Veterans Affairs Committee on Nov. 28th, 2012

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Yes.

As a rationale of a few persons' opinions on the issue versus thousands, literally thousands, of veterans across this country, you're going to endorse a cut to the budget is just shocking to me. This is coming from a party that is supposed to be so pro-veteran. To me, it's just shocking. I think it says where you're really at.

We on this side have been funding at increasing levels for the last six years, and will continue to do so. To hear that from that side I think is telling, and it's sad.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Okay, thank you.

Mr. Harris is next.

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

Mr. Chair, we've just had some excellent presentations by the minister, the deputy minister, and the assistant deputy minister. They've clearly outlined the progress, the tremendous progress, that the department has made over the last few years, and where they're going. They've clearly identified that there are changes that they believe are going to streamline and improve the services to veterans. Now we have the budget numbers in front of us. These numbers cover what we've heard today and provide the resources for the direction the department is moving in and the direction that the minister wants to move in, which has been evident by the increased benefits.

I am just astounded that Mr. Stoffer would even think of making a motion that would withdraw funds from these numbers. That they want to reduce benefits by withdrawing funds...I'm really astounded. I thought Mr. Stoffer made a mistake at first and he realized what he's trying to do, but I guess not. I say shame on him for wanting to withdraw services from veterans.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Okay, thank you, Mr. Harris.

Ms. Mathyssen.

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

Well, thank you, Mr. Chair.

Quite frankly, I'm very disturbed that the government would deliberately misrepresent this motion. It's very clear to me that in transferring this sum of money to Service Canada, veterans are going to suffer. They rely on the kinds of services they receive from Veterans Affairs, and this plan to close the offices puts veterans at risk.

In regard to Service Canada, they do, indeed, work very hard. They're very good at what they do. Despite that, this government has seen fit to reduce their numbers. They cannot keep up with what they're currently doing. It's very clear to me that transferring Veterans Affairs to Service Canada will only exacerbate that and make it very difficult for our veterans to get the kind of support that is constantly being promised but not delivered.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Thank you, Ms. Mathyssen.

Mr. Godin, please.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

I'm shocked to hear the government's position on this.

They said services to veterans provided by Veterans Affairs Canada will be transferred to Service Canada. However, Service Canada staff is not even able to provide services to Canadians, whether it be in terms of employment insurance or other programs. There are cuts happening on all sides. The government claims that it is listening to veterans. However, in Prince Edward Island, for example, it is shutting down all services and people will have to go to Service Canada.

Mr. Chair, the way things are right now, even when we call Service Canada, people are unable to answer our questions without going through Ottawa. When we put questions to the director of Service Canada's Atlantic region, he tells us he will call us back the next day because he has to check on the request. That must mean contacting the Prime Minister's Office. Service Canada cannot make any decisions. Is that where our services for our veterans are going?

I don't think estimates can be changed, either to increase them or allocate them elsewhere. The government and the minister must show leadership. They should make it clear that they will not send their clients to Service Canada and that they will instead keep providing the services from their offices, and that they will not close them down. They should also tell us that they will provide services to our veterans, who, as I mentioned earlier, fought to give us freedom, democracy and more.

Earlier, to try to get our witness Ms. Chaput to talk, Ms. Adams spoke about services. Well, it's not true that things have been going swimmingly since 2006. My office has never received so many calls from veterans. Mr. Chair, many of them came to my office with bags of pills they threw onto the desk, and they asked me to look at what they had. These veterans said they could not even have access to services.

Mr. Chair, I would invite you to come to my office. You will see the medals a veteran brought. He hung them in my assistant's office because he no longer wanted to have them. At the same time, the government is saying that it is doing a great job for veterans. This is unacceptable.

All of that to say that I will support sending a message to the government saying that transferring these services to Service Canada is unacceptable. That is not where these services should be provided. It is not Service Canada's job. Service Canada staff already have their hands full.

We have a minister representing veterans, so I ask him to provide services to these veterans. He should not be handing them over to another institution that does not have the same interest as the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Thank you, Mr. Godin.

I may not end up at your constituency office, but I'll take your word for it.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

I invite you to do that any day, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Mr. Chicoine.

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

There is not very much to add to what Mr. Godin said.

