Debates of Nov. 2nd, 2010

Veterans

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Madam Chair, first, with respect to the matter involving Sheila Fynes and the issues she encountered in terms of information and ongoing support from the Department of National Defence, I met personally with her last Friday, as the member may know. We had a very straightforward and honest discussion about how the Canadian Forces regrets the delay in particular on some of the very personal issues that she had encountered with respect to her son. Many of those issues are going to be addressed in very short order.

As is always the case, there are complications with respect to sharing information and putting that in the public sphere, which I am very loath to do, given recent examples of where information was shared inappropriately.

I would be pleased to speak to the member, perhaps after this debate or when we sit down, so I can inform her about some of the steps we are taking to address that particular case. However, in the interest of protecting privacy, I will say no more.

Let me turn to the longer term implications of the conflict in Afghanistan and other missions where Canadian soldiers may find themselves in harm's way and as a result of their service suffer grievous injuries, psychological injuries. We have taken steps, as I mentioned earlier, to double the number of mental health care professionals and to invest specifically in a number of institutions, such as the health institution we have in Edmonton, for that high-end technical equipment we see in places like the Walter Reed Hospital in Washington. We want the best possible health care to be afforded to those men and women who are returning home after having been injured.

We are also investing through that legacy of care in a number of practical matters that deal with an individual's home, health care at home and supporting those who support them. We are ensuring, as the Minister of Veterans Affairs has already alluded to, that we put sufficient funds into these programs. There is $2 billion over the longer term that is going to ensure that particularly new entrants into the Canadian Forces who are injured will receive a base salary in terms of replacement of lost income and earnings.

We continue to ensure that we are making these programs accessible. That is one of the greatest things that we can do, partnering perhaps with HRSDC to improve the accessibility around the country. Reservists and serving members do not only come from big cities. In places like northern Labrador and parts of Ontario and right across this country, some of those services have to be made more accessible. Transportation to and from those centres for treatment has to be improved.

All of these investments are happening. I think the member and all members would agree that we owe the highest duty of care to make these improvements and investments.

Comparing that to previous generations, and I say this with tremendous sadness, many men and women returned from service overseas in previous conflicts and when they got off the train, boat or aircraft, there was nobody there to meet them and there were very few services available. We have tried to reach back in time to deal with some of those issues with respect to agent orange and atomic veterans.

I am proud of the steps the government has taken. I agree with the member there is more that has to occur. That takes resources. I hope we will have the support of members opposite and we will not see the soaring hypocrisy that we have heard from some when every step we have taken as a government is singularly opposed when it comes to a vote.

I heard the expression earlier that the rhetoric does not match the resources. Well, the rhetoric certainly does not match the voting record of some, like the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore who continuously berates the government and then stands up and votes against every single initiative we have taken. Everything from graves to child support to issues related to veterans that help them in their daily lives, to serving members of the Canadian Forces and investments in equipment and personnel support has been opposed each and every time in the last 13 years by that member.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Chair, I guess I should ask the minister why he and many members opposite continue to distort the whole notion of democracy that we are asking our veterans and servicemen to fight for. When people in the opposition vote against a budget which contains a whole raft of government policies that imply confidence in the government, it does not mean they are voting against individual particular things that they support. Yet each and every day we hear the minister and others opposite, including the Minister of Veterans Affairs, say the same thing to try to discredit those who are participating in the democratic process that we are asking our people to fight for. Why does the minister continue to distort that?

My second question relates more to the point of what we are talking about. I do want to commend the government and military officials for taking significant action over the last couple of years, particularly on PTSD, commencing when the defence committee started studying PTSD as a result of the efforts of my predecessor. I will use Corporal Langridge as an example, a person who, as a result of his service, suffered from PTSD and psychological injuries which ultimately caused his death. Is the government prepared to start recognizing the sacrifice made by injured soldiers whose injuries are psychological and which also result in their death? Is that something on which the government is prepared to move?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Madam Chair, I thank the hon. member for St. John's East for the honesty and integrity at least in part of his question. The short answer to the second question is yes. We have moved toward recognizing mental health issues, psychological wounds, so to speak, as part of the service record, part of the recognition when it comes to the Sacrifice Medal, when it comes to pension implications, when it comes to service related support. Absolutely that has happened and it will continue to happen. Most important, the treatment and recognition of post-traumatic stress has come forward significantly in this country as a result of support provided by this government and the ongoing efforts in the private sector, that is, in the existing health care system to use the latest methodologies and the latest mental health treatments to bring to bear on post-traumatic stress. This is something that is happening around the world.

