Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Social Affairs, Science and Technology
Issue 26 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Wednesday, November 5, 2003
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, to which was referred Bill C-37, to amend the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts; and Bill C-50, to amend the statute law in respect of benefits for veterans and the children of deceased veterans, met this day at 4:12 p.m. to give consideration to the bills.
Senator Michael Kirby (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, we have Colonel Colwell and Lieutenant Colonel Rochett from DND with us today. I understand Col. Colwell will make the comments to the committee.
Please proceed.
Colonel Linda J. Colwell, Director General Compensation and Benefits, Department of National Defence: Honourable senators, I do appreciate the opportunity to make some introductory remarks about the proposed bill C-37, an act to amend the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and to make consequential amendment to other acts.
[Translation]
First of all, my duties as Director General, Compensation and Benefits, consist primarily of drafting policies in support of the operational role and requirements of the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces. These policies must also take into account the working conditions and circumstances of Canadian Forces members and the value of their work.
The fundamental goal of the proposed modernization scheme is to implement a pension plan that is fair for Canadian Forces members and, at the same time, flexible and affordable enough to meet current and future needs. I must emphasize that the proposed plan would apply to all CF members, that is to the 62,000 members of the Regular Force, and to the 33,000 members of the Reserve Force.
Bill C-37 proposes a number of amendments. It calls for the introduction of regulations with a view to extending to members of the Reserve Force who serve for extended periods of time the same pension arrangements as enjoyed by members of the Regular Force. These changes would be in addition to those announced under the 1999 pension reform proposal which provided pension arrangements under regulations for Reservists.
Bill C-37 provides for the introduction of regulations to deal with certain highly technical considerations, such as the conditions that apply for calculating pensionable service, referred to as ``elective service'' in the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act.
[English]
The proposed legislation also proposes a restructured benefit scheme with these elements:
A member's length of pensionable service will be used for the purpose of determining pension entitlements rather than the current process of basing entitlements on completion of specific periods of engagement in the regular force.
The shorter vesting period provided in the 1999 pension reform legislation is incorporated. Members with two or more years of pensionable service would be eligible for a pension-type benefit. Under the current act, the qualifying period in most instances is 10 years of pensionable regular force service.
A key new benefit is the availability of an immediate pension after 25 completed years of paid service as a member of the Canadian Forces.
Provision is made for immediate pensions in specified circumstances under a future force reduction program or other involuntary termination of service.
Members who leave the regular force with at least two years of pensionable service who do not fit into the above categories would be eligible for the same benefits on the same terms as is provided for in the Public Service Superannuation Act.
Members would be able to transfer the value of their earned pension credits into an external savings vehicle in prescribed circumstances.
The survivor benefit will provide an allowance payable to a qualified survivor or child of a serving member who, at death, had accumulated at least two years of pensionable service. Under the current act, the deceased member must have served at least five years in the regular force.
The continuity of school attendance requirement for the child's benefit has been removed.
[Translation]
In addition, a number of amendments have been proposed to improve the administration of the Act. Changes to the Act's structure which would consolidate current regulation-making authority into a single provision have been proposed.
The enactment also contains transitional provisions and makes consequential amendments, notably to provisions respecting the incorporation of active CF members with vested rights or grandfather protection. For example, under certain circumstances, active members could ask to have their pension benefits calculated under existing regulations, rather than under the new ones.
[English]
There are consequential and coordinating amendments to other statutes. These include putting authority into the Public Service Superannuation Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act to adapt those two pension plans to the new Canadian Forces rules.
The clauses of the proposed bill are to come into force on dates fixed by the Governor in Council. This allows time to develop the supporting regulations and the necessary administrative systems and other infrastructure.
[Translation]
It would undoubtedly be useful for me to comment on the regulation-making authority provided for in this enactment. Some people harbour misconceptions about the importance of the proposed regulation-making authority provisions in the bill. In truth, this authority already largely exists. For example, clause 23 of the bill, which covers approximately three pages, aims almost solely to consolidate existing provisions.
