Proceedings of the Subcommittee on
Veterans Affairs
Issue 1 - Evidence - November 20, 2013
OTTAWA, Wednesday, November 20, 2013
The Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met this day at 12:03 p.m., pursuant to rule 12-13 of the Rules of the Senate, to organize the activities of the subcommittee.
[English]
Josée Thérien, Clerk of the Subcommitee: As clerk of your committee, honourable senators, it is my duty to preside over the election of the chair. I'm ready to receive a motion to that effect.
Senator Wells: I move, pursuant to rule 12-13, that the Honourable Senator Dallaire be elected chair of the subcommittee.
Ms. Thérien: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Ms. Thérien: I declare the motion carried and invite the Honourable Senator Dallaire to take the chair.
Senator Roméo Antonius Dallaire (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: Colleagues, thank you very much for the vote of confidence and no dissenting votes. I am prepared to make my acceptance speech, but I'll defer to another occasion.
We believe that we should proceed with the actual organization process so that we can have a mandate to get on with work. We will take on the duties of steering to guide us into our future work.
Item 2 on our agenda is the election of the deputy chair. I believe that Honourable Senator Wells should be appointed as the Deputy Chair of the Veterans Subcommittee. Do I have someone to move this?
Senator Day: I would be pleased to move that he be elected deputy chair.
The Chair: Thank you for moving it, my dear colleague. Second? Agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you and welcome, Senator Wells, to this quite dynamic subcommittee. We're very happy to have you with us.
Senator Wells: Looking forward to it.
The Chair: Good.
I will now go through each of the motions on our organization agenda and ask for someone to move, second and approve. I won't read them because you have them before you. I'll simply read the title elements thereof.
Motion No. 3: Decisions regarding agenda, witnesses and hearings. We need a seconder. Do I have someone to move this motion?
Senator Nolin: I so move.
The Chair: Senator Nolin. Agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: No. 2 is a motion to publish the subcommittee's proceedings. Someone to move? Senator Wells. Do we agree?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Item 5: Authorization to hold meetings and to receive evidence when quorum is not present.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: I so move.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Nolin.
[English]
Agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Chair: Number 6, Research staff.
It is moved by Senator Lang:
That the committee ask the Library of Parliament to assign analysts to the committee;
That the chair be authorized to ask permission of the Senate to retain the services of such counsel, and technical, clerical and other personnel as may be required;
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be authorized to retain the services of such experts as may be required by the work of the committee; and
That the chair, on behalf of the committee, direct the research staff in the preparation of studies, analyses, summaries and draft reports.
Are the honourable senators in agreement?
Senator Nolin: Yes.
The Chair: Thank you.
Number 7, Authority to commit funds and certify accounts. It is moved by Senator Nolin:
That, pursuant to section 7, chapter 3:06 of the Senate Administrative Rules, authority to commit funds be conferred individually on the chair, the deputy chair and the clerk of the committee;
That, pursuant to section 8, chapter 3:06 of the Senate Administrative Rules, authority for certifying accounts payable by the committee be conferred individually on the chair, the deputy chair and the clerk of the committee; and
That, notwithstanding the foregoing, in cases related to consultants and personnel services, the authority to commit funds and certify accounts be conferred jointly on the chair and deputy chair.
Are the senators in agreement?
Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chair: Thank you kindly.
[English]
The Chair: Travel, Item 8. Do I have someone to move? Senator Lang, thank you. Do we agree?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you. No. 9: Designation of members travelling on subcommittee business. Do I have a mover?
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: I so move.
The Chair: You again! Thank you, Senator Nolin.
[English]
Do we agree?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you.
Item 10: Travelling and living expenses of witnesses. Do I have a mover? Senator Wells, thank you.
Do we agree?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Chair: Communications. It is moved:
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be empowered to direct communications officer(s) assigned to the committee in the development of communications plans where appropriate and to request the services of the Senate Communications Directorate for the purposes of their development and implementation; and
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be empowered to allow coverage by electronic media of the public proceedings of the committee with the least possible disruption of its hearings at its discretion.
