Proceedings of the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs
Issue 1 - Evidence - March 17, 2010
OTTAWA, Wednesday, March 17, 2010
The Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met this day at 12:00 p.m., pursuant to rule 88 of the Rules of the Senate, to hold an organizational meeting.
[Traduction]
Kevin Pittman, Clerk of the Committee: Honorables Senators, we have a quorum. As Clerk of this committee, it is my duty to preside over the election of a chair.
[Français]
I am ready to receive a motion to that effect.
Senator Wallin: I move that Senator Banks be chair of the Veterans Affairs Subcommittee.
Mr. Pittman: It is moved by Senator Wallin that Senator Banks do take the chair of this subcommittee. Are there any other nominations?
Senator Meighen: Nominations have ceased.
[Traduction]
Do you consent, honourable senators, to adopt this motion?
[Français]
Mr. Pittman: I declare the motion carried.
Senator Tommy Banks (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues, very much. The first thing I want to do is thank my distinguished predecessors: Senator Meighen, most recently, for the sterling job he has done and for keeping us on track; and Senator Day, who was for a time the chair of this committee, and I am very grateful.
I think the next order of business ought to be the nomination of a deputy chair. I would rather that someone other than I make the nomination.
Senator Wallin: I nominate Senator Manning to sit as the deputy chair on this committee.
The Chair: Are there any other nominations? Is there a motion that nominations cease?
Senator Wallin: Yes, thank you.
The Chair: Is it agreed, senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Senator Manning is the deputy chair. Congratulations.
You said yes, Senator Manning.
Senator Manning: I did.
The Chair: We all said yes.
Senator Manning: Yes, I know.
The Chair: There are now a number of matters of important housekeeping with which we must deal. I refer members to the organizational meeting agenda that is before them. We are now at Item 3.
I invite motions in these regards, if it is your pleasure, the first being that the chair and deputy chair be empowered to make decisions on behalf of the subcommittee with respect to its agenda, to invite witnesses and to schedule hearings. Is there such a motion?
Senator Pépin: I so move.
The Chair: All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed? A question, Senator Wallin?
Senator Wallin: This motion is on behalf of the subcommittee, correct? It is the way it is worded — that you two will act — but it is as a result of being on the steering committee.
The Chair: You have it exactly right. All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed? Item 3 is carried.
Item 4 is that the subcommittee publish its proceedings; and that the chair be authorized to set the number of printed copies to meet demand.
Senator Wallin: I so move.
The Chair: Is there a motion? Senator Meighen, inadvertently perhaps, raised his hand.
Senator Meighen: I was trying to vote ``yes.''
Senator Wallin: We moved it already.
Senator Meighen: You moved it and you do not need a seconder.
The Chair: Opposed to that motion? Item 4 is carried.
Item 5 is the authorization to hold meetings, and it is a motion that —
Senator Meighen: I so move.
The Chair: Shall I dispense with reading it?
Senator Nolin: Yes.
The Chair: All in favour of Item 5?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed? Item 5 is carried.
Item 6 relates to the research staff and analysts, et cetera. It is before you. Is there a motion on Item 6?
Senator Pépin: I so move.
The Chair: All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed? Item 6 is carried.
We can now introduce our researchers. Welcome and thank you very much.
Senator Meighen: General Cox, it is nice to see you back again.
The Chair: We all look forward to your continued good assistance.
General, would you and your colleague introduce yourself, please, because there are new senators here who do not know you.
Jim Cox, Analyst, Library of Parliament: I am Jim Cox, and I am an analyst with the Library of Parliament.
[Traduction]
Jean-Rodrigue Paré, Analyst, Library of Parliament: I am the primary analyst for the House of Commons, and I will be assisting Mr. Cox in the Senate Committee.
[Français]
Senator Meighen: Do we have the pleasure of calling Mr. Cox, Dr. Cox yet?
Mr. Cox: No, I have an appointment for a defence in May.
Senator Meighen: I look forward to that happy day.
The Chair: I do not know what the order of titles will be. I guess it will be general-doctor.
Senator Meighen: The honourable doctor.
The Chair: He is on his way. Thank you very much and welcome.
Item 7 is the certification of accounts of the subcommittee. Is there a motion with respect to Item 7?
Senator Pépin: I so move.
The Chair: Was that a motion, Senator Pépin?
Senator Pépin: Yes, it was.
The Chair: All in favour? Opposed? Item 7 is carried.
Senator Wallin: I want to come back to a question. The wording of these motions always drives me a little crazy. The authority to commit funds is conferred individually, but must the steering committee first make the decision?
The Chair: No, any one of the three named people can commit the funds. The funds must be approved by the budget process, all of which is approved by the committee — not by the steering committee, but by the committee. Funds cannot be expended that do not pass all the tests, including Internal Economy, the Rules of the Senate of Canada and the budget, et cetera.
Senator Wallin: It is my intent during my time here in the Senate to clarify the language we use when we are in committees but that will be for another day.
The Chair: This language is clear. These three individuals each, not jointly but severally, are authorized to commit —
Senator Meighen: One could add ``severally.'' That would be even more legal, but they are trying to make it easy for the non-lawyers.
The Chair: Are you in favour of the motion?
Senator Wallin: Yes.
The Chair: Item 7 is passed. Item 8 relates to travel. Again, the motion is to empower either Senator Manning or me to designate members and staff, as may be necessary, to travel. Is there any discussion, or a motion, perhaps?
Senator Meighen: I so move.
The Chair: All those in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed? Item 8 is carried.
Item 9 is similar. Senator Manning or I will be authorized to say that a member of the subcommittee is travelling on official business, et cetera.
Read Item 9 carefully because it is cogently important to what we are doing.
