THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON VETERANS AFFAIRS
OF THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE
ON NATIONAL SECURITY AND DEFENCE
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, June 17, 2009
The Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, to which was referred Bill C-33, An Act to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act, met this day at 12 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Michael A. Meighen (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Welcome to this meeting of the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence. Thank you for being here, especially to the minister for coming back before us once again. We appreciate it. We know you have a busy schedule. This is an important piece of legislation. Those of us who had an initial look at it are hopeful we can resolve any outstanding questions today, go to clause-by-clause consideration and report back on the bill.
The members of the committee present are: Senator Kenny; Senator Banks from Alberta, who is the deputy chair; Senator Day, who has been the chair and the vice-chair. Senator Day has fallen back to just ordinary membership, but he may rise again.
Senator Banks: There is nothing ordinary about Senator Day.
The Chair: Senator Downe from Prince Edward Island is not a committee member, but he attends many of our meetings. That may have something to do with his particular interest in the subject.
Honourable senators, the War Veterans Allowance Act was amended in 1995 so that allied veterans who moved to Canada after the Second World War were no longer eligible to apply for benefits. You will recall that those had access prior to amendment continued to receive those benefits.
On June 1, 2009, the Minister of Veterans Affairs introduced, in the House of Commons, Bill C-33, An Act to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act, and it was given first reading. The legislation will extend benefits for these low-income allied veterans of the Second World War, and also proposes that eligibility be expanded to include allied veterans of the Korean War. Family members may also receive benefits.
Under the proposed legislation, allied veterans of the Second World War, who live in Canada and have for at least 10 years, will have access to War Veterans Allowance and associated assistance and health benefits. These changes, when enacted, will allow payment of the benefits retroactive to October 14, 2008.
We have with us today the Minister of Veterans Affairs, The Honourable Gregory F. Thompson. Accompanying the minister is Darragh Mogan, Director General, Policy and Programs Division. Since we have limited time, I will defer immediately to the minister.
Hon. Gregory Francis Thompson, P.C., M.P., Minister of Veterans Affairs: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think your overview of the bill is quite accurate and I am sure we will have some questions following my remarks. I want to thank you for this opportunity to speak to you about Bill C-33 which is an act to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act.
Today, with your help, we have a chance to right a wrong. Today, we have a chance to make a real and lasting difference to the lives of some of our nation's truest heroes. I am hoping we can earn your support on this very important piece of legislation.
Before we go any further, I would like it take a step back and draw your attention to 11 days ago, when nations around the world paused to remember a defining moment in the 20th century. Today, we know it as D-Day, the day that the light of freedom finally broke through on the darkest days of Europe's long history. Some 25,000 Canadians participated in D-Day, the most ambitious military invasion the world has ever seen.
We are justified in being proud of what they accomplished that day. We are right to be proud of what Canadians accomplished during the following two and a half months in the Normandy campaign.
Sixty-five years later, we know that D-Day was the beginning of the end of the Second World War. That is why thousands of thousands Canadians gathered in our largest cities and smallest villages earlier this month to mark the 65th anniversary of D-Day. Sixty-five years later, we have not forgotten it; we have not forgotten the courage and service of so many brave Canadians for their sacrifice. We have not forgotten the more than 5,000 Canadians who made the ultimate sacrifice for peace and freedom during the summer of 1944. Nor should we forget that we were not alone in fighting on the shores of Normandy. We must never forget the remarkable efforts of the other allied nations who were there with us on D-Day.
That is why our Prime Minister joined the leaders of the United States, Britain and France on the shores of Normandy on June 6. He was there to pay tribute to those who he said took on "the most dangerous task imaginable."
A total of 150,000 allied troops launched the assault on the heavily-fortified Germany defences on the French coast, and each one was just as committed to our shared values of freedom, democratic and the rule of law. In fact, a number of these allied troops from the D-Day invasion had been living in Canada before the war broke out and many of them came back here when the fighting was over.
Other allied veterans decided after the war to leave their own countries and to make Canada home. As a country, we encouraged many of them to do so. We wanted their talents and skills, we wanted them to help us build our great country and we promised to treat them like our own veterans.
