Proceedings of the Subcommittee on
Veterans Affairs

Issue 1 - Evidence, October 17, 2000

The Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met this day at 9:00 a.m. to examine and report on the health care provided to veterans of war and of peacekeeping missions; the implementation of the recommendations made in its previous reports on such matters; and the terms of service, post-discharge benefits and health care of members of the regular and reserve forces as well as members of the RCMP and of civilians who have served in close support of uniformed peacekeepers.

Senator Michael A. Meighen (Chairman) in the Chair.

[English]

The Chairman: Honourable senators, we welcome our witnesses from the National Council of Veteran Associations.

Mr. H. Clifford Chadderton, Chairman, National Council of Veteran Associations in Canada: Honourable senators, we have filed some documents with you. We are looking forward to a long and helpful association with this committee, so certainly this morning I will not even attempt to cover all of the items. I will highlight those that I believe are of current interest. We have always found questions from senators to be very useful in framing future policy and in guiding our ongoing discussions with our other organizations.

The national council comprises 38 different organizations, some of them very small, some of them very select, such as the nursing sisters, paratroopers, et cetera. We have constant contact through these organizations with about 200,000 veterans.

I would also take this opportunity to express our appreciation to the previous Senate subcommittees going back a number of years. It is no secret to many people who follow veterans affairs that a Senate subcommittee took on the National Film Board in connection with a certain film. The committee's report was useful. The Valour and the Horror was a CBC production on which many Senate hearings were held.

The last item of current interest is long-term care in veterans hospitals. I would draw to your attention one of the submitted documents, entitled "Veterans Affairs Canada Reference Documents." Those contain all the information on veterans beds found in approximately 731 institutions across the country. This is absolutely bedrock information for your committee if you are to examine this issue.

I do not intend to read any briefs, but I do have some comments. There is a separate submission on civilians who served in direct aid of the war effort and prisoners of war. I do not know the status of Bill C-41. I think it has gone through third reading. That bill provides for veteran status for the seven groups of civilians employed in the war effort. That would include Red Cross workers, foresters, ferry command pilots, and other people who did not wear uniform and who were not subject to military discipline, but who certainly served this country well. It has taken many years to bring their plight to the attention of various governments.

Bill C-41 does indeed provide some benefits to those groups. Your committee may wish to look carefully at that bill, because there is a perception that it solves all of their problems. I will give one example. Before this bill, if a ferry command pilot happened to be injured in a crash of his aircraft in Gander, he received no pension. The workers in these seven groups could only receive pensions if they were injured in direct action with the enemy. The ferry command pilots flew their planes across the Atlantic. They were unarmed, and if they were attacked, they did not have a chance. Most of their injuries came from air crashes.

The problem is that Bill C-41 removes the enemy action provision but does not provide for retroactivity. I am not saying that the government should go back 50 years, but under the Pension Act it can go back three, or in some cases, five years. A man who was injured in a crash at Gander in 1943 would be very pleased if the government were to recognize him as a "war veteran." He would be pleased to be able to apply for a pension now. However, he will not be pleased when he finds out that that pension is not retroactive. We will hear more and more about that in these committee proceedings.

The Chairman: I do not want to interrupt you, but in answer to the question, Bill C-41 received first reading in the Senate yesterday and is being dealt with by consent today.

Mr. Chadderton: Yes.

The Chairman: I think I can safely say that there seems to be all-party support for expediting its passage if other events were to occur that might circumvent that. It should go through. We hear you saying that it helps, but does not go all the way.

Mr. Chadderton: That is right. I assumed that by the time we got to this committee it would have been promulgated. However, there will be opportunities to raise some of the deficiencies in that bill, and I want to mention them.

The other issue, which also arose with the merchant navy, is that for ferry command pilots, Red Cross workers, et cetera, there is no grant in lieu of rehabilitation. That was the big issue with the merchant navy. After the government was finished with them, they were "back on the beach," so to speak. It is only within the last year that the government has recognized that they should have had some rehabilitation. Instead of trying to do anything now, the government has voted $50 million, and committees are at work trying to decide how that would be best spread around.

The next issue is the question of regular force personnel. For years, if a man or a woman in the regular forces suffered an injury and was granted a pension, that pension could not be paid until the person left the service. Let me give you an example. An explosives expert in Edmonton lost a thumb. He decided to stay on in the armed forces and did not get his pension. Although it was approved, he did not get it, and it will not be paid to him until Bill C-41 is promulgated. He will get his pension starting as of the promulgation of that bill, but he has had that disability for something like five or ten years.

On prisoners of war, the committee should be hearing -- and certainly will be hearing from us if we get a chance to appear again -- that we feel that the government provision is too rigid. Three to eighteen months gives them 10 per cent additional pension. Up to thirty months gives them 15 per cent additional pension. More than thirty months gives them 25 per cent additional pension. Our proposal, which we have been making to Senate committees for years, is that that is much too rigid. The gap is too wide. We have been asking for increments of 5 per cent.

The next issue is that of hospital beds. If this committee is to look at hospital beds and the care of veterans, I must say -- and I hope there is no misunderstanding about this -- that our 38 organizations have no complaints whatsoever about the standard of care, the food, or the nursing service. We see a much bigger problem, in that Veterans Affairs has something like 4,000 priority access beds. The Auditor General's report of several years ago stated there is a possibility of 60,000 overseas veterans reaching their eighties in the near future and looking for a bed. There is a tremendous gap there.