Senator Manning: Mr. Chair, if either you or I authorized someone to travel, does that decision come back to the committee or can you or I make that decision on our own?
The Chair: This motion says that we can make it on our own.
Senator Wallin: I do not think it does.
The Chair: The practice is otherwise.
Senator Wallin: I think we should have this discussion because I had it with the clerk in great detail the other day. I think the wording is a little unclear. I am assured that both ``determine whether any member'' in part one and the language in part two mean that the authorization must be subject to the decision of the main committee. That is my understanding.
The Chair: Do you want to make an amendment to this motion?
Senator Wallin: I am told we have precedent on this item and that is what it means. I went down this road the other day because I want the language to be perfectly clear, so there are no misunderstandings.
Senator Meighen: It appears to me the approval can be given ex post facto.
Senator Wallin: That is right. That is why I asked about it.
The Chair: The language of the motion is clear. Senator Manning and I would have to concur —
Senator Nolin: Together.
The Chair: — in authorizing this travel and saying that this senator or this member of the committee is travelling on official business on behalf of the committee.
Senator Manning: Not that it will happen, but it is possible that we would not agree.
The Chair: If that happens, authorization cannot go ahead. There must be concurrence.
Senator Wallin: Where does the steering committee fit into this authorization in Item 9?
The Chair: It does not.
Senator Wallin: I mean the steering committee of the subcommittee.
An Hon. Senator: There is no steering committee of the subcommittee.
The Chair: It does not.
Senator Nolin: It is the chair and the deputy chair. The key word is ``and.''
The Chair: It is not ``or.'' In practice, we would not even consider such a thing if it had not been vetted and if we did not have an opinion on it. However, the fact of the matter is, we have to agree before there is such an authorization.
The motion says clearly that if Senator Manning and I agree that a member of this committee is travelling on business of the committee, then that is that. It also says that we must then forthwith report that decision.
Senator Meighen: It says, ``at the earliest opportunity,'' which could be ex post facto, after the trip.
The Chair: It most likely would be, in some circumstances, and it also could be —
Senator Meighen: It would be moot.
The Chair: A report by definition is moot.
Senator Wallin: I have been over this item at great length, but I am led to believe — and I will wait for the clerk — that if there is a decision or a disagreement, and a senator has expended money, it is not necessarily reimbursed if there is no agreement between the chair and the deputy chair, and if it has not been reported.
The Chair: That is right. If it came down to it, the travel is not necessarily reimbursed even if we agree; there are other checks and balances in place.
This motion says that Senator Manning and I must concur that a member of this committee is travelling on ``official business'' of the subcommittee and subsequently or otherwise reports that decision to the subcommittee. That is what this motion requires to be done.
Is there a mover of the motion?
Senator Meighen: I so move.
The Chair: Is there any discussion on the motion? All in favour of the motion?
Senator Day: As a non-member, am I entitled to enter into the discussion?
The Chair: You may not make a motion or vote, but you may certainly enter the discussion, as any senator can.
Senator Day: I read this section as being much more limited than the discussion that has taken place thus far. To designate someone as being on ``official business'' has nothing to do with determining whether the person will be reimbursed for that business. It has nothing to do with that question at all.
The Chair: That is right.
Senator Day: There are two places on our journal each day: either we were in attendance in the Senate, or that we were on official business. The authorization exists so that we will be deemed to be on official business for the purposes of other Senate rules.
The Chair: ``Official business'' applies to those rules relating to attendance, for example.
Senator Day: The authorization has nothing to do with saying members can go, in spite of what their whip says, and it has nothing to do with saying members will be reimbursed for this travel.
Senator Meighen: That is why the chair said that even if they agree, there is no guarantee.
Senator Wallin: The motion has other implications, as I read it, because it is not only about whether that authorization then coincides with the register in the chamber. When we talk about ``official business'' of the committee, we are trying to ensure that someone who is off doing their own thing cannot declare it ex post facto to be business of the committee, which then would give them an argument with the clerk who records attendance and whatnot.
I am trying to separate the substance of the committee work from whatever an internal Senate rule may be, and how the Senate deals with absences in the chamber, which is a different question than whether someone is on official business, either ex pre facto or ex post facto. Someone has to decide whether this travel reflects the mandate of the committee so we do not all come back from trips and say, ``I was working on official business.''
An Hon. Senator: Whether it is official is something that is determined before they go for the trip; if they have the authorization.
Senator Wallin: That is right, but I am responding to Senator Day's point that I think this item is internal to the committee and relates less to the house. However, the clerk may want to enlighten us.
Senator Day: Look at subparagraph one, ``for the purposes of . . . Senators Attendance Policy.'' That phrase is exactly what I talked about. That wording relates to the column on the cover page of our journal that we see each day; namely, whether we were in attendance in the Senate or on official business.
The Chair: Do you want to make an amendment?
Senator Wallin: I spent time on this the other day. I am trying to figure out the appropriate language to accomplish that meaning because I think the language may have slightly different implications here.
The Chair: This language reflects the requirements and rules of the Senate pertaining to attendance. The language specifically reflects that requirement with respect to the attendance record if members are deemed to be travelling on official business for the committee. There are other ways in which a senator can travel on official business. They can travel on their own.
However, if members of this committee were to claim to the people in charge of the Senate register that they were on the business of this committee, they could only do so provided Senator Manning and I agreed that was the case.
Senator Nolin: Exactly.
Senator Wallin: Does paragraph two not contradict that interpretation?
The Chair: No.
Senator Manning: Before any member participates in official business on behalf of the committee — as an individual or as a small group — am I reading this item properly in saying that we must give permission for that participation before it happens? For example, if Senator Nolin decides while in Quebec next week that he will do something on official business on behalf of the committee, he cannot come back two weeks later to say he did that.
Senator Nolin: As soon as that decision has been taken, it must be reported to the committee.
