Veterans Affairs Committee on March 6th, 2012

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Of course, as you mentioned, 90% of the Veterans Affairs budget is invested in payments to veterans and their families, and 10% is used to run the department.

It's correct to say that within the next five years there are changes. The population in traditional veterans is decreasing. The Canadian Forces are releasing roughly 5,000 regular force members. We have some reservists, and of course, we are serving the entire veterans' community. So one key element is that we are needs-based, and we go according to the uptake.

This being said, realistically we can expect that some needs will diminish and that we will adjust our workforce in proportion. That being said, within the next five years, a good number of civil servants are eligible to retire, and we expect that most of our workforce adjustment will be made up of those members who will be eligible to retire, and some, as you mentioned, adjustment, because at the end of the day this department is aimed at helping and serving veterans. That's where we are at, and that's what all the employees are dedicated to, so I find it reasonable that we make sure we adjust our structure to meet the needs of veterans, which as you know are still quite high.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Since your government took power, there's been a virtual explosion in the size of the civil service in this country. There has been a disproportionate increase in the civil service in Ottawa as compared to the regions.

This is my question for you, sir. As you downsize your workforce, will you be sensitive to the regions and not focus on the regions, as opposed to the capital, for the downsizing?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Casey, I come from Lévis. Lévis is the heart of the Desjardins Group. That is the largest employer in my region. As a guy from that region, I have always been concerned about whether Desjardins was going to move to Montreal. That was one of my concerns. That is why the first thing I said when I went to Charlottetown was that the headquarters of Veterans Affairs Canada was there to stay. That is very clear in my mind.

As you know, the people from Prince Edward Island have outstanding qualities and, as a result, they are providing veterans with great services. Is there a need to continue to improve? Yes. Will changes be made? Yes.

Having said that, most of the Veterans Affairs Canada workforce—we are talking about almost one-third of veterans who are the manpower of Veterans Affairs Canada—is in Charlottetown, and the adjustments will be proportionate to the territory as a whole. So yes, absolutely. It is important.

I also feel that Veterans Affairs Canada is a model for the federal public service; it shows that a department can provide services even when its head office is decentralized.

Is there a need to continue to improve and to adapt to new needs? Yes. That is what we are going to do; that is the challenge that we are going to face.

Mr. Casey, you are obviously aware that, over the past decades, Veterans Affairs Canada has had an aging clientele; we now have the modern-day veterans who come back sometimes with mental health issues and physical problems, and that is why we are undergoing changes, we have to adapt to those needs.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Thank you very much, Mr. Minister.

We'll now go to Mr. Harris for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, minister, and thank you for your participation.

I wanted to say something, first of all, on Mr. Casey's last question. He asked whether, as you downsize, you will be sensitive to your employees. I think the question should be, and rightly so, whether as you downsize you are going to be, and were you, sensitive to the veterans and the programs and services they receive. After all, that's the most important part of your department. That's the most important mandate. It is to provide the programs and services veterans need, when they need them.

I see, Minister, in the estimates, that in fact, there is about a $45 million net increase in funding for veterans. The majority of that funding—I think it was a net $85 million in additional funding—was for grants and disability awards, earnings, losses, etc. I want to commend you, because cutting a department budget the size of yours is something that is a big challenge, particularly when your department is providing such needed and essential services for our veterans, who so richly deserve the help they need.

I have been in business and have gone through a couple of recessions and have survived them. I know that when I had to cut, I had a vision in front of me, which was that whatever I cut in my business, it could not hurt my relationships with my customers.

Minister, when you and your department started this process of downsizing, as you're required to do in times like these, did you have that mandate and that vision? Did you create the mandate for yourselves that whatever you do, it cannot result in decreased services and programs for the veterans, the people we need to help? Was that your prime driver as you looked for ways to cut your budget?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Absolutely, Mr. Harris. I'll answer you with two examples. I was in New Brunswick last summer, and I went into one of those joint veterans-Canadian Forces centres. We were having a discussion. At one point, the member for the Canadian Forces said that when he meets with a veteran and needs to get the veteran's data, he has to sign one form—it's a privacy sheet. He said that he found it a little bit complicated.

I asked him why. He said it's that we have five forms. Is it necessary for a veteran to fill out five forms once he has agreed to give the department access? I think that we should work towards one form, and I can tell you that we're working on that. This is an example of what we call a hassle-free service, cutting and streamlining our processes. There were good reasons for each of those forms, but at the end of the day, we have five forms for a veteran to access a veteran's data. This is four too many.

