Veterans Affairs Committee on May 27th, 2008

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

Anyway, I just want to make sure I correct that mis-speaking, because any time I mis-speak, it's always brought to my attention rather abruptly. I apologize to the committee for that.

Let's just use the word “seamless”. We're attempting to make it seamless. How's that?

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

It's going better.

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

Anyway, I think, Mr. Sweet, that we have budgeted appropriately for it and I give Mr. Marchand full credit for working through that backlog. I think it's manageable now, and our goal is to get the number down even more. With the full complement, I think he's making great gains there.

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

Thank you.

With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, to my colleague Mr. Parent, I have to disagree with his comment. I have felt a very strong, solid working relationship between the minister's office and this committee.

I know you have staff who monitor the blues from the committee, so I know you're well apprised of what we're discussing on a regular basis.

On that note, with the new veterans ombudsman and a new Veterans Bill of Rights, could you tell me what kind of feedback you're getting in your office from the veterans organizations and individual veterans, now that those two things have been established?

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

Again, it's something veterans have for a number of years been asking for. I do know the committee has paid some attention to both of those issues. In terms of the bill of rights, there was a lot of input on what was in that bill of rights. I hope I thanked the committee for their work on that, Mr. Chairman. The members of your committee did a lot of work on that.

The bill of rights is basically enforced by the ombudsman. I really believe that at Veterans Affairs we have men and women who are committed to doing the best thing for our veterans. Obviously, it's a pretty good-sized department.

The bill of rights, in my opinion, just provides a level of comfort to the veteran. It's a little wallet-sized thing they can carry with them. Many of you have asked for the original document or the ones that we've sent out. I think now they're in just about every legion, and all the veterans organizations across the country have a copy of it. I think all of us here collectively can take some pride in it. It's something they were asking for, and we just did it. We went down to Kitchener about a year ago with the Prime Minister, and we announced it.

It has such basic rights as service in the language of your choice, being treated respectfully, and so on. I think more than anything it provides a level of comfort for veterans so they know what they can expect from the departmental officials. That goes along with the ombudsman, because at the end of the day, you have to have something to enforce it, something outside of the minister of the day. I'm the minister today, but you could argue that I may not be here tomorrow. Who knows? That's the nature of politics.

No matter who the minister is, I think the stuff in terms of the ombudsman is the right way to go. It will be that one more check on the government of the day. Again, I'm a big believer in the power of Parliament, and the power of individual members of Parliament to bring these issues to the floor of the House of Commons when they've been outlined by the ombudsman, when he can identify systemic problems within the department or a case where veterans aren't being handled properly by the department, or whatever. Basically, regardless of whether it's legislative or otherwise, it's going to hold the government and the minister's feet to the fire to do better. And that's what we're there for--to do better.

I think the model we have set up and adopted is a very powerful model, and in those jurisdictions that have that model it's proven to be very successful. Again, at the end of the day the strength in that ombudsman is going to be the men and women surrounding this table who will never hesitate to either cross the floor on a temporary basis to talk to the minister, to give the minister the devil, or stand up in the House of Commons and just tear a strip off him. Because when that ombudsman's report is tabled in the House of Commons, you're the people--whether it's the Conservative Party, Liberal Party, NDP, or the Bloc--who are going to be there demanding some answers.

I'm very confident that it will work, and I'm pleased that we were the government that brought it in. I think at the end of the day it's going to pay huge dividends to our veterans community.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Thank you very much.

Now would be the turn for Mr. Angus, with the NDP, but I think he is otherwise disposed. So if he returns, we will revisit that issue.

Now it's back over to the Conservative Party of Canada. Mr. Cannan, for five minutes.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. You are the minister of the day, and you're doing a fine job, I might add.

I appreciated your coming out to the community at the sod turning for our cenotaph. It's now dedicated and well respected by the community and appreciated by all veterans, young and old. I know my colleague from the south, Minister Day, just had an announcement last week, and the veterans were greatly appreciative of that. So thank you to you and your department for the great work you're doing.

