Veterans Affairs Committee on May 29th, 2014

[Mary Chaput]

That I'll get for you as well.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

You'll get that for us as well.

Having said that, and being advised that there's a $4-million increase in your advertising initiatives, I learned through one of the briefings which you gave me on the estimates—and I thank you for that—that there is an estimated $296,300 spent on career transition services. This was increased by only a mere $11,000, I think. I'm wondering how you can justify for us your department spending more on advertising, a $4-million increase in advertising, and less on the actual programs themselves.

[Mary Chaput]

What I would explain in that regard is that the $296,000 you refer to, sir, are 296 grants of $1,000 each. They go to single individuals who use that grant money to secure advice, counselling, and coaching in the preparation of things like their own personal CV, how to prepare for an interview, etc. You can divide that number by 1,000 and it touches 296 veterans in this given year.

The money on advertising, on the other hand, reaches and touches far, far more people than that. Our Facebook reach runs at 17 million. In the course of last year, during our ad campaign around and before Remembrance Week, the number of visits to our website went up from about 7,500 per day to over 23,000 per day.

Yes, $4 million is a higher number; however, the reach of that $4 million is far, far greater than the $296,000.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Ms. Chaput, with respect, I hardly think you can equate social media exchanges and contacts with meaningful investigation about programs when people are often, in those exchanges, expressing emotions about Remembrance Day or their experiences in battle.

You cannot equate the, I think, $8 million that was spent on pushing these ads out—and not your own office, but hiring independent people to push these ads out—and consider that kind of exchange as success in your programs.

[Mary Chaput]

We see commemoration and communication to veterans and Canadians to be as much a program and a benefit as any other program and benefit we offer. Commemoration and remembrance bring to certain veterans, who are still struggling with their military service and things they saw and things they did, a lot of emotional closure. We've heard this from veterans themselves. It has a very salutary effect from the point of view of mental health and reconciliation on a personal level with what has transpired.

The mandate of the department is not just benefits and programs. Commemoration is also considered a key part of the mandate. Moreover, in our view, anything that informs veterans of the programs and services we offer them can only be a good thing.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Well you in fact have argued, Minister, in question period, when I subtly probed the questions to you, that you're doing it to reach out to veterans.

Statistics I've seen suggest that only 6% of people who look at these ads respond to them. Many of them are expressing their anger at the fact that the government is spending money on promoting itself instead of promoting programs.

Frankly, if you're relying on social media as the strongest form of counselling and psychological rehabilitation, and touting that, I think you're making a drastic mistake. Not to devalue the value of that kind of exchange, but there are far better programs that can be used.

I guess I'm going to ask you again, what effort are you going to make to stop advertising yourselves and promoting this government, and start spending that money on our veterans and their programs?

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Chair, if I may, it's not a one-stop shopping approach that we're taking. The ads are one component. The social media is another component. There are many other platforms, portals, and direct relationships that one has to inform, educate, answer questions, and be open to criticism, round tables, you name it.

I don't see the ads as the end all. It's one means by which we communicate, whether it's 6% or 60%. One hopes that you reach those who care enough, who are interested enough, who need the information and act upon it, and that it be a response to their issues.

The other thing I wanted to also allude to is that coming into this portfolio, I have found that there's a huge amount of misinformation, miscommunication, confusion, the lack of awareness even by veterans themselves about what benefits are available to them.

One of our major challenges.... We hope that you and others are conscientious enough, as I know you are, to be helpful in that regard, because we are faced with the bantering that goes back and forth about what is or isn't, what facts and what non-facts are. Also, there's the fearmongering. I talk to veterans all the time who are concerned about the public play at their expense. That's the other thing we need to be conscious about.

Mr. Valeriote, it's not about advertising on behalf of government. It's just trying to reach those who we are committed and dedicated to serve and help. If it reaches 6%, that's better than nothing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Thank you very much, Mr. Valeriote.

We now have Monsieur Chicoine, for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I also want to thank the minister and the deputy minister for coming to answer our questions.

I have only one question, which may have been brought up by my colleagues already, but I will ask it in French.

An increase of $4 million is planned for additional advertising expenses. That has been heavily criticized. In the context of budget cuts, all this advertisement and commemorations are being funded. Funding is allocated to increase the number of commemorations of past wars, and so on.

