Proceedings of the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs
Issue 1 - Evidence - Meeting of May 3, 2006
OTTAWA, Wednesday, May 3, 2006
The Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met this day at 12:05 p.m., pursuant to rule 88 of the Rules of the Senate, to organize the activities of the committee.
[English]
Keli Hogan, Clerk of the Committee: Honourable senators, there is a quorum. As clerk of the subcommittee it is my duty to preside over the election of the chair. I am ready to receive a motion to that effect. Are there any nominations?
Senator Kenny: I would like to nominate Senator Meighen.
Ms. Hogan: Are there other nominations?
Senator Kenny: I would like to close the nominations.
Ms. Hogan: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Kenny that the Honourable Senator Meighen do take the chair of the subcommittee. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Ms. Hogan: I invite Senator Meighen to take the chair.
Senator Michael A. Meighen (Chairman) in the chair.
The Chairman: I am honoured, colleagues, by your continued confidence and I look forward to working with you on this subcommittee again.
The second order of business is the election of a deputy chair.
Senator Forrestall: I move that the distinguished honourable senator from New Brunswick, with the reputation for concern for all Canadians, including those with the distinction known as veterans, be the deputy chair of this committee, which you chair, sir.
The Chairman: Thank you, Senator Forrestall. I presume you are referring to he who follows night.
Senator Forrestall: Of course.
The Chairman: Nominations being closed, Senator Day is elected by acclamation.
Next item is the agenda and procedure committee. Would somebody care to move that the chair and deputy chair be empowered to make decisions on behalf of the subcommittee with respect to agendas, to invite witnesses and to schedule hearings?
Senator Kenny: So moved.
The Chairman: All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: We need a motion to print the subcommittee's proceedings.
Senator Kenny: So moved.
The Chairman: Thank you, Senator Kenny.
Senator Forrestall: Do we print enough of those? Were enough printed last year to meet all the demands but not too many?
Ms. Hogan: We print the number required. If we require additional ones, we make the request.
The Chairman: I think Senator Kenny's motion included the fact that the chair set the number to meet demand.
Would somebody move authorization to hold meetings when a quorum is not present?
Senator Kenny: You can take testimony with how many people?
Ms. Hogan: Two.
The Chairman: I should read the motion: That, pursuant to rule 89, the chair be authorized to hold meetings, to receive and authorize the printing of the evidence when a quorum is not present, provided that a member of the subcommittee from both the government and opposition be present.
Senator Kenny: So moved.
The Chairman: All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Would somebody move that the subcommittee ask the Library of Parliament to assign research staff to the subcommittee and that the chair be authorized to seek authority from the Senate to engage the services of such counsel and technical, clerical and other personnel as may be necessary for the purpose of the subcommittee's examination and consideration of such bills, subject matters of bills and estimates as are referred to it; that the subcommittee on agenda and procedure be authorized to retain the services of such experts as may be required by the work of the committee; and that the chair, on behalf of the subcommittee, direct the research staff in the preparation of studies, analyses, summaries and draft reports?
Senator Kenny: So moved.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: May we have a motion to commit funds and certify accounts.
An Hon. Senator: So moved.
The Chairman: We need a motion on travel: That the subcommittee empower the chair and deputy chair, as required, to designate one or more members of the subcommittee and/or such staff as may be necessary to travel on assignment on behalf of the subcommittee.
Senator Forrestall: So moved.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: With respect to members travelling on committee business, that the chair and deputy chair be authorized to 1) determine whether any member of the subcommittee is on official business for the purposes of paragraph 8(3)(a) of the senators attendance policy, published in the Journals of the Senate on Wednesday, June 3, 1998; and 2) consider any member of the subcommittee to be on official business if that member is: (a) attending a function, event or meeting related to the work of the subcommittee; or (b) making a presentation related to the work of the subcommittee.
Senator Forrestall: That brings into line changes that have been made —
The Chairman: You are the deputy, with all the additional salary that goes with that, Senator Day.
Senator Day: Sorry to be late.
The Chairman: We are going through the standard motions; we just hit No. 10. Do we need a motion for the time slot?
Ms. Hogan: No.
The Chairman: I thought Senator Forrestall had moved the travelling and living expenses. All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Is that all our official business?
Now we move to the order of reference?
