:
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for welcoming me to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. First of all, I would like to thank you for hearing me as part of the study of the Supplementary Estimates, as well as for the important work that you do on this committee, especially with regard to the transition from military life to civilian life.
I would also like to give special thanks to the parliamentary secretary, Ms. Eve Adam, who organized the ceremony on the Hill. I would like to congratulate the members. It was very well received by all of the MPs and senators. During Remembrance Week, it gave parliamentarians the opportunity to pay tribute to our veterans.
They are the reason why we are here today. With your support, I would like to obtain additional votes to fund two particular initiatives for our veterans.
[English]
The supplementary estimates show our government's ongoing commitment to Canada's veterans and their families, and I count on your support for the more than $18 million in new funding for veterans' benefits and services.
[Translation]
As you are aware, I promised that our government would commit to maintaining veterans' benefits. We're going much further than that, as you know, because we've improved those benefits. At the same time, veterans have asked us to cut red tape, and that is what we are doing.
[English]
l've said we will provide veterans and their families with better and improved services, and the supplementary estimates prove we are doing just that.
l've said many times that we would ensure the necessary funding is always in place to cover veterans' benefits, that we are a needs-based organization, even when the costs surpass our fiscal projections. That's why I'm here with these supplementary estimates.
and I have gone above and beyond the parameters of the Federal Court ruling on SISIP, the Canadian Armed Forces long-term disability benefits. The 2012 economic update includes $1.2 billion in new investments for Canadian Armed Forces and veterans benefits, and the supplementary estimates (B) include over $18 million in new funding, including $16 million to change the way we calculate veterans benefits under the earnings lost and the Canadian Forces income support programs.
This one change represents an additional $177 million for veterans and their families over the next five years. It will also put more money in the pockets of the injured and ill veterans who need it the most.
[Translation]
You also know that we committed to cutting the red tape regarding a program that is very popular among veterans, the Veterans Independence Program. We have streamlined the process. We are now operating with lump-sum payments, rather than asking veterans to provide thousands, even millions, of supporting documents. That's why I need your cooperation today. With these measures, we encourage our veterans to stay at home longer each time, which is why we provide them with housekeeping and yard work services.
[English]
Other measures in the supplementary estimates are equally important. They relate to providing veterans with more choices for career transition services, and through an investment of over $2.2 million, they provide more points of service for veterans through our partnership with Service Canada. Through this innovative partnership, which will improve access to service for veterans, we are providing 600 points of services, where in the past there were 60. So it's expanding our outreach for veterans by ten times.
When you total all the new expenditures and savings in the supplementary estimates, the net result for the department is another $18.85 million this year to support veterans and their families. More importantly, this increased funding builds on our record of delivering the enhanced care and support that veterans and their families need, when and where they need it.
In Budget 2005—let's go back a little while—which covered the final year before we implemented the new Veterans Charter, Veterans Affairs Canada was allocated $2.85 billion. Seven years later, in Budget 2012, the department's allocation grew. This allocation grew by $3.57 billion. It is an increase of approximately $715 million per year.
[Translation]
If you add up all of the annual increases between 2005 and 2012, compared to the 2005 budget, you get a cumulative total of nearly $3.9 billion in additional funds for veterans' programs and services.
[English]
We are clearly delivering for Canada's veterans and their families. How do we achieve it? We achieve it by addressing the needs of veterans and their families.
We've doubled the number of operational stress injury clinics we are operating so that we can help veterans struggling with mental health issues, such as post-traumatic stress disorder or depression.
[Translation]
We have also set up a Scientific Advisory Committee to study veterans' health issues and I am expecting to receive the findings shortly. We have established a Veterans' Bill of Rights as well.
As you know, we have created the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman. We have significantly improved the way we protect veterans' personal information through our 10-point Privacy Action Plan and our Privacy Action Plan 2.0. You will recall there was an issue with respect to the use of Agent Orange at CFB Gagetown. This is also something that we have resolved.
We have expanded the Veterans Independence Program to more low-income and disabled widows and we have extended more benefits to Allied Veterans.
[English]
We've enhanced our career transition services by supporting innovative programs such as Helmets to Hardhats, and we've developed a robust veterans transition action plan to help military personnel and their families with every aspect of the transition to civilian life.
All of these measures have made a real and meaningful difference, and we are now taking the next steps. We are cutting red tape, because that's what veterans and their families have asked us for: hassle-free service, more efficiency, less red tape, and more results. That's why we are streamlining the way we're doing things at this department.