I also just wanted to make note of a personal issue in the riding. May 8 was a flag-day ceremony in my community, and my wife was there representing me. There was a horrific accident. A member of our community, a veteran in his eighties, was making a turn off the highway into the memorial service. He was a member of the colour guard. He got hit in an accident and died. So Mr. Robinson, rest in peace. It was a tragic incident.

We think of the men and women who are serving and the work that they do, and coming back from our travels I think of the great country and freedoms that we take for granted. So I thank you for all the work that we do in the community as a committee.

One of the things that we've done--and I know it was elaborated on by Mr. Sweet, who briefly touched on it--is that in April 2006 the Prime Minister announced the new Veterans Charter. I was wondering if you could elaborate a little bit more on some of the programs now offered under the new Veterans Charter.

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

Okay. Let's step through them. There are many, obviously.

If I just wanted to capsulize it and talk generally about it, one of our officials often used that term “a whole suite of programs” to basically make that transition to civilian life easier for the veteran and their family and give them the support they needed in terms of complete disability.

I was expecting a question on this. Whenever the new Veterans Charter is attacked, I don't think it's attacked in a fair and accurate way in terms of some of the criticisms we come in for--the new charter versus the old system, if you will. Again, the new charter was supported by every party here at the table today. It was introduced by the previous government and supported. I give full credit to the previous minister for the work she did on that and to all parliamentarians on the new charter, and to the department officials.

We came in and we were very honoured to have introduced it and made it a reality. We did our share of the heavy lifting as well. But it's really designed for a whole suite of programs to the veterans, to help them and their families. It's all based on wellness and it's all based on support for the veteran.

As I often say, for the average veteran coming out--the average age is 36--they have about 30 years, if we're assuming the average age of retirement is 65. Of course in politics we never know what the age of retirement is going to be. That means they have about 30 years of productive life ahead of them, in order to support their families and advance their careers, and so on. And I think we're obligated, for a whole lot of reasons, to allow them to make that transition back to civilian life. They did everything we asked them to do. Now it's our turn to help them.

The beauty of it is that under the new system, the veteran doesn't have to be disabled to get that wide suite of programs. The programs are available.

Now, if you're totally disabled, we have a tax-free.... I will ask the deputy to get the correct word. The lump sum payment is what I'm looking for. I always hate using “lump sum payment”, but that payment is there tax-free for the veteran's family to help them out. Our critics always overlook that there is 75% ongoing support to that family in case of disability, based on their earnings when they left the military.

In addition to that, there's a medical program. There are complete rehabilitation programs to reintegrate them, and retraining, including university, if qualified. And on top of that, if the veteran is unable to make the grade, that retraining is available for his or her spouse. So we've really focused on the family.

I often say that if a veteran is suffering, the whole family suffers. Men and women in uniform come back and they have to be transitioned to civilian life. If that transition doesn't go well, it doesn't go well for the entire family. Most veterans are married with family members. That means there are a whole lot of people who are suffering.

I think the programs that were designed and approved by Parliament were well thought out and they are actually playing out pretty well in terms of what we expected. And again, as we often say, the new charter is a living document. It can be changed and we can modify it as we go along when we see the need to change it, which we did with the OSI clinics, for example. We saw an up-spike, a rise, and we were able to respond very quickly to it.

Most members, on examining it very closely, are pretty proud of what we were able to do as a Parliament when we passed that and implemented it.

We do have a comparison chart here. This what I was actually looking for, which I'll make sure all the members get. Actually, I'll have Brian Ferguson, assistant deputy minister, make sure that all the members have one of these. We'll send it out, because it basically compares the old system with the new system. With any system--as you all know--you can sort of cherry-pick, right? You can say there are some parts of the old one that I like better. But I think in 95% of the cases, most of us would argue that the new Veterans Charter is working better than the old system.

Having gone to some international meetings with our counterparts in other countries and other jurisdictions in the world--and I think that's something the committee is going to take a look at, comparing our system to others around the world--I think our system is the best. I really do. And I think we unabashedly state that we basically cherry-picked from a lot of systems when we focused on the new Veterans Charter a number of years ago.

