Proceedings of the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs
Issue 2 - Evidence - May 27, 2009
OTTAWA, Wednesday, May 27, 2009
The Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met this day at 12:03 p.m. to study on the services and benefits provided to members of the Canadian Forces; to veterans who have served honourably in Her Majesty's Canadian armed forces in the past; to members and former members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and its antecedents; and all of their families.
Senator Michael A. Meighen (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, today, we are very pleased to have before us the Honourable Gregory F. Thompson, Minister of Veterans Affairs. You are accompanied by Ms. Suzanne Tining, Deputy Minister and Mr. Keith H. Hillier, Assistant Deputy Minister, Service Delivery and Commemoration. I am sure those two are complementary functions.
Keith H. Hillier, Assistant Deputy Minister, Service Delivery and Commemoration, Veterans Affairs Canada: Pretty much so, senator.
The Chair: Members of the committee will know that Minister Thompson is here today to bring us up-to-date on his views on issues relating to veterans in Canada. In particular, we hope to seek his views on the status of various issues being addressed by Veterans Affairs Canada and on the nature of issues that may be faced by Canadian veterans in the future. The minister last appeared before us in March 2008.
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, health, regional development, the Treasury Board and for Human Resources Development Canada.
I should note that Ms. Tining was Associate Deputy Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. She was also Executive Director and Deputy Head of the Office of the Indian Residential Schools Resolution Canada.
Members of the committee present are Senator Colin Kenny from Ontario, Senator Tommy Banks from Ontario, Senator Percy E. Downe from Prince Edward Island and Senator Pamela Wallin from Saskatchewan.
Senator Kenny: Alberta.
The Chair: What did I say?
Senator Kenny: Ontario.
The Chair: I said Ontario for Senator Banks? That I know is a dreadful slight and I apologize.
I think Senator Kenny invented it, but Senator Banks is from Alberta as everyone knows. He is well known in Ontario and elsewhere in Canada. I think he can claim to be an adopted citizen of every province other than Alberta.
Having escaped from that dreadful faux pas, minister, we are a fairly relaxed committee. However, we are anxious to hear you and to have an opportunity to ask you some questions. Without further ado, would you please proceed with your statement?
Hon. Gregory Francis Thompson, P.C., M.P., Minister of Veterans Affairs: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We in New Brunswick lay claim to you, Senator Meighen. I want to add one point to your introduction. I did win the election in 2008 and that qualifies me to sit at the table. I think you left that out.
The Chair: Have you ever lost an election?
Mr. Thompson: It was a perfect introduction.
Good afternoon, honourable senators. It is great to see so many familiar faces with us. I feel very comfortable coming before you because I know that you pay special attention to our veterans and our men and women in uniform. I believe our veterans are in good hands with the quality of senators around this table.
I want to congratulate you, Senator Meighen, on your reappointment as chair and for Senator Banks as deputy chair. I am suffering through a cold. If I leave the table, it is not that I am upset. It is probably to clear my nasal passages. We will attempt to get through the day.
I want to apologize for having to cancel my appearance earlier this month. As many of you know, I went to Afghanistan that week and it forced me to change my schedule with little notice. I appreciate your understanding.
As I have said many times, our veterans unite parliamentarians and all Canadians like few things can. Many ordinary Canadians step forward to defend our shared values of life, freedom and democracy. It is truly extraordinary. I had a chance to see that last week when I was in Afghanistan. I had the opportunity to meet the men and women who put their lives on the line every day. It was truly a rewarding experience. I know many of you have been there too. I have attempted in the last three years to get there and simply cancelled everything and said "I have to go." I am glad I did; it was an extraordinary experience for me and for those who took part.
Our veterans have always been the same. In a little more than a week, nations around the world will pause to remember D-Day and the Battle of Normandy. We will look back and realize that this was not only a turning point in the Second World War, but a defining moment in the 20th century. I believe we will have an event in the Senate on June 2.
How do we ever repay such accomplishments and such sacrifice? That is what your work here is all about: It is about ensuring our veterans and their families receive the care and the honour they truly earned and deserve.
I think we have done a pretty good job over the last three years meeting our responsibilities. Our veterans' organizations have been very supportive of what we have done, though there is more to do. We have implemented the New Veterans Charter and created a Veterans Bill of Rights. We have appointed Canada's first Veterans Ombudsman and expanded the Veterans Independence Program. We have doubled the number of our operational stress injury clinics and addressed the testing of Agent Orange at CFB Gagetown over 40 years ago. We have consistently stood shoulder to shoulder with our veterans — and their families, I should add.
Of course, I know there is more to do. For example, I know that you have been looking at what we call the "transition gap," that point where a releasing or retiring CF member becomes a veteran. We are continually improving it and listening to the young men and women coming through, and we are making it much better.
I will give you just one example of how we are accomplishing that: Since March, we have announced the opening of 19 integrated personnel support centres on bases and wings across the country. They are jointed operated by DND and Veterans Affairs Canada. They essentially provide one-stop service for ill and injured CF members, veterans and, again, their families.
