Proceedings of the Subcommittee on
Veterans Affairs
Issue 13 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Tuesday, March 23, 1999
The Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, to which was referred Bill C-61, to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act, the Pension Act, the Merchant Navy Veteran and Civilian War-related Benefits Act, the Department of Veterans Affairs Act, the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act and the Halifax Relief Commission Pension Continuation Act and to amend certain other Acts in consequence thereof, met this day at 10:30 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Orville H. Phillips (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, Mr. Bob Wood, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, was to have appeared before our committee this morning. However, Mr. Wood has been called back to the House of Commons for an unexpected vote and has assured me that he will return after the vote. In the meantime, Mr. Wood has suggested that his opening statement could be read by the Deputy Minister, Mr. Nicholson, who is well known to us.
Please proceed, Mr. Nicholson.
Mr. J. David Nicholson, Deputy Minister, Veterans Affairs Canada: Honourable senators, it is a pleasure for me to be here today representing the Minister of Veterans Affairs. As you know, the minister is meeting with his cabinet colleagues this morning, and the parliamentary secretary is attending the House of Commons in anticipation of a vote. My colleagues and I are prepared to respond to any questions you may have regarding proposals contained in Bill C-61.
As you know, this bill has been designed to help a very special segment of the population -- veterans and their families. The bill was introduced in the House of Commons last December, and we have been pleased with the swift progress it has made through the House and now in the Senate. I am sure that all of us can agree on the need to see this bill pass quickly so that it can take effect as soon as possible.
This omnibus legislation proposes a number of improvements to legislation related to veterans. I will mention briefly two of the main changes.
The first is directed at former prisoners of war who have serious health problems. With the passage of Bill C-61, these individuals will have greater opportunity to access monthly allowances, to obtain attendant care and to be compensated for exceptional incapacity. More than 1,300 former prisoners of war might benefit from this change.
The second major amendment will permit increases in pensions of survivors of disabled veterans where those disabilities have been reassessed. More than 35,000 surviving spouses, for the most part widows, could become eligible to receive an increased pension.
As you know, Bill C-61 also moves merchant navy veterans into the same legislation as armed forces veterans, removing any doubt as to their status as veterans in every sense of the word.
I should like to thank the members of this committee for your willingness to meet so promptly after second reading of the bill. We are at your disposal and look forward to your questions.
The Chairman: We have a number of questions. We wish to touch on the part of the bill that is causing more interest than the bill itself, and that is the compensation for merchant navy seamen. Perhaps we might delay that portion of our questioning until Mr. Wood returns, unless you are prepared to make the commitments on behalf of the government that we will be asking you for.
First, I have a question concerning proposed section 41, which is related to section 111 of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act. Why is it necessary to amend this section?
Mr. Nicholson: The answer to that, Mr. Chairman, is to allow the board to reconsider decisions made by all its predecessors.
The Chairman: That is the part that concerns me, Mr. Nicholson. I think you are aware of my concern with the VRAB as it is presently operating. This proposed section would allow them to go back and review every decision made by the Canadian Pension Commission since its inception. Am I reading this section correctly?
Mr. Nicholson: Yes, I believe that would be the case.
The Chairman: Can you elaborate further and tell me why you feel it is necessary to go back and review decisions made by the Canadian Pension Commission that were made 15 or 20 years ago?
Mr. Nicholson: For a technical answer to that question, I will ask Mr. Brunton to respond.
Mr. Richard Richard Brunton, Director, Portfolio Legislation, Veterans Affairs Canada: Mr. Chairman, this provision already exists. All of the board's predecessors had a similar power to review their own decisions and the decisions of their predecessors. This is simply meant to correct typographical errors or other types of mistakes. They can revisit the decision either on their own motion or, under some circumstances, at the request of the veteran.
This power has been around a long time. When section 111 was drafted in 1995, it omitted two of the predecessors whose decisions could be reconsidered in this way. I gather cases occurred where the Royal Canadian Legion was hoping for the board to do exactly that -- review the case and correct the error. However, the board found that it could not because the particular decisions in question were not made by bodies mentioned in this section. Therefore, this is intended to be a purely technical change in an error-correcting provision.
The Chairman: Will this proposed section allow the VRAB to go back to an award and say that the award was given in error and that therefore they will reduce it?
Mr. Brunton: Yes, that could happen.
Mr. Nicholson: That is not the intention of the change, but it could happen, yes.
The Chairman: That is what disturbs me.
I recall, Mr. Nicholson, when the "vexatious and frivolous" clause was in the previous legislation, you assured us that it would be used with discretion. However, up to 1,000 cases have been appealed and denied. Can you assure me that this provision will be used with discretion? My concern is that you can go back 20 years and say to an individual that they should not have had a 20 per cent assessment, only a 15 per cent assessment, and that they owe the balance, plus interest, for 15 years. Can you give us an assurance that this will never happen?
