Peter Stoffer

[Veterans, November 2nd, 2010]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Veterans, November 2nd, 2010]

Mr. Chair, first of all, we would like to see what the government has to offer. We need to know if this money is new money or regurgitated money. That is one of the things we are going to have to ask, but I want to personally thank the Minister of Veterans Affairs for moving on the ALS. The fact is that they never would have moved if it were not for that very historic press conference held by Colonel Stogran, the ombudsman, and also the late Brian Dyck.

In fact, Brian Dyck, in his final words, said to this country and said to the nation, if you are not prepared to get behind the troops, prepare to stand in front of them. Unfortunately Mr. Dyck passed on and the government, and I give it credit, moved on the issue of ALS, but it never would have moved if it were not for that press conference.

This is what I am saying. Veterans and their families and RCMP members and their families should never have to go public before the cameras to get the help they need, and I am hoping that this debate and further debates will be able to encourage the minister and the government to move forward very quickly, to be proactive instead of reactive on issues regarding veterans, RCMP members and their families.

[Veterans, November 2nd, 2010]

Mr. Chair, here is where I disagree with my hon. colleague from the Bloc Québécois. I firmly believe that the medals given to the heroes of our country are not currency. These are not hundred dollar bills hanging from the left side of the chests of our heroes.

In fact, today, many armed forces personnel received various medals at the Governor General's and it was a wonderful ceremony, but the government did not hand them a cheque and say, “Thanks for your bravery. Thanks for your service. Here is some money”. I firmly believe these medals should never be turned into currency, should never be turned into cash. In fact, it is illegal to sell the Order of Canada medal.

I firmly believe that when members of the military and RCMP who have received those medals pass on, those medals should be handed obviously to families, schools or museums, et cetera, but if not, then they should be given to various groups or agencies that can display them in the honourable place that they deserve. I simply do not believe for one minute that future generations should profit financially from the valour of others.

[Veterans, November 2nd, 2010]

Mr. Chair, if people read the veterans report from Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, they will see the committee asked for complete independence for the ombudsman.

We know that the DND ombudsman's hands were tied. We have asked for complete freedom for the veterans ombudsman in order to look at anything the ombudsman wanted to look at, to have complete independence and be resourced accordingly. Unfortunately, that did not happen. The Conservative government of the day appointed Colonel Stogran, but put various restrictions on what he could and could not see.

This is one of the aspects of the failure of it, again where the rhetoric does not match what is said. We would encourage the Conservatives, if they will not reappoint Colonel Stogran, which we would encourage them to do, to ensure that the ombudsman, whether it be Colonel Stogran or whoever, has a lot more freedom and judicial overview in terms of what can and cannot be seen.

[Veterans, November 2nd, 2010]

Mr. Chair, I know the member is fairly new. He has been here a couple of terms now. Therefore, I will try to be as nice as I possibly can.

For Mr. Watts, veterans receiving benefits are very happy. However, there are thousands and thousands who do not receive benefits and they are very unhappy.

I wish the member would be completely truthful with the House. He knows very well that when 300,000 people are offered agent orange coverage and less than 3,000 are covered and I am asked to vote for it, he is damn right I will vote against it.

When every widow and widower of World War II and Korean War veterans are promised VIP treatment and then less than 10% are offered assistance and the Conservatives want me to vote for it, absolutely not.

These are in budgets. Budgets mean confidence in the government. I have a great respect for the hon. member, but if he expects me to stand and vote confidence in the government, it will be a very sad in the country when I do that.

[Veterans, November 2nd, 2010]

Mr. Chair, for those who are listening and watching, many of them will notice I do not have a moustache. That is because this is Movember, which means members of Parliament with moustaches shave them off and then grow them back. I invite all those veterans, all those men out there to ensure they get their prostate checked because it is very important. Statistics show that 25,000 of us will end up with prostate cancer this year, so it is very important for early detection. That is why I do not have the moustache tonight.

I personally want to thank the government for allowing this take note debate. The last time we had a debate on veterans issues was in 2006. I firmly believe members of Parliament and senator should be discussing veterans and military issues a lot more than we do now.

I want to give three very quick points for the minister to allow him to understand exactly what the problems are. I have seen these in my thirteen and a half years of advocacy for veterans, RCMP members and their families.

First, the rhetoric does not match the resources. We heard about VIP, but less than 10% of the women actually qualified.