This model is very similar to what we have been doing for years at places like CFB Valcartier, where we now have 16 full-time staff on the base. In fact, we have a staff of about five — soon to go to nine — in Gagetown, New Brunswick, which is a major base. We have those people on the ground.
In fact, even before this program was launched, we had a presence on 32 of our 37 wings and bases across the country, conducting transitional interviews and other important work. This kind of approach improves our ability to help those men and women who really need it; it helps to keep them from falling through any cracks. It helps them to become active members of their community and, therefore, it reduces the chances of greater problems down the road like homelessness or untreated mental illnesses.
Senator Romeo Dallaire has called our efforts "the best in the world." He has described them as a bridge that is helping CF members make the successful transition from military life to civilian life.
Combined with the wellness programs offered through the New Veterans Charter, we are making a new and lasting difference. We have 220,000 veterans and RCMP and their families depending directly on Veterans Affairs as clients, and 170,000 of them are receiving disability pensions.
Obviously, even our best efforts cannot prevent every potential problem. Things like post-traumatic stress disorder can actually take months or years to surface, but we are doing everything we possibly can. I want you to know that we take our responsibility to these men and women very seriously.
I see it with everyone I meet at Veterans Affairs. They are totally committed public servants, committed to doing the best they can. We sometimes complain about the bureaucratic red tape or the slow pace of government but, when you see our staff working on the front lines, you cannot dispute their dedication, their compassion or their passion for what they are doing. They want to make a difference and they are, steadily and surely.
The New Veterans Charter is a perfect example. It focuses on the wellness of veterans and extending our assistance beyond disability pensions. It is about providing the kind of comprehensive care that veteran's want and need to make a successful transition to civilian life.
Here are just a few examples of the successes of the New Veterans Charter. We have helped more than 14,000 Canadian Forces veterans and their families make the transition to civilian life. There have been almost 12,500 disability awards and more than 2,600 veterans have used our comprehensive suite of rehabilitation programs. The list goes on.
These efforts reflect our determination to take care of our veterans in the same way that they have served our country: Without hesitation and without reservation. We should be proud of that effort. We can be proud of what we have accomplished so far, but we also know our work continues. Our mission can never be over because we can never fully repay the great debt we owe our nation's truest heroes.
The Chair: Thank you, Minister Thompson. Ms. Tining, do you have anything to add anything at this point?
Suzanne Tining, Deputy Minister, Veterans Affairs Canada: No, thank you.
The Chair: Mr. Hillier, do you have anything to add?
Mr. Hillier: No, not at this time, thank you.
Senator Wallin: Thank you for being here. I think you had a good note from the teacher for your lack of appearance here when you were in Afghanistan. We appreciate your time there.
As you know, we took testimony at our last meeting from the ombudsman. Therefore, I want to follow up on a couple of issues and concerns that were raised during that meeting. The ombudsman told us that in every case where he met with homeless groups, shelters or institutions where veterans might be found — street and community and veterans organizations — that there was no evidence of outreach to shelters, food banks, community organizations or veterans' organizations.
I said that I would ask you if there was any contrary view on that one. Let me ask you whether you have a contrary view.
Mr. Thompson: Thank you, senator. I am well aware of what the ombudsman reported. I took exception to what he has said, for obvious reasons. I sincerely believe that he is wrong on that particular point because we do have outreach programs with many of the centres that he has visited, and that continues.
We have discussed the plight of the homeless veteran; we were very proactive on this issue because we wanted to have a real sense of what we were doing. In addition, homelessness is the manifestation of other problems. Obviously, we want to prevent that situation from happening. Homelessness, in its very nature, is difficult to track. In some jurisdictions, the homeless issue within the veteran's population is truly a big problem. I point to the United States of America as one example. In Canada, it is not. You could argue that one homeless veteran is one veteran too many, and I would agree with that argument. However, the fact is we do have outreach programs to ensure we can identify those people. Again, due to the transitional nature of homelessness, it is very difficult to track, but we make our best effort.
We have programs that can make a difference, but let us go to the root causes. That is one of the things we addressed early on, senator. Again, one homeless veteran is one too many. However, early on in our government, we doubled the number of operational stress injury clinics and we are working more closely with DND to identify issues upon the return to civilian life by our men and women in uniform. In that way, our uniformed personnel can get the psychological help that they need early on. Homelessness usually indicates that there are other factors playing out in the individual's life such as mental illness, drug dependency and alcoholism.
We are working very closely with veterans' organizations and the support that they have in these individual communities. There is also the camaraderie or that sense of oneness that you experience in the community whereby, if a veteran sees another fellow member and he is hurting that information will flow to us and we will have the programs there to help them.
We have been much more active than the ombudsman gives us credit for. That is not to say that we cannot do more. We are always willing to do more, and if we can identify ways that we can improve the system, we definitely will be there to make those improvements.
Senator Wallin: I want to read a couple of facts into the record, if I could, because we had asked your office and the ombudsman's office to provide us with some facts on this material.