[English]
Parliament has often, in the past, approved a framework approach in the three major superannuation acts: the Public Service, RCMP and Canadian Forces Superannuation Acts. Under such framework, the basic principles are set out in the statute, but the necessary operational details are left to regulation. Thus, even without the amendments in the proposed bill, there is already extensive regulation-making authority under the CFSA, including a significant range of new powers under the 1999 pension reform legislation.
Concerns have been expressed that Canadian Forces members may not be aware of changes being made by regulation. The Canadian Forces Superannuation Act already provides for an advisory committee made up of representatives of serving members of the regular and reserve forces, and pensioners. The committee was consulted throughout the development of the modernization proposals and gave firm direction on communications with plan members for both information and feedback. Given its legislated mandate and representational duties, one must conclude that the committee will continue to give strong direction for any changes to be made by regulation in accordance with the proposed bill and to ensure that members are fully aware of changes proposed.
My remarks are obviously a very general summary of the proposed amendments. However, with me is Lt.-Colonel Claude Rochette, Director of the Canadian Forces, Pension Modernization Project, who is very familiar with the proposed changes, the reasons for them and the technical aspects of the proposals. We would be pleased to answer any questions honourable senators may have.
Senator Callbeck: Colonel Colwell, you spoke about an advisory committee. You said that in future they would be consulted and so they would still be involved. Is that in the proposed legislation or is that in the regulations?
Colonel Colwell: The requirement for the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act advisory committee is found in current legislation under section 49.1.
Senator Callbeck: What is the role of the committee?
Colonel Colwell: The committee is established under legislation to consult on Canadian forces pension issues and to advise the minister with respect to changes or requirements in the good management of that pension plan.
Senator Callbeck: Is this advisory committee in agreement with all the changes that are being made or with the amendments to the legislation?
Colonel Colwell: Absolutely.
Senator Callbeck: Do these amendments mean that the armed forces will have the same pension as the RCMP and the public service in respect of the framework?
Colonel Colwell: The framework will be similar. One of our objectives was to ensure that our Canadian forces pension is as comparable as possible with the Public Service Superannuation Act.
Senator Robertson: First, let me congratulate you on this proposed legislation because it is needed and it will be good legislation.
I want to be certain of my statistics after studying the proposed bill and listening to the debate in the chamber.
I believe that the pensions of 50,000 members of the regular force and 28,000 members of the reserve force will be affected; is that correct?
Colonel Colwell: That is correct, except that right now we have 62,000 regular force members and 33,000 reserve force members.
Senator Robertson: Will the long-term, full-time reservists have the equivalent pension arrangements as the regular force members?
Colonel Colwell: Yes, the full-time people will have the same kind of pension plan.
Senator Robertson: I also understand that you have laid the groundwork for a pension plan for part-time reservists. Is that correct?
Colonel Colwell: That is correct.
Senator Robertson: After two years, pensions vest and credits will be portable. Is that correct?
Colonel Colwell: That is correct.
Senator Keon: Would you please tell me whether a young woman or young man could join the forces at the age of 16 or 18?
Colonel Colwell: I believe it is 18 but a younger person may be able to join with his or her parents' consent.
Senator Keon: I understand that this plan would allow such an individual to pursue a second career at age 43; is that correct?
Colonel Colwell: That is correct.
Senator Keon: What financial benefit would there be if they remained in the force after the age of 43?
Colonel Colwell: The pension is always based on the best five years of service. Obviously, we hope that pay would continue to increase with inflation. The best five years would always improve the pension. There is also the career advancement, although this does not dealt with in the bill. From my perspective, a career in the Canadian Forces is certainly something to be pursued.
Senator Keon: In some of the other professions, the pension plans almost encourage people to change professions. They leave at a relatively young age with about 60 per cent of their salary in pension amounts. They are young enough to move into another profession and, of course, it is a financial benefit.
