Veterans Affairs Committee on May 8th, 2007

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

When do you plan to table Mr. Marshall's report?

You say this in your speaking notes:

I want to emphasize that we are not in a position to provide you with the results of the Review today as we are fully engaged in the process of analysis and policy development.

Around what date do you think you will submit that report to the government, and when do you expect it will make it accessible to veterans?

[Brian Ferguson]

We're hoping to be able to do so in the fall of this year. We've been working very hard on the report for a number of months. It's a very complex subject area, but we're hopeful about getting something to the minister in the fall.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

You also say the following in your presentation:

To get the best outcome, VAC is examining how appropriate health benefits could be targeted to clients based on assessed need. We are taking a careful look at the appropriateness of disability pensions and low-income as the only gateways to access our health care program. For example, eligibility could be based on a combination of military service and need - in simple terms, a veteran is a veteran is a veteran.

I'd like you to tell me—

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Selection parameters?

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Selection parameters and other things of that kind.

[Brian Ferguson]

Yes. There was a problem with the younger veterans as well when we were looking at the changes that led to the new Veterans Charter, that the disability pension became the gateway to getting into related health services that are required relative to the injuries that may have been sustained in service to Canada.

Rather than having to come forward to the department and proving that you had been injured in some way, and linking that back 50 years to whatever happened to you at that time, the concept would be that if you're an older, frail veteran who needs support, we would find a way to place you on a continuum of need. In other words, if your needs were low, services would be provided in accordance with those needs. But if they were higher, you would get them based on the higher need that you now face. That's the basic concept that has been recommended by the Gerontological Advisory Council, and we're giving it a serious look.

The other aspect is that rather than constraining our decision-makers on the front line with complex eligibility rules, that would be the simple rule. They would need to have the judgment to be able to figure out what the right kinds of services are, but it would be a major breakthrough in terms of transforming the way we do our business.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

All right.

On to Mr. Stoffer of the NDP for five minutes.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Thank you very, very much for coming here today.

I wanted to correct one thing, though. In your second paragraph, you say:

In the early to mid 1900s, Veterans returning from World War One, World War Two and the Korean War were greeted with a suite of benefits and services to help them successfully reintegrate into civilian society.

That was true for many veterans, but it wasn't true for aboriginal veterans. Many of them were left out. In fact, they went back to their units or reserves or wherever and really didn't get very much at all. So I would simply caution you on that, because if I were an aboriginal veteran who read it, I think I'd be a little perplexed by that.

You said something as well that I couldn't agree with more: “a Veteran is a Veteran is a Veteran”. I'd like to only add one thing to that and say: “a widow is a widow is a widow”.

I have repeated this many times. I have a letter that was written on June 28, 2005. It is signed by Stephen Harper, the Prime Minister of the country, and it says:

A Conservative government would immediately extend the Veterans Independence Program services to all widows of all Second World War and Korean War veterans regardless of when the Veteran passed away or how long they had been receiving the benefit prior to passing away.

I have another letter written by, at that time, the opposition critic, saying “until the Conservative Party forms government I am unable to change the regulations to extend V.I.P. benefits to all Veterans' widows”.

The Conservatives are now government--it's been that way for over 15 months--so my question quite clearly is, have you been given instruction to extend immediately the VIP program to all widows of veterans, regardless of time of death or if they applied?

[Brian Ferguson]

May I answer your first statement about aboriginal veterans?

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Yes.

[Brian Ferguson]

There has been testimony I think in front of this committee by the department a number of times explaining the benefits that were given to aboriginal veterans. I would simply refer to that testimony that has been given, simply to put it on the record.

With respect to the second issue, what I can tell you is that upon the minister assuming his responsibilities, one of his early acts was to request that we launch a veterans health services review, and that element you have identified there would be included in the considerations.

Basically, he also requested that we not take an incremental approach similar to what had been done in the past, but rather to take a comprehensive approach so that the total result of this review would be a package that met the broad suite and spectrum of needs of a number of areas of concern, including that one.

That was done, and that's what we've been operating under as the direction since we started, and we're working ahead, as I indicated.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

The difficulty I have is that you indicate that this program, the VIP, actually saves money. So if a person served in World War II and in Korea--that's proven, he's a veteran--and if he has a widow, he passes on and he has a widow, what's the difficulty in extending the VIP to her right away? I don't understand what the difficulty is. If she's a widow and she's in her home and somebody passes away, I don't see what the difficulty is in extending the program. You have a two-tier system right now: some widows get it, some don't.

As you know, by the time we get this review in the fall, it will probably be next year before we see anything, and by that time, a fair number of these widows will have passed away. They're very frustrated, and so are we, because a letter from the Prime Minister, when he was in opposition, said they would do it immediately. To them, immediately means right now--not after a review, not after careful consideration, but right now.

I know this is a question more for the minister, but I can't tell you how frustrated I am that they're being delayed because of a review. A review was done in 1998--a health care review--and we're doing another one. These widows are getting older. They're getting frail. This system saves the government money. I don't understand why....