For decades, Canada kept its word. For decades, we were unique among other nations of the world in the way we cared for our allied veterans. Only Australia could claim to be doing anything similar to what we were doing for our allied veterans. However, as the chair said, all of that changed in 1995.
Suddenly, in difficult times the government of the day broke Canada's promise. In 1995, the government decided to ask these allied veterans and their families living in Canada to make more sacrifices — as if these men and women had not already done enough. With the 1995 Budget, the Government of Canada stopped taking new applications from allied veterans who came to Canada after the war.
Canada stopped providing new access to long-term care facilities and other important health benefits for allied veterans. The federal government even cut new allied veterans applications out of the Veterans Independence Program, which we often remember to as the VIP issue. I do not want to tell you how devastating this was and those decisions were: Those cuts for allied veterans were simply the wrong thing do, and many of us realize that.
That is why in the federal election last fall, our government pledged to undo the cuts going forward. We know we cannot change the past and we cannot turn back the clock, but we can change the future. We can restore the programs cut in 1995 so these allied veterans never again have to feel like second-class citizens in their own country. That is what we are doing with Bill C-33. It will restore access for eligible allied veterans and their families who moved here to Canada after the war to the same programs available to fellow Canadians who served alongside of them.
With this bill, we will ensure allied veterans of the Second World War, who lived in Canada for at least 10 years since the war and continue to reside in Canada, will once again have access to the vital programs provided by Veterans Affairs Canada.
We want them to have access to the War Veterans Allowance, the Veterans Independent Program, health care and support, long-term care, emergency financial assistance and a dignified and proper burial where circumstances would not otherwise allow.
That one paragraph alone pretty well describes everything, senators.
We propose to go even further than what was in place before 1995. This is in an addition. We are also extending these important programs to those veterans who served with the Allied Forces during the Korean War and who live in Canada.
Again, we do not want to stop there. We want to see that eligible family members from both groups of allied veterans from the Second World War and Korea may also receive some these benefits. By reinstating such eligibility, we expect approximately 3,600 allied veterans may have access to a monthly income, health care programs and more. As well, as many of as 1,000 family members of veterans may also have access to a monthly income, emergency financial assistance and the services they need to help them stay in their own homes.
This is what our allied veterans have been asking for since 1995. They just want fairness and equality, and that is exactly what we are delivering with the restoration of the benefits and services our allied veterans were eligible for prior to 1995.
As you know, we are hoping to do this quickly. We are hoping we can have this bill approved before Parliament rises for the summer recess. If we can do that, we could have the implementation process completed within about six months, and that would allow the bill to take effect in the new calendar year.
We recognize, however, that time is now the enemy of our aging allied veterans. They do not want to be penalized for another six months of waiting and they will not be. With your support, our bill proposes that once these changes take effect, we can make payment back to October 14, 2008, a date that was chosen on purpose.
It is significant because that was the day Canadians gave us the mandate to act on our election promise. That was the day Canadians said "yes" to our allied veterans. We want to do all of this for the right reasons because it is the right thing to do, our allied veterans have earned it and because they deserve it. They have helped make Canada the best country in the world and, today, in a very real and lasting way, we can say thank you. Lest we forget.
Senator Day: Thank you, minister, for being here. Could you tell me why it would take six months to implement this program, and why it cannot be implemented immediately?
Mr. Thompson: That is one of the questions I expected, Senator Day, and I understand why we want it to happen quicker. However, we cannot proceed with the regulations until we receive parliamentary approval.
The legal rigor that we apply to every bill takes some time. The prepublication period of 60 days is all part of the process, so that five to six months is what we consider the minimum time required. I know all of you who are familiar with this process understand that to be the case.
We would like to be able to do it quicker, but unfortunately, we cannot. That rigorous process we all have to go through as parliamentarians is part of the delay — the proper scrutiny applied to the bill.
Senator Day: That explains that, thank you. In 1995, the government of the day stopped taking new applications, but all those allied veterans who were in the program and receiving benefits continued to receive their benefits, is that correct?
Mr. Thompson: Yes, they were grandfathered, Senator Day.