Senator Nolin: Before moving the motion, Mr. Chair, I would like to repeat what I said at the steering committee meeting.
I do not feel that the quality of the communications services we are receiving from the Communications Directorate is up to our expectations. Therefore, I would ask, Mr. Chair of the subcommittee, that you, together with your steering committee colleagues, with the deputy chair, work out a suitable solution and engage the Internal Economy Committee to ensure we are given the resources we need to obtain adequate communications services.
I do understand, however, that, in the meantime, we have no other choice. So I am making the suggestion.
The Chair: You are objecting on the basis that our communications needs are not being met?
Senator Nolin: What we are asked, almost automatically, is to accept the idea that the Senate's communications services will support us in our work.
That is what motion 11 does. In the interim, I have no choice, but I would like to take it further than that.
The Chair: But —
Senator Nolin: I will give you an example, Mr. Chair. We have produced a number of good reports, but the last one slipped completely under the radar. Something is not working. Either we did not produce a good report, or the intended audience was not made aware of it; they did not know about it. I think the problem has mainly to do with the second reason.
[English]
The Chair: I would like to take good notice of this point of clarification with regard to the communications assets given to this subcommittee and that steering look at the nature of the problem and bring it to the full committee, for a similar objection was articulated there. We might then look together at the overall communications strategy for our committee and subcommittee, because the dimension of outreach doesn't seem to be clearly defined.
Senator Nolin: I suspect, Mr. Chair, that we are not the only committee with those concerns.
The Chair: I see. Very good.
I will accept the caveat for steering to consider and come back to this subcommittee with any conclusion that we bring.
Are there any other points on this?
Senator Day: On the question, I think Senator Nolin is saying he would like to see the chair and deputy chair go further than what is here. Moving this doesn't preclude you from doing that; so I don't think your hands are tied at all. This allows you to do this and is really to protect the Communications Directorate. If you want to go further, which I think we all hope we will, this would not preclude you from doing that.
The Chair: Very good. Thank you for that clarification.
Senator Lang: I'm not going to take a lot of time because we did discuss this in the main committee, but I want to re- emphasize that this is larger than strictly the National Security and Defence and Committee and the Veterans Affairs Subcommittee. This is the Senate itself and how we communicate our message through our various committees. I would suggest strongly that we have an obligation to speak to our leadership to see if we can get a common sense of purpose in respect of what we do, how we do it and what changes could be made in respect of us being able to do the job we're asked to do. With your assistance and everyone else's, we could see effective change.
Senator Wells: I note the paragraph under Item 11, "Communications," which says "that the chair and deputy chair be empowered to direct communications officers assigned to the subcommittee." I assume they've not been assigned yet to the subcommittee because we've just been constituted. Through our deliberations on steering and brought to the full subcommittee, we'll have leave to decide what communications assets we'll require so that we're not limited by this proposal.
The Chair: Gentlemen, I think this is a very worthy point. The fact that we raise it even as we constitute this subcommittee demonstrates the seriousness of our concerns over how the work of the committee and the product is reaching the potential clients. I would like to indicate that in steering Senator Wells and I will look at articulating an argument that states the requirement we think will meet our needs and will move that to the full committee. Subsequently, I hope the full committee will encapsulate that within the full committee's requirements and on up the chain. Together, we will punch something out that we'll bring to the subcommittee for your approval and then move forward. We're going to put something tangible on paper about this.
Senator Nolin: That being said, I am proposing.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Nolin. Do I have agreement?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: The time slot for regular meetings will be Wednesdays from 12 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. Before we agree, I wish to indicate our modus operandi. We tend to start at about 12:10 so that members can get a few bites in and to accommodate those who come from caucuses that finish at noon.
Also, we tend to respect the bell as much as we can, so as we approach 1:15 to 1:20, we come to a conclusion so that members can be in the chamber on time. That's the SOP that we've got in this time slot.
Do I have someone to propose?
Senator Wells: I don't think you need one.
Senator Day: That doesn't need a motion. It doesn't look like it on the sheet.
