Veterans Affairs Committee on Dec. 12th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you very much. Time is over.

I'd like to invite MP Sean Casey to go ahead for five minutes, please.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Madam Minister, thanks for being here and for accepting the invitation to come before us so promptly to talk about the estimates. I am actually going to ask you about the estimates.

Mr. Richards talked about some heartbreaking stories, including one where a veteran had a matter that took 29 months to adjudicate. In the estimates that were voted on the other night, there was one item there for service excellence to veterans by reducing backlogs and improving service, for $8.3 million. The Conservatives voted against that particular measure.

If the Conservatives had been successful in defeating that allocation, if there were enough votes for them to get their way, what impact would it have had on people like the veteran Mr. Richards referred to who had to wait 29 months?

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Again, the main estimates and the budget requests that we've made are as a direct result of making sure that we can better serve our veterans, our client base. One area where we certainly recognize there is a backlog is the appeal board. As such, that is why we have been successful in receiving additional funding.

What would not having that funding mean? It would mean that veterans would have to wait even longer to get their decisions. Again, that creates significant anxiety and distress for veterans. We want to make sure that we're doing things in a timely fashion. We have to make sure that the resources are there and are in place. Fortunately, we've been able to receive that additional funding because it will make a huge difference with respect to addressing that backlog at VRAB.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

I want to come back to the appeal board again because another case that was referenced by Mr. Richards was that there were.... He's hearing stories from veterans who have been repeatedly denied, including from one with a hearing loss fight with Veterans Affairs.

As you rightly pointed out, the Department of Veterans Affairs actually pays lawyers to fight the department on behalf of veterans. It's the bureau of pensions advocates. When it came time to vote on estimates, to allot some additional funds to the bureau of pensions advocates, to provide veterans with lawyers to fight against the department to get them what they feel they are entitled to, the Conservatives voted against that. If they had gotten their way and were able to block that additional expenditure, what impact would that have had on veterans coming before Veterans Affairs to get what they feel they are rightly entitled to?

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Again, we would be talking about more delays, more delays and more delays. We want to make sure that veterans have access to the legal counsel they need in a timely manner, and we want to make sure, more importantly, that their files are properly assessed. Again, if we were not successful in receiving that additional funding, the ones who were going to suffer in all that were our veterans. At the end of the day, we want to be there for veterans and to make sure that they have the services they need.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Finally, the income replacement benefit, the rehabilitation services and the vocational assistance program were another vote that we had in that all-night voting session, and the Conservatives, again, voted against that. If they had gotten their way and were able to block that additional allocation for the vocational assistance program, the income replacement benefits and the rehabilitation services, what would the impact on veterans have been?

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Blocking that funding would, again, have affected the basic needs of our veterans, their basic needs for survival. Once again, we wanted to make sure that we had the appropriate amount of money available to properly support our veterans. Again, that is why I was very disappointed to see that the Conservative Party of Canada did not support those investments.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Thank you, Minister.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Mr. Casey.

The next two members will have two and a half minutes each.

First is Mr. Desilets.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

A meeting of the foursome took place in late May or early June 2022. I'm referring to VAC, the Department of Canadian Heritage, another department and the PMO.

Were you there, Mr. Ledwell, or was it Mr. Thomson?

[Paul Ledwell, Deputy Minister, Department of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Chair, I was the one at the meeting, among others, to represent the department.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

I see.

Do you have anything to tell us about the meeting?

[Paul Ledwell]

Mr. Chair, two departments, VAC and the Department of Canadian Heritage, were jointly responsible for this file. It's always important to focus on important files, and that was our goal in this case.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Ledwell.

In the 400 pages of documentation we received, it says that VAC and Canadian Heritage officials did not agree with changing the project. They agreed that the contract should be awarded to the firm Daoust at the time.

Do you agree?

[Paul Ledwell]

I don't entirely agree, Mr. Chair.

At the time, we had to find ways to address certain issues that had come up during the process. It was just about figuring out the key components and the process we should follow.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

The documentation clearly shows that the two departments were in favour of the jury's choice and did not at all encourage the change that was asked for. Am I wrong about that?

A yes, no or maybe will do.

[Paul Ledwell]

I don't recall that.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

All right.

[Paul Ledwell]

The discussions were always about identifying the key components and perspectives. For us, at VAC, it was always about figuring out what the objectives were and what veterans were asking for.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Ledwell, as a senior civil servant, were you in favour of the government changing the jury selection, yes or no?

[Paul Ledwell]

I wasn't the one who decided that.

It was really about finding the best way to meet the needs and demands of the veterans...

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Ledwell.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Mr. Desilets and Mr. Ledwell.

For two minutes and a half, I'd like to invite Ms. Blaney next, please.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you so much, Chair.

My next question for the minister is around the Merlo Davidson compensation. We know that the veterans ombud voiced some significant concern about the minister and the department not implementing its recommendation to publish VAC's methodology for determining the compensation, to cease disability pension reductions or clawbacks for the claimants at levels three to six, and to issue corrective payments to the women from whom pension amounts have been clawed back.

My question is on when this is going to be implemented. Does the minister recognize the harm that is being done to these women by having their disability pensions clawed back?

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

I've met with the ombudsperson and we certainly discussed a number of issues, this being one of them. I think you all received her report as well, which she tabled last week or two weeks ago. Again, we certainly accept the recommendations that she's made.

With respect to where we are in all of that, I'm going to pass it over to my deputy for a bit more clarity.