Senator Day: We are talking about from 1995 to the present time. You indicated that your election promise was to rectify the wrong. The wrong, if there was a wrong, was from 1995 forward.
Why would you say that your mandate was only from October 2008, the date when the government was elected? Surely the people who were concerned about this were all of the people whose applications had not been accepted after 1995. Was your election promise only that you would start once you were elected?
Mr. Thompson: That is a fair question and one that I am sure other members have as well. However, it is consistent with what other governments, all governments, have done when attempting to restore benefits.
It is similar to the Agent Orange situation. Governments always run into the difficulty of finding medical records that can be as many as 15 years old. Obviously, medical records are needed to substantiate the claim. The search for these medical records can be very problematic.
It is unfortunate that Canadad does not have a nation wide set of rules concerning medical records. In this situation, we could have a person in New Brunswick with medical files, while a second person, residing in Saskatchewan, might not have any files. I often say that in New Brunswick, doctors are compelled to keep medical records for seven years but it could be 11 years. As I said, that varies across the country. That would be very problematic because they would have to scurry back to get the proper records to do it.
The "clean date" in moving forward is where medical records are available. That date was chosen simply because that was the date where the Canadian people decided to form the next government.
In addition, — and it fits in with your first question— we will make it retroactive. Although we are not going to be implementing until early January 2010, it will go back to that retroactivity. The slowdown in the implementation will not impede the programs or the delivery of the program. In other words, they will be grandfathered back to that date. That is the reason why those two dates are out there and that is one of the problems we had in attempting to address it.
Senator Day: Have you calculated how many war veterans or families might take advantage if you backdated this to 1995?
Mr. Thompson: If we backdated it, I think one of the estimates, and this is purely a guesstimate, is something around $35 million. There would be a number to it, senator, but the number could never be substantiated until we went into every one of those individuals’ files to find out whether records were available and who would and would not qualify. That is the difficulty.
Senator Day: The figure you gave us of 3,600 allied veterans and 1,000 families, which included the Korean allied veterans, is that correct.
Mr. Thompson: That is correct — 3,600 allied veterans and I think 1,000 caregivers or dependents.
Senator Day: Have you broken that down between Korea, which is an expansion of the existing program, and the other veterans from the Second World War?
Mr. Thompson: We have, senator, but I do not have those numbers off the top of my head. Mr. Mogan has a number of 350 Korean veterans.
We would argue that based on the numbers there would be approximately 100 caregivers on top of that number. I think the total Korean veterans’ population in Canada is somewhere between 12,000 and 13,000; out of that, there would be 350.
Senator Kenny: Minister, you deserve credit for this bill; it is a good bill.
Mr. Thompson: Thank you, senator.
Senator Kenny: However, there is a concern about the gap that Senator Day identified. Did you consider an ex gratia payment, given the problems you had with doctors' records and those things — a lump sum payment to those who were deprived of this benefit for the intervening time?
If you did consider it, what did you take into account, and why did you conclude not to provide it?
Mr. Thompson: I cannot remember any discussion of ex gratia payments with officials where we actually considered making such payments.
Senator Kenny: Is it worth considering now?
Mr. Thompson: No. Well, saying no without explaining why is not the proper thing to do in this room or any other room in this place. It is the difficulty of the records in terms of who would be eligible at a certain point and who would not be. That is truly the difficulty.
When you do not have a break-off date that is very defined, that is always a problem. The problem would be that you could actually have a veteran or a widow in one part of the country who had all the records; then you can have a widow or veteran in another part of the country, where the records did not have to be kept in perpetuity, so the records are missing. Therefore, this one family is in and the other one is out. You could argue, what fairness is there?
I guess your argument is an ex gratia payment might fit the bill, but it is something that we have not considered. I am not sure that we would consider that in the equation.
In addition, the time factor, when they would have been eligible, is also a real difficulty. Some could argue some would have been eligible on the day the benefit was taken away. There are others who might have only been eligible in 1998 and some possibly as late as last year. In terms of ex gratia payments, should some get more than others. It becomes very problematic.
Senator Kenny: I was suggesting a common amount to everyone to recognize that they went through a period where they did not get a benefit that we all agree they deserve.
