Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Internal Economy,
Budgets and Administration
Issue 12 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Thursday, December 12, 1996
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 8:30 a.m.
Senator Colin Kenny (Chairman) in the Chair.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, I would like to welcome back Senator Orville Phillips, who has not attended this committee for some time, although he was a mainstay of the committee for decades. There is not much about matters of internal economy that Senator Phillips does not know -- in fact he made this committee happen for a long time, and I had the opportunity to learn at his feet. I am pleased to put that on the public record.
Honourable senators, the first item on our agenda this morning is the budget of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communication, and I would ask Senator Forrestall to please make the presentation.
Senator J. Michael Forrestall, Deputy Chairman of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to deal briefly with the rationale and importance of the transportation safety study. With respect to its terms of reference, we are directed to look into the state of safety and security in Canada and, in so doing, to engage in a comparative review of the technical issues and of the legal and regulatory structures involved, with a view to ensuring that transportation safety and security in Canada are of such high quality as to meet the needs of Canada and Canadians in the 21st century.
We started our work with meetings in Ottawa, Yellowknife, Edmonton, and Vancouver, and are now reviewing the evidence from hearings in Eastern and Central Canada. Obviously, we will want to do some comparative work once we have analyzed the results of the evidence that we are collecting now.
How much money are we looking for? We had, as you know, the indulgence of the committee with respect to our publicity, and we received approximately half our budget -- enough to get our work started; now we are seeking, Mr. Chairman, the balance of $108,723, which is indicated in Part II of our application for budget authorization, covering professional services, transportation and communications and all other expenditures. I can answer questions, if senators wish.
The Chairman: This is the second time this committee has been before us concerning its budget. The committee has heard the proposal from the chairman of the subcommittee. Are there any questions?
Senator Di Nino: Just to make sure that I fully understand, Senator Forestall, your committee is asking for a total budget of $253,348. There are two presentations involved, the one today and the one made two weeks ago, and any approval of funds at the committee two weeks ago is incorporated in this total of $253,348. Is that not over and above the limit that was granted at that time?
Senator Corbin: I do not want to cause difficulty, but has there been a change in procedure, or did I miss something in your initial statement, Senator Forrestall? You represent a subcommittee. Do you not need the approval of the full committee before you come to this committee?
Senator Forrestall: Yes, we have that. This was my accommodation after other approvals.
The Chairman: We did not want to allocate all of the funds before we had reviewed the budget; so a partial budget was approved and we are now in the second phase.
Senator Forrestall: It should be understood as well, senators, that I am not the chairman of the full committee; I am its deputy chairman. I am also the chairman of the subcommittee, but I am not here in that capacity. I am here as the deputy.
The Chairman: Are we comfortable with this budget?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: The next item on our agenda is the approval of the budget for the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.
Senator Orville Phillips, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology: Mr. Chairman, thank you for your kind words. I point out to the committee that a previous chairman of this committee became the Governor General. I would like to suggest that that be a reward.
Senator Di Nino: We will make the recommendation on your behalf.
Senator Phillips: I should point out that the Senate has just passed a motion re-establishing the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs and authorizing us, in our work, to proceed to Charlottetown where the DVA headquarters are located. Prior to that we will be meeting with the Legionnaires Association to get their opinion on the legislation before we go to DVA headquarters. Most of our budget deals with that.
The Chairman: We would be most interested, Senator Phillips, if you could briefly tell us about the problems you see regarding veterans.
Senator Phillips: There are a number of problems dealing particularly with appeals from decisions and the need for assistance. For example, an individual may receive ten per cent disability for a hearing loss, but because that is not enough he wants to appeal the medical assessment. Actually he is not appealing the decision, but only the medical assessment. Nevertheless, it has to go to the whole Appeal Board. Well, that should be done separately.
That is one thing. The other thing that I am particularly interested in is getting diagnoses changed. Many of the diagnoses were made years ago when medical technology was not as good as it is today. However, changing a diagnosis is a two-and-a-half to three-year process, which involves the Appeal Board, and I think there again the Appeal Board is unnecessary. That should be able to be done by medical officers in the district. There is no need for a chap in Vancouver or Winnipeg to wait for somebody to come out from Charlottetown to see him and say, "Yes, you are right, the diagnoses was wrong in the first place and can be corrected." Surely that can be speeded up.
I am satisfied in my own mind that the adjudication method, which was included in Bill C-67, is working. It is actually a trained nurse who goes over the file and looks at the claim and determines what is in the file. That method is working reasonably well compared with the full pension hearing.
As well, I would like to discuss with the department the proposed changes to Bill C-67 and the things that the department finds wrong with the bill, and I would like to see the regulations on assessment of the disability. This is causing great concern to veterans' organizations. I think we would be better off discussing that with the department in advance rather than waiting for them to present it, because as I have often told the department, getting them to change their method of operation is like getting the veterans to change their losses.
Senator Rompkey: I support the reconstitution of the subcommittee, and I support the budget. It is very reasonable. I think it is generally agreed that the veterans comprise a group that has received diminishing attention over the last several years. I think they deserve our attention because they are diminishing in numbers, despite the Gulf War. I think it is right that we do this. I would simply ask Senator Phillips if the committee could look into the case of the foresters again. When I was Chairman of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Defence and Veterans Affairs, we heard from the foresters who went overseas during the Second World War. They have some grievances. I will not go into the details now, but I can provide you with the names of witnesses you may wish to call.
Given that the House adjourned and an election took place before the House of Commons committee had a chance to complete its work, I wonder if the Senate committee now could take up that work and look at it again?
Senator Phillips: Yes, we would be quite happy to, Senator Rompkey. I am hoping that maybe we can bring the group under that separate organization under Cliff Chadderton's organization.
Senator Rompkey: That is the War Amputees.
Senator Phillips: As their numbers have shrunk, groups such as the Air Force Association suddenly have come under that umbrella group. Mr. Chadderton has a central staff to work with these people. We will certainly hear from them.
Senator Forrestall: I wholeheartedly support the application for funds. It is reasonable. As someone who sat on the Appeal Board, albeit briefly, it was quite clear to me there is ample room for the subcommittee to do very useful work.
Senator Phillips: We still keep an eye on the merchant marine as well.
Senator Forrestall: Exactly. Mr. Chairman, the committee is in good hands.
The Chairman: Are you satisfied at this stage with the treatment for the Hong Kong veterans, or does your committee intend to look into them further?
Senator Phillips: We will be having a look at them further. As I say, they come under the umbrella group. When we are dealing with the umbrella group, it usually takes in Hong Kong veterans, the merchant navy and certain small groups. For instance, the number of Canadian Air Force personnel who served in Burma is very small and getting smaller each year. We usually hear from them.
Senator Forrestall: The point is well taken. The pilgrimages of last year were extraordinarily touching and very useful. We are getting to the stage now where George Hees' admonition to the Department of Veterans Affairs is very much to the point, that it is a question of the benefit of the doubt. These issues should be dealt with within the system and without the necessity of appeal boards and reviews, because time is of the essence.
I wish you well with your work, senator.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, is it your wish that we approve this budget?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The committee adjourned.