As far as I know — and we will subject this to a test — the ombudsman's office has listed personal visits to homeless shelters at seven, by my count, in 2009. I have a list from your office that says contact from Veterans Affairs Canada for a larger time period, 2008 to 2009. Again, by my rough count, it lists about 75 meetings with agencies. Therefore, there has been, in your view, direct contact with organizations and shelters.
Mr. Thompson: That is correct, senator. We have contacted more than 75 homeless shelters and agencies in 2008. We have identified some homeless veterans but not the numbers to which the ombudsman referred.
To be honest with you and I make no apologies, if the ombudsman, who is dedicated to improving programs and systemic problems within the department, indicated that he met dozens of homeless veterans when he was travelling around the country. I found it hard to believe that he met dozens because we have men and women within agencies and with veterans' organizations that provided us with names.
However, I do not know of any veteran in the country or anyone that works for Veterans Affairs, including the ombudsman, that could be so insensitive as to go into a homeless shelter, identify a veteran or dozens of veterans, and not report one single name to Veterans Affairs. It is beyond the pale not to do that. He would know, above all people, that we have the programs that can help these individuals.
When I met with the ombudsman, I asked him that question. If you have met dozens of them, why would you not provide us with those names so that we can provide the support to them? He knows we have the support for them on the ground. It can almost be immediate, within an hour. We could have people there on the ground to help them, which we have done.
He said it was not his role to do that. If it is not your role, whose role is it? All I am saying is that we have done exactly what he has accused us of not doing. It is ongoing and will continue to be there on the ground in these areas where we can make a difference in the lives of these homeless veterans. We have the programs and support system that can make a difference in their lives, if they choose to take the assistance.
Senator Wallin: Under questioning from Senator Meighen in our last session, Mr. Stogran said two people fell into that category. He mentioned one person who had remained homeless.
Mr. Thompson: I want to take exception because that statement created this problem. He did change his tune when he came to the committee, but he noted to the journalists that covered this story that it was dozens. Between talking to a journalist and appearing before the committee, the so- called dozens came down to two.
The Chair: Would you agree, minister, I think he said he met dozens, but under questioning, he said that he had given only two names to the department? That was my understanding.
Senator Wallin: I do not think he even passed the names on.
The Chair: I take your point about what happened to the others, if there were dozens.
Mr. Thompson: All I can tell you is I am disappointed in the ombudsman's observations in terms of what we do. I am very disappointed in the sense that he did not forward those names to us because we have the programs in place to help. He, above all people, would know what programs we have to help because we can make a difference.
Senator Wallin: I have one final point of clarification.
Again, I will quote from the ombudsman. He said:
We are not in the business of solving veterans' problems. We are in the business of making sure the system acts responsibly on behalf of the veterans.
What is your interpretation of his job?
Mr. Thompson: Again, senator, I confronted the ombudsman with that statement and said I was disappointed. If we are not in the business of making a difference in the lives of veterans, who is in the business? This gentleman has an important role to play. We can accept all kinds of criticism, provided that it is valid and well researched. That is what why we are here. If we can identify real weaknesses within the system, we are here to make a difference to ensure the programs are delivered to the men and women that need them; so I take exception to that statement.
Senator Kenny: I have a question that has to do with an individual that we came across at the Civic Hospital. This soldier had lost an eye and had severe damage to his feet. Some members of his extended family were there with him.
He was feeling very positive about the treatment he had received; he was receiving very good attention. However, subsequent to the visit, word came back to us that his parents, both of whom were on EI, had problems because their EI was cut off when they extended their visit past a week.
This is a problem that is likely to come up fairly often where the veteran has been wounded, is receiving treatment that is specialized in nature and the family is coming from a part of the country that has a higher level of unemployment than is normal.
The rules that exist seem reasonable in most cases, but in the case of a severely wounded soldier, it obviously would be valuable to have his or her family around them for more than a week, or have an opportunity to come back for a second or a third visit while the soldier is recovering.
If the cost of that is to take away the income support that they have, what can your department do to assist with these sorts of problems to allow families to travel halfway across the country to spend time with their badly wounded son, even though they were receiving Employment Insurance?
Mr. Thompson: Senator, that is interesting, because that question has been raised on the floor of the House of Commons. I thought it was going to be my question, but it was phrased in such a way that it became a question for the Minister of Human Resources. I am sure you are aware of that dialogue.
You are right. Anyone will tell you that when family and support systems are around you, there is a higher percentage of a quick and more complete recovery. We have to make our best effort to ensure that occurs; and because of financial pressures, sometimes it cannot.
The question was phrased in the house to the Minister of Human Resources. I am not sure where it lies with her department now, but I do know DND is often accommodating in such circumstances. This is one instance where there is the old hand-off between DND and Veterans Affairs.
In a situation like that, I guess, theoretically, it is still a DND issue. I do know that they are often very accommodating. Within Veterans Affairs, we do not have a deliverable program under our current authority to accommodate that situation. The deputy minister might be able to come up with something, and there are other veterans' organizations. We have a benevolent fund that might help such situations.
