Veterans Affairs Committee on March 4th, 2009

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

Do you want to replay the last testimony when he was here?

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

Mr. Chairman, I did qualify it. I said, “This student passed today.” I didn't go beyond today and I didn't go back to yesterday.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

That's good. Thank you, Minister.

Mr. Kerr, you're up for the test for five minutes.

[Greg Kerr, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. As a matter of fact, I must be even better because we've used up a minute of my time and I haven't even asked the question.

I'm very pleased to see the minister and his staff here today. I know there are a lot of very good questions that will come out, and I appreciate the depth of answers.

I would like you to expand on one thing that struck me today. It's not the most important question, but it's like when you hear that the only time we work is when the House is in session, that we don't do anything for the rest of the year. In reverse, I hear a lot about your travel of late. I think it's important that people understand just how many requests you do get to travel and how important it is that you are out there representing the government and the Canadian people because of the demands on your time.

I just wonder if you want to expand a bit on the variety of trips that you have taken and what they're about. I've learned how important they are and I think you should share that with the committee. You can use up the entire five minutes if you'd like to do so.

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

Thank you very much.

I'm no different from any other member of Parliament, again, regardless of what side of the House they're on. We disagree on a lot of things, but you stay in this job only when you're committed and work hard at the job. I think I do work pretty hard.

Today in the newspaper they were talking about a few ministers, including me, in terms of our travel expenses, and my travel expenses on a particular trip. Sometimes I think my wife is the one who's feeding all this information to the media, because I think she'd like to see me home more often than I am.

The truth is, when we do travel...and I think just about every member, on all sides of the House, has accompanied me on many of these missions--as we call them--overseas to commemorate what Canadians have done in World War I and World War II, and in Korea, since we did that last year as well. I think it's important for all of us, given the troubled world we're living in, that we recognize how important these trips are and how gratifying it is as a member of Parliament or as a minister to go on these trips when you have entire villages and countries, if you will, shut down just to say thank you to Canadians for what they have done in liberating their country. We've seen that in France and Belgium. I haven't had a chance to go to the Netherlands yet.

This is very powerful. It reminds us all of how lucky and blessed we are. I know sometimes I say that too many times in speeches, but the freedom that Canadians enjoy as individuals didn't happen by chance. It happened because men and women were brave enough to put on the uniform and stand up for freedom, democracy, and the rule of law. They've always been there for us. When we go to those countries where they understand what it's like to be overtaken by a foreign army, countries like France, it's powerful. It's a powerful reminder to all of us of how truly blessed we are and how much we owe to these men and women in uniform.

We do a number of those trips every year. There is a lot of demand on the part of the Minister of Veterans Affairs, and those who came before me. This is not new to me or to the minister who preceded me, or the one before that. It's something you do, and it's probably one of the most gratifying parts of the job when you go to those countries where they come out in big numbers to say thank you to Canada--the respect that generates.

Of course, being a former history teacher three or four decades back, I think it's one of the strongest messages we can send to our young people, that this is what we have as a country, this is how we've grown as a country, and that's why we have the freedoms we have. We take many young people on these remembrance excursions, missions, with us. It's something we do at Veterans Affairs, and whoever the minister is after I leave will be doing the same thing. It's important work. It's work that very few opposition members in the House of Commons will ever criticize a minister for, because they instinctively know how important it is.

This is becoming difficult to do, and we'll have to cut back a little on how we manage it. It's always tough to manage. The government side sometimes gets in trouble on these missions when we try to get the right mix between young people, the next generation coming up, and the veterans who were actually there and fought. Of course, now they're getting up in age and it's more difficult for them to travel, and sometimes it's impossible. Looking into the future of how we'll manage that will be a real challenge for the department, because we never want to be criticized for not taking enough veterans with us. It's always that balance that we try to strike. There are health issues surrounding the travel of many of our veterans, and it becomes expensive because they have to travel with caregivers and so on. We're going to do it to the best of our ability as long as we're there.

