Veterans Affairs Committee on March 4th, 2009

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

The truth is that there's an explanation for it.

This is a question I've had. As you can see, I'm surrounded by very capable individuals, and that's the question I put. If I'm correct on this—and if you don't see them nodding in the right direction, it may be that I'm wrong—I'm told we're the only government department that operates under this particular set of.... This anomaly applies only to us. It's something we'll have to talk about with Treasury Board or those who actually set the accounting rules around this place. I think if it's broken down, then it makes more sense to me. The truth is that you're right: it doesn't make any sense, and you are belabouring it, but I'm not in the position to criticize members of the committee, am I, Mr. Chairman?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

You will be happy to know that he cannot belabour it any more because his time has run out.

Mr. Harris has stepped out, so I will go to Mr. Andrews from the Liberal Party.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Thank you, Chair, and Mr. Minister and officials for coming today.

I want to go back to the Veterans Charter. I too agree that the charter is a good arm for us to use when we're gauging how we treat veterans. It's seen around the world as a leader, but you can always do better. And I'm a little bit disappointed to hear you say today that you're not willing to review the charter and have another look at it to see areas where we could do a little bit better.

One of the aspects of the charter that I'm talking about is the disability pension for life. I've got a couple of questions here, and real life questions, that I'd like to get your views on. The settlement dies with the veteran when the settlement is awarded. This means that a widow would receive nothing if the veteran passes away before the settlement is awarded. Question one is, what would you say to that widow when she would receive nothing because her husband passed away before the settlement was awarded? That's one of the flaws in this system.

My second question relates to PTSD. I've got an example of a 30-year-old veteran who finally realized that he was suffering from this after two tours in Bosnia. He went for treatment and after that he returned to his position in the military, but then the military told him that he was unfit for duty due to his past experience. It's not really a good signal to send to veterans suffering from this disorder who are not willing to accept that they have it. So what would you say to a veteran who would have this example, and how would you encourage them to get treatment for PTSD if they're not going to be put back to duty afterwards?

I'd like to get your thoughts on those two questions.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As I hope I have explained to members, we're open to changes within the Veterans Charter. We're not opposed to changes. With Mr. Stoffer what I was referring to was going back to the old pension system, which would be fundamentally abandoning the charter. That's just something that didn't work in the past and simply won't work in the future.

But in terms of ongoing changes, where we can identify changes that would allow us to do a better a job, we're open to that. We're not going to turn the clock back to the old system. I fundamentally believe it did not help our veterans community, particularly the families, move on from military life to civilian life with the support the families needed--ongoing support, medical support, counselling support, retraining, educational support, that type of thing.

In terms of where in the document we can identify positive changes, we're very open to doing that. I never want to make it sound like we're not open to doing that. We have done that, and we'll continue to do it. Many of those changes we can tweak within the department. There's really not a problem doing that, because that's what we're here for. If we can make it work better, we'll continue to do that.

So what I was referring to was going back to the old pension system--you know, give the veteran a pension, wave good-bye, and say, “Good luck, guy.” Those days are over. It didn't work then and it wouldn't work now if we went back to it.

What I was attempting to do with Mr. Stoffer was to explain, as best I could in a couple of minutes, basically how the system works. We have that ongoing support for the veteran and their family in terms of lost income, educational support, and so on.

So we'll be there for them. The expression we use within the department is that we never give up on a veteran. And this is so true for everyone I've ever met within Veterans Affairs, and I've met thousands of them. If we can help, we're going to be there to help. That's really our philosophy: we never give up. The charter doesn't give up on a veteran either.

In terms of PTSD, post-traumatic stress disorder, I hope I can answer this question sufficiently. Many of the active service members today are suffering post-traumatic stress disorder and they're coping with it because of the help they get from us and from DND. There's more of an openness to talk about it, to seek help early. The key to a lot of this is for a veteran to come forward early.

I think the key, Mr. Andrews, is that we're slowly erasing the stigma that's attached to post-traumatic stress disorder. In the past, we never wanted to talk about it. We always called it shell shock and battle fatigue; we'd say everything but.