Is there a built-in mechanism to make it more attractive or much more attractive for people to stay in the forces?
Obviously, you would have a considerable brain drain, would you not, if you were losing people at the age of 45, which is often at the peak of some people's careers?
Colonel Colwell: For the most part, yes. However, we do have to maintain a relatively young age in the Canadian forces because of the exigencies of the service that we demand. The life of an infantry person is certainly one to be pursued but it is physically demanding activity. Thus, we have the balance between a physically demanding career and being able to leave with a successful career to start a new career.
At 2 per cent per year over 25 years, one would receive a 50 per cent pension. Members in other trades or classifications and especially those in the higher leadership positions are encouraged to continue so that we are able to maintain our intellectual capital, so to speak.
Senator Keon: That is a good point. You are quite right.
The Chairman: Is the pension 2 per cent per year multiplied by the number of years? In that way, when you serve 30 or 35 years, you receive 60 per cent or 70 per cent.
Colonel Colwell: It would be 60 per cent or 70 per cent of your best five years.
The Chairman: About one decade ago, this committee dealt with a bill in respect of how public service pension assets are divided in the event of divorce. Have those regulations, which apply to the Public Service Superannuation Act, been carried over to this proposed bill?
Colonel Colwell: I believe those regulations were in the Pensions Divisions Act.
The Chairman: They were. Is this one of the pensions covered by that act?
Colonel Colwell: Yes.
The Chairman: We had a number of witnesses from the public service but we did not have any representations from the military at the time.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: I would like an explanation on the portability issue. Does this proposed legislation provide for enhancement from one type of service to another?
Is there portability within, for instance, the government service, military, and RCMP?
Is there a portability factor or is it strictly military?
Colonel Colwell: I would ask Lt.-Colonel Rochette to address that portability issue.
Lieutenant-Colonel Claude Rochette, Project Director, Canadian Forces, Pension Modernization Project, Department of National Defence: Honourable senators, we have introduced a committed value or transfer value of pensions. Currently we do not have access to a transfer value. Any current members of the forces can transfer their credits to the RCMP or to the public service. With the introduction of transfer value, which is the value of the accrued pension, members could transfer that to another employer.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, I am happy to entertain a motion to report the proposed bill back to the Senate without amendment.
Are there any objections?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: For your information, we will report that back tomorrow. Thank you.
Honourable senators, the next bill before us is Bill C-50, to amend the statute law in respect of benefits of veterans and the children of deceased veterans.
We have from the Department of Veterans Affairs, Mr. Wilson and Mr. Guptill. I understand Mr. Guptill will do the presentation.
Mr. Bryson Guptill, Director, Service and Program Modernization Task Force, Department of Veterans Affairs Canada: Honourable senators, it is a great pleasure to be here today and to see many of the honourable senators who are from the East Coast, in particular, Senator Callbeck with whom I worked before in a different movie. Good to see you, senator.
Bill C-50 is proposed legislation that addresses the needs of two quite different sets of clients: Our war era veterans, and particularly prisoners of war; and the educational needs of the children of veterans who may be killed in the line of duty. The proposed legislation speaks to both the past and to the future.
The dangers for the 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 fires or floods on the home front or serve abroad in any one of a number of troubled places around the world, it is not until we get a sudden loss of life in a conflict, as we did just recently in Afghanistan, that we are immediately brought up short by the deadly danger these men and women face on almost a daily basis.
In providing disability pensions, health care and related programs to these men and women, we also offer them, and their families, perhaps some peace of mind by ensuring that our legislation is as comprehensive as possible. When it comes to the welfare of their families, peace of mind for those deploying is surely no small thing.
That is why, in the year 2000, we amended the Pension Act so that disability pension benefits would be available to eligible regular force members while they are still serving, regardless of their site of service. Earlier this year, Bill C-31 further amended the act to provide more extensive coverage to members of the forces exposed to elevated risk overseas, or within Canada, on an around-the-clock basis. We appeared before your committee several months ago, honourable senators, to give the details of that particular legislation.
