Debates of Nov. 5th, 2018

Opposition Motion—Service Standards for Veterans

[Seamus O'Regan, Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.]

Madam Speaker, I will start this evening by sincerely thanking the member for Courtenay—Alberni. The motion we are discussing today, cloaked in the guise of financial reporting standards, cuts to the core of this government's commitment to the men and women who have bravely served this country.

As we draw closer to the centennial anniversary of the armistice that was supposed to end all wars, it is important that we consider the commitment we owe to those men who fought a century ago and to the men and women who have fought and protected us since.

Veterans Affairs' entire foundation is set around its responsibility to ensure that veterans and their families receive the respect, support, care and economic opportunities necessary as they transition to a post-military life.

Let us be clear. The support that our government gives members of the Canadian Armed Forces, veterans and their families begins the moment they are recruited and continues throughout their careers and their lives. We are ensuring that each of them has access to any program they need for as long as they need it.

The motion today is based on the premise that lapsed funding in Veterans Affairs Canada is in and of itself a problem. The motion seeks to address a concern that lapsed funding creates a use-it-or-lose-it scenario for the department. The assumption seems to be that when there are lapsed funds, there must be programs or services that have been underfunded or not delivered. This could not be further from the truth, which is why there is no need to change the accounting for a process that works for veterans. However, there is an opportunity today to explain and perhaps educate members on the root cause of lapsed funds.

Whether 10 veterans come forward or 10,000, no veteran who is eligible for a benefit will be turned away because we do not have the funds. To ensure that is the case, we go through the annual estimates process and forecast how many veterans will avail themselves of our benefits.

Given that demand can change throughout the year, our programs are quasi-statutory, so that the government does not need to come back to Parliament if we exceed our forecast of the demand from veterans. If a veteran is eligible for a benefit, that veteran will get it. When that pendulum swings the other way and there are fewer veterans seeking a particular benefit, the money stays in consolidated revenue ready to be used the next year.

Lapsed funding is not a new phenomenon, but it is critically important to distinguish the causes of those lapsed funds. This government has generated lapsed funding because, simply put, our estimates of the level of demand for services have been high. That is distinguishable from the previous government, which lapsed over $1 billion while cutting front-line staff, closing offices and letting the new veterans charter wither unchanged on the vine.

Simply put, one can generate lapsed funds and attendant cuts by placing barriers between veterans and the programs or services to which they are entitled.

The previous government demonstrated from the outset that it wanted to balance the budget and that veterans and their families were not immune from its red pen. We thought those cuts were unconscionable.

That is why our first acts in our first budget were to increase the disability award to a maximum of $360,000, where it should have been for years, and increase income replacement for ill and injured veterans to 90% of their pre-release salary. We reopened all of the offices the Conservatives closed. We started to staff up Veterans Affairs again after nearly a quarter of the workforce was wiped out by the Conservatives. We expanded eligibility to programs veterans were asking for. We made it easier to access dignified funeral and burial services. And we did not stop there.

In the budget of the following year, we introduced our new education and training benefit, which applies not only to ill and injured veterans but also to those leaving the Canadian Armed Forces for any reason after six years of service.

We reformed the broken career transition services that the Conservatives had ample opportunity to fix by changing it from cutting a cheque for $1,000 and saying “good luck on the job hunt” to a comprehensive program veterans and their families could access for job training and job-finding assistance.

Last December I was thrilled to finally unveil the new pension for life, which delivers on our campaign promise to provide a monthly tax-free payment for life in recognition of pain and suffering. This pension for life also simplifies many of the other benefits we offer, making it easier to apply for and access the resources veterans and their families need and deserve. It is no surprise, then, that since coming into office, we have marked a 37% increase in applications for programs and benefits. Veterans are coming forward again to get the help and the support they need in their post-military lives and careers.

We are getting better at forecasting the budget, but due to the nature of the demand-driven programs and services at Veterans Affairs Canada, we will never be able to estimate with 100% accuracy the exact funds required for every program. Looking at the types of services and benefits we provide and the continually evolving demographics that we serve, this approach cannot change.

There are approximately 649,300 veterans in Canada and 95,000 serving members of the Canadian Armed Forces. Veterans Affairs provides services to nearly 200,000 veterans, family members, RCMP members and others who require support.

Ranging in age from 18 to 100, we serve traditional veterans who served in the Korean War or earlier and modern-day veterans who served after the Korean War. To say we serve a changing and diverse population is an understatement, and each one of them has different needs.

This is why we have seen a significant increase in demand for programs and services, and that is a good thing. It means veterans are coming forward and getting the help they need.

In order to respond to this increased demand, the department has to request additional funds in the middle of the year. As many of my colleagues in the House are aware, these are the supplementary estimates. The department asks Treasury Board for more money, because we have more veterans who want more of the programs and services they are entitled to and, indeed, they deserve.