We are not suggesting that the government undertake a major building program. As many of us know, Veterans Affairs got out of the hospital business in 1963. They only have one hospital, in Saint Anne's. How do we close this gap? I think the current minister has already shown a way to do it, and that is to ask smaller community hospitals to dedicate three, four or five beds as priority access beds for entitled veterans. If they agree, once the veteran occupies the bed, then Veterans Affairs will pay that hospital $160 a day in maintenance, and the individual will only have to pay $720 to stay there so long as the necessary qualifications are being met.

We see a big problem with the priorities. The health regulations state these priorities quite clearly. The first priority is war-related disabled pensioners, and the second is income-qualified veterans. Many of us would know them as "War Veterans Allowance" recipients, or people whose income is below, say, $1,200 a month. The third group is veterans with overseas service who are not income qualified or anything of that nature, but who will be looking for hospital beds through DVA. They will have problems because the provincial authorities will say, "Wait a minute. These are veterans; therefore they are the responsibility of the federal government." We are having a lot of trouble getting genuine veterans with overseas service into long-term care because the provincial governments -- at least until the health grants were freed up last week -- are saying, "No. We have to look after our own people, and DVA has to look after you." That is a major problem.

The definition of "health needs" versus "priority based on service" is the other issue. Veterans Affairs is giving priority to health needs. Let me explain a case for you. A veteran, 100 per cent pensioner, was paying more than $2,000 a month for a nursing home in Ottawa. We applied to get him into the Perley-Rideau, but they said he was something like 200th on the waiting list. Then we asked who was ahead of him. They replied that a lot of people who have a medical need are ahead of him Frankly, we believe that is contrary to the legislation and the regulations, and it is certainly contrary to common sense. The Veterans Affairs legislation was based on whether or not this man served, where he served, and whether or not he has a disability -- and that gives him the number one priority. However, those people are being knocked out of the box by others. I hate to use this as a description, but it is true. Thirty per cent of the people who are being allowed in are suffering from alcoholism or cirrhosis of the liver. In some cases they have Alzheimer's disease, et cetera. That is a serious condemnation of my fellow veteran.

Having studied the matter for many years, my belief is that Veterans Affairs is on the wrong track. I believe that they should be giving priority to the pensioner. If there are other beds available, fine. However, there are no other beds. The current waiting list at Sunnybrook Hospital is 23. We have filed those figures with your committee. The waiting list at the Perley-Rideau in Ottawa is something in the order of 120. Veterans Affairs better stop kidding us and realize that they have to do something. If that waiting list at Sunnybrook is currently 23 -- and we checked that yesterday -- imagine what it will be three or four years from now when the average World War II veteran is about 82 or 83.

We have brought this to this committee's attention before. We suggest that the policy is wrong and that the committee should look at it.

You will hear about the question of VIP-like services.

Veterans Affairs decided that they would bring in something called "VIP-like services" as a pilot project. Let me explain what that is. The veteran is on the waiting list to get into the Perley-Rideau. They will say to him, "We will take you off the waiting list. We will send you back home and we will give you VIP-like services." That means they will bring people in to cut your toenails, for example, and look after you at home. They will also provide someone to shovel your snow, et cetera. We welcomed that as a stop-gap -- in fact it is a band-aid measure. It did not reduce the waiting list by one -- and we checked. VIP-like services is a pilot project in three areas in Canada. As far as we are concerned, it will not correct the situation at all.

What is the solution? It is the one that the current minister announced in June, that is, the federal government will have to go to the provinces and say, "We would like to dedicate five more beds, for example, in the Atlantic region." DVA has 56 contract beds in the Caribou Memorial Veterans Pavilion. We are suggesting that DVA will have to say to them, "We will contract for another 20 beds," or 40 beds, or what have you.

There are eight locations in Prince Edward Island. DVA has contracted for 20 beds at the Northumberland Veterans Unit in Pictou. The current waiting list at this Pictou county hospital is exactly double that. We are not looking for a large capital expenditure. We are saying that the community beds are there, but the provinces will say," We will put our own people in there. If you are a veteran, go to DVA." Of course, that makes the veteran a dead-end case.

On the question of transfer agreements, I should like to refer committee members to the last time we appeared before you. It was in June 1998, when we brought to your attention the fact that Veterans Affairs was allowing the provinces, or in some cases, the University of Toronto, to negate transfer agreements.

When the transfer agreements were made and when Sunnybrook went under, for example, there was a provision that there would be so many beds available for veterans. The provision was also written in such a way that if more beds were needed, that could be taken into consideration. I checked on Friday afternoon and found that the current waiting list at Sunnybrook is 23.

Except for a submission from our national council to the board of directors of the hospital, Sunnybrook Hospital would have disappeared in name completely. It was to be called the "Women's College Hospital." We checked on the history and found out why it is called "Sunnybrook." The chairman of the hospital agreed with us totally.

We are afraid, honourable senators, of this beginning. Once the thin edge of the wedge arrives, and once provinces or institutions are allowed to ignore contracts that were signed in good faith, the number of beds available to veterans could easily drop.

The Chairman: Mr. Chadderton, could you conclude as quickly as you are able?