The Chair: No, it does not.
Senator Day: I wanted to clarify that we have a meeting until 12 p.m., so if this meeting starts then, I would be late for every meeting. I come directly, so I hope that 12:10 p.m. would work. Usually when the bells start ringing, it's difficult for us to have a meeting here; and that's at 1:15. It's typically about an hour that we have for a meeting rather than an hour and a half.
The Chair: We need to keep 12:00 to 1:30 for the staff to be able to set up and hold a room and the like and also for meals. That time is available. In extremis, if we have to push the limit, we could push it to the 12:10 to 12:20 time frame.
Senator Day: Thank you. It is difficult when the bells start ringing to have a meaningful meeting here in any event.
The Chair: Correct.
Senator Day: The second point is one for clarification. What relationship does the hour that a subcommittee has versus the four hours that are set aside for National Security and Defence, this being a subcommittee? If National Security Defence created six subcommittees, it could have four hours plus six hours during the week. There has to be some relationship. I wonder if Ms. Thérien is able to help me with that.
If we create a subcommittee that takes an hour, does that take away from the four hours allocated for National Security and Defence?
Ms. Thérien: The time allocated to a subcommittee is really a decision taken by leadership. I'm sure that when they decide, they look at the schedule and see what times are available. It doesn't take time away from the committee, unless that's what the committee wants.
Senator Day: No. Leadership makes that decision. That's the question.
Ms. Thérien: Yes.
Senator Day: If we wanted to create another subcommittee, leadership would, first, determine whether we could have it and, second, how much time would be allocated and when.
Ms. Thérien: Yes.
Senator Day: Not this leadership but the overall Senate.
Ms. Thérien: Yes.
The Chair: Not only the time but also when. If you remember, the Anti-terrorism committee met for two hours on Monday afternoons as a slot was identified. It is not cast in stone, but if ultimately we see that we're not getting enough time to do this job and if we want to take another look at that, then certainly it is the purview of the subcommittee to consider it and then to raise it to the full committee and subsequently to the leadership.
Senator Day: It's a matter of negotiation with leadership.
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Day: I think it was Official Languages and National Security and Defence about 10 years ago that wanted to be created but there were no time slots.
The Chair: And the Human Rights Committee.
Senator Day: Monday was set aside just for those committees. National Security and Defence has moved to Wednesdays at noon as well.
The Chair: Through its subcommittee.
Senator Day: Some of us were hoping to create another committee, but the argument is that it can't happen. This subcommittee doesn't impact the Monday allocation of time for National Security and Defence. I wanted to make sure that we all had an understanding of that.
The Chair: I gather that historically this was considered an acceptable add-on. I don't think the full committee ever offered up any of its time for us to meet.
Senator Day: We only met for three hours.
The Chair: Previous.
Senator Day: It was for three hours on Monday because there was an hour for Veterans on Wednesday.
The Chair: I never knew that. I don't see a link. The fact that we're going full committee for four hours is first class. If we screamed that we needed more time, and personally I think we do, we would have to negotiate another time slot in the week to do that.
If anyone ever feels that the subcommittee wants to bring that forward, please don't hesitate. The chair would be more than willing to discuss it and then bring it to the steering committee.
Senator Day: Well, many times we've not been able to finish the work that we're doing in the time slot for this committee, but I think it would be pretty tough to find another time slot.
The Chair: Would colleagues agree to permit steering to take a look at this thing, maybe look the fact that we're not giving enough time to this subject, and seek some data, some metrics, that give us some proof of that, and then bring that forward to the full committee?
Senator Day: Chair, I think you would have the mandate, and I would encourage you to do it. You know a few years ago that the House of Commons moved from a subcommittee on veterans affairs to a full standing, separate committee. We tried to follow suit at that time, but there was no leadership agreement to do so.
This is an important area that's not going away, and it seems a shame that it's just an adjunct in a tight little time slot, that we don't always get the work done we'd like to.
The Chair: Do colleagues have points on this?