Coming back to the member's first question, yes, people absolutely have the right to exercise their democratic right of voting a certain way and to do so in an informed way. But when I hear a member continually try to draw attention to himself for the great support that he provides to veterans and then he continually stands and opposes efforts, whether they be in a budget bill or in stand-alone legislation, things like increases for disability and awards, increases for the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, thousands of dollars set aside for children of deceased veterans education assistance, or for the higher education of children of deceased members of the armed forces, it is inexcusable. He opposes things like thousands of dollars in outreach programs for the atomic veterans recognition program, funding for the mission in Afghanistan, pay and allowances for Canadian Forces members, ex gratia payments for eligible applicants on the atomic veterans recognition program. He even went against contributions toward the improvement of the Canadian Forces Base Shearwater that he represents. That is inexcusable. That is irreconcilable. That is not consistent with someone who supports the efforts that are out there to try to improve the life and the support that exists for members of the Canadian Forces and veterans.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Madam Chair, it is a great privilege to be part of the debate this evening and I thank all parties for agreeing to have this special take note debate.

I will begin by talking about the fact that I have had three careers in my life. I began as an accountant, and was probably less than successful at that. I spent over 24 years as a minister in the United Church, and since, I have become a member of this House of Commons. Of all the work that I have done, probably being the critic for Veterans Affairs has been the most meaningful and some of the most important work I have done in my whole life. I thank my leader and my colleagues for supporting me in that work and I am very pleased that the hon. member for Etobicoke North has continued on in that work.

It is not easy to be an opposition member at the best of times and it is often quite difficult to take on those issues and not create some animosity. However, I want to begin tonight by telling the hon. members across that in this House I do not in any way doubt people's sincerity, people's concern or people's willingness to engage in this debate and in the issues that affect the men and women of our Canadian Forces as they have left the forces, as they have suffered injuries and as they continue in their lives.

A year ago last fall, I was part of a delegation that was led by the then minister, the member for New Brunswick Southwest. He was a most gracious delegation leader as we visited the route of the Italian campaign of World War II. We went from battle site to battle site and looked at the memorials that were part of that Canadian heritage. I was changed as a result of that trip.

I was moved and when I came home, I spent a great deal of time talking to my father who had served in World War II in the Royal Canadian Air Force, not in Italy, but nonetheless had had friends who had served there. I heard stories, but probably the most important part of that trip was in Ortona. There is a sculpture in Ortona called The Price of Peace, a Canadian monument that has been erected to honour the sacrifice of Canadian soldiers who gave their lives for the liberation and freedom of Italy in World War II.

The minister led a very moving ceremony where we laid wreaths and honoured those who had died and also those who had given of themselves in that battle. Very strangely, though, as we sang the national anthem and did the various things that were part of that ceremony, I noticed lurking in the background two young men wearing Canadian flags on their outfits. They were two young soldiers who were Seaforth Highlanders, named Matt Swanston and Kyle Yorsten.

Matt and Kyle were on their three week leave from active duty in Afghanistan and were following the route that we were following. They were following the route of the Seaforth Highlanders, particularly some of their comrades who had given their lives and who had actually received the Victoria Cross. They did not know that we would be there doing a special ceremony.

They were at the edge of the group and there was a person that I wanted them to meet. Her name was Francesca. She was a person who had laid a red flower at that monument every day. As a young girl, she had been liberated by Canadian soldiers. She had been given her freedom by them and her response was one of gratitude and one of love as she laid a flower at that memorial every day. I wanted Kyle and Matt to meet her because they were looking at their own lives in Afghanistan, and she told them that there would one day be a little girl in Afghanistan who, 65 years later, would give thanks for Canadians for their service in Afghanistan.

Every day since then, as I have heard about another death or profound injury in Afghanistan, I have been concerned that it was either Matt or Kyle. It was a special relationship and they have become my pen pals. They are no longer in the theatre of war. As reservists they are home and back at school and work, but they have been for me a touchstone of what it is to fight in the Canadian Forces for the causes in which we believe in this House.

Their return to Canada, as with so many men and women of the Canadian Forces, is not an easy job. Some of our men and women will return with life-changing injuries, such as the loss of limbs or other permanent physical impairments. Others will come home with invisible injuries. Post-traumatic stress disorder affects as many as one in five Afghan veterans. All of them, regardless of physical or invisible injuries, will return with the challenge of re-entry into civilian life or deployment to non-combat roles in the military. None of them will escape these challenges.

Canadians need a new conversation about our care and compassion for the men and women who put their lives on the line for the safety of Canadians and for the future of democracy in this world. This conversation is long overdue.

Since the end of the Korean War, Canada has continued to produce veterans but many have gone unrecognized. Cyprus, Bosnia and Rwanda are only three of the more prominent operations that have left their mark on Canadian Forces personnel, prior to Afghanistan. One can only imagine the toll that was taken on military personnel even as they provided disaster relief in Haiti. No one comes back untouched. Many come back scarred. That is why Liberals have wanted, over the past year, to hear the stories of veterans.

The government side is fond of saying that we are new to this conversation. I do not think that is fair but it is true that we have engaged in a new way in the last couple of years with a new understanding of what it means to be a veteran in this country.

