Veterans Affairs Committee on Nov. 19th, 2013

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

Members of the committee, we are now officially no longer in camera.

It is our pleasure to welcome Minister Fantino.

Congratulations, sir, on behalf of the chair, on your new role as Minister of Veterans Affairs.

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

In my view, it's the best ministry to have in the entire government.

We're honoured to have General Walter Semianiw and Mary Chaput with us, as well.

Sir, we look forward to your comments. Please proceed at your convenience.

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Vaughan, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and members—

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

Sorry for the interruption.

Mr. Fantino, unfortunately the regular chair, Mr. Galipeau, cannot be with us, but I'm sure he sends his best, as well.

Thank you.

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Vaughan, ON]

Let me thank you for stepping in. We wish him well, of course.

I thank you for the opportunity to appear today as part of the comprehensive review of the new Veterans Charter.

I thank you for having introduced our deputy and the general, as well. I'll move on to my comments.

In 2011, Parliament passed Bill C-55, which created one new monthly payment, expanded the eligibility for two monthly financial benefits, and allowed veterans to break their lump sum into more flexible terms of their choice. It also added a requirement that these new measures be reviewed by Parliament in 2013.

Upon taking office, I heard clearly from the Veterans Ombudsman, veterans groups, and stakeholders that a wider review of the new Veterans Charter was needed. I therefore asked my parliamentary secretary to ensure that a comprehensive review of the new Veterans Charter be taken up in short order. I am pleased to be here today to discuss how we can improve the new Veterans Charter for veterans and their families.

As you undertake this review, l'd like to take a minute to discuss my hopes for your work.

It is my firm belief that you should focus the review on how the new Veterans Charter serves the most seriously injured, how our government supports Canadian veterans' families, and how Veterans Affairs delivers the programs that have been put in place.

Some have said this should be a travelling road show. I disagree. I believe Canadians and veterans from across the country should be able to submit their comments or insights to you directly, and I believe we should remain focused.

Colleagues, the new Veterans Charter was unanimously passed by Parliament under the former government after years of debate and study among experts, veterans' representatives, and veterans themselves. While we can never say everyone, the vast majority obviously concluded that the old pension system had outlived its usefulness.

I encourage members to read the Senate's report on the new Veterans Charter, issued last year.

I would also highlight a comment Senator Roméo Dallaire stated upon its introduction in the other place:

...it is with great anticipation that I am speaking to [the new Veterans Charter], which proposes to modernize our veterans' assistance and compensation program...in fact, a new social contract between the people of Canada and our veterans, both past and present.

Advances in medical knowledge and disability management, and changing demographics among the veterans population were just some of the changes that led to this new approach in 2005. As the situation facing Canadian veterans changed from 2005 to today, so too has the new Veterans Charter and how it is applied.

We will be distributing copies of a report my department has produced, which outlines 160 adopted recommendations which led to 107 improvements to the administration of benefits and services under the new Veterans Charter. These changes represent our collective effort to keep pace with changing times, but I will be the first to agree that more needs to be done.

Colleagues, since 2005 we have seen the effects of the war in Afghanistan on our military men and women. With the new payment and options introduced in 2011, more financial support has been directed to those who have been seriously injured. However, I am convinced, as I stated earlier, more can and should be done.

Our commitment to veterans is absolute, and has been so since our government was first formed in 2006.

One must only look at the overall Veterans Affairs budget to see how, even during a recession and a government-wide cost reduction exercise, Veterans Affairs spends approximately $700 million more today than in 2005.

The work our government does each day has been and can be called many things: duty, responsibility, commitment, social contract, obligation, sacred or not, or covenant. Colleagues, I believe it is all of those things.

Therefore, as part of this review, I ask you to determine how best to state our commitment to Canadians and their families and what is the best format to do so in the new Veterans Charter.

It is important that Canadians express through the parliamentary process exactly what is our shared duty, responsibility, mandate, obligation, commitment, or covenant to Canadian veterans.

Returning to the changing times, Veterans Affairs offices in eight locations across Canada have seen demand drop, and so yes, they are being closed. However, where veterans need them most, our government has maintained 26 Veterans Affairs Canada service centres, has established and supports 24 integrated personnel support centres and 17 operational stress injury clinics. In total, Veterans Affairs will have 67 locations across the country to meet the changing need but this is again only part of the story.