Mr. Nicholson: First, I will be as careful as I can in terms of providing assurances over a tribunal. As the Deputy Minister of Veterans Affairs, I really do not have those powers. However, I recall very well during an earlier representation here, when we were supporting the provisions of the bill that changed the Pension Act and the pension process, that a concern was raised over how the words "trivial, frivolous and vexatious" would be applied.
Yes, I have read in the testimony that there have been upwards of 800 or 900 cases. Someone said that they were really taken out of the pension process because their application was considered to be trivial, frivolous and vexatious. However, that did not provide an opportunity to change decisions. They applied the provisions of the act when applications were made.
It has always been my persuasion with the board that they exercise the benefit of the doubt at every opportunity. If, indeed, applications come forward that really are trivial, then the appropriate thing to do is apply the appropriate provision so that meritorious applications receive consideration on a more timely basis.
Senator Johnstone: Under proposed section 111, did I understand you to say that only a veteran can request that the section be triggered? Who can ask for a reconsideration under this appeal?
Mr. Nicholson: The provision is to allow the board to reconsider decisions made by its predecessors, such as the Canadian Pension Commission.
Senator Johnstone: Can the veteran ask for it to be reviewed as well?
Mr. Nicholson: Yes, they can do so on application if new evidence is presented.
The Chairman: Where do we find the new evidence?
Mr. Brunton: Reference to it is on pages 33 and 34 of the bill, which set out the proposed text of section 111.The proposed section is rather long and involved, but at the top of page 34, you will see the words "do so on application if new evidence is presented to it."
Proposed section 111 is in two parts. The first part, which is the longer part, states:
The Veterans Review and Appeal Board may, on its own motion, reconsider any decision of...
It then lists the boards.
Towards the end of the section, it says that the board can also "do so on application" -- which would mean an application from the veteran -- "if new evidence had been presented to it."
Senator Forrestall: Is this proposed section in the bill for clarification? It did not appear to me that it was obscure in the old act.
Mr. Nicholson: I stand to be corrected by those who were more intimately involved in drafting the previous bill that changed the legislation, but that provision was left out. That power was always there.
Senator Forrestall: My apologies. I missed a whole generation of Veterans Affairs Acts somewhere along the line in the last eight or ten years.
Mr. Nicholson: It was in the previous legislation and we were putting it back in.
Mr. Brunton: We are adding to the list of predecessor bodies whose decisions may be reconsidered in this way.
Senator Forrestall: That was always the case whenever an appeal was launched.
Mr. Nicholson: We have no predecessor body now because the Canadian Pension Commission was eliminated as a result of a previous bill that created the Veterans Review and Appeal Board.
Senator Forrestall: That would be the last related legislation with which I was familiar. That makes it clear.
Senator Johnstone: I am not clear as to the chairman's question relating to whether a veteran might be required to pay back a sum of money. What was the phrase you used?
Mr. Nicholson: The phrase is "trivial, frivolous and vexatious". However, that would not apply to an existing pension. That would apply to an application, so there would be no pay.
Senator Johnstone: You are saying that you would not go back 10 years.
Mr. Nicholson: That is not why this particular provision is there.
The Chairman: I should like to turn Mr. Nicholson's attention to the amendments concerning the Veterans Review and Appeal Board. I know the words "vexatious and frivolous" are to be removed from the wording of the act and that a new description will be put in place.
Mr. Nicholson, what criteria would the board use in saying that no reasonable board could reach a favourable decision?
Mr. Nicholson: It is difficult to be specific in my reply, Mr. Chairman. I would say, though, that there would have to be a real concern with the medical evidence on the file; that is to say, a concern that there was no indication whatsoever that the disability was, first, related to service, which is one of the major considerations and, second, that there was not sufficient medical evidence to support the disability. They are the two things that the board members look at initially when adjudicating a claim.
Is it judgmental? To some degree, I expect it is. However, having had the experience of adjudicating many claims, I believe that the members of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board do, indeed, gain an expertise that allows them to make a reasonable judgment.
The Chairman: I shall approach the question from a different angle. As I mentioned earlier, there are about 1,000 veterans who received an unfavourable decision, and one that they cannot appeal. If 1,000 criminals in Canada were allowed no appeal from lower court decisions, there would be a terrific outcry. As well, every newspaper in Canada would be complaining that these people were being denied certain basic rights. In the section concerning the VRAB, as you say, it is a judgmental decision, and there are no reasons given. I believe the Auditor General had some comments in his report in that regard.
I am not entirely happy with your reply that it is judgmental and based on medical evidence as well. In your testimony the last time the act was amended, you stated that the evidence of a specialist and a family doctor were to get priority.
Mr. Nicholson: That is right.
The Chairman: How does that evidence that you gave to the committee previously tie in with your reply today?