This last year, while the Conservatives took an extended vacation, Liberals were working on Parliament Hill hosting a series of round tables. One of those round tables was for veterans. In fact, it was a very early one. Experts representing veterans associations, mental health research, occupational therapists and others who are dealing with the profound effects of combat and military service spoke to us. Their focus was largely on the new veterans charter, PTSD and the Afghanistan war vets.

What we heard gave us a new agenda, new ideas, a new vision and a new willingness to act in solidarity with the men and women of the Canadian Forces and the veterans for years to come.

The 2006 new veterans charter was meant to modernize our approach, both as traditional veterans age and as modern veterans evolve. Veterans groups that signed on to that charter did so with the understanding that the charter would be constantly reviewed. That promise has not been kept by the government. It has failed to act significantly on many of the problems that have been identified with the new veterans charter. That charter was brought into this House with all party support and with the knowledge that it had to be constantly reviewed and changed. The promise was to constantly reconsider benefits, especially the lump sum benefits made to disabled veterans, both for adequacy and appropriateness.

To keep that promise means to keep investing in research and clinical capacity for PTSD. To keep that promise means cutting bureaucratic red tape that plagues both traditional and modern vets. To keep that promise means to come to grips with disproportionate suicide rates, homelessness and incarceration of young veterans.

If we expect young men like Matt and Kyle and other young men and women to give it their all in the combat theatre, we owe them the assurance that they will be cared for when they get home.

Recent comments by the Minister of Veterans Affairs musing about the shrinking of his department as our elderly veterans gradually pass away have raised much concern among traditional veterans but have also perplexed new veterans who served during the cold war or are serving today in Afghanistan.

The minister's remarks are seen as opportunity to save money, at t least that is the impression that we have been given.

We are seeing this as an opportunity to engage more fully the community of Canadian veterans who need our service. It means that we need to engage more fully in the programs and needs that they have, which means that we need to look at new options around compensation, around benefits and around the kinds of programs that maybe we need to have some creative creativity about, some imagination to explore new ideas.

This is not a way of saying that the public servants in Charlottetown are not working hard enough. It is simply to say that they need to have a new vision of the way they are working. The climate has changed, the context has changed and bureaucracies are slow to move.

Tonight I want to encourage the government to keep doing that, not to get defensive about what it has already done, not to defend the fact that it is spending more money on programs that probably were already going to increase simply by the nature of the injuries that are being sustained, but to commit to re-visioning the covenant that we have with Canadian men and women who have served in the Canadian Forces.

We are ready to engage, we are willing to work together, we want to do the best thing possible for all Canadian veterans and we want to encourage the government to make this its issue as much as it is our issue.

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Jonquière—Alma, QC]

Madam Chair, I thank the member for his speech.

I want to remind him that on the question of a criticism published in the media in the last few hours, stating that there was a report saying we were trying to save money at the expense of our veterans by adopting the new charter, that all happened in 2005, before our government took office. That was under the previous government.

That being said, what is important is to look for any flaws and take action to fix them.

What are we doing at this time? First, we are in fact going to make improvements to the New Veterans Charter. We are going to incorporate an entire new chapter of improvements. Among them, and I would like to remind the member of this, the earnings loss benefits will be improved. The minimum income that a veteran will have, if they are in a rehabilitation program, is $40,000 per year. The second improvement is the permanent monthly allowance. There will be an additional $1,000. That will mean, in a way, that with these two measures the minimum veterans will receive if they come back from Afghanistan severely injured and are not able to go back to work, or are in a rehabilitation program, is $58,000 a year. As well, we are preparing to make improvements, sir, to offer options regarding the lump sum payment. The other thing is that we are fixing a problem that arose when the new charter was implemented under your government. There were only 16 people who were able to access the permanent monthly allowance. We are going to fix that. Now, 3,500…

[The Deputy Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. I would ask the minister to address his comments through the Chair and to finish his question quickly.

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Jonquière—Alma, QC]

Madam Chair, we are also making improvements—in fact, this has been done already—for people with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. This is something else we are in the process of fixing, in addition to the entire transition of care that we will be offering all our veterans.

Does the member acknowledge that we are in fact making significant improvements to provide tangible assistance to our veterans in the modern era and to make sure they have a secure quality of life, in financial terms, if they come home injured?

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

As I said, Madam Chair, yes, there have been improvements but there was a four and a half year silence from the government. It was only after we in the Liberal Party began a conversation with Canadians that there was actually any movement on any of these issues. It was only after the veterans affairs committee issued a report, which was almost unanimous except for one issue that the Bloc Québécois would not support. The report had 18 recommendations that the government began to move on. It was only after we started to inspire veterans to take up, as it were, arms again to fight a second battle with the government that those actual improvements were made. We had seen tremendous improvement, yes, but not enough.