We've got a system that works. It responds well to the modern-day veterans and doesn't forget our traditional veterans for one moment. So I'm pretty pleased with it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Mr. Cannan, I think you have to be happy with a five-minute question session and getting seven minutes and forty-five seconds of answer.

Now we are going to hear from Mr. Perron, of the Bloc Québécois.

Mr. Perron, you have five minutes.

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

Mr. Minister, I will ask my questions and you can then answer them all at once.

I would like to see the breakdown of the expenses. It seems to me that the budget for the Ste. Anne's Hospital has gone done. Is that true or not?

Page 11 gives us adjustments for expenses not included in the main estimates. You are dividing $3.2 million between the Ste. Anne's Hospital and the restoration of monuments.

Page 12 shows the summary of information, anticipated expenses, and human resources for Veteran Affairs Canada. The financial resources are shown in millions of dollars. The VRAB gets $138 million and human resources gets $147 million. As I see it, those figures are not compatible.

Finally, on page 13, you list the portfolio priorities, of which there are seven. It seems to me that it would be interesting if you gave an indication of the costs. How much does improved program delivery cost? It is listed as a priority. How much do you plan to spend on improving these programs? How much for each item? You could simply indicate the present status and your forecasts. As an administrator, you surely calculated the costs of these improvements, did you not?

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

The deputy appears prepared to answer that question in the detail that's probably necessary, so I'm going to turn it over to the deputy on that, Mr. Perron.

[Suzanne Tining, Deputy Minister, Department of Veterans Affairs]

Thank you, Minister.

I will try to answer your question. Let me start with the $138 million that you refer to on page 12. I have to tell you that there is a mistake in the French version that has been subsequently corrected. We have set aside $13.8 million for the review board. I am sure that you know that, in English, this is written 13.8 and in French 13,8. Unfortunately, there was a translation error and the amount that appeared was $138 million. That error has been corrected.

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

That brings me back to earth.

[Suzanne Tining]

It brings you back to what Mr. Marchand...

We have $13.8 million for board operations.

Your second question referred to...

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

It was about the budget for the Ste. Anne's Hospital.

[Suzanne Tining]

The budget for the Ste. Anne's Hospital has not been reduced. As you know, a major modernization project at the hospital will be completed next year.

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

I see that $1.8 is left for that.

[Suzanne Tining]

Exactly. The entire plan for the Ste. Anne's Hospital costs over than $100 million, $107 million to be precise. The work will be complete in 2009-2010, and the difference that you see in the costs are transition costs. Clearly, as the renovations and the modernization work is completed, the significant transition costs go down.

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

Is the construction going to need more money?

[Suzanne Tining]

We expect to be on budget and on time. We have every reason to believe that the work will be done by the scheduled date and that the budget will be met.

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

My final question dealt with page 13 and the portfolio priorities. I wanted to have a calculation, an estimate, an idea of the costs of the improvements.

[Suzanne Tining]

I can send the committee the details of each of these priorities. You'll notice that they are portfolio priorities. You see that the first three priorities are included in the departmental mandate, which is to provide programs and services to traditional veterans, and to a new generation of veterans, especially through a mental health strategy. That is the second priority. The third priority is to ensure that remembrance activities engage all Canadians. Another departmental priority is to enhance organizational effectiveness.

The first four are departmental priorities. The three others, the fifth, sixth and seventh, apply to the board. So there are three priorities for the board and four for the department.

I can send the clerk of the committee the amounts budgeted for each of these priorities.

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

Thank you, madam.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Thank you, Mr. Perron.

Now we'll go to the Liberal Party of Canada and Mr. Russell for five minutes.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Minister, I want to sincerely thank you for your language and the way you have attributed some of the successes we've seen for veterans to all parties and the efforts they have made. It's very refreshing to see that, and it's certainly welcome.

I'm going to be very specific. You'll have to teach me a little bit here. Down in Labrador, and Happy Valley--Goose Bay in particular, the province is building a new long-term-care facility. Can the Department of Veterans Affairs purchase a bed or set aside a bed in that facility for a prospective client? What budget would that come out of, and how would I go about doing that?