The only way to interpret this is that we are against closing these offices. At this time, Service Canada is unable to properly provide services to veterans. It is not true that there is a handful of veterans. I have also seen some cases.

If the conservatives are really in favour of providing appropriate services to veterans, they should do a sort of follow-up with veterans turning to Service Canada. I am sure they would see that, unfortunately, providing a range of services to veterans and meeting their needs appropriately is an extremely complex issue. They will not get the services they need at Service Canada at this time, or next year either, in my opinion.

Mr. Stoffer's motion is simply aimed at sending the government the message that it should not transfer the money to Service Canada, which is unable to provide appropriate services to veterans. Service Canada staff already have enough on their plates, from providing the services they offer to dealing with budget cuts as well. They cannot provide these services.

So please don't play innocent.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Okay.

I want to point out that I know there are a few more, but I'm not going to let people start doing the second round. In other words, if you've already spoken, I'm going to accept that as your comments.

Because Mr. Stoffer is the mover, he will be able to have a second round.

Do you want to be the last one, or do you want to go next?

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

I can wait until the rest are done.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

You have the right to do that, as a mover, if you want.

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

I'll wait until I hear the rest of the comments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Okay.

We have Ms. Adams next, then Mr. Lobb, Mr. Zimmer, and then we'll go to Mr. Stoffer.

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

Notwithstanding some of the alarmist rhetoric from the other side—some very animated rhetoric—what's really going on here is a defence of union interests. It's not really concern about veterans and the level of service being provided to our veterans.

To be clear, Monsieur Godin, you are advocating against 29 additional new points of service for veterans. In Quebec, there would be 116 new points of service available with the funding that you are asking us to remove.

To be very clear, our case managers will still continue to serve our veterans. Monsieur Godin, I know you are new to our committee today and subbing in, and we are very happy to have you, but—

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Although I'm here before you, I'm not new here.

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

If I might, I do have the floor, sir, on a point of order.

If I might suggest to you, we have just recently gone through a study of the transformation at Veterans Affairs. What we've learned and what we've brought in witnesses to speak to is the fact that we have put a focus on empowering our local case workers. What we have accomplished by doing that is having somebody on the ground who meets with the veteran, meets with the veteran's family, who has a very clear understanding about what the veteran needs and is able to point the veteran to every service that's available to him or her.

Then, and this is the really critical point, we've reduced wait times to receive a decision from Veterans Affairs; there have been dramatic reductions, and we're not even satisfied with that. We want to continue to reduce the wait times our veterans have before they receive funding or services. We are very focused on their customer service. That's also why we've introduced the clear language initiative whereby instead of having this letter sent to you in gobbledygook or bureaucratese, in very simple clear language a veteran understands why his benefits are going to be provided to him and what medical evidence was relied upon. If that veteran needs to come forward with additional information, they have the opportunity to do so.

Our case managers are still on the ground and are still available to our veterans. This $2 million of critical funding would provide critical assistance to our veterans at additional points of service across the country. We would go from 60 points of service to 600 points of service. It cuts down on the travel times for our veterans. Currently poor veterans are going to district offices and are taking hours to get there. I don't understand why you would want to inconvenience our veterans, why you would want to strip them of this additional ability to access our services. They will still have access to our phone lines and to the Internet.

But most importantly, our government is committed to providing home visits to those veterans who need them. That will continue. So this rhetoric that we're hearing about how veterans are being underserved is categorically untrue. I would implore you to withdraw this motion. I would implore you to spend the $2 million and provide enhanced customer service to our veterans. I simply cannot understand why somebody who is so passionate about our veterans is moving to reduce the level of service available to our veterans. We will now go to 600 points of service across the country. If you have a specific example of one individual who wasn't able to provide service to our veterans, please bring it forward.

Mr. Godin, you indicated you've got all sorts of case files at your constituency office. I would implore you to send them to us. At the end of the day, this is not about grandstanding. This is about serving our veterans. I too have a constituency office and I can tell you that our veterans are very well served.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Okay, thank you.

We'll hear from Mr. Lobb, Mr. Lizon, and then close with Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Lobb, go ahead, please.

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

I would say out of all the ridings of our 308 MPs, the veterans are best served in Huron—Bruce.