That's an example. If we take the veterans and dependants program—and I mentioned this week how the uptake for this program is big from our veterans—another example would be that every veteran is asked to submit every bill for every type of activity, and these have to be processed by some civil servant. We have some civil servants doing paperwork, and we have veterans who are asked to provide red tape.

I think these are areas that we could explore, that we should explore, and that we have to explore. Will it result in a more efficient service so that maybe some employees will be released from doing some tedious work? I hope so. I think that's the goal.

To get back, I think there are two goals in this department. Remembrance is important, Mr. Harris. I think this department is accomplishing that well. We got good feedback for our campaign—the "I am a Veteran" campaign. It's important for every veteran—and especially wounded veterans—to know of the recognition that society is giving them. It's part of the healing process, and that's why we need to emphasize, as much as possible, what we call “remembrance”—meeting the needs of modern veterans.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Thank you very much. Your time has expired, Mr. Harris.

We now go to Ms. Mathyssen.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Minister, Ms. Tining, and Mr. Gilbert for being here.

I have a number of questions. I'm trying to understand the machinations of all these cuts. Veterans Affairs Canada estimates that the personnel expenditures will decrease to about $270 million in 2012-13, down from $275 million in 2011-12.

Given that the main estimates don't take into account the deficit reduction plan we heard so much about, how is this $5 million decrease in personnel cost explained? Could you explain that for me?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

I'm glad you raised the question, because I think we've dispelled all the rumours. If we look at the actual number, there's an increase of $220 million over the last five years, on average. We started in 2007 with a total budget of $3.4 billion, and now we're up to $3.66 billion as we end the current fiscal year.

Every year, there has been a significant increase. The discrepancy in the number is due to some Treasury Board-imposed method of calculation, but I will frankly tell you that it's virtual. I think this is clearly understood. As of today, I'm coming here in front of you and asking for more money than we asked for last year. It's an increase of 1.3%. This is how I would set it up. Does that answer your question?

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Yes.

You say you've asked for an increase of 1.3%, but you've been asked to cut your department from between 5% to 10%. Have you arrived at the percentage you will cut? I'd like to know what that is in dollar amounts, and I'd also like to know what it means to your department? What's the impact?

Because we keep talking about the delivery of benefits to veterans, but it takes people, human beings, to do that. You need the expertise. We were in Halifax and we saw some of those experts. They do a remarkable job and they put in long hours. If they're not there, how on earth will the benefits that you sing so highly of be delivered?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

I thank you for your constructive comments on the officials working at the department. I think it's important to stress that they are giving their hearts and souls to this cause, because when you enter Veterans Affairs you really enter into serving the veterans. I think it's a great job opportunity, because it has a mission in it.

This being said, of course, I cannot comment on the upcoming budget. But I can tell you one thing, which is that all the measures that have been suggested to streamline our processes are coming from within the department. So it's those people working at the department who are saying, for example, with regard to the veterans independence program, how come we are asking our veterans to present this amount of information? Yes, we are moving forward and the officials are our best source of recommendations to implement and improve our service to veterans.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

In Halifax we heard from a Dr. Heather McKinnon, and she's a former medical officer. She served in the regular and reserve forces, and she's now in private practice and she works for the Royal United Services Institute of Nova Scotia. She was very clear that modern veterans do not receive the same level of treatment and care as their predecessors have received. They compete in the general public for doctors and medical assistance, and if they're in a situation where they need long-term care, they have to go to provincial institutions; and those facilities are not equipped and they don't have the expertise.

I can tell you, Minister, I've been in those private, for-profit, or provincial institutions, and there are veterans there who are desperate because the culture is not conducive to their experience. The care doesn't meet their needs if they have post-traumatic stress syndrome, and they feel very much cut off from the kind of care that their predecessors had.

My question to you, Minister, is that I understand the mandate is just for World War II and Korean vets, but given the service, and the courage and dedication of modern day vets, should they not receive the same level of care and consideration as their predecessors?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

I would answer, yes. Why do I say yes? The member will acknowledge that at the end of the Second World War the provincial health system was not what we have today, and that's why I'm willing to transfer the very last hospital that is still operated by the federal government, which is Hôpital Sainte-Anne, for the very same reason.