I want to remind the minister not to rewrite history too much. The new veterans charter was enacted after 2006. It was obviously an all party agreement that was worked out with the previous minister in the last Liberal government, but it was, just to get the record straight, the present government that actually put it into legislation with the commitment to revise it regularly. It was meant to be a living charter but it has not been a living charter until we revived it.

This is the party of the resuscitation of the new veterans charter. This is the party of resurrection. This is the party that is saying that it will actually bring life into the charter again and we thank the government for waking up, but we will be continually in this conversation to ensure that the government does not fall asleep again.

I do want to mention that some disparaging remarks were made about my colleague in the New Democratic Party, the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore. He is not always right and sometimes he is rather over the top, but to doubt his integrity on these issues and his obvious passion for veterans is unfair. I congratulate him because, frankly, he helped wake me up, and that, I think, has helped the whole cause of veterans. I am glad the government has seen a little bit of this. It was asleep at the switch and I ask that it not fall asleep again, please.

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

Madam Chair, let us first of all go over the voting records.

The Minister of National Defence talks about the voting records on budgets, but who voted against ending the discriminatory clause of marriage after 60? The Minister of National Defence and the Conservative Party. Who voted against Bill C-201, to end the clawback of disability payments on Canada pension plan at age 65? The Minister of National Defence and the Conservative Party.

Who ended up voting against the extension of VIP for all widows and widowers of veterans that the government had promised? The Minister of National Defence and the Conservative Party. Who voted against raising the amount one can leave at time of death from 50% to 66%? The member for Central Nova, and as well he is the Minister of National Defence, and the Conservative Party. Who voted against every single private member's bill we have tried to introduce for veterans on this issue? The Minister of National Defence and the Conservative Party.

Besides that, the last thing I will ever do is take lessons from the Minister of National Defence, since he is co-author of a party that was conceived in deception and born in betrayal.

My question for my hon. colleague is this. By the way, I have seen great sincerity in him and I have travelled with him to Italy and watched him perform with the former Minister of Veterans Affairs with tremendous sympathy and care for veterans and their families.

My question is quite simple. Colin Pick from Manitoulin Island, who is the president of the War Pensioners of Canada, has sent to everyone 24 recommendations of what the government can do to immediately ensure that veterans and their families and RCMP members and their families get the treatment they need.

One of the highlights of these recommendations is the assurance that Pat Stogran continue on as veterans' ombudsman for one more term.

I would like to know the member's response and the Liberal Party of Canada's response. Should Colonel Stogran continue on as the veterans' ombudsman?

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

In a word, Madam Chair, yes.

The member's first question, though, was who had voted against those progressive measures for veterans and the answer obviously is the Conservative government.

The answer to the second question is yes. I believe Colonel Stogran has the capacity, the ability, the energy, the experience, the wisdom, the intelligence, the reasonableness, the compassion and the passion to do this job.

What has hindered him, however, is his lack of independence in his ability to have the resources to do his work fully.

There is still time. His term ends on November 10. There is still time to do the right thing and do what men and women across the country, our veterans, have asked for, to reappoint Colonel Stogran.

If the government does not do that, let us take a little time to rethink the office of the veterans' ombudsman, because there are some problems there. We need to open up that discussion and ask how can we have a truly effective, a truly independent veterans' ombudsman who can actually report fully to Parliament through the minister to make changes, so that we hear directly from the ombudsman what it is that veterans are concerned about.

Hopefully it will be someone with that kind of experience. Colonel Stogran saw battle, led men and women and gave his all for this country, for our world, and the veterans' ombudsman needs to be the calibre of person again that Colonel Stogran is.

The ombudsman also needs to have his sense of humour, because he has weathered a lot of storms given to him by the other side of the House and he is still going, he is still feisty and he is still energetic. I am proud to have him as a Canadian serving the men and women who are our veterans.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Madam Chair, talk about the revision of history.

Everyone in the House starts off saying, yes, we all love our veterans. Of course we do, but my question is this. Why did the Liberal Party and Jean Chrétien in the previous government take away thousands of veterans, the designation of veterans, and reduce VIP care? The opposition clearly forgets that. I wonder if the member could try to answer that question directly.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Madam Chair, the hon. member will know that I was not in the House at that time. I was not part of that government.

I am attempting to find a new way of doing things and I am not ashamed to say that.

I do not always go back in history on those kinds of things. I am looking ahead. I am tired of the government constantly saying what was done in the past. This is not a new government. The government is almost five years old. This is the government. It should not be afraid of being the government. It is not the opposition. It is the government. It should do its job and do its work.

[Greg Kerr, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Madam Chair, this is certainly an auspicious evening.

I am pleased to have the chance to join this timely discussion. Given much of what I have heard so far, it is imperative to begin by reassuring all Canadians that our government fully realizes and proudly accepts the immense debt we owe to our men and women in uniform, our veterans and their families.

We understand Canada's solemn duty to care for and support and serve the men and women who have served our great country.