We are modernizing the department. We are simplifying policies that have become too complex and introducing new technology. Yes, we are going on the web. That's why we've launched the veterans benefits browser, a tool that was developed by the ombudsman that is not only available to our officials but to all the veterans community. As well, we have My VAC Book and My VAC Account, so that all veterans can access our programs and services through the web at any time of the day and whenever they want, and, it's important to add, in a safe manner.
In closing, we are doing the very things our veterans have been telling us they want, and we are proud to be delivering. Our government is determined to serve Canada's heroes in the same way that they have always served this country. That's why this afternoon I hope I will get unanimous consent for this increased funding for our veterans of more than $18 million—additional funding for veterans and their families.
Thank you.
Thank you, Minister, for being here.
I have a number of questions and I'd like to go through them, and then we'll wait for your response. These questions are in regard to long-term care for post-Korean War veterans.
I know the history of the devolution of veterans hospitals to the provinces, and I know about the mandate these hospitals operate under, but, Minister, mandates can change if there's political will.
I refer now to the case of retired Colonel Neil Russell, a 33-year veteran of the Canadian Forces. I know that his wife, Elsa, has written to you.
Neil has a spinal injury and was treated at Parkwood Hospital in my riding, but he can't walk or stand and he needs long-term care. Unfortunately, there are no provincial beds available to him for one or two years from now. He's to be discharged from Parkwood on December 1 and he has nowhere to go. His wife, Elsa, doesn't drive and she cannot take care of him.
Many post-Korean War vets, I've discovered in the last while, are completely unaware that they can't receive long-term care in a veterans hospital. My question is threefold. Why “no” to the centres of excellences that could provide this long-term care? Why the refusal to change the veterans hospital mandate so that modern-day veterans can get the federal government support that they've earned and they deserve?
Finally, I know that Elsa Russell wrote to you. Have you responded to her letter and her plea? I'd like to put her plea into the record. She says:
I wish to reiterate that Neil loyally served Canada for 33 years doing his share to protect Canadian and Allied interests during the Cold War. It would seem just that Canada should help in his time of need.
Is Canada prepared to help Neil Russell in his time of need?
:
I am pleased to address those three questions.
Before I do so, I would like to introduce my deputy minister, Ms. Marie Chaput. This is the first time I have had the privilege of being here with her, and I'm very glad to have her with me in her new endeavour today.
Regarding your question, yes, we do take care of our veterans, and we have veterans facilities. As you are well aware, we have beds that are dedicated to our Second World War veterans because at that time there was no public health system. Now we have a public health system, and we're working in partnership with them. That's why we are providing all our veterans with community beds.
The first thing that is important to understand, Ms. Mathyssen, is that whenever possible we are providing all the help and support that is necessary so that we can maintain our veterans and their families in their homes, because this is their first choice; the first priority of our veterans is to stay at home. That's why we provide them with an array of services—the veterans independence program, rehab services. We have people visiting them, and we provide them sometimes with all the devices that are needed.
That's the first part of it—
:
Sure. Actually, you're right, and this is quite an amazing story when we look at the number. I was quite surprised myself to see that we are investing on an annual basis, since our Conservative government took power in 2006, $750 million more per year. One of the reasons why that is so is that we have introduced the new Veterans Charter, and we also introduced enhancements to the new Veterans Charter more than a year ago.
The whole reasoning behind the new Veterans Charter is aimed at helping veterans to transition in a seamless manner from military to civilian life. The other great thing about the new Veterans Charter is that it enables a veteran who has been released from the Canadian Forces, but who may experience some challenges in the course of his life that are related to his military service, to come back to Veterans Affairs Canada.
That's why I've been coming quite consistently before this committee for more funding, because there has been a strong uptake from the veterans community for those programs. As you know, the core of those programs is a recognition of the loss a veteran may have encountered during his military service—what we refer to as the disability award—but there is also financial compensation while the veteran is re-embarking, if I may say, into civilian life. That's what we call the earnings loss benefit.
There is also an array of services provided regarding the rehabilitation service. There's also mental health support, as well as other services that are needed. It's an array of services that is quite extensive, and the veterans community is benefiting from it and using the services we are providing.
:
Thank you, Madam Parliamentary Secretary, for raising this point.
Indeed, the Veterans Review and Appeal Board is a tool available to veterans which enables them to challenge decisions made by the Department of Veterans Affairs. There is both a review and an appeal process. The board is independent from the government. We have a rigorous process for selecting members sitting on this board, which relies on their skills. There is therefore a prequalification process and the criteria we are looking for include military experience, medical experience or quasi-judicial experience.