Mr. Nicholson: I think there is a direct tie-in. I stand by my earlier statement that if, in order to support his case the applicant obtains specialist medical advice, then that advice must be taken into consideration by the adjudicators. Going to a specialist does not necessarily mean that the medical evidence that would be required to support a positive adjudication will be forthcoming. If a case is not there, it is not there.
If I might draw upon your analogy with the justice system, Mr. Chairman, there must be prima facie evidence, first, that a crime has been committed, after which an investigation ensues. Investigators must come up with evidence before charges are laid and prosecuted. In a sense, that is analogous to what we are discussing here. Every veteran who comes in with a case must, first, have substantiating evidence relating to his service. Second, there must be medical evidence that there is a disability.
Every file does not have that. There are bound to be some that will not be adjudicated. I find the words "trivial and vexatious" offensive. The fact is that not every case that comes forward is meritorious.
The Chairman: By the time a case reaches the appeal level, a member of the Bureau of Pensions Advocates, BPA, has worked on it. I am having difficulty picturing the BPA advancing a case in which they feel there is no possibility or no evidence. I should like to hear your reply in that regard because the BPA has presented evidence and then the VRAB says, "There are no reasonable grounds."
Mr. Nicholson: Yes, I should like to answer that question, because I am rather proud of the way the lawyers in the Bureau of Pensions Advocates administer their work. First, I do know that, if the case is weak, the members of the bureau will make that indication to the veteran applicant. At the same time, they will vigorously pursue the adjudication of that application, if that is what the applicant wants.
When they come before the bureau -- and I have been there to witness their performance before the bureau -- they do a first-class job, but they do not win every case.
The Chairman: No lawyer wins every case, but most of them try.
Senator Johnstone: This is not intended to be a criticism of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, because they do an excellent job, however, at what point is the benefit-of-doubt clause triggered? Is it used enough? We question whether it is used enough.
Mr. Nicholson: I was personally associated with having benefit of the doubt incorporated into the most recent legislation. To me, when there is a doubt, that provision should be exercised at every opportunity. When there is, as someone once said, a scintilla of doubt, the adjudicators should find on behalf of the veteran applicant.
I do not know how many times it has been applied.
The chairman and I have often had discussions about this. I would like to see it applied in every occasion when there is a doubt. However, I will admit that we have no monitoring systems in place to track that.
Senator Johnstone: I just returned from Kingston where yesterday I sat in on a review board hearing. In Charlottetown, we sat in on an appeal board. I was not able to detect whether the benefit of the doubt clause was triggered. Of course, I was not there when the judgment came down either; I only heard the appeal. We wish to emphasize that this is a concern, and I suggest that it be used whenever possible.
Mr. Nicholson: In danger of setting myself up for a question that may be very difficult to answer, I would like to say one other thing. Since the legislation was passed in 1995, the favourable rates on adjudication have gone up. That does not say a great deal, but it probably says that the board is exercising the benefit of the doubt more than it did prior to September 1995.
The Chairman: Shortly after I returned from the summer recess, I received a letter from an individual who said that he had finally received his POW pension based on the benefit of the doubt. He sent me his picture so that I would know it had at least applied in one case.
Mr. Nicholson: I was delighted to hear that that actually transpired, senator.
Senator Ruck: Are the widows of deceased veterans or deceased merchant seamen eligible to apply for a pension of some sort?
Mr. Nicholson: Absolutely, senator. In fact, some of the provisions of the proposed bill will improve that situation for surviving spouses, merchant navy included, of course.
The Chairman: Perhaps you could explain to Senator Ruck that the amendment for the 48 per cent assessment was removed.
Mr. Nicholson: With respect to survivors in receipt of a veteran pension -- and I am talking about the spouses in many cases, whether male or female -- if the assessment on that disability is between 0 per cent and 47 per cent, they cannot apply for an increased assessment. Let us say a veteran died a year ago today but that previous to his death his disability worsened, and that there was evidence of that. This bill will allow the widow to seek an assessment that would increase the monthly disability cheque. If she had been in receipt of a benefit of less than 48 per cent, she could not have done that. She cannot do that today, but she will be able to do that should this bill pass. That takes in a whole group who are now receiving a benefit between 0 per cent and 48 per cent. They can receive no increase to their pension unless this bill passes.
The Chairman: Senator Ruck was also concerned about a deceased merchant seaman and whether his widow can now apply.
Mr. Nicholson: The answer to that is "yes."
Senator Forrestall: Has the deputy minister or someone on his staff had a chance to review the private member's bill that I put forward along these lines? If he has, could he indicate whether the content of my private member's bill is reflected in this public bill, generally speaking?
Mr. Nicholson: I am pleased to report that Bill C-61, the proposed legislation, includes the merchant navy in the existing legislation.
Senator Forrestall: Then there is nothing of consequence in my Senate bill that is not here.
