Veterans Affairs Committee on May 8th, 2024

[Steven Harris]

Last year, they were more or less equal. According to the most recent data I have, the gap is about two or two and a half weeks between male and female veterans, because female veterans' files represent a smaller percentage and their processing time varies more.

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

Okay.

Is that two‑week gap for women? Is it longer for them?

[Steven Harris]

Yes.

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

Great.

Are compensation costs of a legal nature, among other things, included in the budget of the Department of Veterans Affairs?

[Steven Harris]

If you're talking about the fees that we pay outside of legal decisions, the answer is yes.

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

Okay. So they're covered by the department.

[Steven Harris]

Yes.

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

That's excellent.

Let's move on to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board. We know that the board wants to hire employees. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the board would need five permanent employees and 12 temporary employees. Is that correct?

[Steven Harris]

Unfortunately, I don't think we're in a position to talk about the board, because it reports directly to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, not the deputy minister. So we can't really talk about his files and his commitments.

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

Okay. Had I known, I would have put the question to the minister earlier.

Out of curiosity, too, how much does a mission cost? Perhaps Ms. Meunier could answer that question. The figures are significant for commemorations, in particular, and I'm not questioning the missions, regardless of the figures. However, for a mission like the “unknown soldier”, which will take place in two or three weeks, or for another mission like the one that will take place in Normandy, how much does it cost?

[Amy Meunier]

Thank you for that question.

It does slightly depend on the size of the engagement. For example, the upcoming 80th anniversary of D-Day and the Battle of Normandy will be quite a large event for the international community. There will be tens of thousands of individuals participating. Thousands of Canadians will be going overseas to also participate in that. I believe we are up to about 14 D-Day veterans who will be joining us. That also includes caregivers.

So it depends on the size of the delegation. We bring members of Parliament. We bring a medical team to ensure that the veterans with us are well taken care of. It does depend on the size. An estimate for the D-Day remembrance might be about $3 million. For example—

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

I'm sorry, Ms. Meunier. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Desilets. Your time is up.

Now let's go to Ms. Blaney for six minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I thank everyone for being here today. I look forward to having some questions answered.

First, I want to talk about the fact that we know that Veterans Affairs has gone through a GBA process. What we don't know is what that means, because the information isn't public. I'm wondering about a few things. Will there be anything public that talks about where you found problems and how they're being addressed? I think that's really important, especially in the context of the women's report that we just finished and hopefully will be tabled soon.

The other component is that it seems to me, based on conversations I've had with veterans and with RCMP police veterans, that the role of SMSRC is not clear. I'm curious to know whether that system as well was reviewed through that GBA lens and whether there are any discussions about how to make sure that information is more accessible so that people know where to go when they're in need of those types of services.

[Paul Ledwell]

If I could, Chair, I will start and then invite my other colleagues to try to answer the questions from Ms. Blaney.

First of all, as with other federal departments, we're very, very serious about the application of GBA+ in everything we do. We have mandatory training that everyone in the department has to undertake to better understand, better situate and better apply GBA+ in all that we do, whether that's developing new policies or considering legislation and regulation or programs.

One area in which we are very serious—this has been strongly encouraged, of course, and quite rightly—is updating our table of disabilities and our entitlement guidelines so that they truly are reflective of gender. This is something that we have taken up and have been working on for a number of years. We've seen some application and updating of that for the benefit of women veterans who have served so that they are quite rightly getting the benefits they require and deserve.

We are happy to share how the application of GBA+ is making a difference. We certainly do that internally, and we reflect that, I think, in some of the programs and deliveries.

When it comes to SMSRC, that is a responsibility of the Department of National Defence, but we contribute to its consideration, particularly through the peer support program pilots. That's something we've been very actively engaged in, along with partners at the Department of National Defence, delivered through SMSRC, but with our direct involvement and encouragement.

That is a particular area that we can take a GBA+ lens to because of our direct involvement, but on the broader SMSRC, that's more of a responsibility of National Defence.

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

Thank you for that. That's clarified a bit for me.