Mr. Chadderton: Yes. Mr. Chairman, I just wish to add that you received a letter from Marian Fijal of the Polish Combatants' Association. I have included in my brief the somewhat checkered history of why, at one time, members of the Polish Home Army were eligible for War Veterans Allowance and then it was taken away from them. We would like to make that point.

In conclusion, the biggest problem is long-term beds for veterans. No one knows how many of the 60,000 veterans identified by the Auditor General will be looking for long-term care beds. However, there is a long waiting list now. We can safely assume that within five years, World War II veterans will certainly be looking for long-term care beds under the auspices of Veterans Affairs.

Senator Pépin: I must admit, Mr. Chadderton, that I am new to the field of veterans. I know a lot about what you have done because I come from a family in which there were eight young men, five of whom went to war. You must explain something to me. You state that there are still some veterans hospitals, for example, Sainte-Anne's. We all understand that it is not sufficient. As the minister has suggested, you would like the provinces to donate five beds in regional hospitals to veterans. Do you believe that will be enough?

If there were five beds in each regional hospital across the country, do you believe that would be sufficient to help the veterans if they need health services?

Mr. Chadderton: I can only use the figures provided by the Auditor General. In my brief, I say that no one really knows how many there are, but we do know -- and we have filed a letter with the committee -- what the waiting list is like at the moment. We suggest that if the government were to go, for example, to a hospital in Smith Falls and say, "We want you to dedicate another five, six or ten beds for veterans," the government would be able to bring that about.

There is a big gap between how many beds are available and how many veterans there are -- we admit that. However, there is nothing we can do except take the figures provided to us by Veterans Affairs.

I would end by saying that Veterans Affairs has done at least five studies on this topic, and they are currently doing another one. They are very well aware of the fact that there is a gap. I do not know how large it is. I do not know that anyone does. However, I know that there is a long waiting list.

Senator Pépin: Did you say there are seven civilian groups?

Mr. Chadderton: Yes.

Senator Pépin: Are they included in the number of veterans?

Mr. Chadderton: No. They are not large in number. There are 41 ferry command pilots, for example. They are not sufficient in number to make it necessary to provide a different solution for them.

Veterans Affairs has already demonstrated that it can go to these smaller hospitals and make a deal with them. They are saying, "We cannot look after every veteran; that is impossible. However, we can certainly look after another ten and we can give them priority." In the meantime, it is a hopeless situation and I can tell you that World War II veterans are feeling it keenly.

Senator Pépin: You stated in your presentation that you were happy with the services provided, but you also said that you would like to have someone to supervise the quality of care. Do you not have anyone doing that now?

Mr. Chadderton: There are committees that are sitting ad infinitum. I was on one called the "gerontological advisory committee." It included all the top gerontologists across Canada. However, when we went to Veterans Affairs and asked for actual figures, it seems only one person has those figures -- and this is not a criticism of him -- but he does not have responsibility for monitoring anything. He cannot go to his minister and say, "There is a serious problem in Portage La Prairie, Manitoba." All he can do is keep the figures and submit them to his committee.

The Chairman: I should like a clarification. I heard you say, Mr. Chadderton, that the present minister has put forward what you believe to be a workable solution, which is for DVA to contract with local hospitals. Is that just a proposal? Has anything happened? Has the money been allocated? Is the department out pursuing that objective? It was not clear.

Mr. Chadderton: I can tell you exactly what happened. The minister made an announcement at the dominion convention of the Royal Canadian Legion last June that they had added another 2,600 beds. When we looked into the details, we found out that they had taken 2,600 veterans who were in community hospitals and said, "These 2,600 people will come under Veterans Affairs regulations." That was it. As a result, instead of paying $2,000 a day, these veterans now only pay $720 a day, and in addition to that, Veterans Affair is now paying up to $160 per day for those beds. There was a solution. I do say in my brief that that would be an expensive proposition, but on the other hand, Veterans Affairs either has to change its regulations and say that overseas veterans are not eligible, or make provision for them. It has to be one or the other.

The Chairman: Is there some form of means test? When you say that veterans have to pay a certain amount, do they pay regardless of income?

Mr. Chadderton: If they have no income and are what is called "income-qualified," such as those on War Veterans Allowance, they pay nothing at all. If they happen to be pensioners -- for example, a man with a missing leg and trouble in his other knee and hospitalized -- they also do not have to pay anything. If he is an overseas veteran and has no pension, he would have to pay $720 a month for his board and room.

The Chairman: The supposition is that if he is receiving a pension, he does not have much in the way of personal income?

Mr. Chadderton: No.

The Chairman: If he is not receiving a pension, he must have personal income, and therefore the supposition is that he is able to pay for the bed?

Mr. Chadderton: That is correct.

Senator Wiebe: I am confused as to which are hospital beds, which are nursing homes, and which are level I or level II. Does this apply right across the board? Also, are these negotiations or contracts with hospitals entered into by the Department of Veterans Affairs with the individual hospital, or with the provincial government, which is in charge of health care?

Mr. Chadderton: To answer the second question, the arrangement would have to be made with the province, which then would authorize the hospital in whatever city to dedicate some beds as VA-contract beds. We are only speaking here about long-term care beds, not chronic and not active care.

Senator Atkins: You talked about prisoners of war and the percentage pension increases. Why do you say that you prefer the 5 per cent incremental?

