Veterans Affairs Committee on March 4th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Order, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome. Bonjour à tous.

Thank you, Minister, for attending.

We're a little bit behind schedule, so I'll get right to it. I know that the minister has opening remarks.

Does Madam Tining have remarks to make as well? No.

Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, we'll now have the minister give his opening remarks. Then we'll go to our regular rounds of questioning.

[Greg Thompson, Conservative, Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think this will take somewhere between five and eight minutes. We'll have plenty of time for questions.

I want to thank you for inviting me back much sooner than many of us expected. But as I often say, Mr. Chair, we live in the best country in the world, and we owe most of that, if not all of that, to our men and women in uniform.

Today we are reminded of that service once again. We're reminded once again of our truly solemn duty to provide the services and the benefits our brave men and women and families need. Today Canada has lost three of its finest soldiers: Warrant Officer Dennis Raymond Brown, Corporal Dany Fortin, and Corporal Kenneth Chad O'Quinn.

Their sacrifices remind us of why each of us is here today. That was stated by the official leader of the opposition and the Prime Minister. In fact, the member from Sackville, who is here with us now, mentioned today, in his speech on the passing of our former Speaker, the sacrifices of our soldiers.

As I say in so many of my speeches, these remarkable men and women in uniform serve without hesitation and without reservation. We must be there for them, just as they have always been there for us. I know that the thoughts and prayers of all of us are with the families and friends of these fallen soldiers.

Our programs are as diverse as the remarkable men and women we serve. We have, on the one hand, aging and increasingly frail traditional veterans. On the other hand, we have modern-day veterans, younger Canadian Forces members, and their families. That is what guides us in the management of our $3.4 billion annual budget. That is why our budgeted funding has increased by a total of $1.6 billion over our first three years in office.

Mr. Chairman, I want to highlight just a few of the items in particular from our main estimates. For example, meeting our veterans' needs means eliminating delays in getting them the support they require. When we took office just three years ago, we had real concerns about the delays in adjudicating disability awards. There was, very frankly, a growing backlog that all of us at this table agreed was unacceptable for the men and women who ensure the freedoms we enjoy. Our government responded quickly with the resources needed to improve the turnaround times on disability awards.

In 2007 we put an extra $14 million toward approving applications through the system more quickly. This has resulted in an additional $55 million for awards to our veterans. You'll see that, Mr. Chairman, in the estimates.

Also in our estimates is an adjustment in the amount required to meet our commitment on Agent Orange. We have kept our promise to deliver a solid, transparent, and accountable solution for the Agent Orange ex gratia payments.

As you well know, this is a very difficult issue that previous governments of all political stripes didn't want to deal with. We did. We met the challenge. We developed eligibility criteria based on expert research, and we ensured that these criteria were in line with other ex gratia payments set by previous governments. We estimated the number of potential recipients by using census and military records. We took into account expert research on the prevalence of Agent Orange-related conditions. We did that to ensure a fair, transparent, and compassionate response to those truly affected.

Mr. Chair, rather than make a promise we couldn't keep, this government chose to honour its commitment and put enough money aside to get the job done, with an approval rate of 60% for all those who applied. Since we began to issue cheques--just five weeks after we made the announcement--2,059 applicants have received the tax-free ex gratia payment. More than $40 million has been delivered to those eligible and to their families.

Let me assure you, Mr. Chairman, that this government has taken many steps to promote the program and its criteria, and we'll continue to do that.

I also want to take a moment to talk about something of particular importance to me and to this government, and that is our commitment to those brave Canadian veterans suffering from operational stress injuries. One cannot image the pain of this kind of injury, the isolation of true suffering, grief, and anguish that our men and women go through.

But there is help, and we continue to help. We've taken that to a higher level, Mr. Chairman, both us and the Department of National Defence. At Veterans Affairs we have continued to provide support, counselling, and treatment for those currently serving, as well as to our veterans.

In the short time since I was here last--and that was only a couple of weeks ago, as you know, Mr. Chairman--we've officially opened two more of our new OSI clinics, one in Ottawa, attended by many of our members here, Mr. Chairman, including you, bringing the total to eight. And we'll open two more clinics, including the residential clinic at Ste. Anne's Hospital this fall.

