Veterans Affairs Committee on April 17th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. We have another meeting of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. It's nice to hear all of you kibitzing about the visit to Vimy.

The hot topic of conversation this morning is the veterans bill of rights. We have a proposed draft here. At one of the last meetings, we had our folks take a gander at making some changes. You have a whole bunch of stuff before you, and we'll open it up for commentary, and so on.

Mr. St. Denis.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, thank you, the committee staff, and all those who made that committee trip to Vimy possible. It was well arranged. While Alexandre couldn't go, I know young Mark stood in his place and did a very capable job. I'm sure all would agree, and it was a pleasure to travel with my colleagues.

To the business of today, obviously we're all aware that before the Vimy 90th, the Prime Minister made an announcement about the bill of rights. Let's call it the Prime Minister's bill of rights for veterans, for the moment, to distinguish it from the one that is under study by this committee. I understand that it's already been posted on the website. So as a committee, we have a simple choice between two options.

So the first option is that it's a fait accompli, and we should simply move on to other important business of the committee. Personally I think it's the Prime Minister's prerogative. He can do what he wants, and it's up to the opposition to agree or disagree, in the House and elsewhere, regarding that bill of rights.

On the other extreme, the committee could decide that we have a draft version, which we're working on. We could attempt to reconcile this with the version on the government's website. We could try to understand what the similarities and differences are, and possibly make recommendations or criticisms, if necessary, of the government's version.

I don't know if there's an in-between. So either we drop it or continue with ours, but with a view to comparing it to the government's version and make that reconciliation.

Regarding the version on the government's website, we still don't know what the legal rights of veterans are with respect to a bill of bights. I don't recall this question being dealt with in the announcement.

So should we continue with this? That's a question we still want to pursue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

As an answer to some of that, or a musing before I recognize some of the other committee members, I have before me now a copy of the bill of rights that our committee is working on. I understand there's going to be an effort to get us a copy of the one the Prime Minister addressed.

The way I look at it is that he was excited, participatory. He's eager about what's coming out of committee, and I think it's still a work in progress.

Mr. Perron.

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

I share Brent's sentiments. I was almost insulted by the Prime Minister's announcements and his tactics. In my estimation, all of the committee members work hard to secure the rights of veterans. Suddenly, like someone would pulls a rabbit out of a hat, the government has apparently decided that the veterans bill of rights is the sole responsibility of the Prime Minister's Office. I view this as being disrespectful to the individuals who came before the committee to make statements, to opposition members, to government members and even to you, Mr. Chairman. The work done by the members of this committee has been completely ignored. It's an almost inexcusable affront, in my opinion, and I'm not just engaging in petty politics here. I'm simply stating the facts. We work on a project and all of sudden, the government comes out with a statement. I'm not challenging its right to do so, but I do question its legitimacy, behaviour and attitude. That's what I find disappointing, and so too should Betty, Bev and David. We're being told that our work is more or less worthless.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Thank you, Mr. Perron.

Mr. Shipley.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

I think Mr. Sweet is first.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Mr. Sweet.

Sorry, it's Ms. Guarnieri.

[Albina Guarnieri, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Chair, when examining the announcement of the bill of rights on the website--and it's on the vet website--you will not find any suggestion of force, recourse, or legislation. In fact, the words are “expression of rights”, which veterans have long identified as important.

What it doesn't say is that there is anything new or that the veterans have any new legal power to enforce the rights they currently hold. In fact, it suggests that along with every other Canadian, they're covered by the Privacy Act and the Official Languages Act, and we have the added statement that they have a right to know their appeal rights. Those appeal rights are already enshrined in legislation.

I wonder if the reason this is not part of any legislation is that it would add nothing new to existing legislation and that it would offer veterans absolutely no additional legal recourse or avenue of appeal. I view this bill of rights as a misnomer; it's essentially a mission statement for service personnel. So I wonder if the term “bill of rights” is really appropriate here.

