Proceedings of the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs
Issue 3 - Evidence - March 5, 2008
OTTAWA, Wednesday, March 5, 2008
The Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met this day at 12:11 p.m. to study on the services and benefits provided to members of the Canadian Forces, veterans of war and peacekeeping missions and members of their families in recognition of their services to Canada.
Senator Joseph A. Day (Deputy Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chairman: Welcome to the meeting of the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs. We are pleased to have with us today the Minister of Veterans Affairs, the Honourable Greg Thompson. He is here to share his views on various issues relating to veterans in Canada. In particular, we hope to hear from him on the implementation of the New Veterans Charter enacted in April 2006 subsequent to the passage of Bill C-45, on which this committee was very active. The bill was called An Act to provide services, assistance and compensation to or in respect of Canadian Forces members and veterans and to make amendments to certain Acts.
When the minister last appeared before the subcommittee on May 31, 2006, he described the New Veterans Charter as "a new path, a living breathing document that will evolve with the changing needs of our veterans and their families." It has now been in place for over one-and-a-half years and can reasonably be reviewed to determine if its implementation has been as effective as intended. Perhaps we could look at some of the things that might be changed to make it better.
Minister Thompson was first elected to the House of Commons in 1988. He was re-elected in 1997, 2000, 2004 and 2006. Most recently, he served as critic for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. Prior to this, he served as critic for public accounts, for health, for regional development, for the Treasury Board and for human resources development.
The Minister is accompanied today by Suzanne Tining, Deputy Minister, Veterans Affairs Canada, VAC, and Darragh Mogan, Director General, Program and Service Policy Division, Veterans Affairs Canada.
Minister, I will ask you to give your opening remarks and we will follow with questions.
Hon. Gregory Francis Thompson, P.C., M.P., Minister of Veterans Affairs: Thank you. I love the format here where all the senators are on the same side.
I want to acknowledge the people with me today whom you introduced; Mr. Mogan and Ms. Tining are here to assist.
Mr. Chairman, breaking away from protocol a little, in the audience we have, from the Royal Canadian Legion, Jack Frost, Dominion President, Wilf Edmond, Dominion First Vice-President and Pierre Allard, Director of the Service Bureau. I thank them for being with us. They are important, as you well know, to veterans. They are strong advocates for veterans and are helpful to myself and our people.
It is a pleasure today to be among a group of parliamentarians who are genuinely concerned with the well-being of our nation's greatest heroes.
I would like to begin my opening remarks with a short quotation from a speech by British Prime Minister David Lloyd George given a few days after the fighting had stopped following World War I: "What is our task? To make Britain a fit country for heroes to live in."
Ninety years later, his question and his answer are as true as ever. What is our task? To make Canada a fit country for our heroes to live in. That is why we are here today. It is to look at what we are doing as a country to care for and support those brave men and women who have always stood up for Canada. It is to look at how we are honouring the men and women who defend our shared values of freedom, democracy and the rule of law. It no more complicated than that; it could not be simpler.
As Canadians, have we been doing enough to serve those who have served us so well is a question we could ask. Everyone in this room will have his or her own answer. You will have your own opinions and, over the next 90 minutes, we will no doubt cover many issues on what we are accomplishing for our veterans and where we still need to do more work. We agree with our veterans' organization in recognizing there is more work to do.
After all, as I often say, no matter how much we do for our veterans, it will never be enough to repay the great debt we owe them. How could we ever fully repay these men and women for their sacrifices, for their achievements, for their complete willingness to give up everything important to them, to leave behind their loved ones, their homes and their careers to serve Canada? How do you thank the men and women who were willing to risk their own lives for our way of life and for you and me?
When you begin a debate that way it humbles you. It makes everything else seem small by comparison. However, I would argue that our government can be proud of its record on veterans. I would be willing to match our achievements after just two years against those of any other government in Canadian history. We have come a long way in a very short time.
Let me provide a few examples because, as we often say, actions speak louder than words. In just two years and three budgets, we have already budgeted a total of $1.6 billion more for our veterans than what was in the previous government's last budget. This is $1.6 billion for our veterans, for their families, and for the programs, benefits and services on which they count. It is $1.6 billion to better serve our veterans and to honour their remarkable service.
We discussed some of these when I lasted appeared before your committee and the chairman mentioned that date. We spoke about the New Veterans Charter that we had recently implemented representing the most sweeping changes to veterans programs and services in over 60 years.
Today, we can say that the implementation of the New Veterans Charter has been a success in those two years. There have been more than 6,000 disability awards granted, almost 1,800 clients have been approved for rehabilitation services — an approval rate of 92 per cent — and more than 1,500 Canadian Forces members and their families are receiving earnings-loss benefits to help them make ends meet during the transition process.
These are some of the main goals of the New Veterans Charter to deal with the realities facing our modern-day veterans. These are men and women retiring at younger ages and who want to start rewarding productive new careers outside the military. This includes men and women who have been injured, physically or mentally, and who want nothing more than to get better, to get back on their feet and contribute to our country with the same sense of purpose that led them to military service in the first place.
The New Veterans Charter is accomplishing that. It still needs fine tuning. However, as I said the last time, it was meant to be a living document, an open book that is evolving with the needs of our veterans and their families.