This past Monday we opened a new, integrated personnel support centre in Halifax, one of eight new centres where DND and Veterans Affairs employees will work side by side delivering our programs and services. Bad weather prevented many of us from being in Halifax for that announcement--including the parliamentary secretary, who lives in Nova Scotia--but I do know that a number of members around this table have made very positive remarks regarding this initiative, Mr. Chairman.

I also want to point out that we have been offering on-site transition services to releasing Canadian Forces members for several years. We are currently operating on 17 bases and wings across the country.

The new centres are more of a coordinated approach to care. They ensure that we don't miss a beat in helping our service men and women move from the support they had from the forces to the programs and services offered through Veterans Affairs. The term we often use is “seamless”. We want to make the transition from military life to civilian life as seamless as possible--in other words, as easy as possible, Mr. Chairman.

These new centres will help us to do all of that even better. And Veterans Affairs staff will help those eligible to access a range of services including case management, disability and financial benefits, group health care, rehabilitation, and job placement programs. We will coordinate departmental and community resources to ensure our veterans and their families have the support they need and they deserve.

Veterans Affairs and DND also offer an operational stress injury social support program. OSISS, as it is often referred to, provides local peer support to CF members, veterans, and their families.

There are also many pressing issues we are facing with our traditional veterans. These men and women have a new enemy, and of course, Mr. Chairman, it's time. We need to dedicate ourselves to making sure they receive the help and recognition they've earned and that they deserve. That's why, for example, we have promised to restore benefits and programs for our allied veterans from the Second World War and to extend this assistance also to those who served in Korea.

As well, we are determined to keep the torch of remembrance burning brightly. This year, for example, we will travel to France and Italy to remember the service and sacrifice of Canadians in the Second World War. As you know, and as we all know, we have a duty not to forget them for what they have achieved and what they have done for us.

Mr. Chairman, as our country faces, as we all know, one of the most difficult economic times in recent history, we all have a critical role in delivering quality services and programs in a fiscally responsible manner. Our government is working in this economic context to ensure that each and every one of our veterans continues to get exemplary care and support. We are committed to making sure our veterans and their families receive the care and recognition they deserve, and we're committed to making sure this nation is worthy of its heroes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Merci.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Minister.

Now we'll move on to questions.

For the first round, Madam Sgro, for the Liberal Party.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I will be sharing my time with my colleagues in order to give everybody an opportunity to get their questions in today.

Minister Thompson, I am pleased to see that you're back before the committee. This is the second time already that you have been here in the very short period of time that we have been meeting. So I appreciate your coming with your officials to answer the many questions we continue to have.

I noticed that the funding for your department was cut by $33.6 million, and I suspect it's largely due to the decrease in compensation payments for exposure to Agent Orange. Given the large amount of money that was put aside and the expectations of people who were going to be applying for the Agent Orange program, is the reason that only slightly more than half of that money was disbursed because the criteria of the program were very narrow for people to qualify?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

That's a good question, and I'm glad the member has asked it. In fact, I'm encouraging other members on the other side to ask that very question.

I do take a lot of pride in what we have done in that program. What we did was very fair and generous. As you well know, we set aside just a little under $100 million for that program--$95.7 million to be exact.

Of course, Mr. Chair, I alluded to the fact that a lot of time and history has passed under the bridge since this Agent Orange issue occurred. It goes back to 1966 and 1967. In all fairness, it was a very complex, very difficult package to put together simply because of the passage of time.

We followed the previous government's fact-finding mission. I suggested some changes in terms of what they should be doing on the ground, which the previous government responded to. We did make some additional changes to the fact-finding mission to dig a little deeper. But at the end of the day we were basically trying to put together a package and bring back as much of this information as we possibly could to make sure that it was fair and generous.

Mr. Chair, first of all, when I went to cabinet I wanted to make sure we had enough money to do the job. Our best-guess estimate was that we'd have 4,000 people who could potentially receive the ex gratia payment. It turned out that today we have a little over 2,000.