Mr. Chadderton: One complaint from the various prisoner of war associations which come under national council -- and that does not include the Hong Kong veterans; they are happy -- such as the POW RCAF group, is that a man with more than 90 days service will get a 10 per cent pension, while one with 85 days will not. That is the first complaint. The second complaint is that somewhere between 90 days and 900 days, they all get the same. Again, the feeling is that there is no magic in that and you cannot look after everyone's problem. However, they feel that increments of five months and 5 per cent would be much fairer.

Senator Atkins: These are just prisoners of war?

Mr. Chadderton: Yes. Under the Pension Act, prisoners of war get a disability pension, but section 72 of that act also provides for an additional pension for being POWs. It is the long-standing view of our organization that the gap between the groups is too large -- 5 per cent, 10 per cent, 25 per cent. It is too much. In our view, it would be simple for the government to address this. This is a good time to do it, because the government is presently rewriting the table of disabilities. It would be a good time to take a look at whether or not having only these three groups is fair, or whether they should have six groups, to put it simply.

Senator Atkins: Is it fair to assume that someone who is a prisoner for, say, 900 days, is in far different circumstances in terms of the impact it has had?

Mr. Chadderton: I will answer that question quickly. Go back to the Hong Kong veterans. Their pension was based on the fact that no medical person in Canada could say with any degree of certainty that they were suffering from 43 months in prison camp. What about your prisoner in Germany? He did not have an easy time of it, we know that, but he did come under the Geneva Convention. He was well looked after in that regard. There was no slave labour. A commission that looked at the issue said that there is a long-term effect on POWs who were, as they say, "in the can" and the government should be providing some compensation. However, it could not say specifically what that effect is. We know now about post-traumatic stress disorder, but no one knew about that five years ago. The government said if someone was in prison in Germany for two months, he gets nothing. If someone was in the same prison for nine months, he gets a 15 per cent pension. It is just a feeling that that gap is too wide.

That is not a big problem in comparison to all our other problems, unless you happen to be the prisoner of war.

Senator Atkins: I assume you had a lot of input into "Raising the Bar," the report presented by Senator Phillips?

Mr. Chadderton: I would like to think so, yes, sir.

Senator Atkins: How does that report stand up today in your opinion?

Mr. Chadderton: The most important meeting I had with the committee was when we talked about long-term beds. We also talked about the "phantom veteran," a term with which the committee dealt quite extensively. The phantom veteran had four years' overseas service and had nothing wrong with him. He had no pension and no pensionable disability. He was able to earn a living. Now this veteran is 84 years of age and needs a long-term care bed.

We called him a "phantom veteran" because of a question asked by Senator Pépin. That is, no one really knows what the numbers are, but we know they are there. We know that the waiting list is in the order of 300 to 400. The average age is 79. Within three or four years, that phantom veteran who served his country with the Black Watch or with Bomber Command or in the navy or the merchant navy, will say that the time has come when he needs long-term care from his country and it will not be there for him.

Senator Atkins: The report is still pertinent on the whole?

Mr. Chadderton: There were so many excellent recommendations in that report. I went through Sunnybrook Hospital in February this year, almost ward by ward. I heard no complaints. The food was much better. The nursing service was better. The Senate subcommittee can claim full credit for all of that, as far as I am concerned. Before Senator Phillips and his committee went to the hospitals and rooted out these problems, there were areas of sloppiness. Food was thermally heated and terrible. There was an absence of care. The committee turned the whole situation around.

Senator Atkins: How many of the recommendations have been accomplished?

Mr. Chadderton: When I looked at the mandate from this current committee, I knew I could only touch upon the highlights this morning. I can certainly file a report setting out which recommendations were excellent; which could not be acted upon, and so on. I can do that easily.

The Chairman: We have asked the Department of Veterans Affairs to give us a box score on that report. When we get it, which we hope will be very soon, we will let you have it.

Mr. Chadderton: I see.

The Chairman: As a matter of fact, we received it yesterday. That was a little secret I was hoping to keep until the end of the meeting. We will distribute it later.

Senator Wiebe: My province of Saskatchewan appears to be putting a lot of effort and resources into home care. You mentioned earlier that the VIP services, the three pilot projects on home care, are not meeting the obligations as you hoped they would. What kinds of problems are you encountering?

Mr. Chadderton: The proof is that the waiting list has not decreased at all.At Perley-Rideau here in Ottawa, the waiting list was about 220 two years ago; it is still at about 220 today. Putting these people on VIP services is good for them, but it is not a long-term solution. The majority of those people already have a doctor's certificate saying they need long-term care. Plucking them out of the waiting list and providing in-home assistance is a good thing; there is no question about that. However, it is not a long-term solution.

Senator Wiebe: Is the home care they are receiving excellent?

Mr. Chadderton: Yes, it is excellent.

The Chairman: This interesting discussion must come to an end for now. Thank you, Mr. Chadderton and Mr. Forbes, for appearing before us. I am sure we will have an opportunity to do this again before too long, election or no election. The problems to which you have alluded will not go away and this committee is interested in doing whatever it can to assist.

Mr. Chadderton: Most of the problems that I have brought before this committee were brought to the attention of the Department of Veterans Affairs well over a year ago now. We appreciate their problems in trying to implement some solutions. From a legislative viewpoint, they can only go so far. New legislation may be needed. The department is doing a good job.

