Veterans Affairs Committee on March 6th, 2012

[Suzanne Tining]

I do have it.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

That's fantastic.

[Suzanne Tining]

So far this fiscal year 2011-2012, from April until now, we have 143 projects that have been approved in that program.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Do I have some more time?

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Believe it or not, you're very efficient. You have another minute.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

My question is for the Veterans Review and Appeal Board folks.

I know the main estimates show a decrease in funding, and I'm just wondering if you can explain how, even though there is a decrease there, you can continue to provide the support that our veterans need.

[John D. Larlee]

The decrease in the part of the main estimates with respect to VRAB deals with the statutory benefits that we have no control over. There is an adjustment with respect to those figures for the coming year. It has nothing to do with the amount that we use for our spending in our programs.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Excellent. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

I wasn't ready for that.

Mr. Harris, for four minutes, please.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Tining, while Mr. Casey seemed to take some issue with statutory or quasi-statutory in regard to your requesting more money, the fact is that because the services and programs to the veterans are so important, when you go to the Treasury Board—of course, you have to rationalize your ask—because it's a special category, the money is given. Is that correct?

[Suzanne Tining]

That's correct.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

That's the important part of it. That you do get the money and deliver the services.

Mr. Larlee, Mr. Stoffer doesn't seem to like the Veterans Review and Appeals Board. As a matter of fact, earlier when the minister was here, he suggested that the minister do away with the veterans review or put that $11 million somewhere else.

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

Hear, hear!

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Order.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

I'm really concerned about that attitude, because what other avenue of appeal do the veterans have if they were not approved in the first go-round? Where would they be able to go, if not, to appeal their case somewhere? I don't know if the numbers are correct, but for somewhere around 50% of those who don't pass the first muster and go to review board, the turndowns are actually reversed.

Is that correct?

[John D. Larlee]

Yes. When the members or the veterans who we serve come before the board at review, which is the first level following a decision from the department that it is not accepted, the veteran has the opportunity to come before us and is provided with representation at the review level—free representation that is—by the Bureau of Pension Advocates or a service officer from the Royal Canadian Legion.

In the last fiscal year, approximately 50% of those veterans coming before us at review have been successful in having increased benefits.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

I think that most people looking at the way the system is set up would argue that we just could not function without a means of appeal for the veterans who had not made the first request successfully.

They need to have some place to go.

[John D. Larlee]

In addition, if I may add, if the veteran is not satisfied following his review hearing, he or she has the opportunity to then take it on further to the next level, and is again provided with legal assistance at no cost on appeal. We presently, in this fiscal year, have an approximate 30% further success rate in addition.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Thank you, Mr. Harris.

Given the time, we'll probably cut the discussion off there, because we do have some votes we have to proceed with.

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

A motion?

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

I do— Pardon me?

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Nothing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

I do have to say that I want to appreciate—some of you had to travel distances—you coming today and participating with us. As always, if there are questions from the members, we'll pass them along to you if they come through in writing. Thank you, all, and we're pleased that the minister and his staff came. We want to thank them as well.

We're going to suspend for a minute or two. You're certainly allowed to stay, but if you want to leave, we'll give you a minute or so to do that. We're going to proceed with the votes.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Members, please take your seats. We have to resume the votes.

As you know, we have to consider both the supplementary and the main estimates. I will read it, so it's on the record. We're voting on the supplementary estimates. Pursuant to Standing Order 81(5), the supplementary estimates (C), 2011-2012, Veterans Affairs, were deemed referred to the Standing Committee on February 28, as I said earlier. It's on vote 5c, which is in the amount of $37,537,000.

VETERANS AFFAIRS Department Vote 5c—Contributions..........$37,537,000

(Vote 5c agreed to on division)

The vote is carried. I will note that it wasn't totally unanimous, but it was carried fairly strongly.

Shall I report the supplementary estimates to the House?