Debates of March 5th, 2012

Randall Garrison Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is very important that reservists get the same kinds of benefits and treatment, especially when they have served overseas with the Canadian Forces, as other members of the forces get. We have to provide full recognition for that.

However, as I said in my speech, we also have a distinction that is being made between traditional and modern day veterans. Some of the veterans from World War II and Korea are entitled to different kinds of benefits than those that are available to modern day veterans. If the government is right on the reduction in the number of traditional veterans, there certainly is enough modern day veterans who could make very good use of those services which they are presently denied.

Kevin Lamoureux Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments in regard to the senior pension issue. I would like to pick up on that. Imagine veterans who have served in Afghanistan, who are now approaching age 55, who are listening to this debate and hearing two things consistently coming out.

First, they will be unable to retire and receive old age supplement at 65, as the government is looking at changing it from 65 to 67. That will have a profound impact on them. Second, now they have been hearing about the cutbacks to Veterans Affairs. Again, we are trying to solicit support from the government in terms of making that commitment to our vets. If they are 54, 55 or 56 years old and they look at this budget, it is like a double jeopardy of sorts in terms of their retirement years.

Could the member comment on that and on why all Canadians should be concerned with the way our veterans are being treated by the government?

Randall Garrison Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC

Mr. Speaker, as I said, there is a regrettable pattern starting to occur on the other side of the House, where all seniors, whether veterans or not, are somehow seen as a burden on our society and the idea that families and people should take care of themselves. The question I would ask the government is this. Where would we be if veterans had said, when we called upon them to serve their country, no, that they were going to take care of themselves and their families and that they really did not care what was going to happen to our country. We have to ask that question from both sides when we are talking about veterans and the benefits to which they are entitled.

Andrew Cash Davenport, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would like to underline the comments of my hon. colleague. He has made a very important point. We asked our veterans to make overwhelming, overarching sacrifices. This is not just any job. This is the job that governments must take a lot of time and deep consideration before engaging our military in any operation. We have had veterans who have come back and they have done the job that our governments asked them to do and yet they are being hung out to dry by a government that really does not stand up for veterans.

My colleague brought up the issue of seniors in the military. Would he continue that thought and talk a bit about how we could better support our veterans?

Randall Garrison Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC

Mr. Speaker, the note I would like to end this on is to also think about the families of veterans. I think about 10 days ago, when I stood on the docks when the HMCS Vancouver came back. I think of 200 or 300 family members who were there and who had also made sacrifices while their loved ones were away risking their lives in the service of Canada.

When we talk about cutting benefits to veterans, we are also talking about cutting benefits to their families, most often their spouses, and denying some of the things to which those spouses are entitled in their golden years.

Therefore, I would ask us to think more broadly about veterans and veterans' families when we come to the cutbacks in Veterans Affairs.

Christine Moore Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Mr. Speaker, as a former member of the armed forces, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this motion. I have wonderful memories of various evenings spent at the Royal Canadian Legion. We always had a very pleasant time. It is an honour for me to speak to this motion.

Since 2007, the government's strategic review has focused on cutting various federal programs and services. These cuts have affected all departments, including Veterans Affairs. The goal of this exercise is to cut 10% from each department. In the case of Veterans Affairs, 90% of the budget is spent on programs and benefits for veterans, and 70% of the staff deliver services directly to veterans. There is not much room for cuts.

In this situation, the math is simple: if the government wants to cut Veterans Affairs Canada's budget, it will have to cut the services and benefits that go directly to veterans. Budget and staffing cuts will inevitably compromise the department's ability to deliver services to the country's veterans.

Our veterans already have trouble accessing some of those services, and many of them have noticed that the quality of services has suffered over the years. In particular, there have been problems with case processing. It is getting harder to reach an agent by phone because there are fewer call centres. If this keeps up, veterans will find it easier to speak to someone at their ISP's customer service centre in India than to a Veterans Affairs Canada agent in our own country.

The agents now have less time in which to make decisions about veterans' needs. In contrast, once the decision has been made, it takes just as long as ever for veterans to receive psychological care and services. The cuts are already being felt. Agents have to work faster, work overtime and make decisions more quickly. This means that they may not be able to take the time required to do their work properly.

Currently, a number of organizations are speaking out against the cuts to Veterans Affairs. Among others, the Royal Canadian Legion and the Veterans Ombudsman have shed light on the problems these cuts will cause and the problems encountered as a result of the staffing cuts. Veterans returning from Afghanistan, just like current soldiers, need and deserve services.

I am a nurse by training and when I talk to soldiers returning from military operations, I know the consequences that these operations can have on a person. I am talking about physical and mental health problems and post traumatic stress disorder. These are all serious consequences that require immediate care, and aftercare as well.

Roughly 20% to 30% of the soldiers who went to Afghanistan have mental health problems or have post traumatic stress disorder, not to mention physical injuries. These are not problems that can be left unaddressed for two years before something is done. We are talking about serious health situations that require immediate care and assistance.