I hope you have a copy of the draft order of reference, which as it stands now is exactly the same as in the previous Parliament. I have one suggestion; you may have other suggestions. If I may take the initiative here, look at subparagraph (c), the need for an updated Veterans Charter. We do have that charter. It is in existence. Would you consider replacing (c) with these words: Examine the implementation of the recently enacted new Veterans Charter?
Senator Day: Exactly.
The Chairman: Examine the implementation of the new veterans charters.
Senator Forrestall: So moved.
The Chairman: Are there any other changes any member has to suggest?
Senator Kenny: It may not require a change, but just in the context of the work of the subcommittee, I met during the break with the new ombudsman.
The Chairman: Who replaced Marin?
Senator Kenny: Yes. I believe he is undertaking a study to see how well widows or survivors are faring; whether the benefits were appropriate; whether the process of breaking the news to survivors is done in the right way; and it occurred to me that that was something that might be of interest to your subcommittee. You could go back to the Chicoutimi, or the blue-on-blue friendly fire deaths, and work through that process. I think that the government has taken an interesting initiative with the allocation of $250,000 to the families of each of the four who have died. My impression is that that has not been extended to the other families. I suggest some form of general review, starting with the notification process and carrying through to who is assigned to the next of kin. Sometimes it is tricky, because if the individual is newly married, the parents may find themselves out of the loop because the attention would be focused on the bride. Sometimes there may have been a partner, but the parents are the ones who are in the loop and the partner less so.
There are a number of issues, as you look at it, in addition to the financial ones, but on the financial ones the subcommittee may want to consider whether, if there was a quarter of a million dollars for those four, perhaps there should be something retroactive for the others. I put that on the table for consideration, and if it meets with favour, you may find it fits into this order of reference, or you may want to vary the reference to accommodate it.
The Chairman: Should we go in camera for this discussion? We want to discuss financial matters too. If so, how do we go in camera — do we just do it?
Senator Kenny: With reporting or without — how do you want it done?
Senator Forrestall: We should have it in camera, but with reporting, so we will know what we have been talking about.
The Chairman: Is that agreeable to everybody?
Senator Day: What does in camera with recording mean — not in camera?
Senator Kenny: It means people who do not belong here leave, but we have a written record of what was said and decided. In other words, the reporters and translators stay, but people who are on the senators' staff, or other people in the room, leave.
Senator Day: The recording does not become part of our official record.
Senator Kenny: It is something we have access to. The only reason for having the recording is to go back afterwards and say, ``Yes, we did agree to this.''
The Chairman: I am in your hands, but do we need to go in camera to discuss future business? Is there any requirement to do so?
Ms. Hogan: No.
The Chairman: Let us see how the discussion proceeds. If we get into an area that we would rather just discuss among ourselves, we will go in camera. In the meantime, we will continue as is. My other comment would be, Senator Kenny, whether (a) would cover the work of the ombudsman — the subjects he is looking into.
Senator Day: Can we say ``provided to veterans of war and peacekeeping missions and their families,'' or do we put it in a bullet? Paragraph (a) just mentions the veteran; and some of what Senator Kenny was talking about is the families, the survivors.
The Chairman: I think that is a good suggestion.
Senator Kenny: You might want to add ``families and loved ones.''
The Chairman: Sometimes members of families are not loved. Could we say ``next of kin and families''?
Senator Kenny: My point is that at some point, next of kin switches from meaning parents. At the point it becomes a common law relationship, it switches, but sometimes it is unclear. The issue has become acute in the United States, where there is obviously a much higher volume, and the people associated with this have not had the ability to do it correctly. It has been a mess from the get-go.
Senator Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, does not every member of the Canadian Armed Forces list their own choice of next of kin? It might be as remote and cold as ``my estate,'' but they list it; and I think that we should continue to adhere to whatever that list is because it will reflect, 100 per cent of the time, precisely the wish of the person or persons.
Senator Kenny: The experience I am referring to has shown that it has not. The classic example would be a newly married master corporal who lists his wife as the next of kin. He is 24 years old and his parents still feel a close connection to him. All of the services and benefits go to the wife, but often the parents need as much counselling as she does. She has only known him for two years or 18 months or whatever, and they have known him for 24 years.