The Chairman: I am sure they are glad to hear that. Thank you.

Our second panel will now come forward.

We have to move quickly because we have some housekeeping matters to attend to and we want to leave time for questions.

We have received and read the materials that you sent to us.

Mr. Robert Cassels, Dominion President, Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans in Canada: As you have read from our paper, in which we outlined our opinions on veterans' health care and benefits for all veterans, our current concerns focus on those veterans in long-term care institutions managed under provincial jurisdiction, and the role of the Department of Veterans Affairs in ensuring the quality of those services. The Bureau of Pensions Advocates, pensions, and the Canadian Forces veterans of modern domestic and global conflicts and crises are also topics of concern addressed in this paper. The following is a summary of what the Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans in Canada would like to see.

First, the Department of Veterans Affairs should develop a contingency plan for the possibility of large numbers of eligible veterans demanding their right to a priority access bed. I listened to Mr. Chadderton's comments and he covered many of the issues in our paper. Mr. Chadderton and I have talked about them many times.

Second, the department should address the need for greater nursing services in the acute care and long-term care institutions for veterans, and where appropriate, compensate volunteer caregivers in some fashion.

Third, the department should monitor the quality of care given to veterans in long-term care by frequent, unannounced visits and evaluate the services based on the standards of care.

Fourth, the department should adopt a core program as the basis for a national standard of care for veterans in acute care and long-term care institutions.

Fifth, the department should assign staff as personal advocates for veterans who are patients of long-term care institutions and who do not have anyone to represent their interests.

Sixth, the department should immediately increase the resources of the Bureau of Pensions Advocates to ensure that there are enough legal officers to pursue the cases of clients.

Seventh, the Bureau of Pensions Advocates should return to its original status as a separate, independent entity.

Eighth, the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs should pursue the recommendations of the previous committee in the February 1999 report, "Raising the Bar," with respect to pensions and the possibility of systematic discrimination in the awarding of pensions to disability claimants by the department and the Veterans Review and Appeal Board.

Some of your questions will be answered by Mr. Ambroziak, who serves on many of the committees in the Ottawa area and on the gerontological committee.

We also included something in our brief about the armed forces personnel. The department is now pursuing a Canadian Forces advisory council, which will start up on November 1 and 2. They are in the process of looking after the armed forces people. Between the armed forces and Veterans Affairs, they are looking at who will care for them and how it will happen. The first meeting of that committee will be on November 1 and 2 in Charlottetown, and I will be attending. After that, I will probably have a better view of their intentions and how they mean to put this committee together to look after the armed forces personnel who are serving now, and those who have been injured in special duty areas and on land and sea.

Mr. Peter Ambroziak, Dominion Secretary-Treasurer, Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans in Canada: We have tried to highlight some of the issues that came out of "Raising the Bar," the Phillips report, which was very comprehensive, certainly a guide, and perhaps a wake-up call, for the department. Some of those recommendations have yet to be pursued. You have taken an interest in finding out the score on their completion. Some of those recommendations require continuous work. I do not think there are one-shot solutions to them, particularly with respect to monitoring the quality of care and standards.

We have pursued the issue of standards with the department. They have responded, but we do not believe that response will provide veterans in long-term care institutions with the kind of service that they deserve. We have pursued the department vigorously over several years on this issue of standards, and they have been reluctant to come to grips with it for a whole host of reasons. I think they are the best qualified to explain why they have not, but I do know that they have not.

The Chairman: Is that just medical standards, or non-medical standards also?

Mr. Ambroziak: It is standards of care for the veterans with respect to food, rooms, and all kinds of things. We cover the whole gamut of services that one would expect to see for one's uncle or grandfather in a institution like that.

Mr. Cassels: Mr. Chadderton mentioned his visit to Sunnybrook Hospital. We also went to Sunnybrook Hospital with the Ontario provincial president, who spends a lot of time in that area. Through the Army, Navy and Air Force Ontario Command, the Toronto units spend a lot of time at Sunnybrook running horse race games for them. They organize barbecues for them. We have donated televisions, refrigerators, and microwave ovens. They donated between $8,000 and $10,000 to items for the veterans in Sunnybrook and in Parkwood in London. They spend a lot of time at Sunnybrook. We started at about 8:30 or 9:00 in the morning and stayed until 4:00 in the afternoon. We did a complete tour of every wing. We went into the area where they do crafts, and we talked to them. We talked to the staff. We talked to the people from Veterans Affairs, and then we talked to the Sunnybrook staff who run that part of the hospital, K Wing. We had lunch with the chairman of the committee that looks after things on behalf of the veterans. He meets with Veterans Affairs if there are any concerns. We had lunch with the veterans, and the lunch was great. The care they were getting was very good. They were in one of the new wings that had been remodelled, and the rooms were very nice. We had no complaints from any of the veterans or anyone in that hospital during the whole tour.

This was after Senator Phillips's report was published, and things had changed. They said things had changed quite a lot, and as Mr. Chadderton said, much of it came about because of the Senate committee's report, which said that things had to be corrected -- and they were. I am not saying it is that way in every hospital across Canada, because I have not visited them all, but there is a vast improvement at Sunnybrook Hospital.

Senator Atkins: You are telling us that this committee can have some impact on what is happening in the whole area of support for veterans?