For 50 years, successive governments focused their efforts on the traditional veterans who served in the first world war, second world war and Korean war. Government programs and services were regularly fine-tuned to the changing needs of these aging men and women. They worked well. Our veterans told us so repeatedly.

But the times change. Generations come and go. With the passing of John Babcock earlier this year, we lost our last living link to the first world war.

Our government quickly recognized this changing reality and we acted.

In 2006 our government implemented the new veterans charter, and we did so with the unanimous support of the previous Parliament and with the overwhelming approval of Canada's veterans and their various organizations. Groups such as the Royal Canadian Legion, the Army, Navy & Air Force Veterans in Canada Association, or ANAVETS, and the Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association had been widely consulted and expressed their support for this new approach.

Many prominent Canadians also agreed. Various advisory panels encouraged the change in direction. Experts from around the world confirmed that focusing on early intervention, providing intensive treatment and rewarding rehabilitation would greatly improve the health and well-being of our injured and wounded soldiers.

All of them were right.

With the sweeping improvements we implemented under the new veterans charter, our injured soldiers are getting the help they need, the help that can make a real difference in their lives and the lives of their families. Yet to listen to recent criticism, Canadians must wonder if the new veterans charter was a mistake. Let me assure them, this is not the case.

The question of course is how could there be such a disconnect between the public's perception and reality.

I believe some perspective is required, and I would like to use my time here to address these issues directly.

Among the most perplexing criticisms is the claim that the main goal of the new veterans charter was to save the Government of Canada money by shortchanging veterans and their families. This is just not true. We spend far more money today on veterans' services than ever before. We are ensuring veterans are rehabilitated and successfully reintegrated into society. This is a better and more comprehensive commitment than merely compensating them.

Equally mystifying is the suggestion that the new veterans charter was a pet project of the bureaucracy in Veterans Affairs. Again, this is not true.

I think a brief look at the charter's history is helpful.

By the late 1990s, it was growing clear to most observers that the original veterans charter adopted at the close of the second world war had run its course. By relying on disability pensions and only limited rehabilitation programs, the previous system was having the perverse effect of encouraging veterans to focus on their disabilities rather than getting better.

For example, if veterans could prove their back pain was getting worse or that their hearing had declined, they might see their disability pensions increase by a few dollars a month. As some have aptly noted, this amounted to a prescription for poverty, especially for the increasingly younger, modern-day veterans.

The solution was and remains to focus on wellness and to promote and reward rehabilitation.

As many reports and discussion papers have concluded, Canada needed a modern approach to meet the needs of a new generation of veterans while still fully supporting those who could not be rehabilitated.

Our Canadian Forces personnel and veterans knew this from their own experiences. Some of them serving on an advisory council flatly called the previous system inadequate and unworthy of us. The result, after almost six years of consultations, was the new veterans charter.

Central to the new charter's success was a commitment to full rehabilitation and vocational assistance, to ongoing financial support and to comprehensive case management.

These pillars of the new veterans charter were not dreamed up by a federal bureaucracy trying to cut costs. They were the ideas and recommendations of the very men and women the new charter was designed to serve.

Dr. Peter Neary is a case in point. He was chair of a joint advisory council for DND and Veterans Affairs. His group had issued a discussion paper in the spring of 2004. When he saw the new veterans charter, this is what he said: “I am pleased to see that Veterans Affairs has responded positively and comprehensively to the recommendations made by our council”.

Further, those recommendations were subsequently reviewed and endorsed by Canada's major veterans organizations at their various conventions. They were not alone in advocating this new approach for our veterans.

Countries such as Britain and Australia had already adopted similar sweeping changes to their veterans programs and benefits.

Other countries, including New Zealand and the United States, have been weighing their own reforms, and many are reaching the same conclusions. Canada deserves top marks for its new charter.

Let me cite a few examples of the endorsements our new veterans charter has received.

For example, a 2008 international study completed for Australia's Department of Veterans' Affairs described our new veterans charter as “the closest to a 'wellness' approach” that is “based on enabling and rewarding a return to the best life possible”.

New Zealand has followed suit. Former Prime Minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer is now president of the New Zealand Law Commission, which coincidentally completed a review of veterans' care around the globe just this past spring. What was Mr. Palmer's verdict? “We sincerely believe that an approach like the Canadians' new veterans charter is best for younger veterans”.

Even our Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, on which I serve and which is represented by MPs from all sides of the House, praised Canada when it compared our efforts with what other countries are doing for veterans and their families.

I must say that even the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore said, barely one year ago: “When you compare our Veterans Charter and compare our benefits to other countries, we rank among the top in the world when it comes to care for veterans and their families”.

Look at what the member for Mississauga East—Cooksville told The Globe and Mail in September. She was the minister of veterans affairs when the new veterans charter was passed in May 2005, and she said the high point of her political career was watching the four party leaders of the day agree on a $1 billion charter for veterans.

