Veterans Affairs Committee on March 4th, 2009

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much. That will be very interesting.

Mr. Lobb, you have one minute left.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

One minute? Okay.

When I was going through the estimates, the section on the Veterans Review and Appeal Board expenditures, I noticed there was an increase. I wonder if you'd be able to provide a brief explanation on that.

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

I'm going to try to provide an explanation, Madam Chair. I'm just not sure if it's going to be a good one. You'll have to judge.

The reason is that we brought the board up to a full contingent, if you will. When we took office a little over three years ago, we had many vacancies within the board.

I know, Ron, that you or Suzanne will know the numbers, but I believe that about half the board was vacant.

One of the reasons we moved on this was simply because if you don't have a full contingent on the board these appeals get held up. When we took office, we had a backlog of about 7,000 Veterans Affairs appeals before the board--7,000--so for obvious reasons we said, “Let's get the board up to a full contingent and get it up and running.”

That's one of the reasons why you'll see a spike in the numbers there. We brought the board up to a full contingent. As a result of that, we have cut the number of appeal cases from a backlog of about 7,000 down to around 3,000.

Am I correct in that?

[Suzanne Tining]

[Inaudible--Editor]

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

I think I'm right. Until someone proves me wrong, I'll consider that answer to be a correct answer.

Here we go: we went from 7,000 down to 2,919. I'm off by 81. That's not bad for a guy from New Brunswick.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman's back. I could tell by his haircut that Judy had left the chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Minister.

Mr. McColeman for five minutes.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Thank you, Minister, for being here.

It's wonderful to hear that we do have one of the top systems in comparison to the other G-8 countries, I guess, or the other countries we've been looking at.

My question is from more of a business angle. Just looking at the main estimates, I notice that the operating expenditures are quite high. I'm wondering if you could please explain why that number is high.

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

Okay. That's a good question. I looked at that table today, and I know it is high because you're looking at a figure there.... I don't actually have the estimates in front of me, I think it's $900 million and some, correct?

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Yes.

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

Here it is: $939 million in operating costs. Most people who run their business would ask why that is so high.

I guess that's where being a businessman comes in, Phil. You're a businessman.

It seems like it's out of proportion because we have a budget of $3.4 billion, and you're arguing that it's taking a billion dollars to manage, which doesn't make any sense. The truth is that it doesn't make any sense and here's why: we are one of the few government departments--if not the only one--that have to measure purchases and benefits that we provide to our clients within that operating budget. That doesn't make any sense.

I've told the department, but of course the department has taken their instructions from Treasury Board. What we are doing is that many of the benefits that actually go directly to our clients are included in the operating budget. I'll get a list here in legible handwriting that I can read; I can never read my own writing.

But the truth is, that's the reason for it: out of that $939 million, $650 million, two-thirds of it, is actually for benefits that go to the clients we serve. Some of the health benefits, such as the hearing aids, eye treatment, and prescription drugs, are all included in that $650 million, which shows up here as operating expenditures. I don't like the way they do that, because it makes it look like we're not good managers. It looks like we're top heavy, if you will, which is not the case.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

It absolutely does, and I think it could lead to a lot of misperceptions if these numbers were available outside of the committee.

I'm just wondering what actions you may be wanting to take on this or anything you might have initiated to separate that, or at least to have it explained, so that when you are presenting financial information, this is known, because not everybody gets to ask the minister this question.

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

That's a good question. Again, I don't set the accrual rules or the way things are done around this place. But of course it would be beneficial to all of us in this room if it were broken down in a way that we could actually see it, where it was actually visible.

So every time you hear of a veteran getting a prescription—glasses, prosthetics, the list goes on—it would all come out of that $650 million, so it's going directly to our clients. I guess what we have to ask Treasury Board, or those who set the rules in terms of accounting around here, is to find a way to break that down, because, to be very honest, it's not very fair to our public servants who manage this department; our management expenses are 8.3%, which is within the range we'd expect for any department. That's basically an accounting rule, which I think should be changed, because it really doesn't truly reflect the real cost or real operating expenditures.

It's a good question, and I hope the answer has been satisfactory.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

It has been satisfactory.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

That expends your time. Thank you, and thank you, Minister.

Certainly, Madam O'Neill-Gordon might decide to share her time with you, and you could follow it up then.

You have five minutes.

[Tilly O'Neill-Gordon, Conservative, Miramichi, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And thank you, Mr. Minister, and your staff for being with us today.

Earlier you said that a good student asks a great question. Well, I have to say that an excellent student has all the answers, and you certainly gave a lot of very clear answers so that we can understand the system.

You elaborated on some of the benefits the spouses get, but I was just wondering if you would elaborate a little bit more on some of the benefits the children get as the result of their parent being a veteran.

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

The children get all of the health benefits the family would need in a time of crisis. We're there for them, let's put it that way; we're there for the family, the children, and the spouse under the new charter. That's just something we do.

In terms of ongoing benefits.... This question is coming from a former teacher; you taught school for many years and you were a good teacher, at that. In fact, you taught my daughter-in-law, who reminds me every time I see her what a good teacher you were.

But one of the things we do, and you'll see this in the estimates as well, is to provide educational assistance to the children of deceased veterans. We actually provide that to the children of veterans killed in the line of duty. That's something that very few jurisdictions do, providing such benefits to children. So if a father or mother were killed in action today in Afghanistan—and we opened up here by talking about the three soldiers who we lost today—and that soldier had children, those children would be entitled to educational benefits from the Government of Canada.

[Tilly O'Neill-Gordon, Conservative, Miramichi, NB]

University?

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

They'd be entitled to university. It's almost $10,000 a year. I think it's $360, almost $400 a month, ongoing for 12 months a year. That, along with the other support costs we have, is almost $10,000 per child up until the age of 25. That's one benefit we're very proud of and one that I think is a little bit of a carry-over from World War II. I think Veterans Affairs offered that then as well, and it's been continued under the new charter.

One of the conditions to it, which I think most of us would appreciate, is that we're now going back into disabilities. If you are asking what happens if you come back and have a disability—what about that—the truth is that if you come back and you have a 100% disability, that benefit to your children would happen. We'd honour that commitment to your children in terms of education. That number kicks in, Ms. Gordon, at 48%. For example, children of a veteran who has a 5% disability wouldn't get it, but for those extreme cases where you could make the argument that it's hard for that veteran now to carry on with life—they have a 48% disability—then their children would receive that benefit. If it's 100%, they're going to receive the benefit. If it's 10%, the answer would be no.

That is something I think we're all pretty proud of, and it's something many jurisdictions don't do.

[Tilly O'Neill-Gordon, Conservative, Miramichi, NB]

If I have time left, you can go ahead.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. McColeman, welcome back.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Thank you for your generosity.

Not that I want to belabour that accounting situation you have, but—

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

I think you are belabouring it, though.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

It seems to me to be an anomaly. Does it happen in other ministries?

You may not be able to answer that, but it seems to me that unless we get the answer you gave, it provides a window or look at what people might perceive to be a real problem. I would encourage the minister—

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

Basically what you're saying, Phil, is that it makes the minister look bad.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Yes, and I just don't like it.