Senator Manning: I am saying individual members cannot take it upon themselves to conduct official business on behalf of the committee until it has been approved.
Senator Nolin: To understand that, you have to read Item 7, Item 8 and Item 9 together. When talking about reimbursement, we are referring to Item 7 and Item 8. We are now dealing with Item 9, which is to designate who can be there on behalf of the committee — that is it.
Senator Wallin: You are convinced.
Senator Nolin: Yes, no problem.
Senator Wallin: A lawyer at work.
The Chair: The clerk has provided me with Schedule I pertaining to the Senators Attendance Policy. It says:
For the purposes of being included in attendance to business under paragraph 2(d), ``official business'' means business that a senator conducts that could only have been conducted on a sitting day, that required the senator to be absent from the sitting and that
(a) was authorized by the Senate or a committee of the Senate, or
(b) was conducted pursuant to a request in writing from a federal Minister of the Crown that the senator represent the Government of Canada.
Senator Nolin, I think that in practice what you said is correct. However, according to the way I read Item 7, Item 8 and Item 9 — and we are talking about Item 9 now — it does not preclude someone having gone to a meeting somewhere, and coming back to say that person represented the interests of the committee at this meeting and to ask Senator Manning and I, after the fact, to say yes or no because the member was not properly authorized before going.
Senator Nolin: Nothing prevents that.
The Chair: The hammer lies with Senator Manning and me. However, in answer to your question, it is not a requirement, by definition of these two paragraphs, that it be approved in advance of the event. It is theoretically possible for authorization to come afterwards, subject to a decision by Senator Manning and me.
Senator Manning: I want to state categorically so that if anyone plans to come back to me after the fact for authorization, that person will have a major hill to climb. I have no problem with someone laying out a plan and discussing the plan among ourselves if it is something worthwhile on behalf of the committee. In my role as deputy chair, I will not rubber-stamp anything in regard to travel or work on behalf of the committee after the fact.
The Chair: The Senate does not rubber stamp.
Senator Manning: I simply want to ensure we are clear on that point.
Senator Wallin: We only want to clarify it.
The Chair: Is there further discussion on Item 9? All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed? The motion is carried.
Item 10 is travelling and living expenses of witnesses. This item is exactly what it says; it is perfectly descriptive.
Senator Wallin: So moved.
The Chair: All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed? Item 10 is carried.
Item 11 relates to empowering the chair and deputy chair to direct the communications officers. Tracie LeBlanc is our communications officer. Is there a mover for Item 11?
Senator Wallin: I move the motion.
The Chair: Is there discussion on Item 11? All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed? Item 11 is carried.
Item 12 is simply for information — a matter on which we have had much discussion over the years — regarding the time for our meetings. Is this location our home room?
Mr. Pittman: It is our home room unless you want to televise the meetings.
The Chair: The matter of where, when and how often we meet is a subject of interesting discussion.
Senator Meighen: I thought this committee's home meeting room was in the East Block.
Senator Wallin: That room is for televised hearings.
Senator Meighen: Exactly; we tried hard in the past, in the interests of the audience, many of whom are able to watch a lot of television, to hold them there. However, is this location to remain our official home room?
Senator Wallin: That room does not preclude that we have the other room booked. That was our instruction.
The Chair: Home room is not restrictive. It is where we are slotted in the absence of something else. As with any other committee and subcommittee, we make requests and Internal Economy or someone decides.
Mr. Pittman: The leadership decides.
Senator Meighen: We were meeting regularly in the room in East Block and I wondered if you planned to continue meeting there.
The Chair: When we have witnesses that ought to be heard more widely, which is always the case for this subcommittee, we ask for television coverage. We do not always get it, but we ask for it. They juggle the four rooms equipped for the purpose.
Senator Meighen: Given the popularity of our time slot, we generally get it.
The Chair: Yes, we do. That is one thing in our favour.
Senator Dallaire: The definition of home room is unclear.
The Chair: Default room.
Senator Dallaire: I think the scenario would be exceptional for this committee not to meet in front of cameras. This committee essentially talks to people available to watch these proceedings in comparison to many other committees. An enormous amount of feedback comes back to the committee through that audience. I hope coming here will be more the exception than meeting either in the war room or somewhere in the Victoria Building. The context will change if we are in camera; that is another story.
The Chair: The appropriateness of the audience is exactly what Senator Meighen suggested. These people have time to watch television.
I am talking only about mechanics. The mechanics are that we ask for television coverage on a case-by-case basis. Chairs present to the leadership who the witnesses are, what the subject matter is and why it is important to be seen and heard by a wider audience. The leadership will make the decision. As Senator Meighen has correctly pointed out, there are not many committee meetings on Wednesday between 12 p.m. and 1:30 p.m. Therefore, we have a good shot at being televised.
Senator Wallin: I want to reinforce this point. The main committee has a different home room than any of the ones we use. It is simply the way the assignment process goes. We meet on the seventh floor of the Victoria Building because it is convenient. We go downstairs for the same purpose and we also do not have a lot of competition on Monday at four o'clock.
I do not think there was a case last year where the Veterans Affairs Subcommittee was denied access to the room in the East Block. The reason for keeping this room is that if there are not witnesses and you still want to meet, it is much easier to come here than to run outside or go through the tunnel when time is short. We want to keep our options open.
The Chair: It is also in consideration of the courts.
Senator Dallaire: I note that meeting in the Victoria Building is convenient for some members but not for all members.
Senator Wallin: That is right.
Senator Day: That was your choice.
The Chair: If senators agree, we will spend a few minutes discussing the order of reference of this subcommittee. Senator Meighen and Mr. Pittman may correct me if I am wrong: Do I recall correctly that we submit our proposal for an order of reference to the Defence Committee for a motion in the Senate, who then delegates it to this subcommittee?