I have with me the profile of the four new members who have been appointed. We have a nurse with more than 35 years of experience in health care, who has also worked in the area of rehabilitation and career transition. We also have a soldier with 27 years of experience who retired with the rank of brigadier general. We also have a Lieutenant-Colonel who spent 22 years with the Canadian Forces, Lieutenant-Colonel Colin Reichle, as well as another member of the Canadian Forces who—it is interesting to point this out— was a lawyer in the office of the Judge Advocate General, whom soldiers refer to as the JAG.
We are very pleased to have confident individuals who bring depth to the board, which will ensure that when a veteran appeals to the board, he or she will be dealing with individuals who have military culture and experience.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Minister, in your opening remarks you referred to your expanding partnership with Service Canada. That's what I want to ask you about first. If this is a partnership, then I would think Service Canada would be keeping you apprised of their plans in the next few years.
Mr. Minister, you may not be aware, but the majority on this committee didn't want to hear from the Auditor General.
My question starts with something your department told the Auditor General. At recommendation 4.53, in response to the recommendation, your department said to the Auditor General that, “Processes and standards are in place to give all”—and I emphasize the word “all”—“case-managed veterans more access to their case manager.”
As you know, I'm from Prince Edward Island. When all of your changes are put in place, all we're going to have is Service Canada, because you're going to close the district office and we'll have no case managers. Every time I raise this, I hear from you in question period or from your press attaché, through some fairly sharp tweets, that the service that's going to be provided by Service Canada is more than an adequate replacement for the loss of case managers on Prince Edward Island and the closure of the district office.
I have here a secret document from the strategic services branch, an integrated operational plan, which indicates that between April 1, 2012, and April 1, 2015, Service Canada will reduce its workforce on Prince Edward Island by 113 to 61. So there's going to be a 46% cut at Service Canada. Because of your expanding partnership, I expect you're probably already aware of that.
Mr. Minister, considering what you've told the Attorney General—
:
Thank you for your question on the expansion of services that we will provide to the veteran community through Service Canada.
First, it is not just the Department of Veterans Affairs that must serve veterans, but rather all of government. That is why, by using the services of Service Canada, we are able to offer one-stop services for veterans, which allows them to have a wider range of services. Of course, there are costs associated with this, and that is why I need your support today. In fact, I have to obtain the necessary funds for Service Canada to provide the services to veterans.
I'll come back to Prince Edward Island. As you know, there are five Service Canada offices in that province. They are located in Charlottetown, O'Leary, Summerside, Montague and Souris. As you know, the level of service and home visits for veterans are being maintained, whether they're done by case managers or Veterans Affairs Canada staff. That means that the level of service is the same for veterans on Prince Edward Island. There are home visits. And if veterans want to go to a point of contact with the Department of Veterans Affairs, they no longer have to cross the whole island. They can go to one of the neighbouring towns to receive services related not only to Veterans Affairs Canada, but also to all of government.
As further information, I have to tell you that we also plan to hire additional resources to maintain a case manager ratio of 1 to 40. That means that in all cases where there is an increase in the number of veterans, we will adjust, we will add veterans and hire case managers in Halifax, St. John's, Quebec City, Pembroke, Ottawa, Kingston and Edmonton, because to us it is important to adapt to the changing reality of veterans.
For the first time in the recent history of our department, Veterans Affairs, we have more veterans coming back from conflicts, peacekeeping missions, NATO missions, United Nations missions and Afghanistan than we do veterans from older conflicts. Therefore, all the while offering the same services to our traditional veterans, we also ensure we are able to meet the needs of modern-day veterans.
Welcome, Minister and Ms. Chaput.
Mr. Minister, your last comment brought some context to the challenges that Veterans Affairs has been facing. We went from the end of the Korean War some 50 years ago to our involvement in an active theatre of conflict in Afghanistan. I would suggest that for maybe 50 years Veterans Affairs was dealing with something they were very familiar with, and then all of a sudden there is a whole new set of challenges that they're faced with. Given the magnitude of the challenges of the modern-day conflict, I think Veterans Affairs have done an outstanding job and they've reacted to the change.
Mr. Minister, I want to applaud you for the leadership you've shown, and, Ms. Chaput, for the recognition that you folks have shown, in the need to go into a transitional change, to streamline and to use our dollars more effectively in the areas of need. I think you're doing that.
I know Minister Flaherty mentioned some additional moneys for Veterans Affairs in his economic statement. Could you perhaps tell us what the amount was that was allocated for veterans and armed forces benefits, and how that money is going to be spent? Could you give us some idea of how helpful that would be?
:
Thank you for your question and your comment.
