Debates of May 11th, 2015

Opposition Motion—Care for Veterans

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

Mr. Speaker, if my hon. colleague from Ontario had understood right from the beginning of my speech, I did say that the yardstick had moved ever so slightly with the new minister and previous ones. There is no question that, since I have been here, there have been slight improvements to the Department of Veterans Affairs. There are many veterans, and I have said this repeatedly not only in the House but right across the country, who receive excellent quality care from the Department of Veterans Affairs, and special kudos go to the individuals who work at DVA to provide that excellent care.

At the same time, what we have to ask ourselves and the hon. colleague, if he has the chance to stand up again, is why would $1.13 billion of lapsed spending from 2006 until now go back to the Treasury Board? Many veterans were denied hearing aids. Many veterans were denied VIP. Many veterans were denied other services. That is not us saying that. That is Dennis Manuge having to go to court on the SISIP case. This case could have been settled out of court many years ago.

Yes, there have been improvements, but there is an incredibly long way to go for any member of any government or any party, for that matter, to ensure that all veterans are well looked after, because not one veteran is asking for a Rolex watch or a trip to Florida. They are asking for basic dignity, and that is the minimum that they deserve.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the member's comments regarding the issue of advertising. I made reference to this earlier today. Imagine, if we will, veterans who are in regions where outreach or service offices were being closed. At the same time, they tune in to their TV networks and find very partisan political ads to promote the government budget, for example.

Could the member provide some comments regarding the government's priorities when it is closing down services, while at the same time spending literally millions of dollars on self-promoting budget ads that are exceptionally partisan?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is rather unfortunate that the government would waste taxpayers' dollars on these advertisements, really just to promote the Conservative Party of Canada. However, the reality is that it should be putting that money not just toward veterans' care, but toward our environment, people with disabilities, seniors, students to get a proper education, small business, et cetera. There are a lot of other areas to which the government could have allocated those funds.

Imagine closing offices and using that money for advertising. I think that veterans will be loud and clear come the next election, just like people were in Alberta. An orange wave is coming, and I advise my Conservative counterparts to get ready for it.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of the opposition motion, the New Democratic Party motion. I do not usually read out the whole motion when it is a long one, as it takes up precious speaking time, but I will in this case because I find it hard to believe we are actually debating it, that this subject is actually up for debate in the House of Commons.

The motion reads:

That, in the opinion of the House, a standalone covenant of moral, social, legal, and fiduciary obligation exists between the Canadian people and the government to provide equitable financial compensation and support services to past and active members of the Canadian Armed Forces who have been injured, disabled or have died as a result of military service, and to their dependents, which the government is obligated to fulfil.

It is hard to believe that we have to dedicate an opposition day, that we have to dedicate a day to debate what should be a no-brainer, what should be common sense, common Canadian sense.

Our veterans stood on guard for us. They stood on guard for Canada. Our veterans stood on guard for democracy. They stood on guard around the world in conflict zones like Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Libya. They stood on guard for us in humanitarian missions like Haiti, after the earthquake in January 2010, and in Newfoundland and Labrador, after Hurricane Igor that same year.

Our veterans stood on guard for us, and we must stand on guard for them. That is the essence of the sacred covenant that exists between the Government of Canada and our Armed Forces. Our responsibility, our duty, is to be there for soldiers and veterans in their moment of need, not to abandon them to budget and service cuts. I call that the ultimate insult. Too many give the ultimate sacrifice and the government gives the ultimate insult.

There have been too many examples where the Conservative government has failed to stand on guard for our veterans.

The NDP MP for Sackville—Eastern Shore, Nova Scotia, who just spoke, this party's veterans affairs critic—and an outstanding critic he is—has a quotation on his office door by a U.S. senator, “If you can't afford to take care of your veterans, then don't go to war”.

The Conservative government has not been taking care of our veterans. It was not taking care of our veterans when it closed nine Veterans Affairs offices across Canada, including one in Corner Brook, Newfoundland, my home province.

I was told just today of a Newfoundland veteran who served in Bosnia. He had to drive eight hours from Corner Brook, his home, to St. John's, the closest office, so that the staff there could start a profile on him. He drove for eight hours across the island of Newfoundland.

The Conservative government was not taking care of veterans when it cut 23% of the Veterans Affairs workforce, or 900 jobs, since 2009. The Conservative government certainly was not taking care of veterans when it spent more than $700,000 fighting Afghan veterans in court to deny the existence of the social covenant I mentioned a moment ago.