This is why our services are demand-driven, so whether it is 10 or 10,000 veterans coming forward, they will receive those services. Instead of going back every day when we see another veteran come forward, the department estimates how many people will access benefits and how much money is needed. It is not an exact science. This process guarantees that whether veterans come forward this year or next year or the year after that, we will always have the resources available for them and their families to access programs and services.

If we overestimate in our zeal to ensure that everyone who comes forward requiring that service or benefit receives it, then so be it. Our primary concern is to ensure that the funds are available if they are required, period. Government policy dictates that any money that is not used for its identified purpose by year end must be returned. It is as simple as that. Lapsed funds do not indicate lost money. They do not indicate penny-pinching at the expense of veterans.

Perhaps I have to remind my hon. colleague who put forward this motion that penny-pinching at the expense of veterans would look like a promise to balance the budget no matter what, to balance the budget come hell or high water, a promise he and his colleagues ran on in the last election.

Almost 20% of new funds in the last three budgets have been for veterans and their families, funds they would not have received if the New Democrats were running the show. We know this is a source of confusion amongst veterans and their families, amongst stakeholders, and amongst the general public. This is why we have been addressing it at town halls and stakeholder meetings right across this country.

Just last week we held our national stakeholder summit here in Ottawa. We covered this exact subject in depth to ensure that participants understood the process. We know they have questions. We wanted to explain exactly how an idea goes from a concept to implementation, from gaps or issues being identified to research and analysis to the memorandum to cabinet that paves the way to implement a new program or benefit.

The department's programs are ongoing, and each year adjustments are made to ensure that we can provide for all veterans and their families who may be entitled to benefits. My department will continue to provide programs and services that adapt to the changing needs of veterans and their families. We will continue to review these programs and services to see where things can be improved.

When we came to office, we knew we needed change. Veterans made it clear that there were problems, and they wanted them fixed. They deserved to have them fixed. The Prime Minister tasked us with an aggressive mandate to address these problems, from improving veterans financial support and reopening offices to streamlining the transition from military to civilian life and overhauling how the department's services are delivered. Three years later, we are on track or have delivered on all of them. However, make no mistake, wholesale change was needed to accomplish this, and that could not happen overnight, not if we wanted to do it right.

We also knew that a full conversation was needed. We could not start making decisions on an individual basis. We had to open a dialogue with those who were affected, and that is what we have been doing.

We have heard that service delivery is an issue, and we have been diligently taking steps to resolve this. As a starting point, we opened 10 offices to provide better in-person services to veterans and their families, in addition to hiring over 470 new staff, which has included close to 200 case managers.

Service delivery is now focused on individual veterans: their circumstances, needs and strengths and those of their families. The department is streamlining the processes for applying for and delivering benefits. It is also ensuring that veterans and their families get information they need about the programs, services and benefits they are entitled to, which has been an issue in the past. Some veterans simply do not know what is available to them.

We also increased service in the north, and in 2017, our staff made 12 trips to Iqaluit, Yellowknife and Whitehorse to meet with veterans and their families. Our staff is committed to ensuring that veterans and their families are better informed, better served and better supported. The approach is working. Applications are on the rise. This is a good thing. It means that more veterans are applying for the benefits they have earned through their service to Canada. It is also why the department is focusing on improving service delivery and streamlining the application process.

This government made a commitment to make it easier for the men and women who have served in uniform to access the benefits they deserve, and we have spent $10 billion in three years to do just that. Starting with increasing the disability award and the earnings loss benefit and expanding the career impact allowance, we are putting more money in the pockets of veterans and caregivers. We also supported a continuum of mental health services, introduced new education and training benefits and expanded a range of services available to the families of medically released veterans.

While there has been a lot of change at Veterans Affairs, the steadfast commitment to veterans and their well-being has remained the same. It is that commitment to wanting to ensure overall well-being that drove the need to take a step back to look at how they could get to where they wanted and needed to be. They knew that well-being was defined as a veteran with purpose who is financially secure, safely housed, in good physical and mental health, highly resilient in the face of change, well integrated in the community and proud of his or her legacy. That fuelled the new vision of a comprehensive approach to veteran well-being to address all aspects of wellness.

In looking at the many factors, we can all agree, without a doubt, that without financial security, it is hard to focus on anything at all. That is why we pushed to reintroduce lifelong pensions. Last December, this government announced plans to restore the pension for life for ill and injured veterans. With the return of a monthly pension option, the pension for life recognizes and compensates veterans for disabilities resulting from a service-related illness or injury with a combination of benefits that provide recognition, income support and stability.

One of the key new benefits is pain and suffering compensation. This is a monthly, tax-free, lifelong payment recognizing a member's or veteran's pain and suffering caused by a disability resulting from a service-related illness or injury. The monthly amount can be cashed out for a lump sum, giving members and veterans the flexibility to choose what works best for them and their families.