In fact, you are right. The Department of Veterans Affairs has maintained a steady rhythm over a certain number of decades and it has developed specific expertise.
Yesterday, I was in Kingston where the Canadian Institute for Military and Veteran Health Research conducts studies. We released the results of a study that lasted over 60 years. That means that we were able to combine data and conduct geriatric research on our veterans who participated in the Second World Ward and the Korean War. We have developed significant expertise in this area.
Other countries have participated in medium-sized conflicts. I am thinking for example of our American neighbours who fought in the Vietnam War. They experienced other, larger arrivals of groups of veterans. We did not experience that situation before being involved in peacekeeping missions. That is why our department is undergoing a full transformation. We must adapt to this reality. Moreover, Ms. Chaput was associate deputy minister before becoming deputy minister and is actively participating in the department's transformation. In other words, the department we know today is different from what it was four years ago and from what it will be in four years. We are adapting to the needs of modern veterans.
To answer your question, our finance minister, Mr. Flaherty, included that in his last economic statement.
[English]
I may go on in English.
The 2012 economic update includes $1.2 billion for the next six years in cash for new investments for the Canadian Forces and for veterans' benefits. Actually, this money has already begun to flow. As you know, it's because we are going to stop deducting the veterans' pension benefit from the earnings loss benefit and the Canadian Forces income support benefit. I made an announcement this summer that this would be $177 million over the next five years.
That's why I need your support this afternoon to increase the supplementary estimates by an amount of $16 million, so that we can begin to put this money back into the pockets of veterans.
:
There are always ways in which we can improve our program. That's what we're striving to do. This very committee has clearly demonstrated that Canada is leading among other countries for providing services to our veterans. That's the way it should be. They have put their lives on the front line for us. That's the reason we need to give them the best we can.
Regarding the Royal Canadian Legion, I want to mention a very interesting initiative that was undertaken not so long ago by the Royal Canadian Legion. They sponsored a pilot project that was jointly led with the University of British Columbia. This project is to help veterans returning from Afghanistan, those really young veterans who may experience some mental health issues or depression following a mission, related to stress they might have endured during this mission.
This pilot project was driven over a number of years in conjunction with the University of British Columbia. It has proven, very outstanding results. Of the more than 250 veterans who took part in that soldier-to-soldier program, which goes over a two- to three-month period, only one has not completed the program. The evidence-based results have proven that this program is really efficient and that it is helping to improve the quality of life of those specific veterans.
We have been informed of this program, and as of a month ago we have identified what they call the veterans transition program as an official service provider for our government. It means that now we are partnering not only with the veterans transition program, but also with the Royal Canadian Legion, which has also decided that it would support this kind of soldier-to-soldier approach for addressing mental health issues for modern veterans. It is complementary to the services we are providing. We are actually very proud of the work they have done. We are looking forward to the expansion of this project in a timely manner. I might also add that some charities have also joined this project, namely, in this case, True Patriot Love.
This is the kind of initiative that shows that all of Canadian society is moving forward, is showing support. This is also a very good example of the typical Korean veteran, let's say, or those who may have had a longer experience, helping the modern veteran. This is very inspiring in the way we are moving forward and adapting to the needs and realities of modern veterans.
:
Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Minister.
Indeed we do compare quite favourably. As you probably know, the U.S. has a very comprehensive system wherein they not only provide the care for the veteran through the course of his career and then on through his life as a post-military veteran, but they also provide their hospital care directly and much of their health care directly.
We had a lot of talk with the U.S. just last week, and they were remarking on how much further ahead they feel we are in terms of the use of information technology and the manner in which we serve veterans. Their own estimate was that we are likely two years ahead of them in that regard, and indeed they have asked us to come to them and give them a bit of our lessons learned and some insights into the advancements we've made.
In terms of other jurisdictions, it's harder to compare; the systems become less similar. But the U.K., as an example, is quite different from us, in that in the U.K.—and I think it's actually a disadvantage—a veteran cannot go to one door and get the services they need. They must go to many different doors. So I think that's yet another advantage that we offer to the veterans here in Canada.
:
Absolutely. I thank you for the question.
Actually, not only did the veterans community ask for cutting red tape, but the Auditor General also asked us, so that our processes can be streamlined and our wait times reduced. That's why we are moving forward with a busy agenda.