Imagine how many times a veteran has driven past a Service Canada office on the way downtown to pick up a brochure from a Veterans Affairs district office. Now, in locations where Veterans Affairs has never operated before, veterans and their families can visit one of 600 Service Canada sites to get the information they need.

As times have changed, so too have the rates being paid under the funeral and burial program. The average cost of a funeral today is just over $7,000. That is why last spring our government increased the maximum payment to $7,376 while providing an additional $1,200 on average to a veteran's family for any burial costs. In so doing, we have one of the most robust programs of our allies. By comparison, the United States provides just over $2,000, the United Kingdom provides $3,500, and New Zealand provides $1,800, all noted in Canadian dollars.

It is clear this program has kept up with the changing times, because of improvements made by our government.

I will also take a moment to speak about the supplementary estimates (B), which this year includes a request for another $20 million to support Canadian veterans' funeral costs, our commemorative promotional programs, and to increase the war veterans allowance and other health-related benefits. This further request for new financial support builds on our government's record of almost $5 billion in new financial support since 2006. With our administration costs on the decline, this means every new request for additional funding from Parliament will more and more directly affect Canadian veterans.

I have one final thought before I take your questions. The exercise you are embarking on is not one of the elusive pursuit of perfection, but rather is about finding the reasonable solutions that will focus on the veterans and their families who need them the most, especially the critically injured and the homeless as examples.

Mr. Chair and members, thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

Mr. Minister, thank you very much.

We will now move to questioning of five-minute rounds. From the official opposition we will hear from Mr. Sylvain Chicoine, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I also want to thank the minister for agreeing to appear before the committee today to answer our questions.

My first question has to do with the class action lawsuit filed by Equitas. The government's lawyers said that Canada did not have a sacred obligation to take care of its veterans.

The question was asked, but you have skirted the issue in question period for the past two weeks. Can you tell me whether you accept that Canada has a sacred obligation to take care of its veterans?

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Chair, and members, as I indicated, I don't like to get hung up on terminology because no matter what you say, it is always subject to individual interpretation and how people see things.

I think I've included a number of terminology which I believe all reflect the purpose and intent for which we have a Veterans Affairs Canada program and all of its components to assist veterans and their families in every respect. I'm going to let other people deal with the legal terminologies.

I think I've made it clear that no matter how you frame it and how you speak to it, my view is that we're all here to ensure that we do the absolute best for our veterans and their families, especially those who are most in need. I don't want to get into semantics about what words mean; I'd rather look at the spirit and intent of what we are here to do and what we are committed to do, and that is the best possible service, support, and programming for our veterans and their families, and particularly those who have special needs.

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

Thank you.

It's a shame that you continue to evade the question. We have an obligation and we should all recognize that. We have a duty to look after our veterans. We don't understand why the government is skirting the issue and refusing to use the legal terminology in question, when it would be easy to acknowledge that we have a sacred obligation to look after our veterans.

Since you persist in evading the question, I'll use my time to ask you another, this time, about funeral expenses.

The funeral benefit was increased to $7,300, but the eligibility criteria are still so restrictive that very few families can access it. Despite raising the amount, the government isn't spending any more money because the eligibility criteria are such that very few people qualify.

Is any consideration being given to relaxing the eligibility criteria so that the money in the Last Post Fund is used to actually help families in need? If the veteran's estate is valued above the $12,000 limit, a paltry amount, the veteran's family is denied the funeral benefit. The estate exemption limit hasn't been increased in years; in fact, it was even reduced 20 years ago. Do you have any plans to broaden the criteria at all?

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Vaughan, ON]

Thank you for the question. To be perfectly frank with you, this is why we have this process in place. This is why we are doing a comprehensive study. This is why you as a committee are being asked to delve into these issues and come back with recommendations that we can consider moving forward on.

It's up to you now to deal with those issues. I don't want to prejudge or pre-empt the work you need to do, about which I'm very respectful, but it is certainly something you have the opportunity to deal with and to make recommendations on.

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

Do I have any time left, Mr. Chair?

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

You have time for a quick one.

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

I'd like to discuss the changes to training at the post-secondary level. A maximum amount of $75,000 over 4 years has been allocated, with the total envelope at $2 million. That strikes me as very low. That will help only 20 veterans who want to pursue post-secondary studies. It's slightly more than what they get now, or not even.