Additional support for those with service-related severe and permanent impairments causing a barrier to re-establishment into post-service life is available through the additional pain and suffering compensation, provided as a monthly tax-free benefit.

The income replacement benefit is a monthly program that will replace six current benefits and will provide income support for those facing barriers to re-establishment caused by health problems resulting primarily from service. Additionally, veterans who are able to join the workforce may earn up to $20,000 per year before any reduction to their IRB payment.

Set to come into force on April 1 of next year, the pension for life combines what veterans have been asking for with the most up-to-date research and understanding of the well-being of veterans. More important, it will become an integral part of that comprehensive approach to the well-being of veterans, reinforcing all the programs and services available at Veterans Affairs, of which mental health is a priority.

Pension for life was announced with budget 2018, which reflected other commitments of our government when it came to better supporting veterans and their families. In addition to the $24.4 million over five years for cemetery and grave maintenance to eliminate the current backlog of grave repairs, budget 2018 also committed $42.8 million over two years to increase service delivery capacity, building off the $78.1 million already invested over the last two years.

Make no mistake, Veterans Affairs continues to strive to provide faster, more efficient and higher quality service for our veterans. However, in our efforts to accomplish this, we must rely on our expenditures forecasting to ensure no veteran or family member goes without. That will always result in some degree of lapsed funding. That is simply the nature of the government's accounting process.

I think all of us here can agree that Canada's veterans deserve respect, financial security and fair treatment. I assure members that this government is committed to treating our veterans with the care, compassion and respect they have earned. This government will never cease in our efforts to improve the lives of our veterans and their families.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, if the veterans sitting at home heard that speech, they would think it was a victory, that it was all good, that everything was sorted out and they could all go home as there was no problem at Veterans Affairs. We could be a little more humble and transparent.

When we think about what is going on at Veterans Affairs, there is a growing backlog for veterans who need their disability benefit application opened up. The government's set standard of 16 weeks is only being met 43% of the time. The Liberals have talked about hiring back staff. They have not even hired back half the staff that were let go by the Conservatives, which is helping to contribute to this backlog.

The minister is also dismissing the importance of lapsed spending and using it to carry forward for veterans who need it.

In the 2015 election campaign, the Prime Minister said, “They left unspent more than $1 billion that Parliament allocated for veteran support. Canadians know that this is wrong”. The Minister of Public Safety had similar comments.

We are looking for the minister to commit to the content of the motion, that all lapsed spending will be used toward those 12 standards that are not being met by the government.

[Seamus O'Regan]

Madam Speaker, as I said in my statement, lapsed funding is necessary. Lapsed funding is a way for us to ensure we always have the money available for veterans when and where they need it. It is money that we have consistently reinvested back into veterans and their families since we have taken office. We have seen an influx of new funding for veterans and their families not seen in decades. Our record on this is good. I would say, with all humility, as the member recognizes and I agree with him, are we there yet? Far from it. We have a long way to go.

People should be held accountable for their actions. The actions of the previous government with respect to what it did to this department and the benefits and services for veterans is frankly unconscionable, and it will take us more time to get through it.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I appreciated hearing from the minister and his perspective on how well the government is doing with our veterans. However, there is a significant disconnect here, because when I speak with veterans, and a number of them to whom the government turns for advice, I do not hear that same level of satisfaction with where things are at, especially in regards to the promises that the government made when it was in the process of campaigning and reaching out across the country to indicate what the Liberals were willing to do for whomever to get their vote.

Of course, we know that those involved in Equitas spent a great deal of time communicating directly with key people who were running on that side of the floor in regards to their portfolio on Veterans Affairs to the point where they were getting calls at Christmastime to make sure they were doing well. They had actual written copy of what was going to be in that platform that they signed off on, and now are very hurt, upset, disgusted and disappointed with what the government promised them in lifelong pensions and what they have actually seen to be received in the upcoming year.

My question to the minister is: Where is the disconnect? Why is there so much unhappiness with what he is saying will be coming forward versus what the veterans themselves, who they actually communicated with, actually feel has come forward on that—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I have to allow for other questions.

The hon. minister.

[Seamus O'Regan]

Madam Speaker, I can only say that if the hon. member is troubled by statements that veterans are making now, I can only imagine how troubled she must have been when she was in government.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

I was not.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

First of all, I would ask the member to refrain from speaking back and forth. She has had the opportunity to have the floor. It is now the minister's turn, and I would ask him to address his questions and comments to the chair.

[Seamus O'Regan]

Madam Chair, I would invite the hon. member to speak to her colleagues who sit on that side and ask what they were doing as men and women were returning from Afghanistan. It was considered to be a way of thanking our veterans by gutting the department, by cutting benefits and services by billions of dollars. I can produce the numbers, I can produce the record or we can actually listen to veterans.