The ombudsman has also asked—and this has been implemented for more than a year—that we communicate clearly with veterans. That may sound trivial, but if a military veteran gets a letter from the government that is unclear and is written in a bureaucratic way, it might be difficult for the veteran, who is used to having clear direction, to understand the meaning of the content of this letter. That's why the Veterans Ombudsman recommended—and we have implemented this measure—that we communicate in what we call plain and clear language. So now when we communicate with a veteran, we break the letter we're sending into pieces, so that there's a clear identification of the veteran's needs, his claim. There's also a reasoning for what is behind the decision. There is the decision, the criteria that have led to the decision, the facts that were used, the rules and guidelines that have helped to render this decision, and the result in terms of impact—programs or services that can be provided. As well, there will be a way the veteran can get more information or get us to revisit the decision. This initiative comes from a recommendation of the Veterans Ombudsman, and it is part of our initiative to cut red tape. It is called a plain and clear language initiative.
I have also mentioned that we strive to reduce wait times. Our deputy minister mentioned that some other countries are facing some challenges with wait times. We strive to reduce our wait times, and when people call us through our 1-800 VAC line, we strive to answer them in a timely manner. Of course, there is always room for improvement, but we've seen significant improvement.
The other part of cutting red tape is in simplifying forms, such as the ones that were required for privacy. There used to be many forms for privacy, for veterans who were applying, so we are eliminating duplication of those forms, and we've reduced this number.
Those are some of the initiatives. I've also touched on the web initiative.
In a nutshell, that's what our cutting red tape initiative is, and we are not done yet.
:
In short, it's online: www.helmetstohardhats.ca.
[Translation]
In French, the hyperlink is http://duregimentauxbatiments.ca/
In January, Prime Minister Harper announced the partnership between the Government of Alberta, several trade unions and the TransCanada company. This partnership led to the creation of a website that manages and facilitates the official transition of our veterans to civilian life, particularly in the construction trades.
This program seeks to identify the training that our veterans receive in the Canadian Forces and acknowledges their expertise through accreditation in cooperation with the different units, workers and unions.
One good thing about this program is that the veterans are supported in establishing how these skills they have acquired in the military will be recognized in the civilian world. That's the greatest advantage of the program, which is managed by a career military person. I can tell you that a number of other partners have also come on board, including the Government of Ontario. Other companies would also like to benefit from this pool of potential workers, who are members of the Canadian Forces who want to work in the construction field after retiring from the service.
:
Also, thanks to the DVA for the efforts on the animals in motion tour and the monument with Lloyd Swick.
As well, a couple of requests have been put to the minister in regard to the national cenotaph and trying to put an inclusive phrase on the cenotaph, which is supported by all veterans organizations: “In the service of Canada”. Unfortunately, it wasn't done for this Remembrance Day, but we're hoping that for next time, “In the service of Canada” will be inscribed on our national cenotaph, making it more inclusive to all those who have served in the Boer War, for example, not just in World War II, World War I, Korea, and others.
Also, we're looking for a statuette on the Valiants Memorial for William Hall from Nova Scotia, Canada's first black person to receive the Victoria Cross. You have received correspondence from Senator Meredith, Senator Oliver, me, and others regarding that. If it's possible....
You talked about the earnings loss benefit that has now ceased, as the minister has gone beyond the court case. There is another deduction that's happening that affects many veterans: the Canada pension disability clawback. For members of the military or the RCMP who are medically released, they find themselves on Canada pension disability, but that money is deducted dollar for dollar from their superannuation, much earlier than age 65. They have been asking for many years to have a stop put to this. I was wondering if, at a later time, you could give a written answer to that particular request.
Also, Harold Leduc wrote a response to us regarding the VRAB. We're hoping that the minister will have an opportunity after reading the evidence to respond to his concerns from a ministerial level.
As well, could you advise us in a written response of what the government is doing on homeless veterans?
There are so many other things here, but another one, of course, is that the government announced, through , an audit on the Sunnybrook concerns, due to all the media reports last week on the Sunnybrook hospital in Toronto. I've just toured the facility and met with all the families. I get two completely different stories. I was hoping that the audit.... Would that be a public audit? Would families of the veterans who are in the hospital be allowed to participate in that audit? Would that be a public audit where we—members of the opposition or government—would have an opportunity to see that audit before it's tabled?
Thank you very much for coming today.
You don't have to respond in kind, but at a later date, if possible.
I'd like to thank the witnesses for coming to meet with us today.
I just have one question.
November 11 is a day to go and meet our veterans, pay tribute to them and celebrate this day — although I don't really like to call this a celebration. However, the most important thing is the way in which we offer services to veterans.
In the estimates, I don't see any money dedicated to funerals or burials. These people tell me that they want to be buried with dignity and honour. They fought for our country. They gave us freedom, democracy and the right of free speech. The question is, how does the government intend to act on veterans' requests in the coming months?