Senator Meighen: Yes.
The Chair: I will pass around copies of a proposed order of reference for this subcommittee to consider putting to the Defence Committee for a motion in the Senate. I apologize that the order is in one language only, but it is the only language I have. I am perfectly happy to delay this item to another time if that is deemed appropriate. I had the temerity, in anticipation of what might happen today, to bring it to this meeting. Most of it has been translated into French because it is identical in every respect except one, which I will point out to you, to the subcommittee's order of reference in the previous session. The difference is paragraph (d), which I have added. Otherwise, this proposed order of reference is precisely the same as the order of reference delegated to this subcommittee by the full committee in the previous session.
The beauty of this order of reference, which we arrived at a couple of sessions ago, is that it is inclusive rather than exclusive, and it provides the opportunity for the committee to go almost anywhere dealing with almost any of these matters that it deems appropriate at the time.
Is there discussion on the proposal? The proposal is that we ask the full committee to obtain this order of reference, which it then delegates to the subcommittee.
Senator Wallin: Why do you include the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in this order?
The Chair: It always has been included because it is a quasi-military organization with a military rank structure. The RCMP began as a mounted regiment. There are similarities in the way that the country has always treated them. In many respects, they are regarded as veterans. They have always been involved one way or another in our wars.
Senator Wallin: Does the Veterans Charter apply in any way?
Senator Meighen: You and I discussed this item before, and the RCMP are included for a reason.
Mr. Cox: All these people are clients of Veterans Affairs Canada.
The Chair: In that respect, ex-Mounties are veterans. The pension treatment is not exactly the same, but they are veterans notwithstanding.
Is there further discussion on the proposed order of reference?
Senator Dallaire: Surely the issue will arise that the definition of ``veteran'' requires clarification. For example, RCMP veterans are those who have served in special duty areas. Those who have not served in special duty areas are not considered veterans. The New Veterans Charter has a different perspective on that, but the old charter included the RCMP. We are running two charters and as many as three definitions of ``veteran.'' I hope that one day this subcommittee will raise this point because ultimately, it might require legislation.
The Chair: That issue is contemplated in paragraph (c), which is short and speaks to the ongoing implementation of the Veterans Charter. You are right to say that the definition needs to be in the legislation or in the regulations. This subcommittee can make recommendations in that respect.
Senator Dallaire: Thank you.
Senator Wallin: Does it make sense to say, ``members and former members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and its antecedents who served in special duty areas'' et cetera? Is that what you suggest?
Senator Dallaire: The two veterans charters conflict in such a scenario. A blanket statement is more appropriate at this time until it is clarified.
The Chair: It is my opinion, which is reflected in this order of reference devised under Senator Meighen's chairmanship, that rather than make specific lists, because something is always forgotten, it is better to have a larger, inclusive definition, rather than exclusive definition, of a subject area. In that way, we have the freedom to decide where to narrow it down.
I do not know whether it is appropriate for us to pass such a motion if it is not yet in the other language.
Senator Meighen: Inspired by your past service in this regard — here is a real pick. In paragraph (a), ``veterans'' is not capitalized and in paragraph (b), it is capitalized.
The Chair: I see it on the third line of paragraph (b). You are right.
Senator Meighen: I have a second thought: Is ``veterans'' not broader in meaning than ``Veterans?''
The Chair: Yes, you are correct. ``Veterans'' in the third line of paragraph (b) ought not to be a capitalized. It should be ``veterans.''
Senator Wallin: Department of Veterans Affairs is correct.
The Chair: Yes, because it is a name.
Senator Wallin: Does Veterans Affairs Canada commemorate members of the RCMP?
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Wallin: Does VAC make decisions about medals?
The Chair: I do not know about that but they commemorate members of the RCMP in various ways.
Senator Meighen: The Department of National Defence looks after the medals.
The Chair: They do that for the Canadian Forces but police medals are determined by the orders and the chancery, et cetera.
Senator Meighen: For someone who served in the Canadian Forces, DND looks after that.
The Chair: Yes, it does that up to the point of Canadian Forces Decoration, CD, I believe, after which it is the chancery. I am not certain where the cut-off is. Police medals are awarded by the Governor General.
Senator Wallin: This is the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs.
Senator Meighen: Members of Bomber Command received rosettes through DND.
The Chair: Is it agreed that if this proposed order of reference goes forward in whatever form, the ``V'' in the third line of paragraph (b) would be a ``v'' in the English version? In paragraph (b), on the third line, after the word ``Canadian,'' the word ``Veterans'`` should be ``veterans'' to make it more inclusive and not a name. The other capitals are right because they form a name.
Senator Day: Likewise, inspired by your previous work and following Senator Meighen, I suggest that the things we want to study are (a), (b), and (c), and that (d) is actually another ``that'' clause; ``that the papers,'' et cetera.
The Chair: Good catch, Senator Day. Thank you very much.
Senator Day: Thank you for all your training.
The Chair: Therefore, (d) disappears.
Senator Meighen: Of course, you will have to indent the last paragraph to move it directly under the first ``that.''
Senator Day: All the ``thats'' should be lined up.
The Chair: Absolutely; can I suggest that we adopt this motion, have it translated properly with the corrections that we have undertaken today, subject to the approval of Senator Manning and me, and if that meets with everyone's approval, we will take it forward in both languages to the parent committee?
Senator Pépin: Maybe the French translation should be revised as well.
The Chair: We will double-check the French translation as well, particularly with respect to capitals, which we English always put in everywhere.
Senator Nolin: You capitalize everything. Let us focus on the first word.
The Chair: Exactly; does someone move the motion?
Senator Nolin: I so move.
The Chair: All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed? That motion is carried. Is there further discussion, senators?
