Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Finance
Issue No. 12 - Evidence - June 15, 2016
OTTAWA, Wednesday, June 15, 2016
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met this day at 3 p.m. to examine the subject matter of all of Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016, and other measures.
Senator Larry W. Smith (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good afternoon, colleagues. Welcome to our meeting this afternoon. This is a special meeting to review the subject matter of Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures.
We are doing pre-study work, which has been completed. We have had sections of the bill shipped out to three committees. We have three committees here today to give us their findings on reviewing the specific parts of the bill that they were committed to.
On behalf of the first committee, which is the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, we have two representatives with us: the chair, Senator Kelvin Ogilvie; and the deputy chair, Senator Art Eggleton. Following that, we have the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce, and the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence.
We will move forward immediately with Senator Ogilvie and Eggleton. Would you like to give us a summary of what you were able to accomplish in your review?
Hon. Kelvin Kenneth Ogilvie, Chair, Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology: As you briefly indicated, we were assigned to look at those elements contained in Division 12 of Part 4 of Bill C-15. The committee has done so. It has provided a report; I believe you have copies of the report at hand. Mr. Chair, I would perhaps not read the report verbatim, but highlight the key findings.
Your committee did understand clearly that the nature of this division was to make changes in the Employment Insurance Act and that this would occur principally in the following ways: by reducing the waiting period prior to the payment of Employment Insurance benefits from two weeks to one week; removing the provisions related to new entrants and re-entrants to the labour force — those are provisions with regard to how long they have to wait; and extending the number of weeks of benefits for workers in regions affected by an economic downturn related to commodity prices. These extensions would occur in two forms: the normal EI benefit recipients and those who had long tenure in the workforce would have a longer extension of the term.
Your committee supports the changes proposed in the bill. It did, however, express concern with respect to the clarity and transparency related to the criteria used to determine the economic regions listed within the proposed revisions. It considered that there was insufficient clarity and transparency in that regard. Witnesses testified that it would be very difficult to replicate the regions identified in the provisions, based on the reasons provided.
Your committee was also concerned about a potential negative impact on small business as a result of the decreased waiting period. That has to do with a number of factors that we can respond to if you're interested in going further there.
Mr. Chair, those are the principle issues we identified.
The Chair: Thank you, senator.
Hon. Art Eggleton, P.C., Deputy Chair, Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology: Mr. Chair, there is another part to this that I was going to talk to.
The final observation that we have, if you have got the copy of the report there with you, let me just read it; it's a quick paragraph:
Finally, your committee would like to make a general observation that the current approach to EI with respect to applying region-specific criteria is outdated and results in an unnecessary disparity from one region of Canada to another. It urges the federal government to assess this approach.
Let me briefly describe what is behind all of that. We had some representations at the committee to this effect. When this regional system we're talking about here was first introduced, most of the labour force, compared to today, was somewhat low-skilled. Those fewer workers who were highly skilled, or had highly differential skills, were probably less likely to become unemployed, even if they were in a high unemployment region.
Furthermore, workers were much less mobile in those days. The labour force was a lot more likely to be experiencing unemployment in the region in which they lived, and it would be confined to that region.
However, workers today are not necessarily resident in the place that they work. I guess the oil sands is a good example of that, where many of them live in other provinces or other parts of Alberta that are not part of those particular zones designated as part of the 12 that then became 15 zones in Alberta.
What we have here is a disparity that exists for a lot of people who are unemployed. Let me tell you how that works out. In a very low unemployment region — one of those regions that is designated — you get EI by working 1,500 hours at the maximum insurable earnings. Your total benefits would then be $13,000. That's a very low unemployment area.
If you're in a high unemployment area, the same 1,500 hours will get you $22,000 to $23,000. That's quite a difference, and yet it might not have anything to do with where you actually work; it has to do with where you happen to live.
This is a big disparity. We believe there needs to be some review of whether this system really is relevant today and what changes need to be made.
As far as I'm concerned, they should do away with this system. To me, "a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian,'' and "an unemployed is an unemployed is an unemployed,'' wherever they are in the country. They are suffering. They are having a very difficult time managing on what are very low payouts on EI. It is a significant difference between $13,000 and $23,000, based on where they live.
We're asking that they review this system: either do away with it or modify it in some way to make it more fair and equitable across the nation.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Eggleton.
Senator Marshall: I have a question regarding the issue that Senator Eggleton just spoke of. The last sentence that urges the federal government to assess this approach, did the committee come to any conclusion as to what they would like to see? That it just be consistent all across Canada? That is what I'm reading from what you're saying.