At their age, they cannot be refused such services. I do not agree with giving them the same amount as a burial under the social welfare program. I think that unacceptable for our veterans.
I'd like to hear your comments on this.
Without a doubt, I think veterans are better served now than they were in the past. I think one can draw some conclusions in that regard, if you consider different veterans at different points in their lives. If you take a veteran who is relatively young, who is exiting his military service years and transitioning into what will be a civilian life and career, I think the new Veterans Charter, with the programs around rehabilitation—if there is an injury—aimed at reintegration, earnings loss during that period of rehabilitation, vocational retraining for both the veteran and/or his spouse, if necessary, is a really strong arrow in the veteran's quiver as they transition into their civilian life.
If you move from that kind of individual to someone who perhaps suffers from mental health issues, there's no doubt the services we're offering more recently are much more robust than they have been in the past.
As you may know, we have what are called the integrated personnel support units, where any veteran and/or their family can come for very holistic care—mental health, physical health—and we make sure that the continuity of care is there to deal with both sides of that equation. Moreover, we have 17 operational stress injury clinics that we share with DND, where those who suffer from tougher mental health issues, like PTSD, can get very, very expert care. In addition to that, there are similar clinics where social support is provided to the veteran suffering from mental health conditions, peer support from families and other veterans who have actually been through the same mental health issues.
If you leave that type of veteran and move to a veteran who is perhaps very seriously injured, it brings us back to those elements of the new Veterans Charter that are geared specifically to the seriously injured in terms of the disability award, the treatment benefits, the physio and occupational therapy that is there, earnings loss. Then for the very seriously injured, there is the permanent incapacity assessment and supplement that's provided for those who are not able to return to work by virtue of their injuries.
Finally, if you move toward those coming toward the end of their lives and all through this continuum, even for the elderly, there are case managers who will provide care to the veteran, help them with palliative issues, support the spouse through those very difficult last six to eight months, and ensure that the veteran moves through that period of their life with a degree of dignity and care they deserve.
When you consider the panoply of scenarios that a veteran may face in their life, and you juxtapose it with the programs and services we're attempting to offer, I think a veteran these days is well served in recognition of how well they have served.
:
Sure. Just to let you know, it's the page where it says “Funding for the Service Canada Partnership” of $2,219,000. That is a transfer of money over to Service Canada to provide services for veterans throughout the country.
As you know, nine district offices are being closed across the country, and seven veterans across the country have already written to me. They have gone into Service Canada and they have asked for a variety of help and benefits. Every single one of them has had a negative experience at Service Canada. I understand that this is in the initial stage. They said that every single person at Service Canada was very polite, very nice, and very helpful, but three of them got the wrong website, two of them got the wrong toll-free number, and one was told, “The computer is over there”. Another one was told he could call the 1-800 number for help, because the person at Service Canada just wasn't qualified to do that yet.
We personally, on this side, do not agree that district offices should be closed and that the work should be transferred to Service Canada. Service Canada employees are very busy right now with all kinds of other objectives, so we're basically saying that the $2,219,000 for Service Canada should be deleted.
That's what our motion is.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'm going to be voting against Mr. Stoffer's motion, but I feel compelled to give an explanation. I am indeed not happy that my province will be the only one with no case managers. I'm not happy that my province will be the only one without a district office. I do understand that the department has decided that all that Prince Edward Island veterans are entitled to in the way of face-to-face service is Service Canada.
I'm extremely concerned that Service Canada plans to reduce its workforce in Prince Edward Island by 46% over the next three years at the very time when they will be the only point of contact.
Having said that, I think I would be doing a great disservice to the veterans in my province, and probably a great disservice to veterans in other provinces where the department has already decided to go this way, by tying their hands behind their backs and not giving them enough money. There isn't enough money in Service Canada now to do the job. They're cutting back, and for us to compound the error would be a grave mistake.
So I'll be voting against the motion, although I'm not at all happy that the Department of Veterans Affairs has decided to go in this direction.
:
I'm shocked to hear the government's position on this.
[Translation]
They said services to veterans provided by Veterans Affairs Canada will be transferred to Service Canada. However, Service Canada staff is not even able to provide services to Canadians, whether it be in terms of employment insurance or other programs. There are cuts happening on all sides. The government claims that it is listening to veterans. However, in Prince Edward Island, for example, it is shutting down all services and people will have to go to Service Canada.