Despite all this support, the new veterans charter still remains a target of critics who, quite frankly, base many of their claims on factual errors or incomplete knowledge. The most common mistake is the suggestion that we replaced the lifetime disability pension with a lump-sum disability award.

This is not true. The sole intent of the disability award, worth a maximum of $276,000, is to recognize the non-economic impact, the pain and suffering, from being injured in the line of duty.

The economic impact of an injury or illness is addressed through a variety of ongoing financial supports. The most common one is the earnings loss benefit. It pays eligible veterans up to 75% of their pre-release salary, and it can be supplemented by other benefits and allowances for the rest of their lives.

If the additional changes our government is proposing are included, it means our most seriously injured veterans will receive a minimum of $58,000 a year.

However, the most important thing about the new veterans charter is not how it evolved or the disability award and the other financial benefits it provides. The most important thing is that the new veterans charter offers hope, real hope, for ordinary Canadian heroes who are hurting.

Above everything else, the new veterans charter is about helping our wounded men and women to make the very best recovery they can, in the shortest time possible. And we are proud to be there for them, because our government is here for veterans and here for Canada.

It is a living document, and we are in the process of amending and improving it. It is not about turning back the clock but responding to the recommendations, so that we have a strong array of programs that are geared to the needs of our modern veterans.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Madam Chair, I think we have to recognize there is criticism of the new veterans charter, enough to spark a day of protest. I really believe that there needs to be consultation across this country, and change.

As the parliamentary secretary said, we are proud to be there for them. So I must address the issue of agent orange. I have many questions.

I am wondering if the hon. member thinks the precautionary principle has been applied to the safety of the environment and the health and welfare of members of the Canadian Forces and the civilian population since the first spraying in 1956 up until the present.

I am wondering if he can comment on why only half the claims have been paid out and on the fairness of the date of the compensation. Currently only those who were still alive on February 6, 2006, are eligible to receive compensation for exposure to agent orange. Can he also comment on the fairness of eligible illnesses in relation to the United States? The Institute of Medicine is updated every two years. We have not included that information here in Canada. And can he comment on eligibility for veterans' health care benefits and on veterans' children with spina bifida and other birth defects?

Finally, what critical integrative analyses regarding agent orange, purple and white, such as longitudinal evaluation of cancer data, have been undertaken here in Canada and made available to the public?

Has the government, and this is really important, undertaken any studies to understand trans-generational effects?

[Greg Kerr, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Madam Chair, I was listening to the hon. member's comments, wide-ranging as they were.

The simplest answer on agent orange is that it took place decades ago and was not dealt with by previous governments. Most of the records, most of the files, most of the information was not there. When this government decided it was time to do something, the best it could do, the fairest thing it could do, was provide compensation based on the information that was available.

A lot of people did not have enough information to be included in the process, and that is why the review went on much longer than was first anticipated. The deadline was extended for well over a year, so that others could make sure that they got best information they could from the records.

There is all kinds of information, and we will continue to look at it. But the main reason these people were left out was that it was not dealt with for such a long time. The best that could be done was to provide a compensation package based on the documents that were available. That was the best possible answer to help those people at the time.

By the way, like many other decisions, this is the only government that provided a compensation package.

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

Madam Chair, the hon. parliamentary secretary from the great province of Nova Scotia is absolutely right. The Conservatives did deal with agent orange, but they said, in opposition, that over 300,000 would be covered, and just over 3,000 got the coverage.

The hon. parliamentary secretary for Veterans Affairs does a good job on the veterans affairs committee representing Conservative interests, and I agree that he and I work quite well together on these issues. We try to reach agreement where we can and disagree when we cannot, but he knows as well as I do that one of the biggest problems facing veterans when they go to the appeal board, or when they face the government, is the benefit-of-the-doubt clause.

He just said that many files were no longer there, thus the government could only do what it could do when it came to agent orange. But we ought to do more to apply the benefit-of-the-doubt clause, which more or less means that the tie goes to the runner. It has often happened that a veteran, RCMP member, or a military family member calls the 1-866 number looking for help and submits medical information from his or her doctor that says there may be evidence that the injury or the illness in question is related to his or her service. It is that word “may” on which many appeals have been denied.

He knows that this is a problem and in my more than 13 years of working on behalf of veterans, RCMP members, and their families, I have yet to see the benefit-of-the-doubt clause applied, though it is enshrined in legislation.

With great respect to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, who I believe does a very good job, when will this benefit-of-the-doubt clause be revamped so that when members of the veterans community, including RCMP members, call in, they will actually be believed by the Veterans Review and Appeal Board and have their cases adjudicated in a speedy and timely manner?

[Greg Kerr, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Madam Chair, I was receiving some excellent advice.

I do not want to go back into the voting record. I am shocked at some of the things that were voted against, but I am trusting that if we do this, he will vote for it.