Your issue is real and full recovery means having loved ones around you, especially during traumatic situations. When a soldier has been injured because of service to our country, whether it is an eye or a limb, it is tough on the family as well. It is difficult to imagine how tough it would be if the soldier did not have the comfort of his or her loving family to offer support.
We will find out whether there has been any movement on the human resources side. We will continue to talk to DND to see what they can do because they have gone out of their way to make some of this family reunification happen.
Senator Kenny: The issue was resolved by going to a fund, which provided for the payment. However, it does not account for the insecurity, the hassle and the hardship that the family goes through. We are talking about relatively small amounts of money for people who were in receipt of EI.
Minister, I am asking you whether you can undertake to explore the possibility of a program that would provide for a reasonable number of family visits. I refer to visits for families that cannot afford to make those visits. A program would ensure that the family does not have to rely on the timing and luck that a Defence Department flight might provide. These families need something in place that is firm and reliable. A severely wounded veteran should be able to receive a number of visits from family at reasonable intervals. I am talking about something that is legislated so that it is part of the veterans' bargain with Canadians.
Mr. Thompson: Senator, I hear you. We will see what we can do. As I have said, within our current authority, we do not have those programs. I will add, and I think you will agree, that it would pertain not only to men and women who find themselves in an unemployed situation but also to the many families that cannot hop on a plane, such as the working poor and others that struggle for various reasons. It has to be more inclusive than just the unemployed. Your point is well taken, and we will take it under consideration. We will talk to our colleagues at DND.
Senator Kenny: I appreciate that. I did not say just unemployed; I said those without the means.
Mr. Thompson: Right. That is a good point.
Senator Wallin: Both of our offices had been approached by this family so we were working on the issue. For your information, some exemptions were made by Minister Finley's office. They were to look at the issue as well to see if this is a special case because, under the Employment Insurance rules, a person in receipt of EI must be available for work.
As Senator Kenny said, there was money from the Military Families Fund and from a particular base fund. The problem has been resolved but we would appreciate it if you could look at the larger picture.
The Chair: Yes, we would appreciate that. Although, if one looked at it narrowly, which you are not doing and we are grateful, this individual is still a serving member of the Canadian Forces so, strictly speaking, it might be an issue for DND, not VAC. I know you have worked hard to ensure that there is not a crack between the two and we commend you for that.
Mr. Thompson: When answering senators' questions, I hate to shovel something off to another department, which happens so often. Strictly speaking, one could argue that this is for another department but the truth is that no one wants to hear that kind of answer, so we push each other hard to ensure that we do not give those answers. At the end of the day, we just want the problem fixed. I am always hesitant to say: It is their jurisdiction not ours because that kind of answer does not sit well with anyone. I will commit to work with our colleagues to see if we can find a solution.
The military fraternity and our veterans' organizations do tremendous work, much of which goes unrecorded. We have a high-ranking member of the Royal Canadian Legion with us today in the audience, and the work that the Legion does is incredible and they do not brag about it. Pierre is just behind me. It amazes me to hear the stories of the things they do so quietly with no fanfare. We have that kind of support across the country. Sometimes the magic happens outside the reach of government in complicated situations such as this one.
Senator Banks: I will put aside the incumbents for the moment, including the minister and Colonel Stogran, to ask about the nature of the office. There are ombudsmen and there are officers of Parliament. The order-in-council that established the ombudsman's office describes the ombudsman as an independent officer reporting directly to the minister.
I am confused, and my colleagues will tell you that I am often confused, about the nature of that relationship. Senator Wallin asked the question, in a way. Would you describe what you see as the job, not the mandate or description in the order-in-council, but the actual job of the ombudsman? The underlying part of my question is: How independent is he? The word "he" is used in the order-in-council. Perhaps this is the part of the question that the deputy minister might answer. If he is relying to a large degree on the mechanical operation of what he or she does — on the clerical service provided to him by your department — is that an impediment to his independence? I ask in the most general way to gain clarification.
Mr. Thompson: Thank you. I have always had honest relationships with members of the opposition, senators and others. If I have something to say, I say it and get it off my shoulders. If there is something that disappoints me or something that I am not happy with, I usually say it the way I see it.
My relationship with Colonel Stogran is honest and open. We will have disagreements and disappointments on both sides of the equation because this is a human relationship. He is not an officer of Parliament, and he reports directly to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, which happens to be me.
However, that does not impede him. The power of his position is Parliament itself because when that report comes in, I am obligated to table it in the House of Commons. God help any Minister of Veterans Affairs that does not table a report provided by the ombudsman in the House of Commons, for obvious reasons.
We look forward to his report. He has a sizeable stand-alone budget and a sizeable staff. He has access to any file available to this deputy minister, associate deputy ministers and assistant deputy ministers. The only items he does not have access to are cabinet briefings and policies and positions going forward within the secrecy of cabinet. He is given the resources when he asks for something.
If it falls within Veterans Affairs, there are no limits to what he can get if he asks for it. We never say no to the ombudsman on any information he wants on a given file. At the end of the day, he has the resources to do his job. He is independent from me on what he decides to do. His job is to look at systemic problems within the system or individual problems. If he can find them, we are more than willing to try to fix them.