Second, we heard about agent orange. The former minister and the Prime Minister, when he was not prime minister, were in Gagetown and said very clearly that everyone would be covered by agent orange compensation. We learned that just over 3,000 actually were covered. That promise was to over 300,000 people, military and civilians who could have been covered by agent orange compensation. However, the Conservatives brought in the exact same program that the Liberals offered except they offered a caveat. People had to have died after February 6, 2006, in order to receive the compensation package. That is when the Conservatives officially became government.

In a letter Joyce Carter of St. Peter's, Cape Breton received from the now Prime Minister, he said that all widows and widowers of World War II and Korean veterans would be covered by VIP immediately. Two years after the Conservatives formed government, they allowed less than 10% to qualify. Then they accused me of voting against their budgets that included that 10%. When they make a promise of that nature to veterans and their families, they had darn well better keep it.

I personally want to thank veterans out there like John Labelle, Roger Boutin and Mel Pittman of Lower Sackville, Nova Scotia, for trying to stop the unfair clawback to their pensions at age 65 and those who have a CPP disability clawbacks as well. Ed Carter-Edwards from Ontario is one of the very few last surviving Buchenwald veterans in our country. These are military personnel who were captured and put in a concentration camp. That was against the Geneva Convention. They fought for years to get compensation and they finally received it a few years ago. My tip of the salt and pepper cap to Ed Carter-Edwards for that.

I thank Dennis Manuge of Porters Lake, Musquodoboit Harbour, Nova Scotia for his continuous battle of fighting against the unfair SISIP clawbacks. Here is where the problem is in SISIP. Two DND ombudsmen said that it was not right. The House of Commons voted that SISIP was wrong in terms of the clawback. The Veterans Affairs committee, the Senate committee also said unanimously that this was wrong. Yet these veterans had to go to the Supreme Court of Canada to fight that unfair clawback of their SISIP.

This is why I have said the rhetoric does not match the resources. If the government is truly responsible for veterans and their families, then why do veterans have to go to the Supreme Court to pursue their case when all these outside avenues and agencies have said that it is wrong and it should be dealt with it appropriately?

I also want to give special kudos to Colonel Pat Stogran. I remind everyone it was the Conservatives who put Colonel Pat Stogran in as the ombudsman. Now they may not like what he has to say, but the fact is Colonel Stogran has become the beacon of light and hope for many veterans, RCMP veterans and their families.

One of the best things the government could announce tonight, or very soon, is the reinstatement of Colonel Stogran for the next three years as Canada's ombudsman. I would encourage and plead with the Veterans Affairs minister and the Prime Minister to do that. Although they may not like his style or what he has to say, he has become a beacon of hope, light and truth for veterans, RCMP members and their families. The number one thing the government could do almost immediately is allow Colonel Stogran to continue on for the next three years.

There is another thing the minister could do tonight, or very soon. The Minister of National Defence has announced that all members of the military are allowed to attend the rally on November 6 at 11 o'clock across the country. There will be no repercussions for as long as they do not wear their military uniforms, and that is fine.

We would encourage the Veterans Affairs minister to tell his 4,100 employees across the country that they too will be invited to attend the rally in support of veterans, RCMP members and their families from coast to coast to coast. If the minister wishes to announce that tonight, that would be a very good thing.

One of the major concerns veterans have with the Department of Veterans Affairs is called the Veterans Review and Appeal Board. This Gordian knot called the Veterans Review and Appeal Board is where 90% of the problems are within the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Imagine when someone who is 86 years old, who fought in World War II, who has a hearing problem, is denied his or her first claim, but is told he or she can appeal. Six months later, that person gets another letter saying that he or she is denied once more and can again appeal, but the department will assign him or her a lawyer and the individual's case will go before the Veterans Review and Appeal Board.

The Veterans Review and Appeal Board is made up of mostly political appointees. These are people with no medical, military or policing history. In fact, one of my former colleagues, Angela Vautour in New Brunswick, was on that board. An assistant of Norm Doyle, a former member of Parliament for Newfoundland, is now on that board. I do not know what medical, military or policing history she has.

The government has to stop appointing its friends to that board. They are adjudicating on behalf of veterans, RCMP members and their families. It is disgraceful that people who are politically appointed, with absolutely no medical, policing or military history, adjudicate on behalf of the heroes of Canada. That has to stop.

The fact is the Conservatives knew this was a problem. At their 2005 convention, they said they would stop this practice, but they have continued with it. Do not get me wrong, people like Harold Leduc and others with military experience are on the board and do a great job.

I would, by the way, advocate for eliminating the Veterans Review and Appeal Board and for putting the money toward veterans benefits. However, if the government cannot or will not do that, then it should ensure a board is comprised of military, policing and medical personnel who truly understand what it is like to serve in Haiti, in the Middle East, in Korea, in World War II or in Afghanistan.

