Veterans Affairs Committee on May 27th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. We have the honour today, with our Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, to have the honourable minister with us.

Mr. Minister, I don't know if you've been told, but I think you probably have 20 minutes to do with as you please, sir. Then after that we have a pre-arrangement in terms of how we go through the rotation of the questions, sir. We are honoured to have you in our presence, and the floor is yours.

[Greg Thompson, Conservative, Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members. It is nice to be with you and nice to sit down with members of Parliament who really have demonstrated a clear, unwavering commitment to our truest heroes. I want to thank all of you for that

. I do have a prepared statement, Mr. Chairman. I'll go through it and then I'm at the disposal of the chair, and I am sure we will get into questions and responses.

Mr. Chairman, as I've mentioned, you and your committee have stood shoulder to shoulder with our veterans, both in this committee room and at our monuments and cenotaphs. As I often say, few things unite us like our veterans do, and I'm speaking of course of members of Parliament. I've seen it again in recent months, with your support of our OSI clinic announcements and your attendance at our minister's commendation ceremonies. It really doesn't matter which side of the House you sit on, your devotion to our veterans is genuine and it is steadfast, and I want to thank all of you for that.

Before I go any further, I'd like to introduce the individuals with me today at the table. I'll begin with Suzanne Tining, Deputy Minister of Veterans Affairs. Thank you for being here, Ms. Tining.

Also with me is Victor Marchand. Victor, as you know, is the chair of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, and he will be here to answer any questions you might have regarding the board's activities.

Today our work is very specific. We are here to talk about budgets, expenditures, and of course numbers. And we'll also talk about statistics. We'll talk about the approximately 800,000 Canadians across the country who are veterans. We'll most likely talk about the 220,000 who are clients of Veterans Affairs Canada.

We all know our true focus is much more than that. It's much greater than any of the main estimates or the supplementary estimates, and the people we serve are not merely numbers, as you well know. We are reminded of our real duty each time we stand quietly for the playing of the Last Post. We are reminded each time we listen to one of our aging veterans recite the Act of Remembrance. And we are reminded in a life-changing way each time we walk the rows of white headstones in our cemeteries around Europe's battlefields. As you well know, Mr. Chairman, most of us are simply overwhelmed and overcome by that sight, that experience.

We are the inheritors of a great and lasting debt, an eternal debt that we know we can never fully repay. We owe this debt to those brave men and women who ask so very little of us. And all of this is captured in eight simple yet powerful words inscribed above the final resting place of a 20-year-old Canadian buried in a cemetery just outside the city of Dieppe, in France: “Grieve not, dear mother, my task was done”.

Of course that's why we're really here, because our task begins anew each day. We must remember and honour those courageous Canadians who have always served our nation and who have always served us, generation after generation. Each of us has our own opinion about whether or not we're doing enough. I argue that we'll never be able to do enough, but I can say with considerable pride that under our government, Canada is doing more than ever to take care of our veterans and to honour their sacrifices and of course their achievements.

The numbers in the main estimates demonstrate that. In just three budgets we have set aside an additional $1.6 billion to improve our programs, our services, and our benefits for Canada's veterans and their families. And we've done it in a fiscally responsible way that reflects the dual wishes of Canadians who want us to be both generous and just with our veterans and cautious with our tax dollars in these uncertain economic times. Obviously that's a very difficult balance, but I think most impartial observers—and I can't argue that any of us are impartial in this business—would agree we've done a pretty good job at it, and we have been somewhat successful.

For example, no matter where you stand on the political spectrum, creating a veterans bill of rights was the right thing to do--and long overdue--just as appointing Canada's first veterans ombudsman was the right thing to do, and long overdue. We sometimes lose sight of just how important these accomplishments are, but our veterans haven't. They've realized that they suddenly have a new and very real champion in Colonel Pat Stogran.

I hear it everywhere I go, and I'm sure that many of you hear it as well. Our veterans and their families are happy with what we have done. They're very pleased to have their own ombudsman, to have another sympathetic ear and a powerful voice representing them. I want to thank all of you for the very important work you did in this committee in making those achievements possible.