Senator Day: Are we looking at future business?
The Chair: Yes, since we have time, I will ask for suggestions with respect to future business and directions so they can be taken into account by us.
We will undertake, I presume, as a matter of course, to ask someone to become a third member of the steering committee of the subcommittee.
Senator Manning: There is not a steering committee on the subcommittee?
The Chair: Not formally, but there always has been, I think.
Senator Nolin: I think the two of you can do the job.
The Chair: If there are only five members on the committee, let us, you and I, do it.
Senator Wallin: It is my understanding that there is a third member. That is the precedent.
The Chair: We can have, or not, depending on our choice. Let us see if it works. So that we will have a list of things for consideration to propose to you with respect to a work plan, we will discuss that matter.
Senator Meighen: In terms of a work plan, chair, soon-to-be Dr. Cox has prepared an excellent document, which I saw only this morning and which, I think, the clerk has in his possession, entitled, ``Think Peace: A Review of the Issues Raised in the Course of a Study on the Implementation of a New Veterans Charter.''
If the clerk does indeed have copies, I suggest they be distributed to members of the subcommittee and any other interested parties. I think there is food for thought in the document in terms of the ongoing agenda.
The Chair: Mr. Pittman, do you have copies of that document?
Mr. Pittman: I do not have copies here, but I can send them electronically.
The Chair: Will you send them electronically to everyone?
Mr. Pittman: Yes.
The Chair: Thank you. Good suggestion, as that study is ongoing.
Senator Wallin: I wanted to seek through you a clarification because I was given other information that there does indeed need to be a third member of the committee. Is that correct? I will be that third member.
The Chair: Okay. Senator Dallaire.
Senator Dallaire: The previous chair has a wealth of experience — and I am not voting here; I am only stating a view — that might be useful to include in the interim if we have a steering committee in order to permit the continuity of the work that has already been initiated. Then maybe reconsider that aspect subsequently. That is a suggestion.
The Chair: Absolutely.
Senator Day: I do not see the steering committee referred to in these organization meetings.
The Chair: If some committees decide to have a steering committee, it must be no fewer than three. There is a complication, however, in that — and I do not know what the rule on this is — this subcommittee has not, to my knowledge, ever actually had a steering committee. There are five members on the committee. The Rules of the Senate of Canada say that a steering committee may not consist of more than half the members of the full committee. I presume that those provisions provide — what is the legal term?
Senator Nolin: What do you want to say?
The Chair: As a matter of course, the rules that apply to a committee also apply to this committee. Mutatis mutandis. Except on a voluntary consultative basis, that would preclude there being a subcommittee of three since the committee is five. The practice has always been that, as Senator Dallaire has suggested, for example, when a subject area comes up, consultation takes place among those people who are interested and who have something to say. However, I think we are precluded, if I understand the rules correctly and if mutatis mutandis is correct, that we may not have a steering committee.
Senator Meighen: That sounds right because it is not in here. For the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce, for example, it was on the agenda.
Senator Wallin: Are you sure this matter was not discussed with leadership? This has been fairly clear in my mind and I thought in yours as well.
Senator Meighen: I think the chair is right. We would be more than —
The Chair: There are five members on the committee, so it is not hard to have the views of the members of the committee. The practice has been that when the chair wants to talk about it, the chair asks for people to come and talk about it.
Senator Meighen: If you two cannot agree —
The Chair: Then it goes to the full committee.
Senator Dallaire: We have not formally talked at the committee level about this issue, but I would like to raise it here. The overarching point is that many of us, including Senator Wallin, have written to the central agencies who control us that this subcommittee should become a full committee. In that light, it makes sense that the subcommittee indicate in different ways to its parent committee that it needs help to do the job; that it needs more capabilities. One element of more capability is having more senators engaged in looking at the problem to be able to resolve it.
If the subcommittee, as an example, became seven members, then we could have a steering committee of three members, and function that way. The seven members can include, potentially, voting ex officio members. I raise that point to support the possibility of giving us more room. I know we spoke about the complexities of that approach.
Senator Wallin: We have been down this road as well, and my understanding is that it is not allowed.
The Chair: We can have more members on a body that is studying veterans affairs only if one of the following things happens: First, the body is made a standing committee and, second, the size of the Standing Committee on National Security and Defence is increased because a subcommittee may not contain more than 50 per cent of the members of the committee of which it is a subcommittee.
There are nine members on the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence. The subcommittee may have five members only by virtue of the fact that, as stated in the Rules of the Senate of Canada, when counting the number of members on the parent committee to determine the 50-per-cent number, we include the ex officio opposition and government leaders. Those members bring the number of members of the Defence Committee to 11. That is why we have five members on this subcommittee, which otherwise would be four.
I asked the question as to whether, for the purposes that you describe, we can say that the chair and the deputy chair of the parent committee can be considered ex officio members of the subcommittee, and the answer is no. That is the short — I am sorry it was long — answer to the question of moving numbers of people.
Senator Meighen: Does anyone know the status of Senator Oliver's study?
Senator Wallin: I do not think it is his anymore.
Senator Meighen: It does not exist anymore?
Senator Wallin: No, I think there is a new chair.
Senator Meighen: That was one of the issues.
Senator Wallin: Yes, I think he is no longer the chair because he became Speaker pro tempore.
The Chair: This subcommittee has made those urgings; Senator Meighen has made those urgings; and Senator Day has made those urgings, I think in a motion, if I recall correctly.
Senator Day: Yes.