That same sort of peace of mind is now offered by this proposed legislation, which considers the educational needs of the children of veterans. During your second reading deliberations on this matter, honourable senators have probably heard that, between 1953-95, the department administered the Children of Deceased Veterans Education Assistance Act. The act was administered through the Educational Assistance Program, which provided post- secondary educational assistance to children of veterans who died while on service or while in receipt of a disability pension at 48 per cent or greater.
The Education Assistance Program was discontinued in 1995, as it was found that other programs were available to assist students with educational costs. Veterans groups have made a persuasive case for the program's reinstatement and this proposed legislation does exactly that.
If passed, these changes improve upon the old program substantially. The allowable maximum tuition rate for current and future students is to be raised from $1,500 to $4,000 per academic year. This new amount better reflects the reality of the higher cost of post-secondary education. It is made more generous by the fact that the tuition amount is linked to the Consumer Price Index, which will allow that amount to increase, whereas in the past it was a fixed amount. In addition, we are raising the monthly allowance from the current approximately $170 a month to $300. This is also linked to the Consumer Price Index.
We are also taking measures for those who, during the eight-year interim when the program was cancelled, incurred education costs on their own. We will be taking a proactive approach in contacting the students and we are prepared to make lump-sum payments at the former rates to compensate them for at least some of their out-of-pocket tuition expenses. In that sense, the program is retroactive. I am sure this will be a welcome relief to those who might still have outstanding student loans.
When we reintroduced the 1995 measures, there were some individuals who were very appreciative of the assistance they received.
We are even covering those who did not attend a post-secondary school because perhaps the Education Assistance Program was cancelled. For those who now want to reconsider their education, they will be eligible for a maximum of four years of post-secondary assistance at the new rates. Eligible students can qualify for assistance up until their thirtieth birthday. There is a provision there for those folks as well.
The net result will be that, should this bill pass and be gazetted, the department will be able to pay increased tuition and allowance rates to some 35 students who are currently attending university or college. Most of these students are survivors of Canadian forces veterans who died in the 1980s and early 1990s, as a result of their military service. In addition, we will also be able to provide similar assistance to 15 former students because of this change in legislation. We have also contacted families whose children were too young to attend post-secondary institutions before 1995, when the program was discontinued. In this fiscal year we expect to make lump sum payment to about 45 former students.
While these numbers are not large in the global sense, they are rather sobering, nonetheless, when you factor in the number of children who were suddenly without a parent. That is a very important issue and an important perspective, given the risk that many of these folks face in deployments today.
I suggest that this part of the proposed bill speaks to the future, because the newly reinstated program will be a gift that keeps on giving. No matter when or where military men or women serve, the post-secondary education costs of their children will be taken care of if something tragic should happen.
I will now turn to the other major component of this legislation, namely, the measures that will be in effect to protect former prisoners of war. Prisoners of war legislation was first enacted in 1976 to compensate former prisoners of war for the indignities, maltreatment, malnutrition and permanent scars that resulted from their period of internment. Compensation is linked on a time-base scale. The scale reflects the total length of time a former prisoner of war was incarcerated, escaped from or evaded capture by the enemy and the power by which they were held. This, in turn, is linked to our disability pension scheme. The changes proposed in the proposed legislation enhance the current scale to benefit both shorter- and longer-term prisoners of war.
I should add that Canada is one of the few countries in the western world that actually offers compensation to prisoners of war. Our provisions are very generous indeed.
The legislation currently provides a differential coverage to prisoners of war, depending on whether they were Japanese POWs or European POWs. For both categories, and clause 8 is the applicable section here, we have created a new 5 per cent of basic disability pension for those who were incarcerated for a period between 30 and 88 days. Like other categories of disability payments, these amounts are indexed to the cost of living.