Mr. Cassels: Yes. You have the chance to study it and you can speak to them about it, the same as we are doing. They seem to listen to you more than they do to us. At times, we have that feeling.

Senator Atkins: It is dependent upon the department listening as well.

Mr. Cassels: Yes.

Senator Atkins: Without reflecting on previous ministers of Veterans Affairs, I get the feeling that this minister has been more successful in getting money out of the government. Is that true?

Mr. Cassels: I have had the opportunity of working with Mr. Baker since he took over as the Minister of Veterans Affairs, because I was the first vice-president for the Army and Navy. Being from Ontario, they would send me to Ottawa to sit on the committees. I was on the committee for the merchant navy, along with Cliff, and Chuck Murphy and Larry Murray. I found Mr. Baker to be a very good minister. When he tells you he will do something, you can believe that he will. He asked Larry Murray to sit down with Cliff, myself, and Chuck Murphy to try to come to a solution for the merchant navy. This problem had been kicking around since 1990. We had many meetings over it. Chuck, Cliff and I said that the best way was to lock us all in a room and not let us out until we came to an agreement. He said, "When you have an agreement, you come to me and we will make sure that happens." He did that. It is still in the making, and now there is some word about having to seek more funds.

When this minister tells you he will do something, he does it.

I found that other ministers would tell you they would try, but then if they ran into a bit of flak, it seemed to get put on the back burner.

Senator Atkins: As we get further away from conflicts in which our forces have been involved, do you find that there has been a reduction in appreciation for veterans?

Mr. Cassels: I do not think so, no. There is a current effort to increase the knowledge of Canadian schoolchildren. The department has made videos available to the school boards, and to the different veterans organizations to give to school boards, so that the kids can learn more about it and find out what Canadians did in the past to preserve the freedom that we enjoy today in this country.

Senator Pépin: I am happy to learn that there are videos available for the schools because it is an extremely important topic for kids.

You said that you donate microwaves and fridges. Were any computers donated? I think that could be wonderful for veterans.

Mr. Cassels: There were. I am sorry I missed that.

Senator Pépin: I know where we can get some. If we can get them for youth and schools, we should try to get them for veterans.

Mr. Cassels: Yes. There was one fellow working on a computer who did not have any arms. He was using it with a pencil in his mouth.

Senator Pépin: For those who can hardly move, it would be wonderful. It would give them the feeling that they are not isolated.

The Chairman: On your recommendations dealing with the Bureau of Pensions Advocates, do I take it that you feel that if the bureau reverted to its original status as a separate entity, it would be more vigorous or more effective in defending the rights of veterans?

Mr. Cassels: I read a letter just yesterday from Ron Beal, who is the president of the Dieppe veterans. He wrote about one of his members who was wounded while he was a prisoner of war. He had a bullet lodged one-eighth of an inch from his spine and had just returned from a review hearing. He is having all kinds of problems. There is no record because there was no one standing there at the time to see him get hit with a rifle butt, or mistreated in any other way. There is no record of it, so the man was turned down for the third time. He is seeing the same person he saw the last time. I applied myself, and found there is no way that you will change that person's mind. He has already said no to you. You have to present the same evidence to the gentleman who has already said no. He will not change his mind. We feel there should be an entity separate from Veterans Affairs to conduct a review on appeal.

The Chairman: Do you have any opinion on why it was changed from its original independent status? Was a justification given when that happened? When did it happen?

Mr. Cassels: We recommended in our submission to the Senate subcommittee in the early 1990s that it revert back to being a separate entity. It happened before my time as president, in 1990 to 1992.

The Chairman: One of the submissions we received recommended that if there was a doubt, it should be resolved in favour of the veteran.

Mr. Cassels: That is right -- the benefit-of-the-doubt clause. That comes back to the case I spoke about. The department has told us many times in the past 10 years that the claimant -- the veteran -- will receive the benefit of the doubt, but that does not seem to be happening. From all the reports we are getting from veterans who are applying -- and the prime case is this gentleman whom I just spoke about -- it does not seem to be going that way. He is re-presenting his case to the same person who has already said no.

That individual was denied the benefit of the doubt when the first judgment was passed. When he goes back, it will be handled by the same people. They will say no again because the same evidence will be presented. If there was a separate entity, say someone who was not an employee of the board or whatever, perhaps he might say, "I can understand what this man has gone through. We will give him the benefit of the doubt." That is the way it should be handled. We feel that a separate entity would accomplish that.

Senator Atkins: As I recall, Mr. Chairman, when the bill went through, there was quite a debate on this issue in the Senate. We could not change their minds at all.

The Chairman: You are referring to the benefit-of-the-doubt provision?

Senator Atkins: Yes, and separating the two boards.

The Chairman: This may be an impossible question to answer -- in fact it may be an improper question to ask, and I am not impugning anyone's motives -- but considering the case you just described, do you have the impression that the person was turned down on legalistic grounds? In any criminal trial in this country, the Crown has to prove beyond a doubt that the accused committed the crime. In your view, was the person turned down because he was unable to prove that the injury had been sustained in circumstances that would give rise to a pension; or was he not believed?