I can tell the member that while ministers of the previous government may have walked away from veterans when they were asked questions, we have gone out to 45 town halls so far this year, and counting. We listen.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the minister for his comments today and ask him about how the staffing up is coming after having gone through the cutbacks of the previous Conservative government. Could he just give us an indication?

The member for Yorkton—Melville had mentioned the unhappiness of veterans. I walked down George Street in Sydney with 3,500 Cape Bretoners, veterans, their families, their friends and the community as a whole to protest the cutbacks that the previous Conservative government made, in closing the Veterans Affairs office in Sydney. One of the greatest days we had the year after we had power was when we went down and reopened the office in Sydney.

However, could the minister comment on where we are now with the ramping up of staff?

[Seamus O'Regan]

Madam Speaker, I would say it is still very much a challenge. The way the previous government treated veterans and their families was nothing short of deplorable, and it will take some time to get over this damage.

Of the 1,000 people who the Conservatives let go from that department, I guess in the interests of providing better services and benefits to veterans, it has been tough trying to hire them back. These are talented people, often bilingual, and we have a lot of work to do, as the service delivery measurements show, particularly on bilingual servicing.

It will take time to get over the 10 years of damage that was done to Veterans Affairs Canada by the previous government, but we are getting there as quickly as we possibly can.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, here it is Remembrance Week. It is an opportunity to remind ourselves of the duty we have to honour our veterans and to make sure they are getting the services they so deserve.

This motion today is in the spirit of goodwill and of all of Parliament working together, while acknowledging our failures to deliver services to veterans in a timely fashion. What we are calling for is that when Parliament allocates money and votes to support a budget, the government must make sure that veterans are getting the services they so deserve, that veterans will actually get that money allocated to them.

We are asking that when there is lapsed funding, the government will carry that money forward to attack those service targets and get rid of the backlog that is happening right now and do the right thing, to serve our veterans. That is what we are asking today.

Will the minister support our motion and ensure that all lapsed funding will go toward doing the right thing, serving the very people whom we are here to honour, who have put everything on the line for all of us?

[Seamus O'Regan]

Madam Speaker, I would say that I perhaps would contest the spirit this is said to have been brought forward with. While I welcome the opportunity to talk about how lapsed funding works, I think hon. members here know that. What I dispute is the inference that somehow we are taking that money and putting it somewhere else. We are not. That money will always go toward benefits and services afforded to and deserved by our veterans.

I do not like muddying the waters, because veterans and their families have enough change going on. We have added to that change with improvements to the programs. I am not terribly happy about the fact there has been an attempt to muddy or politicize this, but I do understand that this is a good opportunity to talk about how lapsed funding works and for veterans and their families to understand that that money for benefits and services will always be there for them.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Trois-Rivières.

I am pleased to rise in strong support of our NDP motion brought forward by the member for Courtenay—Alberni. It is based on a question on the Order Paper in which he asked a question and it was revealed that $372 million has gone unspent by the Liberal government in the Veterans Affairs file.

I also want to acknowledge the hard work of our previous NDP member of Parliament, John Rafferty, who first highlighted the lapsed spending issue of the Conservatives when he discovered there was $1.1 billion that was not spent on Veterans Affairs. I am pleased to hear that the Conservatives will be supporting our motion today to correct the past and ensure that this practice of leaving money on the table that could help veterans will be reversed.

All of us in the House today and throughout Remembrance Day will be wearing the poppy over our hearts to remind us of the brave men and women who have paid the ultimate sacrifice for our freedoms. We will be attending moving ceremonies in all of our ridings in the coming week. In our communities we will march, lay wreaths and speak of the ultimate price that has been paid by our veterans and their families. Even throughout social media, there are numerous ways for people to participate. People are sharing stories of their relatives and their service, the symbols of our strong pride in Canadians, like the poppies we can now create and personalize with a family member's name or the names of others who have served our country. All of these ways of remembering are very important to keep the understanding of our freedom and how fragile it is, and to keep all of their memories alive.

However, we can and should do so much more. Most Canadians expect us in this chamber to respect the covenant that we have for men and women who have served our country. Today is an opportunity to do more than talk about our commitment to veterans. It is an opportunity to actually do something to improve the services veterans receive.

Every member in the House who is wearing a poppy today should be voting to carry forward this money. It is funding that would dramatically improve the lives of veterans and their families in my riding of Essex and throughout Canada from coast to coast to coast.

In the three years since the Liberals promised to restore the cuts that were made by the Conservatives, our veterans have been shortchanged to the tune of $372 million which has gone unspent. The Conservatives closed nine regional Veterans Affairs offices, like the one in Windsor that served our communities in Essex. These offices were used by our veterans for services. They also cut 1,000 Veterans Affairs employees. The Liberals have managed to hire back less than half of those front-line workers to this point. The money we are talking about today could have hired back the full 1,000 and increased the services that veterans are receiving at these offices. Instead, we learned that the money has been left on the table.