It was all linked to science. In other words, you'd have to have a medical outcome or a condition as a result of the spraying. For that, Ms. Sgro, we went to the only available science around the issue of exposure to Agent Orange, and we relied on the Institute of Medicine. There are certain medical outcomes associated with Agent Orange, but never do they say it would cause one of these. They say it's a condition that could be associated with exposure, but they never say this is a cause and effect, if you will.

In fact, Dr. Furlong, who was appointed by the previous government, had been a member of the New Brunswick legislature and was a highly respected individual. In all of his reports--and there's a truckload of reports and work that they did--never once did he say that we should, to use the word that he often used, “compensate”.

We came up with an ex gratia payment of $20,000 tax free. If we had relied on the information provided by the fact-finding mission, none of that money would have gone out to the victims of that exposure.

I think we have done the best job we possibly could with the information and the passage of time. To be very honest with you, Ms. Sgro, it could have been dealt with more effectively right then in 1966, 1967, 1968, that period when the information was fresh and they knew what had happened.

Some of the criticisms we get--and some of these are internal criticisms--are about how we know whether or not it was Agent Orange that caused the medical condition. It could have been the spraying that occurred as a result of the natural resources. New Brunswick was spraying heavily because of spruce budworm. There was agricultural spraying going on in the area. We had the railway companies spraying the same types of chemicals. The list goes on.

Again, I think in all fairness we did the best we possibly could. I'm pretty pleased with the outcome. As in anything, we'll never get it perfect. I would never suggest for a minute, Ms. Sgro, that we have it perfect, but I think we have it about as good as we can. To be very honest with you, many of your colleagues on your side of the House, including former ministers, were pretty pleased with what we'd done. They have been very supportive of me and really believe that we did the best we possibly could.

I thank you and many of your colleagues for that support.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Can you tell me how many individuals who applied were denied access to the program, who didn't qualify based on that criteria?

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

If I'm correct in this, I think we've had a 60% positive outcome. Of all those who have applied, 60% of them have been approved, which is quite high in circumstances like that. The deputy is just handing me the number now. We've had 3,100 applications and almost 2,100 approved. Some of those cheques haven't been released yet, but I think the number of cheques released is 2,051, so that's where we get the 60% rate.

As you know, the medical condition is the key to many of these cases. This is what's frustrating to some, because you could have a cancer, but if it's not on the list that was established by the Institute of Medicine, which establishes those lists of conditions, that would be the problem. Some of them will say they have a particular cancer, and that body of medical evidence that we relied upon really is, in most cases, the determining factor. In many of these cases we have gone above and beyond the call of duty to identify where these people live and if they do in fact have the condition.

I'll back up a little bit, Ms. Sgro. This was a combination of those who had served in the military and civilians. As you all know, we brought the boundaries way out beyond the base—five kilometres, in fact—because my argument was that the drift of these chemicals could have made a difference in those particular communities. We have relied on everything from school records in some of those rural schools to taxes paid in the community at a particular time, birth certificates, everything we could to unravel the puzzle and make sure we reached out as much as we could.

I'm pretty pleased with the acceptance level. At the end of the day, we will have left money in that fund, which is the second part of your question. That is a result of my going to cabinet and asking for enough to get the job done, assuming that we could have had more.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Thank you very much, Minister.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Madam Sgro. Thank you, Minister.

Now Monsieur André, for seven minutes.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Good afternoon, Minister. Thank you for coming to answer our questions.

I see in the estimates that were tabled that your department should reduce its spending by $24 million during this fiscal year. Given the scope of the Afghan mission, the number of wounded soldiers and people beset by various physical or psychological health conditions, particularly the post-traumatic stress syndrome, is this really a good time to cut spending?

We are told cuts of $2.3 million are maintained at the Ste. Anne Hospital. Employee representatives say consultations are underway to find ways to make these cuts. People worry and they wonder whether services or employee positions will be cut.

At our last meeting, you said cuts should not affect the quality or availability of direct services to clients. Is that a fact? Are you ready to make a commitment that services will not be affected? How could this streamlining plan be implemented without the quality of services being affected? That would be quite a feat.

