Proceedings of the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs
Issue 3 - Evidence, February 19, 2003
OTTAWA, Wednesday, February 19, 2003
The Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met this day at 12:10 p.m. to examine the health care provided to veterans of war and of peacekeeping missions; the implementation of the recommendations made in its previous reports on such matters; the terms of service, post- discharge benefits and health care of members of the regular and reserve forces as well as members of the RCMP and of civilians who have served in close support of uniformed peacekeepers; and all other related matters.
Senator Michael A. Meighen (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators and guests, welcome to the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs. Today we will continue our study of benefits provided to veterans and, specifically, those benefits payable under the provisions of the Service Income Security Insurance Plan, SISIP, to members of Canadian Forces who suffer dismemberment. Committee members will remember that last week, we heard from LGen. Christian Couture, Assistant Deputy Minister, Human Resources, Military; from Mr. Pierre Lemay, President, SISIP; Mr. John Geci, President, Canadian Forces Personnel Support Agency, CFPSA; and Ms. Kathleen Martin, Manager, SISIP, Maritime Life. They briefed the committee on the details of how SISIP works and how it accounts for contributions from members of the Canadian Forces and the government. Details of an improvement — a lump-sum payment of up to $250,000 — to the dismemberment coverage of those below the rank of colonel were welcome highlights of their testimony.
I am Senator Meighen, from Ontario, and chair of the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs. I will introduce the members of the committee who are present today: Beginning on my extreme left we have Senator Terry Stratton, from Manitoba; Senator David Smith, from Ontario; Senator Tommy Banks, from Alberta; Senator Jack Wiebe, from Saskatchewan; Senator Norm Atkins, from Ontario; Senator Michael Forrestall, from Nova Scotia; and Senator Jane Cordy from Nova Scotia.
Today we welcome the Minister of National Defence, the Honourable John McCallum. Perhaps before your brief statement, minister, you could introduce those who accompany you.
The Honourable John McCallum, Minister of National Defence: Honourable senators, I am delighted to be here. I would like to introduce two people from the department: on my left is Mr. Pierre Lemay, President of SISIP, and on my right is Capt. Andrea Siew, Director, Quality of Life.
I have a brief statement, but first I will spend two minutes on yesterday's budget. I am happy to take any questions or receive any comments.
Early in my career as the Minister of National Defence, I discovered that we had what can be called the "sustainability gap'' — that our budget was at one level and the cost of the things that we were required to do was at a higher level. The current military leadership informed me that the gap was $936 million. After some analysis, I agreed with that figure. My primary objective was to work towards closing that gap.
I would like to thank honourable senators on the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, committee members in the House of Commons, caucus members, the Prime Minister and the finance minister for indeed closing that gap in one fell swoop yesterday. As of next year, there is an extra $1 billion per year for defence spending. That is one-quarter of the total increase in spending of $4 billion announced in the budget. We have eliminated the gap.
The second and final point I should like to make in respect of the budget is that this increase does not mean that we can sit back and relax. The world has changed dramatically in respect of security issues since the Soviet era, to September 11 and to today. Military organizations throughout the world are required to make major adjustments to this dramatically different situation, not to mention the rapid changes in technology.
We will be husbanding our resources, reallocating and shifting from low-priority areas to high-priority areas. We will be entering a period of transformation and making difficult decisions to take our military into the world in which we live. This is a long-term venture. However, now that we are short-run sustainable, we are launching on that next step.
[Translation]
That is all I wanted to say with regard to yesterday's budget. We are here today to discuss an important subject: the health, well-being and fair treatment of all Canadian forces members and their families — a matter that this government takes very seriously.
Since becoming Minister of National Defence, I have had the opportunity to see first-hand the tremendous work our men and women in uniform do each and every day, both here at home and around the world. I have visited our forces' members in Bosnia, in and around Afghanistan and across Canada, and I have consistently been impressed by their dedication, their perseverance and their professionalism.
[English]
All of us in this room understand the many sacrifices that are demanded of these men and women. Not only do Canadian Forces personnel make sacrifices in service to their country, but they are also prepared to lay down their lives for Canada, if need be. When they sign up for a life in the military, they accept this unlimited liability. With all that the Canadian Forces give on our behalf, we must be prepared to give back to them.
Honourable senators have heard before that the quality of life of the men and women of the Canadian Forces is a top priority for the leadership of the defence team. At this point, I might give credit to my predecessor, Mr. Art Eggleton, who held this job for five years. His first priority throughout his period of tenure was the quality of life. All of us would agree that, during those five years, significant advances were made on that file. By the way, we are not resting on our laurels, because there are further advances to be made.