Lawyers for the government have argued that it has no obligation or social contract with veterans. Those same lawyers also argued that is unfair to bind the government to promises made nearly a century ago by another prime minister.

That social contract was struck in 1917 by then Conservative prime minister Robert Borden:

The government and the country will consider it their first duty to see that a proper appreciation of your effort and of your courage is brought to the notice of people at home that no man, whether he goes back or whether he remains in Flanders, will have just cause to reproach the government for having broken faith with the men who won and the men who died.

Not only has the Conservative government failed to take care of our veterans, to respect that sacred covenant, but it has also been playing the worst sort of politics, the sort of politics that rots faith in our political system.

The latest massive omnibus bill, Bill C-59, is the budget implementation bill. It is 167 pages, which is short by omnibus standards, and it obviously includes measures on the budget. That is the same boutique budget that we will be voting against because it would cater to the wealthy, among other reasons. It would put the needs of the more affluent and more influential people first. However, Bill C-59 contains much more than this year's budget measures. The bill touches on almost two dozen other bills, from the federal balanced budget act and the prevention of terrorist travel act to public service sick leave and Canadian Labour Code changes.

The Conservatives have also cynically included provisions to assist veterans in that omnibus bill. They do this all the time. Such a move will force opposition parties who support those measures to help veterans to vote against the bill and then—and you can take this to the bank, Mr. Speaker—the Conservatives will throw in our faces that we voted against veterans. That is the kind of government we have in power, a government that is morally spent. I can definitely get much more creative, but I do not want to cross the parliamentary line. After nine years of Conservative government, too many veterans and their families cannot access adequate health care, pensions, and other vital supports.

I had a conversation just this morning with Jamie MacWhirter. He is a Newfoundlander and he is also a veteran. Jamie MacWhirter survived a seven-month tour in Afghanistan's most volatile war zones. He survived. He drove a refuelling truck loaded with 10,000 litres of diesel. His nickname was Fireball, for obvious reasons. Near misses for Jamie included rocket attacks, the horror of a suicide bombing that killed several children, fire fights, and roadside bombs. Jamie MacWhirter survived Afghanistan in one piece only to battle a different type of nightmare back here in Canada in Newfoundland and Labrador. Jamie MacWhirter has post-traumatic stress disorder, and the battle here at home was, and still is, for help.

Jamie MacWhirter says there is some help for veterans, some services available, but too often veterans do not know about them. Too often soldiers are afraid to speak out for fear of being kicked out of the military. They are afraid to ask for help. Soldiers do not feel safe in asking for help. When they do, too often the help is not there.

Jamie MacWhirter and others have formed a support group, PTSD Buddies, to help people with post-traumatic stress disorder, to help them share experiences, and to lean on one another for support. Veterans should lean on one another. It is good that they are coming together to support one another. That is what the best kind of soldiers do. However, veterans should also be able to lean on their own government.

I mentioned earlier that the Conservative government is fighting Afghanistan vets in court to deny the existence of the social covenant. Those vets are in a group called the Equitas Society. That group states:

A veteran, whether regular or reserve, active or retired, is someone who, at one point in their life, wrote a blank cheque made payable to “the Government of Canada,” for an amount of “up to and including their life.”

One hundred and fifty-eight Canadians were killed in combat in Afghanistan. I say this with great respect for their families, for the loved ones they left behind. Even more personnel, an estimated 160, have died from suicide since returning home from Afghanistan.

The Government of Canada has a sacred obligation as the holder of that blank cheque to stand and deliver, to stand on guard for the men and women of our forces when they ask for help.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the hypocrisy from the member opposite is almost too much to bear, but I steeled myself and listened to it.

The NDP has a very strong anti-military history, and this phony concern for veterans shines through and through. New Democrats have never supported any military action to defend democracy anywhere around the world, including the fight against ISIS. Shamefully, they are opposing Canada's participation in protecting and defending western democracies.

That anti-military legacy started with the founder of their party, J.S. Woodsworth, who actually opposed Canada's participation in the Second World War. Imagine what the world would have been like if his advice had been followed? Vladimir Lenin called the western left “useful idiots” for keeping him in power.

Why is the NDP so anti-military and not willing to protect and defend democracy?

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, usually when I get asked a question after a speech, I thank the hon. member, but I am not going to thank the hon. member. Too often what he says in the House of Commons either makes no sense or is just an affront to everything I hold dear about the House.

