuff; they just wanted to get away and get on with life. I think that's some of the problem.

    They've set up a self-registry system now through all the veterans magazines and all the associations. You were at one of the luncheons of one of those. The veterans associations are trying to get everybody registered to find out just who they are, because there are some people who don't even bother to register. Their families don't even know they were in the war.

    The trouble with post-traumatic stress syndrome is that we don't call it a disease. A syndrome is an inconclusive body of evidence. A disease is something that's treatable. As long as it's not a disease that's treatable and they don't recognize it, they call it a syndrome. Then they're able to get away from paying benefits. I think that's the legalese of it medically, that an inconclusive body of evidence is called a syndrome.

    Mr. Jay Hill: You mean like the Liberal Party.

    Mr. John O'Reilly: Well, no. It's more like the Tories, actually. It's like Belinda. She said, “Geez, Daddy, can I have a party?” So he bought her the Tories.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Chairman, I think maybe we could look at this. I know I raised the issue with Mr. O'Reilly following the premature departure of the minister at committee a couple of weeks ago, the issue of whether the military ombudsman could intercede on behalf of veterans. He initially said yes, he could, and then he said no, the way to go is through the veterans affairs ministry, and it seemed to be a bit confusing.

    In order to further Mr. Stoffer's suggestion of looking at this, I wonder if we couldn't, if we do end up having time, actually launch a bit of a study on this issue and delve into some individual case histories. I wonder if we couldn't do it under the umbrella of examining the feasibility or the practicality of having an ombudsman for veterans similar to the one for the active members of the Canadian Forces.

¹  (1545)  

    Mr. John O'Reilly: I have a meeting with the ombudsman coming up, so I'll ask him if he considers that he does that. He thinks he is, but....

    The Chair: Just while I think of it, has anybody else had any feedback on Korean veterans? I know I have one in my riding who has caused a lot of concern about suffering as a result of exposure to chemicals and toxins during the Korean War. Has anyone run into that?

    I know this guy in my riding, James Cotter, feels there are a lot of Korean veterans who are subject to this type of ailment. With the prescribed use of pest reduction and pest control products, according to him some of these people were apparently exposed to DDT, benzene, hexachloride, and all this kind of stuff.

    An hon. member: Like any farmer in Canada.

    The Chair: That's right.

    I just wondered if anybody had anything to....

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Chairman, another concern I have, and it may not happen, is you know that at the Ste. Anne's Hospital in Quebec the waiting list is for less than ten days, whereas at the Camp Hill Hospital in Halifax the wait can be four, five, six, or seven months sometimes. These are veterans, and we hear a lot. This committee actually was down to Nova Scotia and heard that complaint: why are we veterans in Nova Scotia...?

    It's because Ste. Anne's is the only federally run hospital for veterans in the country, and the others are provincially run; that's where the problem is. I remember Cliff Chadderton saying all veterans should be treated equally across the country, no matter where they live. If they need a space and a bed, they should get it equally, not because they live in one area of the country or another.

    There's always been that confusion about how much money the government, through veterans, gives to a provincial government to ensure there is ample space for veterans in that particular community. I admit confusion on that myself, on exactly how that process works.

    The Chair: Well, there was a number of beds--and maybe Mr. O'Reilly can help me out--allocated about four or five years ago, I think, for extra beds for veterans across the country. It would be interesting to see if that allocation is--

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: It was George Baker who did that--or he said he did.

    The Chair: That's right. No he did, he did. It would be interesting to see if they're utilized, because in a lot of cases maybe they're not utilized or maybe nobody knows about it. It would go right back to what Jay was saying--that is, to further examine the program and to see how well these beds were advertised as being available. We can certainly look into it, because I know that there are beds that have been made available through the Department of Veterans Affairs. Now, whether they are utilized or whether anybody takes you up on it is another question.

    Mr. John O'Reilly: It's always a problem, because most of them are provincial institutions. The problem is when you get a veteran going into a community care type of situation where more care is needed for one partner than the other, they don't necessarily put them together. This is one thing that really bothers a lot of people. It certainly bothers me that a husband and wife don't necessarily get the same room because of the level of care. Each unit in a critical care unit or a long-term-care unit has a different level of need, and they assess them according to need, not necessarily whether they're husband and wife. So that creates a problem because of the provincial health care system runs it.

    We had a case here in Ottawa where the husband got assigned and separated from his wife. That happens quite regularly in institutions right across the country--I only know about Ontario, as far as our system is concerned--where a husband and wife are separated in a nursing home. It happens throughout society, not just with veterans. There are beds in the London hospital. I think there are 14 units across Canada, and they all have beds. They appear to have beds if they need them.

¹  (1550)  

    The Chair: We can get an update on it.

    Mr. Jay Hill: I'm not too sure, and maybe the clerk can apprise us--are there vice-chairs elected to this committee?

    The Clerk: I've checked, and they don't usually have.... In the election they don't usually have them. I don't know--

    The Chair: It's kind of a dictatorship.