[Translation]
A lot has been done at Defence in the last few years to honour the principle of putting people first.
Increased funding has made possible a wide range of improvements in everything from housing to pay and benefits to health care. But there is always room for improvement. I fully recognize that fact, and as you heard from Mr. Couture, we are continuously working to improve the quality of life of our men and women in uniform and their families.
[English]
I am glad to be here today as we discuss one important improvement that was recently made to ensure that Canadian Forces members receive equitable treatment; namely, a lump-sum accidental dismemberment plan. Allow me to briefly outline how these changes came about. It was early in my time as the Minister of Defence, even before I learned about the sustainability gap, that I learned about Maj. Henwood through the media. I have taken one action that you know about, and which I will mention in a moment.
I was not aware of this anomaly until I learned about it through the media, and in particular, through Peter Worthington.
This is something to which all Canadians can relate. There is something basically unfair in a situation where only the officers in the Canadian Forces get a lump-sum payment if they lose their arms or legs in the line of duty. That just is not right. That point came home very strongly to me when I heard about Maj. Henwood's case.
I should also say that this was not a plot by generals and colonels. This dismemberment provision was part of the package received by all senior members of the public service in Canada, and extended to senior members of the military. That is how it came to pass. That does not make it right that the more junior people should be excluded from this benefit. I think it is fair to say that they are likely to be in need of that benefit at least as much as their more senior colleagues.
From the beginning, I worked to try to end this anomaly. My speaking notes said that I did it very quickly. Well, perhaps by the standards of government — and I am relatively new to government — it was quick. However, I did not think it was terribly quick when it was a relatively simple matter. We now have taken that step. In the future, all members of the Canadian Forces of whatever rank will receive this benefit.
That leaves the question of retroactivity. I seized on that because, if it is unfair going forward into the future, then surely it is also unfair for those to whom this has happened in the past. I intend to exhaust every avenue in an effort to do something positive on this front. I have instructed my department to begin this process, and I look forward to providing you with an update on our progress in the future.
I can tell you that this process is an essential part of responsible government. However, it is not without difficulties and will require time. I will do my best to minimize that time, but it will be required for reasons that the officials who are here with me today can explain in greater detail.
I just want to make a few remarks about quality of life in general. The questions may go into that area. Our Quality of Life Directorate is busy with research and new initiatives focusing on various quality-of-working-life issues. For example, the directorate is now conducting an in-depth study examining the effects of operational tempo on our members and their families.
We also have a major new initiative underway to help members and veterans who have suffered an operational stress injury. Peer support networks will provide help to members and veterans, as well as their families. There are now eight sites across the country, and we aim to have another seven up and running by the end of this year.
As these examples and the recent changes illustrate, the Department of Defence is working hard to make sure that we put people first. The men and women of the Canadian Forces, who regularly put themselves in harm's way in the service of peace, deserve no less.
[Translation]
Thank you very much for having invited me here today. I welcome your questions.
The Chairman: Thank you very much for your spontaneous remarks. This shows a particular interest on your part for the subject we are concerned with. The people listening to us and anyone interested in this issue surely have taken note of this.
There are eight senators here today and the minister has to leave by 1:10 p.m. I would ask honourable senators to ask brief questions. I am confident that the minister, as always, will provide us with succinct answers.
[English]
Senator Banks: I am always anxious, as the minister knows. Minister, congratulations on the steps that you have taken. As you said, there is a way to go, but in respect of all of the things that you have said to us, I think that all members would concur that they have gone a long way in the right direction. You are very much to be congratulated.
I only have one question. You have already raised the issue of retroactivity, on which I suspect you may receive other questions, but you are addressing that. However, there is still a distinction, in the availability of dismemberment insurance, between general officers on the one hand and lower ranks on the other. As you said, it is the public service program that has been extended to general officers. In the new program that applies to members of the Canadian Forces at lower ranks, if I understand it correctly, the dismemberment provisions are in place only when they are on active duty in a theatre of operations. Am I correct? If so, is it a matter that is also subject to your further attention?
Also, could you give us a thumbnail sketch of what constitutes "on duty''? For example, if I am standing at a bus stop waiting to go to base, am I on duty? If I am pedalling my bicycle on the way to work, because DND has said it is good for me, am I on duty? Exactly when am I not on duty? If I am at a family picnic, I understand that I am not on duty.
Mr. McCallum: My understanding is that you are correct. I will certainly look into the possibility of changing this, but I believe we have accomplished at least the primary objective. If you look at the public service, senior people have this dismemberment insurance and junior civil servants do not. One could say that is unfair, but those are the rules. Within the military, I think the unfairness is focused on when military people are on duty. That is what makes them different from civil servants.