We have come a long way. In just two years we have successfully implemented the new Veterans Charter, we've improved programs, we've increased benefits, and we've expanded services. Some of these measures are entirely new, like the ex gratia payments to deal with the testing of Agent Orange at CFB Gagetown some 40 years ago. Others are an expansion of existing programs, such as our doubling of the number of operational stress injury clinics across the country, and of course our expanding of the veterans independence program.

In everything we've done, the focus has been squarely on our veterans and their families. You've seen some of these improvements as you've travelled the country and toured a number of military wings and bases. You have also seen where we could be doing more, where we have to do more. And of course your work here at the committee is going to help us get there.

In the short time I have for these opening remarks, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to touch upon some of these issues and talk about some of the issues that we are hearing about from our veterans and their families.

For example, we recognize that there are still some gaps in how we help Canadian Forces members make the transition to civilian life. And we recognize that there are still some gaps in how we make them aware of the help available to them from Veterans Affairs. That's why we are treating the new Veterans Charter like an open book. We want it to evolve with the changing needs of our modern-day veterans without sacrificing, of course, the many good things we're already doing for our traditional war service veterans.

Perhaps during your questions we can talk about some of the specific facts and figures, like the 6,000 disability awards that have been granted under the new Veterans Charter and the very high approval rate for providing rehabilitation services within the new Veterans Charter.

What I can tell you, however, is that our new approach is working, whether it's through such things as the earnings loss benefit or our new job placement program. The new Veterans Charter is working well as a bridge to help our young men and women make the successful transition to civilian life.

For those CF members and veterans struggling with disabilities, they finally have a comprehensive strategy to help them, and of course their families, deal with the physical, emotional, and financial challenges they face. The question is whether it is enough. Can we stop there and consider our work done? Of course we cannot.

You may have heard me talk in recent weeks about the rising number of operational stress injuries we are seeing at Veterans Affairs. The numbers, Mr. Chairman, say it all. In five years, the number of OSI cases has jumped from 3,500 clients to 11,000 clients--in just five years. That's why we're doubling the number of OSI clinics we operate across the country. We're going from five clinics to ten. We recognized that early in our mandate.

In fact, this past Friday we officially opened the new OSI clinic in Fredericton, New Brunswick. In recent weeks we've announced agreements to establish other new clinics in Vancouver, Edmonton, and Ottawa, and we hope to announce the location of the fifth clinic this fall. Many of my colleagues, as you know, have taken the time to come out to some of these announcements, and I thank them for that.

These new clinics are part of a comprehensive national strategy for mental health that we are jointly implementing with the Department of National Defence. We are trying to do everything we can to help our men and women overcome the very real psychological trauma that comes with their dangerous and very difficult missions. And we're trying to raise awareness about the signs of an operational stress injury. We're doing more to try to prevent them, to diagnose them sooner, and to treat them faster and in a more complete way. That is our responsibility.

If we are going to ask our men and women to serve Canada, then we have to be equally prepared to serve them. And I believe that we are.

In the past, Canadians weren't always able to do that. We didn't, of course, understand OSIs; instead, we lumped them together as battle fatigue or shell shock. The result was often tragic, as we know, and our men and women were often confined to suffering in silence. Some of us are old enough to remember the years following World War II and the Korean War, and we remember classmates and friends whose families were shattered by a parent returning home with an undiagnosed OSI.

Back then, our veterans were often too afraid or embarrassed to step forward to get the help they needed, and their families had nowhere to turn. We are changing that. One of the ways we're doing that is through the operational stress injury support systems, or OSISS program. It's a program based on peer support, a program that helps our CF members and veterans get better through the support and care of other men and women who have endured their own operational stress injuries, men and women who understand the anger, the frustration—the utter frustration—that comes from witnessing things so brutal and so inhumane that most of us simply can't begin to imagine them.

And equally important to this program is that we are providing the same support and care to their families and loved ones, who are also trying, of course, to cope with the pain and suffering. That's why we announced earlier this month that we have hired eight family peer support coordinators to work alongside the twelve peer support coordinators at National Defence.

We can help, we can make a real difference, and we are. The people, of course, going through those programs are telling us that and are telling many of you that.