Mr. Cassels: His comment to Ron Beal was that they put it down as having something to do with age and arthritis. He will not go back and say, "The original injury was this, and that is why I have been having a problem all these years." He had never gone back to the board before because he did not think he was entitled to anything. When it started to bother him, his doctor said, "You should go to them and find out what care you can get for this." He went to the doctor, who told him what to do. He did just that, but he was turned down by the board. I sat and listened to Mr. Beal give his version of what happened to the prisoners of war, the Dieppe veterans. He told us about marching across Europe with chains on his arms and ankles. If you were not going fast enough, you got a rifle butt in your back, and things of that nature. These things may begin to affect people as they age. They were not noticeable when they got out of the service. Now they are in their 80s, they are coming forward with these problems, and the department is saying, "There is no record of this happening to you. There was no record of that when you got out of the services." The benefit of the doubt is taken away from the veteran. The doctor says, "Yes, the problem reverts back to this injury." They send him to another doctor, who says, "Maybe it is arthritis." He then loses the pension or care that he would have got for that problem. There is nothing in writing. You have the man's word for it. He is the only one who can tell you, because he was there; we were not.

Senator Wiebe: In your presentation, and in the previous presentation, I heard a lot of concern about care for those who served overseas. What about the individual who is of that age now and who did not go overseas?

Mr. Cassels: There should not be any discrimination at all. They should all fall under the same umbrella. They should be treated in the same manner as the other veterans, because they all served at the time.

Senator Wiebe: We can say "all veterans" then?

Mr. Cassels: Yes. Many times in our submissions, we have included "Canada service only." That was accepted two to three years ago, or possibly a little longer. They said, "Yes, we will bring them into the Veterans Affairs package and look after them the same as we did the other people, with VIP programs and everything else."

As Mr. Chadderton said earlier, the VIP program is fine for the veterans in the beginning, but if they will need to be in long-term or chronic care after the VIP period, then we have to have some assurance that services will be provided for them at that time.

VIP looks after him while he is at home. We are studying the Veterans Independence Program too, because if the veteran dies, his widow is removed from the program after one year. She has looked after him all the years he was incapacitated, and all of a sudden, she is in her eighties and has to cut her own grass or do whatever the VIP program covered.

Senator Wiebe: I strongly believe that if we are to spend money, it should be for long-term and not short-term solutions. Those who served in WWI, WWII, and the Korean War will soon no longer be with us because of their age. We have a tendency not to put enough emphasis on reservists, who are being called upon more and more to serve in UN peacekeeping duties. My feeling is that if we do spend long-term money, we should include those same kinds of benefits for reservists. What are your feelings on that? Having spent enough time with both reservists and regular service individuals, I know there is some jealousy and competition between them. Would it be a problem if those kind of benefits were extended to the reservists in the future?

Mr. Cassels: We have stated in our brief that people presently serving in the Canadian Forces should be covered in some way. We are working on that, and the Canadian Forces advisory council that is due to start up will be involved. The Canadian Forces are depleting the number of active people and increasing the number of reservists. The reservists are serving on peacekeeping missions in other countries. If you are going to send people to do that, you have to give them the same coverage, because you are asking them to do the same job. They are putting their lives on the line the same as the fellows beside them, even though they are not active service personnel. You must give the reservists the same coverage and the same benefits because they are doing the same job.

Senator Wiebe: What about the reservist who does not get the opportunity to serve in a UN or NATO peacekeeping venture, but is called upon to serve in something like the ice storm or the Manitoba flood? Will a lot of distinctions need to be made, or can we lump them all into one category and say, "You are a reservist. As a reservist, you are prepared to serve your country, whether at home or abroad, and as a result of that commitment, these benefits will be available to you"?

Mr. Cassels: I have to agree with you that they should be included, because those people have put themselves on the line and have said they will go if called upon. It is similar to "Canada service only" for the veteran population. We have covered them. You could cover the reservists in the same way.

You talked about the Canadian Forces and the numbers. Senator Meighen, Senator Atkins and I have been on a few pilgrimages. The prime example was last year, when we went to Italy. We had some active forces personnel with us. They did not have 10 years of service in the armed forces, but they had three or four medals for serving in different conflicts. These young fellows, who are probably 23 or 24 years old, have medals for serving in Kosovo, Bosnia, wherever, but they do not even have 10 years in the forces. It is amazing to see. I noted it especially on the Italian trip because I rode on the bus a couple of times to get to know them. Chuck Murphy, the president of the Legion at the time, and I made a point of riding on the bus with the active forces people and hearing their stories.

One fellow suffered a leg injury while he was on manoeuvres. It was giving him problems and he could not march properly. Marching aggravated the injury to his leg and he had to fall out. He was being discharged from the armed forces because he was not capable of carrying out his duties, and he was not going to receive a pension for that. He was from 2RCR in Petawawa. He was one of the fellows who had four medals but no CD. He had not served 10 years in the Canadian Armed Forces, but he had three or four medals on his tunic for serving for peace in other countries, because as Canadian peacekeeping forces, that is part of their job. When you see these individuals, see what happens to them and listen to their stories, you understand why these committees like the Canadian Forces advisory committee are starting to get together.

As I said earlier, a lot of things came out of Senator Phillips's report, but there are still a lot of things that have to be worked on. I am sure you have read it and have picked up on some things that you intend to pursue.

Senator Atkins: When we talk about home care, I am assuming that a lot of veterans, if they had the choice, would prefer the VIP services to being in a chronic care unit?