My question for you, though, on another aspect of health needs, is on hearing loss. I'm getting an awful lot of veterans in the Halifax area who have been turned down for hearing aids and/or a pension because they couldn't prove that the hearing loss was related to their service on board the ship or on battlefields. When they came home, they didn't go get a hearing test; they just went back to wherever they lived. Now, years later, of course, they have tinnitus or hearing problems.

Dr. David Lyon has said very clearly that there is a relationship between exposure to loud noise at that time and what's happening 60 years later. But they're repeatedly being turned down, over and over again.

I'm just wondering, how can we move that issue forward to help these guys?

[Darragh Mogan]

Maybe, Mr. Stoffer, I'll try to give a little addition to the answer Brian gave to your first question. This is a very important one. I can't presume to make any political statements, and I wouldn't.

There are veterans who served Canada who are not eligible at the moment for the health services they need as much or perhaps even more than spouses. So it's not that one trades off against the other. We have a very complex eligibility system. After 60 years of adding patchworks, it's very difficult for people to navigate through it, even our own staff. What we don't want to do, even though there is an imperative to move quickly on this, is, in a rush, make some serious mistakes that we'll be back here having to be accountable for later on.

I don't detect any change in the commitment. I do sense that a comprehensive review of health services that will get away all the barriers to good health outcomes, including those for widows, is, in terms of veterans, at the top of the government's list of things they really want to do.

I guess all I can do, from a public service point of view, is say that it does take time. I can't account for every second of time that's lapsed between the time it was written and now. But what I can say is that I don't see a diminution in any commitment there. I do see the desire to make a comprehensive approach so that we don't add yet another patchwork eligibility issue.

Hearing loss is one of the major presenting conditions for pension eligibility. The benefit of the doubt is there. If someone doesn't have clearcut evidence that their service was a causative factor in their loss of hearing, if they're in a trade, a hard C trade or whatever, that's likely to produce hearing loss, benefit of the doubt means they will get their disability award or their disability pension.

If there are problems on an individual basis, we'll look at them for sure. I don't know that there's sort of a system-wide problem. Maybe you could provide more information and we'll respond to it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Now we'll go on to Mrs. Hinton for seven minutes.

[Betty Hinton, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Thank you. I may not use all my time. I may share it with Mr. Shipley.

There are a couple of things I want to clarify. I believe I heard you say this earlier. You're waiting for recommendations from this committee in order to complete your report to the minister. Is that correct?

[Brian Ferguson]

I said that we would welcome input from the committee, Mrs. Hinton, and that we're striving to get the report done as quickly as possible. Everybody is recognizing a sense of urgency around pulling it all together, and we're doing our very best to try to pull a complex subject area together.

We would welcome input from the committee. The form of input, obviously, would be something the committee would be better able to determine, I think.

[Betty Hinton, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

It should be sooner rather than later.

[Brian Ferguson]

It should be sooner rather than later, exactly.

[Betty Hinton, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

This may sound like a question that has nothing to do with anything. How long did it take to produce the Veterans Charter?

[Brian Ferguson]

Do you mean the new Veterans Charter? I think it took quite a number of years, actually. There was work going on for several years before the intense work of developing a policy framework and the legislative package came together. Once that intense work began, it probably took about two years. I would say, all told, just off the top of my head, that it was probably about a five-year effort overall.

[Betty Hinton, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Okay. So a five-year effort for the Veterans Charter. This is by no means saying anything negative about it--I think the Veterans Charter overall is a pretty good charter--but I think you'd be the first to admit that we noticed that there are holes that need to be corrected. So if I heard you correctly, you are saying you want to avoid that, and I recognize that the minister wants to avoid that, the ad hoc part of it. We want to be comprehensive, so I'm in favour of that.

If you could personally change one aspect of the system as it is now, what would it be?

[Brian Ferguson]

I think I've already mentioned it, and that is to move to a needs-based approach, where we can actually eliminate all of the complex eligibility rules that say you have to have a disability pension to qualify for this benefit, or you have to have a low income to qualify for that benefit. If we could get rid of that and have a system that enabled people to actually just have their needs met, that would be the single biggest change, as well as to be able to couple that with giving the authority to front-line staff to make that determination, obviously within appropriate control frameworks and accountability regimes. But certainly that would be it, in my view.

[Betty Hinton, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Well, we're on the same page.

In your mind, having had the experience of going through the Veterans Charter, what do you think it will cost in terms of funds to accommodate exactly what you've just talked about? Are we talking about $200 million? Are we talking about $500 million? Are we talking about $1 billion? Do you have an educated guess on that?

[Brian Ferguson]

I'll answer first.

There's a range of costs, depending on which option you take. The options are in general terms now, but I would say they range from a very low cost to...overall, because if you do a needs-based approach, you can actually assign a benefit that isn't as expensive as maybe an entitlement benefit because you're giving what they actually need, not what they might have been entitled to under the old system. On the other hand, you will get more people in the club, which would increase the cost at that end.

So I would hesitate to give you a cost figure at the moment because I think it would be misleading. But I can tell you that the costs would range from I think a very little, incremental cost, if any, to a significant cost. But it would be less than if you don't change the system. We've already identified that if we don't change the system, the options for government at large are going to be more expensive to accommodate needs.

I know that doesn't give you numbers, but I think it's the reality of where--