Senator Banks: That was also our question to you.
Mr. McCallum: The essential looking forward has been achieved. A military person on duty, whether it is in Afghanistan or on a base, will receive this payment. If a military person, let us say a corporal, is off duty and at a shopping centre over the weekend and something happens, it is not clear to me that this corporal should get better treatment that a junior-level civil servant.
I will look into it, but I do not think this has the same urgency in terms of fairness and equity as the on-duty aspect.
Finally, I do not know the precise definition; I would ask one of my colleagues if they could provide it. I assume any time you are on base, at the place of work, whether in Canada or on overseas deployment, it would count. If you are waiting for a bus to go to work, I do not know. Does anyone?
Mr. Pierre Lemay, President, Service Income Security Insurance Plan, Department of National Defence: I think the parameters are these: once you leave home and are on your way to work, you are on duty. If you were assigned to training or a course, whether in or outside Canada, you would be on duty. The parameters you set and the logic you were presenting relate to the details of what being on duty means.
Senator Banks: Thank you.
The Chairman: For clarification, is there a legal definition of that in the master policy? How would that be determined?
Mr. Lemay: It would be determined in the policy. We already have a definition in another policy for long-term disability, which is based on some existing orders. We work in consultation with Veterans Affairs. As you are probably aware, the benefits through Veterans Affairs are for on-duty, so we will ensure that the application of the on-duty definition is applied consistently. However, I am not aware if it is defined in the National Defence Act or in regulation.
Senator Atkins: Minister, I want to congratulate you for addressing this issue. I think it is very important.
Does this mean, under SISIP, that all members of the military now have their premiums paid by government?
Mr. McCallum: I know the members will receive the benefit. My understanding is that the government is making an annual contribution to a fund that will be built up to finance such payments, but that no insurance company is involved. Even if the fund was not fully built up and something were to happen, I think the government is sufficiently solvent that it would be able to make the payment.
Senator Atkins: Is that to the maximum coverage?
Mr. McCallum: That is correct, senator.
Senator Atkins: In your speech notes, you say that the improvements to accidental dismemberment coverage are a big step forward. However, I can assure you that they do not signify the end of the work on quality of life.
When Maj. Henwood appeared before us, one of the things that he raised was that in his so-called "recovery period,'' there were many expenses and family situations that were not covered. He felt that he was significantly out of pocket. The lack of coverage extended to his family visiting him in the hospital and having to paying parking fees, and his children, who might have needed some kind of emotional assistance. Is that what you mean by this statement?
Mr. McCallum: I am not entirely free to comment on Maj. Henwood's specific case because I think there is a legal procedure underway. As a general proposition, it would seem appropriate, to put it mildly, that a person in Maj. Henwood's position would receive all considerations of that kind. Indeed, the government should bend over backwards to help out in the kinds of areas you describe. I would again ask one of my colleagues here whether we are proceeding on these areas.
Captain (N) Andrea Siew, Director, Quality of Life, Department of National Defence: In fact, in the several years that have passed since Maj. Henwood's accident, a number of programs have been put in place to provide enhanced support to families of injured members. We have a family visitation fund available to provide transportation for family members, particularly if the injured member is not in the same location. A contingency fund is available to injured members for use by their families for a variety of circumstances. That is administered locally. As well, emergency childcare services are available through military family support centres across the country, along with a number of other family services programs that can provide that type of assistance.
Senator Atkins: To whom would these expenses be submitted: Veterans Affairs or National Defence?
Capt. Siew: These are done through National Defence. They are our own programs. We are also working with Veterans Affairs to provide enhanced programs for families of injured members, particularly on the counselling side, because that is an issue that we need to continue our work on. That is one of the areas we are currently addressing.
Senator Wiebe: Thank you, minister, for appearing before us and I hope I can squeeze two questions into one, as Senator Banks did when he managed to squeeze three into one.
My first question is really more for additional information for the committee. It goes back to Senator Banks' questions on the definition of "on duty.'' Could you furnish our committee with the department's or the insurance company's definition of "on duty''? When we talk about leaving home to go to work, the example works for someone who lives off the base. How about members of the forces who happen to live with their family on-base? Are they therefore on duty 24 hours a day? It is that kind of a distinction where I hope we could get some definition.
My other question deals with an issue that we discussed with LGen. Couture when he was here. We appreciate very much the minister's assurances that he is going to look very seriously at retroactivity in regards to dismemberment. We had asked if they have any idea how many people have been dismembered and discharged and he was unable to give us an answer. He said that over the last 10 or 12 years, there might have been 12 in total. Do you have any idea what kind of numbers you and your department are looking at?