One of the things the hon. member just said was that the hypocrisy is too much to bear, and he talked about how New Democrats never support a military action. I can say this from the perspective of a Newfoundlander and Labradorian. I am a Newfoundlander, and we have had more Newfoundlanders per capita serve in the Canadian Navy and the Canadian military than any other province or territory in this country.

Winston Churchill in the Second World War called Newfoundlanders “the best small boat men in the world”. He was right. We are that. Newfoundland and Labrador have given more than our share to military conflicts. Hypocrisy—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I will not comment on the exchange I just heard, but I also would like to offer a quote into this debate that my hon. colleague the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl brought up, from Jamie MacWhirter from PTSD Buddies. There have been several in the group and they have been very proactive in the media, for reasons that are obvious. I want to quote him when he said, “So I thought if I could just get these people together we would all learn from each other and move forward with our lives”.

Anyone suffering from distress will use that method to get the same people together, talk about how they are coping with it, share best practices, and so on and so forth. I agree with that, but what has happened here is that the offices have been closed, these offices that have the capacity to deal with these people. They are on the front lines, if I could use that term, for people like Jamie MacWhirter and PTSD Buddies. I would like my colleague to comment on how much more difficult it is that these specialized services have disappeared, especially in Newfoundland and Labrador and particularly the office in Corner Brook.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question, and I mean honourable when I say that.

In terms of the new group, PTSD Buddies, which has formed in Newfoundland, a group made up of veterans who come together to support each other, what they are doing is fabulous. Veterans should be able to lean on each other.

One of the central points in my speech is that, besides leaning on each other, they should also be able to lean on the Government of Canada. However, too often, and I gave numerous examples in my speech, they cannot rely on and cannot lean on the Government of Canada.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to be brief. I have personally suffered from PTSD for over 40 years. I was a signal maintainer on the railway and I witnessed four accidents in which people driving cars were hit, and they and the car were completely destroyed. For 40 years I have had dreams about this. It was back in a time where this was not a diagnosed illness for anyone.

It is just unacceptable that our young men, who go into war and do horrible things because they have to in war, come home and do not have the support and have to band together because the government has failed them.

I want to thank the member for putting this motion forward to have this discussion, because there is nothing worse than to live with this by oneself.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank the hon. member on this side for putting the motion forward.

The fact that we had to debate this issue shows that there is something wrong. The fact that the Conservative government is likely to vote against this motion shows that we have something wrong. Hopefully the Conservatives will vote for it. Hopefully they will not vote against it.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is an excellent time to have this debate on this very topical member's motion.

In response to my hon. colleague from St. John's South—Mount Pearl, we have already said we are supporting the motion, so let us put that aside.

I would like to take a little bit of time to be as factual as I can and as non-partisan as I can and lay out on the table what is actually happening in the Veterans Affairs world.

I am a veteran. I have had the pleasure of serving in the Canadian Armed Forces alongside some of Canada's finest. The hon. Minister of Veterans Affairs is also a veteran. That is one of the many reasons his understanding and depth of knowledge in these matters is second to none. He understands the challenges of the military lifestyle and he knows first-hand how positive these changes at Veterans Affairs Canada will be for our men and women in uniform. I am glad to see more veterans being elected to this House, and hopefully more will be elected in October.

Veterans will get the services they need, and they will get them when they need them. The minister has clearly communicated with Canadians that how we serve and care for our veterans is a priority for this government and that veterans and their families will continue to get the support they need and deserve.

Our government has always supported veterans, and in doing so, we often see veterans join our team. One of these fine veterans is a man named Tim Laidler, who is now a candidate for us in British Columbia. We look forward to having him on the team.

Historically, the support from the government for veterans is based upon the Pension Act, which was first introduced in 1919 as assistance for soldiers returning from a war that is now a century old. As time evolved, different conflicts arose and our armed forces faced new challenges.

We cannot forecast all these things. In 1938, did we understand that we would have hundreds of thousand of World War II veterans? In 1949, did we understand that we would have thousands of Korean War veterans? In 2000, did we understand that we would have thousands of Afghan veterans? Tomorrow, or ten years down the road, will we be saying the same thing about some other conflict?

Veterans needs change, and we have to adapt with that. It is our responsibility to adapt and apply new laws and legislation that better address the needs of today's veterans while not forgetting the needs of our traditional veterans. There are almost 60,000 Second World War veterans still with us.

The Liberals' new veterans charter was designed from 1999 to 2005, culminating with its introduction and passage in Parliament in a single day. It has been said that the new veterans charter represented a new social contract with Canadian veterans.