I hope that answers your question. There is one exception to what I mentioned. The deputy mentioned something to me not long ago when the Colonel had asked for something. The response from the deputy was accurate in terms of what he was given, but Ms. Tining may want to clarify.
Ms. Tining: You are quite right that the ombudsman position was not created through legislation. Therefore, as the minister said, he has his own budget, but we report that budgetary allocation to Parliament in the overall departmental allocation. We made every effort to preserve the independence of the ombudsman's office within the confines of the creation of the position.
To address the question about access to documents that I know he discussed with you, the ombudsman's office has access to the departmental client-tracking database. That means the ombudsman's office has access to every piece of information we have on any one of our 220,000 clients. He has that information online. We also provide him with answers to his questions with supporting documents.
As the minister said, the exceptions to which he takes exception are cabinet confidence, advice to the minister from the department and client-solicitor privileged documents, that is, legal documents between our legal counsel and us. You do not share privileged solicitor-client information with other parties. These are legal opinions that are given to the department, to which the ombudsman does not have access. These are the only exceptions.
We have no interest, frankly, in not providing him with the information for which he is asking. We value the work of the ombudsman and we want him to be successful. He plays an important role in identifying systemic issues that the department cannot address.
Senator Banks: The information to which he does not have access is confined to legal advice given to the department and cabinet documents of a confidential nature. He has access to whatever he or she needs otherwise.
Ms. Tining: I would also add advice to the minister as it relates to cabinet policy discussions.
The Chair: Is the ombudsman bound by the same rules of confidentiality that members of your department are in dealing with individual clients?
Mr. Thompson: Yes, absolutely. That would be a violation of any office held in this country. That is privileged information and he would be bound by the same rules that would apply to you and me, senator.
Senator Downe: Minister, you hired or selected the ombudsman. Do you still have confidence in him?
Mr. Thompson: Yes, I have confidence in him. However, I have gone to great lengths to explain that when I disagree with him, I will say so publicly. I will not hide under my furniture and pretend I am happy. I was not happy with his position on homelessness and I laid that out in the public domain for everyone to see.
The truth is that he is well qualified. He does good work and will continue to do good work. I was disappointed on that one issue. However, we expect a very thorough report and I am sure that he will deliver when the time comes.
Senator Downe: Given your public comments here today, I want to have that clarified.
Mr. Thompson: Thank you. It is important to get that out.
Senator Downe: My second question refers to the health review. You have been before this committee on two occasions. In your last appearance on March 5, 2008, you stated that the review was largely completed and that you were aware of most of the recommendations. Could you give us an update?
Mr. Thompson: The health review is very comprehensive and we have acted on a number of fronts. It was not in my speech today, but we are acting on some of the recommendations. Our work is ongoing. No matter how much we do, we will never do enough. That type of advice determines the course of action we will take as a government on many of these issues.
Senator Downe: It was not in your speech last year when you appeared here and I asked the question as well. It was not in your remarks today.
What action has been taken? Have any recommendations been implemented? Has it gone to cabinet?
Mr. Thompson: We have taken a number of issues to cabinet. Some may or may not be there. At the end of the day, what is recommended and what we can do in a single day is always a question, senator. I do not want to use the word "afford." We have done a number of costly initiatives in the three-and-a-half years we have been in government. I think some of those issues were ignored by previous governments over the years. We will continue to identify some of those areas and act appropriately within the financial restraints placed on any government program.
There is hurry and make it happen attitude and some things cannot happen in three years, four years or five years. However, there is continuing improvement in all the programs and fronts. I am happy with our performance in these three-and-a-half years.
Senator Downe: Do you anticipate when you appear before this committee again that you will have something to report on this file?
Mr. Thompson: Let us look at the enhancement to the VIP program. We did that in Budget 2008. That is a clear example of where we acted. That is within the reference that you have suggested.
Senator Wallin: I am concerned and I raised this point with the ombudsman. It is part of modern living. We do it in all parts of government. However, there is a notion that if we put it on a website it somehow qualifies as outreach.
My father is a veteran. I have taught him as best I can on the computer, but I do not think it would be his first choice to access information.
What are we doing, despite the fact that it is 2009, to ensure other points of entry and access for veterans who may not be living and breathing on the computer?
Mr. Thompson: Senator, I agree with your dad because I am from the old school, as well. The truth is: When we are talking about it, often the term we use in Veterans Affairs Canada and DND is "boots on the ground"; we have men and women on the ground at that location. It goes beyond a casual call, conversation or email. The frustrating thing is that we could go to any of the shelters in Ottawa today, with boots on the ground, and miss a veteran who needs help. That is a real difficulty. The transient nature of homelessness is what I am grappling with and how we can quickly identify them and get them the help they need.
The other thing is that we work closely with veterans' organizations and their outreach, as well. The veterans' fraternities are the key to the whole thing. No matter the size of the town, there is usually a Legion there or another veterans' organization. We depend on them.
Senator Wallin: You did mention the department's emphasis on dealing with stress and post-traumatic stress.