Senator Wells: Looking at what topics we may consider, that would be an appropriate time to consider if we need more time or an additional slot or a greater degree of whatever it takes. But I think we shouldn't put the cart before the horse on making that decision before we decide what we're going to be looking at for this session.
The Chair: Very good. I'm sure Senator Day is talking from historical data, but I agree we would have to get solid metrics to be able to defend that.
Senator Day: I think it is a "cart or the horse" because we tend to determine what we will study based on the time slot we have available. If we had more time, we could certainly expand what we study.
The Chair: Are you telling me you guys have already got me in a chicken-and-egg exercise and we haven't even finished —
Senator Day: No, it's a cart and a horse.
The Chair: What a great start to this. Thank you, gentlemen.
Senator Lang, do you want to add to this?
Senator Lang: I want to echo Senator Wells. I'm new to this committee to begin with, so I'd like to have some time on the committee to ascertain whether or not we would even look at that.
I know Senator Day would agree with me in respect to everybody's time frame and the way that our schedules are. It's one thing to say that you're going to extend time or you're going to find another time slot, but when I look around the table, I find how many members are going to be able to attend at some other given time in respect to the schedules that are already set. So there's that, as well.
I think there is the ability if we do some travelling. Obviously that aspect allows us to do further work, perhaps not in a designated time slot on a weekly basis. But at the same time, in respect to what we're doing with the main committee as well as ourselves, let's give ourselves some time and see where we go.
The Chair: Well done. Very good. Thank you for that.
Item 13 is "Other business." I would like to reintroduce, and with your acceptance, to bring back our good analyst, Martin, to the table. We didn't have a choice, but we're very happy to have him with us, seeing as though he's got most of the corporate memory of our work, so I'm very glad.
[Translation]
Martin, welcome back. We are very proud to have you with us. You are a hard worker, and we are glad to see you again.
[English]
Just before Item 14, "Adjournment," I would like to ask around the table if there are any other items, and also a comment on steering.
Senator Nolin: I think it is quite appropriate that Martin is now around the table because on November 18 he wrote a note on the recent Veterans Ombudsman report, more specifically, the one that was released on October 1. I think steering should seriously look in that report. You will find that, as Martin is reporting it to us, according to the Veterans Ombudsman:
The most urgent shortcomings to address are those that affect the economic financial support provided to Veterans, especially totally and permanently incapacitated Veterans who are vulnerable financially.
I think it is urgent that we hear the ombudsman on that, and probably with the actuaries who made the studies that give the ombudsman all the evidence, and to report properly on the subject. I think steering should look into that. That's probably an emerging urgent situation that we should look into.
The Chair: Steering is going to demonstrate itself very open to counsel from the full subcommittee in regard to its work. Subsequent to this session, Senator Wells and I will be meeting to look at the work plan, as we both have put proposals together, recognizing we had this transition study that we want to bring to conclusion.
We can take good note of your point in regard to that ombudsman report.
Is there any other commentary from colleagues?
Senator Lang: I would like to follow up on this very real issue that Senator Nolin brought forward. My understanding is — and maybe Martin can brief us on it — that there was going to be a follow-up to find out what was happening within the department in respect to those particular documents.
Did you get an opportunity to follow up further on those public announcements to see if action was being taken so that we have some knowledge on that issue?
Martin Auger, Analyst, Library of Parliament: Based on what I've read — and I mentioned it on page 6 in the briefing note — the government has expressed the view that a parliamentary review of the New Veterans Charter will be initiated in the fall. As far as I know, that's something that has been discussed, and I believe the minister mentioned something to that extent.
The Chair: May I amplify on that?
I had the privilege of meeting with the minister over the last weeks, and he demonstrated a keenness of doing that review of the New Veterans Charter. I tried to offer to him the fact that maybe this subcommittee would be better to do that review than the Veterans Committee of the House of Commons — but that didn't go too far, I'm afraid — because of the far more non-partisan dimension of the work being done here. He acknowledged that. However, he also acknowledged that he wanted the study not to be a lengthy one.
Senator Nolin: That is my concern.