We are all aware that the new veterans charter required some practical tuning. The government has taken on those challenges. Arguably, it could have been done faster. As with all governments, that is an easy charge to make, and frankly, I wish we could have done things faster.

The fundamental concept behind the new veterans charter is based on the wellness and rehabilitation of our injured veterans and ultimately their transition back to civilian life. It is not intended to provide lifelong financial dependence unless that is the only option. It is all about getting the veterans and their families rehabilitated and back to a life of their own choice and under their own control.

It works alongside other benefits and programs from the Government of Canada, such as the service income security insurance plan, and ensures that military personnel who are seriously injured while on duty will see an increase in overall compensation the moment they leave the forces.

Our government has applied many changes that work to benefit veterans and their families, such as adding new monthly benefits so that veterans are not just receiving a single payment if they are seriously injured. We have also changed the single payment or lump sum so that veterans can break it out into smaller payments spread out in any way they like.

We also realize that the system is far too complex, like any system that has evolved over many decades. There was one payment for this situation and another for that. There were these forms and those forms. It does get very complicated. We are trying very hard to simplify that and cut through the red tape.

Qualifying veterans now have access to five different monthly payments in addition to the lump sum. It was said that a lump sum would kick them to the curb; that could not be further from the truth. Those who are seriously injured and need the help will get it in the form of the earnings lost benefit while they are in rehabilitation. They will get it, and that goes till age 65. That has now been added to by the retirement income security benefit, which now extends that benefit for life. We might call that a pension.

They are also compensated monthly with the permanent impairment allowance, and for those more seriously injured, the permanent impairment allowance supplement. Those go for life. We might call those a pension.

Also, for the worst off, there is the Canadian Forces income support, and I have already mentioned that we are adding the retirement income security benefit.

Over the coming months we will be examining options for consolidating all veterans' benefits so we can provide those veterans who need it the most with a single monthly payment. They would get all those things I just talked about but instead of five payments showing up in their bank account, they would get one. They will still get a breakout as to where it comes from, but this simplifies the process and cuts down the red tape and confusion.

We have vastly increased post-secondary training, allowing veterans to benefit from two distinct retraining programs, one with DND, another with Veterans Affairs, as they transition from the Canadian Armed Forces. One of these benefits from Veterans Affairs Canada is a retraining allowance of $75,800 to do post-secondary training. We have loosened up all the restrictions on that. It is extremely flexible, even to the point where if the veteran cannot use it, the veteran's spouse can. Therefore, the family unit can make progress and get back to a life under its control.

We have also worked with and listened to many of the veteran stakeholder groups, the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs and the Veterans Ombudsman. The Veterans Ombudsman and the Canadian Forces Ombudsman are now working hand and glove on all matters.

At the veterans affairs committee, we sat through dozens of meetings and met dozens of witnesses. Certain items were identified that needed fixing. Between the measures already taken as a result of the recommendations, every one of which was acted on, contrary to some things members might hear, and the introduction of Bill C-58, which is now a key component of our budget implementation bill, our government has addressed each and every one of those items and each and every one of the recommendations in that report, specifically compensation after age 65 for our most seriously injured veterans. I mentioned that the earnings loss benefit and rehabilitation goes to age 65. That was the cut off. We have now extended it under the retirement income security benefit for life. Add to that the permanent impairment allowance and the permanent impairment allowance supplement for life. Together, those are pretty nice pensions.

We have addressed the disparity in benefits between reserve and regular force veterans. If a reservist goes to Afghanistan and gets a leg blown off, it does not just affect the reservist's career if he or she stays in the reserves, it would obviously affect his or her life career, whatever that happens to be. Therefore, it only made sense that those two soldiers be treated equally. That is now the case.

We have addressed the problem that there were too few supports for family members of our seriously injured veterans. We have extended more of those benefits to them because when soldiers suffer, and I use the word “soldier” as a generic term, meaning army, navy or air force, for whatever reason, the families suffer, so we have to address the family unit because that is what needs to be fixed.

We have introduced post-65 support for survivors and widows of veterans who had died either in service or from a service-related injury. That is an important change. I know a number of the widows of the Afghanistan soldiers who died who are very pleased with that.

We have created compensation for veterans who are seriously injured but who may also completely recover after years of hospital rehabilitation treatment. At the end of the day, they may not need a big lump sum but they certainly need something to compensate for the pain and suffering while they are going through that treatment process, whether they are recovering from surgery or whatever it might be. Therefore, we introduced the new critical injury benefit, which is a tax-free amount of $70,000 and is immediate and upfront.