How do you justify all these additional expenditures for advertising and commemorations? Some of the minister's trips have also been criticized. How can all that spending be justified in a context of budget restraint and last year's office closures? As for veterans, I think the best way to honour them is to provide them with the services and benefits they are entitled to. Obviously, much criticism has been levelled against all this spending.

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Vaughan, ON]

I guess we have different points of view on this very issue. I believe that if a nation or a society is not able to commemorate, remember, or pay tribute to those who have sacrificed so much, we as a society probably don't value the quality of life that we enjoy here, the freedom, the respect for human rights, and the rule of law.

I guess I move to also argue back. I don't know if the member has been to Vimy. There are over 11,000 names of Canadian soldiers who fought in the First World War, Canadian soldiers, young men, some as young as 16 years of age, whose gravesites are unknown. We don't know where they're buried. There are 11,000 just on that Vimy memorial. I can enumerate cemetery after cemetery in Europe where our young men are buried, who fought for a cause: to enable us to enjoy the quality of life, the freedom that we have in this country.

I think commemoration is not a trivial thing. It's not a waste of money. It's a duty and a responsibility we have. I'll make the point even more profoundly, if you will. We have upward of 100-and-some World War II veterans who landed on June 6, 70 years ago, on the beaches in Normandy, who are going back to commemorate that experience. It will be the last in-decade opportunity those folks will have to revisit the place from which so many of their colleagues never came home.

I'm sorry, but November 11 to me is a sacred day. Visiting a war cemetery is a sacred opportunity to commemorate their sacrifice, whether it's in South Korea, in Italy, in Germany, in the Netherlands. It's a duty we have. It's certainly not a waste of money.

I'm sorry you see it that way. I can't understand that thinking.

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

I did not say that this was a waste of money, but rather that the number of commemoration days was being increased.

Regardless, I would like to move on to another topic, which has to do with the way veterans are honoured.

As I said, those acts of remembrance are important. I agree with that. However, I think that providing veterans with the benefits they are entitled to is the best way to compensate them for the sacrifice they have made for their country.

This brings me to the Equitas Society. I read this week in the Hill Times that this organization was prepared to drop its case if the New Veterans Charter was significantly improved. As I was saying, the honouring of those individuals could be a bit more meaningful if they were provided with more adequate compensation, if they were treated better and if all the shortcomings were remedied under this new charter. Would you be prepared to work with the Equitas Society to enhance this new charter?

We have almost completed our study and will soon submit a report. Are you prepared to improve the new charter or will you rather let this case go to civilian courts?

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Vaughan, ON]

Thank you for that.

We obviously have a difference of opinion with respect to what I believe veterans expect from commemorations, but I think we're on the same page when it comes to making sure that we absolutely do the best we can for our veterans and their families.

Going forward with respect to the new Veterans Charter, obviously I was motivated to the extent that I felt a more comprehensive review was justified than just the usual dust-up, if you will, and that's what the committee is doing. I'm anxiously awaiting the outcome of that work, your deliberations. I want to thank you for it, by the way. This is not an easy exercise. I'm sure it has been a labour of love, with a whole lot of regard and conscientious effort on your part. I look forward to the recommendations. Yes, we will move to do what we can to implement what we can, however we can, going forward.

Obviously, none of us get our own way on every issue, but I think, as a personal commitment, we want to do the best we can for our veterans. I know you do as well. I think the outcome of the review will no doubt address some of the shortcomings in the charter. The charter was thought to be the be-all and end-all back in 2005-06. I'm told everyone agreed it was the thing to do. For some it worked. For some, by the way, it still works, and no doubt will continue to work. What we want to do, and what I believe you're trying to do in your deliberations, is to find a way to make it more inclusive, more comprehensive, and more effective or more beneficial to veterans. I'm committed to do that as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Thank you very much, Minister.

We go to Mr. Rafferty, please, for six minutes.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Thank you, Minister and Ms. Chaput, for being here today.

I'm going to concentrate on face-to-face service with veterans.

The nine veterans offices have been closed. You have been fond of saying, and your ministry continues to say, that in exchange for that, they now have 600-and-some service points across the country where veterans can receive advice and services, and so on. In theory I suppose that works, but I just want to relate a very quick story that happened recently. I think you'll agree it's unacceptable.