Can you comment on that? It seems to me that just 20 veterans will benefit from the new changes.

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Vaughan, ON]

I don't happen to have all of those figures. Maybe our deputy has. Let me go back and speak to the spirit and intent of what we're hoping to achieve.

I do agree that some of these things have to be worked out. From what I understand and the information I have, this will allow many more veterans, and the veteran's family, by the way, in the event of a spouse and so forth, to access that particular amount of money in order to upgrade their skills, develop new skills, or learn a trade. All of this goes to our intent to work closely with corporate Canada, if you will, to enable our veterans to transition into meaningful work, jobs, and very often a second career. This is not a program in isolation. We are working very hard to connect that program with what now appears to be a very significant uptake by corporate Canada to bring into their workforce capable, able veterans with skill sets that can be very helpful, as we've seen, in many cases in corporate sector industries and businesses.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

We'll now move to the parliamentary secretary, Mr. Gill, for five minutes please.

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I also want to thank the minister, the general, and the deputy minister for taking the time to appear before our committee. I really appreciate it.

Minister, the government through Veterans Affairs and National Defence works day in and day out to support Canadian veterans and their families. Can you confirm for the committee exactly what you are asking our committee to do so that we can get to work on the recommendations as quickly as possible?

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Vaughan, ON]

Thank you for that question.

As I indicated in my comments, this is an opportunity for us not only to do the review that was required of Bill C-55, but to amplify the work, the research, the kinds of review that will enable us to better define what our commitment is to veterans.

We heard about different terminology, different dialogue. I think it's important for us to come to a consensus or an agreed reference on what it is we are in fact endeavouring to do, whether it's a social contract commitment, social obligations, the sacred obligation, or all of those things. I think we should try to find what it is exactly we need to address. Hopefully those words will then reflect into meaningful action throughout the whole of our service and support for veterans.

I believe the new Veterans Charter should reflect this more clearly. We should state that up front. It should be our vision, our mission, and something that all of us can embrace as a purpose and intent for why we're here in our responsibility to our veterans and their families.

I think that should be something that you, I hope, can come up with and we can embody in this revisiting of the new Veterans Charter.

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Thank you.

The last time this committee met, we heard from officials from Veterans Affairs who spoke about the programs and services provided by Veterans Affairs Canada.

You mentioned almost $5 billion in new money. Can you explain to the committee what exactly you mean by that?

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Vaughan, ON]

In the date time of about 2005, the Veterans Affairs budget was something in the area of $2.8 billion. We're now up to $3.6 billion. This to me indicates that, to the extent possible, ongoing efforts have been made to keep pace and to provide added necessary programs and support for veterans. Of that funding, 90% goes directly to programs for our veterans.

Something that I think needs to be mentioned as well is the type of support that is in place for veterans, especially those who obviously need the support, right down to home care, shovelling their snow, cutting their grass, those very things they no longer can do. By the way, that's also available to their surviving spouses.

I think there has been a lot of effort made over this period of time to ensure that veterans are supported. Not that money always is an indicator of progress, but I think we can say that a significant amount of added finances has been dedicated to veteran support program services. That also applies to their surviving spouses and so forth.

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

How much time do I have left, Mr. Chair?

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

You have 32 seconds.

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

I'll try to be quick.

Minister, I noted you said this in your remarks that the “average cost of a funeral today in Canada is just over $7,000. That is why, last spring, our government increased the maximum payment to $7,376 while providing an additional $1,200 on average to veterans families for any burial costs. We have one of the most robust programs of our allies. The United Kingdom provides $3,500 and New Zealand provides $1,800.”

Can you talk a bit about that? It seems we are at the top of the food chain here.

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Vaughan, ON]

In talking to our allied colleagues, we are seen as a model of progress in this particular area and in many other areas as well.

Again, I don't want to restrict the work of this committee. If you feel that this is an area you wish to delve into and come forward with recommendations on, I'd encourage you to do that. If there's a better way of doing what it is we can do, in a reasonable, affordable way that still addresses the optimum needs and entitlement of our veterans, then we need to talk about it and we need to consider it.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

Thank you, Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Gill.

We now move on to Mr. Jim Karygiannis, for five minutes please.