We have introduced important new supports for the families of Canadian veterans. We understand that those who stand beside our veterans play a key role in helping them successfully transition to civilian life. If the family member is not in good condition to help the member, then the family unit will not work.

We are making real and significant progress.

This government is also committed to closing the seam between Veterans Affairs Canada and the Canadian Armed Forces. When many veterans leave they have become lost in the gap between DND and VAC, and that is changing rapidly now. They are out there not as a soldier anymore but not holding hands with VAC yet, maybe because they have not come forward or they do not understand what is available because they have not seen the advertising that was put out there to tell them what is available so they can get those services. They tend to fall through a gap sometimes.

What this means is that is our legislation includes new authorities allowing Veterans Affairs to evaluate the applications of veterans while they are still serving in the Canadian Armed Forces, before they even become a veteran.

Each year, 5,000 to 6,000 men and women retire from the military to civilian life. That adds some highly qualified and character-rich civilians to help Canada prosper in all the ways that they do. About 1,200 of those people are medical releases. Unfortunately, the majority of retiring members present their case to Veterans Affairs only after leaving life in uniform. That is changing. The average time spent before they are released medically is between three and five years. During that time frame, they are being evaluated, they are going to rehab and they are also getting paid 100% of their military salary whether they are doing a military job or not.

Some of these delays in seeking programs create an uneasy transition for veterans and their families alike. Some get lost in the transition. However, what is happening is that the Department of National Defence and Veterans Affairs are holding hands all the way through the process. The soldier, before he becomes a veteran, will be dealing with Veterans Affairs so that when he leaves, there is no gap. It is a seamless transition.

I am pleased to say that we have also taken concrete steps to support a veteran's transition to civilian life in other ways. We are ensuring that contact between medically releasing members and Veterans Affairs is made at the earliest point possible, long before the member actually walks out the door of the Canadian Forces and becomes a veteran.

We are ensuring that rehabilitation professionals are identified as early in the transition process as possible and where the veteran intends to reside after his or her medical release.

The benefits the veteran expects to get will be adjudicated before he or she leaves the Canadian Armed Forces. Again, it would be a seamless transition, so when the soldier becomes a veteran, everything is already there.

More money is going into research to better understand the transition from military to civilian life, to guide suicide prevention activities, to improve the recognition, diagnosis, and treatment of mental illness in veterans, and to support the development of national standards and a certification process for psychiatric service dogs, to name just a few.

Extending more psychological counselling to families of veterans is also important. That includes parents and children. By the end of the year, an established network of 26 operational stress injury clinics will be there to support the needs of veterans.

There is also a four-year pilot project to increase access to military family resource centres and related services in seven locations. Traditionally, the services and programs offered through these centres have been available only to still serving members of the military and their families. This is a tremendous resource. I have seen it in action often. It gives them access to a wide range of services to help address their needs as they transition to civilian life. Those services will now be available to veterans and their families.

All of this work builds on progress made by our government to improve benefits and support for Canadian veterans.

There is always more to do, and there always will be more that we will be trying to do. However, the key word is progress, and that is what we are making. The government continues to demonstrate true appreciation for veterans and their families. The key components are care, compassion, and respect.

As we continue to improve the way we care for veterans and their families, we do so with three objectives in mind. First is to have a veteran-centric approach to everything we do. Everything has to be about the veterans and their families. Second is to facilitate a successful transition from military service to civilian life by closing the seam between the Canadian Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs. Third is to strive for excellence and make access to services easier by reducing red tape and eliminating administrative burdens.

The Minister of Veterans Affairs has reached out and listened to veterans organizations and advocates. He has established and maintained an open dialogue that continues to grow and is a continuous source of knowledge and inspiration. Recently he had a very successful stakeholder summit.

We will continue to focus on our Canadian Armed Forces members and our veterans and to adapt and improve our service to them. That is why in addition to the new measures introduced we are putting more resources where they are needed to ensure service excellence. Case managers offer the front-line service that is critically important to veterans. My own niece, Beverly Martin, is one of the leading case managers in the western part of the country.

The minister has taken action and announced last month that more than 100 permanent, full-time case managers will be hired to improve one-on-one service. Effectively, veterans' needs will be addressed more quickly and efficiently. We know that, and we are taking action. The target is an optimal 30 case-managed veterans for each case manager. Better service and flexibility will allow better access to the services needed by veterans as a result.