What I can assure the member is that every member who has an injury related to service will be provided with the additional medical services that the provincial won't provide.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Long-term care, though, Minister—

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Including long-term care, yes.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

—in my riding the Parkwood Hospital is a long-term care facility and we're losing those beds; and once they're gone, they're never coming back. The point is that modern vets deserve the same as previous vets—

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

I'm sorry, I'm going to have to cut you off. We're way over the time.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

I would just say that if it's an injury related to military service, whether he's a traditional or modern vet, he will be provided with a community bed.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Now we go to Mr. Lobb for five minutes.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Before I start, I'd just like to recognize some of the impressive veterans who we have in attendance today and thank them for coming. I think it's really great when we have veterans coming to our committee and the interest they have.

Thank you for your service and I think you recognize that this is not a partisan committee. We're all working together to benefit all the veterans from coast to coast. So thank you for coming.

I'll start, Minister, with my first question. In the upcoming weeks we're going to have the Veterans Ombudsman as well the Veterans Review and Appeal Board.

The Veterans Ombudsman put out a report at the end of the year basically outlining some of the issues and difficulties with the letters veterans receive after their application has been processed. It was quite detailed. I think it was about 28 pages and there were some recommendations in there.

Can you provide us with some of the improvements the department has undertaken just to give an idea to the people at home what the department's done so that veterans have a better understanding of the outcomes of their letters?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Yes, absolutely.

I want to thank the member. I find it quite a privilege to be with the Veterans Affairs committee, but also to be with veterans. Some have travelled long distances to be here.

Yes, we will make sure the members are provided with some letter examples as well. Basically, the ombudsman told us that typically veterans were receiving a three-page letter, but there was not really a beginning, a middle, and an end, so it was really getting difficult for the veteran to understand what the decision was. So what we did was provide reasons for the decision.

The first thing is, what is the claim of the veteran? Sometimes it's not that easy to understand what the claim of the veteran is, because the veteran will express some challenges he's facing, but sometimes it's not that clear in regard to understanding what is the claim, the actual claim of the veteran. That's the first thing. Once we've identified the claim, what he wants to know is: “Do I get it or do I not get it? Do you recognize it?” That's the decision. The claim and the decision: one paragraph. So the veteran knows.

Whatever the decision is, the veteran needs to know what we used to make this decision. It's the key evidence. What did we base it on? Our officials have tables of disabilities, references, and guidebooks, so what did they refer to? The veterans have the right to know what was used to make the decision. Then, what is the reason that this decision was provided? As well, if the member is not happy with the decision, what can he do? He can call the office. There's eventually a tribunal, or if he wants to get a better understanding....

What I want to stress is that by making this relatively simple change, I think it's a change of.... What I realize is that sometimes with a veteran, it's not because he's not happy with the decision. It's because he doesn't understand why this decision was made and because he has the feeling that the department or the officials have not understood what the reasoning was behind his claim. That's why it gets so important.

Actually, I think this will reduce the number of decisions that are asked to be revisited. This will reduce the level of frustration amongst the veterans community, which has been observed in some cases where they don't understand why those decisions are rendered.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

I agree. I think as well, the fact is that they have a right to know why they were rejected, and also, that the letter has where they can appeal, that the bureau of appeal is out there to them as well. If everything is working and this is improving, then hopefully you'll be coming back to us in the supplementals asking for more money because the veterans are receiving the benefits they're entitled to and that they've earned through their service.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Yes.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

There's one other piece I wanted to talk about. I've been a member of this committee for over three years. We've heard from all groups, far and wide, about the earnings loss benefit, okay? This was one of the key pieces in the enhancements we made to the charter last year.

In this year, this future budgetary year, we're nearly doubling what is estimated for the earnings loss benefit. I would assume that has to do with the enhancements, plus, there are more veterans actually accessing the benefits that are available. Can you comment on that? I think the number I see is going from $44 million to $84 million. So obviously the word is getting out to veterans that these benefits are available, and the people on the ground doing the job are getting them connected with the department.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Yes, Member Lobb. The uptake is really strong on the enhancements and on the new programs. Actually, it overshadows the decline we are observing, because as of today, there are funding decreases of $73 million. In some areas, mostly regarding the traditional veterans, we are investing less than we had expected regarding the allowances that are awarded to traditional veterans, because that population is decreasing.

As you can see in those numbers, even though for the last two years there has been a decline of 40,000 in traditional veterans, our investments and our budget, our overall budget, are increasing. There was also the Agent Orange issue, but as you can see, this year the Agent Orange is not there anymore, because we've addressed this issue and we are increasing our investments for veterans.