Yesterday, your government announced a new network of eight support centres at a cost of $21 million. It will be mandated to provide care to sick or wounded Canadian soldiers, veterans, and families of soldiers who have been killed. This budget is managed by and under the purview of the DND, and not Veterans Affairs Canada. I am told that most services will be provided on military bases, and thus to those who have been affected recently by a physical or psychological medical problem. From what one can read about it, the budget for these centres will be under the responsibility of the national defence department.

If the services are provided, as they are, will the veterans affairs department have its say or a certain responsibility concerning the management of the care that will be provided in this context?

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

Thank you, Mr. André. Again, that's a good question, because when you're looking at the lessened spending by the department, one of the things I can look you in the eye and tell you is that none of that will reduce the services we provide to veterans. And that's one of the things I have laid down as a marker. It's one thing we're not going to do, and we did not do that.

The $24 million that we've identified will be over the next three years. So if you're looking at the total department's spending, if you will, of $3.4 billion, that's less than 1%. But none of that will reduce services or benefits to our veterans communities, so I think most of us would take comfort from that. That's just one thing I didn't do. And some of that money is coming from what we call improved program efficiencies, from the way we manage cases within the department. That's one of the things that's going to take place, and there will be some changes to our remembrance activities. So that will be one thing that will change.

There will be some changes to long-term care for our veterans, giving them more choice—and I believe this will require regulatory change—because one of the things we're finding in Veterans Affairs, which is sometimes hard to believe, is that in some parts of the country it costs Veterans Affairs, or the taxpayers of Canada, about $100,000, and sometimes over $100,000, per long-term contracted care bed. The reason the veteran is in that bed is it is the only level of care they're entitled to under the complex set of rules Veterans Affairs administers. That's the abbreviated way of saying this, and it makes no logical sense.

So veterans will tell you—and I've been to Camp Hill in Mr. Stoffer's area, and in Judy's area, up to Sunnybrook Hospital—that they would rather have been home with their families if Veterans Affairs had paid for that service to keep them home. It doesn't make any sense.

So those are some of the changes that we're going to bring forward to actually realize that $24 million in savings. We're going to give the veterans, at the end of the day, better care and we're going to give them what they want. At the end of the day, we're going to save the taxpayers of Canada some money. That, in my mind, is a good way to do business.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Do I have time left ?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

For a short question.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

When cuts are made in the health care network, we are often told that services will not be affected. But if the staff is downsized, nurses who provide care will have more people to look after and more first-line services to provide. We are told that services will not be necessarily reduced, but actually, they are. Less staff is available to maintain the quality of services.

Could you explain how it is possible to cut funds in a health care institution at a time when more and more people need care, for example people who are posted in Afghanistan? How is it possible to make cuts and, at the same time, improve the quality of services. That is not easy to understand.

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

One of the points I'll make is that the only area in Canada where we actually have nurses who are providing that care through Veterans Affairs is at Ste. Anne's Hospital. I just want to make sure, Mr. André, that I get this out, because I do know your concern is a concern of all of us, because it's a first class hospital. It's the only veterans hospital left in Canada. As you all know, these services are contracted out in other facilities. So none of that will be touched.

When you're looking in the estimates and seeing Ste. Anne's receiving less money, it's not related to the number of nurses or doctors or staff on the floor delivering the service, but to the major expansion that took place at Ste. Anne's, which is still ongoing. So these are some of the savings that have been realized from that expansion. When we're looking at the estimates, under capital costs, you'll see a difference of about $12 million coming back to the Government of Canada as a result of the contract to modernize Ste. Anne's and to bring it up to a certain level of specification. So the cost savings there have nothing to do with the men and women who are actually serving our veterans. Hopefully, that will being some comfort to you and our colleagues who see that reduction in Ste. Anne's. It has nothing to do with the manpower, the womenpower, on the ground.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. André.

Mr. Stoffer, for five minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Minister, to you and your staff for coming today.

I have just a couple of questions for you.

As you know, sir, last September an assurance was made by the Prime Minister regarding our allied veterans. The deputy minister was kind enough to supply us with information. In the notes we have, there were approximately 25,000 allied veterans with 10 years' post-war residency as of March 31, 2008, which means, according to the promise made by the Prime Minister, that this number of people would qualify for a war veterans allowance.

