Veterans Affairs Committee on March 21st, 2011

[Mary Chaput]

Just for a little more clarity on our OSI clinics—operational stress injury clinics, where PTSD is treated—the operational spending in 2010-11 was in the order of $18 million. In the current fiscal year, it's expected to be approximately $21 million. What I'd like to reinforce is that this money is being spent on clinics. There is also research ongoing on the effects of mental health, mental injuries, brain injuries, spinal injuries, etc. on veterans' ability to remain in their homes.

I believe that early in March the committee met with Alain Beaudet, president of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. We in the department have met with Dr. Beaudet. We've talked about the research priorities of the institute and of those of this department to try to make sure we are leveraging and pushing research dollars towards those issues that are going to be very pertinent for veterans and the types of injuries or mental health issues they struggle with, so there is a large body of work ongoing. We're cognizant that there is much more to do and that this is a very important area. We think we could have a very rich collaboration with the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

We'll have two more questioners. One will be Mr. McColeman, and then we'll finish with Mr. Vincent.

Mr. McColeman, go ahead.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Minister, thank you for being here today.

I've served on this committee since I came to Ottawa in 2008. I want to compliment you on the many things you've been able to carry forward for veterans in this country since you took over. We're hearing that things aren't perfect; they're never perfect, frankly, and there's lots of work to be done, but you, sir, have taken the ball, and you've done many good things over the time you've been the minister.

One of the insinuations here has been that you have not been on the ground and have not listened to vets. I'm aware of the tour you did—I believe it went across the country—to speak with vets and the Veterans Affairs staff on the ground who are serving the vets. You listened to them for some things you could take back to make improvements with. Could you expand on what that tour entailed?

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Jonquière—Alma, QC]

Yes, I had some very specific goals in mind for the tour across Canada.

I first wanted to meet with our staff, of course, everywhere we have an office in the regions we were visiting. I also wanted to meet with the organizations representing our veterans. Finally, I wanted to see the residences and shelters available to assist the homeless so that we could talk with stakeholders about their methods of identifying homeless people and see what kind of measures they were taking to support them.

Of course, I also went to military bases to tell our forces what we were hoping to achieve with Bill C-55. I noticed that people did not seem to have the right information. They were not aware of what was in the new charter or what would happen to them once they left the Canadian Forces, if they got to that point. They were not aware of the services they would get from our department. They were surprised to see all the services that we would provide them with and that we are currently improving to better serve their needs.

I would like to go back to the lump sum payment. With Bill C-55, we would be changing the lump sum payment so that they could either take a one-time payment or spread it over how many years they choose. That does not mean they would be making the right decision.

If you were in their shoes, what would you do? You would ask your spouse, your friends or your family what was best for you to do in your situation. Would it be better to take some of the money to buy a house? Or would it be better to spread it over time, as some of them have already received $250,000 from the Department of National Defence? Those are the changes we are making, and they are a real improvement.

We would certainly like to give more. That's always the case. But we have been going in the order of priorities. We consulted with veterans' organizations. We asked them what changes were most urgent. And we established the priorities with them. They are backing us up as we speak. They are urging the government, the Senate and everyone else to pass this legislation in the coming days, since we don't know what looms ahead in the House of Commons.

These types of tours are really important. They allow us to reach people. People can then meet with me and share how things are.

Even in the House of Commons—I can ask the members—how many times have you come to me with an envelope, not a brown envelope...

[Voices]

Ha, ha!

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Jonquière—Alma, QC]

How many times have you come to me with a white envelope with requests from veterans. They go through you to ask us to look at their files, don’t they? I always make a point of examining the situation of any given person. Sometimes, we realize that there are things we can improve, and we do improve them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

I think we'll move on to Mr. Vincent.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am not questioning your integrity at all, Mr. Minister. Mr. Hillier said earlier that veterans' allowances had never been reduced. I think he is somewhat mistaken and I am going to show you why.

Do you recall the last time you appeared before this committee? I had asked the department to draw a comparison between the veterans charter and the former Pension Act. The department came to the conclusion that, in two out of three cases, it was more beneficial for those whose disability rates varied between 2%, 3%, 4% and 40% to be subject to the old Pension Act than the New Veterans Charter. It was not me who said that; it was your department. It is written in black and white in the report. I hope you are aware of that. And now, you have just told us that the new charter is better for the veterans you have met with and that it will protect them. That's not true. In the report, your department said that that the old pension was better for those whose rate of disability was less than 40%.