    Mr. Jay Hill: As long as you're always going to be here, Bob.

    The Chair: I'm always going to be here, don't worry. Wait a minute, no that's true.

    Rick Casson.

    Mr. Rick Casson: Mr. Chairman, there are a couple of things. We had a briefing with the department a couple of weeks ago, and one of the concerns raised was standards of care and that this be unified across Canada. We were told by the department that the people who do the certification of hospitals--it brings them up to a certain level so that they can get accreditation--are handling that issue, and they felt that was working quite well. I think we need to ask the Department of Veterans Affairs questions on the standards and the beds that are made available. I'm not so sure that Health Canada shouldn't be somewhat involved in that. I did see a figure of what it costs the department over a year, and it's quite high.

    A couple of other issues have been brought to my attention recently. Being new to the committee, these may very well have been discussed in the past. One of the them is the gold-digger clause, where if a veteran marries after the age of 60, their spouse isn't eligible for their pension. I guess that dates back almost to the Civil War, whereby veterans on their death beds were marrying whoever just so the pension could carry on. I think that needs to be looked at.

    Also, these widows only get 50% of the pension, unlike other pensions where you get 60% of the surviving spousal portion.

    I don't think those are big issues, but they're huge irritants to people. I think it would be good if we could just have somebody--maybe just one or two witnesses--to clarify what the situation is there and why it hasn't been addressed.

    The Chair: All right.

    Mr. Jay Hill: I have one other issue. I don't know how we're going to prioritize this. In any event, as the chair was indicating, we might all be amazingly surprised here within the next couple of weeks and be out on the campaign trail and all of this will be a moot point anyway.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: I'm not even the veterans affairs critic, and I'm here.

    Mr. Jay Hill: You're easily amazed.

    One other issue might be answered by John when he gets the information back. Sometime before this entourage heads over to Europe for the 60th anniversary of D-Day, I would like assurances, as I raised at the committee when the minister was there, of how many people are going and what the cost is going to be. As I said then, if we're going to subsidize somebody going, let's make sure we subsidize the bloody veterans or the boy scouts or cadets or whoever is going who needs some help, more so than have the Governor General go over there with 39 of her closest damn friends and cost us millions of dollars.

    You know, I don't think we have to do a full-blown study on it. If you can't get an answer, John, I'd like to see the committee call somebody in front of us here who's going to provide those answers and assurances that it's the vets and the cadets who get the help.

    The Chair: I think John can get that.

    Mr. John O'Reilly: I asked those questions. I'm not a parliamentary secretary, so I don't have the briefing notes, but I am on the 60th anniversary committee, and we meet next Tuesday. It's a break; I know that we're off. I'll probably get most of the answers from there.

    I know that the Governor General is going, which I don't understand. The Queen is going to be there, so I don't know why we're sending the Queen's representative.

    The Chair: A lot of people don't understand.

    Mr. Jay Hill: If she's going to go, that's fine, but she doesn't need to have all her foot soldiers along with her.

    Mr. John O'Reilly: They told me that they'd provide me with a list before the meeting. I didn't know this meeting was today, or I would have tried to meet with them earlier.

    Mr. Jay Hill: That's fine. Maybe you can report back and we can discuss it before the actual event takes place. I think that the concern, from both sides and from all parties, about this is that we keep a lid on the expenses and direct the resources we do have towards the people who need help.

¹  (1555)  

    Mr. John O'Reilly: Peter could tell you, because he was with us last year.

    There were how many people, plus one veteran? Cliff Chadderton was the only veteran who was with us.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: We also had Retired General Belize with us, and one guy from the air force as well.

    Mr. John O'Reilly: They went their own way.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yes, but their costs were taken care of. There was also the head of the Legion, the two of them, and the head of the ANAF.

    Mr. John O'Reilly: Bob Cassells.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yes. Their costs were taken of, as well. Plus, there was Cliff Chadderton's assistant.

    The Chair: Anyway, I think we have enough to start with. If we do come back, I think we should probably start with what Jay has brought up, to examine the VIP program and get the people here to do it. We'll start from there. How does that sound?

    When is the best time for having a meeting? Most generally, we met before on Wednesday afternoons, I think, from 3:30 to 5:30. Is that a bad time or a good time?

    Mr. John O'Reilly: SCONDVA is Tuesday, Thursday.

    The Chair: Yes. You're going to have a hard time getting people for two. That's why we went with Wednesday. Shall we try for Wednesday?

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: We can always meet at the office; it's Room 240. I'll have the beer out, we can chat, put on some John McDermott, and get right into the mood.

    Mr. John O'Reilly: If we're not into interpretation, I have a boardroom over in the East Block we can use. I'll share it with you.

    The Chair: Right.

    Do you want to try for next Wednesday, when we get...? I think it would be too early now to do it, for a meeting this Wednesday, wouldn't it?

    We come back on April 19 or April 20, or something like that; I think it's the 21st. All right? It will be at 3:30 on April 21.

    I am adjourning. Is there anything else?

    This will be the most casual meeting you guys have ever been to.