Mr. Nicholson: That is correct.
Senator Forrestall: I wish to express my appreciation for that. Just so I am absolutely clear, does that include the concept of an apology?
Mr. Nicholson: No.
Mr. Brunton: That is not a legislative prerogative.
Senator Forrestall: You may be quite right.
With respect to the honours made publicly to our war dead, does it extend guarantees, such as the right of merchant seamen to be present, to be advised and notified, as indeed are all the other groups?
Mr. Nicholson: It does now.
Senator Forrestall: These rights will be extended under this bill, then.
Mr. Nicholson: They are now for commemorative events. They have been treated the same way as the uniformed military going back many years now.
You may be raising an issue with respect to the vice-regal party on November 11. That does not change, no.
Senator Forrestall: There is nothing like progress. Where do we go from here?
Mr. Nicholson: We are doing very well, I think, senator.
The Chairman: In my remarks on Bill C-61, I asked for an update on the negotiations for settlement with the merchant navy seamen and their claim for compensation because of the fact that they were excluded from certain benefits that applied to the other veterans. Could we have an update on that, Mr. Wood?
Mr. Bob Wood, M.P., Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs: Certainly, senator. As you know, with the help of Cliff Chadderton, we were able to get this particular bill through the House of Commons rather quickly with no opposition. The government side agreed to a motion put forward by the opposition that we would look at the merchant navy as a separate issue in committee. We are doing that now. We had our first meeting last Thursday. The Royal Canadian Legion appeared before us, as well as merchant navy veterans from the Maritime area, led by Mr. Aurele Ferlatte and Mr. Ossie MacLean, who staged the hunger strike here late last year. They were very happy with the way they were received.
This afternoon, we will be hearing four more merchant navy organizations. I believe that Mr. George Shaker will be appearing before us, as well as other gentlemen.
The hearings are well underway. We will obviously take a break over the Easter recess, but we will be back. I still have Mr. Chadderton to hear, plus a number of other people who wish to come before us. Any senator who wishes to observe some of those hearings is more than welcome to be in the room and to hear the testimony.
We just started, but I imagine there will be a number of different proposals in regard to compensation. Obviously the committee is open to listen to them.
The Chairman: What does the motion state? Can you tell us what the motion is?
Mr. Wood: I cannot right offhand. I can certainly get it for you. The motion was put forward by Mr. Goldring from the Reform Party. To paraphrase it, it was that we look at the whole merchant navy issue before the committee and make some kind of recommendation before June 1.
The Chairman: The clerk has found the motion. Perhaps she could read it to the committee.
Ms Barbara Reynolds (Clerk of the Committee):
As a condition of passage of the first paragraph, I would further move that this committee agree to undertake a separate study of the Merchant Navy compensation issue before the parliamentary summer recess, including hearing from those Veterans Organisation's witnesses that have previously asked to appear, and that a report with recommendations be prepared and presented to Parliament in a timely manner.
The Chairman: Does the government interpret that motion as being one that will provide compensation?
Mr. Wood: I do not think so. It provides the merchant navy an opportunity to come before us and state their case, and it leaves it open to interpretation of a ruling by the committee.
The Chairman: As it stands today, the government is not committed to make any compensation.
Mr. Wood: No, Mr. Chairman, it is not.
Senator Forrestall: I do not feel free to comment on that, to tell you the truth. Could the parliamentary secretary indicate to us whether that is because the government, in its wisdom, is awaiting consideration of your report?
Mr. Wood: I think that is one of the reasons, senator. We must look at several factors. Other groups perhaps have some reservations, and we must look at those as well.
Senator Forrestall: We are about to go to war, no matter what you call it. Canadians will be shot at. Without much question, there will be Canadian merchant seamen, not necessarily on Canadian flag-registered vessels, but in the vicinity of that war zone. In other words, they will be in the general vicinity of the launching stage area for cruise missiles and other aircraft. How do we deal with these individuals?
Is it up to them to come forward and identify by virtue of their registration that they have, in fact, been at sea and have been in what could be described, without too much difficulty, a war zone? Are they eligible to come forward if they have served under these circumstances on their own?
Mr. Nicholson: That is a very interesting question, Senator Forrestall. Let me try to reply.
First, if there is a requirement from NATO to become involved in Kosovo, the Canadian government would declare a Special Duty Area, which would cover the troops that would be assigned in that area to peacekeeping.
If other groups of Canadians were involved on the periphery, which would probably be the case for any merchant navy that might become involved on ships that are providing provisions or launching sites for missiles or whatever, they would first be covered under the provisions of their employment in terms of injury or disability. Today, unlike it was between 1939 and 1945, it is quite comparable to any compensation or medical support system that the military has.
I am assuming you are not talking about navy ships here, but rather supply ships and the like.
My very able technical advisor is attempting to give me a note.
