Veterans Affairs Committee on Feb. 20th, 2007

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

Again, I think the member is on the right track in terms of what it should do, what it should include. It's a bill of rights, and basically it would set out the standards that we'd expect to meet in terms of our service to veterans. I could step through some that I know you'll have considered. I'll just mention some of these, because it's very much in keeping with what the member is speaking of, Mr. Chairman.

It includes the right, for example, to be included in the discussions that affect their health and well-being; the right to have family and community recognized as important to their well-being; the right to receive information about services and programs, programs like, for example, the Veterans Review and Appeal Board; the right to know what redress mechanisms are available to them; the right to have their privacy protected; the right to receive services in the official language of their choice; and the right to receive benefits and services according to published service standards.

Those are examples of what might be in a bill of rights for veterans. There are others as well. I mean, the list could be fairly long. But again, I think the key is that veterans know what their rights are, that it's very clearly written, in plain language, and as short as possible. Also, what I'd like to see--and I'm not sure if this is possible--is a card that veterans can carry with them, in addition to a lengthier version. It gives them that reassurance that the Government of Canada will be there for them, that Veterans Affairs will be there for them.

Again, the key is to have it in very precise, clear language. We don't want it in the type of legal language that we're used to around this place. We want it so it's pretty clear--

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

Minister, pardon me for seeming to want to interrupt you, but five minutes is so short. Now I'd be tempted to ask you to leave the table and to speak with the deputy minister.

Deputy minister, I know that you have good intentions, and I believe that you're going to do a good job. However, I have one very great concern. It seems that the department hasn't made a lot of progress on the transition between old veterans and new veterans, which I call NVs.

Unfortunately, every year, every month, a large number of our veterans die of natural causes. And our young veterans of 34, 35 and 36 aren't ready to die tomorrow morning.

In his address, the minister spoke of a sweeping transformation. I don't want to cast doubt on his remarks, but I find it hard to believe that the transition is going that well, when we know that only five beds are available for new veterans at Saint-Anne-de-Bellevue Hospital.

I'd like to know your position and your overall plan on the transition between old veterans and new veterans.

[Suzanne Tining]

Thank you for that question, which goes to the heart of the transformation the department has been facing in recent years.

We have acquired sound experience in treating the veterans of the world wars and the Korean war. Everyone agrees that our programs and services were well adapted, in terms of both disability pensions and health care. I believe we know our clientele quite well.

However, the average age of the new generation of veterans is 36, compared to 83 for our old veterans. These are men and women who are in mid-life and must continue leading an active life. We have to help them return to the social and economic life of this country.

You said that the department was facing a major challenge and that you were somewhat concerned about the speed at which the transition is taking place. I can assure you that, when the government put this new charter in place, in mid-2006, additional resources were allocated to the department. Last night, I looked at a table, dated this week, a copy of which Verna Bruce gave me, which shows the results of the new charter. The prediction that these new veterans had rehabilitation needs more than disability needs is corroborated by the high rate of acceptance of rehabilitation requests: 93 percent of those requests have received a positive response, and the average response time is 39 days.

That shows a need not only for disability pensions, but also for rehabilitation services. The department has put in place what it needed to process those requests promptly, within a processing time of 39 days.

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

Can we have a copy of that table?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Monsieur Perron.

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

I just want to request a copy of the table she just referred to.

[Suzanne Tining]

With pleasure. We'll send it to the committee.

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

We could immediately make a photocopy, if you wish. We have people who can do that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

All right, fair enough.

Normally we would have our NDP colleague chime in at this point, but c'est la vie.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to begin by echoing the comments that came from my Bloc colleague. This is probably the most non-partisan committee on the Hill. It would be a serious shame to taint this committee's mandate with personal innuendo and negative comments.

Having said that, Mr. Minister, I would like you to please explain, if you could, what are all the things that VAC has implemented under your current role as the Minister of Veterans Affairs Canada.