Mr. Cassels: I would think so. I see a couple of individuals in Stratford who are on the VIP program. Their preference is to remain at home. Otherwise they would have to go to Parkwood Hospital in London or to Sunnybrook in Toronto, which would remove them from their families. Their families would be in Stratford, which is an hour and 25 minutes from Toronto, or 45 minutes from London. They prefer to stay in the home under the VIP program for as long as they can.

Senator Atkins: Is it cheaper?

Mr. Cassels: I would say it is, because the program provides services in the home. It pays for someone to cut grass, shovel snow, and come in if there is housekeeping that cannot be handled. I think they now get a lump sum per year to handle it. It seems to be adequate for some, although others would say it is not.

Senator Wiebe: Mr. Chadderton mentioned three areas of the country where they were doing pilot projects on this VIP service. Do you know where those are?

Mr. Cassels: No.

Mr. Ambroziak: Camp Hill in Halifax, Perley-Rideau in Ottawa, and George Derby, I think, in British Columbia. Those are the three that had the longest waiting lists. Therefore they tried to find a "quick fix" through the VIP program in order to perhaps allow those people to stay in their homes longer and defer the eventuality of long-term care.

Senator Wiebe: Who is handling this VIP service?

Mr. Ambroziak: The Department of Veterans Affairs.

Senator Wiebe: It might be helpful for our committee to get some kind of interim report from the Department of Veterans Affairs on how they view that VIP service to be working. It might give us some insight into what to recommend.

Senator Pépin: I have one question about young reservists who went to Kosovo. Do they have files to which we can refer to see if we can do something for them? They must have files.

Mr. Cassels: Yes. A file is kept on each individual serving in the militia, the same as for the armed forces. That used to be filed by service number, but now it is by Social Insurance Number. They can access their files through the Department of National Defence, and everything will be there from the date that they joined. It will tell you everywhere they served. If there was a report of any injuries or anything, it will be there. However, if the individual did not report anything and comes back after the fact to say it happened, that is when we run into problems. The department says, "You did not report it at the time." If they leave the reserves and are asked how they feel, they will say, "I feel fine." "Do you have any injuries?" "No, I do not." Six years later the department will say, "You did not report any problems on your release so we cannot do anything for you." The act says if there was no record of it upon your leaving the forces, or if you did not report it when you left, then they cannot do anything for you after the fact.

Senator Atkins: The fact is that after the Second World War, a lot of veterans just wanted to get out and get home.

Senator Pépin: Yes, and they do not have any records.

The Chairman: Are we now dealing with a different type of injury as a result of the peacekeeping operations that this country has undertaken? I understand there are physical injuries similar to those suffered in the world wars, but are there injuries that perhaps were not recognized in previous conflicts or new types of non-physical injuries that are now being recognized?

If so, are they being dealt with adequately, in your view?

Mr. Cassels: We are seeing a lot of post-traumatic stress disorder lately. That will cause a lot of controversy down the road. We have not dealt with much of that yet.

Mr. Ambroziak: When we compare the experiences of the modern peacekeeper with that of veterans of the First and Second World War and the Korean War, many soldiers, seamen and air crew are now going into operations with their hands tied behind their backs. They have rules of engagement and so on. They often have to put up with more abuse. They have to be more restrained than the veterans of the historical wars.

A classic example of that is the experience of General Roméo D'Allaire. The man's hands were tied. He could not do anything. Being a good soldier, he did what he was told. Unfortunately, that was his undoing. You cannot do that to people without creating problems, but that is what is happening to our people serving through the United Nations.

Mr. Cassels: The soldiers will serve in one area for six months or a year. Then, because of the current low numbers of forces personnel, they must go somewhere else within six months. Before they can readjust to being back at home with their families, they are gone again.

The young fellows in the armed forces brought up that point. They want a minimum six-month layover before they are called to go somewhere else and are put under stress again. After a while, that stress would start to tell on any one of us who had to cope with it time after time.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Cassels and Mr. Ambroziak.

Turning to committee business, we need a motion to file the materials supplied by Mr. Cassels on behalf of the Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans in Canada as an exhibit with the clerk of the committee.

Senator Atkins: I so move.

Senator Pépin: I second that.

The Chairman: Is it agreed?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chairman: Carried. Could I also have a motion that the material filed by Mr. Chadderton of the National Council of Veterans Associations in Canada be filed as an exhibit with the clerk of the committee.

Senator Pépin: I so move.

Senator Wiebe: I second that motion.

The Chairman: Is it agreed?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chairman: Carried.

Most senators have had an opportunity to look at the budget. The grand total is $23,000. That would cover our visit to Charlottetown. We may not be going in November or December. No one can predict these things. Should there be an election, we must wait for the reopening of Parliament and the reconstituting of the committee.

We require a motion to authorize me, as chair, to submit this budget application to the main committee for approval.

Senator Pépin: I so move.

Senator Wiebe: I second that.

The Chairman: Is it agreed?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chairman: Carried.

Finally, we do have good news, as I mentioned earlier. We have received a response from Veterans Affairs Canada to the recommendations contained in "Raising the Bar: Creating a New Standard in Veterans' Health Care."Can I have a motion to file this as an exhibit with the clerk?

Senator Pépin: I so move.

Senator Wiebe: I second that motion.

The Chairman: Is it agreed?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chairman: The motion being adopted, we will distribute that response from the department to anyone who would like a copy.

The committee adjourned.