For the POWs of powers other than Japan, we have increased and added levels of compensation: from 25 per cent to 30 per cent of a basic disability pension for those who were prisoners of war between 911 to 1,275 days; from 25 per cent to 35 per cent for periods between 1,276 to 1,641 days; and from 25 per cent to 40 per cent for periods totalling at least 1,642 days of imprisonment.
Honourable senators would know that the experience of POWs in Japan was often even more tragic than POWs in Europe. When this program was brought into place in 1976, the scale was adjusted to give higher levels of compensation to Japanese prisoners of war, because of the serious health consequences many of them suffered at the hands of the Japanese during World War II.
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.
The coverage that compensates for a shorter duration of internment takes into consideration those who might have been imprisoned at the very last stages of the war, or air crews who might have bailed out over enemy territory and spent a shorter period of time evading capture and returning to home units.
I think honourable senators asked this question one other time about whether or not POWs were covered even when they were evading capture. The answer is ``yes.'' It does not have to be a period while they were incarcerated. If they were evading capture at that time, they are also eligible to include that time. The monies they receive will be indexed to the Consumer Price Index and are tax-exempt, like all of our pension payments.
There is another item, minor in a literal sense but important in a symbolic sense, that we are also considering at this time. It has to do with the definition of the word ``veteran'' for the purposes of applying the War Veterans Allowance or the WVA. Honourable senators may remember this issue was especially well covered by the media on the East Coast.
Some time ago, there was a case that made its way through the courts, and at our own appeal board, concerning the eligibility of an individual for the war veterans allowance, even though that individual had not actually seen service. The case was complicated and lengthy, and arose out of a less-than-precise wording in the legislation. It was felt a legislative change was required to ensure the intent of the original legislation is clear.
If you look at clause 10 in the proposed legislation, you will see that with respect to the war veterans allowance, a member of the forces is now defined as someone who has enlisted, served and been discharged from service. This was not clear in the previous definition. This wording provides the courts and quasi-judicial bodies with the clearest legislation possible to administer or make judicial rulings.
These are the three changes proposed in this proposed legislation. Funding is being provided to the renewed Educational Assistance Program and the broader coverage for prisoners of war by reallocating money from the department's Attendance Allowance Program.
For those who do not know, the Attendance Allowance Program has been in place since 1919, and is a monthly amount that is paid to provide a financial grant to an individual to help pay for the costs of an attendant. It is a monthly amount that can be awarded to an individual who receives a disability pension, or prisoners of war compensation. In order to qualify, the individual needs to be totally disabled, and in need of attendant care due to physical or mental disability.
The total disability does not have to relate to disability that we are pensioning. It can be total disability related to any other factors. It is a very comprehensive program.
Over time, the eligibility of this program expanded to include significant numbers of veterans who did not strictly meet the criteria. We believe it is opportune now to return the program to its original purpose. The current and revised programs will cover most contingencies that the allowance used to cover. The money freed up by clarifying the policy will be used to increase legitimate benefits for the very beneficiaries we are discussing today. In short, the changes will provide a better way of meeting the urgent needs of veterans through the use of more appropriate tools, while maintaining the Attendance Allowance Program itself.
Honourable senators should be assured that the modifications to the Attendance Allowance Program will not impact anyone who is currently receiving the program. Those individuals will be grandfathered, and will not have their benefits reduced in any way. We will, however, be making better and more effective use of the money, while targeting the right people with the right programs.
We will be glad to deal with any questions you may have.
Senator Cordy: I believe that the proposed bill is a good bill. Any time that we can do things to make the lives of the men and women who have served our country easier and better, it is a good thing.
We sometimes forget that our military people are still putting their lives on the line. I think that the Educational Assistance Program is extremely relevant, not just for veterans, but those who are currently serving. As a member of the military, you hope you never have to use it; but I think, as you said, it certainly is reassurance that your family, your children will be looked after from an educational perspective.