While we are adapting to the demands of today's missions, we also remain committed to our traditional war veterans and their families. At the end of the day, it's always about the family, isn't it? As you know, we set aside in our February budget another $282 million over the next three years to extend the veterans independence program to as many as 15,000 veteran survivors. Of course this is good news for our veterans. Widows, in some cases, have waited more than 25 years for this help.

With this announcement, we are supporting those survivors who need it the most and who, as we know, can least afford it. In all, we're helping about 35,000 new clients to live independently in their own homes longer. That means a better quality of life for the twilight years of our veterans and their spouses. That's what our government should be doing, and what we are doing—helping those who need our help.

Before I close, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to talk about one last item, and that's commemorating our past.

As you know, we have a sacred duty to remember and to pay tribute to what our veterans have sacrificed and what they have achieved for Canada and us, for our way of life. We need to remember the extraordinary things they did to protect our shared values in defending peace and freedom. As I often say, Mr. Chairman, they are ordinary men and women who did extraordinary things. When you talk about our older veterans, that's one of the things that weigh heaviest on our minds: will future generations remember them and, most of all, will we help keep their vows never to forget their fallen comrades? I don't have to tell you how important that is, because you already know.

I often say that the greatest gift we can give a veteran is the gift of remembrance. You experienced it again when we recently marked the 65th anniversary of the Battle of the Atlantic. Many of you participated in those ceremonies across the country, and I thank you for that. We will see it again when we hold ceremonies this year for the 55th anniversary of the Korean ceasefire and the 90th anniversary of the end of World War I. If it all goes as planned—thanks to Brent St. Denis' private member's bill—we will mark our first national peacekeepers day in August.

This is what we mean by keeping faith with our veterans. It is what we mean by keeping the torch of remembrance burning brightly. We must never take our freedom for granted. We must make sure that future generations never take it for granted, that we always remember the immense debt we owe our veterans. Our veterans have earned it. They deserve this from our grateful nation. As the English poet James Allen once said, “No duty is more urgent than that of returning thanks”.

Lest we forget, I say thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Thank you very much, Minister.

Now we're going to turn it over to questions from some of our committee members. First is the Liberal Party of Canada for seven minutes, Ms. Guarnieri.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am sure, Minister, you're aware that a recent study by the Rand Corporation indicates that at least 20% of U.S. soldiers returning from Afghanistan and Iraq are already suffering symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, and some estimate this rate will rise beyond 30% due to repeated and extended tours of duty. Other studies indicate the suicide rate among returning veterans is a rising cause of concern and is a significant and tragic addition to the official casualty rate.

Clearly, the mission in Kandahar since 2006 has placed Canadians in circumstances where they too may suffer dramatically higher rates of PTSD than was the case with the mission in Kabul and the Gulf War or our peacekeeping missions around the world. As Sean Bruyea and Louise Richard are very keen to remind us, 18 years have not healed the operational stress injuries suffered by many veterans in the Gulf War.

So clearly we're facing a very long-term struggle where just the loss of productivity and potential employment will average at least $10,000 per affected veteran per year. I wonder if you could give us some idea about the long-term planning with respect to budgetary considerations, among others, of the department, and whether the department has adjusted to accommodate the inevitable results of a five-year mission in Kandahar and potentially several thousand veterans who may need PTSD treatment for decades to come.

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

Thank you. I think you've capsulized it well in terms of some of the challenges we face. As the former minister, you know full well that those challenges are real and ones we must meet and hopefully exceed. But I think in fairness, when you form a government that's one of the things you recognize early on. And of course that's why we doubled the number of OSI clinics, which in itself won't do the complete job in terms of your reference to the numbers, but the numbers are real, as I mentioned in my opening remarks. The numbers we've identified have escalated from 3,500 five years ago to 11,000 today, and they can't be argued.

That's one of the reasons we've doubled the number of those operational stress injury clinics across the country. In addition to that, I've talked about the support programs we have. Some of the good news out of all the bad news.... I want to say Albina, but I guess it should be Ms. Guarnieri—

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

That's fine. That's my name.

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

We're so used to talking on an informal basis most of the time.