But seriously, I think maybe the opposition, the NDP, are slightly misinformed on what they're potentially talking about—maybe not. The Service Canada employees will not be providing counselling, case management. That's not their role. I don't think you're trying to imply that it was, but I think we need to be clear that they're not going to be doing that. As Ms. Adams says, it's a point of service, an entry point to help veterans get the information. Maybe their family members get information they may need so they can either start a relationship with Veterans Affairs or whatever the unique situation is.

I'll give you an example. I'm a rural member of Parliament. There are no offices for veterans in Huron—Bruce. There are two full-time Service Canada offices, one in Goderich and one in Walkerton. Other satellite offices run part-time. This is a benefit to veterans in my area because now they have an official point of service in Huron—Bruce. Before, they may have gone to London. I think this is an enhancement, from my perspective. For the $2 million we're putting in, I think we're getting a pretty good return. The return is that the veterans are going to have a better point of service and better access to the benefits.

Maybe the other reason Mr. Godin says he's got veterans coming to his office in increasing numbers is that our message is getting out to veterans, what benefits are available to them. That could very well be why they're coming, because they've had a friend or a fellow veteran who's had some success working with Veterans Affairs and now they want to see what else is available to them. If you have veterans coming into your office asking questions, it's leading them to other successful results inside the department.

I think it's good. I'm sure others on the other side will disagree, but I thought I should put it from the perspective of a rural member of Parliament.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Thank you, Mr. Lobb.

Mr. Lizon.

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just would add the quick comment that from listening to the honourable colleagues on the opposite side, I haven't really heard a rationale for their position. It's hard for me to understand that based on eight complaints you would take such a stand.

But I respect people's own opinions. I may not agree with it, but I don't think.... If someone doesn't like the way Service Canada works, or they had a bad experience in the past, it doesn't mean Service Canada cannot do the job or cannot serve. I don't think that's a rationale that should be presented here.

I haven't really heard anything that would convince me that you have a case.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Thank you, Mr. Lizon.

The last one we'll hear from is the mover of the motion, please.

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

I thank everyone for their comments.

First of all, I would just refer you to page 1009, chapter 20, of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, which our colleague Cynara has given us. It says that we are not permitted to attempt to change the way funds are allocated or transfer money from one item to another.

If I could, I'd take that $2,219,000 and transfer it to another aspect of the supplementary estimates, but I'm not permitted to do that. Unfortunately, the rules.... We tried years ago to get these things changed, to move one item to another, to keep it the same, but we're not permitted to do so. I rather think, or I believe, it was the Conservative Party that voted against that in a House and procedure motion one time.

The reality, for Ms. Parliamentary Secretary, is that Service Canada people are also unionized, so this is not a union argument at all, I can assure you. In all my years here, I have never had one veteran or a veterans organization say that DVA services should be provided by Service Canada. Not one has ever asked me—ever. I don't know if anyone here has ever been asked, before this happened, that Veterans Affairs wanted to be served by Service Canada.

I can't reallocate that money within the supplementary estimates. Those are the rules. I can't do that. This is the only way we have to let the government know that we don't like the idea that district offices are closing. We simply don't like that.

I encourage any of you to go on Thursday to Cape Breton, to the big rally they have, and people will tell you how they feel about the closure of Cape Breton's office. I don't have to tell you about Prince Edward Island or Thunder Bay or anywhere else. A lot of people are quite upset that these offices are closing.

If the argument is that Service Canada can provide that service and expand it to 600, why don't you apply that same thinking to Citizenship and Immigration, and to Revenue Canada? Why doesn't Service Canada do everything, then, if that's the argument? Imagine how many Citizenship and Immigration people can be helped by Service Canada, if that is your argument.

Mr. Chair, I would truly love to move that money somewhere else in here, but I can't. I'm not permitted to by the rules. This is the only way we in opposition can say to the government, with the greatest of respect, that we don't believe the burden of veterans' care should be put on those already overworked employees at Service Canada. Don't forget, many of those Service Canada people will be losing their jobs. They got affected letters. They're also being laid off because of the restraints of the government in terms of its fiscal concerns.

So that's why we're doing it. I wish I could move it somewhere else, but I can't. I have to go by the rules and procedure.

And you'll cut me off, Mr. Chairman, but we'll have a vote on this, and we'll move on to the other vote, and we'll have a nice evening.

Thank you.