Closing offices was a tragedy, and we are happy that the office is back open in Windsor. I joined the member for Windsor—Tecumseh and the member for Windsor West in celebration when it was reopened in our community. However, if it was fully funded, the level of service would dramatically improve. If the $372 million that has been left on the table was spent, we would not have the backlog of services that we still see today.

What does it look like when $372 million is not spent? We know that veterans are being put on hold on the phone for hours and are being redirected half a dozen times just to get to speak to the right person. There should not be wait times of six months before receiving an answer. That is what is happening. That is the reality for our veterans in Canada today. This backlog is growing. It is in the tens of thousands, and it grew another 10% in June. These are veterans who are waiting to get their disability benefits.

In fact, the government has set its own 24 service standards and shamefully is only on track to correct half of them, only 12 of its 24 service standards. The Prime Minister promised the government would provide one case worker for every 25 veterans, but the ratio remains as high as 1:39 in some regions of the country and 1:42 in cities such as Kingston, Thunder Bay and Calgary. Clearly, this money could go toward improving the standards the government has set for itself.

I just want to read a couple of the targets, and how far off they are from where we need to be.

When people call our national contact centre network, they can expect to be connected with the next available analyst within two minutes. The target is that 80% of people who call would reach that within two minutes. The result is 66%. There is room for growth, for us to improve. Therefore, if people were hired out of the money that has lapsed, we would be able to improve the services on those calls.

One that is probably most egregious is that when people apply for VAC disability benefits, their decision will be made within 16 weeks. The target is again 80%. The 2016-17 result is 43%. Clearly, this money could be used to improve one of the government's own service standards that is woefully inadequate at this point. When only 43% of people are getting a decision made within 16 weeks, clearly there is room for improvement. What my colleague has found is some funds to be used in order to do that.

I have one more that I will read out, and I heard the minister speak about this. For the VAC career transition programs, the decision is to be made within four weeks. Again, the target is set at 80% and the 2016-17 result is 31%. Clearly, there is room for dramatic improvement.

This funding that has been lapsed and left on the table could be used to get to these targets faster to improve the service level for everyone in our country. We could clear all this backlog in a timely manner. We could answer calls. We could approve claims and improve the lives of our veterans. Veterans deserve our respect and the dignity of getting the services and the benefits they need quickly and efficiently. If members support this NDP motion, we can use this money being rolled over. It could be allocated to help Canadians, who expect that we use every dollar here in this House in the best possible way for our veterans.

The question that Canadians are asking today is, why is the government authorizing spending and then failing to spend it? This week, we will stand shoulder to shoulder with our communities to mark November 11 as Remembrance Day. However, we must do more and supporting this motion today is a step. I am disappointed to hear that the Liberals will not be supporting this motion, choosing instead to leave this money on the table unspent, and our thousands of veterans lingering in this backlog without services.

What Liberals are asking us to believe in this House today is that they have done enough. Until every veteran who serves our country is able to receive his or her benefits in a timely, meaningful way, then I would offer to the Liberals that they should find some humility today and understand the message they are sending to veterans. It is the same one that the Prime Minister gave when he stood in Edmonton at a town hall, where he told an Afghanistan vet who had lost his leg to an explosive device that they are asking for more than we are able to give right now. That is not the message to send to Canadians as we stand proudly in this House and honour veterans throughout this week, wearing the poppies to honour the men and women who deserve the $372 million to be spent on improved services.

Today, this is an opportunity to help veterans and their families in a meaningful way. I implore Liberals to consider this wrong-headed, hurtful and insulting position to our veterans, and that they stand with the NDP, and all members of this House as we have heard today, to put this unspent money back into the services that are desperately needed for our veterans.

Liberals have gone back on many election promises in these last three years. This cannot be one of those promises that are broken. It is beyond time to end the undesirable practice of lapsed funding. The Prime Minister himself promised this during the 2015 campaign, saying, “Canadians know that this is wrong.” This is the time for us to make this right, and I hope that Liberals will vote with the NDP on this motion today to support our veterans.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps this is one of the downfalls of the format in which we debate in this chamber, but if the member had been paying attention to the debate she would know that we are actually in favour of the motion and have said that we are going to be voting in favour of it, despite the fact that in her speech she said that we apparently were not going to.

When it comes to prudent fiscal responsibility in the budget, we spent 93% of the allocated money for veterans in the last fiscal year. Does the member believe that spending 93% is a massive failure of the budgeting process, as the NDP is suggesting through this motion?

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pardon my confusion. I have been in the House all day, but I have heard Liberals flip-flopping all day long. If they have landed on a position to support this motion, I am very pleased to hear that. I say so because have certainly heard all different types of arguments and bafflegab today that has been difficult to interpret.