It would be better to ensure both parties were provided with counselling and assistance. The wife would get the funding, but it is the other support, the notifications and getting the remains back in one piece. There have been examples of opening the casket and discovering the wrong body. There have been problems with the escort officers leaving too soon and people not being able to find their way through the bureaucracy to get what they needed.
The Chairman: Do you not think that might be covered under ``services and benefits''?
Senator Kenny: If that is the sense of the meeting, I am happy with that.
The Chairman: I am having trouble defining it from the other side, unless we put in some reference to the ombudsman's work or responsibilities.
Senator Kenny: If the other members of the committee feel this is a worthwhile subject, and if so, that it is covered under (a), I would not object.
The Chairman: Senator Day, you are a lawyer.
Senator Day: When you introduce this, would you feel that it is clearly understood that ``services and benefits provided to veterans'' includes services and benefits to survivors' families?
Senator Kenny: The question is, is the deceased a veteran?
The Chairman: If it is a deceased veteran?
Senator Kenny: Are you a veteran if you are deceased?
Senator Day: If you die before you become a veteran?
The Chairman: It is a service provided to that person. You do not have to be alive to benefit from it, do you?
Senator Kenny: I understand; but are you a veteran at the point you die?
The Chairman: I would think so.
Senator Kenny: This is for lawyers.
The Chairman: How could you not be a veteran? You either leave the Armed Forces or you die. You are still a veteran, are you not?
Senator Day: Suppose you are killed in harness, on duty in Afghanistan — you die a soldier then. You are not a veteran of the war; you are a casualty of it.
The Chairman: That is a good point. Let us put in ``members of the Canadian Forces and veterans.''
Senator Forrestall: We have to be careful. Perhaps we had better do a study and find out whether there is any need. If there is, why; and if there is not, what about the questions that we have raised? We need a little guidance. Your point is absolutely correct, as is Senator Day's point about being veterans or casualties of the war.
The Chairman: Would it not cover it if we said ``members of the Canadian Forces and veterans''?
Senator Day: I think it would. However, does that include their significant others if they are deceased — their spouses and families — or should it be ``provided to members of the Canadian Forces and veterans of war and peacekeeping missions and their families''?
Senator Kenny: I think it does include it, but it is nice to have the reference to it in your order of reference. I think the idea that you have mentioned families and loved ones in the order of reference will be useful to you at some point when you are saying, ``Look, we are here because I have an order of reference to talk to you because you are a loved one or family person.''
Senator Day: I agree it is good to have it there politically; but from a legal point of view, it would save us from being sued for spending money on a study we did not have authority to pursue.
The Chairman: You do keep a close eye on the purse.
Senator Forrestall: It does not distinguish between the ways in which you leave the Armed Forces.
Senator Day: Let us put the words in there.
The Chairman: All right; ``provided to members of the Canadian Forces'' —
Senator Kenny: ``Provided to veterans or members and loved ones of deceased members of the Canadian Forces.''
The Chairman: Why would we put ``deceased''?
Senator Kenny: Because they are dead.
The Chairman: You are either a veteran or a member at that point. You have to be one or the other.
Senator Forrestall: If you are not a member, you are a veteran.
Senator Kenny: You are looking at it in the context of death benefits.
The Chairman: The wording could be ``services and benefits provided to'' —
Senator Kenny: — ``the families and loved ones of deceased members of the CF.''
Senator Forrestall: You want to be careful with that.
The Chairman: That would not provide benefits to the veterans and members, but to the families only.
Senator Kenny: It should say ``and to.''
Senator Forrestall: I have some difficulty with ``loved ones.'' Sometimes there is a breakdown between mothers-in- law and fathers-in-law, and sometimes the families are not terribly close. We have many new Canadians who have an entirely different cultural approach, and although their children might join the Armed Forces, they still live by other cultural beliefs.
Deputy Chairman: Surely ``and their families'' would include, upwards, the parents, as well as downwards, the wife.
The Chairman: And a common law spouse?
Deputy Chairman: I would think so because that is family. You can say ``families and dependants,'' but there are not always dependants. The more specific you try to be the less inclusive you are. We need a general word.
The Chairman: Let us try ``family.'' What is the danger if it does not include —
Deputy Chairman: — a common law spouse.
The Chairman: How does that inhibit our work? The ombudsman might come and talk about services provided to common law spouses.
Senator Kenny: I want to capture both parents and partners because often the attention goes to one who has been designated and not to the other. Both have demonstrated a need and we should provide the service.