I often say, in every one of my speeches, as Judy will attest—you were there, anyway, and heard me—that one of our goals in our greater society is to eliminate the stigma attached to having to seek psychological help. We can say we have a broken arm or a broken leg. That's okay. But as soon as we say we have to see a psychiatrist, we know what happens then, right? We hear, “I don't want to talk to you any more. I don't want you working for my company any more. I don't want you in the army any more. I don't want you in the navy or the air force any more.”

We have moved past that to, “Listen, you're a valuable member of the Canadian Forces. We want you to get better. We want to make it easier for you to get better. We're going to give you the tools, and we have the people here to help you.” Now we're noticing that veterans and active service members are coming forward.

We will have those situations where the help we provided didn't provide a satisfactory outcome. We'll always have that; we'll always have that. We'll never have 100% satisfaction or a 100% cure, if you will. Just as with any medical outcome, there'll never be always a 100% cure.

But I think we are making a difference. And the difference, I think, is reflected in the men and women we have retained within the Canadian Forces who are presently getting a pension, if you will—I shouldn't say “pension”, but in the past it was a pension—and ongoing support from us to do that very thing.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

What about the disability pension? If the veteran passes away before the settlement is awarded, that dies with the veteran. Why wouldn't that be passed on to the widow?

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

In the case of a disability pension--if that's related, for example--to a soldier who was wounded in Afghanistan today and who passes away as a result of that injury, that lump sum benefit would go to the widow. It started out at $250,000. Today it's $267,000 as a result of the increase in the cost of living in the last three years. So that would go tax free to the children and the family. That's in addition to the other benefits, an equal amount of money, that would come from DND to that soldier and his or her spouse and dependent children. At the end of the day it's all about the family unit, so we are there regardless of when that death occurs. We will be there for that family.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Andrews.

Mr. Clark, you have five minutes.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

I'd like to share my time with Mr. Kerr.

[Greg Kerr, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

I have just a quick comment regarding a question that Scott raised about the charter. One of the things that I have learned since becoming a parliamentary secretary, from the briefings with the various veterans groups, is that they always refer to it as a living document. By that they mean that they continue to offer opinion and reaction to it. They look at it not as a static document but very much as a living document. It is important to keep that in context. That is how the veterans themselves look at it.

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

Mr. Chairman, could I respond a little bit to that?

I could have gone into this earlier in the day as well. I do know that the veterans organizations supported and helped design this charter, so it's not as if--and this doesn't sound very complimentary--a bunch of bureaucrats came up with this new charter. We sometimes think these anonymous people somewhere within the bowels of Veterans Affairs and DND did this. The charter was designed with the help of these veterans organizations and veterans. They were the ones who helped the department and the government put this thing together, so they are not offside with the veterans charter. Their fingerprints are all over that charter, and that is what they were asking for. They wanted a better way to provide service to our veterans, and the government of the day responded with the new Veterans Charter.

I want to emphasize again that this passed within the House of Commons without a vote. The present Prime Minister, who was then leader of the opposition, the Bloc leader, the NDP, and the Prime Minister of the day, Mr. Martin, plus the entire caucuses of those parties--the government and all the opposition parties--agreed on this. There was unanimous support. That doesn't just happen by accident. It happened because it was properly designed. It was properly thought through, and I believe it was properly executed. Our challenge was to implement it.

Some of that is reflected in some of those numbers today, which I actually put in my opening comments--I didn't call them “unexpected expenditures”. There has been a successful implementation. It is something that all parties in the House of Commons can take a lot of pride in because there is no controversy. It's one of the few things in this place that we didn't argue to death. Usually we just argue for the sake of arguing, but in this case there was no argument. It was the right thing to do. We support it.

Those veterans organizations today still support it. I want to emphasize that. Contrary to some opinions, they still support the new charter and continue to provide us with ongoing advice on the implementation--as do members of this committee, Mr. Chairman--on how we can improve it, how we can make it better, and what the next step is going to be. Without question, it has been a success. It has been successfully implemented, and we continue to listen to those veterans communities on how best to improve it.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Minister.

You have a minute and a half, Mr. Clarke.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Minister, for coming here.