Before you answer, sir, could I please also take a moment to welcome the new deputy minister? We see each other in passing, and it's wonderful to actually have you here with us today. Hopefully all members of this committee will have an opportunity in the near future to spend a little more time with you and get to know you a bit better. We welcome you to your new role; it's wonderful to see you here assisting veterans.

Mr. Minister, please answer, if you would.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think the most important thing, which we touched on, as did other members, is we implemented the new Veterans Charter. As you all know, the charter was passed in the House of Commons in May 2005. We went almost an entire year under the previous government without its implementation. So that was one of the first things we did within two months of taking office. We implemented it very quickly.

As the deputy attested, it's basically on target and working according to plan. The interesting thing is that it's an open charter. As needs arise and changes occur we can adapt the charter to meet the needs of our veterans. That's the refreshing part of the charter. In addition to that, we spent $352 million more on veterans than the year before--$250 million on the implementation of the new charter.

I'm really pleased about the small announcement we made last week with the Prime Minister on National Flag of Canada Day about the commitment we made to the Juno Beach Centre. As you all know, the invasion of Normandy was one of the pivotal events in the history of World War II. It changed the whole complexion of the outcome of World War II; in other words, we won and the Nazis lost. Canada never had a lasting memorial to those veterans, where we landed on the shore at great sacrifice. Veterans stood up and took it upon themselves to build this centre without assistance from the Government of Canada. They just simply did it themselves, as veterans often do. When the job has to be done, they just go out and do it.

So they've sort of struggled over the last number of years. They've had some corporate sponsors. The government, on an intermittent and unpredictable basis, has stood up to help them marginally. So the announcement last week will basically guarantee them success of that centre in perpetuity. With corporate sponsors, I think it will be there for many years to come. In fact, 18,000 individual Canadians stood up to help these veterans build this centre, in addition to some corporate sponsors. It's a good-news story that has gone largely untold over the last little while. Our hats go off to Garth Webb and those veterans who took it upon themselves to build that lasting memorial. We're now there as a lasting partner.

The other one was the ex gratia payment we extended to widows--those individuals and dependants who basically fell through the cracks between the passage of the Veterans Charter and the failure to implement it by the previous government. We extended $250,000 tax-free to widows who otherwise were ineligible simply because of the lack of implementation of the Veterans Charter. It was passed in the House but never implemented quickly. We quickly implemented it and made up for the failure to implement it by the previous government by extending those ex gratia payments to those widows. It was very gratifying personally to do that, with the help of many of my colleagues in cabinet and the Prime Minister.

The other one was the process we put in place for the VRAB. I think it's a very professional board now, with certain standards and criteria. You have to be qualified to be appointed to that board. I think that's very gratifying. The board is pretty much at a full contingent now, to catch up on the backlog that existed simply because the board was not up to a full contingent when we took office.

I think we've made a lot of progress on the Agent Orange file. As I say in this business, you never brag about anything or assume that anything is completed until it's finally completed and delivered. But it's one that I've worked very hard on. My colleagues, many of you around this table, have been very helpful to me on both sides of the House on that file.

The department has worked extremely hard on this file, and I've driven myself fairly hard on it. They've risen to every task that's been asked of them. They have devoted many hours to this, knowing we had to deal with 40 or 50 years of failure to act on it. I'm very pleased with the progress we're making, and I think at the end of the day it's going to be done. We're talking today about a veterans bill of rights and an ombudsman, so we're making progress on that as well.

I feel pretty good about our first year. I guess in the course of a normal mandate of four to five years...considering that we've done quite a bit in one year, I feel pretty good about it. But there's more to do, Mr. Chairman. We're committed to the mission, and we're going to continue to do more for our veterans.

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

What's the approximate timeframe, from your perspective, to put the bill of rights and the ombudsman in place?

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

I think part of that is maybe in your hands, Mr. Chairman, in terms of the committee getting some of this out. If I'm not mistaken, I believe the committee is pretty well finished on the ombudsman. We're just awaiting your report. Based on the work we have done with veterans organizations and the committee, we'll be well-positioned to act very quickly on it. The same applies to the bill of rights.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Now we'll go to Mr. Cuzner for five minutes.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, Minister, and congratulations on your post, Deputy Minister.