Since 2001, 40,000 members of our Canadian Forces have been deployed to Afghanistan. Some are still in active service, of course, but some have become veterans. An average of 25%—roughly 10,000 veterans—have health problems. They compromised their health to serve our country. These huge numbers come from the Department of National Defence. They show the critical importance of taking services for veterans seriously.

I am talking about veterans, but we should also talk about their families. Soldiers return home at the end of their mission; unfortunately, some do not. In both cases, the families need assistance. It is very difficult to support someone who is living with post traumatic stress disorder.

Consequently, the families also need help. The children of these soldiers need help supporting their mother or father who has experienced these problems and who may be injured.

When we talk about veterans, we are not just talking about soldiers, veterans and former members of the RCMP, but also about the families of these people. We must never forget that.

Today, we are asking that the Department of Veterans Affairs be exempt from cuts in the 2012-13 budget. This budget is vital to maintaining a certain level of service and the quality of the programs and benefits to which members of the military are entitled. We must take into account that there are already some problems with this program. It is not a program that works seamlessly. There are already problems and budget cuts would only add to them. At this time I believe that our request to exempt Veterans Affairs Canada from budget cuts is reasonable.

Every day in this House, between 2 p.m. and 3 p.m., I hear the Associate Minister of National Defence or the Minister of National Defence repeatedly say that I do not support our troops when I ask for explanations and answers that the opposition and Canadians are entitled to regarding what is happening with the F-35 program. When we talk about the men and women in uniform who return from a mission, people who have given many years of service to this country, who have risked their lives, who have been lucky enough to come home, and who often need psychological, financial and professional support, we are met with budget cuts.

The government can afford jets that are not yet operational, at a cost that is increasing astronomically and with a delivery date that keeps being postponed, but it cannot provide financial support for our veterans who come home after serving their country. This makes absolutely no sense to me. It makes you wonder who in this House is really supporting our troops.

When that party was the official opposition, it said that it would extend the veterans independence program to widows of World War II and Korean War veterans, but it did not.

In 2005, that party, which is now in office, called for a public inquiry into Agent Orange and full compensation for veterans and civilians who were exposed to it, but it has not followed through.

In 2007, the government committed to take action to address the unfair nature of the service income security insurance plan and long-term disability benefits for members of the Canadian Forces who are medically released, but it did not do so.

In 2005, that party committed to reforming the Veterans Review and Appeal Board and replacing it with a board made up of qualified members with a medical or military background, but it did not do so.

I am wondering what it really means to support our troops. I think that asking this government not to make cuts to Veterans Affairs Canada is a much better way to show our support.

The NDP has asked the government many times not to make cuts to services for veterans, but without success. The NDP has proposed many measures to improve services for veterans, including health care centres of excellence for modern-day veterans, improved access to veterans' hospitals, reforms to the new veterans' charter, an increase in funeral expenses, and concrete action to combat homelessness among veterans.

The NDP's proposals show what it means to support our troops.

In addition, the NDP continues to ask the government to stop clawing back the pensions of retired and disabled Canadian Forces and RCMP personnel; to extend the veterans independence program, which also applies to former members of the RCMP; to eliminate restrictions on pensions and health benefits for spouses in the case of marriage after 60; to provide better care for veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder; to reduce waiting lists for disability benefits; to fairly calculate annual leave entitlements for retired members of the Canadian Forces who want to join the public service; and to eliminate or reform the Veterans Review and Appeal Board. We are thus calling for a number of measures. Again, this is what I call supporting our troops.

In order to support our troops, it is essential that the government not cut Veterans Affairs Canada's budget. This is really the only reasonable attitude that this government can take toward our veterans.

Chris Alexander Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, I have two very simple questions for the hon. member from Abitibi—Témiscamingue. Does she believe that a more efficient bureaucracy can save money while maintaining the benefits our veterans receive? Like her, I have worked in the public service. It is always possible to find more efficient ways to deliver the goods, and that applies in this case too.

She wants to maintain a large bureaucracy at Veterans Affairs, but her party voted against our plan to replace Canadian Forces equipment with new planes, new armoured vehicles and new ships. How does she reconcile these two completely contradictory positions?

Christine Moore Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Mr. Speaker, as I said at the beginning of my speech, 90% of Veterans Affairs Canada's budget goes directly to benefits and services for veterans. I do not think the department has a bloated bureaucracy. The fact is that nearly all of the money is for benefits and services. Still, there are some problems with service delivery. I do not believe that bureaucracy is a problem at Veterans Affairs Canada. The problem is lack of funding, which interferes with access to services. Public servants work overtime, and they have trouble getting their work done.

I do not think that the department's problems have anything to do with bureaucracy. That is why its budget should not be cut. I do not think that bureaucratic inefficiency is a problem there.

Sean Casey Charlottetown, PE

Mr. Speaker, the minister keeps saying that the services provided to veterans will not be affected, but he has not said that the budget will be kept at its current level. Is it possible to offer an acceptable level of service despite the cuts that are planned in the upcoming budget?

Christine Moore Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would invite the members to do a simple math exercise. We know that 90% of the Veterans Affairs budget goes directly to benefits and services. The Conservatives plan to cut the budget by 10%. That means they want to get rid of all public servants. To achieve this without cutting any benefits or services, they need to eliminate 10% of the rest of the budget. This means that Veterans Affairs would no longer have any staff; no more offices and no more calls. My colleagues just have to do a quick calculation and they will see that this makes no sense.