I am pleased that the Liberals will support the motion. Even though the member is saying that 93% of the allocated money has been spent, until we are spending 100% of the money allocated to our veterans, we cannot stand in the chamber and pat ourselves on the back. We have work to do.

That 7% is impactful. We are talking about $372 million. I am pleased to hear that the Liberals will now, after many hours of debate, support this wonderful motion that we brought forward today.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Essex for her important work and for standing up for veterans in her riding. She often comes to me and talks about some of the challenges that veterans are facing in her riding, especially due to the backlog of disability benefits.

Today we are trying to bring forward a solution that will change the lives of veterans and ensure that all money that has lapsed will go specifically towards attacking the 12 failures of the Liberal government to reach their service standards. We know that the Parliamentary Budget Officer says it can be done. It has not been done before. It is a really great opportunity for us to start with the Department of Veterans Affairs, for the very people who put everything on the line for all of us.

Could the member tell us what that could do for the backlog? We know that $372 million could hire not just 475 staff at Veterans Affairs, but over 5,000 employees. I am not saying that that is where all of the money should go. We know we need to do everything we can to get rid of the backlog for disability benefits and address all 12 service standards that we have heard from the veterans' ombudsman the department is failing to address.

Could the member speak about how this will make a difference for veterans in her riding, in the lives of the very people who serve our country and whom we owe all of our respect to?

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said during my speech, Windsor, which is the office that serves my riding of Essex, was closed for years under the Conservative government. We welcome the fact it has now been reopened.

However, we still have a long way to go. There is still this major backlog. There are people across our country who are being denied services.

I had someone from my riding write to me recently. They were talking about Donald Osborne, who is 95 and lives in Atlantic Canada. There was a news story on CTV about him. He is a World War II veteran who had been denied care by Veterans Affairs. My constituent wrote to me to say that regardless of policy, facts and rules, a World War II veteran had been denied services, the very services he fought for. He has fought for our freedoms, way of life and our heritage. He has seen and fought evil himself, and the constituent said he did not understand what was happening to our beloved country.

Until emails like this stop and we do not hear these stories of veterans being denied service, we have work to do in the House. I was very pleased to see this motion and I thank the member for Courtenay—Alberni for bringing this important issue forward. I do hope this principle will be applied across many different portfolios and departments. This issue of lapsed spending should not continue, because it is really confusing for Canadians. As we found out in this particular case with Veterans Affairs, a lot of money is being left on the table that Canadians are looking to have spent in their communities.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the chance to speak on veterans' issues in the House. Every time I rise on this issue, I do so not only with immense respect, but with great honour.

The motion we are debating today would be relevant at any time, but it takes on a special significance this week, given that next Thursday, the 338 members of the House will leave for their ridings so they can attend remembrance ceremonies on November 11.

Why do we make it our duty to attend these remembrance ceremonies? My riding alone has three scheduled. Sadly, I have not yet figured out how to be in two or three places at once on the stroke of 11 on November 11, but one thing I can say for sure is that I am going to visit every legion branch. Each and every one of us has a duty of remembrance.

The ceremony on November 11 includes some deeply emotional moments. One especially moving moment that I would never miss, come hell or high water, is when they read out the names of all those who made the ultimate sacrifice. That can take a few short minutes or stretch over a longer time, depending on how many from the riding gave their lives. These people died so that we could have freedom of speech and the chance to live in a democracy. We owe them a great deal.

I am lucky enough to know some Second World War veterans in Trois-Rivières who have shared their stories with me and take it upon themselves to tell younger generations about the true reality of war. It is not at all like in the movies or video games, which are basically the only contact that our young people have with war, thank God. Since humankind has trouble learning from its own history, the fact that we have veterans who share their experiences with us is a priceless blessing.

When I hear the names of all the fallen read out loud, I always wonder what message they would have for us today. It is wonderful that so many of us, tens, hundreds, even thousands of Canadians take the time to remember them. What is their message? Perhaps this is a natural family instinct everyone has, but I always feel that those who made the ultimate sacrifice would ask us, in recognition of that sacrifice, to ensure that their loved ones have everything they need. They would ask us to take care of those they left behind because they fell on the battlefield.

We therefore have more than just a duty to remember. We owe them much more in return. We must pay it forward to those who have given so much and who, by chance, may still be with us today, or to their spouses and families who are still with us and who for years endured the absence of a loved one.

What is the best way to answer that call from the heart? It is by providing adequate services to our veterans and their families.

When I see the simplicity of the motion before us today, I have to wonder why this is not already a fait accompli. It is worth noting that this situation precedes the current Liberal administration. I sat in Parliament in 2011, and these very same issues were being discussed back then. For the benefit of those following our debate, I would like to reread the motion as it is written. Everything is there; it speaks for itself.

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should automatically carry forward all annual lapsed spending at the Department of Veterans Affairs to the next fiscal year, for the sole purpose of improving services for Canadian veterans, until the Department meets or exceeds its 24 self-identified service standards.