Our government also committed the financial resources for the department to hire more than 100 new disability benefits staff, both temporary and permanent. That means that veterans and their families will have faster access to disability benefits, health care, and mental health treatment.

Our government is striving for service excellence and to ensure that veterans are treated with care, compassion, and respect. We are evaluating options for considering consolidating all Veterans Affairs benefits into one single, clear, and easy-to-understand benefits system. One might call it a pension. The goal is to reduce stress on the injured soldiers as they transition to civilian life. We understand that any administrative process that serves to delay or complicate support needs to be fixed quickly.

Even more importantly, if an administrative hurdle or form actually goes so far as to impact the overall wellness of a veteran, there is something seriously wrong, because everything VAC is structured to do is to help ease the burden of transition for a veteran after a service injury.

Speaking of forms, that has come up. I have a form that has been questioned. It is called “Medical Questionnaire: Activities of Daily Living”.

That form is 11 pages long, and it is a little bit complex, but it is designed for every veteran who is receiving benefits. The whole form is designed to ensure that the member's condition is still there and that the services and benefits that they are receiving are still relevant. If they are not, it ensures that changes are made so that they are improved. The whole form is all about making sure that the veteran is getting the service that he or she needs, and nothing else.

It is understandable why someone with PTSD might read something into some of the questions, but nowhere on that form does it say anything about missing limbs.

Our government also took action, and last year announced the addition of a new operational stress injury clinic in Halifax. There is also a network, that I think I mentioned, of 26 operational stress injury clinics across Canada, and they will be expanded to speed up access for mental health services for those with mental health conditions. These clinics play a key role in providing specialized assessment, diagnosis and treatment services for veterans and their families who are living with operational stress injuries.

These and many more actions are being taken to improve the programs, benefits and services that Canada's veterans and their families need and deserve. I urge all members of the NDP and the House to support the measures included in the support for veterans and their families act and in the economic action plan. We are committed to ensuring that veterans and their families have the support and services that they need. Under our government, benefits for veterans have gone in one direction, which is up.

The other thing that has come up a number of times is the lapsed funds, which shows a deliberate misunderstanding, because I know that they understand how it works. Those who have been in government certainly understand how it works. It shows a deliberate representation that is not accurate.

Funds for the Department of Veterans Affairs or any other department are allocated through authorizations. Those funds are forecast. If we need more in any department, we go back and ask for more. If we forecast something and we need less, it is often because the demand is not there. All of these programs are demand driven. If there is a demand, the funds will be spent without question. If the demand is not there, we are not taking funds away from something that could have been done. The demand was not there. If it had been there, it would have been met. Consider it a line of credit. At the beginning of the year, we fill up the line of credit. At the end of the year, if we have not used it all, the line of credit goes back and it gets re-issued again next year.

We are not talking about $1.3 billion that has gone to somebody else. That is simply not true. Anybody over there who has been in government knows that, or should know that. If the demand is there, it does get met.

We also understand that the needs of veterans are changing. As new conflicts arise around the globe, as the previous generation comes to retirement age, and as the nature of treating injuries becomes ever more sophisticated, so too must the support provided to veterans be enhanced, especially for those who have been injured in the course of service. Before tabling the support for veterans and their families act, we consulted with veterans and their families in communities across Canada on the best ways to support them and to support those who bravely served our nation through the years.

As a member of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, I do know first-hand that all of the veterans affairs experts were consulted prior to developing the new veterans charter moving forward. These are supports that the members in the House have called for, including the NDP, and rightly so. These are supports that the Veterans Ombudsman has called for. These are supports that veterans and their families have called for. We have responded and we understand that there will still always be more that we need to do, because we want to adapt to changes as they come about.

The increased benefits that we recently announced are evidence of our commitment to ensuring that Canadian veterans and their families are treated with care, compassion and respect. We know that there is an obligation. It has been recognized as far back as by Conservative Prime Minister Robert Borden, but we are not frozen in time. Every single government from Robert Borden on has tried its very best to honour that obligation. In fact, our government tabled support for the support for veterans and their families act, which included the following purpose written in the act:

The purpose of this Act is to recognize and fulfill the obligation of the people and Government of Canada to show just and due appreciation to members and veterans for their service to Canada. This obligation includes providing services, assistance and compensation to members and veterans who have been injured or have died as a result of military service and extends to their spouses or common-law partners or survivors and orphans. This Act shall be liberally interpreted so that the recognized obligation may be fulfilled.