Mr. Brunton: As well as the employment benefits, a separate act governs injury and death while serving in the merchant navy. It is administered by the Department of Human Resources Development, and the act is entitled the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act. In effect, it is the Worker's Compensation Act for the merchant seamen. This legislation was not in force during World War II. It was created after World War II when the need was seen.
As I understand shipping and transportation companies and their policies and procedures, as the deputy says, if they were sending a crew into a danger zone, there would be a premium of some kind on their pay. Additional insurance would be required as well to cover them all against the increased risk. I believe the insurance is available and is not affected by the so-called war risk clauses, the exclusion clauses, because this is not yet a war; nor is it a naval war, nor are any countries except possibly Serbia likely to be mobilized.
Between the employment benefits and the Merchant Seaman Act, which is funded by contributions through the companies, I believe those people would all be covered.
Senator Forrestall: It is difficult, of course, because it is so hypothetical. Were we to enter, it would be a matter of uninvited intervention, which would then colour how you would look at certain other things, among them the Merchant Marine Compensation Act.
The ships are modern, and the owners go to great lengths to ensure that they are maintained well and that they have a good crew. Part of that is a good compensation package, including activity in dangerous waters. However, the likelihood of that being 100 per cent the case is pretty remote.
I am concerned about the seamen, the mates and the engineers who are on an oil tanker, for example, perhaps hauling gas into that part of the world, who find themselves in difficulty. They stay with that company for two or three years, then come home and say, "I have had enough of that; I am going to retire." They then drop a line to the officer and say, "Where should I present myself? I am a veteran."
I am not trying to be facetious.
Mr. Nicholson: It is very much tied during wartime to the theatre of war or during peacetime to the Special Duty Area. If they are not covered by that, they would not be covered by us.
Senator Forrestall: Is there a capacity within the department to redescribe what is a "war zone"? Perhaps that is a political matter. Going back to the beginnings of the former Yugoslavia, we now have five or six different kinds of interventions and wars that have become a very accurate and descriptive part of our nomenclature in the last 10 years. Have we updated the background that supports that?
Mr. Nicholson: I believe we have. Since 1945 -- and I am loath to throw a number on the table -- we have created in excess of 30 Special Duty Areas. They are geographically described to include all participation by Canada.
Senator Forrestall: That is what I was getting at. Perhaps it is time we stopped describing them geographically.
Mr. Nicholson: Yes, and had a blanket description.
Senator Forrestall: Yes, that might do it. They should be described according to the form of the intervention. True peacekeeping is probably quite fine, but then it deteriorates rapidly into other forms of confrontation and intervention. That is just an idea.
Mr. Nicholson: Veterans Affairs would not be the lead department to do that. We would probably take the lead from Foreign Affairs and DND in that regard.
Senator Forrestall: Veterans Affairs acts only to ensure that there are no cracks through which something is lost.
Mr. Nicholson: Yes, exactly.
Senator Forrestall: I have firsthand knowledge of just how diligent that quest has been over the years. You will understand why I want the same for our country.
Mr. Nicholson: I certainly do. It merits a good policy review at any time as far as our legislation is concerned.
Senator Forrestall: It changes so rapidly that it would be a shame to get caught up and have to look at the difficulties of making laws retroactive.
Mr. Nicholson: That is the nature of the jobs now. What was peacekeeping in 1946-47 has now taken on a whole different meaning.
The Chairman: Mr. Wood, I presume that you have read our report, "Raising the Bar," and that you are much better informed now as a result.
Mr. Wood: Yes, I am. However, I am not as informed as the gentlemen sitting to my left.
The Chairman: I presume that you read both the detailed remarks and my remarks.
In my remarks, I made a suggestion concerning pensions for VIPs. I am concerned that the committee will not complete its work or get the report completed in time. Even if they do, it will be some time before the government makes a decision because the report, as you have indicated, is not binding and the government has given no guarantee.
These people are getting older. Their numbers are small now and they will be much smaller in two to three years' time. It is an unfortunate fact of life. They cannot wait forever for some assistance.
There is no reason why these seamen could not be placed under "VIP" at the present time. I do not think it requires a change in the legislation, and it would be beneficial because it would provide them with things such as hearing aids, drugs, where necessary, priority access and beds. That does not take a legislative change; it can be done by the department. Can you not give consideration to VIP classification for the merchant seamen at the present time rather than waiting for a full compensation package?
Mr. Wood: Some of them receive treatment now through the VIP program.
The Chairman: Some of them do, but not all of them.
Mr. Wood: No, not all of them.
The Chairman: I am asking that the balance of those who are not included be put on that program.
Mr. Wood: Sure. However, there might be some problems with that.