One of the most pressing needs we are finding with our veterans is the mental illness that comes with seeing combat action or serving on dangerous stressful missions. The psychological harm that comes with their service is very real. It is devastating and is equally tragic for veterans' families struggling to cope with the harm their loved ones have suffered.
We have to dedicate ourselves to these veterans and their families in the same way they have dedicated themselves to their missions — always 100 per cent. We cannot ask men and women to go overseas without making sure they know, instinctively, that we will be there for them when they need us.
The New Veterans Charter helps us do that. It reassures them that the supports will be there for them and their loved ones. We are taking action to deal with the spike in operational stress injuries. That is why we are doubling the number of operational stress injury clinics, often referred to as OSI clinics. They operate across the country.
We want to give our men and women the care they need and we want them to know help is available and that they do not have to suffer in silence. We are also getting better at the way we reach out to them in order to help them understand what they may be experiencing and to let them know they are not alone. We are there with them.
One new program in particular is producing great results. It is called the Operational Stress Injury Social Support Program, or OSISS, and is operated jointly with the Department of National Defence. The name is long but the goals are straightforward and effective. It is aimed at having peers helping our soldiers with operational stress injuries. It brings our counsellors who have suffered their own service-related mental injuries together. These are men and women who understand the tragic impact of such illnesses as post-traumatic stress disorder, PTSD, and can provide one-on-one group counselling.
We know this program is needed and we know it is working. You can see that by reading a new book written by Captain Fred Doucette, a New Brunswick man who served as a UN peacekeeper in Bosnia. In Empty Casing, Mr. Doucette offers a stark account of his experiences as a peacekeeper. He also talks about PTSD, the painful and vivid flashbacks, the nightmares and the anger that has changed him and left him in many ways an empty casing.
The comfort in this often-grim account is that Mr. Doucette says OSISS is making "'a big difference' in the lives of soldiers and veterans." As he recently told the Ottawa Citizen, he has witnessed a new attitude at the top of Veterans Affairs Canada and the Department of National Defence, DND. "I've seen some amazing changes," he said. You will see more changes and improvements. As we speak, we are training more OSISS coordinators and adding staff to our district offices at Veterans Affairs Canada and DND is doing the same. We are making it more effective and accessible. We will be making more announcements in the coming months.
At the same time, we are raising the profile of Veterans Affairs Canada and that of our Canadian Forces bases. We are working closer than ever with the Department of National Defence because we want to create a seamless transition for those Canadian Forces, CF, members leaving the military and joining our programs. This new approach is long overdue.
We recently saw a colour flowchart of the way retiring and releasing CF members cross over from DND to Veterans Affairs Canada. The maze of arrows and lines explained why some veterans fail to get the help out there. I saw the chart and I cannot figure it out.
We have to simplify the process, make it easier to understand and eliminate any gaps. Our veterans have already endured more than their fair share of hardship. By the time they take off the Canadian uniform for the final time, they have sacrificed enough and it is our turn to serve them.
For this reason, we introduced two important measures in the past year. The first is the Veterans Bill of Rights. It is something our veterans had been asking governments to do for four decades. It is something we promised in the last election and our government followed through on it. The Veterans Bill of Rights is a guarantee to our veterans that they will be treated by their federal government with respect, dignity, fairness and courtesy. It stipulates they will receive clear, easy-to-understand information about the federal programs available to them, and states they will receive all of the benefits and services that they are entitled to and which they have earned.
To make all of this happen, we have appointed a Veterans Ombudsman as we promised. In naming Colonel Pat Stogran as Canada's first Veterans Ombudsman, we have found someone capable of firmly speaking up for our veterans. He is someone determined to defend them and understands their needs and issues. After all, Colonel Stogran is a veteran himself.
Together, the Veterans Bill of Rights and the Veterans Ombudsman represent two major breakthroughs. These are two major achievements for our veterans and we should be proud of them. They show that we are matching our words with firm action.
Before closing, I would like to touch briefly on a few other accomplishments. The first is our resolution of the Agent Orange tests conducted at CFB Gagetown in the summers of 1966 and 1967. There are few files more difficult or complex to try to unravel and understand than what happened in Gagetown 40 years ago. In many ways, I understand why previous governments of all political stripes did not act. It is a complicated and controversial issue involving a mission of both civilians and military personnel. It has been blurred by time and distance.
I have often described the Agent Orange issue as a puzzle you find in your grandmother's attic. Pieces have gone missing or lost, and the full picture will never be truly known. However, none of that can be used as an excuse for refusing to act. We found a fair and compassionate way to solve this long-standing issue. With their $96.5 million plan, we are providing $20,000 in ex gratia payments to anyone who lived or trained on the base, or lived within five kilometres of the base, in the summers of 1966 and 1967. The only other eligibility requirement is that these recipients have been diagnosed with one of 12 diseases the U.S. National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine, IOM, has concluded can be associated with exposure to Agent Orange.
This is the right thing to do. While we know the base is safe and there have been no long-term health effects from the Agent Orange tests, we also know that, 40 years later, uncertainty remains over what happened. Forty years later, good people have lost the chance to prove the harm done to them. We realized this and we have acted. By the end of last month, more than 700 individuals were approved for a $20,000 payment.