I'm looking at the main estimates here on table 1. What I see here is that in the main estimates from 2003, in terms of actual expenses, there was a deficit. Now I'm looking at 2006-07, where there was a surplus, and in the main estimates for 2007-08 there was actually a surplus again. In 2008-09 there's another surplus.

I'm just hoping to find out, do we have a forecast, or are we on track to meet the needs for 2009-10?

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

You're looking at a document that was prepared by the Library of Parliament. I was busy here looking for what's in the actual parliamentary document because this is sort of an abbreviated version of what we're talking about today.

So fundamentally, Mr. Chairman, the question is what? I just want to focus on what the real question is on this issue. I'm just asking for help from the chair, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Clarke asked, in regard to the funds that are appended for the estimates now, if you're on track to meet all of your responsibilities with the funds that are appended to it.

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

Absolutely. We are on track, and what we have laid out today is absolutely accurate. There have been no unexpected or untimely hindrances for us or the department. So we are on track, and we pretty well lay that out in all of our documents.

What threw me off is that this is like an abbreviated version within the...just for the sake of reference, I suppose. So no, we are on track, and as I've articulated to Mr. Gaudet and Mr. André both, I've explained why we've identified some of those internal savings. But other than that, we're on track. There are no difficulties within the department, and none foreseen. That's pretty good management, I think.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Minister.

I want to remind members that we'll need to finish expeditiously in 12 minutes because the bells will ring and we'll be called for a vote.

Mr. Harris, five minutes.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I'm happy to be here in the committee, and it's nice to be here in your presence, Mr. Minister. I know one of your predecessors, George Hees, used to call it the best portfolio in government because you got to help out veterans. You seem to be in the same mode of thinking by your friendliness today here.

We missed you in St. John's, by the way, in December. Weather prevented you from coming to present the minister's awards for our service to veterans. I did offer to present them on your behalf, but it was graciously declined by your officials for protocol reasons, no doubt. But we did miss you and it was quite the event.

My good colleague and friend who I am replacing today, Peter Stoffer, has been advocating for veterans for many years, as you know. One of the things that has happened in recent days, in fact just a day or so ago, has been the rollout by Mr. MacKay--I guess also on your behalf because I'm sure the veterans are involved as well--of the integrated personnel support centres. Is this something that veterans have access to on a full basis, the same as in-service personnel do? Can you tell us whether the $21 million that's talked about is new money, or is it money from existing programs that are being rolled into these centres?

As a supplementary to that--this will show my Newfoundland and Labrador interest, I won't say bias--because of the large number of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in the Canadian Forces and therefore among our veterans, we are well above our weight in terms of percentage of population. I think we're about 1.8% to 2% of the population, yet both our military personnel and veterans would be well above 10%, so why would it be that there isn't one of these centres in Newfoundland to service the needs of Canadian Forces veterans and members in Newfoundland and Labrador? We'd certainly like to see that, and veterans in Newfoundland and Labrador would like to see that.

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

Thank you, Mr. Harris, for your kindness.

Again, I'll get right to the answers. In terms of the money, because you mentioned $21 million, that would be all DND money, so that wasn't part of our expenditures. Again, these centres do apply for all ranges of military, those still serving and the veterans community as well.

I think the term I used in my opening remarks—and I know you're coming in late to replace Mr. Stoffer, and I appreciate your coming in—is the seamless delivery of service. That was actually a question I've heard in the House of Commons more than once, that sometimes veterans get caught up in that set of circumstances where you're dealing with two bureaucracies. You're dealing with DND and then you're dealing with Veterans Affairs, trying to get the benefits that would flow to you as a result of your service.

I did miss the event in Halifax because of weather the other day, when Minister MacKay rolled this out. The parliamentary secretary, Greg Kerr, missed because of weather as well. But the interesting thing about this is when we hear of men and women leaving the military as opposed to retiring, we often forget that some of these people are leaving the military but it wasn't their choice to leave. Because they're wounded in Afghanistan or injured on one of our bases, or just a medical condition where their career suddenly is.... It's just sort of like a freight train runs them over in the middle of the night. Their whole life turns upside down. One day they're a soldier, the next day they're not a soldier.