I understand your concern for that. I know your concern is very real, and it's one that's troublesome for all of us who look at the men and women. As you well know, the missions we send our men and women on are tough missions. We've had those debates in the House of Commons, and I'm pleased with the support you've provided the government in terms of continuation of that mission, because the mission obviously isn't complete. Those numbers are real. We've doubled the number of operational stress clinics. We have a lot of the peer support programs up and running, and I do know that people like Senator Dallaire, who suffers himself from the very injuries we are speaking of, consider some of those programs to be the best. He believes that they are working, that they are making a difference.

On top of that, I might point out as well that when we're talking about men and women who are in the forces, who are suffering from this, DND itself deserves some praise as well in terms of what it's doing. Part of it is early identification. I think everyone in the mental health field--and I know some of you at the table have had experience with that--feels that early detection is one of the keys to it. Sometimes it could play out as something like excessive drinking or drug use, possibly prescription drug use.

Early identification and early treatment are part of what we have to do and are doing. In fact, when you take a look at the numbers--I know that the 11,000 I referred to is a very big number, and it's a real number--many of those people are receiving treatment, and they're still functioning within the military because early detection and early treatment have allowed them to continue their careers.

So when I'm mentioning those numbers, I don't want members to think they have all been confined to hospitals or institutions. Many of them are still functioning simply because of early detection and some of what we have put in and some of what the former government had put in, in recognition of this problem.

But I don't think we can lose sight in the long term, because I think it's something we have to watch. I think, if necessary, we have to put more resources into them, but I'm satisfied with what we're doing, and I think we're making a real difference.

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

Minister, you're making a case for what you are doing currently, but my question was focused on long-term planning. Is there any consideration? Are you making plans to accommodate the volume of soldiers who may be returning with PTSD symptoms?

I for one would certainly support adding more OSI clinics to provide local and permanent support for as many veterans as possible. And I do recall that in the spring of 2005, when Deer Lodge was opened and plans for the Calgary and Fredericton clinics were announced, the Kandahar mission had not yet been announced, and resources had not been scaled for the sixfold increase in casualties. So I guess my question really pertains to how you envision dealing with a potential challenge there.

I also have another question, which pertains particularly to the volume of women who may require specialized treatment for post-traumatic stress. It wasn't as evident in my day as it is today. What plans exist to provide similar and separate in-patient post-traumatic stress disorder programs for women, as our allies have done in past years?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Time is way out.

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

It's a legitimate question. I hope you will allow the minister to answer it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Ms. Guarnieri, you're allowed to ask legitimate questions. I do ask that you stay to the time, that's all.

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

It's a good question. I think the professionals we have on the ground recognize the gender differences and how treatment might apply to a man versus a woman, so I think we're very sensitive to that.

The other thing I might mention to the member, Mr. Chairman, is that of course when we were referring to Deer Lodge in 2005, the new Veterans Charter hadn't been implemented. I do know that your fingerprints are on the new Veterans Charter. Part of what we set aside in the new Veterans Charter is that new suite of programs--$744 million out of the $1.6 billion that we budgeted since having taken office. I should say that we're spending more. That's probably not the most accurate way to put it.

A lot of that is going into the very things you're mentioning, and of course the new Veterans Charter recognizes that, because there is a plan to move forward, which recognizes some of those difficulties you've outlined.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Now we're over to the Bloc Québécois and Monsieur Perron for seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It would have been nice to be able to call you by your first name, Greg, and to have you call me Gilles. But, on page 2 of the speech that you have just read to us, you insult me and you insult the members of the committee. On the subject of the ombudsman, you say "And I want to thank all of you for the very important work you did in this committee in making those achievements possible."

Give us some credit, Mr. Minister. You will recall that a unanimous report from the Committee on Veterans Affairs was tabled in the House. All the members of the committee here present worked hard on that report. We asked that the ombudsman's position be created under an act and report to the House.