Mr. Chair, the way things are right now, even when we call Service Canada, people are unable to answer our questions without going through Ottawa. When we put questions to the director of Service Canada's Atlantic region, he tells us he will call us back the next day because he has to check on the request. That must mean contacting the Prime Minister's Office. Service Canada cannot make any decisions. Is that where our services for our veterans are going?
I don't think estimates can be changed, either to increase them or allocate them elsewhere. The government and the minister must show leadership. They should make it clear that they will not send their clients to Service Canada and that they will instead keep providing the services from their offices, and that they will not close them down. They should also tell us that they will provide services to our veterans, who, as I mentioned earlier, fought to give us freedom, democracy and more.
Earlier, to try to get our witness Ms. Chaput to talk, Ms. Adams spoke about services. Well, it's not true that things have been going swimmingly since 2006. My office has never received so many calls from veterans. Mr. Chair, many of them came to my office with bags of pills they threw onto the desk, and they asked me to look at what they had. These veterans said they could not even have access to services.
Mr. Chair, I would invite you to come to my office. You will see the medals a veteran brought. He hung them in my assistant's office because he no longer wanted to have them. At the same time, the government is saying that it is doing a great job for veterans. This is unacceptable.
All of that to say that I will support sending a message to the government saying that transferring these services to Service Canada is unacceptable. That is not where these services should be provided. It is not Service Canada's job. Service Canada staff already have their hands full.
We have a minister representing veterans, so I ask him to provide services to these veterans. He should not be handing them over to another institution that does not have the same interest as the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
There is not very much to add to what Mr. Godin said.
The only way to interpret this is that we are against closing these offices. At this time, Service Canada is unable to properly provide services to veterans. It is not true that there is a handful of veterans. I have also seen some cases.
If the conservatives are really in favour of providing appropriate services to veterans, they should do a sort of follow-up with veterans turning to Service Canada. I am sure they would see that, unfortunately, providing a range of services to veterans and meeting their needs appropriately is an extremely complex issue. They will not get the services they need at Service Canada at this time, or next year either, in my opinion.
Mr. Stoffer's motion is simply aimed at sending the government the message that it should not transfer the money to Service Canada, which is unable to provide appropriate services to veterans. Service Canada staff already have enough on their plates, from providing the services they offer to dealing with budget cuts as well. They cannot provide these services.
So please don't play innocent.
:
If I might, I do have the floor, sir, on a point of order.
If I might suggest to you, we have just recently gone through a study of the transformation at Veterans Affairs. What we've learned and what we've brought in witnesses to speak to is the fact that we have put a focus on empowering our local case workers. What we have accomplished by doing that is having somebody on the ground who meets with the veteran, meets with the veteran's family, who has a very clear understanding about what the veteran needs and is able to point the veteran to every service that's available to him or her.
Then, and this is the really critical point, we've reduced wait times to receive a decision from Veterans Affairs; there have been dramatic reductions, and we're not even satisfied with that. We want to continue to reduce the wait times our veterans have before they receive funding or services. We are very focused on their customer service. That's also why we've introduced the clear language initiative whereby instead of having this letter sent to you in gobbledygook or bureaucratese, in very simple clear language a veteran understands why his benefits are going to be provided to him and what medical evidence was relied upon. If that veteran needs to come forward with additional information, they have the opportunity to do so.
Our case managers are still on the ground and are still available to our veterans. This $2 million of critical funding would provide critical assistance to our veterans at additional points of service across the country. We would go from 60 points of service to 600 points of service. It cuts down on the travel times for our veterans. Currently poor veterans are going to district offices and are taking hours to get there. I don't understand why you would want to inconvenience our veterans, why you would want to strip them of this additional ability to access our services. They will still have access to our phone lines and to the Internet.
But most importantly, our government is committed to providing home visits to those veterans who need them. That will continue. So this rhetoric that we're hearing about how veterans are being underserved is categorically untrue. I would implore you to withdraw this motion. I would implore you to spend the $2 million and provide enhanced customer service to our veterans. I simply cannot understand why somebody who is so passionate about our veterans is moving to reduce the level of service available to our veterans. We will now go to 600 points of service across the country. If you have a specific example of one individual who wasn't able to provide service to our veterans, please bring it forward.
Mr. Godin, you indicated you've got all sorts of case files at your constituency office. I would implore you to send them to us. At the end of the day, this is not about grandstanding. This is about serving our veterans. I too have a constituency office and I can tell you that our veterans are very well served.
:
I would say out of all the ridings of our 308 MPs, the veterans are best served in Huron—Bruce.