Mr. McCallum: On the first question, senator, I think it might be better for us to get back to the committee in writing as to the precise definition of "on duty.'' I have asked that second question myself more than once, but have not yet received an answer. This is one of the areas in which the work is being done. My understanding is that not everything is super-computerized and available at a touch. It does take some time, possibly in conjunction with Veterans Affairs, to gather all of this information.
Capt. Siew: I can answer the question. After Gen. Couture left the committee meeting last week, he contacted Veterans Affairs and asked them to research and provide this information. They have been working at it. The files are all hard copy, so we will have to go back through those files manually. We are trying to get a rough estimate of the number of files.
Senator Wiebe: Are all those files at Veterans Affairs?
Capt. Siew: Yes, they have all that documentation. We will also need to work with SISIP, as well as with our own files, to ensure we have an accurate number.
Senator Wiebe: I imagine the insurance company is also holding some of those files.
Capt. Siew: Yes, we will also need to check with Maritime Life for those. In terms of dismemberment claims, Maritime Life's numbers are very limited, because the eligibility requirements to claim the benefit were very limited. Again, they would have to go through their documentation; and Mr. Lemay can also comment on the difficulties with Maritime Life.
Mr. Lemay: We have the same difficulties, minister; some of those files were put away. In fact, they may not be available for certain years. People have been working long and hard to try to get the data as quickly as possible.
When we have the data, we will analyze it and provide the best estimate possible to the minister.
Senator Wiebe: When you say "not available,'' I hope that does not mean that they have been destroyed. There is still some record?
Mr. Lemay: If we go back 25 years, it is possible that some files have been destroyed. I am talking about Maritime Life.
Senator Smith: Thank you, minister, for your appearance. I would also like to commend you on your leadership vis- à-vis the budget. To borrow a phrase from Mao Tse-tung, it is a great leap forward. It would seem to me that getting 25 per cent of the overall increase is no small feat. You obviously obtained half of the non-health increase, which is pretty good. We welcome today's announcement and encourage you to pursue the retroactivity issue.
I joined this committee about six months ago. We have heard many witnesses, and I have great respect for the work this committee has done. I have not really bought into the idea yet that we need a pause in overseas assignments. I am actually a big supporter of that. It has been a hallmark of the Canadian military for many decades and part of our raison d'être.
When the Afghanistan announcement was made, there was some speculation in the media about our capacity to do it. Given the people who have appeared at this committee, I have not yet encountered any officer or enlisted man who is not downright keen about missions of this nature.
When we were in Edmonton at the Canadian Forces base several weeks ago, some of us had lunch with a fellow who was 100 metres away from the bomb that went off and that tragically resulted in four Canadian soldiers losing their lives. However, it did not mean that he did not want to go back.
Given these rumours, could you tell us how you assess and determine our capacity to undertake a mission of this scope and your degree of confidence in our ability to handle it?
Mr. McCallum: Thank you very much, senator. I am an economist. My statement about half the spending was correct, but it was carefully phrased. We are half of the additional spending for the year 2003-04. Much of the health care funding is one-time and was put in the current year. When you get to the first full ongoing year, defence was indeed $1 billion out of the $4 billion increase.
With respect to pauses in overseas assignments, I cannot think of anything that would make our allies less comfortable with our commitment. I had not planned to raise that matter, but you mentioned it.
On Afghanistan, I get advice from the military as to what is feasible. Either the military or I say, "What about Afghanistan?'' I would then say, "We may wish to go to Afghanistan. Please advise as to what our capabilities are.''
For some weeks before we made that announcement, I knew what our capabilities were. It was the military plan, and it is precisely what we announced. We would send one brigade headquarters and one battle group to Afghanistan for two six-month periods.
There are other points that I might make. The military is a large organization, and as in any large organization, there will be diversity of opinion as to what the government ought to do in any given area. It would be surprising and unfortunate if everyone in the military were homogenous, with identical thinking and points of view.
We do find some in the military who are, as you say, extremely enthusiastic on the Iraq mission. We have another school of thought where some in the military would rather be on a combat mission.
The Afghanistan mission is very dangerous. It is a very unstable region. It is not easy at all; it is extremely difficult, but it is not pure combat. I have never met anyone in the military or heard anyone say we would not want to go to Afghanistan because it is too dangerous. Either they say that they like the idea, or they say, fine, but we prefer combat.