This purpose, coupled with our strong action in support of veterans and their families, shows that we do understand the value and importance of providing those who have served our country with the support that they need and deserve. I am heartened by the new team at the Department of Veterans Affairs, many of whom are veterans, including the minister, the parliamentary secretary, the deputy minister and many others in critical positions.

It is not time to play politics, but I know that is inevitable in this place. I urge the NDP and all members of the House to work with us for the health and well-being of Canada's veterans and their families. The Conservatives are supporting this motion, even though we know it is intended to be political, we know it is intended to wedge us, but we support it because it is the right thing to do and, in fact, it is what we are already doing.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question to the parliamentary secretary is simply this. Does that mean you are going to open up the Windsor office again?

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will point out that I am not a parliamentary secretary anymore. To save you the trouble, I will advise him to ask the question through you and not directly to a member.

All of that aside, no, it does not mean we are going to open up the Windsor office. I was on the deficit reduction action plan cabinet committee at Treasury Board that did this process. We looked at every way in every major department that we could be more efficient. Yes, that meant saving some money, but it also meant being more efficient. We looked at the workload of various areas. The nine places that were closed had, in fact, a relatively low user rate.

In fact, several departments, National Defence, for example, took a full 10% cut. Veterans Affairs took the smallest cut of any, other than maybe aboriginal affairs, in the neighbourhood of about 1.9%. All of the cuts were designed to look at areas that provided more efficiency and better bang for the buck so we could focus on those who needed us most, the most seriously injured veterans.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Veterans Ombudsman Guy Parent made a presentation at committee on veterans affairs back on April 23. In his report to committee members, he stated:

The recent announcements by the Minister of Veterans Affairs are narrowing the gap in areas of the New Veterans Charter that you identified in your June 2014 report, The New Veterans Charter: Moving Forward.

However, he indicated:

The announced changes do not encompass all that is needed for Veterans, but they have kick started the renewal process...

Would the member not agree that the ombudsman is right in his assessment and that the government could have done more in dealing with this issue?

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will point out for my hon. colleague that comment was made in April. The ombudsman was quite right, that there were many things that we needed to do more of, and we did. Whenever we have this discussion, opposition members always point out one side of what someone like the ombudsman or the Auditor General has said. They never report the other side. He also reported there were a lot of good things, and my hon. colleague did allude to that.

This was in April. The report was tabled in June and had 14 very substantive recommendations that did go to the things about which the ombudsman talked. As I have said countless times, there is always more we want to do. We made a tremendous amount of progress under the current Minister of Veterans Affairs and his new team. We know there will always be more to do.

We are taking this in chunks and, frankly, we are taking it in pretty big chunks right now. We have made a lot of progress and we will continue to do that with the help of dedicated people like the Veterans Ombudsman, who is holding hands, literally almost, with the Canadian Forces Ombudsman.

[Erin O'Toole, Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC]

Mr. Speaker, with a few more months remaining in this Parliament, the hon. member for Edmonton Centre is a privy councillor and has been in the House of Commons since 2006, after a 30-year career in the Canadian Armed Forces. Because he is not running in the next election, this may be one of his last major interventions in the House on veterans. I can assure all of my colleagues here that there has not been a stronger champion for the military and veterans in the last generation than the member of Parliament for Edmonton Centre. It is also his birthday. I will not use this question and comment to ask him his age, because that might be why he is retiring. I am the younger navigator version of the RCAF caucus.

My question is about the 1,200 men and women who were medically released from the Canadian Armed Forces. In his experience, the veterans charter focuses on transition. The best post-military career for these people is a new career if their military career was cut short because of injury. With up to $76,000 potentially being spent transitioning, has he not seen the benefit of a veterans charter working for those injured veterans, particularly with the improvements we have made through Bill C-58?

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. navigator colleague for the question. I will just say that I will never be 67 again.

With respect to the member's question, it is absolutely true. If financial dependence is the only thing left for a veteran, then we have to be there, but people want to work. They want to have a life. They want to have some satisfaction, some self-respect, some purpose in life. I cannot think of veteran I have talked to, and I have talked to many veterans, who have said that, no, they just want be paid and sit at home. They do not want to do that. Theat are not the kind of people they are.

These are the kind of people who joined the military to do something, to make a difference, and they have and will continue to do that. However, if that gets taken away from them for reasons completely beyond their control, we have to do everything we can to give them something else, another profession, another life, another purpose, so they can transition and have the satisfaction that every family deserves, whatever profession they are in.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to wish my hon. colleague across the aisle a happy birthday, and I would also like to ask him a question.