The point being made is a good one, and it has shown up in the reviews of this past year. We have all met veterans who have spent a lot of time trying to get answers from the appeal process. It is not about the individuals or those trying to deal with this. It is the process itself that has to be revisited, the whole way that it is dealt with, because it is a very time-consuming process.

However, I know that if we clarify it, if we make it clearer that the end result is the veteran and the benefit vote goes to the veteran, it will be something we will need everybody in the House to support. It is an important initiative, and I trust that if we get to that point, all members of the House will support it.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Madam Chair, we heard from the other side, “Do not remember what happened in the past. You are the government now, do something about it”. Liberals are running from their record, but they cannot help themselves when they stand in the House and talk about how great the Liberal Party is and how Canada exists because of the Liberal Party. What they do not say is that the military remembers the decade of darkness that they brought on.

The equipment that the men and women have in Canada today has helped save lives in Afghanistan. This government invested in the military, while Liberals took away from it. They took away veterans' benefits and veterans independence programs. They did not address agent orange. Now they stand and say, “You have to do something about this because you are the government”.

It is about time some people were able to stand in this place and say, “We screwed up. We did not do it. We need to work with you to be better”.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. I would like to give the hon. parliamentary secretary the opportunity to give a brief response.

[Greg Kerr, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Madam Chair, I assume he is not referring to the decade of darkness that the Liberals now find themselves in. That is not what he is suggesting.

It is fair to say that many of the initiatives that are now in place have come about during the mandate of the Conservative Government of Canada. We know there is a lot left to be done; there is no question about that. But do we need leadership from the Liberal Party? Absolutely not.

The results of its reductions many years ago took us years to reinstate and give back to veterans. We are moving forward. We have a lot of work left to do and a lot of challenges to overcome, but we intend to keep moving in the right direction.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Madam Chair, I hope that the debate will remain civilized and that we can all calm down.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak this evening and I would like to thank the NDP for proposing this take-note debate on the impact of the veterans charter and what happens to veterans when they return from combat.

I wanted to speak today because I was involved in a petition signed by 6,000 people requesting a return to the lifetime monthly payment for injured service people. In talking to people who have been through that and families dealing with the reality of the lump sum payment, I discovered that it is not enough to meet the needs of injured service people.

The fate of our veterans is related to water contamination in Shannon, an issue I worked on for several months. A petition with 27,000 signatures called for compensation for veterans, service people and residents who lived on the Valcartier base and who were contaminated by TCE-tainted water for many years. If I have time later, I will talk about the impact of the Conservative government's lack of concern. Apparently, the Liberal government did not care either because the situation went on for several years. The water was tainted in the 1940s and 1950s.

I tabled in the House a petition signed by 6,000 people calling on the government to change the charter and reinstate compensation in the form of a monthly payment for injured service people. The new charter was adopted in 2006. We voted for that charter because we thought it would improve things for people injured in combat. We have since found out that the amount was too small and left too many people facing a bleak future with neither financial nor psychological resources.

The Minister of Veterans Affairs said that the lump sum payments range from $56,000 to $267,000, the latter being the maximum compensation payable. But what can a 20- or 30-year-old person who has lost both legs, who receives $267,000, who has no other source of income and who has to ensure his or her survival do? The burden usually falls on that person's parents. I met several of these people this past year.

I initiated this petition after meeting with Francine Matteau, a constituent of mine from Quebec City. Ms. Matteau's son injured both of his legs in 2007 when he was serving in Afghanistan. He had to have nine surgeries. He has constant pain in his ankles, and one leg is shorter than the other. His ankles are practically immobile. He has lost control, mobility and strength in both of his legs. He has difficulties holding a full-time job and no longer meets the army's requirements. If he had been wounded before the adoption of the new charter, he would have received $5,400 per month, instead of a lump sum payment of $100,000. In addition, we need to look at how we assess the injuries caused by a landmine in combat.

For someone who is 20, 21 or 22, who is returning seriously wounded and can no longer work, that is definitely not enough. That is what the majority of people I spoke to said. Elphège Renaud, the president of the Association des anciens combattants du Royal 22e Régiment de Valcartier is another example. He met 19 soldiers and told me that they were severely disabled. Most of them were penniless after having received the lump sum payment.

Earlier, much was said about the veterans' ombudsman, Patrick B. Stogran. He has also spoken out about this situation, and has called for the reinstatement of the monthly pension to prevent injured soldiers and their families from falling below the poverty line.

We do not understand why the mandate of the ombudsman, who cares about veterans, was not renewed. The Minister of Veterans Affairs said that we should not expect an ombudsman's mandate to be automatically renewed. However, a three-year mandate as ombudsman is very short, when we want to uncover a system's weaknesses.

They are saying they are going to make changes and that they will be making announcements in the coming days, but we can still look at the impact of certain programs and measures.

Their refusal to renew the ombudsman's mandate proves that they are not sensitive to the urgency of the situation for several people who have been injured in combat. That is another Conservative habit. When they are told the truth, when someone dares to speak up and present reports, the Conservatives either hide them, or they completely ignore them.

