Evidence of meeting #17 for Veterans Affairs in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was home.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Thank you very much, Mr. Lourenso, once more.
The actual rotation list goes back to the Conservative Party right now. Are there any more questions from the Conservative Party?
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Okay, then I think diplomacy would say, with the time we have, one question from Mr. Stoffer and one question from the Liberal Party would be all we could do. We've got about three or four minutes of business.
So ask one question, please, Mr. Stoffer.
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
Well, actually, I have to excuse myself to go to defend Newfoundland's interest on the seal harvest in the House. So in fairness to the witnesses, I don't have any more questions, except I say thank you very much for coming and keep up the good work with those who get the VIP. Let's hope more of them can get it.
Thank you.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Thank you, Mr. Stoffer.
Madam Sgro, you can ask one quick question.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Judy Sgro Liberal York West, ON
I just wanted to clarify a couple of things.
Thank you so much. I don't want to talk because it's taking my time, but we really appreciate your coming and trying to make it so that we all understand the same facts.
On the VIP program, when it comes to the spouses getting the program, the commitment was made that everybody would receive the program. But that's not correct, because it's really income tested. If you have the $1 million house and $5 million in the bank and you ask for the VIP program, frankly, you're not going to get it. Am I correct?
5:20 p.m.
Director, Continuing Care Programs, Department of Veterans Affairs
The program has an income element and a disability element to it.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Judy Sgro Liberal York West, ON
So when we continue to get letters from people who are not receiving the program and have gone through due process, I assume what they're not coming back to us and saying is that it's under the income-tested area—because that's not something, I believe, that's been talked a lot about. That's why they're not receiving it.
5:20 p.m.
Director, Continuing Care Programs, Department of Veterans Affairs
It could be. It would vary for a number of reasons.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Judy Sgro Liberal York West, ON
On the VIP program, I would suggest that home care in most provinces is okay. Are most people who receive the VIP program taking advantage of the snow shovelling, the grass cutting, and the other things our traditional home care programs don't provide?
5:20 p.m.
Director, Continuing Care Programs, Department of Veterans Affairs
I can't speak offhand to the number of people, but certainly there are many VIP recipients who would receive a groundskeeping element that they would normally not get from their provincial home care programs, as you have suggested.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Judy Sgro Liberal York West, ON
So they're eligible for some of both, to a maximum of $8,000 a year?
5:20 p.m.
Director, Continuing Care Programs, Department of Veterans Affairs
Close to $9,000, that's right.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Judy Sgro Liberal York West, ON
It's $8,883, which can be used for either home care or the grounds maintenance services and so on, right?
5:20 p.m.
Director, Continuing Care Programs, Department of Veterans Affairs
Any combination thereof.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Judy Sgro Liberal York West, ON
Or any combination.
I know you don't have the information, but could you let the committee know how many people actually get the top amount? I know you're averaging it out, but I'd be interested to know how many people actually get the $8,000 and how many use that service for groundskeeping versus the home care side. It really tells us a bit of the difference between the two, because I think, from what I hear, a lot of people are willing to settle for the home care side from the province, but it's that extra help with things like snow shovelling and grass cutting that helps keep them in their homes. I'd be interested to know where the split is on that one, if you could send that information to the committee.
5:20 p.m.
Director, Continuing Care Programs, Department of Veterans Affairs
Absolutely.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Thank you, Madam Sgro.
I have one question just because of the way of the questions, and I may have missed it, but just to give you the opportunity to answer this. If I'm correct, the VIP program and, of course, every program is means-tested by need—not just income, but need. And one of the things I want to clarify is that when you do the assessment, part of that assessment is whether the person has the physical capability to look after their grounds. Am I right or wrong that that's part of the means test?
5:20 p.m.
Director, Continuing Care Programs, Department of Veterans Affairs
That's right. Do they have the capacity? Do they have the resources? That assessment would take into account all their capacities and strengths and then all the deficits that would exist as well.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
So if they have the physical capability to shovel their snow or cut their grass, then that is not something that would be covered, versus someone who does not have the physical capability and it would be covered?
5:20 p.m.
Director, Continuing Care Programs, Department of Veterans Affairs
It's a little deeper than that. If they have the physical capability and the general ability and wherewithal to do it, we don't go and assess somebody as having the capacity to do it when they're sitting there saying that, for a variety of other reasons, they can't. But we certainly don't impose that on them either. Sometimes people want to go out and do most of their snow shovelling, but they want help on the heavy days, and we make allowances for that. It's really driven by how they want to manage their own affairs.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
This the key thing I wanted. I didn't hear as succinctly, in past meetings, that it was needs-based, and that was really the measure. I appreciate it.
Thank you very much for your time. You've answered a barrage of questions from pretty well every avenue. We appreciate your efforts, and of course your day-to-day efforts to serve our veterans. Thank you very much.
5:20 p.m.
Some hon. members
Hear, hear!
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
There's one piece of business. I don't think it requires that we go in camera. It's simply an advisory from the chair.
Our next meeting is going to entail directing the researcher on the elements you would like see in the upcoming report on the study we've done. That may necessitate a little bit of study and homework on your part over the next 48 hours. You'll want to make sure you're familiar with the evidence from the previous Parliament as well, because that will be included in this report. And of course, everybody will probably have some highlights from their rounds of questioning that they'll want to make sure are in the report as well.
So this Wednesday, the primary reason for the meeting will be to direct our researcher on some of the outcomes we want to see in the first draft.
Yes, Monsieur Gaudet.