One of the things Mr. Guptill spoke about was the definition of ``a veteran,'' or a person who is serving in the military. You said it was very complicated. I am also from the East Coast and, reading it in the newspaper, it did not seem very complicated to me. It seemed rather outrageous that someone could claim benefits when all they were doing was applying to go into the military. In fact, the person was turned down for medical reasons and yet, because the definition, if there was one, was so vague, the courts determined that they were entitled to veterans' benefits. I understand why that upset veterans' organizations. I am pleased to see that that is clarified within this proposed legislation.
I would like further explanation in regard to the prisoner of war benefits. The 30 to 88 days is something new.
Could you explain why you have reduced the number of days that somebody had to be a prisoner of war before they are entitled to benefits?
Mr. Guptill: The explanation is quite straightforward. There were a number of prisoners of war who were adversely impacted by their incarceration, who often suffered health problems as a result of their incarceration. Yet, we had essentially a three-month limit. You had to have been incarcerated or evaded capture for a period of at least three months or you were not eligible for this benefit. The veterans' organizations were quite keen to see us reduce that period of time to 30 days. That is what we have done in this case.
The other thing we have done is extended the coverage at the other end of the scale. There were a number of merchant navy veterans who were incarcerated for much longer periods of time. The scale did not accommodate those folks with additional quasi-pension coverage. The POW compensation essentially mirrors our pension legislation. The monthly payments are similar to the pension payments. We provided an additional amount for those people who have longer periods of incarceration.
The other thing that veterans' organizations were concerned about was that the prisoners of war from Dieppe, in particular, were not fairly compensated, in their minds, because of the period of incarceration they had. They cover off that period from 911 days to 1,275 days.
You will notice that we are now providing an additional 5 per cent coverage for those individuals as well. This provides increased or improved compensation for prisoners of war right across the board. As I mentioned, the funding for it is coming from the reallocations with the attendance allowance.
Senator Callbeck: It is nice to see Islanders in Ottawa. Thank you for your explanation of the legislation.
The amendments are good. Certainly, veterans are deserving of these changes.
The question that I have is not really on the proposed legislation but has to do with the regulations. It has to do with the VIP program. I believe back in May the minister announced that there were seven areas that he wanted to change, and four of these dealt with regulations. One of those was the VIP program.
As I understand it, spouses of veterans could receive the VIP program for a year after their spouse passed away. In has now been changed so that as of June 18, I believe, anyone who is eligible will get those benefits for life. Basically, we have two classes of spouses. That really concerns and troubles me. I do not think that is right. I would like to have your comments.
Mr. Guptill: In the proposal the minister was talking about with regard to the urgent needs of Canada's veterans, there were a number of program changes, as you pointed out. There were seven changes in particular that were contemplated in the minister's announcement on May 12. All of these initiatives were funded by modifications to the attendance allowance program. One of those changes involved enhancing the coverage of spouses who were to get VIP housekeeping and grounds maintenance services.
Honourable senators may recall that we had changed the regulations relating to the provision of these housekeeping and grounds maintenance services to the spouses of veterans back in 1990. The Veterans Independence Program was brought into place in 1981. In 1990, a change was made in the program so that, from that point on, spouses were able to receive VIP benefits for one year after the veteran's death. Prior to that time, the benefits ceased to be paid as soon as the veteran died. This provision that was put in place in 1990 allowed us to continue to pay the VIP, housekeeping and grounds maintenance benefits for an additional one-year period. That has been in place for some time.
The veterans' organizations were concerned, as many members were concerned, about only being able to provide that service for one year. The minister announced in May that we were going to be extending that period of time from one year to lifetime. However, the provision much like the provision in 1990, would only take place from that point onward. It would not be retrospective in nature.
In doing it that way, the minister indicated that there would be an additional 10,000 to 11,000 people who would now get the VIP eligibility for their lifetime. That measure was strongly endorsed by veterans' organizations, which understood that there was a limited amount of funding from this attendance allowance program to allow us to actually make those changes.