That's why I often say I have the best job in cabinet. The Minister of Veterans Affairs has a very gratifying job, and this is one group of men and women who, when you do things for them, stand up and say thank you. You can't argue that in all departments of government. It's the “thank you” the Minister of Revenue very seldom gets.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Minister.

Madam Foote.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I had the pleasure recently of going to the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Institution, where the minister officially opened the Operational Stress Injury Clinic. We talked about the fact that there were going to be 10 such clinics. I think five are already in operation. Can you tell me where all 10 will eventually be located and how the decisions were made in determining those locations? What about those veterans who have to travel to get to one of those clinics? Will their travel costs be covered? Will we cover the cost of travel for the family to accompany them to such a clinic?

We heard a firsthand account of how valuable those clinics were from veterans who were there. We know the trauma they experience when they return from war, whether they're there fighting or on peacekeeping missions. I'm interested in finding out how well we're taking care of our veterans who face and have to deal with such trauma.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

To Mrs. Foote, thank you for being there. It was a great event in Ottawa when we officially opened the clinic. And I thank the two Judys for attending, as well as Scott.

I should remember where we have all these places, but I do have them listed here so I won't forget any of them. I hope I'll answer the question satisfactorily, because there are some other things in that question that I think have to be addressed as well.

The centres we've identified are in Fredericton, New Brunswick, which is really because of Gagetown; Montreal, which speaks for itself; Quebec City, London, Winnipeg, Calgary, Vancouver, and Ottawa. Those are in addition to the five centres that DND has up and running now, which are basically the same types of centres.

In terms of travel, we support the veterans to get to one of those destination sites or one of those clinics.

On why we have identified those sites, Fredericton speaks for itself because of Base Gagetown, which by land mass is still the biggest base in the Commonwealth, if I'm not mistaken. Montreal is a huge city.

On top of that, one of the things we have to do, which is very difficult to do in some of these areas, is identify the professional staff who will actually be there for our clients. So we strategically brought that into the equation. When we're identifying an area like Montreal, you have the psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, and all the support staff. You have a major airport, which makes it easier for veterans to get in and out. Those factors are all part of determining whether it should be in Montreal or some other city.

So we have one in Montreal and one in Quebec to service the Quebec area. Valcartier is in fairly close proximity. So those are some of the reasons why those cities, and bigger cities, were chosen, because of the professional staff and less difficulty getting in and out of those cities. I live two hours from the nearest airport, so it wouldn't be the right place to put one of these clinics. So that's some of the decision-making around it.

The good news is that we've had no difficulty--I believe, Deputy--in staffing any of these clinics across the country. We have a good relationship with the health authorities in all of those centres, so we've had no difficulty. We've gone into agreements with the provinces and health service districts in all areas to establish these, so we have extremely good working relationships.

I hope that answers most of your questions, if not all of them.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Thank you.

For those veterans who have to travel to get to either of those clinics, you mentioned that the travel costs are covered. What about the accommodations, if they're outside of the clinic itself? Do you also cover the cost of travel for family to accompany that veteran?

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

I want to make sure I am correct on the travel, because I know in some cases that is the case if they need a caregiver, which in many cases they do. But travel to get to those clinics is paid for by the department. If you look in the estimates you'll see a large dollar amount dedicated to travel to and from these clinics. That is something we do.

What we pay for travel versus what other areas pay for travel has always been a sensitive issue. I think our rate of payment for the veterans, since they're doing it by road, is higher than any other government department. So that is factored in and is provided to the veteran.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Minister.

That's over six minutes on that question.

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

I think the member wanted to make sure it was provided to the caregivers, and it is. I stated that, but I think she was a little anxious to make sure that was the answer. Is that right?

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Absolutely, and are their actual accommodations covered if required?

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

Yes, that's all covered.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you for that clarification.