While it is normal for there to be differences of opinion, everyone in the military understands and accepts the basic principle that in a democracy, the military presents options to the government, but it is the democratically elected government that decides where to send the people. The army does not decide where to send the army, and no one in the army thinks otherwise, to the best of my knowledge. Everyone agrees that in a democracy, the government makes that decision, but on the basis of sound military advice. Therefore, that is how it happened.
Senator Forrestall: I will go back to Senator Wiebe's question. Over the years, I have had experience with the anomalies that creep into these things.
What happens to the serviceman who works for the volunteer fire department in a rural area and is injured? What happens there? Will you have someone look into that? We have heard of confused decisions, leaving a number of questions in people's minds as to where service people in that situation find themselves.
You say in your speaking notes on page 5, in the penultimate paragraph, "For example, the Directorate is now busy with an in-depth study examining the effects of operational tempo on our members and their families.''
Could you expand briefly on that, because that, in large measure, is what prompted the committee of the Senate to suggest that we bring half our troops home and allow them to get reacquainted with their families and retrained.
Finally, not as an editorial comment at all, I join with everyone in saying that in my experience, you responded vigorously and quickly to the case before us. That has led to an extension of trust that will give to others a measure of support that we should have extended a long time ago. It should have been apparent from the first.
Having said that, will we have to scrap a Tribal class to find some money? Where in the line documents could I find funding for the ship-borne helicopter replacement — the Sea King? Do you have at your fingertips a total cost at this time for Operation APOLLO?
Very sincerely, thank you for what you have done for veterans.
Mr. McCallum: Thank you. I appreciate your comments, senator. I will defer certain items to my colleagues here, including the serviceman working in a voluntary fire department. Operational tempo is clearly one of the major issues. When I first became minister and heard about the funding gap, operational tempo was a big part of it. One of our major priorities is to address that issue on the basis of fairness, equity, effectiveness and efficiency. In terms of this particular study, again I will defer to the others to answer.
As for the money for the Sea King replacements, I can assure you that even before yesterday, there was fully adequate money in the capital budget. Now it has been changed from two contracts to a single contract — "rebundling,'' they sometimes call it. As a consequence, we will get a decision faster and at lower risk, and, hopefully, lower cost. Once that decision is made, the winner will become apparent, the order will be placed, and the helicopters will be delivered over a number of years, hopefully not too many. We have anticipated this, and there is ample provision for paying for those helicopters. There is even more provision as of yesterday, but even before that, paying for those helicopter replacements was not a problem.
As for the cost of Operation APOLLO, I know that we had $270 million for this year to cover a number of costs in the budget. I do not have off the top of my head the total cost of Operation APOLLO since the beginning, but I can easily get that for you.
Senator Forrestall: I was interested in your opinion as to whether there would be enough to cover it.
Mr. McCallum: Do you mean looking forward?
Senator Forrestall: Looking forward and at the total package.
Mr. McCallum: Are you including the mission to Afghanistan? Is that what you are talking about?
Senator Forrestall: I am concerned about the rollover.
Mr. McCallum: We are committed to it. It will be funded, in one way or another. There is absolutely no doubt about that. There was a provision for $200 million for next year, a contingency reserve, which will be used to finance the deployment such as we are proposing for Afghanistan.
I might say that this deployment to Afghanistan is spread roughly 50-50 between this year and the year after, so that $200 million would be to finance approximately half of that mission. We do not know the exact nature of that mission yet. It is not fully costed. We had discussions, I believe yesterday, with German and Dutch colleagues, who might be our partners for a part of it, and also the Italians, perhaps. I have spoken to my counterparts. We are still in the relatively early stages. We have seven months to go before the people have to leave. We do not have a precise number, but at least a partial reserve fund was announced yesterday to cover this matter.
Senator Forrestall: I will not go any further, as long as you feel comfortable with where we will stand.
Mr. McCallum: We might have a little haggling, depending on the cost, on whether the department or the centre pays. That sometimes happens. However, one way or another, the thing will get done.
Mr. Lemay: I can perhaps address your first question. I suspect the scenario you have painted is someone who would not be on duty, and that is exactly the reason why SISIP was created. It was to provide insurance against non- duty-related injury or death. There would be full protection under the SISIP long-term disability and dismemberment benefits. I would remind senators that the primary insurance plan for Canadian Forces personnel who are injured or killed on duty or on operation is the Pension Act. If I may respectfully suggest, perhaps you should hear from Veterans Affairs to provide information on the benefits they provide for on-duty injuries and death.
Senator Forrestall: We have the devil and the archangel. I know where you are coming from, and I know where we would like to be. It is up to you, minister, to sort that one out. Somewhere along the line, the rules of engagement between the civilian and the military have changed. It once was that when you joined the military, you were on duty, period. You were on call 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. That is your side of the coin. You are the devil in the detail. "I do not want to pay it out if I do not have to, and if I can find a way to deny it, that is what I will do.'' Yours is a little different. Pay the damn claim and get on with it. Minister, you are doing it first class.