“Automatically” means stop debating this, stop asking questions, and just make this a priority.

Unfortunately, as we saw under the Conservative administration and are still seeing with the Liberals, there is a significant difference between the amounts announced and those paid out.

This begs a fundamental question: announcing extraordinary amounts even thought they do not have the money, thinking that it will make them look good by showing good intention, and then in the end spending less than what was announced since they know they do not have that money—is it all a political show? It would be even worse if they announced amounts that they do have and then chose not to spend the money, returning it to the consolidated revenue fund so it can be allocated to other things or used to pay down part of the deficit.

In the past, the Conservatives often used this strategy when they made their grand announcements. The Conservatives had the largest infrastructure program ever. However, the real amounts invested were nowhere near those announced. The Liberals are using the exact same strategy, which is outrageous, to say the least.

I will cite a few examples of how the transfer of these lapsed funds could achieve a certain number of objectives. I will name a few so that people have an idea of what we are referring to.

Most of the time when a veteran calls the National Contact Centre Network, they hear, “your call is important to us, please stay on the line for...” three hours, four hours, three days, two weeks, a month? It takes a lot of patience to get a response. According to the service standard, you can expect to be connected with the next available analyst within two minutes. The target is 80%. The result is 66%.

I have a problem with 80% as a target. That is like saying if analysts respond within two minutes 80% of the time, then that is not so bad. However, the point of having a service standard is to serve all veterans. The target cannot be anything less than 100%. The result might be 80%, and then we would say that is not so bad, almost everyone was served within the service standard—but no, we are setting 80% as a target.

That would be like me taking an exam or asking my daughter who is studying for an exam not to aim for 100% but rather for 80%, and if she gets 70% then that would be good, or if she gets 66% then that would be fine. Give me a break. We have to always aim for the best outcome. How can we set 80% as a target for a standard, an approach or a federal government and think that that is okay?

I am running out of time and cannot give more examples, but perhaps I will be able to share some during questions and comments. This makes absolutely no sense. This approach at Veterans Affairs Canada is nothing new. You can find it with many government services, including immigration and EI. Anytime a Canadian needs to call the government, the target is never 100%.

I would have liked more time to talk about the ombudsman's report, in which he made some very important recommendations that have not yet been implemented. I may be able to revisit this, but in the few seconds I have left, I would like to say that I truly hope this motion will get the unanimous support of the House. That seems to be the likely outcome, which would be a good thing.

I also hope that once this motion is adopted, the government quickly implements it. Too often, motions are adopted unanimously or by a majority in the House, but nothing comes out of it. With all the respect we owe our veterans, I cannot even imagine that happening.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I think we are getting our wires crossed a bit. I might not be correct in this, but my understanding is that actual funding for veterans programs and services is separate from VAC's operating budget that covers the brick and mortar and the public servants hired as case managers. Program funding to veterans directly, such as earning loss benefits and pensions, fall within that big lapsed funding bundle we are talking about today. The operating budget, the hiring of case managers and whatnot, is fully costed with a 5% possible increase. It is a totally separate amount of money.

All these case managers who the minister is talking about us needing do not even fall within this funding, if I am correct. As well, of the 470 who were previously hired, 400 of them were hired through Conservative funding added to the operating funds for Veterans Affairs. This is where it gets very confusing to our veterans.

The member has talked a lot about how we are not getting good outcomes from the spending they say they are doing. Part of that is because we need to do way more to hire people to enable that money to get out the door. Therefore, we are kind of talking about apples and oranges. Does he see there is a need to possibly go back and look at this? We need to be providing the people and the resources to help train and prepare case manages to release that money to our veterans.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

Obviously, if we start getting into all the minute details, we could quickly lose those who are watching since they are not experts in the matter. I am not an expert either, but I try to stay informed.

We are basically saying exactly the same thing. It is unthinkable that available funding is not being used. Unless the government made announcements with money it did not have, it is unthinkable that funding that is just sitting around would not be used to train staff, for example.

The Liberals are saying that they hired 400 people. I commend them for that, but it does not meet the needs. If we consider that the Conservatives cut 1,000 jobs when they were in office, then it seems to me that we are still short 600 positions compared to the level of service provided in 2011-12 before the cuts were made. We are far from meeting the objective and so it is unacceptable to me that there is money just lying around unused.

The motion seeks to ensure that any money for veterans that is not used for its identified purpose by year end be carried over for use by veterans the following year.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize what the minister emphasized in his remarks, which is how much we value the contributions of our current serving members and veterans.

The opposition can say whatever it wants to say. It was interesting that the previous speaker tried to give the impression that the government was not supporting the motion. No time today did I hear any member of the Liberal caucus say that he or she would not be supporting the motion. I have heard the reverse. We are supporting the motion.