Since that time, there has been a significant amount of concern that inadvertently we may have created two classes of spouses: those who are eligible for VIP and those who are not; the lifetime extension and those who can only get the extension for one year. We have been examining that situation over the past number of weeks. We are proceeding with that analysis as quickly as we can in order to determine what to do in the situation.
Senator Callbeck: I am pleased that 10,000 or 12,000 people will get the benefit for a lifetime. I have had a number of phone calls from people who will not get it. As I said, that causes me a significant amount of difficulty. I believe that we have created two types of spouses here. I am happy to hear that you are looking into it, and hopefully, it will be resolved shortly.
Senator Robertson: The proposed bill certainly brings about some improvements. I do not think we can make fish and fowl of our veterans' widows. We are all getting many telephone calls in this regard. I hope your work is expeditious and productive.
I should know the answer to this question, but I do not.
Did we have prisoners of war in the Korean War, and if so, are they included in this proposed legislation?
Mr. Guptill: Prisoners of war would apply in this proposed legislation to any other recognized power. It would cover not just for World War II, but also for any other conflict since then where one is held captive by another power.
Although this provision applies primarily to prisoners of war from World War II, it does allow us to pick up any prisoners of war from other conflicts. That would include prisoners of war from Korea, had they been held by another power at that time. It would include provisions today under the same circumstances.
Senator Robertson: Does the War Veterans Allowance Act cover the merchant marines as well?
Mr. Guptill: Yes, it does. It covers any veteran who served during the world wars. Since the merchant marines are now considered veterans like any other veteran, they are covered under the War Veterans Allowance Act.
Senator Fairbairn: Your presentation has been comforting. Much thought and heart has gone into the changes that have been made, particularly some of those in the field of education that have been virtually retroactive.
We could not let the moment pass, having you here, without raising the veterans' widows issue. It is one of those things that, perhaps inadvertently, happens from time to time, but carries with it a sort of almost outrageous sense of unfairness. I appreciate that you are looking at the issue, but because of the time of year, I suppose, and the focus on a particular war, it has our phone lines ringing, and for good reason.
I hope you would leave this committee today with a message that you have our eager blessing at working hard and fast at trying to bridge the gap of what would appear to be inequity for these particular people.
Mr. Guptill: Thank you, senator. I will certainly take that message back. We do appreciate your concern about that particular provision.
The Deputy Chairman: We can all attest to the fact that we are receiving mail and representations concerning this issue.
As there are no senators that wish to speak, I would like to thank our witnesses.
I would like a motion to dispense with clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-50 and to report the proposed bill back to the Senate without amendment.
Senator Roche: I so move.
The Deputy Chairman: Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Callbeck: Madam Chair, I notice that when the House of Commons accepted this proposed legislation, they also put in a paragraph about extending VIP benefits for one year. It says words to the effect that members of the committee unanimously agree that the committee should take all possible means to provide lifetime VIP benefits to all qualifying surviving spouses, veterans receiving such benefits at the time of their death, and so on. I wonder if we could add an observation like that.
The Deputy Chairman: We can report the proposed bill back and then we can add observations. What we will do is gather in camera and discuss that matter after these proceedings. We will report the proposed bill without amendment, but we will go in camera to discuss the observations.
Thank you very much, gentlemen, for your presentation.
Honourable senators, while our witnesses are withdrawing and before we go in camera, there is a motion before you to table the transcript, from the September 24, 2003 fact-finding meeting, as an exhibit.
Today we tabled our report on public health, but honourable senators will recall that on September 24 we had meetings, and heard from Dr. Plumber and people from the Winnipeg labs. Since the Senate was still sitting, we had to have informal meetings. This is simply a motion that we can now take the transcripts of that testimony and add them as an addendum and table it with our report.
Senator Cordy: I so move.
The Deputy Chairman: Honourable senators, is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chairman: Thank you. We will move in camera.
The committee continued in camera.