We all want to do right by our veterans. I think that in the bill of rights in the U.S. Constitution, its overarching authority.... We've heard of the bill of rights that has force in the context of provincial legislation. Perhaps we need to suggest either that the veterans bill of rights be drafted in some sort of legislation that gives veterans at least one legally enforceable right they didn't have before, or maybe we should change the name to something that better reflects what this actually is.

From my understanding after looking at the vet website, it's service principles for Veterans Affairs. It's a mission statement for Veterans Affairs. It's a code of conduct. But to call it a bill of rights is really not what it is. It exaggerates the importance of what is being achieved here. I think we should call it something respectable. Our veterans really deserve it. If the government is not prepared to have some force, effect, and recourse attached to it, then really this is a misnomer.

It's up to the government members to explain a very simple question that we asked at the beginning of this discussion. What is the government's intent here?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Are you finished, Ms. Guarnieri?

[Albina Guarnieri, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Now we'll go to Mr. Sweet.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In the past we have done some great work and I'm certain we'll do great work in the future with the recommendations on our last report. The Prime Minister made a commitment to veterans that within a year he would deliver a bill of rights. While obviously wanting to hear from the committee, he also had a promise he had to deliver on.

We got off track studying things that were good, but the fact is that the steering committee, at the beginning, said that we were going to pursue the bill of rights. We got off track on PTSD, and that delayed our study of the bill of rights. The Prime Minister was required to deliver on his promise.

I don't think we should truncate the work we're doing here on the bill of rights. I think we should continue and then make recommendations, just as we did on our last report, and hopefully we'll have the same kind of agreement on the recommendations for this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Mrs. Hinton.

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

I agree with everything my colleague Mr. Sweet has just said. We made it quite clear that the bill of rights was a complement to the ombudsman position. The ombudsman position is the position that has the power to actually move forward with issues that veterans are not satisfied with.

I think everyone at this table has been around long enough to realize that legislation, as was just discussed a moment ago, oftentimes takes months or years. As we've discussed at this table before, for the veterans to whom we're referring--the traditional veterans--many of them don't have months or years. They've been waiting a long time for some sort of backup from the government and we've just supplied that backup.

The actual club, as I called it before, or the heavy-duty portion of this is the ombudsman position. I personally consider this to be a living document. I'm open to listening to any other input that's coming forward.

I also recognize that the post-traumatic stress syndrome issue was very important and that there needed to be a hearing on that, and so it went twice as long as it was going to go.

We also made a promise to veterans that we're going to review the health care act. I'm hoping this committee will concentrate their efforts on the health care act. Let's move forward once again in the best interests of veterans, as we did with the ombudsman position.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Thank you, Ms. Hinton.

Mr. Stoffer.

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

I thank you very much for that, but Mr. Sweet had indicated that it was--and correct me if I'm wrong--a promise that was made by the Prime Minister to do it within a year. That year process had come up, and that's why they had to move on the bill of rights, if I'm not mistaken. If that's the case, following that logic--and I wouldn't denounce that logic that you make a promise and you keep it, and that's a good thing--unfortunately, it circumvented the work of this committee.

But I have another promise that the Prime Minister made, and I'll read it into the record. It is dated June 28, 2005, and it is to Joyce Carter of St. Peters, Nova Scotia:

Dear Ms. Carter:

Thank you for the letters you have sent regarding the Veterans Independence Program. I am pleased to have this opportunity to outline the Conservative Party's Policy.

A Conservative government would immediately

--and, I repeat, 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 trust this clarifies the Conservative Party's position. Should you have any further questions, I would invite you to write directly to Betty Hinton, the Conservative Party Critic for Veterans Affairs.

Ms. Hinton's address is given, and the letter is signed Hon. Stephen Harper.

There's another letter written by the now parliamentary secretary that says the following:

Thank you for your numerous letters regarding the Veterans Independence Program benefits.