A Korean War veteran who was looking for help with some paperwork and getting some benefits—he doesn't have a computer, and he didn't get any satisfaction with the 1-800 number—went to the local Service Canada office. He waited in line, of course, with everyone else. They were looking for EI benefits, CPP, CPP disability, and so on. I say he stood in line. He leaned on his cane in line while he was waiting. He finally got to the receptionist, and she told him there was no one there who could help him, that he'd have to go the Legion. Going to the Legion of course for that kind of help, which legionnaires try to give as best they can; it's not really their job.... He didn't get any satisfaction.

I'm just wondering if we can get a commitment from you today that at these Service Canada points across Canada there will be a trained and dedicated person on staff who will be able to deal with veterans' issues so they truly do become 600-and-some service points for veterans.

I hate to think that these offices disappeared, and then just on your say-so or the ministry's say-so these 600-and-some points will be able to serve these veterans. I wonder if I could get your thoughts on that.

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Vaughan, ON]

Thank you for that.

When the closures of the offices took place, we also—

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Excuse me just for a second, Minister, I see that the bells are ringing. We'll finish these questions. Did I not see the thing flashing?

[A voice]

Yes, you did.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Okay, I'm not seeing things.

We'll finish the round of questions. I'm going to ask the committee to stay behind because we do have to vote on the estimates.

I didn't mean to interrupt. I just wanted everybody to be aware we're going to continue for a few more minutes.

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Vaughan, ON]

I'll be quick.

In regard to the locations where the offices were closed, five of them by the way are in the same building as the Service Canada office. We also moved a Veterans Affairs person into those offices and they're still there.

We also undertook to train the Service Canada office personnel in those 600 other offices to deal with Veterans Affairs issues. We may not have got to everybody, but that's a program that has been going on. It was part of the transition, if you will, but these one-off cases and these things that fall through the cracks, we would appreciate knowing about them because our intent is to intervene and to solve problems. If we know about them, we can obviously do that very quickly.

I should tell you that in looking at the walk-in situations in those areas where the offices are closed now, the walk-in traffic is minimal, because people are being served by caseworkers who go to their home, who meet with veterans who are not able to travel. We don't expect them nor do we want them to travel to an office. So, yes, there are some adjustments being made, in fairness. We want to deal with these issues, these things that fall through the cracks, these one-offs, but it seems to me that people are adjusting. It may not be an ideal circumstance, but we don't want veterans to travel to offices.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Regarding the training in these Service Canada service points for veterans, it's my understanding that there's an hour and a half or so online course that they take to help them to become qualified to help veterans. I'm not sure that's enough. I'm not sure that you can continue to claim that these 600-and-some points are fully serviced. Anyway, we'll see.

I have one other quick question. Minister, you continue to talk about the shrinking number of wartime veterans as justification for cutting some costs. However, there's a growing number of modern veterans, particularly since the end of our involvement in Afghanistan. Many will not access Veterans Affairs offices for six months, five years, 10 years, 20 years, 30 years down the road.

With these cuts, and I'm assuming continuing cuts, are you concerned that Veterans Affairs will be unable to provide appropriate services in the future as the numbers of modern veterans continue to rise?

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Vaughan, ON]

I appreciate the question. The adjustments are being made based on demographics, so it's not cuts as we would interpret cuts to be. It's just a lessening of the workload, if you will, for the obvious reasons.

Our intent at Veterans Affairs Canada going forward is to continue to improve services and benefits and the kinds of things that we can do or should do for veterans. That's why we're working very hard on the issue of modern-day veterans transitioning into a good quality job. There's the training aspect. There's so much of that going on and more to do.

No, there's no looking to shortcircuit or shortchange modern-day veterans in the future, not at all.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

That is our time.

Thank you very much, Minister and deputy, for joining us.

We're going to do our votes right now.

I want to let everybody who is visiting, all the veterans with us, know that once the vote is done here, we will go to the House because we're being called for votes there. That will be the end of the public session. We'll be going in camera to deal with a report. So once we're through here, we're all going to leave together.

What I'm going to do now is call the votes. I want to do this properly. John's going to keep an eye on me.

VETERANS AFFAIRSDepartmentVote 1—Operating expenditures..........$855,453,817Vote 5—The grants listed in the Estimates and contributions..........$2,685,987,300

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

Are we in camera?

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

No, not for the votes.

Shall votes 1 and 5 under Veterans Affairs carry?

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

You've got the majority, Mr. Chair.