Senator Eggleton: That's my personal feeling, but, no, the committee just said that it wanted to have this system reviewed. With the very limited time that we had with this bill and the representations of the witnesses that we had, it's not a sufficient study to come to a conclusion of what the actual result should be in terms of dealing with this regional system. It does need to be focused on further. That's the point of our observation.
I may add one other thing, just to illustrate this problem: There were a lot of people working in Fort McMurray who lived in Cape Breton, yet the benefits they received were not relevant to what Cape Breton is getting because it's a high unemployment area. It's relevant to where they live. That's just one example. A lot of people in Newfoundland and Labrador have worked there, too.
They may happen to go into another area that happens to be a regional area of some significance, but there were 12 economic regions that were designated originally and then 3 were added. That's 15. But if you live outside of it — even across the street, because in a lot of places you may not live very far outside that region — suddenly, you have a difference of $13,000 to $23,000.
Senator Marshall: That is a big difference.
Senator Ogilvie: I would like to add to that. In answer to the question, the committee felt very strongly that this should be looked at. As Senator Eggleton said, we didn't have the time or authority — we require authority — to look into it in detail. But the committee felt very strongly about this observation being brought forward.
Senator Marshall: Do I have time for another question?
The Chair: A very quick one, because we are on a very tight schedule. We have to take a suspension at 3:25 to vote on an issue upstairs.
Senator Marshall: There is one sentence that I need an explanation on, and that's in the second-to-last paragraph. It says:
While there is general support for the reduction in the waiting period, members are concerned about the effect this change may have on pay systems of small businesses.
Senator Ogilvie: Yes, I'll start, and Senator Eggleton can add to my answer if he wishes.
The issues here are that small businesses have developed a myriad of ways of supporting their employees through the first two weeks of the normal period of layoff. These are often in collective agreements and they deal with benefits, including maternity and others. Any change to that, which this imposes, creates a great deal of bureaucracy for the companies, who have to negotiate any change to the availability of a benefit. There is a real imposition of costs on small business in that category.
Senator Eggleton: Let me add to that. They have to adjust their pay systems. For small business, that can be a bit of a hassle. They were getting a small business job credit, which was eliminated by the government, so that has compounded the problem for small businesses.
We're not against the reduction of the waiting period, but they should take into consideration the additional cost to small business to help them through this transformation.
Senator Ogilvie: In recognition of economic impact, such as the ones that occurred, we certainly are sympathetic to the workers in that area, but there are unintended consequences to the way the government operates the EI benefit system on a number of groups, especially small businesses.
Senator Day: Senator Eggleton, just at the end of your presentation, you said this is premised on where you live, and that's just not acceptable. Can we go behind "where you live?'' Just for the record, is it based on where you live or is it based on the unemployment rate — it used to be employment rate — in that particular region?
Senator Eggleton: Oh, yes. That is quite true. As I pointed out, there were 12 designated areas originally, and then they added 3 for the present 15. If you're not part of one these designated areas, you don't get the benefit of an additional jump of 5 weeks up to 50 weeks. That's not in effect if you don't live in one of those regions, and a lot of them don't live in those regions.
Senator Ogilvie: If your permanent residence is not in the region.
Senator Day: Permanent residence?
Senator Ogilvie: That's correct.
Senator Day: Can I assume that the three that were added were in high unemployment areas?
Senator Eggleton: They were ones that were controversial because they were right on the edge of high unemployment areas. At least originally the government didn't designate them as such, but they were right on the edge of them, as I recall. So they added those in.
Senator Ogilvie: There was a great deal of outcry from the areas around Edmonton and in Saskatchewan, you'll recall, with regard to these issues. To be blunt, it was probably political pressure. This is just another aspect of how we feel that the EI benefit system needs to be seriously revisited, and why the witnesses before us told us that they couldn't replicate the basis for choosing the districts.
Senator Day: There didn't seem to be logic there.
Senator Ogilvie: They are not transparent.
Senator Day: Thank you.
Senator Eaton: Senators, reading about small business and the shortened wait time for EI, did they give you any idea what the cost would be to the government or to small business?
Senator Ogilvie: That is in the notes that I am sure you have. I'm going to go from recollection here, but I believe it is somewhere on the order of $700 million to $900 million. There are a couple of consequences of what is being done here that will impact immediately. My recollection, from reading the documents, is that both are on the order of $700 million to $900 million.