So for those who plan their retirement and things go according to their plan and they have planned to leave the military after 20 or 25 years, that soldier usually is not the one who gets caught up in this bureaucracy, if you will, between the two departments. It's always and most generally the soldier who didn't plan his retirement, who just happened to get wounded in Afghanistan, where his life is suddenly turned upside down and for all the obvious reasons sometimes finds it difficult to work through the system. We want to make it truly like one-stop shopping. That's the term I used the other day on a call-in radio show, and I'm thinking, well, I don't know if that's the right term to use, but now I see the term is used quite frequently, even among DND folks, because that's really what it is.

When you're coming in for help and your life has suddenly been turned upside down, the last thing you want is be bounced from office to office to office and have no results. So that $21 million.... My people this morning told me that means around 200 positions, which are going to be additional positions with DND, to really focus on that seamless transition for our soldiers, our men and women, and identify how we can help eliminate some of the frustration that's out there. I think we're doing a good job, but I think the job can be done better and to a higher level of satisfaction for our men and women if we coordinate those actions between the two departments. That's what we'll be doing, because they'll be in the same building, the same office, so that we're not....

In terms of—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Harris, you're over your time. I allowed the witness to continue—

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

And I didn't get to the important question for you, Mr. Harris—

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

The shop is in Halifax, that's the problem.

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

Yes, that's what I was getting at.

To be honest with you, I don't have a great explanation for why we don't have it. I took a look this morning at the numbers across the country in terms of the various provinces and the number of veterans and so on, but I know you're right in that. I've heard that the number of people who serve generally is higher in Atlantic Canada than in the rest of the country. But I know that in Saskatchewan they actually produce more sailors than New Brunswick, so you can never be sure of the statistics in this business. But I think you're right in that.

That's something I will talk to our people about. I'll talk to Mr. MacKay about it, because I don't have an answer that you can leave with today that would be satisfactory. But I do know that generally they're very strategic in the choice of some of these centres, and I know that in terms of the navy, for example, Halifax is the greatest population centre, if you will. I don't know how that plays out in St. John's or in other parts of Newfoundland.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Minister.

We have two or three minutes for Mr. André and Mr. Gaudet.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I should make something very clear. I have been sitting on the Standing Committee of Veterans Affairs for three years, and I can say this is a committee that is free from partisanship. All members work toward a common goal. We should not forget those who gave us the freedom we have today. It is one of the only committees where partisanship is set aside. And I am grateful to all for that.

I have a question for the Minister or his officials, Mrs. Tining or Mr. Herbert. Is it possible to get the breakdown of the figures in the tables? The Library of Parliament table indicates spendings of $2.057 billion for pensions, awards, disability and death benefits, and also financial support. You do not have to tell me right away. I would also like to get that breakdown for benefits and health care and rehabilitation services. We know the remembrance programs cost $44 million. Spendings for the veterans tribunal are also known.

Could you make these breakdowns available to us later on? Thank you.

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

One of the things we will do, Mr. Gaudet, is provide you with the information, because there are actually some tables that I wanted to bring in today for you, and we want to make sure we have all of them in French and in English.

We all want members of Parliament to have the information in their hands. That's why we went to great lengths today to explain some of those discrepancies in some of the numbers that you see in the budget document, because when you know why it's laid out in a particular way, it makes my life easier. That's what we're doing. So when Mr. McColeman is asking that question in terms of operating costs, that's the kind of breakdown we all should have, because there's no way any member would know that unless I were here explaining it.

We have to do a better job of getting that information into the hands of members of the committee and members of Parliament, because conceivably it could be embarrassing to a member of Parliament. I could put myself in that place, because in Parliament, when you're in opposition you're always attempting to get up and score your points on the government. This is just how it plays out. I'm not just saying this; we've done the whole thing. So conceivably you could have a member of Parliament getting up asking about these operating expenditures. The question wouldn't be asked if they understood the whole story, so it's important that we get the whole story out to you. It's going to be our recommendation that we find a better way to articulate this so that you do have that information.

Today, even in my opening remarks, I went through some of this. I guess openness and transparency are words that we overuse in this place, but the more information we have for our members of Parliament, the better job we can all do, because at the end of the day we're all in this thing together, to do the best job we can for our men and women in uniform.