Mr. Nicholson: You are aware that the gateway into the Veterans Independence Program is through either the disability pension program or our income test award veterans allowance program. If you are in receipt of the war veterans allowance or a disability pension, then you get VIP. Interestingly enough, if you are in receipt of a war veterans allowance, you get all the provisions of the VIP. If you are in receipt of a disability pension, we provide certain health care benefits and other related services in light of your pension condition.
The participation rate of Merchant Navy in receipt of benefits is somewhere around 75 per cent to 76 per cent. A great many of them are either disability pensioners or they are receiving WVA. Where this tends to get complicated is that, out of the 405,000 uniformed veterans alive in Canada today, the total in receipt of VIP is about 80,000. That includes the Merchant Navy. To open a provision like this to one group of veterans -- and believe me they are true veterans in every sense of the word, and if this bill goes through that will remove any doubt whatsoever -- would be, as the parliamentary secretary indicates, difficult to manage.
The Chairman: The number would be very small, Mr. Nicholson. You said that 75 per cent of the 3,000 are already receiving some coverage.
Mr. Nicholson: Yes.
The Chairman: Why not be generous and cover the remaining 250 or 300 individuals?
Mr. Nicholson: If we agree that a veteran is a veteran is a veteran -- and certainly there would be no ambiguity about that if this bill were passed -- then we would be providing something to a small group of veterans. That would not be applied to a large group of veterans.
There are probably 300,000 uniformed veterans who are not in receipt of VIP.
The Chairman: I do not think you would find any objection by the veterans group. They are in agreement that there is a distinct difference because the merchant seamen were excluded on the basis of government policy at the time. I think you will find that the veterans agree that there should be some compensation paid. I should like to see you give consideration to the remaining 300 or so who are not covered. By the time compensation comes out of this inquiry -- that is, if compensation does come out of it -- I do not think these chaps will still be around.
Mr. Nicholson: First, senator, I agree entirely with you that there would be no concern from the veterans organizations. However, by the same token, they may be interested in extending the same type of benefit to the remaining uniform veterans in Canada. That is an entirely different scenario.
The Chairman: As you recall in our report, we recommended VIP treatment for those who served overseas and those on disability pensions.
Mr. Nicholson: I believe it is important to have this in the record: The department continues to give consideration to the priorities of the Royal Canadian Legion, the army, navy and airforce veterans associations and the National Council of Veterans Associations. Indeed, this year, we managed to meet their top priorities under the provision of this bill.
There have been great improvements to benefits for veterans in this country such that they are the finest in the world. Many of the things that the veterans organizations support are to be considered later on this year, next year and the year after until there is not a thing left in terms of a benefit that is required by a veteran in need.
Senator Forrestall: You could do all that this afternoon if you wanted to.
The Chairman: You said that you gave priority to the views of the veterans organizations. I rather regret that you did not mention this committee. Do we not receive any consideration?
Mr. Nicholson: As you know, sir, you are always at the top of our list. That goes without saying, senator.
Senator Cohen: I do not know if the timing for this is appropriate or not, but I was really struck by the idea of cluster housing for veterans, which was mentioned in the report "Raising the Bar."
Today a minister will be appointed to look after the whole area of homelessness in Canada. Many of our veterans are living below the poverty line. This might be a fine opportunity to get in on the ground floor to discuss the whole issue of cluster housing within the full context of homelessness in Canada. It is something that I wanted to put in the record because it may be a window of opportunity.
Mr. Nicholson: That is an excellent suggestion, senator, and we will follow up on that.
Senator Johnstone: My question concerns ferry command. Ferry command is finally being recognized by the department but without the insurance principle, meaning that they are only eligible to receive benefits if the condition in question can be tied directly to an incident in direct combat or counterattack against the enemy. Why have they not been given proper recognition? Do we need to go through another struggle like that of the merchant marines?
Mr. Wood: I certainly hope not, senator. I know that we have taken a long time to recognize the Hong Kong veterans. I know that the department is always getting suggestions. I would hope that ferry command would be one of those suggestions. There are also the foresters in Newfoundland. The deputy minister might want to add to that.
Mr. Nicholson: I will add to that. It is probably tied directly to my previous answer. We know that this subject enjoys a high priority with all the veterans organizations. It is under consideration. As the parliamentary secretary has indicated, these things tend to come at us in lists. We do not do the prioritization of those: we relay them to the veterans organizations and the House and Senate committees.
I can tell you now that that has crept up to the top of the priority list for most of those stakeholders and is under consideration. I go no further than that because the deputy minister is here to explain policy, not to create policy. Therefore, I shall not pre-empt my political masters on this one.
Senator Johnstone: What about the forestry corps that went overseas? I know that they were very active in the north of Scotland.
Mr. Nicholson: They are on the list with the ferry command as the groups of civilians who are still not receiving the full range of veterans benefits. They are another priority of the veterans organizations.
Those in the Second World War were under a slightly different regime than those in the First World War. There is an interesting distinction between the two groups.
