Veterans Affairs Committee on June 8th, 2006

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Minister.

I'm just filling in for Mr. Peter Stoffer, of course, who's very active in this area and certainly has a passion for this.

I was interested in the discussion about the clawback, because it certainly has come up during the election campaign. People are concerned about that issue.

You talked about the cost of changing this so that it would work better. Do you have some studies or information that you could share with us on the cost of what this would mean to the government to take a different tack on the clawback?

[Greg Thompson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Well, I don't. I could get that figure. Actually, today, in looking over my notes, I can't recall looking at that cost, because it extends way beyond the Department of Veterans Affairs to all government departments. But I'm sure that the Department of Finance, Minister Flaherty, could provide that figure, because obviously anything like that has an impact on the treasury. The finance minister would have those numbers available, and I'll certainly request those and get those and provide them to you. I'm sure that Treasury Board would have those numbers as well. But for the individual department, I haven't seen those numbers, anyway.

The cost is real. I can't tell you what it would be, but we know it would be substantial, or governments would just simply do it. In referring and speaking to Mr. Thibault on the same question as a minister of the crown, it is something that previous governments have all grappled with but have never done.

I do know the member you're replacing, Peter Stoffer, does have a private member's bill before the House. That's the bill that Mr. Stoffer...I don't want to use the word “habitually”, because it doesn't sound as positive as it should, but it's a cause that he has had for a number of years and it's a bill that he throws in every year. It's one of the first things he met me on when I was sworn in as minister.

But I'll get some precise numbers for you. I think it's only fair that I do that. So I'll just leave it at that for now.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Okay.

Are there any other courses of action that could be taken to alleviate the impacts of the clawback without it becoming such a government-wide endeavour? Is there some way we could look at relief to these veterans that would be restricted to the armed forces and to the police?

[Greg Thompson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Veterans Affairs does a number of things. For example, we do not claw back disability awards. When you take a look at the benefit that would go to the widow or spouse of a soldier killed in action, it's $250,000 that is tax-free. If it's a permanent disability, it would be $250,000 tax-free. Other benefits that flow from Veterans Affairs are real benefits to the families.

It's a tough one to argue in public, because all of us want to do the best we can, but at the end of the day the government and taxpayers have to pay the bill. I'll get the numbers so that we can more intelligently go through those numbers, but at the end of the day it would be a cost incurred by the taxpayers of Canada.

I will tell you this. In the way that any of the programs work, the argument would be that if we are going to do that, the pension benefit would have to be somehow altered to allow it to happen. Part of the equation that you and I as individual citizens sometimes forget about is the fact that in all of the pension plans, if you will, or in any of these benefit plans, the employee and the employer always pay into them. It occurs for unemployment insurance premiums as well. We often forget that the employer is paying more than the employee, at a ration of two to one. Pension plans are somewhat the same way, and it's not only moneys contributed by the individual. An adjustment would have to be made along the way if that in fact happened.

As we say back home, there ain't no free lunch. That's not to say we would not like to see it.

I'm not saying this in a pejorative way, but when you take ownership of government, your views on some of these things change. At the end of the day, you're responsible for balancing the books and spending in appropriate ways that are consistent with good practices. I'm suggesting it's one that responsible governments grapple with, and my reply to Mr. Thibault is the same thing. We've never come up with a satisfactory answer.

I'll leave it at that for now, Mr. Bevington.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Thank you, gentlemen.

We'll go to Mrs. Hinton for seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Minister, for appearing today. I very much appreciate that you came.

Congratulations on your appointment. I must tell you that it's a pleasure to work with someone who is as caring as you are regarding veterans issues.

Minister, I would like to ask you about our campaign promises and how you plan to fulfill them during your tenure as a minister.

The first and the biggest promise we made was for a bill of rights and an ombudsman for veterans. These initiatives would amount to some pretty sweeping changes with regard to the services that veterans receive from the department. We've heard from witnesses both from your department and from the Royal Canadian Legion on this topic. There still seems to be a lot of room for discussion. Can you tell the committee your thoughts on how the bill of rights and an ombudsman for veterans will proceed under your leadership?