As you know, sir, that was taken away from them in 1995 under program review. That number of 25,000 obviously would shrink because of the aging process. A number of them would pass on.

I'm just wondering, sir, when these veterans and their families can expect to see, through the government, the war veterans allowance reinstated.

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

Mr. Chairman, I think the member has sort of framed it in the proper context, because that definitely is a commitment we made. It was under program review in 1995. It was a benefit that went to our allied veterans that was sort of disappeared overnight.

We have made the commitment to reinstate that, which we will do. I believe I had that question from the same member in the House of Commons. In 30 seconds, it's pretty difficult to give a complete answer, but the truth is that it's one I personally want restored.

A number of members on both sides of the House have talked to me about this. It's something that we did get into the platform. It's something that we will honour. To be very honest with you, today, and I shouldn't say just today, we have been working within the department to take a proposal to cabinet. That's something we hope to do very soon, once we get the numbers down and the details laid out.

I'm very positive. Again, the Prime Minister stated this. I'm not sure if it was a question put to him, but he has not hesitated to say it's a commitment that we're going to honour, and it's one that we will definitely honour. We do know the whole history. There's no sense in going into the history of why something was taken away, because the governments of a particular era are elected to do what they feel they have to do at the time, and that was a decision made. But it's a commitment we made that will definitely be honoured.

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

I have two other things, Mr. Minister.

First, as you know, you received a letter from the Royal Canadian Legion a while back, as we all did, regarding a possible discussion of reopening the Veterans Charter. In lieu of the discussion of the lump sum payments that are given to members who are required to medically release.... Either they've lost a limb or they have psychological concerns, or whatever, and they receive a lump sum payment.

Of course, the issues and the concerns have been that some of them now are reflecting that it may have been better to have a lifelong pension on top of that. As you know, as you've stated yourself, and as many others have, the big support for that Veterans Charter was the fact that it was a living, breathing document that could change if circumstances warranted. I'm just wondering, sir, if your department has reflected upon the letter received from the Legion, and if indeed those discussions are ongoing.

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

Mr. Chairman, when we moved to the new Veterans Charter, it was a deliberate choice by the government of the day to move there, with all-party support in the House of Commons. It is a living charter, and there are parts of it we have looked at and adopted as we went along. But in my mind the system we have now does work, and I'll tell you the reason why it's working better than the old system, why I would really hesitate to suggest even for a minute that we're going to go back to the old system.

We have these comparisons, which I'll provide, and I'm not sure if we have them here today, but we have them where it's the old system versus the new system. When the member is referring to the lump sum payment.... We have a hard time getting this out in the public domain and to those who really watch this whole issue. If an individual cannot work and returns, they would get that 100% disability, which today, with inflation factored in, I think is right around $270,000 tax free. In that, they would have ongoing support payments based on what their salary was in the military, for those who cannot possibly entertain going back to work. So we have a system that gives them the moneys necessary to help them re-establish their lives with the $267,000 tax free, but also ongoing support for them and their families as they need that.

When we get down to taking a look, and this is one of the areas where I think we have to work at a little harder, Mr. Stoffer, to explain.... One of the things that in the past drove the department to look at this and the previous government to entertain bringing in the new Veterans Charter was...for example, let's take a look at a veteran who's getting a 10% or 20% pension. It starts out at 5%, 10%, 15%, up till you're getting 100%. The average age of a veteran coming into our system is about 36 years of age. Many of those have made the deliberate choice to retire from the military with a military pension.

Those veterans who are coming out—and even in the past this is what happened—many of them are young men and they would get a 10% or 15% pension. That was it. You're on your own, kid, here's a 10% pension. I know this is an exaggeration and it might be a crass way of saying it, but basically it was a prescription for poverty. You're saying here's your 10% pension, and not providing them with the educational and medical benefits, rehabilitation, and all the other benefits we offer under the new Veterans Charter. In the past it was, “Here's your pension, go away.”