Senator Eaton: Has there been much push-back from small business itself? In your notes you've said that even if they reduce the EI premiums, it's not going to counterbalance the shorter wait time.
Senator Ogilvie: We had independent witnesses who study small business issues, and they raised those concerns on behalf of small business.
Senator Eaton: Thank you.
The Chair: Senators, could you give us a 30-second, three-bullet review of exactly how you summarize what you went through and what you wrote down on paper?
Senator Ogilvie: My bullets are: Flexibility in the EI system to recognize sudden economic conditions is probably a good thing, and we certainly support the benefits to workers. That's one thing.
There are unintended consequences from this and, as Senator Eggleton has mentioned, we believe strongly that the basis on which regions are determined should be seriously revisited.
Senator Eggleton: The third was the small business, but you mentioned that. I think those are the three, but we did support the changes in Bill C-15.
Senator Ogilvie: Under the current system.
Senator Eggleton: We said to proceed with these because it's an improvement, but we also recommend that they look at these other things that we mention in the observations.
The Chair: Thank you very much, senators. We really appreciate your time.
I'm pleased to welcome, to the Senate Finance Committee, from the Senate Banking, Trade and Commerce Committee, Honourable Senator David Tkachuk, Chair; and Honourable Senator Joseph A. Day, Deputy Chair. Gentlemen, would you like to start, please?
Hon. David Tkachuk, Chair, Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for having us here. As you know, the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce was charged with examining Divisions 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Part 4 of Bill C-15. Our report, which is four pages, is self- explanatory, so I won't take up too much of your time with opening remarks.
Division 3 would make amendments to the Trust and Loan Companies Act, the Bank Act, the Insurance Companies Act and the Cooperative Credit Association Act. The amendments would extend the current statutory sunset date by two years to allow time to conduct a legislative review. The current legislation allows for legislative review every five years, and this would extend it to seven. It was felt necessary to provide time to complete certain initiatives mandated by other recent amendments, and our committee agreed.
Division 4 would amend the Bank Act to provide protection for credit societies that are provincially regulated but are in the process of becoming federal credit unions by exempting them from certain technical procedural requirements as long as they are in substantial compliance with the Bank Act, and by providing traditional loan guarantees. The proposed changes would allow them to adjust to the different regulations that will be required of them once that process is complete.
Division 5 would create the legislative framework for what is called a "bail-in" regime, which is an additional tool that authorities can use to protect the financial stability for Canada if a systemically important bank fails. Basically, it would make shareholders and creditors responsible for any losses. It would allow the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation to convert eligible debt of a failing bank into common shares in order to facilitate recapitalization and allow it to continue operating. Although the debt that would be eligible for conversion into common shares would be specified only in forthcoming regulations, no deposits or currently existing debt would be eligible for conversion.
Division 5 would also allow the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions to designate banks as systemically important. Systemically important banks would be required to issue a certain amount of debt that would be converted for this purpose.
Division 6 is pretty straight forward. It will replace the CDIC's chairperson with its CEO, who may have a better understanding of the day-to-day operations of the CDIC as a member of the financial institution's supervisory committee.
Division 10 would amend the Special Import Measures Act in order to modify trade remedy procedures related to dumping and countervailing duties in relation to NAFTA.
Our Banking Committee agreed and recommends to the Finance Committee all of these proposed amendments.
The Chair: Senator Day, do you have any comments you would like to add?
Hon. Joseph A. Day, Deputy Chair, Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce: I agree with all points. Our report is fulsome in its explanation. We met with 13 different witnesses on two occasions; and our committee was unanimous in recommending the adoption of these initiatives.
Senator Marshall: For the bail-in regime, it sounds like there will be a lot of detail in the regulations. I expect we haven't seen them yet, have we?
Senator Tkachuk: No.
Senator Day: No.
Senator Marshall: Do we know yet who will hold the shares? You mentioned a conversion of debt into common shares.
Senator Tkachuk: It would be the debtors. It wouldn't include any existing debt. Only new debt would be taken up and covered by the regulations. The conversion to shares provides for another tool when there is a failing bank so that part of the debt could be converted to equity. That would put the responsibility on the bank and on the shareholders.
Senator Marshall: Okay. There was also mention of CDIC's chairperson.
Senator Tkachuk: We were told that the person would have more knowledge, et cetera, but we didn't probe it that much, did we, Senator Day?
Senator Day: It seemed a little strange to me.
Senator Tkachuk: It seemed strange to all of us. At the same time, we didn't have any witnesses or reasons not to do it.
Senator Marshall: Okay. It just sounds peculiar.
