Veterans Affairs Committee on Nov. 19th, 2013

[Manon Perreault, NDP, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just had a look at the table listing the internal transfers. There was one transfer in which disability award funding was moved to allowances. An amount of $249,000 was transferred to support allowances.

Can you explain the transfer please?

[Mary Chaput]

The number you've cited is not resonating with me, but certainly in the supplementary estimates, we did transfer approximately $20 million from one program into another. The transfer related to a movement of funds—I'm just going to check for you; I've got it right here. We allocated funds from our disability allowances and awards into our earnings loss program. That was because the number of veterans who came forward and sought disability awards had been over-forecasted, over-calculated to a small degree, and the numbers who needed earnings loss had been under-calculated, so we slid the money over to the place where it was most needed.

I don't know if that answers your question.

[Manon Perreault, NDP, Montcalm, QC]

No, not exactly. I will explain more clearly.

Two amounts were transferred: $249,000 and $19,322. The second amount was transferred to the earnings loss program, which you just mentioned.

Does the $249,000 reduction in disability award funding mean that you have stopped recognizing certain disabilities?

[Mary Chaput]

No, and I see the numbers you're looking at now. The 19.3, that's actually million dollars. That's what I had rounded up to $20 million when I said that we had moved money from our disability awards over to earnings loss, but definitely it doesn't mean there were any applicants whose disability award applications were turned down by virtue of that transfer. It was because there were fewer applicants to the program than had been predicted.

As for the 249, yes you're right. We allocated money into the program called the Canadian Forces income support allowance. That's because there were more people who came forward seeking that kind of support for which they were entitled.

So one was an underestimate, one was for under-demand, the other one was over-demand, and we moved the money over to make sure it was where it was needed.

[Manon Perreault, NDP, Montcalm, QC]

So the people who were receiving disability awards are continuing to receive them. Recognition hasn't stopped?

[Mary Chaput]

Absolutely, it did not stop.

[Manon Perreault, NDP, Montcalm, QC]

Very good. Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

You have 21 seconds.

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

I want to use the 21 seconds remaining to comment on something you said in your opening remarks.

You said Canada had one of the most robust programs as far as funeral and burial costs were concerned. But, in the United Kingdom, the $3,500 is in addition to benefits available through other programs. In fact, a veteran there has access to other basic programs. So the amount is actually more than $3,500. I don't remember what the situation is for New Zealand.

Regardless, it's easy to say that Canada provides more than the U.K., but the reality is it's a bit more complicated than that.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

Merci, Mr. Chicoine.

We'll now move over to the government side. Mr. Chisu, please for four minutes.

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I would like to thank the minister for appearing as a witness at our committee. I commend him for his dedication to the case of our veterans. Also, I would like to commend him that he appeared with the deputy minister and also with General Semianiw. That is a very important thing. Being a veteran myself, the transition from being a soldier to being a veteran is very important, and that outlines for me personally that the minister is genuinely interested in the care of the veterans.

The new Veterans Charter has been referred to as a living charter focused on a needs-based holistic approach to providing care and services to Canada's veterans. What action has our government taken to ensure that the new Veterans Charter evolves in a manner that provides the best available care to our veterans?

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Vaughan, ON]

Thank you for the question.

One of the things in our research and in just looking back on history, if you will, I needed to know how the new Veterans Charter came to be and why, and all of that. That was a very, very important learning experience, certainly for me, to be able to compare what was in the old pension system to what the new Veterans Charter brought on board.

I appreciate fully that this was something that came about as a result of a lot of input from veterans themselves and veterans groups, and the various political parties all joined in to provide enhanced benefits, services and programs, and support for veterans and their families, which then became known as Bill C-55, and then, of course, the new Veterans Charter and all of that.

Since that time, it truly has been a living document, because in the interim period and up to recent times, there have been well over 100 very significant improvements made. In fact, I think the number of actual changes is something in the area of 160. It has been a consistent ongoing effort to better align services, programs, and support for veterans and their families, keeping pace with the changing times up to this point in time.

Granted, we can do better, and I think it's a very responsible thing we're doing, with your help and support, in that we'll now have a review and see if we can move forward in continuing this effort, but there has been a lot of effort to date, and I think that has to be acknowledged. We can't just constantly be negative about the progress, the support, and the commitment of almost five billion more new dollars to veterans programs and services since the new Veterans Charter came into being.

That's not chump change. That's a lot of commitment translated into program services. We have to thank the Canadian taxpayer for their contribution, their efforts, and their support to veterans, which continues.

We hope you can help us do even better.

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Thank you very much, Minister.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

You have 20 seconds, sir.

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

In fact, you spoke about the list of 160 adopted recommendations. That seems very comprehensive. What more are you contemplating? How will the recommendations of this review impact your approach?

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Vaughan, ON]

Well, I think we have to take notice of the recommendations that have been made by the ombudsman, for instance, more recently in his report, of the recommendations that have come forward from veterans groups, veterans stakeholders, and veterans themselves, and of the things we have learned, such as the homelessness research that's now under way. There's also a lot of effort being made in regard to the post-traumatic stress disorder area and how we can better deal with that.

I'm very optimistic about the opportunities that lie ahead, that we can better support veterans and their families, but I do want to encourage you to keep a mindful view of those in greater need. There are some veterans who are doing very well. We don't have to worry about them. They're self-sufficient. There is something in the area of 800,000 veterans in this country, but only about 180,000 or thereabouts are actually within the programming of Veterans Affairs Canada.

The most needy is where I would hope the committee would focus first.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

Mr. Minister, thank you very much for that.

As the chair, I have the prerogative to take the next opposition time for four minutes.

I have the following question for you. If you can't answer it for legal reasons, just say so, okay?

In the Equitas case, when the crown stated, and I'm paraphrasing, that the only fiduciary or social responsibility was towards the aboriginal community and not necessarily the veterans community, that sent shivers up the spines of a lot of veterans and their organizations out there.

There's a simple question I have for you. You sort of danced around it a bit in your preamble. I understand the difficulty in answering the question, but I'll ask again. Does the government, in your view, have a moral, legal, social, or fiduciary responsibility to care for those they asked to put in harm's way? We think it's a yes or no answer, but if you can't answer it in that regard, I'll accept that as a legal concern not to interfere with a court case.

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Vaughan, ON]

Let me—

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

Mr. Minister, I only have four minutes so I'm asking very quickly, yes or no?

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Vaughan, ON]

I can't give you a yes or no.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

That's good. That's all I was looking for, sir. If you can't say yes or no, then I appreciate that shortness on that.

The other one is—

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Chair, please take note of my reference to how I believe—

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

Yes, sir, that was noted from a previous statement.

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Vaughan, ON]

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

I'll turn to the nine office closures across the country. We had 11 veterans use speakerphones to call the DVA office at 1-866-522-2122. They asked quite simply that since these offices were closing, could they have someone come to their house to fill out the forms. Every single one said they would get back to them in two to five business days. There is no guarantee, they said, that a person would actually come to their house because they have to be case managed before someone would come to their home.

I'd like clarification, sir. Can any veteran in the country call the 1-866 number and ask for a personal home visit? Are there restrictions and stipulations before that home visit takes place?