Capt. Siew: We have an ongoing study on the question of operational tempo. We have been using the term "PERSTEMPO,'' which is an expansion of operational tempo. It is defined as all of the time away from home. As we have recognized, it is not just the impact of being on a deployed operation in a theatre, but also the collective training — the training required before the deployment and the exercises that members go on. It is the temporary duty and the courses. It is all of that time away from home.
We also are looking at the impact on the workload of those who remain behind, because as we have members deployed away on courses, on exercises, someone is still doing the job that remains to be done. The impact on those individuals can also be significant. We have seen that in a number of focus groups.
This research is divided into two parts. One part is qualitative, using a number of focus groups. In fact, we have done 200 focus groups in all three environments, as well as in all deployed locations, to get a feel for or an understanding of what the issues are. We are now following that up by developing a series of quantitative survey instruments so that we can collect the data and truly understand the level of that impact. Because the information we have is anecdotal, we need to look at it from a scientific point of view. The survey instruments will go to members here in Canada, all deployed members, family members, the health care service care providers and former members. That will give us a true picture of the impact of PERSTEMPO, and then we will look at our current policy and programs to see if they are satisfactory in meeting the needs of the members and their families.
The Chairman: What is the time frame for that?
Capt. Siew: We have actually developed the first two instruments. We are hoping to get the analysis and report completed by December. That is for the deployed members and members remaining behind. We want to administer the survey to the families next, and we will do that in the fall.
The Chairman: Would that be made public?
Capt. Siew: Absolutely, sir.
Mr. McCallum: I might add that one of the worst things about the military, actually, maybe the only bad thing about the military, is the hundreds and thousands of acronyms one must learn.
The Chairman: We are learning that.
Mr. McCallum: PERSTEMPO is personnel tempo. I always ask them, whenever I see an acronym, what it means. It makes my day when they do not know, which happens about 20 per cent of the time.
The Chairman: You may want to adopt our practice. We charge 25 cents for every unexplained acronym. That went by me so quickly. I thought it was something to do with female members.
Senator Cordy: Thank you, minister, for taking the time to appear before us today. I too congratulate you on receiving 25 per cent of the increase in the budget. That is not an easy task, and I know it certainly took a lot of hard work and persuasiveness on your part. I also serve on the Senate committee studying the health care system, so I was doubly pleased yesterday.
I also congratulate you on the aggressiveness you have shown on this file on compensation for accidental dismemberment. You have shown great respect, not only for the military but particularly for the veterans, and I thank you for that.
I know that you are looking now at retroactivity. Are you far along in the study, or is it just beginning? Believe it or not, it really is moving at rather a rapid rate for government. Have you determined how much it would cost to make a lump-sum payment to service personnel who are below the rank of colonel?
Mr. McCallum: I guess that is one of the things we are trying to find out. The honest answer is that we do not know. There are two things one must know. One is the number of people involved, and you heard about those difficulties. We will find that out, but it takes time.
The second issue is what happened to each of those people. The financial liability depends on the nature of the accident. I cannot really answer you because we do not know yet.
Senator Cordy: It is information that will be a challenge to collect.
Mr. McCallum: We are looking for that information. We will get it as fast as we can and get back to you.
Senator Cordy: Earlier, you talked about quality of life and how your predecessor had done a great job in bringing that to the forefront. We have seen changes as we travelled across the country looking at the military bases. In the early 1970s, my sister-in-law started a centre for women. Such a centre starting up now would be for spouses or partners. That first centre was located in an empty apartment unit. Having been to Edmonton a couple of weeks ago to look at their family resource centre, I see things have certainly come a long way. I congratulate the department, you and your predecessor for that.
Operational stress injury is a challenging thing to diagnose, but certainly something of which we are becoming more aware. It is more challenging to find veterans who may be suffering from stress injury because they may no longer be part of the peer group that can help them to work through it. I know this is a new initiative, but what are you doing for veterans to, first of all, determine whether they are suffering from a stress injury, and second, help them overcome that?
Mr. McCallum: Are you referring also to PTSD?
Senator Cordy: Yes.
The Chairman: Excuse me, minister, and just so I do not have to charge you 25 cents, perhaps you would explain the acronym.
Mr. McCallum: PTSD is post-traumatic stress disorder. I am falling into the trap myself. It is an occupational hazard.