Mr. Thompson: I understand what you are saying, but I have just outlined the reasons why I do not think we would go down that road.
Senator Banks: Minister, I add to the compliments of my colleagues on this bill; I think we all want to see it pass. I have two questions that may only have to do with drafting, but whenever there are apparent differences in a bill, it causes our ears to perk up.
First, if I could direct your attention to clause 4 of the present bill, on page 2, which amends subsection 37(4) of the act, if you look at (4.1) and (4.2), (4.1) sets out a definition of Second World War veterans, and (4.2) sets out a definition of Korean veterans. Those paragraphs are identical except for all the words that follow the word "any."
In the Korean War, it says "any of the forces who took part in the Korean War," and the rest of the paragraph is identical.
That might be an apt definition for (4.1) as well. However, it continues with, ". . . any of His Majesty's forces, or of any of the forces, other than resistance groups, of any of His Majesty's allies in World War II . . ." Why is there a difference?
Mr. Thompson: At first glance, I do not have an answer. I do not think the officials at the table have the answer.
Senator Banks: I will ask the second, almost corollary question: Under (4.1), at the top of page 3, subparagraphs (b) and (c) set out two additional conditions that would apply to World War II veterans. Those two conditions, (b) and (c), do not apply to Korean veterans in (4.2). Is that an intentional exclusion?
If (4.1) said . . . any of His Majesty's forces . . . in World War II or in the Korean War . . . , and then at (4.1)(c), everything would be even and we could do away with (4.2), but I am not a drafter. Could we find out why there are differences?
Mr. Thompson: We have many different classes of veterans within Veterans Affairs. I recall a question that the Prime Minister asked me on November 11, 2006, to define a veteran. I said that a veteran is anyone who has an honourable discharge and has served his country. I said that within Veterans Affairs, there are 18 to 20 different categories of veterans, unfortunately. As much as possible, we want to eliminate those different categories of veterans. What Korean veterans would be entitled to versus a strict comparison of what a World War II veteran would be eligible for would vary. That must be reflected in the act. We will have our legal officials look at it to ensure that I am right on that.
I have been told that the Korean War was not a war as such. There were no formal allies in the Korean War. The Korean War was a United Nations effort. Those are some of the subtle but real differences between a World War II veteran and a Korean War veteran, which they refer to here, senator. We will ensure that an explanation is posted so that we have a thorough answer for the committee.
Senator Banks: I would be grateful. To confirm for the record, the term "Korean War" is described specifically in the existing act. It is clear that it refers to a United Nations police action. Thank you, minister.
Senator Downe: There is a residency requirement for all recipients of the War Veterans Allowance program. Following this act, will allied veterans be able to receive the War Veterans Allowance program if they live outside Canada on a continuous basis?
Mr. Thompson: Generally speaking, in Canada, the residency requirement is six months plus a day that applies to virtually every program offered in Canada. Portability issues have been raised in respect of this bill. That was one of the considerations when I had a question in the House of Commons in terms of speedy passage in the House. I guess this is my segue for thanking members in the House of Commons on both sides on wanting to move this forward, which is what you are considering as well. I want to thank all members of the house for doing that. The question on speedy passage and agreement was put to me by Mr. Goodale, opposition house leader. One of the issues that I mentioned is the potential technical difficulty in terms of portability. That is the issue that you refer to in the bill.
Officials went back to the drawing board and consulted PCO and Justice. We concluded that it was not a big issue, simply because of the age of those who would receive the benefit. That is your reference. The Old Age Security rules that apply in terms of residency will also apply under this bill.
Senator Downe: That is interesting. Did you calculate the additional cost for the number of allied veterans outside Canada? Under the previous program, the cost at the time was $1,700 for allied veterans living in Canada and it more than $8,600 for those living outside Canada because of the OAS, CPP and other benefits. What is the additional budget cost? How many veterans do you estimate will live outside Canada?
Mr. Thompson: For those living outside Canada, I am working with the same number that I provided to the committee in my opening remarks: 3,600 veterans and 1,000 caregivers. That is the only number we work with and is our best guess.
Senator Downe: You might know more about that after one year.
