I'll answer your two questions.
The first one on SISIP is a very good question, because it brings attention to what I would call a fundamental problem with the new veterans charter, which is that it is still an insurance-based program. The new veterans charter has felt bound to follow all the rules and regulations that pertain to SISIP, which is an insurance program.
That's why they determined that the 75% compensation for salary was logical: it's what SISIP has in place. We now have the fallacy of continuing SISIP rehabilitation and continuing the same type of financial compensation that SISIP is providing while there is a legislated mandate to provide rehabilitation for veterans through Veterans Affairs Canada's program.
I understand that the Canadian Forces and Veterans Affairs have been talking for a number of years now and basically trying to come--together--to the conclusion that SISIP should be eliminated as far as rehabilitation is concerned, and that Veterans Affairs Canada should be the sole provider of rehabilitation. When you are briefed by Veterans Affairs Canada and informed that there are so many veterans who are now in the rehabilitation program, you should ask them how many of those are really being rehabilitated under SISIP. You'll be surprised to find out that probably 55% of the people who are under the rehabilitation program are under the SISIP program, while 45% are probably under Veteran Affairs Canada's program.
The SISIP clawback is unfair; you are quite right. We have said so, you have said so, the Senate has said so, and two ombudsmen have said so, yet here we are, facing a legal intervention. It doesn't make sense. It should be eliminated. I don't know what else to say.
Going back to long-term care, how do we ensure that veterans have access to long-term care? Well, there's a simple way. Under the current system, in 17 or 18 of the large contract facilities, there are beds that are reserved for veterans. Those are called priority access beds. The challenge or the dilemma is that because modern veterans don't have access to long-term care, and because among the traditional veterans some attrition unfortunately is taking place because of aging, there are now some empty beds. This is happening at Ste. Anne's right now. It will continue to happen.
For Ste. Anne's, at least, we're trying to suggest to the government that all those beds—I think it's 426 beds that are at Ste. Anne's right now—should continue to maintain their designation as priority access beds. This means that they should be reserved for veterans, letting normal attrition run through until there is less demand for these beds and then providing access to community residents.
Along the same lines, Ste. Anne's has a beautiful day program that looks after veterans who are not ready for institutionalization. They are coming to the day program and are actually reducing the cost for Veterans Affairs. We're not sure if the Province of Quebec has the same mandate to provide a day program; I suspect they haven't. Other provincial authorities do provide day programs, again saving costs and retarding institutionalization, but eventually institutionalization might happen in some of these cases.
In the continuing transition as attrition takes place in all of the larger facilities reserved for veterans across the country, I think the solution to is that there should be some attempt by Veterans Affairs to reserve these beds—maybe not as many as we have now, but a percentage of them—for the modern veteran, anticipating that they and their spouses will access them one day.