The Chair: We all have. The parent committee has made the representation that it is inappropriate to even suggest that this subject area represented in our order of reference can be dealt with by five people on Wednesday between 12 and 1:30 and that the practical necessity and the moral imperative of dealing with it more thoroughly requires that the subcommittee be made into a committee. The leaders have told us that the problem they have is when the committee would meet. The short strokes are that there is no room for more committees, unless we meet on Mondays. We have urged, in the past, that the committees be made smaller because, first, in the view of many of us, a smaller number is more efficient; and second, it frees up time for senators to spend more time on a wider variety of issues.
If we look at the order now, given the regulations that do not permit Senate committees to meet while the Senate is in session, which is an urgently important rule, we will be hard-pressed to staff a new committee and find a place and time for it to meet.
The leaders have a difficulty with proposals that have been made for many new committees. There is no committee of the Senate dealing with cultural matters. The Social Affairs Committee supposedly does, but it does not, so that is another example. There is no room.
Senator Wallin: I have a question for Senator Pépin through the chair. With the way the order of reference is proposed here, do you feel that you have the freedom to work on the family issues, as you see it?
Senator Pépin: I think so. I think that will do it, with great pleasure. I feel comfortable. My research assistant, Momar Diagne, will come with me, so I think we will be able to do something.
The Chair: Paragraph (a) of the motion, in its last sentence, refers to ``and all of their families.'' I do not think we can be any more inclusive than that.
Senator Pépin: For the first time, they feel they are part of the military. They have always been part but they have always been apart. I have been meeting with women veterans. Honestly, they never felt they were part of the family, so that group will be interesting too.
Senator Wallin: I will throw out that you will report through this committee, and I hope that will not preclude us from saying then, in the larger committee, maybe before the end of June or sometime in the fall that you will come and give the larger committee a briefing too. However, for the purpose of content you will report here.
Senator Pépin: I will report to the Veterans Affairs Subcommittee for military families and for the veterans.
The Chair: Yes; this subcommittee is always, of course, at the beck and call of the Senate.
Senator Wallin: I understand, because that is your mandate. Let us do this and then you can report through to the parent committee, as we call it.
The Chair: So far, the suggestion has been that we look at the document prepared by General Cox relating to the implementation of the New Veterans Charter. Mr. Pittman will send members the document. Are there any other issues we want on the plate?
Senator Dallaire: I have two points. First, it is a most appropriate expression of this committee that we have a member that will focus on families of serving members who are considered veterans as well as on veterans of all types, families, and maybe even particularly the women veterans. With Senator Pépin's report, we might be able to look at the scale of these issues, maybe in the fall, and consider ways ahead. The report can be brought to the full committee as a particular report.
Second, I want to return to the primary argument from the higher-ups that we cannot create a committee because there is no time for it to meet.
The Chair: That is one of the arguments.
Senator Dallaire: If that argument goes public, there will be a pejorative expression by veterans and their associations and everyone else in regard to giving a full capability to the Senate to do the job that the veterans deserve. I do not like to compare us necessarily with our American colleagues. I have gone there often enough, and I know we travel a big country and so do they. However, if someone asks me why we cannot create a committee that can meet from noon to three o'clock on Mondays, and the only response is, by pro forma — not by rule — we have not done it before, that response will not be taken well.
The Chair: Perhaps we can meet on Fridays.
Senator Dallaire: Fridays is debatable. Monday has already been initiated as a precedent. I do not think that argument will hold water. In all my writings to the central agencies about making this committee a full-fledged one, never have I received a response that we cannot have the committee because we ultimately would not be able to find time to meet. I have never received that response as the primary argument for not doing so.
I raise this point again. I think a worthy subject of this committee is to study how it can become a full committee. I am not a voting member, of course, but I make that suggestion.
The Chair: As Mr. Pittman reminded me, with respect to your saying ``if that argument goes public,'' we are in public now. The argument is public now, Senator Dallaire. Everything you have said is in public. I know what you mean.
Senator Wallin: Because of that point, I am anxious to say that reason is not the only reason. I went to the committee on a couple of different occasions that looked at this issue. Several issues are involved about how to strike a committee. Every subcommittee or everyone with a particular interest believes that interest is important enough to justify a committee. Timing is one of the reasons, which is why the committee is look at whether there should be fewer committees overall with more subcommittees. It is unhelpful to leave the public with that impression, that there is no veterans committee because of a time slot. I do not think that impression is true.
Second, I think to wage war in that way, to create a committee in a public battle, will grossly undermine any argument to have a stand-alone committee. It will not help our argument to look for status as a full committee.
Senator Dallaire: Chair, that is not my aim. Again, the veterans are wily people.
I am glad to receive your response, because that is one of the better responses I have received from any officialdom around the Veterans Affairs Committee. Again, it is up to the subcommittee and the committee to ponder it. There are times when the demand for a committee is greater than at other times. The old generation of veterans are disappearing, the number of new generation veterans is increasing, and we have a new charter. We may require a full committee for a period of time and we could establish that the issues need that full effect.
I hope the subcommittee will continue the study on the New Veterans Charter that may raise that point.
The Chair: If I correctly gather the mood of the committee, we should make every effort to turn the subcommittee and its business into a full committee. Does anybody demur from that opinion?
Senator Wallin: I do not demure from it; I think we should go through appropriate channels and when that other committee is reconstructed, there is a process to engage in this discussion.
The Chair: We can only go through the appropriate channels because there is only one committee at present. The Senate will decide whether there will be another committee. It will take, in that respect, the recommendation of the committee that has been designated for that purpose.
Senator Pépin: I want to be clear that when this committee discusses military veterans, my main focus should be on the spouses of veterans and everything related to them, and after that on women veterans.
The Chair: I think everyone welcomes your membership here, specifically for that reason. In fact, Senator Pépin, you made a report about five or six years ago.
Senator Nolin: It was longer ago than that; a generation.
Senator Pépin: Yes, it was many years ago.
The Chair: It was 10 years ago, maybe.