I'll ask two questions, and I want you to understand that in no way do I question the commitment of the minister to his mandate or to the veterans of this country. That being said, I feel obliged to go back to the VIP program. I don't want to get into whether it is a forgery or anything like that. That's not what it's all about.

There was an intent to extend, and there was an expectation that the program was going to be extended. The first reference to it was in October 2005. I know I asked the question in June 2006. The reference in 2005 was that the benefits would be extended immediately, and the reference on June 9, 2006, was that we were going to act on this very quickly.

Where is the extension of the benefits to the veterans? How do you see those benefits being extended? Perhaps the minister can respond to that.

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

Mr. Chairman, I think the member framed it very fairly, and I think on that basis I want to answer fairly as well. The fact of the matter is that we can debate who wrote the letter and who signed the letter. That's, I guess, not important in the overall context of what we're trying to do. I think the member would agree with that. So that's sort of an academic argument, if you will. But I do know that this is a concern of this particular member. He's raised it in the House. He's raised it nationally on many occasions.

One of the things I did, Mr. Chairman, upon becoming minister, in the first week I was minister...I wanted a health care review done by the department in terms of how benefits are extended to our veterans and their families. Some of what I found was...I won't say shocking. For example, we talk about 94,000 people in the VIP, but there are 258,000 dependants left outside of it--I think I'm correct in that--and that's a huge number. But we also have thousands of veterans, Mr. Chairman, who are left outside of it. We actually have veterans who do not qualify for the VIP, let alone their widows. I'm told by the deputy that there are 166,000 veterans who don't actually qualify for the program.

You could actually say that the wheels were off the program from the get-go, if you will. So it is not only the widows issue that's an important issue. That's an emotional issue. We have veterans, who served their country well, receiving a program, and upon their death they want to know that their wives and their families are going to be taken care of. I mean, it's an emotional argument that nobody wants to fly in the face of or attempt to win or lose. The fact is that the program has to be reshaped and revamped.

In addition to that, Mr. Chairman, many of the programs our veterans have today, that they enjoy today, for example, the priority access beds and the high level of care we provide to, I believe, 11,000 veterans across the country, a most expensive form of program delivery.... Believe it or not, some veterans qualify for the most expensive programs and don't qualify for VIP. Regardless of what political side you're on, does that make a heck of a lot of sense? It makes no sense when they qualify for the most expensive delivered programs and they don't qualify for one that saves the Government of Canada money.

So considering all of this, that's why I asked for a health care review, so we can fix many components of the program, not just attempt to identify, or sort of like a herd of cattle.... How would you call that out in Calgary, sir? You know more about cattle ranching than I do. But you're not trying to syphon off or suction off a little....

So there are many parts of it, Mr. Chairman, that are broken. And I do know that I want it fixed, to be very honest with you. I want it fixed, and I don't want any sense of our saying that we're ignoring a commitment you made. Give your head a shake. We want that program extended. We're working to do that. I'd love to be able to sit here today and tell Mr. Cuzner that it is fixed and that we're moving on. But the fact is that I want to do it right. Would it be fair to fix one part of it and find out that there are still 166,000 veterans who have served who are left outside the program?

We have to be very careful in how we do it, Mr. Chairman. I know that in terms of promises made and who said what, that's the debate that none of us really wants to get into. All I wanted to tell you is that I want to get the thing fixed, and we're going to do it properly, because I don't want to do it in what we call an ad hoc way--a little bit today, a little bit tomorrow, but at the end of the day we still have a confused and convoluted system of delivery of the program. So it has to be consistent with the good management of government.

At the end of the day, we have to consider the veterans and their families. And when we're talking about families, the widows are an important component of those families. There's no question about it. When someone goes off to serve, you have a mother raising young children at home. They get older and they need the Government of Canada to be there with them, and we should be there for them. There's no question about it.