[Greg Thompson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Thank you.

That question is one I've been asked a fair amount by a lot of veterans groups, and you're absolutely right, it's a commitment we made during the campaign that we would deal with these two issues and bring in an ombudsman and a bill of rights.

Obviously, those are two commitments we made that we're going to honour. Now we can speak specifically of the ombudsman and the bill of rights, but I will tell you that we will consult with our veterans groups. In fact, this week the department met with all the major stakeholders, if you will, and individual veterans. So we're consulting very widely and we're examining other jurisdictions so that when we do it, we'll get it right.

Some of those jurisdictions have a great reputation in terms of how they deal with their veterans, as does Canada. Some of those countries do have a bill of rights and some of them do have ombudsmen. Among those jurisdictions that have some of the models and that the department has already consulted are Australia, United States, and Great Britain. They've gone to some of those jurisdictions to examine what they have versus what we might consider.

What encourages me.... The other night we met with the veterans groups and we broke bread together, as I often say. We had a chance in a setting somewhat like this to sit down over a meal and talk about some of the challenges there. We met with the Royal Canadian Legion president, Mary Ann Burdett, and most interesting of all, with Cliff Chadderton, who was actually involved with the committee stage back in the Parliament of Canada some 40 years ago, when it discussed how the office of an ombudsman would work, if you will. It's quite refreshing that time doesn't change a lot of things. There have been a lot of changes in 40 years, but some of the proposals they were considering back at that time are still relevant.

In the talks we have engaged a lot of people, and what we say is that nothing is etched in stone. I do know it is something the committee is going to look at as well, so we need your input. And, Mr. Chair, I know your committee is focused on helping us on that issue.

As we say, the book is still open. When we do it, we want to get it right, and we will get it right with your help.

Thank you.

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

Another promise we made during the campaign was a resolution of the Agent Orange issue. I know how near and dear this is to your heart.

Minister, as you know, there are people who got very sick as a result of Agent Orange spraying back in the 1960s. Successive governments have failed to address this issue since it first came to light. The Prime Minister said during the campaign that full and fair compensation will be given to those who got sick from Agent Orange.

Can you tell us what your department is doing to live up to the campaign promise we made on this issue?

[Greg Thompson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, I'm getting all the tough questions from the woman who is supposed to give me the easy ones. I thought this would be the question coming from Mr. Thibault when we started, because he's been after me on this one a few times.

The truth is it's a very complicated equation. As you well know, we are dedicated to a resolution to it, in all fairness, Mr. Chair. As you well know, this is an issue that's been around for fifty-some years, going back to the early days of CF Base Gagetown in New Brunswick, the spraying of herbicides and defoliants over the course of some of those years. Some of them are registered, some of them are not. But it's one where we're not going to be like successive governments, and I'm not saying that in a pejorative way either, because not all governments were Liberal and not all governments were Conservative, but the fact is that none of those governments in that fifty-some-year period dealt with it. Why? Because it's complicated and it's a difficult issue, so governments sometimes prefer to walk away from difficult issues. It's one we're not going to walk away from.

As you well know, our mandate is to deliver the compensation package to the veterans and civilians who were exposed. DND's role in this, the Department of National Defence, is that they're going out on a fact-finding mission, if you will. There are a number of tests that are ongoing, and the results of some of those tests have already come in. They've been delivered to us, if you will, for examination, and to the Department of National Defence. So we're working very cooperatively with National Defence on this file.

What I say, and have consistently said, is that a resolution to this is going to be knowledge-based, because previous governments have had a terrible habit of announcing programs and compensation plans and what not without thinking it through to its logical conclusion, if you will. Again, I'm not pointing fingers at individual governments. But we don't want the proceeds of a compensation plan to flow to lawyers and get tied up in a lot of legalese and roadblocks, which sometimes occur at all government levels when you get into a plan that has not been well thought out and knowledge-based.

By knowledge-based, I mean we're going to make sure that we have the scientific and medical evidence on which to build our case and build the plan, and we're going to make sure that we do the research necessary in terms of the human involvement, in terms of tracking the soldiers and the civilians on the base. It's very complicated, and I don't think I have to state any more than that, because all of you, I think is what I'm trying to say, understand just exactly how complex it is.