Monsieur Gaudet.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, Minister.

I would like you to explain how you could cut 1% from your budget and still open 10 clinics. Some were opened last year, and I heard you say you will open another one in Ste. Anne next fall. You certainly need staff and professionals for these clinics. How could you nonetheless manage a 1% cut in your budget?

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

Thank you.

I'm repeating myself a little bit, but just so you'll know it, none of the direct benefits to veterans were jeopardized in these cost savings. A lot of the cost saving we identified is internal, how they work together as a team in various parts of the country.

Is rationalization a correct word to use on that, Deputy?

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

Yes.

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

Okay.

It's a rationalization of those services, but there's no impact in any way on the care to the veterans at Ste. Anne's Hospital or clinics in Quebec City or any other part of the country. None of that has been touched.

In addition to that, we have identified a savings that will occur as a result of giving veterans more choice in where a service will be carried out. The one that I like to use, because it's just the way it is--it's a real life example, if you will--is Sunnybrook Hospital, and I use the one in Halifax, Camp Hill. We're paying up to $100,000 a year for a bed for a veteran, where if the act, if you will, or the regulatory authority, allowed that veteran to stay at home, he could get the VIP services at home. But guess what? That's how some of the savings have been identified over time. If they had the choice to stay at home.... I know this actually sounds hard to believe as we're sitting here, but they don't have that choice today. They have to go to the high-end service. The veterans say, “If I had some help at home, I could stay at home. My wife wants me at home.” But you can't do that. You have to go to the.... You know.

Those are some of the savings we will realize going down the road, making some of those regulatory changes, so that's going to be reflected in that.

Also, Roger, the other thing that is a sad reality is that the biggest enemy of our veterans is Mother Time. I think we refer to it as Father Time; it's more of a negative term in English. Mother is always a softer, warmer sort of reference. So the enemy is Father Time. Every year we have fewer veterans simply because they are up in their eighties, and we're losing, on average, I think it's 2,000 veterans a month. It's an awful number when you think about it. Seventy-five veterans a day, today, in this country of 30 million people, will have passed away.

One of the sad realities of the times we are living in is the passage of some of these men and women just simply because old age has caught up with them.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Do you provide services to stay-at-home veterans? My own mother, for example, will turn a hundred years next October. She was sick, but she went back home and she is being taken care of there. One of my sisters is living with her, but people from the CLSC come every day to provide care. A specific number of hours of service per week has been set. Is the Department of Veterans Affairs implementing the same strategy in order to keep veterans in their own home?

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

That's a good question and I'm glad you asked it. It's one of the messages that I really want to get out.

What you're referring to here, Mr. Gaudet, is the veterans independence program. That program is designed for women like your mother who require that bit of help. This feeds back to one of the questions I had from Mr. Stoffer. Under the old system of pensions and how benefits flowed to veterans, it was always predicated on the fact that a veteran had to have a disability in order for this to be passed on to the veteran's loved ones. So in your father's circumstance, your father would have had to have been an eligible veteran on a veteran's disability pension for your mother to qualify for that service. That makes absolutely no sense.

One of the raucous debates we've had around this place and the back and forth that you sometimes see in the House of Commons is on the enhancement to the VIP program. We brought some changes into that program, Mr. Gaudet, to make it more fair to those women like your mother.

I've had this discussion with veterans. I tell the famous story of a veteran whom I met in Arnprior, Ontario. He had served and was wounded in the war. I said, “Well, you must be one of our clients.” He said, ”No, I'm not one of your clients. I had a great marriage, a great business, and I've never asked for anything because I didn't need it, so I didn't ask.” But he would be entitled to it. I said, “What will happen when you pass away is your wife will not be entitled to those VIP benefits.” It doesn't make any sense, does it?