Mr. Thompson: Senator, as you well know, we took this to cabinet and this is how the rules of Treasury Board work. We budgeted $1 million, building in flexibility for the real cost. The number could be more or less but we have enough money set aside should the number prove to be 4,500.
Senator Downe: Chair, I want to discuss proposed changes to section 2 of the act at 1(2) in consideration of surviving spouses of allied veterans. It says that the surviving spouse must be a resident of Canada for 10 years. Paragraphs (a) and (b) are quite clear but could you explain (c)? I am looking at 1 (2)(c) in the bill, which states:
(c) was, at the time of death, an individual described in subsection 37(4.1) or (4.2), even if they had not resided in Canada for a total period of at least 10 years, but only if the total of the time they resided in Canada prior to their death and the time that has elapsed since their death is at least 10 years.
I would like to meet the lawyer who wrote that.
Mr. Thompson: It would be an interesting afternoon. Where I live in Canada, many people have friends and relatives in the U.S, some who winter in the U.S. We are looking at an accumulated total of 10 years. Conceivably, there could be those survivors who were out of Canada for more than 183 days per year in combined total of 10 years. That brings in those that otherwise might have been left out.
Senator Downe: That is covered in the first section, where you talk about the surviving spouse. Section 3 talks about the allied veteran who passed away, and I am asking about the residency.
Mr. Thompson: For the allied veteran who passed away, everything is contingent on the caregiver, whether he was a bona fide veteran. Everything flows from the veteran.
Senator Downe: I appreciate that. The first section talks about the survivor living in Canada for 10 years and then about the allied veteran:
(c). . . at the time of death, an individual described . . , even if they had not resided in Canada for a total period of at least 10 years, but only if the total of the time they resided in Canada prior to their death and the time that has elapsed . . . is at least 10 years.
The chair is a well-known Canadian lawyer; perhaps he could interpret it for us.
Mr. Thompson: I might take a stab at it with the help of Mr. Mogan. We are saying that there is protection for the survivor. The survivor is included if the combined residency of the veteran and the survivor equals 10 years. In other words, you could have a situation where the veteran could have seven years Canadian residency and the survivor three years residency because of moving or transplanting the family. The survivor would be included as long as the total is 10 years.
As you well know, survivors were not part of the equation in the early stages, senator. This is something that is good, new and different. You cannot separate the veteran from his family. This act includes the family.
Senator Downe: That is a good initiative.
Chair, I want to quibble a bit with the minister's history lesson about when act this evolved. He was right that the original program was cancelled in 1995. However, I have in front of me testimony from the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs of May 30, 1995. The then Deputy Minister of Veterans Affairs, Mr. David Nicholson, was testifying before the committee. In his testimony, he says the original act passed in 1930. On the second page, he says that the program experienced a significant growth in the number of recipients because of inclusion of resistance fighters in 1980. I will quote Mr. Nicholson:
Parliament was therefore asked to review the matter, and in 1992 decided that the basic intent of this program had been allowed to stray too far. Consequently, Parliament chose to bar applicants with wartime service limited to a resistance group, but it allowed those who had already become recipients to continue being paid benefits under certain restrictive conditions.
They carry on from there to make the changes in 1995. Minister, you would have been in the House of Commons at the time.
Mr. Thompson: Does that require a response, senator?
Senator Downe: No. That is for the record.
Mr. Thompson: That is for the record. The War Veterans Act was amended expressly to exclude resistance groups in 1992. That is the formal answer and summation of what you have said. We appreciate that history.
I know that in the last appearance before the committee, that was one of the questions at the end of the day. I was puzzled as to whether we were on the same side of this issue and was delighted to find out that we are.
Senator Day: My question is with respect to the transition rules in Bill C-33, the bill before us. The transition rules are in clauses 5, 6and 7. Could you explain why these particular dates appear in these clauses? I understand October 14, 2008. They are basically in the same time frame. Can you explain the need for those dates?
Mr. Thompson: I hope to answer your question and if I do not, I am sure you will come back at me.
The date of retroactivity goes back to the date — for lack of a better expression — we won the last election. That was the day we were chosen by the Canadian public to form government.