We also now have a generation of veterans who are coming home who are exceedingly young and dealing with very serious physical impairments that will last an entire lifetime. I was having this discussion with some of the medical personnel: If you are 20 years old and someone wants to give you a payout of $100,000, you think that is a lot of money when you are 22 years of age. Trying to get to 70 years or 75 years of age on that amount of money, with a family, is another matter.
Mr. Thompson: You are right, senator. That is how we did it before implementing the New Veterans Charter. Some of the more experienced senators around the room who really understand the programs have agreed with me, that the old system of providing a minimal pension and expecting a veteran to live on that the rest of his or her life was unacceptable. It was a prescription for poverty.
When we implemented the New Veterans Charter, which was passed by the previous government and implemented by our government upon taking office, it created a change in terms of how we deal with veterans. We no longer just give the soldier a pension with the hope that he or she will go away. In so many cases, the veteran spent the rest of his or her life trying to ramp up the pension to something that would provide an adequate income.
We now have a number of programs. You are right: A lump-sum amount of money is awarded. The word "awarded" is probably the wrong word but it is the only word they use. However, we also focus on the future of the veteran. We offer programs that offer full mental and physical rehabilitation, and learning programs to obtain a second career. In fact, if the veteran is at the point where he or she cannot engage in that program, we support the spouse so he or she can take second career training. We look at the wholeness and wellness of the family.
Senator Wallin: Does that include education?
Mr. Thompson: It includes education, and college education. We are proud of the programs and I do not hesitate to say they are the best in the world. We looked at the best systems in the world and cherry picked cherry-picked from the systems that work well. Therefore, I have no hesitation to say that it is the best.
The average age of a veteran today is 35 years of age, so, theoretically, they have 30 years of productive work life ahead of them — 40 years if they are a senator. Sorry, Mr. Chair, it might be eight depending on your definition. Anyway, senator, we all need to have a chuckle now and then.
The truth is that we focus on the second career because we want to equip them with the tools to make it in civilian society. Therefore, we have those support systems: Health programs, mental health issues, education program and wellness programs to allow the veteran and his or her family move on in civilian life. We have had great success with that program. It works. They are appreciative of it. It is a change from what it used to be under the old system.
Senator Banks: You will no doubt appreciate the fact that some of us become frustrated at things from time to time when people say over and over again: "We are looking into that. We are addressing that and will take care of that."
I will ask two questions that have been asked of you before and which were addressed yesterday by the chair of the Defence Committee to the Vice Chief of Defence Staff regarding the clawbacks to both SISIP and CPP. I am referring to SISIP, the Service Income Security Insurance Plan and the Canada Pension Plan.
Are we close to a resolution or a decision along the lines of not proceeding, or is there a light at the end of the tunnel as opposed to "We are looking into that"?
Mr. Thompson: Again, I think SISIP is a government issue and therefore, you could argue if it is a government issue, my issue; it is everyone's issue. It is a DND issue in terms of the so-called clawback.
To be honest, this issue is always brought up in the House of Commons, and it is always a private member's bill coming from the NDP on this issue. When the Liberal Party was in government, it was a favourite hobby horse that the NDP wanted to ride because it is an emotional issue and one where it is difficult to get the government's side of the message out in terms of the bridging and financing that DND provides to young men and women who retire early.
The clawback is not a clawback at the end of the day. However, to fix it the way the NDP bill has suggested it could be fixed is beyond the ability of the government to do, in the short term. Let us be honest with each other in this place, finally. The previous Liberal government faced the same challenge: Can we afford to fix this?
It is a nice hobby horse to ride if you are a member of the NDP. They have never formed government in this country and, unless there is a remarkable turn around in the polls for them, they are unlikely to do it in the next 30 years. The country could not afford them to be in office to be honest with you.
That is why it is a favourite bill to bring up in an attempt to embarrass the government every time, whether it is us for the Liberals.
If that had to be fixed, the first one-term cost to the government would be $7 billion today. That is an indication. For that to be fixed in perpetuity — ongoing, if you will — there would need to be a major re-adjustment of the contributions by the men and women in the system today. In other words, we would be taking more out of your pay and every other public servant's paycheque to allow this system to operate the way it is being suggested in that private member's bill. The fix for this would be a fix that could occur over a period of 20 years. However, any government would be dreaming to come out and say, "We can fix it."
Senator Banks: I am glad to hear that because it is an answer as opposed to "We are looking at it." It is an answer I had not heard as clearly before. You are right: It applies not just to the present government but also to the government before that and so on.
How about the Canada Pension Plan?
The Chair: If I could intervene, I think when the minister referred to the billions of dollars, he was referring to the pension clawback.
Is that correct, minister?
Mr. Thompson: Yes, I am talking about that whole issue of what the veterans receive upon their retirement and the clawback that occurs as a result.
The Chair: Then there is the SISIP clawback. I do not think we are talking billions; I think it is a somewhat different question. There is the perceived dichotomy between what happens to the member of the CF who is injured and continues to serve, and the member of the CF who is injured and becomes a veteran.