There are more things I would like to add. Last week, Finance Minister Flaherty's third budget included $282 million over the next three years to extend the Veterans Independence Program, VIP, to more than 12,000 veterans survivors. This is good news for our veterans' widows who have waited, in some cases, more than 25 years for this help to remain independent in their own homes. This announcement supports those survivors who need it most and who can least afford it. We will provide these low-income or disabled survivors with up to $2,400 to cover bills for housekeeping and grounds maintenance so they can enjoy the quality of life they deserve. It is about respect and saying thank you for what you have done.
This brings me to the final point I would like to make in these introductory remarks — paying proper tribute to our veterans and their families. We have done much during our first two years to remember their sacrifices and accomplishments. We ensured through increased security and ceremonial presence that the integrity of our National War Memorial and the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier are maintained, and that the Canada Memorial in Green Park in London, England remains a fitting tribute to our veterans. We have also ensured stable funding for the next decade for the Juno Beach Centre in France. Additionally, we have led Canadian delegations overseas to commemorate special anniversaries for Vimy, Passchendaele, Beaumont-Hamel, Dieppe and others.
We have held countless ceremonies in Canada to remember and reflect on how blessed we are as a nation and to remember that we owe this great country — the best country in the world — to those willing to die for it. This year we will mark three more major anniversaries. The year 2008 will remind all Canadians of our three greatest military achievements. We will commemorate the 90th anniversary of the end of the First World War, the 65th anniversary of the Battle of the Atlantic in the Second World War and the 55th anniversary of the Korean ceasefire. Also, we expect to be marking our first national Peacekeeping Day this year. This is essentially our entire military history covered in a single year.
With each of these occasions, we will help new generations of Canadians to understand our proud past and how great our country is thanks to ordinary men and women who accomplished extraordinary things. These are men and women who continue to do extraordinary things serving Canada.
This is a proud heritage we have inherited; it is a tradition handed down to us from what we call our greatest generations. It is a history of heritage that comes with responsibilities for us to shoulder. We have a sacred duty to honour our servicemen and servicewomen, to remember our debt and to pledge our steadfast support for those who wear the uniform and those who have worn Canada's uniform. That is our mission.
We are here today to make sure that Canada is a fit place for our truest heroes to live in, lest we forget.
The Deputy Chairman: Thank you for those words, minister. All of us here, irrespective of the political party we represent, agree with you wholeheartedly on your points.
We appreciate the cooperation we have with your department. We have said on many occasions that you have the best job in cabinet working for Veterans Affairs. I hope your deputy minister, Ms. Tining, will take that message back again. We have said it before and will continue to provide accolades for the fine work you are doing on behalf of our veterans' community here in Canada and elsewhere.
The first senator on my list of questioners is Senator Downe from Prince Edward Island.
Senator Downe: Thank you, minister, for your detailed presentation; however, I am concerned about two omissions. First, could you update the committee on the veterans health service review? Officials from your department appeared before this committee last year and said that the department was close to providing options to your government. Could you give us an update on that review?
Mr. Thompson: The review is pretty well completed. It is going to provide us with a way forward in terms of how we provide services to our veterans. We would like to move to a needs-based system as opposed to an entitlements-based one.
In looking at our client base today, you can see why that should happen and why we are engaged in doing that. If you look at how services are provided within the New Veterans Charter, we have adopted that philosophy already within the department because it is very much a needs-based system as opposed to an entitlement system.
This is something we will continue to move forward on, but some of what we are doing today is a result of that work. It is not something I have to point to in the future that we will do; it is happening today.
Also, within the department, we believe we can do more internally with the funding we have to move in that direction, without any legislative or regulatory changes to allow it to happen. It is focusing on how we can better serve those veterans based on what we have heard from all of the people who have been engaged in that, including our veterans' community because it is something they are concerned about.
When you look at the aging veteran, the Second World War veterans are all octogenarians, and some are into their 90s. We are losing, as you well know, about 30,000 a year. Mr. Frost told me last week that works out to about 70 a day.
They are reaching a point in life where they need those services. We have to find every way possible within the structures we have to move forward to make sure they get that assistance in the remaining days of their life. We are making some progress.
Senator Downe: As I understood last year from departmental officials when they appeared before our committee, they were going to make recommendations to the government. Have those recommendations been received?
Mr. Thompson: I am aware of most of them. It goes back to my previous answer in terms of knowing those recommendations and moving internally within the department to recognize some of them.
Senator Downe: The second omission from your statement, and something this committee will look at, concerns complaints we have heard about the Service Income Security Insurance Plan, SISIP. What is your government's position on deducting the pain and suffering payments from the disabled veterans' long-term disability plan?
Mr. Thompson: This issue has been around almost as long as Parliament. This is an issue many members have brought up to various governments, Liberal and Conservative, in terms of changes to the plan. Basically, you are talking about the word no one likes to use in politics — a clawback.
There are a number of reasons why it is a difficult one to move on. First, the front end of how you pay into these particular plans would have to be adjusted. It would be a restructuring, not just in Veterans Affairs, but across every government agency in the country.
That is an established practice which has been around a long time. It is a difficult one to argue publicly because you are saying, "Why should that be taken away? I am disabled, so I should get that little extra benefit."