Veterans Affairs has a number of compensation models we're looking at, and I still believe we'll be in a position to present probably two cabinet compensation models sometime late in the fall, early new year, providing something doesn't unexpectedly happen at the base. There have been a few surprises in terms of some of the medical results or scientific results coming in, but for the most part we're pretty comfortable.

I have some of my experts with me from the department. This is where Veterans Affairs is really good in delivery of these types of programs. So we can tweak them or fine-tune them as we go along, but basically we believe that we can take a proposal to cabinet sometime later this fall or in the new year. So we're well on the way.

If any of the members want to get into the specifics on Agent Orange and the U.S. model and our model, and so on, I'll do that, because it gets complicated when you're talking and comparing a pension plan versus a compensation plan. Given the time, I'm more than pleased to get into some of the nitty-gritty detail or the differences in some of those plans, if you will.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Thank you very much, Mr. Minister.

Now over to our Liberal friends. Mr. Rota for five minutes.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for coming out, Minister.

I have two questions. I'll ask them both and then let you run with both of them, because I know if I just ask one, we'll run out of time. This is my way of getting it in.

One of the most heartbreaking parts of being an MP is being in your constituency office and having a widow or a caregiver come asking for help because they've run out and they're at a point where they can't support themselves any more. At this point there are approximately 94,000 veterans' widows and primary caregivers who receive the veterans independence program. It's known as the VIP, as you well know. But some 250,000 survivors do not receive these benefits.

While extending VIP to widows or caregivers of veterans who died before 1981 is one option--one that I think we should seriously consider--are there any plans of giving widows or other caregivers of veterans access to a greater range of VIP benefits, other than the ones just for housekeeping and grounds maintenance? There's a two-pronged question there. Are we extending it, and are we expanding it?

I have a second question. Only widows or caregivers of veterans receiving VIP benefits are eligible for them at the time of their death. So if you weren't receiving them when your spouse who was a veteran passed away, you don't get them later on. But many of these people are of another generation, in which the spouse normally stayed at home and kept a family going. Now all of a sudden they're older, and they probably didn't get a job that paid a lot; they sustained a family. And now they don't get those benefits.

Is there any way of extending it beyond those who passed away prior to 1981? That's the second question.

[Greg Thompson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

It's a good question. Actually the department, including me personally, has paid a lot of attention to that.

The VIP program, as you well know, is in one sense a cost-saving measure for the Government of Canada, because it's a good program that allows veterans to live at home in dignity, postponing, if you will.... I guess living at home might be a better way to express it; the care they get at home is always much better than institutional care. So it's a program that's a great success.

In terms of extending the program, those are numbers that we have gone over. In fact, we've had a number of meetings on what the Government of Canada can do if you extend it this far, extend it logically out to where you would like to see it extended.

I'll just give you some numbers here, Anthony, so that you'll know. We have 86,000 war-service veterans who have overseas service who are ineligible for VIP service. That's a big number. The estimated cost of providing VIP services--including home care, long-term care, community beds, and related treatment costs--to all of those currently ineligible, including the widows and caregivers, would be $500 million a year. So again, it's something that we all, I think, would like to do. It's a case of how you manage that cost and how far out you want to extend it.

I do know that previous governments have moved it along a little, but we're still not where we want to be on it. Let's put it that way, to be very honest with you. So at the end of the day, I guess the short answer to your question would be that the cost to the government would be about $500 million a year to extend it to where people like us would like to see it. That would be at some point a decision that the government of the day would have to make.

Again, going back to the previous government, those are some of the decisions the previous government made in terms of the affordability of the delivery of that program.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

I agree with you. It's something that's very expensive. When you talk about $500 million, you're talking figures, numbers. But when you get a widow sitting in your office, and she doesn't have the services and she doesn't have the means to sustain herself because she put the interests of her children and her husband ahead of her own over the years, statistics don't mean a darn. And that's where it really hurts.

I'm just wondering, is there any way we can make this happen? Because it would be a very worthwhile program, and I know it would be very appreciated, regardless of the cost.