So I take your comments seriously, Mr. Cuzner, and I just want you to know that I'm committed to doing my best to implement some of those changes as quickly as we can.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Just so Mr. Cuzner knows, we're at six minutes and 32 seconds.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

I got half of my two questions in.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

That's the way it works, sir. But it's nice to see the Liberals so spirited this morning.

We'll go to Monsieur Gaudet of the Bloc for five minutes.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, minister.

I'd like to make a brief remark in passing: it's been 140 years since Confederation, and it's been 140 years that either the Liberals or the Conservatives have been in power. Whether things go poorly or whether things go well definitely depends on those governments, but I don't think we're here for that this morning; we're here to move matters forward. In any case, you won't be able to blame the Bloc or the NDP, since we've never exercised power. I think we're here in order to advance good causes.

Minister, I'd like to know whether the veterans bill of rights is foolproof. I'll explain. Currently in Canada, for example, we have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is immutable, which we can't change one iota.

My question is simple: will we have a charter to which we can make improvements any time so that it can evolve through time? Let's get this straight: I don't mean every week, but let's say once every five years or so. I believe that the 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms is outdated today and that people use it too often to defend personal interests. I'd like to have your opinion on that point.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, that's a very appropriate comment, in terms of responsibilities of government regardless of what political stripe we choose. At the end of the day, we're here to do the best we can for our veterans, and that's really what the bill of rights is all about.

It's not a stand-alone document in isolation of our Charter of Rights or a stand-alone document in isolation of other safeguards we have within the delivery of programs. Within the program delivery, there are certain rights and charter rights that veterans receive today that are not unlike in other government departments--for example, the right to have services in the official language of your choice. That's very important, I know, to the Bloc members. It's very important to any government. So those rights are not stand-alone in a bill of rights. The bill of rights has to be consistent with our charter and has to be consistent with the delivery programs we currently have within Veterans Affairs.

I guess at the end of the day it has to be in that plain language, so you'll have a veteran who's 80 years old and he'll know clearly where Veterans Affairs stands in terms of his rights as a veteran or the rights of his family. Again, I think the language is very important, but I think the intent of the bill of rights is something we can all take some level of satisfaction from, because the work you have done on the ombudsman will work hand in glove along with the new charter.

If you look at the Veterans Charter in isolation, alone, and compare it to that of other jurisdictions, for example, the GI bill in the United States of America, you'll see that basically, the GI bill in the United States is a bill of rights and their charter combined into one unit, if you will. Ours will be somewhat different. If you take a look at some of the other countries as well, it's somewhat the same.

Canada will be like a forerunner in terms of a stand-alone bill of rights for veterans. It'll be unlike in any other jurisdiction. I think it's refreshing that we want to do that, and I think at the end of the day it'll be embraced by veterans organizations, because in our consultations, we've listened to them and we've listened to you. So some of your concerns and those of your colleagues you'll see reflected in the bill of rights.

I think at the end of the day it'll be something that veterans will take an awful lot of comfort in. I think at the end of the day we can all be very proud as parliamentarians that we did the right thing for veterans.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, minister.

Congratulations on your appointment, Ms. Tining. Earlier you said that 93 percent of responses given were positive, that people were pleased, but could you tell me what the remaining seven percent consists of? Does that represent rejections, or is it because people are too far away from the centres? I'd really like to know because seven percent of 10 persons isn't a lot, but of 1,000 persons, that's something else; that represents 70 individuals. It's important to know this so that we can give our veterans correct information.

[Suzanne Tining]

As I said, Mr. Gaudet, it's a table that was presented to me this morning. These are very preliminary figures because I wanted to get an idea of how things had been going since the Charter was introduced. I don't have an answer for you this morning, but what we can do is to send you this document and answer that question with the copy we'll send you. I don't have the details in front of me; I only have one page, which essentially indicates the applications and those that have been approved. I'll make a request; we'll get the answer and sent it to you.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Without it being exhaustive, because...

[Suzanne Tining]

No, we won't send you a long report. We'll try to tell you...