In terms of the implementation period —
Senator Day: But not later than December 31, 2010.
Mr. Thompson: We are saying we will be ready on January 1, 2010. I am not following you through the act, senator. Please point that out to me again.
Senator Day: Look at clauses 5, 6 and 7. The act comes into force January 1, 2010, but your cut-off date for various applications in clause 5 is December 31, 2010, which is one year after the act comes into force. I want you to explain that to me.
Mr. Thompson: We are on the same wavelength. You would have to apply within that time period for retroactivity. In other words, retroactivity would not be available if they did not apply within that one-year period ending December 2010.
Senator Day: They could go forward from the date of their application, but could not go back to the date the Conservatives were elected?
Mr. Thompson: It boils down to a one-year period of grace built into it to apply.
Senator Day: Is it similar for clause 6?
Mr. Thompson: I am sorry to interrupt, Mr. Chair. I am not sure if we stretch our authority in cases of extenuating circumstances. Is that possible? We have legal counsel here. I am not sure, senator. We will be active in ensuring the message is out in the veterans’ community so they will apply within that one-year grace period. Even in some past programs, we have reinstated or where we have developed a new program, we have exercised flexibility in circumstances beyond someone's control when they did not apply if they were hospitalized or out of the country for the 183 days, et cetera.
Senator Day: We have been following the Department of Veterans Affairs closely for the last eight years. We know that you are always sensitive to your clients or veterans that you look after. We certainly appreciate that.
Mr. Thompson: That is a good word to use around that place. I do not think we are sensitive enough at times. I am not referring to Veterans Affairs, but politicians.
Senator Day: That is why it is a pleasure to be on this committee. You do not have to look at the other clauses because while you were giving your answer, it checked and it is the same answer for the others.
Mr. Thompson: I feel good about consistency.
Senator Banks: I have two questions. One arises out of what Senator Day said. I am sure there is a simple answer, which I have not been able to find.
Referring to Bill C-33 in clause 1(2), adding section 2(3), it says:
(3) For the purposes of the definition "survivor" . . . a spouse or common-law partner is the survivor of an allied veteran . . . only if that allied veteran died after October 13, 2008.
I am putting myself in the theoretical position of a survivor of a veteran who died on October 12, 2008. What is the reason that I am excluded from the provisions of this act?
My second question is more general. Both you and Senator Downe referred to the previous act where there was a time when too many people were included. There was fraud that was partly because of the inclusion of resistance fighters. Are you confident that the exclusion in this act is bulletproof in that regard?
Mr. Thompson: We are absolutely confident. That is one of the questions I prepared for the committee. We have our legal counsel present. That act was passed in the House of Commons in 1992 and it act holds within the Veterans Act.
Senator Banks: What about the question regarding someone who died on October 12, 2008 who is not covered as I read it under the provisions of this present act?
Mr. Thompson: In circumstances like that, they would be covered under what we provided in Budget 2008, as you know. We brought in substantive positive changes to the Veterans Independence Program that included many additional clients, if you will. They would fall under that category.
Senator Downe: I am following up on Senator Banks' concern about the alleged fraud we had in previous years. I am wondering about the procedure for verifying military service in the countries in which these veterans served and the background documents.
You have indicated you have identified 32 allied countries for the Second World War and 21 allied countries for the Korean War. What protocols do you have in place with the department to get the correct information from these allied countries?
Mr. Thompson: Again, it is something that we work closely on with those countries, as we have in the past. That information we have is very factual and it is well documented. Of course, that leads back to the previous question in terms of the resistance fighters, because it is only in — I am having trouble remembering the term — national, recognized fighting armies. We are not getting into the difficulties.
This was all very airtight and predictable information. It is information that we have had for years following World War II. There are no surprises. Of course, the sharing of official documents within governments is something that we routinely do as it applies to veterans and their benefits.
Senator Downe: I assume the information for the Second World War is up-to-date, but what about the 21 allied countries for the Korean War? With how many countries do you now have protocols to share that information?
Mr. Thompson: We have information of all of those countries. Some countries that were allies in the Korean War were not allies in World War II, as you are well aware. Therefore, there are some differences. Our list is a very predictable list and time tested, if you will.