Again, my predecessor deserves the bulk of the credit because this work has been going on for some time. We have been putting a lot of effort and some resources into this area with the opening of a number of centres where a social worker or other people check all individuals before they leave and upon return. I think we took one innovative measure when the soldiers returned from Afghanistan. They spent a few days in Guam to adapt to the return to normal life.
My British counterpart approached me on this. He wanted to know how we did that. A number of countries are working in these areas, and we are, in some respects at least, in a leadership role. There is a cultural adjustment, too. People with these problems often faced negative attitudes in the old days. Certainly the leadership of the Canadian Forces is fully committed to working in this area with a positive attitude. More and more, that is the case with the rank and file. This is, in part, a generational shift, so people's attitudes will not change overnight. My sense is that there has been significant improvement over the years.
Capt. Siew: There are several specific programs that we have implemented and are continuing to develop. We are working jointly with Veterans Affairs to ensure that they are available for serving members and veterans who have left the Canadian Forces. Particularly as members make the transition from the Canadian Forces to civilian life, we want to ensure that the care is in place. Operational social support trauma centres have medical practitioners as well as peer- support networks. Those facilities are available across the country and are accessible to veterans or members who have retired.
We are introducing face-to-face interviews between members who are being released and Veterans Affairs counsellors through our own medical facilities. If they require additional support services, we can provide assistance and get them into the programs they need.
Senator Cordy: Are veterans aware of the social support trauma centres, for example? Are they made aware of these things that are available to them upon release from the military? Is there communication with those who have already left?
Capt. Siew: Veterans Affairs has a large communication program. We are working jointly with them to ensure that program information gets out to all of the veterans, as well as proactively contacting those who may not be Veterans Affairs clients.
Senator Stratton: Thank you, minister, for coming. I congratulate you on your budget and I would say it is about time. Finally, we are off to a good start. As you know — you are more aware than I am — we still have a significant way to go.
With respect to the issue of injured Armed Forces personnel, I would like to also thank members on our side, particularly Elsie Wayne, who has done a credible job. Senator Forrestall, over the years, has really pushed hard with respect to National Defence and the Armed Forces. Both of them deserve a lot of credit.
I would like to ask a simple question that I am sure you have thought about as an economist. If we have this new policy for those below the rank of colonel, what happens in a regional war, with significant casualties? I imagine that you looked at the long-term impact on budgets. Would that not be a logical piece of research with respect to this?
Mr. McCallum: Elsie Wayne and I are, to use a Maritime expression, kindred spirits in supporting National Defence. I phoned her and other critics from the opposition parties just before the budget speech to thank them for their support. We may disagree on other things, but we were together working for the cause of the Canadian Forces.
The short answer to your question on the event of war is that the dismemberment policy would be a liability for the government. However, were such an eventuality to arise, it would probably be among the less important liabilities that the government would have to face. I am not sure quite what one could do in a study. The liability would be equal to the number of people affected times the dollar-cost per person. We do have a number of scenarios that we examine, but I think this is a risk that the government is prepared to take.
Senator Stratton: I appreciate that. I just wanted to ensure folks who are involved that in the event of a regional war, with significant casualties, this information is on the record for them.
Senator Wiebe: Mr. Minister, one of the first conversations that you and I had after you became Minister of Defence was about a very special interest of mine, the reserves. We had an excellent discussion.
This morning, while I was finishing up my breakfast with my second cup of coffee, I turned on the television to the CTV network. Here was our Minister of Defence having breakfast downtown with one of the CTV interviewers. I was very encouraged by your comments.
In that interview, you said that part of this increase that was announced in the budget yesterday would go towards the reserves in Canada. Would you be in a position to elaborate on that?
Mr. McCallum: Senator, I remember that I discussed the reserves. I am not making an announcement now. I have said, however, for some months that I regard the reserves as a very high priority. I think they were a high priority before September 11, 2001. Since then, they are an even higher priority. They could play a significant role in homeland defence, since they are spread all across the country, unlike the regular forces, which are stationed at more discrete intervals. I have certainly indicated my intent to do something about funding for the reserves, should we receive significant funding. We now have significant funding, so I will be doing something. However, I am not prepared yet to say exactly what, because we must work on that. The budget was only yesterday. In the not-too-distant future, I will be making a more formal announcement that I think will please you.
Senator Wiebe: On behalf of all reservists in Canada, let me take this opportunity to thank you in anticipation. Thank you.
Senator Atkins: Minister, the full committee has, as you know, travelled right across this country to different military bases. One consistent issue we have picked up is that there is a shortage of military personnel in most of the units and a shortage of qualified cadre to train personnel. Can you share with us what you consider to be the appropriate strength for the military as we go into some pretty dangerous times?