I brought this motion forward because I have heard from many veterans across the country who have been utterly frustrated with getting the support and services they have been trying to get for themselves or their families for their care. There have been many veterans who have been denied support and they are speaking out. It takes a lot for them, as the member alluded to, for this group to speak out. However, many have been so frustrated that they are in fact speaking out.

I asked the minister this question earlier, but he did not answer it. I ask the question because the member did indicate he will support this motion. My question then is: What does that mean for the class action lawsuit? Will he encourage the government to settle the class action lawsuit with Equitas? That is what is really behind this. I would like to hear my hon. colleague's comment on that.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a good question, but I am not in a position to answer it. This is something that is before the courts, and I would not be qualified to speak on that anyway even if I wanted to.

The fact is, through Bill C-58, through the statement of purpose, we are acknowledging the sacred obligation, which we have always tried to fulfill, as has every government before us, Liberal and Conservative alike, tried to fulfill. It is wrapped up in some legal nuances and details that defy logic sometimes to a non-legal mind.

I will say that veterans are never shy to speak up. I do not know any veteran who is shy to speak up, but I have vocally sympathized with some of their frustrations. That is why we have been working so darn hard to fix that. We have not fixed everything, we will probably never fix everything, and it is always going to be a work in progress, but we have made huge strides. For most of the folks who are in that situation now, please come back and let us have another talk, because there is a new team in town.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank my colleague for his speech. We were both elected in 2006 and we are both from Alberta. I just want to say that I hope this is not the last speech I hear from him, but if it is, it was a wonderful speech. I was glad to sit behind him as he delivered it. He has been an absolutely wonderful colleague. He has been very helpful to me in my role as the member of Parliament for Wetaskiwin, which is just down the road south of Edmonton. He has come out several times to meet with veterans and so on in my constituency.

The question I have for the member is on a concern that we do sense in the room from time to time in that there is a bit of a cultural issue within Veterans Affairs Canada. It is a difficult organization. It is accountable to Treasury Board and accountable for the finances to the taxpayers of Canada.

Does my hon. colleague think that the services that are being provided by Veterans Affairs now are more fulsome and comprehensive than they were when we first showed up as members of Parliament in 2006? Is he satisfied that, for any of the veterans not receiving the benefits, there are enough mechanisms in place to make sure that every veteran who deserves benefits is receiving them?

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no question that what is available today to veterans is vastly more comprehensive, broader, deeper and affects families to a much greater extent. All around, it is a hugely better package, and it has been acknowledged for that. Even the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore has said that there is more in the new veterans charter than there was before, and we have improved on that very substantially in the last couple of years, and we are going to continue to do that.

It is always going to be a work in progress, as I said. With that many clients, there will always be some who seem to fall through the cracks. We may drop the odd ball, but we are going to try very hard to pick it up on the first bounce.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we resume debate, I will let the hon. member for Windsor West know that there are about two and a half minutes remaining in the time provided for government orders today. We will get him started.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Windsor West.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak here today to a very important motion. The first thing I want to address is the rhetoric that has come across from that stream over there. I listened today very intently to what the members said and what they projected back on us, saying that the NDP is not supportive and is actually anti-military in terms of how we approach things.

My grandfather, John Clifford Addison, died on the HMS Scorpion. My grandmother was lucky enough to survive the bombing raids of London and to marry Fred Attwood, who came back after serving in the merchant marines and the Royal Navy and raised me as his grandson. I will not take any lessons from any of them about being anti-military. I grew up listening at the kitchen table to stories of what he and his mates went through.

I cannot understand the divisive rhetoric coming from that group over there. I was really shocked to hear, when I asked the question about opening up the Windsor office, which is in the motion about opening offices, that they are going to vote for this motion, but they will not open the offices again. That is a shame.

When we add up the closure of the offices, it saves less than $6 million. What did the Conservatives spend on advertising for Keystone in Washington alone? They spent $26 million. The money in our offices kept those buildings open, served our veterans, employed people, and made sure that people got care. What did Washington advertising do? It did nothing. It only irritated our neighbours and our friends. However, what it did do was leave an impression with Canadians, and I hope they listen to this now. It is about choices: $26 million in Washington, or less than $6 million to employ people in Canada to serve our veterans and keep our offices open. That is what we should have been doing.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. It being 6:15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?