The other thing is philosophically — maybe practically — some in the insurance business will argue that, if you make it lucrative for someone to have a disability, it has a downward effect on the program as a whole. You could argue that you would get a benefit over and above what you paid in for knowing that, at the end of your days, that system actually exists. Therefore, that clawback position exists and it would have to be adjusted — actually, the cost across government departments would be in the billions of dollars to readjust it.
If I attempted to make anyone believe we will be changing it, I would not be telling the truth. I doubt if this government could ever change that, knowing what we know and knowing what past governments have done and what future governments will do. It would take a complete overhaul of the entire system to allow that change to occur. It would be too expensive.
Senator Downe: I appreciate your answer. As I indicated, this committee will look at that issue and likely will have some recommendations for you.
You mentioned the Veterans Independence Program and the extension that will cover 12,000 additional Canadians. The complaint I hear from veterans is that prior to the election, the promise made by the then-opposition leader would have covered all partners of Second World War and Korean War veterans — in other words, 150,000 Canadians — so we are 138,000 short. Is there any hope for them to be covered?
Mr. Thompson: There is always hope. The Veterans Independence Program really does work. It allows veterans to stay at home longer than they would normally be able to and there is long-term care available for the veterans as well.
You are correct in terms of the bigger number — what it would take to bring them in. Based on the changes we introduced last week, or what was announced in the budget, this would bring about 30,000 more people into the program than were there two years ago. This one additional change will bring about 12,000 to 15,000 widows into the system.
This would be going to those we have identified who need the help the most and could not afford it themselves. Under that greater number are the people who really do need it. For example, any widow in receipt of the guaranteed income supplement would immediately qualify for it, or if that widow is in receipt of a disability tax credit, she would also qualify. We target the group of widows who are most in need of help.
Senator Downe: When I wrote to your office about veterans contacting me about Agent Orange and the compensation package, you responded quickly and arranged a briefing with Wes McLean from your political office and Garry Doyle from the Department of Veterans Affairs. That was most helpful and I passed the information they imparted to me on to those veterans who found it to be useful as well.
The concern is similar to VIP. In the last election, the then-opposition leader, now Prime Minister, promised compensation for everyone from 1956 to 1984. You would understand why veterans are disappointed that the illness they suffer now, which they believe might be connected to their service at CFB Gagetown, is not covered. Is it possible there will be a review of this compensation package?
Mr. Thompson: We have stuck with the 1956-to-1984 time period. We are talking about unregistered and unlicensed herbicides and defoliants. We were clear on that when we made the announcement. We identified the range of years and honoured that commitment.
We went to unlicensed and unregistered herbicides because we had forestry companies, farming operations, NB Power and so on using herbicides. In fact, a spraying program against the spruce budworm in New Brunswick happened during that period as well. Therefore, it could pertain only to unlicensed and unregistered defoliants. They were identified in the task-finding mission set up by the previous government and we honoured that. They identified Agent Orange as the only unlicensed and unregistered defoliant used. We honoured that commitment and stuck to it. We honoured the task force that was set up by the previous government, which was supported by Andy Scott and Bill Graham at the time. Mr. Scott was the member of Parliament next to me who was the lead minister in terms of the Province of New Brunswick to set this up.
Dr. Dennis Furlong did his discovery, which was extensive and very good work. We did not criticize any of it and simply let him do his work. When we crafted this package, Senator Downe, it went far beyond the recommendations of Dr. Furlong. I think we did a good job and, as I have said, when you wait 40 to 50 years to try to fix a problem, you truly have a problem because pieces of information are usually missing by that time. What we have done is fair and generous. I do not believe we could have done any better than we did. I am not sure whether the package would be graded an 8 out of 10 or a 5 out of 10 but, for the families affected, we are about 80 per cent. That is as good as we can get it and I am pleased with it. I have had support from the opposition in the House of Commons in terms of how we approached it.
Senator Downe: I have one final question. If we have a second round, I will have some questions on the supplementary estimates.
This last is a point of disagreement, minister. The veterans heard the now Prime Minister, then Leader of the Opposition, Stephen Harper, in Woodstock, New Brunswick, on January 11, 2006, when he said:
We will stand up for full and fair compensation for persons exposed to defoliant spraying during the period from 1956 to 1984. We'll disclose all information concerning the spraying to Veterans and Civilians and we will provide medical testing to any person who may have been exposed.
The veterans heard him say that, and you may have been there, minister.
Mr. Thompson: I was in the same room for some particular reason although I am not sure what it was.
Senator Downe: The veterans were led to believe they would be compensated but now, and this is the point of disagreement because of the restricted years, there is a difference. Others may have comments so I will end with that.
Senator Dallaire: I would like to move from commemorative items to current activities and needs. First, on the commemorative side, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the Department of Veterans Affairs on the memorial at Vimy. In particular, I thank you for the response and comments in the media, in which I participated for the French translation, and how rapidly that was sorted out. The attitude that seemed to be projected of the French language not being as important as English was eradicated. Certainly, that attitude seems eradicated from your department.
I sit on the Vimy memorial conservation advisory committee. Recently, we had a meeting and applauded the quality of the work and discussed a maintenance plan and continued operating and maintenance costs for the monument. I applaud the fact that you are looking at phase 2 of the Vimy restoration in respect of the grounds and the upcoming proposal for that. The plan is absolutely first class. Having served, paraded and visited there, I think this second phase will change the whole nature of the monument from simply being just that to a complete site, where one will be able to grasp the enormity of the battle, the sacrifices made and the overall significance of it. Phase 2 will make the monument come to life as more than just a commemorative monument; it will be interactive. I hope that phase 2 will be funded. Perhaps it will be your 100th anniversary project for 2017, if we have to wait that long.