Mr. Brunton: In World War I, the forestry corps were military units and their members were members of the military. That was also true in World War II; the Canadian Army had a Canadian forestry corps. However, when the emergency of war arose, Britain needed to have a force of trained loggers to get the pit props for the coal mines from Scotland. The need was urgent, because they did not have time to give military training to those people. Therefore, they asked the Government of Newfoundland to create a special civilian unit that could be engaged immediately and brought over to Scotland. A huge portion of the population of Newfoundland, 3,500 people, served in this way.
At the end of the war when the terms of the union of Canada and Newfoundland were being negotiated, those Newfoundland foresters fell through the cracks. They had thought that they would be treated as veterans. I have not been able to find any historical proof that they were promised that, but certainly they believed that. There was an intention to include them under the terms of the union, but it is a small group and it has just not been done. As Mr. Nicholson said, it is being considered now. It is the highest priority of the veterans organizations.
Senator Johnstone: It is interesting that Newfoundland supplied most of the members of the forestry corps. I could name several individuals from the other Maritime provinces who were in the forestry corps. I do not know how they became associated with Newfoundland, but it was considered to be a Newfoundland division of the Canadian army.
Mr. Brunton: They may well have joined the Newfoundland unit, but it is more likely that they joined the Canadian or British forces, and they would therefore already be veterans in the full sense of the word.
The problem arose because the Newfoundland unit was formed specifically as a civilian unit and therefore they slipped through the cracks and as civilians are eligible for only a few benefits.
Senator Ruck: Did the Japanese government provide any compensation for the treatment of Canadian POWs?
Mr. Nicholson: Yes, they did, but it was quite limited. I believe the first compensation was $1 per day for every day that they were subject to slave labour under reform power. Then it was increased to $1.50.
Mr. Brunton: Yes, it was all done under the treaty of peace with Japan. They allowed us to keep the assets that we had seized through the Custodian of Enemy Property and to put that money into a fund to provide compensation.
If you multiply the figure out, the POWs in the Far East received an average of $1,800 each in the mid-1950s. I do not know how that translates into buying power in today's dollars. It looks small today, although it might have been a more substantial amount in the mid-1950s.
The Chairman: I am intrigued. You say that the Japanese allowed us to keep assets. I was not aware of that before. Does that amount to a sizeable sum?
Mr. Brunton: I do not know the total. I imagine it would have been something like several million dollars.
When we go to war, of course, every belligerent country seizes the assets of enemy nationals, puts them in their own hands and keeps control of them. After the war is over and the winner has been chosen, the treaty of peace dictates, through negotiation, what is to be done with those seized assets by every party in the conflict. In this case, the Japanese said, through the International Red Cross, that the allied countries could keep all those funds and use them to compensate the people who were maltreated. The word "maltreatment" is admitted in the treaty of peace. It expressly provides compensation for maltreatment.
Senator Ruck: Was there a trade-off between the way that the Government of Canada treated Japanese nationals residing in Canada and the way that Japan treated the POWs?
Mr. Nicholson: I do not know whether I would characterize it as a trade-off. However, the fact is that both parties have since been compensated by the Canadian government by a decision taken by last fall.
Senator Forrestall: I hesitate to bring up something quite so parochial as the Halifax Relief Commission, but I had one very brief question in that regard. First of all, I would welcome the intervention of my government in picking up the obligation that was there. Morally, we were required to do that.
Is the end in sight?
Mr. Wood: I believe it is. There are 13 survivors left and we wish to ensure that they receive the benefits that have been promised them so that they can enjoy the last part of their lives.
Senator Forrestall: The international fund is depleted.
Mr. Wood: Nearly.
Senator Forrestall: How many years are left?
Mr. Wood: I could be wrong, but I believe it will end later on this year; will it not?
Mr. Brunton: I am under the impression that the actuaries have said that the fund will end either this year or next year, depending on the survival rate.
Senator Forrestall: Yes, of course.
I thank the government for that because, although that is a very small number, it has been very much a part of the history of Halifax for so many years now and I am just pleased that the survivors who remain will be looked after into the next millennium.
The only other thing I wish to bring up has to do with the deferment of the deadline for termination of war veterans allowance payments to allied veterans residing outside of Canada. Can you explain what deferment entails and what it means with respect to those people?
Mr. Nicholson: I was directly involved with providing advice to the government of the day. Essentially, that was as a result of program review. We were looking for opportunities to assist the government in coming to grips with its burgeoning annual deficit and accumulating national debt. At that time, a decision was taken that we would not pay the allowance outside of Canada, which meant that our allied veterans who were in receipt of the benefit would need to return to Canada and resume their residency here in order to continue to receive the benefit.
It seemed like a very reasonable decision at the time, given that those people established their residency in Canada, applied and qualified for the benefit and then decided to leave Canada assuming that we would continue the benefit no matter where in the world they lived. Following that decision, we received many expressions of concern from allied veterans who said that they had reached a stage in their lives, due to age and physical condition, where it would be a hardship to return to Canada.