The Chairman: What about ``parents, partners and other family members''?
Deputy Chairman: I think ``family'' includes it. The first question we will ask when we interview is whether they consider themselves family. They will answer yes and we will be okay.
The Chairman: What is wrong with ``parents''? Otherwise, we might end up with siblings and cousins.
Senator Kenny: You could envision a situation where someone cohabiting with another individual is named the beneficiary. The CF would focus entirely on that, so you want to cover off the parents. The reverse is someone cohabiting with an individual but is not named as a beneficiary and the benefit goes to the parents only. Thus the person is left out.
Deputy Chairman: We might decide to make some comment on that point in a report.
Senator Kenny: That is my point. I thought that was the point of the study.
Deputy Chairman: The term ``families'' would not be defined by the designation made by a member of the Armed Forces as to who the next of kin is. This terminology of ``families'' would be broad enough to include both the designated individuals and others.
Senator Kenny: We are differentiating between who receives financial support, which is the person the soldier names, and who receives moral support, grief counselling or assistance.
The Chairman: What about ``families, including common law relationships''?
Senator Forrestall: What about all those relationships that the parents are not aware of?
The Chairman: You cannot ask the CF to be aware of things that the parents or the families are not aware of.
Senator Forrestall: In large families, there is always something that people will not tell their parents, such as the fact that they might be living common law.
The Chairman: Who is left out by ``families, including common law relationships''?
Deputy Chairman: I am not sure we want it in a reference.
The Chairman: I would prefer it out myself. I do not like ``loved ones.''
Senator Kenny: You cold-hearted man.
Senator Forrestall: He is not really. He has not been put to the test yet. Are we trying to put something in here to suggest that we want to look at this in greater depth?
The Chairman: Most reasonable people will understand what we are looking at. If we come up against a problem, then we highlight it. Why not ``services and benefits provided to members of the CF, veterans and their families''? Does that modify both ``members'' and ``veterans''?
Senator Forrestall: Would you agree that it is broad enough, such that if we get some expert witness in here we might know what to say in a report?
Deputy Chairman: Absolutely; it is broad enough to do what Senator Kenny is talking about, which is important.
Senator Forrestall: I think so too. I cannot believe for one minute that the current process has not been thoughtfully put together over a long time. It did not just blow in. It has been in place for a long time and has withstood much pressure. Perhaps there are pressures to change it.
Senator Kenny: I noted that the ombudsman was looking at it. There has been extensive material in the media, which I am sure the research staff can dig out, on the problems in the United States. No one anticipated the volume of casualties. They have had procedures in place that have withstood time. However, they did not anticipate so many people coming back from war the way they did, and as a consequence, they found themselves ill-equipped to manage it. There was no tracking of personal belongings and the delay in returning them was sometimes as long as six months. The worst cases were when the bodies were switched. As well, counselling was cut short, before people were ready for that to happen. They were still in need of assistance and not getting it.
The Chairman: We can be sure we have it in a perfectly legal manner and that it covers the waterfront. This is what I have now. Tell me if there is a problem with it: The services and benefits provided to members of the Canadian Forces, to veterans of war and peacekeeping missions and to members of their families in recognition of their services to Canada.
Deputy Chairman: I am okay with that.
Senator Forrestall: To what degree did the ombudsman place emphasis on benefits?
Senator Kenny: I did not study it in great detail. I just noted it in passing.
The Chairman: Did he not talk about the lump sum payment?
Senator Kenny: I am vague on the details and would prefer that we have his exact wording.
The Chairman: Are we not interested in the services and benefits?
Senator Kenny: I am happy with the wording. I so move.
The Chairman: Thank you, Senator Kenny. Do we need a seconder? No. All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Drafting by committee is always challenging. Next, we wanted to replace (c). Were you here for that, Senator Day?
Deputy Chairman: I was here and I agreed with the implementation.
The Chairman: We have the draft order of reference, as amended.
Senator Forrestall: I so move.
The Chairman: Is there further discussion? All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: It has to be adopted first by the Defence Committee. Senator Kenny, can that be done on Monday?
Senator Kenny: Does it need an open meeting or can it be done in camera?
The Chairman: It can be done in camera.
Does everyone have this memo? The clerk is suggesting that we go in camera.
The committee continued in camera.