The idea of bringing Vimy home was raised. That does not mean building another monument here but rather how we can bring something of it here so that we do not have to travel to Vimy for the experience. There might be value in setting up a small group to look at 2017, which will be the 150th anniversary of the country as well, and making a tangible link of substance. It will not necessarily be a reproduction but should be something of enormity so that we feel Vimy is here.
I will end on the following question: With regard to the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, should it receive the new Canadian-Victoria-Cross equivalent? That should be looked at. Having served, there are many occasions when soldiers do acts of enormous bravery that are not recorded because the officer did not see it, was killed, was posted or simply did not have time to write it up. This would recognize the hundreds of thousands of acts of bravery by many of these soldiers that were never recorded.
I will move on to the budget. My question pertains to post-traumatic stress disorder. There will be demonstrations with regard to the implementation of that aspect of the Kirby report. Would it be possible for the Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue centre in Montreal to become a clinic or institute specializing in PTSD, teaching, and research and development, with beds dedicated to the care of patients with PTSD? Would you consider that for Sainte-Anne's Hospital and in respect of Senator Kirby's report?
Mr. Thompson: I appreciate your remarks in terms of Vimy and what we can do regarding the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. On the award and commemorative side, it is important because it all fits together, does it not?
That event at Vimy Ridge was wonderful. We talk about keeping the memory alive. There were 5,000 students who marched on the hill. I will not comment too much because you are very supportive of what we are doing in terms of commemoration, but we must do better and work more closely with our schools and young people to ensure that they understand our history and the great sacrifices of so many.
Back in a previous life, over 38 years ago I taught history in school. We did a terrible job. We did not have the support materials we have today. The schools and many of the teachers are doing much better than they have ever done. We are providing them with some support — not all, because at the end of the day it comes down to individual teachers and what they want to focus on and the curriculum.
Generally, however, we are doing a better job and some of that was evident with what happened at Vimy.
Hopefully, all of us will be there for 2017. I am not sure I will still be minister then but I hope I will be in good health and we will get over there together.
In terms of budgets, we did allocate $100 million based on Senator Kirby's report. That is going to five centres across the country. Veterans Affairs expects to work closely on this file because, as you well know, you are among those who raised this issue with me after being sworn in. This is one issue on which you can speak from experience. You understand that so many of our soldiers and veterans suffer in silence. I remember you telling me the story of you as a young man in Montreal going to the Legion with your dad and how that had such a profound impact on you.
We are very supportive of Sainte-Anne's Hospital and what they are doing. Basically, that is the shining star in our organization in terms of post-traumatic stress disorder, setting up the correct models and world-class research. That is something we will continue to fund with great emphasis.
Senator Dallaire: You have five clinics. Hopefully, you are looking at providing them with beds for some critical immediate response that we have indicated is needed because, across the 10 clinics now, that requirement is real.
With regard to Sainte-Anne's, I wish to mention that it took us nearly 12 years to get a decent program relaunched after the end of the Cold War, with thousands upon thousands of new generations of veterans not getting served because of trying to readjust to the new requirement. We had lost the skill because we had been at peace for 45 years. Should we ever go back to peace, without an institute that is doing R&D and teaching, we will then create more casualties because it will be a problem of the past and we will drop it. Only by creating such an institute will you guarantee that the continuum will be there. I hope it is perceived in that sense, that it is needed not just today but into the future.
The budget also talks about something I find to be most interesting — namely, the strengthening of partnerships with Aboriginal Canadians. Is that linked in with the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs or is this a separate initiative? How far is that instrument actually moving down the road with our Aboriginal people? Being on that committee and seeing Aboriginal veterans and wanting to recruit more Aboriginals, this would be critical. We do not seem to be getting any information about that.
Mr. Thompson: We will have to ensure we provide you and your colleagues with more information on what we are doing. I have met with Aboriginal veterans on several occasions. They still have a number of outstanding issues. To be honest with each another, they have some issues. We broke bread together just before Christmas. They came in from all parts of Canada.
Basically, we went through some of those issues and I told them, in an honest discussion, that I think we can move on some of those issues quickly, but others were more problematic. We are identifying some issues that we can move quickly on with our sights fixed on the others that are difficult. Many Aboriginals feel that the re-establishment packages offered following World War II were not communicated properly and there are issues surrounding them. That is one of the big ones to look at.
At the end of the day, they know we are sincere and are looking at issues and fixing some of them as we go along. I say in every one of my speeches that we cannot do it all in two or three years, but we are making progress and will sincerely continue to work with our Aboriginal community to see if we can continue to resolve some of those outstanding issues.
Senator Dallaire: As an example, with more and more interest in the Arctic and getting the Canadian Rangers to become a permanent versus a part-time force, and getting First Nations involved, you will need a new process to meet that requirement because they will be new-generation veterans just serving in the difficulties there.
Because you are in the business of human beings, you are caught up with having to produce 100 per cent. Unlike someone else who can get a good deal on a new product, you must hit 100 per cent, and if you do not, you are then held accountable. Because of that, the pressure is always on you to do far more.