In consultation with the minister, we decided to do our own medical assessment of a sample of allied veterans living abroad. We put together a Canadian medical team of four or five people including a public service doctor who happened to be of Greek extraction and who spoke both English and French. Since many of the benefits recipients were living in Greece, we started there. Then we did a number of assessments in the United Kingdom. We did indeed find that it would be a hardship, in some cases even life threatening, for those old veterans to return to Canada.
Our minister went to cabinet with his concerns. Since then, it has been on deferral. The provisions of this bill will confirm that. Passage of this bill would terminate that arrangement.
I know, from having done the assessment, that were we to return those veterans to Canada, a great many of them would immediately fall upon Canada's social and health care systems. That is not raised in the bill, nor has it been raised prominently in the media recently. Although I am not prepared to state this, not having done the work, I believe that the arrangement now through the provisions of this bill is the appropriate one.
Those numbers have declined considerably since 1994. Most of those allied veterans are in their late 80s or late 70s.
Senator Ruck: Mr. Chairman, permit me to say a few words with respect to the Halifax Relief Commission. I believe we are talking about the same relief commission that was set up following the Halifax explosion in 1917.
I had a very unpleasant experience with that particular commission back in the 1950s. I had a difficult time finding housing accommodations in Halifax because of my race and/or colour. I approached the Halifax Relief Commission to purchase some land since they had come into possession of quite a large block of land in the north end of Halifax. I visited the commission office and spoke to the manager who told me that most of the lands were spoken for, but that I should write them a letter and perhaps my request could be met.
I wrote the letter while working on the railway. I sent the letter off from Newcastle, New Brunswick. When I came back to Halifax, I found that I had received no response from them. I contacted them and was told by the manager that all the lands were spoken for. I made phone calls to them under a different name and was told that lands were available. I approached the chairman, who had been mayor of Halifax at the time of the VE day riots and whose name escapes me now. He indicated to me that they could not sell me the land because whites in the neighbourhood would object and they had to protect their interests. I went to the Halifax city office and spoke to their solicitor. I asked him if there were any rules or regulations restricting blacks from living in that part of Halifax. He told me that there were not. I went to see the mayor of the city; I will not mention his name, because I think he is still around and I do not want to embarrass him. He told me that there was nothing he could do to assist me. I did not get that land in the north end of Halifax on which to build a home. I had to go over to Dartmouth and build a home there.
I came across an interesting document in the public archives that showed that eight black veterans of World War II applied for land in that area and were told to talk to their city councillors. Those black veterans were not sold any land. They could not purchase land in that area.
It was a very humbling experience for me to be treated in that manner. Things have changed considerably now, no doubt due to the human rights legislation that is in place. We have come a long way in terms of race relations in Halifax but there is still a considerable way to go.
The Chairman: Thank you for sharing that with us.
Honourable senators, if there are no further questions, I will thank our witnesses and then we will proceed with consideration of the bill.
Senator Forrestall: Before the witnesses leave, I have something to add. We have a unique situation today, colleagues, because this may very well be the last time that we will have before us either Senator Phillips or Mr. Nicholson, the deputy minister of Veterans Affairs. These distinguished gentlemen have both dealt for many years with the business of veterans, veterans' families and so on.
I think it is fitting and appropriate that we all express our appreciation to the Deputy Minister, who has truly been a friend of veterans, and who has made the passage of business through this and other committees similar to it in both houses much easier. Having served 25 years in the other house, I speak from some experience in this regard.
These two men have made the issues more understandable to the veterans and their families, who, like most people, are somewhat confused with the legalese of legislation. They have reduced the legalese to human, understandable terms.
It is very fitting that we express our appreciation to Senator Phillips, who has tracked so much legislation from the other place through to its fruition here, and to Mr. Nicholson, although he may be around for another two or three years since they are having difficulty finding anyone to replace him.
Mr. Nicholson: You are very kind.
Senator Forrestall: I just wanted to pay tribute to the two of you.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
Mr. Nicholson: Thank you all very much. It has been a great pleasure for me to spend the last ten years working with Canada's veterans. I am very appreciative of the way this committee has treated me and also my departmental colleagues.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, we have had a fairly thorough discussion of the bill. Is there any need for us to do clause-by-clause study?
Hon. Senators: No.
Senator Johnstone: In that case, Mr. Chairman, I have the honour of moving:
That the Senate subcommittee do report Bill C-61 without amendment, but include in the report to the Senate a special recommendation that the Government make the fair settlement with Merchant Mariners an immediate priority.
The Chairman: You have heard the motion, honourable senators. Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: There being no opposition, the motion is carried.
That completes the agenda for today. Thank you very much for your attendance and cooperation.
The committee adjourned.