The Chair: To that, we did have a bit of a discussion, because the depth required of comprehending the New Veterans Charter and what it does requires a bit of time to bring people up to speed and also to comprehend the full dimensions of it.
I look forward to what the House of Commons Veterans Committee will do on this major dimension of the ombudsman's report, but I think we will probably be called upon to take a second look in due course, giving the department enough time to respond to the breadth of the recommendations.
The minister was rather positive to the ombudsman's report, and that in itself is quite a significant gesture, I would to say.
Senator Lang: There are two separate issues: One is the question of the charter and revisions to the charter, but other issues out there perhaps can be rectified prior to a revision to the charter.
The Chair: Absolutely.
Senator Lang: That's what I would like to have our analyst look at — just exactly what is policy versus legislative requirement changes. That way, we can maybe address very real problems in a short period of time through the hearing process here to get some recommendations and assist the government in moving forward on very real issues that are affecting people.
Senator Wells: I agree. I think there are things that we look at in the broader sense — the report and the review of the report, and any implementation of a report. But if I take Senator Nolin's comments, there are things that we can do that are more time sensitive that we should do.
The Chair: Very good. Is there anything else?
Senator Day: This is just a suggestion for the steering committee in terms of our plan. We should be thinking about having the minister come in and meet our committee. He's new. We have not had him before our subcommittee. Let's see what his plans are for the immediate future, because I doubt very much that he will say, "Well, I have this study going on and I'm not intending to do anything."
Senator Nolin: Time is of the essence. The ombudsman wrote, to quote Martin's document, "the most urgent shortcomings." My reading of that is those are not intended consequences, and we need to correct that. First we need to hear from the ombudsman and then probably the minister because the minister will sign off on any legislative proposal from the government.
But I think time is of the essence. We will have ample time to look into the charter, but I think we need to look urgently at those shortcomings because those people are there waiting for us, Parliament, to act.
The Chair: The charter was to be written with a very clear objective of giving as much flexibility to the minister as possible to meet the changing requirements, which has not necessarily been reflected in the actual bill. His review of that will be helpful in seeing where he can manoeuvre, or not, with regard to many of the problems from implementing the charter. However, listing a whole series of other activities within the purview of the minister — which will probably have some financial dimensions to it where he may have to go back to Treasury Board — is topical, and I think that we will want to take that on because people are actually affected by that today.
I would indicate that although we will bring you direction from steering, we are going to have a rather concurrent activity scenario, as I see it. One is that we want to finish the transition study, which is an overarching requirement for veterans as they move back onto "civilian street," and there will be practical things to be done without affecting the charter. That does not preclude us from conducting other activities, like meeting the ombudsman, the minister and other specifics, that can be brought to the attention of the government in punctual reports or papers to the minister in regard to things he can do.
I'm appreciative that you see this sense of urgency from this committee and that we should action and look at our schedule of work with that in mind. That's certainly what I hope Senator Wells and I will come to agreement on and bring to your attention secretarially and then move on with the work as soon as we can.
Senator Nolin: If we need to be more convinced, the fact that the ombudsman released a report in late August and then again the first day of October, it is urgent.
The Chair: Time does fly when you are having a good time, you are absolutely right.
This is my last round of business before I call for the adjournment. Is there any other direction you wish to give to steering or to the chair?
Senator Day: Good luck.
The Chair: My closing remarks for this opening meeting may be a bit different from other committees — and I say this totally unpretentiously on the part of our subcommittee — because we have quite an audience on CPAC at three o'clock in the morning. The reason is a lot of these veterans have problems sleeping and have serious problems at night, so we do have a significant following. It's not playing to the cameras, but I hope that we do express ourselves with the fullness of candor when we are in session. People are quite attentive to this committee, as their lives can be significantly affected by our ability to recommend proposals to the government to take action in the best possible time.
I feel honoured to chair this subcommittee with you and to acknowledge that we have people who are very dependent on the work we are doing and are attentive to it. The odd moment of comic relief will also be appreciated in this very difficult and demanding subject.
(The subcommittee adjourned.)