Senator Tkachuk: Yeah.
The Chair: I have a general question on Division 4 and the rule to protect provincially regulated co-operative credit societies in the process of becoming federal credit unions. Throughout the testimony, was a historical number of institutions mentioned that went from provincially to federally regulated operations? Has this been a big move or is this just a protection that allows people planning to do this to make that move?
Senator Tkachuk: This is protection for people planning to do this. This has been an ongoing discussion with the Banking Committee for what seems like forever. Some credit unions have been wishing to get a federal charter. I don't know if you're acquainted with Vancity in Vancouver. I don't know if they are going to do it, but that kind of institution would try to get a federal charter. They would move from being provincially regulated to being a federally regulated institution.
Certain changes would take place. For example, a provincial credit union allows online voting for shareholders. Federally, that doesn't happen. They have to change from online voting for their shareholders to the regular mail-in voting that federally regulated institutions like banks have to do now. They don't allow online voting. They would need time to get used to the changes.
The Chair: Last small question on Division 10. The proposed amendments would make the following two changes: A finding of insignificance with respect to the margin of dumping or amount of subsidy at the preliminary determination stage could no longer be used to preclude a full trade remedy investigation.
In the testimony, did you hear that this is a major issue or one that is evolving? How important is this among the authorities? I guess you heard from Canada Border Services Agency for that item.
Senator Day: The Canada Border Services Agency does the initial assessment as to whether there is dumping or subsidization. Then the Canadian International Trade Tribunal would take over. Its role was to determine whether the dumped or subsidized goods have caused a material injury. These two agencies of government have to work together. In the past, and the reason for this proposed amendment, when border services have done their first look at something, if they found it was insignificant, statutorily they couldn't proceed, even if they found some other stuff later on.
It's not that much more expensive for them to do a more fulsome investigation to determine whether, in their view, there has been dumping or subsidization. So they won't stop at the first level where they would have done before, which was a very preliminary look-see.
The Chair: Thank you. Any other questions?
We would like to thank you, gentlemen, for participating today and congratulate you also on a very successful launch of the barriers to interprovincial trade that you announced in your study. It was widely well-accepted. For those viewing today, we congratulate both of you as chair and deputy chair.
Senator Tkachuk: Thank you very much.
Senator Day: Thank you very much.
The Chair: It's my honour to welcome, from the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, from the Yukon, Senator Daniel Lang; and Senator Joseph A Day. My goodness, it's like we've seen you before, Senator Day. To our viewers, we are reviewing National Security and Defence, Division 2, Part 4, of Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures.
Senator Lang, would you like to start?
Hon. Daniel Lang, Chair, Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence: I'm pleased to have accompanying me, Senator Joe Day, who is the Chair of the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs. The standing committee delegated the particular study that you referred to the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs, and that was on May 18, 2016. The Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs held two meetings and heard evidence from the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman, the Royal Canadian Legion and Mr. Brian McKenna, as an individual.
I should point out to your viewers and you that Division 2 of Part 4 of Bill C-15 proposes to make six key changes to the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act and the New Veterans Charter.
The changes are as follows:
The "Permanent Impairment Allowance'' would be renamed "Career Impact Allowance'' to better reflect the primary purpose of this allowance;
The expression "totally and permanently incapacitated,'' which is used as eligibility for certain services and benefits provided for in the Act, would be replaced with "diminished earning capacity,'' whose differences with the original expression would be specified by regulation;
The amount of the Earnings Loss Benefit would increase from 75% to 90% of the gross revenue that the member was receiving at the time of release;
The amount of the Disability Award would be increased as of 1 April 2017, and as a result the amount of the Death Benefit as well, as it is calculated using the same rates. The maximum rate would be $360,000, and indexed, an increase of 16% compared with the current rate;
The moment when a Disability Award becomes payable and the formula used to calculate this amount would be clarified;
A retroactive payment of the increase to the amount of the Disability Award or the Death Benefit would be paid to any person having received either of these benefits between 1 April 2006 and 31 March 2017, or approximately 70,000 individuals, according to the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Overall, the provisions in Division 2 of Part 4 of the bill were generally well received by the witnesses, who saw them as improvements. The changes to the disability award and the death benefit, in particular, were welcome.
I should point out, however, that witnesses stated that the proposed changes to the Permanent Impairment Allowance, renamed the Career Impact Allowance, and the condition of "totally and permanently incapacitated'' replaced by "diminished earning capacity,'' can be assessed only once the regulatory changes were known. The witnesses were adamant that interested parties must be consulted in drafting these regulatory changes.
