Evidence of meeting #7 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 buried.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Thank you very much, Mr. Stoffer.
Usually the chairman leaves his questions to the end, but there was a good point made that I wanted to capture. You mentioned that 14% of all veterans actually use your services. Is there any differentiation, or has that percentage changed from World War II veterans to Korean veterans to Vietnam veterans, right up to Iraq and Afghanistan, now that you're involved there? Has that diminished at all, or are there different groups that use your services more or less?
4:10 p.m.
As an Individual
I think it's increasing. I don't have the numbers to show you the incremental increases, but I do believe it is increasing. The younger veterans are more aware of their benefits. VA in particular is doing a much better job of letting the service members who are coming out of the service know about the benefits available to them. Of course, a lot of those who are killed in action are in fact buried in our cemeteries. That also raises the awareness of the benefit.
Now, the 14% figure is for burial. As I said, we actually serve about 41% with some burial options, which could be a headstone or a marker in a private cemetery. That demonstrates that the veterans are aware of the benefits available, but have just elected to be buried in a private cemetery as opposed to a national one.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Greg Kerr Conservative West Nova, NS
Oh, I still get seven minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much, Madam Lenox, for joining us. This is a wonderful learning curve for us. I think I would like to add my thanks that you rescued Peter's family and put him amongst us over here in the Parliament of Canada.
4:10 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Greg Kerr Conservative West Nova, NS
But we'll reserve that one for a moment.
Looking at the satisfaction rate, I can understand why you are proud. Has that been a constant, or is it something that's improved as time has gone on?
4:10 p.m.
As an Individual
Well, this is only the second time we were involved in that particular survey, and both times we got 95%. So we're consistent at 95% so far. We're striving to get higher than that. They do it every two years, I believe. We have definitely improved. We do our own internal survey, and we have definitely improved. I don't have those numbers in front of me, but we have shown improvement, particularly since 2000, because we've really focused on putting standards of appearance in place for our cemeteries, and on developing what we call an organizational assessment and improvement process, where we have teams that go out and actually look at the cemeteries, and measure the headstones for their height. They also look at cleanliness, and at the height of the grass, and everything. It has made a big difference in the way the cemeteries are maintained and the way they look.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Greg Kerr Conservative West Nova, NS
I think any government department on either side of the border would be quite pleased with a 95% satisfaction rate. So you ought to be proud of that.
I want to go to your page 9. It's been referred to, but I want a little more information on the location and the population, and your page 9 seemed to show it. I notice that the new cemeteries are basically in coastal states, except for Washington, and there's a huge territory in the middle. Is it likely that you're going to find a lot more state cemeteries inland, in the midland, or is that a population thing? Or is there some other reason?
I understand the growth along the coast, by population, but I'm just wondering if it is pretty static in the interior.
4:10 p.m.
As an Individual
What I don't have for you here, unfortunately, is a map showing all of our cemeteries. If you could see that, you would see they're all over the map. But yes, there's a less dense population in the middle of the country, whereas these areas that you're seeing are very dense. In the south particularly, you will see all of these new cemeteries in Florida. There are already several cemeteries in Florida, but these are new. A lot of retirees go to Florida, so it just makes sense that that's where the benefit is going to be used. That's where it's a dense population, and along the east coast there.
The Washington Crossing National Cemetery is actually just outside Philadelphia, so it's really serving Philadelphia, New York, or that whole population area up in there.
But there are a lot of cemeteries in the middle of the country, we're just not seeing them there. Certainly there are state cemeteries there also.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Greg Kerr Conservative West Nova, NS
If it were filled in, would there be a greater collection of state cemeteries inland, or would they be spread all over the country as well?
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Greg Kerr Conservative West Nova, NS
Thank you.
You mentioned that 75% of your headstones are outside the national cemeteries. I gather that it's because of the percentage of those who choose not to or for whatever reason are not in there. Is there any qualification that makes it different if you're not...? I know you said that anybody who's eligible can go into the national cemetery. Are there those that receive headstones outside that would not be qualified to go into the national cemeteries?
4:15 p.m.
As an Individual
The number is two-thirds. No, it's exactly the same requirement. It's the same eligibility requirement.
March 9th, 2009 / 4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Phil McColeman Conservative Brant, ON
I'm interested to explore with you, if I might—and certainly, thank you for all this great information—the standards you talked about briefly, just previously. It sounded as if, at a certain point in time, you decided to make certain upgrades to those standards and to then take measures to put them in place. Was that something that amounted to a large injection of funding into the system so that this could be accomplished?
4:15 p.m.
As an Individual
I think it was. I'm not going to say that there was a large injection of funding. Certainly there was some additional funding, but what really happened was an organizational decision, a leadership decision, that we needed to standardize what these cemeteries look like.
We do have some funding, which is part of this national shrine commitment, that has been set aside to do things such as major overhauls. If you have an old cemetery, where the headstones are tilted or are very dirty, we can do a major overhaul with this special funding for things like that. But the standards really apply to the day-to-day operational upkeep of the cemetery. If the cemetery staff are doing what they're supposed to be doing, they can keep those cemeteries at national shrine standards just by doing what they're supposed to be doing on a day-by-day basis. To get them there, we had to put those standards in place.
A lot of people worked for a very long time to get that right. Put them in place and it filters all the way down to the lowest-grade worker in the cemetery. They all understand what those standards are, all the way up to the leadership, and they can articulate them. Everybody knows. There's no question about how tall the grass should be. It's throughout the organization, with everybody understanding it. It's more about education and then holding people accountable.
The other thing we've done is develop an academy for our cemetery directors. This has been in place since 2003, I believe. All of our new directors go through a one-year program at an academy in St. Louis, Missouri. They learn cemetery operations in a standardized format. In the past, there were people who were hired from here, there, and everywhere, and they would go into this isolated area, and they were on their own. That's when things started to not look the way we wanted them to look. Now we've standardized it. We have an academy. We've graduated three or four classes now. And these new directors are going out and they understand it. It has just been phenomenal. It's wonderful.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
That's your time now. We'll move on to the next round.
We'll have Mr. Andrews for five minutes.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Andrews Liberal Avalon, NL
Thank you very much for coming today.
I have a couple of questions, and I'm going to start with eligibility. You said that they are eligible if they served prior to 1980 or if they serve 24 months of active service. Is that correct?
4:15 p.m.
As an Individual
Prior to 1980 they could have served one week of active service and been eligible. The law changed in 1980 so that they would have to have served for 24 months. That is your regular service person. I'll use me as an example. I served in the seventies. I served a two-year enlistment, and I'm eligible. If I had served 20 months instead of 24, and I had served in 1985, I would not be eligible.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Andrews Liberal Avalon, NL
Is there any lobbying right now or pressure to change that 24-month guideline?
4:20 p.m.
As an Individual
I believe it's being looked at, and that has to do, certainly, with the current conflicts. I can't really speak to where that's gone or who's looking at that, but it is being looked at.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Andrews Liberal Avalon, NL
Further, your National Guard and your reservists who spend 20 years of qualifying service have to be at least 60 years of age. So if someone serves 20 years of service and dies at 55, they're not eligible?
4:20 p.m.
As an Individual
They are. If they served the full qualifying service for retirement, and they would have been eligible for that at the age of 60, then yes, if they're 55 they're going to be eligible for burial if they would have been eligible for retirement at the age of 60.