Witnesses as distinguished as Mr. Marin had their behinds in the same seat as yours is in at the moment, asking for the ombudsman position to be created. The only ones to ask that the ombudsman report to you, dear Mr. Minister, are the following. There was the ombudsman from the Ste. Anne's Hospital. When we questioned him, he spent more time singing the praises of the director general than addressing the problems that the hospital was facing. Mr. Côté, the National Defence ombudsman, who is no longer in office, also said that the ombudsman should report to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. The third was a witness from Australia whose name I really do not remember. He came to tell us that the ombudsman should report to you, but that was very clumsy on his part, because, at the time, he had a part-time contract position in the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Minister, do not say that you cooperated with us. You completely ignored the report and the work done by all members of the committee, including your friends on the other side of the table. That work was conscientious, non-partisan, and had only the welfare of the veterans in mind.

The same thing happened with the Veterans Bill of Rights. We were in the last stages of our report when, with great fanfare, you announced a Veterans Bill of Rights. Mr. Minister, you did not cooperate with the Committee on Veterans Affairs. You did what you wanted, you did whatever you chose.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Mr. Minister, I'll just inform you that the question was not particularly pertinent to the supplementary estimates, but you can answer it if you so choose.

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

I'm more than happy to answer that question.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Perron is not completely happy with the ombudsman, I guess. First of all, he has to examine the individuals. Colonel Stogran I think is an exceptionally good—

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

Do not go there, Mr. Minister. I have not mentioned Mr. Stogran directly and am not questioning his abilities. I am questioning the way in which he was appointed and the way in which things were done. It went completely contrary to the committee's work.

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

Thank you, Mr. Perron. You're obviously telling me that the choice was a good one, and I absolutely agree with you.

The interesting thing is that, as a parliamentarian who's been around this place for so long, I think you're underestimating the power of Parliament, because you're correct. You're talking about a legislative mandate, and in many of the countries in the world where the ombudsman works well and is very effective, it's the same model that we've adopted. And we can disagree on that.

But the beauty of our system is that every day the minister, whether it's me or somebody else at this table, will be there. There will always be a Minister of Veterans Affairs who has to respond to you and other members in the House of Commons in terms of how we're responding to the ombudsman. And the report that he will table every year will have to be tabled in the House of Commons, so it will be there for you to examine.

The truth is the model that we've adopted, that other countries have adopted, is very effective. One of the things that I believe in...because I've been around this place for a while. I think, with the exception of the official critic for the Liberal Party, I've been here probably longer than most of the other members. I'm not saying that's a good thing or a bad thing, but I do understand the power of Parliament, of an individual member of Parliament, and how important it is to go into that place every day when you believe in something, where something's gone wrong, when you've identified a problem, and the minister has to stand in his or her place and defend their position. That's the power of the ombudsman and the power of tabling that on the floor of the House of Commons. And I would say God help any member of cabinet who disregards Parliament and the power of that very institution we're all a part of.

I'm a believer in parliamentary democracy. I'm a big believer in the power of individual members of Parliament. And I'm absolutely satisfied that the model that we brought in will do the job. And I'm convinced, Mr. Perron, that if we're sitting here a number of years from now, after that first report, the second report, the third report, we'll all agree with that. It's a model that works in other jurisdictions. I'm absolutely convinced it will work in Canada.

And you're absolutely correct that Mr. Stogran is a good choice. He comes with high reviews from men and women who knew him in the military and from our veterans communities, which we're all here to serve.

I have absolute confidence that the model we've adopted will work. We did not disregard what the committee did. We honoured much of what was stated at the committee; we'll just disagree on the model. You might want to drive a Ford and I might want to drive a Chevrolet, but at the end of the day they're both going to get us down the road.

I believe this one will serve Parliament and the veterans community well.

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

Let us get back to what we are supposed to be doing, because the chair has called me to order.

On page 11, we see an expense amount of $3.8 million for the infrastructure funds at the Ste. Anne's Hospital.

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

Mr. Perron, Mr. Chairman, the sound system is not working here. We'll have to back the clock up for Mr. Perron.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Ironically, his time is up, because it's now seven minutes and fifteen seconds.

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

We'll have to give him another kick at the can, because I know he's eager to get answers.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Knowing Monsieur Perron, I'm sure he will take another kick at the can at another opportunity.

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

We'll make it up for him in the next round.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

There we go.

Now it's over to the New Democratic Party, Mr. Angus, for five minutes.