Senator Pépin: I was reporting on military spouses but to go to the military base and bring all the women together, with the agreement of the commander, one has to be careful because the women tell us things. I meet with them, then with the commander. I tell the commander that this is missing and the commander must do this and this. After that, I meet the général en chef here in Ottawa. That is always in private. That was the deal, so I did it.
Now, there is a committee at the national level, with a representative of the family centre at the military base that meets two or three times a year. I am the only one who is not from a military to attend that committee. Again, we are working on a file that we give to the minister on what must be done. Maybe I could give you all the information in the same way.
Senator Wallin: You can do that in camera.
Senator Pépin: Yes.
Senator Nolin: That is the reason why we have Item 9 in the motions we adopted this morning.
Senator Meighen: Precisely.
Senator Day: First, I want to add one thing to Senator Dallaire's comments and then I want to talk about the breadth of what Senator Pépin potentially could be working on.
With respect to a stand-alone committee — we both talked about this years ago — the House of Commons has gone ahead and created such a committee. We have not. The veterans' community knows that. The fact that we have not, when the House of Commons has, is an indication that we are less interested in their issues than the House of Commons.
Senator Dallaire: That is their perception.
Senator Day: That is absolutely their perception. I think the Library of Parliament came up with a publication, which I have read, about the deliberations and an analysis; more senators asked for a veterans affairs committee to be created than any other committee, as I understood the analysis.
Briefly, and I thank you for the time on this point, there are issues like the surviving spouses on the Veterans Independence Program, VIP. There are issues on education for families of injured and deceased veterans and the children. There are issues of health care when military people are posted, especially if they need special health care when going to certain areas where they cannot access the health care in these areas. We have touched on all these issues but we have never studied them in depth and we have no results, basically.
There is the Employment Insurance, EI, issue, especially when military people are posted outside the country, and I know that Ms. Natynczyk is working on many of these issues, because she talks to me all the time about them. There are many big issues that must be wrestled with if military people come back and are not able to look for work.
When Senator Wallin and I visited an injured person here, the family from Newfoundland and Labrador wanted to come and help the injured soldier but the father was cut off his EI because he was not looking for work in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Wallin: That story was a more complicated one, as you know.
Senator Day: We have to be able to sort out that simple problem. If they are not looking for work in their area, they are not entitled to continue to draw EI, and therefore they cannot provide that support to their injured child. There are a whole lot of issues that are worth wrestling with. We touched on the spousal and family support for Bruce Henwood when he came back. His wife came and talked to us about the inability to access money even to pay for babysitting so that she could take her husband to the hospital. Those items need to be dealt with. If I can help you at all on any of those items, I think this huge area has not had attention because it is secondary to the soldiers.
Senator Pépin: Even the spouses, if they are from B.C. and they move to New Brunswick they cannot afford to take the plane to go and see their families.
Senator Wallin: There are special programs that run out. In the one case where we visited, because we drilled down on that one and tracked it down, there were other issues involved, which is they cannot keep going back to the same well, without being available for work at some point in the cycle.
I disagree a little with Senator Day. The Senate views things differently from the House of Commons, which tends to react and has to deal with the day-to-day decisions. We are a country at war; therefore it makes sense for the House of Commons to have that committee so it can move quickly. We have talked about limited resources, and by the fact that we have established a subcommittee and that it exists is our statement to veterans that we take their issues seriously. We could have sent the other signal. I think that the content is more important than the form and we should not let anyone think that because this subcommittee is a subcommittee as opposed to a committee, that we somehow care less about the issues. We may have less time to deal with them, but I do not think we care any less. That is why this subcommittee exists.
Senator Day: The subcommittee in the House of Commons moved up to a full committee.
Senator Wallin: I understand.
Senator Dallaire: With all respect, Senator Wallin, that argument is waning. I think sooner than later, we will have to take the next step to be able to give the full time, analysis and research resources to veterans' problems. I remember meeting with many staff of Veterans Affairs Canada over many years, including in my previous life, because Veterans Affairs Canada thought it was going out of business. Some of them in that lovely town in the Maritimes still think they are going out of business when, as it stands now, for example in the province of Quebec, there are more new generations of veterans than old generations of veterans. We are in a transitional mode.
Senator Wallin: I agree. I did not want to leave the impression that somehow the people around this table care less about the issue because of the status of this committee.
The Chair: It is not we. Let us be blunt and throw the cat into the pigeons for a minute. The Senate per se will decide eventually whether there is another committee. The committee that will make a recommendation to the Senate in that respect and in respect of all committees has on it a majority of government members. The decision will boil down to being more or less a government decision.
Can you enlighten us as to where this decision is in the scheme of things? Are we expecting an imminent answer?
Senator Wallin: I do not think there will be any decision until the committee reports. I assume the new rules committee will pick up the work. I think everyone on both sides is interested in revamping and fixing the system. I do not think we will see a unilateral act that will pre-empt the committee that is sitting there dealing with all the surveys and all the testimony that they heard. That is the whole point: They want to create a structure, and not fix it a piece at a time. I am not the only one, I am sure, who has been there to ask. They are trying to have a workable system, which means moving all the pieces at once, not one at a time.
Senator Manning: A gamut of issues have been discussed in regards to the reconfiguration of the committees of the Senate: whether we keep the ones we have, add new ones, eliminate some that we have, and maintain the same number due to the concerns with accommodating the meetings and so forth.
When we spoke to Senator Oliver when he was in that position before, a tremendous amount of information- gathering had taken place, and they had all that information at that committee level.
My understanding from conversations I have had is that the committee will continue with that process, and sooner rather than later we will have some type of recommendation from them. The committee will go back to the Senate to address the concerns that we have about committees. There may be minor tweaking of some committees or maybe an elimination of some committees. Everyone agrees that something needs to be done, but nobody wants it done in their own backyard. Nobody wants to give up turf. To accommodate extra committees, someone will have to give a little bit of grass.