Senator Banks: Exactly. You addressed the major part of the question, but the SISIP question is complicated and is still unanswered.
Mr. Thompson: It is all part of one big package which does get overly complicated, but in terms of our side of the equation, our disability pension is not clawed back. That is something we do not do. There is no issue there for us.
The bigger issue is clouded in this whole sense of what retired members of the force get when they turn 60 years or 65 years of age. That is what the bill addresses.
Senator Banks: I think we should probably avoid the use of the word "fix" because I am not sure that is an appropriate word. That implies that there is something wrong. I am not sure that there is something wrong.
Mr. Thompson: That is true. This is one of those questions that we grapple with all the time in government. How do you answer a complicated question like that in 30 seconds in the house or when you are doing an interview with the media? It is one of those ones that almost defy a precise answer in 30 seconds.
If the whole story is told, when some of those that have served in the military that are with us today in Parliament can stand on their feet in the house and explain how these programs work over time and what they are entitled to and what they get, it is totally understandable. Without exception, most people say you were right; we agree. For the first time, you have taken the cloudiness away from the issue.
I think our treatment of these men and women is fair. To be honest with you, like any of these issues, it is often exploited by the opposition — in this case, the NDP.
Senator Kenny: Minister, you did not like the word "awarded." I do not like it either; it sounds condescending. You might consider "earned compensation" or "payments toward making whole." I offer those alternative phrases.
I would like to go back to the ombudsman again — because I think it is important we clarify the concerns he raised while speaking to this committee. In addition, in response to Senator Downe, you indicated that you still have confidence in the ombudsman. You also expressed that you will continue to express your views candidly and publicly about disagreements that you have with the ombudsman.
I would like to discuss two other issues that Colonel Stogran brought up with us to get your reaction. The first had to do with the words "to review," which I gather is part of his mandate. He suggested to us that the department tended to take a limited interpretation of the words "to review" as being he was entitled to read information relating to various cases. His view was that "to review" included the powers to investigate and take action. I do not know whether this is an issue for your deputy or for you, but could we have a response to that question?
Mr. Thompson: In fairness, senator, I will defer this to the deputy because I know that she has dealt directly with the ombudsman on many of these issues and is keenly aware of the subject matter. I will ask Ms. Tining to answer that question.
Ms. Tining: The term "to review" in my conversations with the ombudsman was in the context of to review legal advice provided by the department. The difference in interpretation of the word "review" is based on the fact that for departmental employees, when they request a legal opinion on a policy or a program of a department, they will ask our legal advisers for that advice. They will ask that advice on the basis that the information will not be shared with other third parties.
In order to preserve what I referred to as a client-solicitor privilege, the ombudsman's interpretation that the word "review" would allow him to read; I guess I have a different interpretation of the word "review." I have a legal interpretation of what the word means as it is referred to in the order-in-council, which is that the ombudsman is specifically not allowed to review legal opinions provided to the department. That is where we have a difference of opinion as to what the word "review" means.
Senator Kenny: He suggested that your definition of "review" was that he could read the document and that his definition of "review" was to investigate and to take action. I do not see any reference here to just legal documents. I do not know if the research staff can elaborate further as to the exact quotation.
The Chair: What I am being provided with is the order-in-council, and the paragraph dealing with limitations on authority.
Senator Kenny: It would be more helpful if we had the ombudsman's actual testimony. I can go on to my next question if Jim wants to get the testimony.
My next question, if I may, is the ombudsman alleged that he had a variety of staffing difficulties and that the hiring regulations that he has to work within make it difficult to fill all of his staffing positions in a timely manner.
He was also concerned that there was not employment protection for people working for him who hoped to pursue a career in the public service after they left his staff. He felt that was an appropriate thing because of the nature of an ombudsman's role. Frequently you are a thorn in the side of a department, and he was concerned that staff working for him might find themselves at a disadvantage later on.
Mr. Thompson: I will again have Ms. Tining answer that question. On the public service issue with the employees, that is not my understanding of how the protection they receive under the Public Service of Canada, but the deputy can probably give you the details.
Ms. Tining: On your second point, all employees of the ombudsman are employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs Canada. The ombudsman is an appointment by order-in-council, but all of his 30 employees are employees of the department. As such, they are regular, indeterminate public servants with the same security of position as any departmental or federal public servant.
Senator Kenny: Bluntly put, he felt that working for him was not a good career move for someone in the department to take. He wanted some message or some assurance that in working there, people understood that he or she would be in a more adversarial role and that it would not be counted against them.
Mr. Thompson: Perhaps I can answer that politically. That is not a concern of any of the employees that work in the department. They are protected as any public servant would be protected. Those fears are unwarranted, to be honest with you.
Senator Kenny: I hope you are always very honest with us. Clearly, this is something that he raised, and he would not raise it frivolously. It is not an unreasonable request to make if on a daily basis, the employee challenges the department.
Mr. Thompson: I do not know how to respond to that other than to say that he is wrong in those terms. Probably, you will see within your career that not everyone on any given day will agree with you. In the sense that career public servants will be punished for the job they are exercising, he is totally off base.