That brings me to the next issue — namely, soldiers who are killed. They are there in action. Their spouses receive the lump sum. However, if they are single, the family gets nothing. Many of our reservists are single. Many of your new veterans will be single because they are coming in the door and we are sending them overseas within a year or a year-and-a-half and they are still single. There is something that does not seem to click well. The families have nurtured their child and are sending their unmarried child off. The family must still continue to live with that sacrifice and does not receive any compensation of that nature. There must be a better balance there — something between $250,000 and $0. There is room there for the family to receive something to be able to help the other children continue in the family and live with that loss. Could that be looked at?
Mr. Thompson: Thank you, general. You have a great institutional memory. That issue arose and is a sensitive one to deal with. You are absolutely right in how you laid it out. The $250,000 tax-free lump-sum payment was intended in legislation for dependants, children and spouses or a partner. In some of these cases, we had a young man or woman who was not married and had no children. Therefore, the benefit does not go to the mother or father. There is no beneficiary that can be designated on the $250,000. It is intended by law for dependants and spouses.
This is an important issue. I was sensitive to it when I became minister. In fact, you and I had a talk in my office. The charter was embraced by all parties. It was basically passed in the House of Commons in one day with no debate. It was agreed that this is a good thing and it was supported by all politicians, all parties, all the veterans groups and associations and so on. The New Veterans Charter was only implemented after we took office. The bill was passed in April or May of 2005 and we were sworn into office on February 6 of 2006. We had a number of widows with children and families that did not get the $250,000 because it was not implemented. One thing I did that would provide comfort to many people who know this was to take a proposal to cabinet and by Order-in-Council we extended that payment to them. Our argument is that if we were smarter as parliamentarians, we would have implemented it immediately. I would argue that the department was ready to implement, but an election or something else got in the way. That is an example of going beyond what is expected in order to extend that to women and children who really needed it.
On the other side, as a result of encouragement by DND, just about every soldier now takes out life insurance through the SISIP program under which they can name a beneficiary. They are encouraged to do so as a result of a specific case.
With a little counselling, these young men and women would probably have opted to buy that. DND is going to great lengths to ensure they do that now.
Senator Dallaire: SISIP and this whole concept is often questioned. I understand that soldiers are not allowed to deploy if they do not sign up for SISIP, so even the married members are signing up for it. A disparity still exists.
I realize that this is now the law, but the whole spirit of this charter was to give you, the minister, room to manoeuvre, not for the department to create more rules. I contend that it is still possible to reconsider this with regard to, not dependants, but immediate family and their dependants.
Senator Banks: I appreciate the candour of your answer to Senator Downe about the clawback.
Does that answer also apply to the bureaucratic interface between SISIP's long-term disability program and the VAC rehabilitation program? The Legion recommended to us that the government find a way to remove that impediment and make those programs work better together. Can that be done or is it precluded by the reason you gave — that is, that you could not deal with the clawback?
Mr. Thompson: I think you are referring to the transition and cooperation between Veterans Affairs and DND in how we provide service to our veterans. We have made a lot of progress on that. It is something of which we are painfully aware. One issue that has always confounded the department is the transition period between soldiers and veterans when they are sometimes caught in the bureaucracy.
In terms of the rehabilitation and support that veterans and their families need, we are doing much more with DND. We start the process for retirement with DND much earlier now to prepare these people for private life.
As a general, Senator Dallaire always referred to the new charter as a bridge between military life and civilian life. The bridge is being strengthened to get soldiers over it. That is truly one of our biggest challenges. I will provide you with documentation on the progress being made. I am comfortable with what we have done.
In relation to some of the benefits, in the future you may see some changes in what is necessary in terms of benefits that some of our young soldiers are paying into. We are now planning a new charter that will deliver that service, so there might be some duplication which can be finely tuned. We are looking at that and have identified some issues.
When you sign up to be a soldier, you want to be a soldier until retirement, if you can, at whatever age that might be. In the military, retirement is sometimes unpredictable due to injuries that could occur, even in training. When you are in a conflict zone or a peacekeeping/peacemaking zone, tragedy can strike unexpectedly. When soldiers becomes disabled or suffer from a wound, DND, to the credit of General Rick Hillier, now does everything in their power to encourage them to stay in the military. In the past, these soldiers were immediately transferred to us but now DND encourages them to stay in the military. If that means updating their skills, that is done. Psychologically, it is a powerful thing for DND to do. They are saying, "We will not give up on you. It was not your fault that you got wounded or that you suffered an injury." They are doing great work to allow that to happen.
On the other hand, we are always there for them because some of them prefer to leave the military. Every year we have about 4,000 new entries into the system. As I said, we are losing about 20,000 veterans a year due to old age. However, we are bringing in 4,000 to 4,500 new soldiers every year. DND is doing everything to keep those whose careers are affected by injury.
Senator Banks: My final question is two-pronged. There is an office referred to colloquially as "The Centre" that deals with the interface between DND and your department.
Is that a formal organization or an informal, ad hoc meeting of minds between the two departments? Second, and more important in my mind, you may be familiar with the question we have raised about members of the British Commonwealth Air Training Program who joined the RCAF at the beginning of the last war and then were seconded to private flying schools to train pilots and whose service time was not counted while they were doing that. Sadly, the particular constituent about whom we were asking this question has recently passed away before the benefits that might otherwise accrue to him were available. He was short by 10 days of the 365 days necessary to qualify.