Mr. Chair, it has also been said that the waiting list has been reduced by 36% in a year, but the fact remains that 64% of claims have not been processed. In addition, the minister is asking us for $155.6 million to deal with the backlog of payments and disability pensions. Have you thought about the fact that 36% of applications have been processed, but people who were deployed in theatres of operation and came back injured have not been receiving any compensation? You have just started giving them benefits. You have just asked for new budgets. That makes no sense. Yet you talk about respect for veterans. Let me just say that we are nowhere near that.

In addition, we are talking about your tour. I am aware there was a tour because you came to my area. But if you have a tour to meet with veterans who are not going to benefit from the New Veterans Charter, we have a problem. What is the point of meeting with WW2 veterans who are receiving benefits under the Pension Act and have no link with the New Veterans Charter? Even if you meet with them and talk to them across the country, that's not going to change anything in their lives, since they will never be subject to the New Veterans Charter. Those who will benefit from this new charter are our new soldiers, the ones in Afghanistan or the Blue Helmets who are going to be deployed as part of peacekeeping missions. These are the people that need to be protected, but the charter does not protect them. You can list all the amounts you want, but the fact remains that your department is telling us the opposite of what you are saying. For these people, the charter is not any better than the old act.

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Jonquière—Alma, QC]

First of all, when we meet with our traditional veterans, they are in support of what we are doing for our modern-day veterans. They are not selfish.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Blackburn, they are not familiar with the legislation. You have not explained it to them properly.

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Jonquière—Alma, QC]

First, they are soldiers or former soldiers, and they are able to tell whether the government is being fair to modern-day veterans.

Second, Mr. Chair, I did not just meet with representatives from veterans' organizations. I also went to military bases. I met with serving members who were able to appreciate what we are doing for them.

Third, let me explain the difference between the old and the new charter. Under the former charter, our department was providing 16 services whereas, under the new charter, we are offering 37. So there must surely be something better somewhere in there. At the moment, if you have a serious injury, you receive $58,000 per year until the age of 65.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Blackburn, you know that, when the rate of disability is 40% or less, it is better to be subject to the Pension Act. And the majority of people returning from Afghanistan have a disability of 40% or less. That means you are making money at the expense of veterans who are injured. Mr. Minister, it is written in black and white in the document from the Department of Veterans Affairs that I requested so that I could understand the difference between the new act and the old one based on the disability rate. You should not be fooling people like that.

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Jonquière—Alma, QC]

The new charter is built around rehabilitation. We want to make sure that people can return to work. And If they do go back to work, they will be able to earn a salary, continue to thrive and move forward with their lives. We want to make sure that the people who come back home will receive at least $40,000 during their rehabilitation, and $58,000 if they cannot go back to work, in addition to the lump sum and the $250,000 from the Canadian Forces. And of course, we are still talking about a maximum amount depending on the extent of the injuries.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

We're already past the time.

I thank you, Mr. Minister and associates, for being here today. Thank you very much for answering the questions on the estimates.

We're going to take a short break--four or five minutes--and then there are a couple of things we have to pass.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

I call the meeting back to order.

There are three things we still have to accomplish here today.

First of all, we have to vote on the supplementary estimates (C). A quorum of seven is required, and we have that quorum.

We have two votes.

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

Before you do that, Mr. Chair, on a point of clarification, I just want to verify that the $11.5 million for the Veterans Review and Appeal Board is not part of this vote. Am I correct?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Yes. I'll let my analyst explain.

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

They're now a separate agency, apparently.

[Jean-Rodrigue Paré, Committee Researcher]

The vote for the tribunal was passed on the main estimates for 2010-11, and there's a new $11.5 million in the 2011-12 estimates, but now as a separate entity. It's not within the department's budget.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Okay. Is everyone clear?

VETERANS AFFAIRS

Ministry Summary

Vote 1c--Operating expenditures, upkeep of property, remedial work on property, certain Ministerial salaries..........$19,787,717

Vote 5c--The grants listed in the Estimates and contributions, provided that the amount listed for any grant may be increased or decreased subject to the approval of the Treasury Board..........$170,070,000

Shall vote 1c carry?

(Vote 1c agreed to)

Shall vote 5c carry?

(Vote 5c agreed to)

Shall I report the supplementary estimates to the House?

[Some hon. members]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Second, this is a budget for witnesses for Bill C-55. The amount requested is $4,400.00. That was for witness expenses; then we had a video conference, and there were miscellaneous expenses. It's $4,400.00.

Can I have a motion to accept that budget?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Chair, don't we usually do this budget in advance?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Yes, but that didn't happen.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

I thought we hadn't noticed it happen.