In addition, while witnesses indicated that the increase in the earnings loss benefit from 75 per cent to 90 per cent of pre-release gross income was a step forward, two concerns were noted in relation to this change. First, the witnesses said that the increase would be minimal to veterans in the lower ranks at the time of their release, since Veterans Affairs Canada announced that regulatory changes would decrease the minimum salary on which the calculation for the earnings loss benefit was based.
Second, the witnesses wondered whether long-term disability benefits paid out by the Department of National Defence, also set at 75 per cent of pre-release revenue, would be increased as well. The witnesses also noted the importance of setting up lifetime financial security for injured veterans and their families, which would reflect the natural career progression that they may experience.
Based on the entirety of the testimony placed before us, the subcommittee supported the amendments proposed in Division 2 of Part 4 of Bill C-15, but is mindful that in implementing the proposed changes we must take care not to add a layer of complexity to a system of benefits and services that the witnesses have suggested is often difficult to navigate for veterans.
Hon. Joseph A. Day, former Deputy Chair, Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence: This basically covers all of the changes that are here. I could add that our concern in the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs is the complexity of the programs. There are so many different programs. We're talking about people, some of whom have serious injuries, and I'm not convinced that National Defence or Veterans Affairs Canada have enough people to hold the hands of these veterans as they go through these various programs.
It would be awfully nice if we could make this much less complicated. You can see we are changing names again. Just when you start to understand something, it's changed to something else.
The very positive part of this is the significant increase in one of these programs, and it goes back to the beginning of the Veterans Charter. This is legislation that came in and was supposed to modernize everything, but all the veterans and the injured soldiers we hear from would much prefer to be on the old program, under the Pension Act, with a lifetime pension. Then they didn't have to worry about this or that.
The retroactivity in here is very positive for veterans; that goes back to 2006. Veterans Affairs is anticipating that up to 70,000 individuals could apply for this retroactivity. To put a dollar figure on that was very difficult for them because they didn't know how many would apply, but it's going to be there. That's an easy one to explain to any veteran that you know. There is a retroactivity here that could be very beneficial to them.
Senator Marshall: I have several questions. I looked at the six changes in your report, and I noted that the subcommittee supports the amendments. I note what you said, Senator Day, about the complexity of the program.
There is a bullet there that says, "The moment when a Disability Award becomes payable and the formula used to calculate this amount would be clarified,'' and gives me the impression that the formula is not in place yet. Am I misreading that bullet? It is in the middle of the second page.
Senator Day: There have to be regulations generated, which we haven't see yet.
Senator Marshall: This would be under the regulations?
Senator Day: Yes.
Senator Marshall: In the next bullet, the one for the retroactive payment for the disability award, it sounds like it would take retroactive effect to 2006 for about 70,000 individuals. Did anybody provide you with an estimate on that?
Senator Day: Dollar-figure-wise, it was very imprecise because they didn't know how many were going to apply.
Senator Marshall: They have to go back and process it.
Senator Day: The number of people who apply for this will determine the cost. That's the first question you would ask: What is this going to cost? I don't think they know.
Senator Lang: No.
Senator Marshall: My last question is on the status of the regulations. You referenced those already, so are they in the works? Would you have any idea when the regulations would be done? Did anyone give you an idea?
Senator Day: They obviously wouldn't have. The law has to come in first before the regulations are generated. After the law has passed, the regulations are shared through a consultation process. We didn't ask that question.
Senator Marshall: It seemed there was interest in giving the individuals who are going to be affected by these changes some say in the regulations.
Senator Day: Hopefully so.
The Chair: Just a couple of points, colleagues. You had mentioned the complexity of the program. I drafted one about whether it is user friendly and the benefit of retroactivity. My understanding is the new government is reinstating some of the centres that were closed to address veteran needs. Is that accurate? When will they do that? Do you have any idea?
Senator Day: Some have been opened already. There is going to be at least one new one that wasn't closed previously.
The Chair: I guess the other question is, in terms of retroactivity, how far back are we? We really have two major demographics. We have the World War II and Korean War folks. The average age of the World War II demographic is 94 to 95 years old. We're losing, I think, five to ten people per month, so people are gradually fading out.
The next demographic would be, I guess, the 1980s and 1990s group that served in Bosnia and Serbia. Does the demographic breakdown create problems in terms of the administration of these programs? Have you had any feedback through the various witnesses and studies that you have done during the past period of time?