Senator Kenny: What are your views on the hiring regulations making it difficult for him to staff his office?
Mr. Thompson: Again, I do not have his comments on that, so I will ask for clarification. He has attributed some of that difficulty to his own personality, if I am not mistaken. The fact that he sets such high standards, he is sometimes difficult to work with and communicate with, et cetera. I will ask the deputy minister because she recently read the report.
Ms. Tining: On the staffing, to be totally fair, the colonel came from the Canadian Forces where the hiring processes and the way with which you deal with staffing is very different than it is in the public service. It came as a shock to him to learn how many processes you need to go through to hire a public servant to ensure fair and transparent access to all jobs in the public service. You have to remember that he had to design his organization, decide what kind of organization he wanted and what kind of positions he wanted. He had to determine the roles and responsibilities, the organizational chart and have the classification. He has 30 positions in his organization. As of the end of April, we had prepared 67 staffing actions for these 30 positions. We have been working very hard with him because there is a huge amount of work. In fairness, it came as a surprise to him. Certainly, I can assure you that our human resource officers, in classification, in staffing and in staff relations, have provided him with a very high level of support and have helped him with the learning curve of what needed to be done.
We have a memorandum of understanding with the ombudsman that spells out the standards of service when he makes a request for this or for that and what level of service he can expect. The entire workload generated by creating an organization was probably underestimated from the start, which led to some frustrations on his part.
Senator Kenny: Thank you.
The Chair: I have the testimony of Colonel Stogran. Perhaps we can read it. Senator Kenny, it comes down to the fact that the ombudsman wants to read everything, including legal opinion. The department's position is that the limits on authority in the statute do not permit the reading of legal opinion.
I will read Colonel Stogran's testimony, which he gave to us last week.
We are currently in a legal discussion, if you will, with the department regarding the definition of "to review." I view "to review" in terms of the prohibition to review legal documents, judgments and decisions of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board. I view that to be in accordance with the definition held in the Pension Act and the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act, which defines "to review" as to hear, determine, and deal with issues.
The department, on the other hand, sees "to review" as having access to or the ability to read any documents. We have been prohibited from reading documents such as legal advice on certain issues.
The definition of "to review," if it is taken literally as "to read," we would be prohibited from reading legal judgments that are in fact public access, out in the street. That remains as point of contention for us.
Would you comment please?
Ms. Tining: Yes. That is very much the content of my conversation and discussions with the colonel. In the order-in- council you have seen the specific reference that the ombudsman shall not review legal advice. The minister has reinforced that in his conversation with the ombudsman. We have told the ombudsman that for the documents for which we do not have authority to share with him, we will make our best effort to understand what his question is and to provide as much information as possible to meet his needs without sharing the full document.
We will try not to get in the way of the ombudsman doing his job, although we will not go against what is indicated in the order-in-council and what how our legal interpret it.
Senator Wallin: I will respond to the point raised by Senator Kenny. The phrase used by the ombudsman was that many of his employees are looking over their shoulders and are worried whether they would be accepted back in the organization having served in his office.
The Chair: That is all in the transcript, is it not?
Senator Wallin: Yes. It is all in the transcript.
Ms. Tining: If I could, a number of employees in the ombudsman's office have been reintegrated to the department.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Downe: Minister, in your party's 2008 election platform, they committed to restoring the War Veterans Allowance program for Commonwealth and Allied Forces living in Canada for more than 10 years. What action, if any, has been taken on that commitment?
Mr. Thompson: Senator, we will act on that commitment very soon. The news on that will be good news, and you will be happy with it. You will not have to wait too long.
Senator Downe: Will the legislation include resistance fighters?
Mr. Thompson: No, it will not include them. I know there were some legal challenges with that and other issues around the resistance fighters, senator. I guess you would have to have an institutional memory of this place to know that. That is one of the issues that we looked at. It is fraught with all kinds of problems. At one time the government did go there, and some difficult issues came forward. We never made that commitment but we will honour the commitment to our Allied veterans.
The Chair: Senators, next week, with your agreement, I propose that we review a work plan going forward that you will receive in the next day or two. It is in translation, and we can discuss it next week.
Finally, I and some other senators received a document from the ombudsman dealing with some information that he wished to provide to the committee pursuant to his appearance before us. The clerk has spoken to him and pointed out to him that the document was received in only one official language. Before we can deal with it, it has to be translated, which will be done. It will then be distributed to senators, and we can deal with it as we see fit in due course.
Thank you, Minister Thompson, Ms. Tining and Mr. Hillier for appearing before us. We appreciate your candour, minister, as always. I have known it for a long time, being one of your constituents.
We wish you well and we take you at your word, of course, that you are seeking to do your level best for those in our country who have given so much to preserve our freedom. We know that you have made that a mission in your life. We are here to assist and to provide constructive criticism where necessary and to provide a bit of applause, from time to time, when we see great things happening.
We understand why you could not come before, and we are sure that a visit to the troops in Afghanistan was far more important than being here last week. We are most grateful.
(The committee adjourned.)