The new system is that you'll get the support you need from us. And if you're getting a 10% disability pension, that might work for some people, but the average soldier who was getting that 10% spent the rest of their lives trying to ratchet up the pension to the point where they could support their families. They didn't actually provide that veteran with the counselling needed to move from being a soldier to being a civilian in civilian life, to help them or provide them with the tools to make a living for them and their families. That's where Veterans Affairs and DND fell down over the years, I think. It was, “Here's a pension, go away, get out of our face.”

I do know, Mr. Stoffer, that you understand the new Veterans Charter, but when you look at the educational benefits that can go to the veteran or his spouse, on top of the tax-free disability they will get, there's also a wide range of other programs they get ongoing, that never end, including rehabilitation and retraining.

This is interesting, too, because I spend a good part of the day looking at some of these statistics. A lot of these veterans who are coming out today are in a position to contribute to their families in an ongoing way, provided they get the tools from us, and that's what we're doing.

As you well know, when a veteran leaves the system today--let's say, for example, he goes out with a 10% disability--I think the wrong thing for us to do is to say, “Listen, guy, you're on your own”, as you would have been under the old system, Peter.

Today, we're not going to say that. We're saying you have skills that are marketable, and if you want to change direction in terms of what you are doing and you think you want to be something other than an aircraft mechanic, we'll provide you with the training to do that. You will have that little bit of a lump sum to help you through it, but all the time that you're getting retraining from us, we'll provide you with that steady flow of income. When you're through that training and you get your job, you'll have exactly what you wanted, a career to lead you and your family through the next 10 years, 20 years, 30 years.

The working life of an average veteran coming out is 30 years, so I really believe that we've given them the tools to carry on and continue to contribute. Canadian veterans have no trouble getting hired, as you well know. If two people are applying for a job and a veteran comes in and says he's applying too--guess what--he's going to get the job because veterans are deemed to be the best workers in the world, the most trainable people in the world. They're very disciplined. They commit themselves to the mission 100%. He's the kind of guy or woman that I want working for me.

The new Veterans Charter, Peter, helps us do that. I don't think we want to go back there. I do know that when we were in Washington last year meeting with the big five nations--Britain, the United States, France, Australia, and New Zealand--they actually looked at our charter. They knew the ins and outs of it. They knew all the moving pieces in the charter. They said you guys have the best system. I'm not just saying that because I'm sitting at this table. They'll look it up and say, you guys have the best system because you really honour and respect the men and women and the family unit. In the past it just always seemed to be about the veteran. It was never about the family unit.

The other reason, Peter, that I'm very strong on this is that if something has happened to the veteran, say, for example, he is suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, which is another big issue within the military and within Veterans Affairs, which I think we're doing a pretty good job of addressing, if he can't get the training but his wife says she wants the training and she wants to go to university--she may want to finish a nursing degree or do something else--we'll say go for it and we'll help pay for it. We will help, and we have helped. It's made a huge difference in those families. Sometimes it's the reverse, and it is the wife who is hurt or injured or whose career has come to a screeching halt as a result of injury or of being wounded in Afghanistan, and her husband can be eligible for that service, or vice versa.

I think we have a pretty good system, and it's one we can be proud of.

Regarding your bigger question, when we identify those areas where we can change it and we can tweak it, we're open to doing that, and we have done it, Peter, and we'll continue to do that. We do know we have an issue now with some of them coming out in terms of.... I shouldn't show my hand, should I, and tell you about areas of difficulty that I've already uncovered myself? I'm just sort of playing into your hands as an opposition member in the House of Commons. Sometimes we're too helpful in identifying our warts and flaws.

The truth is that I've identified some of those myself early on. We improved some of those, and some of them we improved without any public discussion. We just identified that it wasn't working and we fixed it. We want it fixed before you hear about it.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Minister, and thank you, Mr. Stoffer.

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

I assume that's it.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

That's it. Your question was so interesting, you actually got the maximum time so far.

Mr. Kerr.

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

Mr. Chairman, I just want to remind you that when I went to university, my old professor said, “You know, Greg, the sign of a good student is the ability to ask a good question.” This student passed today.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Minister. I'm certain Mr. Stoffer feels very good about that.

Let's see if Mr. Kerr can feel as good about his question.