Veterans Affairs Committee on Oct. 29th, 2009

[Pierre Allard]

You're quite correct. VIP does play a role in helping people stay in their homes. Logically, that's the choice most of us would make. We would like to finish our days in our home.

Having said that, I will note that there is a certain reality and that some of us will not be able to do that. Comparatively, about 12% of Canadian citizens will have to be institutionalized for end-of-day care.

If we look at the uptake for veterans in regard to the services and programs offered by Veterans Affairs Canada, there's probably a 14% uptake by veterans of these services, which brings to the forefront the fact that when Veterans Affairs Canada estimates the funds required for these programs, they should keep those statistics in mind. The uptake is only about 12% to 14%.

There is no doubt that some people will eventually require institutionalization. A number of programs have been implemented in various provinces in trying to delay institutionalization, but they fully recognize that some people eventually may have to move.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Allard and Mr. Lobb.

Now we'll go on to the Bloc Québécois.

Mr. Gaudet, you have the floor.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Allard, you spoke about the new Veterans Charter. You said that the executive committee had made 15 recommendations. Have you read these 15 recommendations? I do not believe that the committee has received them, Mr. Chair.

[Pierre Allard]

The New Veterans Charter Advisory Committee sent the report to the department in June 2009. The department amended the report to ensure that it was appropriate in all areas. The document was officially received by the department on October 1. It is in the process of being translated, and I have been told that you will be given the document in a week or a week and a half.

In my presentation, I dealt with three themes that were covered by the 15 recommendations of the report. I could provide you with more details, but given that this report has not yet been translated, it is up to the government to present it to you.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

So, Mr. Chair, we will be receiving the report soon.

It's the living charter in action.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

That was my understanding, Monsieur Gaudet. It will be distributed to all committee members.

[Pierre Allard]

There is also the evaluation plan for the new Charter, of which I have a copy. I think that I sent a copy to your analyst. I can also forward you a copy.

In addition, it appears that the Auditor General will be analyzing the transition process that one goes through when one leaves the Canadian Forces and becomes a veteran. A lot of people are monitoring the transition, including your committee and the Senate committee.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

It is all well and good to study the new charter, but if I go by what you said earlier, namely, that the new recruits will become veterans, in five or six years, there will no longer be any veterans according to the charter, or very few. That being the case, what is the purpose of this charter and who does it serve?

[Pierre Allard]

There is still a very large number of modern veterans who are directly tied to the new Veterans Charter process. We are trying to rectify the shortcomings for these people.

We have to act quickly for two reasons. First of all, we promised that we would take action quickly when we introduced the charter, because there is no committee review process. Secondly, the modern veterans with serious disabilities are demanding action from us to ensure that they are not living below the poverty line.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

That is why I asked the question about transition, about including modern veterans with traditional veterans.

[Pierre Allard]

We do not make any distinction at the Legion. A veteran is a veteran. I use these terms for no other reason than that the benefits are different.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

I agree, but if one veteran does not have services whereas another does, it is an injustice.

[Pierre Allard]

It is a shortcoming that needs to be rectified.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Merci, monsieur Gaudet.

We'll now go to the Conservative Party again, with Mr. McColeman.

Mr. McColeman, you have five minutes.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

I, too, want to express my thanks for your being here today. I hope you take my comments in the same light as I do your candour today. I appreciate your candour, I really do, because my background is that of a small business person. I've run my own businesses through the course of my life.

I want to understand more about why you will not prioritize. I don't want to beat this to death, but I would like to know the rationale for why you choose not to prioritize, because ultimately our committee will have to prioritize, in my mind.

The next steps are, first, the study, which identified the gaps, and then beyond that, we will take next steps to recommend what we can tackle. There will probably be some low-hanging fruit that might be the first things that would make sense, but certainly we will have to prioritize at some point.

I would reflect back to the fact that this is called a living charter, which was identified long before my time here, and it does reflect the realization that nothing is static and that in fact new gaps will emerge, right? In other words, there will always be gaps. It reflects that realization. When gaps are identified in anyone's life, anyone's business, or anyone's state of affairs, you determine what the priorities are, and, if there are multiple gaps, what you're going to tackle first, second, third, and so forth. So I'd like to ask you to please help me understand the rationale for why you choose not to prioritize.

[Pierre Allard]

My rationale is relatively simple. In “Keeping the Promise”, there was one recommendation. It was simple: put in a program based on needs. There was no need to rationalize. Yet we were told, after the fact, that basically this simple recommendation really meant there had to be prioritization.

In this case, we approached it from the perspective that there are fundamental gaps in three elements of the program: families, rehabilitation, and financial benefits. Those form a whole, so if you fix one but not the other, it's not going to make any difference to the quality of life of the veterans and their families. That was important for us. Plus, there was a temptation, even within the committee as we were receiving guidance from Veterans Affairs, to do the prioritization within the document itself. We don't feel that it is our role to do prioritization.

If the government wants to do prioritization, they can explain how they did their rationalization. We've given you where the gaps are.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

That's very unfortunate, because it does not give us your sage advice. I think what you've just stated--and please tell me if I'm misunderstanding--seems to be an all-or-none proposition.

[Pierre Allard]

At the end of the day, decisions will be made; we recognize that. I don't think it's our role to prioritize. Our role was to tell you where the gaps were and we've done that.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Okay, but beyond that, in my mind you would be the logical advisers as to what some of the solutions are.

[Pierre Allard]

I'm sure we will continue the discussions to get to that level if we need to, but I don't think right now is the time.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

I would suggest, then, to our committee that there be another time when these gentlemen can come back and discuss what they see as some of the solutions, because I'd like to hear from them in terms of their suggestions as to what those might be.

[Pierre Allard]

But I think I did give you a hint, if I might say so, which was that I think the financial benefits are the ones that are creating a lot of furor out there. Having said that, I'm not even sure, because issues of families and mental health are also creating a lot of furor out there. Issues of case management are also creating a lot of furor out there. If you have the best program, but you can't case-manage it, then it doesn't work.

So what I come back to is that I think we have tried to give you a broad overview of what needs to be fixed. In our logic, it all needs to be fixed or it's going to fall apart. You can have the best program in the world, but if your case manager doesn't understand what the program is about, it's not going to work.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. McColeman.

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

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Members of the committee, I welcome being here.

Witnesses, I'm a new member of this committee, so I may need a little extra understanding on some of the issues. I have a couple of questions.

The first one, I'm sure, is quite simple. It's in regard to the VIP. In terms of a veteran who applies for and receives approval for assistance under that program, if that individual passes on, does their spouse automatically still receive those benefits or do they have to reapply? Or are they not eligible?