As the Shadow Minister for Veterans Affairs, I have been advocating for the extension of VIP benefits to all WWII and Korea War Veterans' widows. You may be interested to know that this was adopted as part of the Conservative Party of Canada's policy last March at our convention.

While I appreciate your dedication to this issue, you are writing to the converted. Unfortunately, until the Conservative Party forms government I am unable to change the regulations to extend V.I.P. benefits to all Veterans' widows.

It didn't say there would be a timeline. Mr. Harper's letter said “immediately”. They've been in government for 15 months, and my definition of “immediately” is right now, or in French, maintenant. So if that's the logic the government is going to use for the bill of rights, then why haven't we seen the VIP services?

You're right, Mr. Sweet, this committee does great work and there is a very cooperative nature. But to hear in a news conference that the work we've been doing has more or less been ignored and that we should proceed full speed ahead regardless of what the committee may or may not recommend was a slap in the face to all of us, not just to us in opposition, but to you as members as well.

I would hope the government would have at least some sort of letter from the minister or something expressing concern as to why they had to specifically do it without waiting for our recommendations.

Madam Hinton is right, these veterans are getting older. They don't have much time to wait. They need direction, and they need indications of where we're going. If this committee is going to be the vehicle and the tool to give government its recommendations, hopefully unanimously, then the government should at least honour and respect the work of the committee. In this particular case it did not, in my personal view, and that's most unfortunate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

I had Mrs. Hinton down as responding to that, and then Monsieur Perron and Mr. Valley, I believe.

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

They can go ahead if they wish.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

We've heard from Monsieur Perron, so if he'll excuse me, we're going to hear from Mr. Valley, because we haven't heard from Mr. Valley yet this morning.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a quick question for government members. Were you involved with the Prime Minister's announcement? Did you work on the announcement? Was there any involvement by you or the minister with the Prime Minister?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Mrs. Hinton, I believe, is interested in responding to that question.

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

I have been working on this for more years than I care to remember in terms of the ombudsman position and the bill of rights, and I was thrilled to have this committee move forward with the ombudsman position. I was also pleased to see us get in depth in terms of the bill of rights. But as I've said repeatedly, the bill of rights was not the more important piece of legislation. The ombudsman position was the more important piece. The bill of rights is a complement to the ombudsman position. And it is a living document, so if we want to go back and revisit that, we certainly can.

But in response to what Mr. Stoffer said, I agree with him. I like to see things move along quickly as well. The health care review portion that this committee agreed to at the beginning of the year is where we can make those changes for the VIP program.

I personally want to move forward with that, because I recognize the fact that there are many veterans and widows out there who have been waiting for this kind of response from this committee and this government. This government is more than prepared to move forward, and if the committee wants to be a part of that, we have to get moving on the health care review.

As I pointed out to you earlier, these people don't have a lot of time. So if we're going to make improvements, and you want to be doing that as a committee instead of having the government make the decision, then we have to move forward with the health care review. There are many widows out there, like Mrs. Carter, who are counting on us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

We've already heard from Mr. Valley, and Monsieur Perron had his hand up, so we're going to hear from Monsieur Perron and then go to Mr. Valley. I'm trying to keep track of this.

Monsieur Perron.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Perhaps I misunderstood or misinterpreted David's comments, but I thought I heard him imply that the Prime Minister made his announcement about the veterans bill of rights either because we had wasted too much time focusing on post-traumatic stress syndrome, worked too hard, or too well. I'm not quite sure which one it is. Young people suffering from PTSS are also veterans, to my way of thinking, as much as the brave solider who died in 1917, in World War II or in the Korean War.

That being the case, I don't think we've wasted our time. We've worked hard on the PTSS issue and there is still some work to be done. This issue falls into the category of veterans care. These young people are veterans. Unfortunately, they are only 30, not 80, years old.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Thank you, Monsieur Perron.

Mr. Valley.