Senator Day: We have heard from veterans in all of those various demographics. They are very good at making their points known.
The retroactivity here applies from the time the New Veterans Charter was generated in 2006. From 2006 forward, all of the veterans who come in under the New Veterans Charter program will have an opportunity for retroactivity. Everybody before the New Veterans Charter is under a totally different regime, and that's the Pension Act regime under which they get lifetime pensions for their injuries.
The Chair: So the people in the older demographic fall under the old plan and the newer ones fall under the new plan?
Senator Day: The new ones, as you will recall, got a lump sum and a lot of them weren't able to handle it and spent it in two or three years. It was gone. Then they were back, asking, "What are we going to do now?'' That's part of the problem.
The Chair: Senator Lang, you talked about the six key changes. Do you view those as material changes that will benefit our veterans?
Senator Lang: There is no question. Given what the Canadian taxpayer is putting forward for those who have done service to our country, I think they can be proud of what they do with respect to the financial commitments.
The real problem out there for Veterans Affairs — and Senator Day touched on it — is the question of the numbers of programs out there. It's very confusing. There is a lot of money being spent on the administration of all of those programs and a lot of members don't even know how to apply for them.
We are going through a technological change. As far as the older veterans are concerned, even from the 1970s and 1980s versus now, many of them aren't aware of the technology and how you apply and take advantage of these opportunities. There is a transition and change taking place.
I know there is some concern at the top administrative level of government that they have to re-examine the terms and conditions for all these different programs to see if there can be some sort of amalgamation to make it simpler and for commitments taxpayers are making to the veterans to go directly to the veteran as opposed to being almost siphoned through layers of bureaucracy.
Everybody's intentions are good but, at the end of the day, I think we can do better. That's what we have to look forward to.
The Chair: In closing, you're supportive of these changes?
Senator Lang: Yes.
Senator Marshall: Just to pick up on what Senator Lang was saying where there is an acknowledgment at the top that things need to be streamlined or reviewed, has anything been announced formally on that? I know in a number of areas within government they have announced reviews or strategies.
Senator Lang: I know they are working with a number of representatives from the various veterans' organizations and others in reviewing the programs to see what could be amalgamated and maybe enhanced. That's as far as we know.
It seemed to me that they had given us a commitment that, either at the end of the year or the beginning of next, they should have some reports out that might give further validity to what they're doing.
Senator Day: There is our committee, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, a Veterans Ombudsman, an ombudsman for military personnel — and a lot of the transitioning out. There are a lot of people keeping an eye on what is going on.
Senator Lang: And they are concerned.
Senator Day: We are all working to try to improve this.
The Chair: Closing point: If you look back in recent history — just to support the reserves — there is a lot of discussion going on about how we will move forward with our Reserve Force.
More than 25 per cent of the active soldiers in Afghanistan were from the reserves. The reserves, over time, have played a major role in history in terms of Canada's efforts in maintaining our freedom, et cetera.
I am lucky enough to be associated with the Royal Canadian Hussars, the 34 Brigade Group. Twelve of our reserves went over to Afghanistan for a minimum of one stay, which I guess is six to twelve months. Everyone came out alive without major difficulty, but the reserves have played a huge role.
That is one of the issues, I guess, under your Defence Committee and Veterans Affairs Subcommittee that you folks are cognizant of in terms of what is going to happen moving forward and how we handle our forces.
There is a study going on right now, and all of the reserves, all of the soldiers and people associated with the military forces are asked to participate in the process. It will be interesting to see how that all unfolds, coupled with the changes that have been made with compensation and taking care of our present and past soldiers is hopefully going to be executed.
Senator Marshall: You've reminded me that the Auditor General just released a report on the reserves. Would that go to your committee for review?
Senator Lang: Yes, it would. Presently, we have a number of studies under way. That's definitely one that will come under consideration in the next little while.
The contributions that the reservists make to our Armed Forces cannot be underestimated. I don't think we could have a functioning armed force without them; in fact, I know we wouldn't. We are very cognizant of that, and we're going to ensure, whenever we can be of some assistance, that they aren't forgotten. Sometimes they can be forgotten, because they are kind of off to the side to some degree, especially when they are not being called upon to be active. We cannot afford to have that happen.
Senator Marshall: I must say, when I read the report, I was really surprised, because it indicated how under- resourced they are.
Senator Lang: Yes.
Senator Marshall: It's good that you're going to be looking at that report.
The Chair: Thank you, gentlemen, for your participation today. It was very helpful.
Senator Lang: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
(The committee adjourned.)