There are many other things the NDP would like to do to move this issue forward. We encourage the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Minister of National Defence to work co-operatively to do that.

The fact is every day I receive requests from military personnel, veterans and RCMP members from across the country to assist them, in some way, in dealing with the Government of Canada. They find the Gordian knot they have to go through, which I call the Cirque de Soleil act, in order to get assistance is mind boggling.

There are over 770,000 veterans with families in our country. DVA only deals with roughly 220,000, so more than two-thirds are not DVA clients. This is key. When the government says that there is an 80% approval rate for veterans on the services and benefits of DVA, that is only recorded for the people who receive a benefit. I have asked DVA to ensure it contacts all 770,000 veterans out there and ask what they think of DVA. It may get a different answer.

I know there is a lot of time for questions and answers, and I would be more than happy to—

[Veterans, November 2nd, 2010]

Mr. Chair, I wish to state to the audience listening in tonight that I will give the hon. member from the Bloc Québécois credit. Even though they may think the Bloc Québécois is a separatist party, which is their angle in here, the hon. member has stood up and fought not just for veterans in Quebec but for veterans and RCMP veterans and their families right across the country. For that he deserves a round of applause. It is true that he does not think just of those in Quebec; he thinks of them right across the country.

My question for him concerns Ste. Anne's Hospital. We know that Ste. Anne's Hospital in Quebec is the last federal veterans' hospital we have in the country. We understand, through various sources, that the hospital will eventually be divested over to the Province of Quebec. One of the floors is already given out, right now, to people who are non-veterans. Our biggest concern is not just for the World War II and Korean War veterans getting the hospital care they need, but we have hundreds of thousands of modern-day veterans from post-1953 who may not be eligible for short- or long-term hospital care. I would like the hon. member's opinion on that.

Our veterans from post-1953 served in Haiti, Afghanistan, Cypress and Egypt. We have a lot of discussion about veterans of Afghanistan, but there are hundreds of thousands of veterans who served during the Cold War. These individuals and their families will eventually require long-term assistance.

For example, in Halifax a while back there was the case of Janet Maybee's parents. Her father was in the Camp Hill hospital, but his wife, who was in the last stages of her life, was in another institution. We had the same problem in Ontario.

I would like the hon. member's opinion. What would happen to these spouses in the last stages of their lives and where should they be facilitated in order to ensure their long-term care?

[Veterans, November 2nd, 2010]

Mr. Chair, so many questions and so little time.

If the government wishes to take credit for certain programs, then it also has to take responsibility for the failure of some of those programs.

As the minister well knows, when the VIP program was extended, the Prime Minister was the opposition leader. In 2005 he said clearly in a letter to Joyce Carter that all widows and widowers of World War II and Korean War veterans would receive the VIP program. All of them would receive it, and they would receive it immediately. There were no other provisos.

In the 2008 budget, the program kicked in and less than 10% of those people were eligible. They were also under strict criteria, which meant they had to be receiving a disability payment or have a low income in order to receive the VIP program. That was not said in the letter. The letter said “all” and “immediately”.

The privacy information of Sean Bruyea and others may have been scattered throughout the department like confetti. I am wondering why the minister did not call for a public inquiry into the department in order to seek outside consultation and recommendations.

We do not blame the minister for what happened. He just received his posting. To be honest, with what I have seen so far I believe the minister is sincere and careful regarding what he wishes to do for veterans, including RCMP veterans, and their families.

I am wondering why he did not call for a public inquiry into his department.

I have many more questions, but I am sure I will be given ample time in the future to ask them.

[Veterans Affairs, October 8th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister himself signed the so-called bill of rights that says veterans have a right to be treated with respect, dignity, fairness and courtesy and that their privacy will be protected under the Privacy Act. Sean Bruyea did not get this. Hundreds of veterans across the country are now filing freedom of information requests because they suspect their information was scattered throughout the department like confetti.

That signature means absolutely nothing. What the government needs to do is apologize to Sean and the veterans of Canada and call a public inquiry.

[Veterans Affairs, October 8th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, everybody in Canada knows how tightly controlled the Prime Minister's and the Privy Council offices are of their ministers and deputy ministers. Four years ago, Daniel Shaw, a policy adviser in the Prime Minister's Office, received correspondence regarding the Sean Bruyea case and his information being scattered through the department like confetti.

My question is quite clear. Four years ago, the Prime Minister's Office and the government knew what was happening. Why did they take four years to act on something on which the Privacy Commissioner said the department broke the law?