So you can have a 100-year-old woman who needs a bit of help, but because her husband wasn't receiving a benefit from the department and he had never applied for a pension, he couldn't get it. So we debated this and discussed how we would fix it, and we brought about some changes to it, Roger. And the changes aren't at the level that you would like to see them and I would like to see them, to be very honest with you. We brought it in and we identified those widows, because today we have 75,000 veterans who receive VIP, in total, and out of that we have about 30,000 widows. So we have 100,000 people who receive VIP in the country.

So getting down to answering your questions on that...I think this is why the chair is not interfering with my long answer, because it's an interesting answer and it's a good question. The chairman is being very generous to both of us, Mr. Gaudet.

We brought in some changes to this because women just like your mother deserve help too. So the changes we brought in, Roger, make it easier for these widows to receive the VIP benefit that they otherwise would not have been entitled to under the system that existed a couple of years ago. We brought it in so that if they are frail and live below a certain level of income, regardless of whether a husband received the benefit or any kind of a pension entitlement, they now would qualify. But the benchmark or the ceiling is quite low. So over time we hope to bring that up and have it enhanced so that we can bring more widows into that same system, because we did allocate around $28 million for that program. That's one area where I think we have to pay close attention in the coming years. There's going to be more of those women like your mother, because women in our society tend to live longer, and some of the men who are veterans are in poor health because of the service. When they pass on, we're going to have many of those widows in the coming years who are going to need that bit of extra help.

What we tried to do, and I believe we have done it, is design the programs so they can be built upon without any major restructuring. We're looking into our crystal ball and hoping that down the road we can improve it a bit more.

It's quite interesting. Your mother is 100 years of age and she might be getting to the point in her life, because of circumstances, where she will need that help. Hopefully we'll be there to help her.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Gaudet, and Minister.

And I apologize for the error. I should have gone to Mr. Lobb and then Mr. Gaudet. So it will be back-to-back Conservative members now.

Mr. Lobb, for five minutes.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Thank you, Minister, for attending today.

Once again we see Mr. Sweet's charity as well. That's very good of him.

Minister, currently in our committee work we're studying veterans services among G-8 nations. From what I've been able to ascertain, it looks as though the United Kingdom is slightly ahead of Canada in terms of disability awards. I wonder if you could let us know exactly where Canada stands as far as disability awards.

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

That is a good question. I have heard some talk about their disability award being higher than ours. At first glance that appears to be the case. I'm going to get officials to scurry around for some of these numbers while I'm talking, because I want to make sure I'm right.

I do know that under the British system potentially a veteran could receive about $1 million in a disability award. They have different categories of veterans. My understanding is there's been very few, if any, who have actually received $1 million. Ours is about $267,000. But ongoing support for the veteran and family as time goes on doesn't occur in the British system at the level it does in ours.

When we look at those, I think it's sort of cherry-picking the best from the British system in isolation from all the benefits and the ongoing benefits we provide. But I do know this is factual. It's not making it up as I go along to get out of the committee unscathed. None of the British veterans have ever received the ultimate award of $1 million. It's out there, and I'm sure in time some will receive it. In fact I'll probably get a call from Britain later on today to say they've had one soldier who received it. But my information tells me, Mr. Lobb, that none of them have ever received that maximum amount. Many of our veterans have received the maximum, and sadly so. Obviously in many of these cases the disability is without question; it's given out.

I think of those serving in Afghanistan--I may be correct--we've had 26 cases of individual soldiers who have received the maximum disability award. In the British system, there's none; it's a big zero. I have to be very careful, because I don't want to criticize the British system, but I do know we have paid the maximum 26 times. They have never paid out the maximum.

[Suzanne Tining]

If I may, Madam Chair, when I was last at the committee the question was asked about the U.K. and its recent changes to the disability awards. I committed to bring the committee members the actual numbers the minister is referring to. I delivered my letter today. In the attachment you are going to see the difference between the Canadian and the British system, with three cases for high disability, intermediate disability, and low disability. You'll be able to see the difference.