Christine Moore Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Mr. Speaker, feelings of despair often come from the lack of logic veterans perceive. Soldiers are used to reacting quickly. They are asked to react immediately in extreme situations, but when they have health problems or are facing crisis situations, they are being asked to wait for weeks on end for health care. I think that is what causes feelings of despair. Their whole lives, these people have been taught to react very quickly in certain situations, but when they have to deal with the system, decisions take forever and there is no concrete action. This makes absolutely no sense compared to the instructions they are accustomed to when they are the ones providing a service.

Chris Warkentin Peace River, AB

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for me to join this debate in the House of Commons on the quality of care for Canada's veterans. Some misinformation has been put out in the House today with regard to cuts or possible cuts to veterans' services and benefits. Many of my colleagues, including the minister, have corrected this misinformation in question period a number of times. Once again, I am pleased to set the record straight.

As the Minister of Veterans Affairs just mentioned in his speech, our government will always ensure that there are the necessary funds to provide Canadian Forces members, veterans and their families with the care and the support that they need. It is true that the number of traditional war service veterans served by the Department of Veterans Affairs is decreasing. While there are younger veterans entering the system at Veterans Affairs, the overall number of veterans served by the department is decreasing.

Their needs must be addressed. If we look at this government's record over the last six years, members will see that the benefits provided have actually expanded. I would like to point out all of the programs to which veterans are entitled are quasi-statutory. Many people will ask what exactly this means. There may be some uncertainty on the other side of the House. What it means is that the Government of Canada must provide these funds to administer those programs.

I will say that one more time for clarity. The Government of Canada must provide the funds to administer those programs. Veterans have the right to various programs and services that they need. The Treasury Board sets aside whatever money is necessary each year to make sure that the department can continue to provide those benefits.

The member presenting the motion is either misinformed or trying to misinform. The fact is the Minister of Veterans Affairs has said it very nicely. He has clearly summarized that the improvements our government has made over the last six years have been in the name of veterans. We know that the needs of veterans are changing and the care of veterans is evolving. It stands to reason that the way veterans access and receive those benefits should change as well.

Our government recognizes this. It has chosen to invest in new programs and initiatives and not just maintain the status quo. Veterans Affairs Canada is creating a more responsive environment for veterans to make sure that they have faster and easier access to the benefits that they deserve with as little stress as possible.

I am splitting my time with the member for Huron—Bruce.

The department serves close to 215,000 modern-day veterans, war service veterans, members of the Canadian Forces, members and former members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and their families. All of these people in these groups have their own individual needs. It is our job to ensure that these needs are met effectively and efficiently.

How are we achieving this? A lot has changed. The minister announced two weeks ago that he is cutting red tape for veterans' initiatives. Most of these changes enhance front line services and reduce processing times. The minister launched the cutting red tape for veterans' initiatives, which will provide our veterans with the hassle-free service they have asked for without bureaucratic roadblocks. There were resounding responses from veterans saying this is exactly what they have been asking for.

We have also taken action in the following areas. We are communicating with veterans in plain language. Information provided to our veterans, whether it be decision letters or brochures on benefits and services, will be written in a language that is easy to understand.

We have invested in technology which allows the department to make greater use of digital imaging and electronic records.

We have supported the helmets to hardhats program, which helps veterans who are trying to find high paying opportunities to see those opportunities in trades and areas where their skills are needed. We have implemented directed deposits for some VIP payments or reimbursements for treatment benefits.

We have also reduced by one-third the time it takes for a veteran to receive a decision on applications for disability benefits. We have cut in half the time that it takes for a veteran to receive a decision on applications for rehabilitation programs. We have established an Afghanistan and serious injury unit to fast-track the benefits for Canadian Forces members and veterans who have become seriously injured or ill while serving in Afghanistan or elsewhere.

We have added case managers to areas of high demand across this country to deliver one-on-one service for veterans. They have been given more authority to approve vocational rehabilitation plans and work with the veterans to resolve complex challenges. We have reduced the amount of paperwork for veterans when they apply for veterans independence programs which now help 107,000 veterans, survivors and their caregivers remain independent in their homes for as long as possible.

That is an impressive list of accomplishments. Long overdue some would say. Nevertheless, real progress has been made by the department to update the care for Canada's veterans.

I know that the work is far from done. In fact, the Minister of Veterans Affairs has stated very publicly that he intends to lead by example. He wants his department to be one of the most efficient and responsive in all of government. After all, Canada's veterans deserve nothing less.

As the minister stated in his remarks, Canada's veterans have done far more than their fair share to build our great country, to defend our shared values and to make Canada's red maple leaf an enduring symbol of peace and freedom around the world. This government is doing its fair share in ensuring that they are well looked after.

The motion of the member--

The Acting Speaker Barry Devolin

Order. Unfortunately, I must interrupt the member as the time for government orders has expired. When the House returns to this matter, the hon. member for Peace River will have two minutes remaining in his speech.