But seriously, I think maybe the opposition, the NDP, are slightly misinformed on what they're potentially talking about—maybe not. The Service Canada employees will not be providing counselling, case management. That's not their role. I don't think you're trying to imply that it was, but I think we need to be clear that they're not going to be doing that. As Ms. Adams says, it's a point of service, an entry point to help veterans get the information. Maybe their family members get information they may need so they can either start a relationship with Veterans Affairs or whatever the unique situation is.
I'll give you an example. I'm a rural member of Parliament. There are no offices for veterans in Huron—Bruce. There are two full-time Service Canada offices, one in Goderich and one in Walkerton. Other satellite offices run part-time. This is a benefit to veterans in my area because now they have an official point of service in Huron—Bruce. Before, they may have gone to London. I think this is an enhancement, from my perspective. For the $2 million we're putting in, I think we're getting a pretty good return. The return is that the veterans are going to have a better point of service and better access to the benefits.
Maybe the other reason Mr. Godin says he's got veterans coming to his office in increasing numbers is that our message is getting out to veterans, what benefits are available to them. That could very well be why they're coming, because they've had a friend or a fellow veteran who's had some success working with Veterans Affairs and now they want to see what else is available to them. If you have veterans coming into your office asking questions, it's leading them to other successful results inside the department.
I think it's good. I'm sure others on the other side will disagree, but I thought I should put it from the perspective of a rural member of Parliament.
:
I thank everyone for their comments.
First of all, I would just refer you to page 1009, chapter 20, of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, which our colleague Cynara has given us. It says that we are not permitted to attempt to change the way funds are allocated or transfer money from one item to another.
If I could, I'd take that $2,219,000 and transfer it to another aspect of the supplementary estimates, but I'm not permitted to do that. Unfortunately, the rules.... We tried years ago to get these things changed, to move one item to another, to keep it the same, but we're not permitted to do so. I rather think, or I believe, it was the Conservative Party that voted against that in a House and procedure motion one time.
The reality, for Ms. Parliamentary Secretary, is that Service Canada people are also unionized, so this is not a union argument at all, I can assure you. In all my years here, I have never had one veteran or a veterans organization say that DVA services should be provided by Service Canada. Not one has ever asked me—ever. I don't know if anyone here has ever been asked, before this happened, that Veterans Affairs wanted to be served by Service Canada.
I can't reallocate that money within the supplementary estimates. Those are the rules. I can't do that. This is the only way we have to let the government know that we don't like the idea that district offices are closing. We simply don't like that.
I encourage any of you to go on Thursday to Cape Breton, to the big rally they have, and people will tell you how they feel about the closure of Cape Breton's office. I don't have to tell you about Prince Edward Island or Thunder Bay or anywhere else. A lot of people are quite upset that these offices are closing.
If the argument is that Service Canada can provide that service and expand it to 600, why don't you apply that same thinking to Citizenship and Immigration, and to Revenue Canada? Why doesn't Service Canada do everything, then, if that's the argument? Imagine how many Citizenship and Immigration people can be helped by Service Canada, if that is your argument.
Mr. Chair, I would truly love to move that money somewhere else in here, but I can't. I'm not permitted to by the rules. This is the only way we in opposition can say to the government, with the greatest of respect, that we don't believe the burden of veterans' care should be put on those already overworked employees at Service Canada. Don't forget, many of those Service Canada people will be losing their jobs. They got affected letters. They're also being laid off because of the restraints of the government in terms of its fiscal concerns.
So that's why we're doing it. I wish I could move it somewhere else, but I can't. I have to go by the rules and procedure.
And you'll cut me off, Mr. Chairman, but we'll have a vote on this, and we'll move on to the other vote, and we'll have a nice evening.
Thank you.
:
Shall vote 1b under Veterans Affairs carry?
ç
Vote 1b—Operating expenditures..........$2,890,963
(Vote 1b agreed to)
The Chair: We then go on to vote 5b, which is over $15 million. You've seen it in the papers.
All those in favour of vote 5b, please indicate with a show of hands.
ç
Vote 5b—The grants listed in the Estimates and contributions..........$15,855,400
(Vote 5b agreed to)
The Chair: Thank you. It's unanimous, so I don't have to ask for those opposed. I will put it on the record as unopposed.
Shall I report these supplementary estimates to the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: We'll then follow procedure.
Now I'm going to go to my professional assistant and ask whether I left anything out. I want to make sure I get it in legally.
On Monday we are going to go back to hopefully finishing up the final draft or the final copy of the report. Once that's done, certainly unless anybody has other business, we will see you in February. Think about that for Monday.
If everybody is satisfied and there is nothing further for the committee, thank you, we're done.