Mr. McCallum: First, you have hit on two essential issues that will require more funding. The first is training. We have been very successful in large-scale recruitment. It is approximately 10,000 people in one year. We then bring them in but we do not have the people to train these new recruits. It would very discouraging, I would think, if one were a new recruit to have to hang around not doing very much and wait to be trained.
I have said that we had stresses in the system and that we need this money to be sustainable. One of the stresses is training. That is one of the things we will address.
The second point you mentioned, which is also one that we will address, is a shortage of key trades people with key skills, whether it is pilots, mechanics, or engineers, et cetera. The military is not alone in this problem. At the risk of sounding partisan, Senator Forrestall, when an economy creates more than 500,000 jobs in a single year in that sector, that is not bad. However, we must be more active in attracting and retaining those people. You mentioned those two things and I agree with you fully on them.
Senator Atkins: Would the level of strength still be 60,000, or is it more?
Mr. McCallum: We are committed, as the budget said, to a defence review. At the moment, however, there is no change to the official number of 60,000. Right now, we are somewhat over 60,000 in numbers of people, but we are only at about 52,000 in terms of trained, effective strength.
Lastly, there are rapid changes in technology. There is a project to address that in the army, but it is also more general. It will apply to both the navy and the air force. I am committed to this one. This is to bring information, communication and intelligence together, sort of one-stop shopping, so that it will be available to everyone — that is, to people in the field as well as those at headquarters. One implication of that is that the new army of the future — and the army has a very good vision of the future — is more what you might call "brain'' rather than brawn. Things will be more precise and information-based. That does not necessarily mean that more people will be required. It may be that we will do more with a given number of people than we did before. The short answer to your question is that there is no change in the 60,000 at this time.
Senator Banks: Minister, last Wednesday, February 12, we asked a question of Maritime Life about the sustainability, the certainty and the confidence in the adequate funding of SISIP. The actuarial people sent us a reply, saying that at the present time, SISIP's LTD plan is adequately funded, although it might be impaired if emerging morbidity experience showed that the estimated liabilities for future benefits were inadequate. Well, yes, right. If you guessed wrong, then you do not have enough money. I am assuming that, if the worst happened, the circumstances that have been talked about occurred and liabilities accrued under SISIP, as you have said about other things, the means would be found to meet those obligations. Is that correct?
Mr. McCallum: I do not know the details of that case, but I would say two things. First, the government has a responsibility to assure the taxpayer that it does not assume liabilities that are properly the liabilities of other parties.
Second, we have a duty to ensure that what is due to members of the forces, they receive. That is my answer to your question.
The Chairman: I wish to wind up, minister, with a couple of comments. The first is really directed to that question of retroactivity that you, encouragingly for all of us, agreed to examine and see what you could do about it. We asked for a report, which I am sure you would also need, on February 12, I believe, as to the numbers involved. Could I leave this for your consideration? Could we have that by March 14, which gives you just over four weeks from the date of the request? We are meeting on March 19 and would like to consider a draft report at that time. If you could do your best to have it to us by then, even if there are a couple of loose ends, so that we could have a general idea, that would be helpful.
If I could just add on one comment to Senator Wiebe's questions about the reserves, which you answered, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the one continuing complaint we heard is an internal matter. That has to do with internal administrative procedures such as processing people who wish to join up. By the time the administration is completed, it is summertime and they have gone off to do something else. It is the question of transferring from the regulars to the reserves and vice versa. It is the question of finding the records of former air force pilots who, having gone off to work for civilian airlines when they were — if you will pardon the pun — flying high, are now interested in coming back. Either nobody can find the records, or it takes six months. That just seems incomprehensible. Minister, if the evidence we have heard is accurate, I am sure you will want to do something about that. I will leave that hanging for you.
Senator Forrestall: As you encounter homeland security problems with respect to Atlantic Canada, a revival of the Halifax Rifles seems to be an appropriate suggestion.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, minister, for your patience, your testimony and encouraging remarks to us.
This concludes our study of SISIP — we have explained that acronym sufficiently — and the benefits to which Canadian Forces personnel who suffered dismemberment while on duty are entitled.
To those of you following our work at home, next Wednesday, February 26, the subcommittee will hear witnesses from DND and Veterans Affairs. The subject will be post-traumatic stress disorder.
We hope, minister, to have a report on that in the near future.
If you at home have any questions or comments about these hearings, please visit our Web site by going to WWW.SEN.CA\VETSCOM.ASB.
We post witness testimony, as well as confirmed hearing schedules. Otherwise, contact the clerk of the committee by calling 1-800-267-7362.
The committee adjourned.