[Greg Thompson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

I think we can. I can't answer when any of this will happen, or if it will ever happen. I do think that we can do some of that in incremental steps, where we can bite off smaller pieces, if you will, and address some of the needs, because again at the end of the day, if you're going to Treasury Board for an additional $500 million, that's a fairly significant amount of money.

I believe the last big change, if I'm not mistaken, was in 2005, when the previous government extended the program out somewhat, but not probably enough to make either one of us happy, Anthony, in terms of that widow who is coming into the office. We've all experienced that and we all get into situations.

Some amendments made in 2003 cost the then-government of the day $170 million, and the projected five-year cost of some of the amendments back earlier were something in the order of $67 million. So there is a price tag to all of this. As the Minister of Veterans Affairs, it's something I do think about, because we want to provide those widows and their families with the best care possible, but at the end of the day there is a price tag to it.

I will say this: we do better than most, if not all, of the western countries in the world in terms of our right to appeal. We give our veterans one of the best support systems in the world, and again, it would have to be just a critical look in terms of what is affordable by the Government of Canada. Those are real numbers that I'm throwing at you, and those are real people who you see going into your office as well. So we're going to try to make the two meet in terms of how we better deliver some of those programs.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Now over to the Bloc. Monsieur Gaudet.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. I am pleased to be part of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.

Earlier you said that, when the government changes, there is a new vision. Do we have a real Minister of Veterans Affairs or do we have a minister who is under the control of the Minister of National Defence?

[Greg Thompson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

I missed the first part of that. I apologize, Mr. Gaudet. I just got the tail-end of that question. Something happened there.

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Repeat the question.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

With pleasure.

Mr. Minister, earlier you said that, when the government changes, there is a new vision. Do we have a real Minister of Veterans Affairs or do we have a minister who is under the control of the Minister of National Defence? Under the other government,

[Greg Thompson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Obviously, there is a separation of powers here. I can't understand the question, because I don't think there would be any indication there that we're in any way under the control of the Minister of Defence, because we deliver a service independently of National Defence. We have a lot of cooperation between the two departments.

We set our own agenda, and we are dealing the best way we can with veterans. We have a budget, which is a stand-alone budget, and I went through some of those numbers today. So we're committed to the best delivery service for our veterans, respecting what DND does. But they're definitely two separate departments, with mandates given by the Prime Minister to the respective ministers.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

At the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, 7,500 cases have not been heard. What are your solutions, in the short term, to eliminate these delays?

[Greg Thompson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

One of the things we're doing, as you probably know, is to advertise nationally in all the Canadian newspapers—the Montreal Gazette, and not only English-speaking, but French-speaking newspapers in Canada—for people to apply for positions on the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, because we want qualified people on that board. Going back, successive governments over the years have had some difficulties with the make-up of the board. We want the best people we can find in Canada to sit on that board. There are some vacancies on the board presently. We're going to establish a good working board. I know they do good work and they take their work very seriously.

All I can tell you is we're committed to having the best Veterans Review and Appeal Board possible, and I think we're well on the way to that. I think Mr. Marchand is doing a very good job under very difficult circumstances. We're going to build up his board to an operational level and get on with hearing some of those cases. There is a tremendous backlog; there's no question about that.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you.

This way, there would be no more political appointments. A follow-up procedure would be used instead.

I have another question. What power and what mandate would the Minister of Veterans Affairs like to grant the ombudsman once he is appointed?

[Greg Thompson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

We've had a Prime Minister say this: none of us wants to be in the appointment process. The only thing I'll guarantee is that we have to have the best people possible on that board, and that's really what my commitment is—the best people, the most qualified people, and the same with ombudsmen. We have to have a system that the Canadian people and people like you, members of Parliament, have confidence in.

Really, at the end of the day that's what we have to do. I'm convinced if we have the best-qualified people and an open and transparent process, that's important for the government, important for you, and important for our veterans. So that's the process we'll use. It's going to be open, it's going to be transparent, and at the end of the day we're going to have the best possible people as ombudsmen and as the men and women who make up the Veterans Review and Appeal Board.