Senator Day: In terms of fraud on the system and the Canadian taxpayer, and the information sharing, when the application is filed for an allied veteran, do you check the home nation of that allied veteran to see if he or she is drawing a pension for similar purposes?
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Mogan is saying we will only accept official documents, country to country. That eliminates that problem.
Senator Day: Do you ask if they are on a pension from that allied country as well as them applying here for a pension?
Mr. Thompson: Would we ask that specific question?
Darragh Mogan, Director General, Policy and Programs Division, Veterans Affairs Canada: Only where there is doubt. We have protocols with the U.S., Britain and others where there are a small number of individuals from a country that may have served in Korea. If we doubt the authenticity of the document or whether it is certified, we will check with the embassy.
Senator Day: I am concerned about double-dipping.
Mr. Mogan: I understand. They do file income tax in Canada and we have rights to look at the tax records as a matter of signing on for the War Veterans Allowance.
The Chair: I did not quite understand that. Am I to understand there is no double-dipping? If I were an American veteran living in Canada and in receipt of an American benefit, is that it, or would I have access to Canadian benefits?
Mr. Mogan: In order to get the War Veterans Allowance, you have to declare all your income. If there were any doubt that all the income is declared — say a non-service connected disability pension under the U.S., or DBSA — we would check with them.
Senator Downe: Part of the problem was that documents were allegedly forged from countries. The department, I am sure, will be sensitive to that this time. In one country in particular, many documents were highly questionable.
The Chair: Minister, you referred to low-income allied veterans. Is there such a definition?
Mr. Thompson: That comes under the same guidelines that we use in any departments — any of those in receipt of the old age income supplement. I think that is the benchmark that we use, senator.
Senator Kenny: I have difficulty with Mr. Mogan's last response that he checks income tax records. If someone double-dips in two countries, what makes you think he or she would file an accurate income tax return? Why do you not talk the DVA, and ask if they are paying out a pension to the person?
Mr. Mogan: It is a very good point, senator. We check when we have any doubt. For instance, if it looks like someone should have had a service-connected disability pension and does not declare it, then we would check. We have other documentation, as well. We do not rely solely on the Revenue Canada Agency information.
The amount of money involved for War Veterans Allowance is pretty small for someone who is age 86. Where there is no doubt, we proceed and, on a post-payment verification basis, we will follow up on ones where there is doubt.
The issue about fraudulent documents was in relation to fraudulent documents from county clerks in a country in Europe which were probably mass-manufactured. We are not talking about the same here, where the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs or the Australian equivalent, as an example, gives us a certification of service and a certification of income. We will not challenge that documentation. It is where the person should be getting an income from the foreign power and are not that we begin to raise questions.
The Chair: Are there any further questions?
It may be the will of the committee to proceed to clauses by-clause consideration of this bill. I would invite the witnesses to stay for that fascinating portion of our deliberations. However, if you have pressing business on hand and must withdraw, we understand.
Mr. Thompson: I think I will withdraw.
The Chair: Thank you very much for appearing before us, Minister Thompson.
Senator Day: Mr. Chair, normally you will ask the question about proceeding to clause-by-clause and, normally, I think it should be standard practice that we not proceed with clause-by-clause on the same day we receive evidence in order to have an opportunity to consider what we have heard.
However, in this instance, the bill is not extensive. We have had two weeks to think about it and look at it. I am inclined to agree with your request that we proceed with clause-by-clause consideration at this time.
The Chair: Your point is well taken, Senator Day. Thank you. I think it would be in everyone's interest if we could do that.
If honourable senators are ready, is it agreed that the subcommittee proceed? It is.
Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 3 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 4 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 5 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 6 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 7 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 8 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the bill carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Does the committee wish to discuss pending observations to the report?
Senator Day: I do not think there is need for observations.
Senator Banks: I just remind senators that we are looking forward to a couple of explanatory answers from the technical side of things.
The Chair: We will follow up on the technical aspects.
Is it agreed that this bill be reported without amendment and without observations to the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence at the earliest opportunity?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you, honourable senators. I declare the meeting of the subcommittee adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)
|