Senator Wallin: The consensus seems to be that the committee is now in Senator Stratton's hands, but I do not have the list in front of me. We will find that out, and then I think this issue will be in their hands.
The Chair: It will be helpful if you keep us posted so we know where to go to bend whose arm behind whose back.
Senator Wallin: You have members on the committee.
The Chair: Yes, we do.
Senator Manning: We will provide the information as required.
The Chair: Thank you. I have a small list of issues, which I will discuss with Senator Manning and General Cox et al. Does anybody want to add anything to the list? We have a few minutes left to discuss blue-sky issues.
Senator Meighen: As a monitoring sort of brief, there is still the matter of the clawback.
Senator Day: That is on my list.
Senator Meighen: Had you mentioned it?
Senator Day: No, but it is on my list. I was going to. I wondered if we had wrestled this thing. There is a draft bill by Peter Stoffer in the House of Commons on that issue. Mr. Stoffer reads our deliberations and then puts draft bills in the other place.
Senator Manning: He could be there in Halifax.
The Chair: It is important to the people it affects. They are vehement writers to us all.
Senator Meighen: It is still on the table.
Senator Day: Senator Meighen, do you recall if we received the information as to how much it will cost to go back where we wanted to? I cannot remember if we ever received that information.
The Chair: We received a number.
Senator Meighen: We were promised it on two different occasions, and we have seen nothing.
The Chair: I thought we received a number.
Senator Dallaire: It was not all the way back. It was partway back.
Senator Day: I did not think we wrestled that thing to the ground. Prorogation saved it.
Senator Manning: It saved a lot of us, I would say.
The Chair: Our analysts will be able to provide us with that information. I promise to bring us up to date, so we know, once we have it. We had the number going back to 19-something or other.
Senator Meighen: It was 1976 to 1991, but we were promised it by the witness who came before us initially, and then there was the appearance of a senior naval officer.
Senator Day: It was to remind them.
Senator Meighen: I asked him, and he said he would produce it.
Mr. Cox: You had a meeting with a couple of the witnesses in the fall who were the people engaged in the management of the Service Income Security Insurance Plan, SISIP.
Senator Wallin: They did not have the number; they were trying to collate them.
Senator Day: We should be able to come up with something quickly.
The Chair: Maybe we will send a stiff note.
Senator Day: We can come up with a small report on that issue quickly.
The Chair: We can, yes.
Senator Wallin: Senator Smith is the chair of the Rules Committee, so I expect you will have this resolved forthwith.
The Chair: Senator Smith is the Chair of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament?
Senator Wallin: Apparently, so there you go.
Senator Manning: As soon as you have information, let us know.
The Chair: I am trying to think if we have anything on Senator Smith.
Is there anything further today?
Senator Dallaire: Having had this meeting today, not to waste time, may I query the plan of action for next Wednesday? Do we advance in priority the continued study on the New Veterans Charter and who we want to have as witnesses, or is it a study of the proposed document. I hope non-members will also receive a copy of that document.
The Chair: I will give you a list of senators who always attend these subcommittee meetings who are not members of the subcommittee but to whom we say, please send that information.
The plan for next week is to deal with the basic beginning economic stuff. We need to start initial budget items, for which we will work in concert to find out what they are. Then, there is a draft work plan that breaks down how many weeks we have until the summer and to what we propose to devote those meetings to, until the summer.
Senator Dallaire: May I suggest that the interim situation report that General Cox has produced, and that Senator Meighen has tabled, might be worth reading before the meeting and putting on the agenda for next week. The report might give us guidance of where we want to go?
Mr. Cox: Sure.
Senator Wallin: Do you know the status of Senator Downe's challenge? I do not know what the process is but he has invited the Auditor General to audit the Veterans Charter?
The Chair: I do not know what the status is. It is still sitting on the back pages so I do not know.
Senator Wallin: Maybe we should have a briefing on what that challenge means.
Senator Day: It would be nice to know about it.
Senator Wallin: The auditor goes in. I think I saw a piece in the paper, which is what I know about it.
The Chair: I will ask him to give us a piece on it.
Senator Dallaire, did I answer your question properly?
Senator Dallaire: If that is the way you want to go — taking a look at it and using it as a reference — yes.
The Chair: Is that suggestion agreeable?
Senator Dallaire: I am only suggesting, of course.
Senator Day: On your list of considerations discussed by you and Senator Manning, the issue of Agent Orange is still festering and we have to put it to rest somehow. The issue involves, in large part, surviving spouses and families because all the soldiers that were sprayed with Agent Orange are dead now — virtually all of them. There is a big group of women.
Senator Meighen: There are the non-soldiers, too.
Senator Day: There are the non-soldiers in the region.
The Chair: We cannot go there. That issue is outside our mandate, sadly. We have to draw the line somewhere. We have to deal with the veterans who were there and their families.
Senator Day: We can probably make the argument that Greg Thompson solved the issue fairly well for the surrounding region. The people who were not sprayed directly but lived in the region received some compensation.
I do not hear from any of those people, but I hear from the soldiers that were in the field. They talked about tasting it, and there are many of them.
The Chair: We have met with some of them. They came here with a delegation.
Senator Day: Yes, but we could not work them into a meeting of the Veterans Affairs Committee because we did not have a time slot available for them when they were on the Hill here. It would be nice to give them an opportunity to speak sometime.
The Chair: It would. I think we have 11 weeks between now and the probable rise, but the subject is definitely on the list, among other things.
Senators, are there further issues for our consideration?
I will ask that Senator Manning, Mr. Pittman and our analysts stay for a couple of minutes, so we can figure out when we can do this work.
(The committee adjourned.)