However, for those following the debate, the minister made it very clear that a veteran who met the criteria and qualified for the benefits would receive them. This is not going to be a government that is going to sit back and not help the veterans who have served our country so nobly and so well. Why does the NDP continue to push something that is such a stretch, implying veterans are not getting the services they are qualified to receive?

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will quickly address two things.

First of all, the member obviously did not listen to my speech, since I ended by saying that it seems likely that this motion will receive unanimous support. I do not know where he got the idea from my speech that the Liberals were going to vote against it.

Regarding his mention of the minister's statement that every eligible veteran will receive the services they are entitled to, I say that is all well and good, but the purpose of the motion is not to figure out whether they will get these services, but when.

Funding is the problem. I think we are justified in thinking that the process could be sped up when money is sitting in the treasury and services are not being provided.

Meeting of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I appreciate the important debate that is happening today and I know members on the opposition side of the House are all speaking in support of the opposition motion; however, I want to rise briefly in response to the point of order which was raised by my friend the member for Perth—Wellington on October 31, and to provide additional information and argument as the Speaker deliberates on the numerous submissions that have already been presented on this issue.

First of all, the original point of order was brought up in response to Standing Order 151, relating to the safekeeping of records and control of House officers and staff. The argument that was raised in the original point of order was made that the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association website had been updated to reflect the new chair and this was in violation of Standing Order 151, as the clerk or his delegate had not accurately recorded the results of the meeting.

However, I submit that this assertion is false and incorrect. The meeting was duly constituted, duly held and the results of the meeting were accurately recorded. In fact, the agenda was voted on by the membership under the then chair, creating an order of business that needed to be dealt with before an adjournment could be conducted. I was at the meeting along with many of my colleagues.

The member for Perth—Wellington continued that the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association meeting that took place on October 30 was “unlawful and illegitimate”. An unlawful and illegitimate meeting could not have been held as the clerks work for the constitution of the association and the Standing Orders of the House before they work for the chair, and the necessary arrangements for an illegal meeting would not have taken place. This can be demonstrated by the fact that the meeting itself was called when the chair was herself the subject of a non-confidence motion. Had the chair had the power to overrule the clerk's following of the written rules, the meeting could easily have been delayed out of existence.

The member then went on to say that the meeting was intended to orchestrate a coup. In fact, it was a motion of non-confidence brought on by members who had, as the name of the motion suggests, lost confidence in the chair. Were members who object to the meeting confident that the chair had the confidence of the membership, they would have worked to achieve a speedy vote and demonstrate that confidence.

As work needed to be done and action needed to be taken in order to welcome and accommodate representatives from our allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in the next weeks and within very narrow timelines, the option of waiting for the next regular annual general meeting to express non-confidence was not a possibility. The chair needs to have the confidence of the membership to carry out their duties.

The Conservative whip and numerous other Conservative members of Parliament have also risen on this point of order, though no one has cited any standing order other than Standing Order 151 on record keeping by the clerk.

According to House of Commons Procedure and Practice, chapter 20, on committee proceedings, which applies to standing joint committees, and which I would suggest is the most similar structure in the rules that we have for parliamentary association meetings, there is only one situation in which a chair can unilaterally adjourn the meeting and that is if there is disorder.

The important point here is that the chair can only adjourn the meeting to address disorder. At this meeting, however, which I attended, disorder only happened after the meeting was attempted to be improperly adjourned and the chair left the meeting. Also, there was disorder, but it was after the attempted improper adjournment.

Conservative parliamentary staffers were drinking alcohol and singing from previously prepared songbooks, which demonstrated an obvious planning of these obstructive tactics. It is, I believe, without precedent for a member or members to encourage boozed-up staffers and provide them with prepared songbooks in an attempt to undermine the decorum of a meeting and it demonstrates a particular lack of judgment and lack of respect for this place.

The acting chair had to call the Parliamentary Protective Service through the Sergeant-at-Arms into the meeting room in order to remove the disrupters, the disrupters who, as I note, planned this disruption in advance and planned their obstruction of our duties here as parliamentarians. Members of the Parliamentary Protective Service do an amazing job keeping this place safe, allowing us to be able to fulfill our duties as parliamentarians. I think it is unacceptable for members in this place to encourage to create disorder and require the need for the Parliamentary Protective Service to intervene.

Now, about the rules and about the attempted adjournment specifically, the members, all of them Conservative, all referenced the adjournment of the meeting, and the member for Mégantic—L'Érable elaborated on what he deemed the inappropriateness of a vice-chair assuming the seat upon the premature departure of the chair.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice is clear about the adjournment of meetings. The relevant section is in chapter 20, on committees, entitled “Adjournment”, where it states:

A committee meeting may be adjourned by the adoption of a motion to that effect. However, most meetings are adjourned more informally, when the Chair receives the implied consent of members to adjourn.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Is the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona rising on a point of order?