The next thing that I really want to talk about is in the context of the previous question as well. I think the testimony alone of all the women tells us that there is a pretty significant need to address these issues. Again, the word they used repeatedly was “invisible”. I think that's one of the hardest parts about addressing these issues. It's not that there's a conscious effort to ignore people; it's that the unconscious effort is to ignore. That leaves people invisible.

In that context, one thing I've heard very clearly and repeatedly from veterans is that they often feel retraumatized by accessing services. To be quite frank and honest in this room, I've been forwarded letters where I can tell, by the way they're written, that the people writing these letters are not themselves trained in trauma-informed practices. That means they can say the same thing, but the way they say it matters.

With regard to developing services for veterans, is there any exploration of really educating not just caseworkers but everybody in the roles about what is a trauma-informed practice and how to work with people who are traumatized?

I want to give another example of context. We had one veteran we worked with who had been told by VAC that he couldn't call them anymore because he yelled too much. I'm sure it was disrespectful. I'm sure he did yell too much. But this is supposed to be the place veterans go to get help. It doesn't make sense to me that there's a veteran that you say no to. It seems to me to make sense that you make sure, when you have a veteran who's expressing these...that there are more trauma-informed practices to support the veteran and not let go of the veteran.

What is actually being done around this? Is anything being done?

[Paul Ledwell]

There are a couple of things I would underline. First of all, I fully agree on the importance of providing trauma-informed training to everyone. That's something we are taking up in the department.

There is mandatory and regular training and upgrading for those who are directly interacting with veterans. Absolutely that's the case, but you're quite right that it's something that everyone who is involved should be taking up and understanding better.

I reflect with our folks that we are all in the world of delivering services to veterans, regardless of where we are in the organization. Therefore, in the same respect, we need to be thinking of that training around trauma.

We have also heard very clearly from many veterans—and especially from those who have been severely traumatized through their experiences—about the tell-me-once principle and not having to come back and retell their stories. That's something we are taking up further and further in the organization so that we are not requiring people to come forward and repeat the trauma they have experienced.

I should say too, to your last point, that we do seek every means possible for those who are in a bad situation and who are very aggravated with their situation and who sometimes take out that frustration on us. Sometimes they have that frustration towards the department because we are asking questions that they may not be in a good position to answer or maybe they feel as though they've answered those questions before. We do have means to ensure they are responded to in a respectful and clear way and that they are not shut out. That's a really serious objective that we continue to have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you very much, Mr. Ledwell.

Now for five minutes, we go to Mr. Blake Richards.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

I have questions in several areas, but before I get to those questions, at the beginning of the meeting with the minister, we had a conversation about the lack of respect that I believe has been shown to veterans by the minister's failure to show up for the two-hour time frames that she's been requested to show up for. That's the time for veterans to have their questions answered through us.

The minister made a statement so confidently that it made me question whether I had even been accurate in what I was saying. I actually had to go back to triple-check to make sure. She stated that she believed she'd been here previously for two-hour periods. I went back and triple-checked, and that wasn't the case. This committee invited the minister for two hours in October, and she came for one. At that point we as a committee had a discussion about expressing our displeasure. It was ultimately decided that we wouldn't do that because maybe there was a good excuse.

In December she was again asked to come for two hours. She came for one hour. We even gave her an extension of the time we were asking for so that she could accommodate the two hours, and still she came for only one. This time around we also asked for two hours. The committee had a vote on that. We clearly expressed our wishes that she'd be here for two hours.

This is becoming a pattern. It's the time that we have to hold the minister accountable to veterans, and it's not being respected. Therefore, I move the following:

That committee report to the House of Commons its deep disappointment that the Minister of Veterans Affairs has once again disrespected veterans by not fulfilling her obligation to appear publicly before the committee for the time requested of her, showing disregard for Canadian veterans who expect transparency and accountability from the government.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Mr. Desilets, you have the floor.

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

Is it a motion that's being put forward, or is it just a censure that we would report to the House?

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

That's what the clerk has gone to check, so that we can react. I'm going to suspend the meeting for a few seconds so that we can look at the proposal.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

There's no need to suspend, Chair. l've moved the motion. Can we have debate now?

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Yes, but we're not sure if it's a motion—

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

It's a motion. I've moved it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Yes, but we are not so sure.