Tonight's take note debate was not called by the Conservative Party, but rather by the NDP. The Bloc Québécois supported tonight's debate. We can see the Conservative Party's bad faith regarding how it really feels about improving the lives of our veterans.

Whoever replaces Mr. Stogran will have to redo everything he did over the past three years. If Mr. Stogran had been in the position for 20 years, we might understand why his contract was not renewed, but after just three years, something is not right.

Moving toward lump sum compensation means that Canada is refusing to recognize veterans and those coming home from Afghanistan with injuries. The government does not want to recognize them. If it had really wanted to, it would have left the ombudsman in his position—as he was for some time—so he could continue to further the cause of injured veterans and those with psychological needs, by offering them much more treatment than what is currently being offered.

It has been said that proof is required that the psychological injuries are work related. There is always a doubt. CFB Valcartier is very close to my riding. I have heard stories about painful and difficult situations, where people are left to fend for themselves because they are suffering from post traumatic stress disorder.

The veterans' ombudsman is concerned that Afghanistan will become our Vietnam if nothing is done. The Minister of Veterans Affairs said earlier that he will soon be announcing a few additional measures. Will these measures be sufficiently flexible, or less flexible? The former ombudsman could have looked into this, but I do not believe it was one of the minister's priorities.

Again according to Mr. Stogran, the adoption of the new veterans charter created two classes of veterans: those who served in the second world war and in the Korean War, and all the rest. I know what I am talking about because I am the daughter of a veteran. My father never received a pension for the injuries he got in combat when he served in Italy and in Normandy. I was very young at the time, but I remember taking a stand to show that my father had real injuries that caused him difficulties at the end of his life. He was denied compensation.

A debate like the one we are having this evening is beneficial and may encourage the minister to do something about the need to take better care of veterans. I can tell that he is sensitive to this issue. I know that he would like to improve certain conditions and life in general for veterans returning from combat.

We celebrate their bravery when they leave, but we have to do more than just commend them for their bravery. We have to take care of soldiers who return with multiple injuries and we have to take care of their families and their children.

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Jonquière—Alma, QC]

Mr. Chair, I would like to explain again to the hon. member for Québec, which is close to the Valcartier base, a few aspects that have not yet been fully understood.

If someone comes back from Afghanistan with serious injuries and is in a rehabilitation program, he will receive at least $58,000 a year. The second part on top of that is a lump sum payment to compensate for the injuries and suffering that this person has gone through. That lump sum payment will be added to the $58,000 that the person receives annually. When we conducted our survey, 69% of veterans were happy to receive a lump sum payment. Thirty-one per cent said no, and that is when we decided to improve things and offer other options. That is what we will be presenting to parliamentarians and to our veterans.

Given that we have listened to what veterans have told us, that we are listening to their needs and that we are trying to improve things, can the government count on the member's support when it introduces its new bill?

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Chair, we will definitely examine what the Minister of Veterans Affairs has to offer. I would ask him to consider why so many concerned people told the committee that we had to reverse the decision and go back to monthly payments rather than providing a lump sum payment.

When they return to Canada, not all injured veterans qualify for the minimum of $58,000 mentioned by the minister. When people familiar with the issues sign a petition, we realize that the way in which the injured are compensated is not all that matters. I know that Australia did the same thing. It had a charter that was similar to ours. It backtracked because it realized that the charter did not meet the needs.

We will examine the follow-up process that will take place over the next few months and years to determine if the new measures are of greater benefit to veterans. We must also consider mental health problems. As asked earlier, will they clear up the doubts and prove that these problems are directly related to military work in the theatre of operations?

Today, we are listening to the Conservative Party to determine what it has to offer. However, we must bear in mind that there are still shortcomings, as mentioned throughout this evening's debate. I would invite the minister to be very open-minded and to not think that these new measures are the ultimate solution for those who have been injured. We will be following this very closely.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Chair, the member may know, and certainly the minister should know, about the 700 Canadian military personnel who participated in almost 30 nuclear weapons trials in the South Pacific between 1946 and 1963. The soldiers participated as test subjects so military officials could determine the results of nuclear blasts. Many of the atomic veterans have experienced serious long-time health difficulties and diseases as a result of their exposure.

As well, 200 Canadian Forces personnel helped with decontamination efforts and cleanup of the Chalk River nuclear plant in Ontario, following two reactor accidents in 1952 and 1958.

In 2008 the Conservatives promised an ex gratia payment of $24,000 for the atomic veterans. The ex gratia payment was not nearly enough for veterans struggling with high medical bills and illnesses that resulted from exposure to these nuclear weapons trials and cleanup. As well, the atomic veterans are in the process of launching a class action suit against the government.

What I would like to get from somebody, either on the government side or from the member, is an update for the House on the status of these veterans.