If you included the time that he was training pilots in the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan, he was years beyond what would be required.
We are told by Ms. Tining that DND determines military service. Is there anything we can do to break down that barrier where you could — perhaps using The Centre — find a way to redress a problem which seems to me and others to be wrong?
Mr. Thompson: I know the case you are referring to. It is not only frustrating, but very sad — someone who, at a young age, served less than 365 days and was left outside the system. I know exactly what you are talking about. You have framed it exactly the way it was.
It is DND in terms of recognizing the completion of that service. You are right — for this individual and a number of soldiers — men and women in uniform — to fit that particular definition, the number is much higher than I thought it would be. What makes this case of yours interesting is the fact that he continued serving by training under a different name, basically doing the same thing under a different organization. That one is frustrating.
Senator Banks: Paid by the government, one way or another.
Mr. Thompson: I do not know how he was remunerated but it was within the British Commonwealth. It is frustrating. Hopefully, at some time, that 365-day problem could be addressed. We have talked to DND officials on it. I am not trying to push everything over to them because maybe it is something we can look at in terms of what we define as a veteran ourselves.
I think I am correct that, under the acts governing us, there is no real definition of a veteran at Veterans Affairs, believe it or not. Maybe that is something we could look at.
When you are talking about government, we are all in this together. It is not just a DND problem. We do not have any of our so-called lawyers here, but I think within Veterans Affairs I am safe in saying we do not have a precise definition of "veteran." Maybe we can do some work ourselves on it.
Concerning the other one you mentioned, there is a name for that transition team.
Suzanne Tining, Deputy Minister, Veterans Affairs Canada: It is a DND-VAC centre and it has been in existence for many years. We are increasing the number of Veterans Affairs' employees in that centre. The purpose of The Centre is to act as a reference office for releasing military and families to help them navigate through all the services available to them.
The Centre is in Ottawa. There is a physical location. We can certainly arrange a visit if that would be of interest to senators around the table.
We are in the process of working with DND to increase the presence of The Centre geographically across the country, probably at a number of bases to start with. It exists and is expanding.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I have a few questions about PTSD, post-traumatic stress disorder, doubling the centres and that you are training more staff. Are staff being trained to be gender sensitive to women soldiers returning from Afghanistan? If so, how is this training happening?
Mr. Thompson: I know that was a question you put to officials the last time they met.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I did.
Mr. Thompson: Gender sensitive in the sense that, in many cases we are not dealing with a soldier, we are dealing with the family unit. The training they receive in order to qualify for that service is very thorough. They are sensitized to it. However, precise gender sensitivity, I would say no other than they are certified professionals and their day-to-day work involves dealing with men and women. I think right from the get-go they are very sensitive to that.
One of the beauties of the New Veterans Charter is that the emphasis is on the family. We are talking about veterans suffering in silence but many who suffer in silence are members of the family. Statistically, nine times out of ten, the veteran will be male versus female, but on the other side much of the counselling that occurs is with the wife or spouse.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I understand that. I am concerned that there be some watching for complaints if these things are not being taken into account, so if there needs to a correction that could happen.
On the other hand, there may be members of the Armed Forces who are homosexual. Therefore, what a "family" is needs to be taken into account when counselling is undertaken with whatever kind of family they have.
The materials you are putting out for school kids and involving them in the commemoration stuff, what place does the role of women take in these materials, in particular, the rise of women in the military during the Cold War period? There seems to be a huge exclusion. I am told by some of these serving women that they are simply forgotten. I just point that out, and I am sure your staff will look into it.
I cannot remember exactly how Senator Dallaire put it, but he was talking about families and single women. At some point I thought, oh, yes, what about those Cold War women? They are constantly complaining that, as single woman in the military at that time, there were no benefits for them and, say, an aged parent, no benefits for any other members of what they would have considered to be their family. It would be a non-traditional family under the terms of DND or perhaps Veterans Affairs.
Senator Dallaire: Then we threw them out.
Senator Nancy Ruth: They are still concerned about it.
Would you like to make any comments about that now?
Mr. Thompson: I find this all interesting, senator. I do know it is an important issue for you.
Just so you know, and I am not sure if this raises me up on a pedestal, but one of my favourite groups within the veterans' community are the Nursing Sisters. Every year since becoming minister, I have taken them to the Château Laurier for Valentine's Day.
Many women are forgotten in the system. Generally, we hear about war heroes but the contribution by women is incredible. Those who worked in armaments factories, and any woman married to a soldier probably deserves a medal herself.
Senator Nancy Ruth: So do the hookers who served them, sir. All the women do.
Mr. Thompson: I always stand to be corrected, senator.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I am glad you are sensitive to it.
Mr. Thompson: One thing I want to mention, which I think you will be pleased with, and it goes back to a point you were making earlier. We have been criticized a little for this. When identifying a veteran, basically they should be looked at as a family unit. When you are talking about the veteran you cannot say just "the veteran," because you have this other support group — their children, wives, partners, same sex or otherwise. We did something of which I am very proud in the last budget. We set aside $282 million for enhancement of the VIP program to widows and caregivers.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Sir, with respect, $2,500 would not buy me much in services, especially if it is limited to gardening and snow shovelling. However, it is there and is better than it was.
On page 14 of your speech, you said that $96.5 million was set aside for the Agent Orange program and on the next page you said 700 people have taken that up. That is only $14 million. What has happened to the other $80 million and what is it doing?
Mr. Thompson: There are guidelines in terms of the statistics and what we could expect that number to be. This answer will wind up being longer than you want it to be. We have an IOM condition, so you are looking at that broader group and how many individuals would have that condition, and from that you can extrapolate how many would possibly receive this benefit of a $20,000 payment. Presently, 700 have been paid, and there are many more in the system who have not been approved and that I think will be approved ultimately. We have that number. To be honest, when it is all paid out, I expect it will be less than the money we set aside. Basically, we will always have a buffer in there. There are many more in the system. They are being processed fairly quickly, based on how fast government responds or does anything. I am comfortable with how it is flowing out. We have people on the ground in Gagetown. A whole support team is processing applications. We are geared up to do it. When we come here next year, if we are all so blessed, that number will be bigger than it is today. We can take some comfort that we have enough money set aside to do the job we said we would do.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Have all the people who need to know been notified?
Mr. Thompson: This is close to me because 90 per cent of the training area is in the area I represent in the House of Commons.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I saw that.
Mr. Thompson: I visited all those communities personally and had town hall meetings after the announcement was made. These people, especially in the rural areas, do not carry BlackBerrys and cell phones and do not have the modern communications tools we do. I held town hall meetings to touch base with all of them. We advertised nationally and so on, and that job continues. We will continue to ensure that people are aware. There will be a close-out date on this program.
Senator Nancy Ruth: When is the close-out date?
Mr. Thompson: I believe it is April 9, if I am not mistaken. In that period, if any senator or member in Parliament wants to assist us in getting that information out in newsletters, please let us know.
The Deputy Chairman: Thank you, Senator Nancy Ruth. I appreciate your questions. They are probative and helpful. Unfortunately, I will have to tell the two senators on the second round that we will not get to them as they probably had suspected. We are, under the Rules of the Senate, not to sit when the chamber is in session. The fact that there are many more questions than we had time for is an indication of the stature of our witnesses here today. We thank you for your forthrightness. I will give the final word to the chairman of our committee, who is from Ontario, but I would like to think his heart is in your riding of southwestern New Brunswick.
Senator Meighen: In spite of VIA Rail's best efforts, the storm resulted in over an hour of delay. I apologize to my friends on both sides of this table for arriving late. It is nice to see the minister, who is my member of Parliament from New Brunswick. I have also worked with the other witnesses on various programs within the ambit of Veterans Affairs. Not having heard many of the earlier questions, if I am covering old ground, please stop me.
I am looking at the press release on the VIP program. As I understand it, if the veteran was receiving a disability pension or a war veterans' allowance but not the VIP housekeeping or grounds maintenance remuneration at the time of his or her death or admission to a health care facility, the survivor will now have the opportunity. What if a veteran has not been in receipt of a disability pension, has not been in receipt of a war veteran's allowance, and was not in receipt of the VIP program, but then subsequently to that person's death, his or her survivor fell upon hard times or their situation changed dramatically? Would they be excluded for applying for this extension of the VIP program?
Mr. Thompson: I will give a answer longer than you want to hear, but you are a lawyer by trade so you will shut me down if you think I am going over time here.
We have made some internal changes in the VIP program within the department through regulation to extend that benefit to veterans who need it. Within Veterans Affairs, we cannot fix all of these problems, and I am not blaming it on any government because various political parties, two mainly, have formed the Government of Canada. However, you will find that some veterans, because they do not have a pensionable condition, are not eligible for the most low-cost and effective program we have, which is VIP. They have to be in a pensionable condition, which does not seem to make a whole lot of sense.
Those veterans will have access to our beds across the country. At Sunnybrook Hospital, it costs about $100,000 per bed to keep a veteran in the hospital and I think most Canadians do not hesitate on paying that. The fact is this veteran could have stayed at home at a much cheaper cost to the Government of Canada and enjoyed those few years at home as opposed to going into a facility. We have actually changed some of those internal rules to extend VIP to some of these veterans who normally did not qualify and are in their frail stages of life. Frail veterans is an issue the Royal Canadian Legion has focused on.
I am hoping we can do more. This is an example of a policy that does not really make any sense, and we are trying to make sense of something. Within the veterans' community, within Veterans Affairs, we have all these classifications to determine whether you will get a benefit. I would love to streamline that and make it more sensible. In the department, we have highly qualified people and, invariably, the staff and the professionals are always running back to the book to find out how this category of veteran is treated if they have not dealt with one in a while. We are trying to streamline some of that. The short answer to your question in terms of the widows is they will be eligible for the benefit.
The Deputy Chairman: Minister, Madam Deputy Minister and Mr. Mogan, on behalf of the Senate Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs, we thank you for the work you and your department are doing for the well-being of veterans and their families. We look forward to continuing to work with you to improve on that where we can and to support your work where we can.
Mr. Thompson: Thank you. You say I have the best job in government and you are right — I do. It is a remarkable job and one that I am honoured to have, and I will continue to do my best.
The Deputy Chairman: We are pleased to have you there.
The committee adjourned.