Before I get going, Mr. Chair, I want to introduce my colleagues. At the table with me I have my deputy, Jack Stagg, to assist me; assistant deputy Verna Bruce; and our Veterans Appeal and Review Board chairman, Victor Marchand.
I might as well continue. We have Rick Hillier, Brian Ferguson, Bob Mercer, and others who I may not identify.
We just came back from a little road trip, so we're a bit weary. We were actually in Newfoundland this morning and came back, Mr. Chairman, for your meeting. I think we're none the worse for wear, but I want to begin, Mr. Chairman, by thanking you, and it's a pleasure to be with you.
I would also like to congratulate each of you around this table for being selected to serve on this new committee.
I've already had a chance to speak with several of you, and I know your first priority is the best interests of our veterans. Together I think we represent a new beginning in the way we treat the men and women in uniform who have served and continue to serve our country with such courage and distinction.
Our veterans have given this nation their very best, and we have a duty to match it with our own best efforts. Few ministers have a more noble or humbling mandate. That is why I am proud to be here as Minister of Veterans Affairs. Our new government has demonstrated from the start that we understand our duty to Canada's veterans. The creation of this committee is just one obvious example.
Our implementation of the new Veterans Charter and our pledge to appoint a veterans ombudsman and to adopt a veterans bill of rights are further evidence of our determination to do the right thing for our veterans. With your help we want to do even more to recognize and repay our veterans for their great sacrifice and achievements.
Before we look at the budgetary figures in front of us, I would like to speak a little more about the initiatives I've just mentioned and I would like to share with you some of the other work under way in the department.
As you know, the new Veterans Charter offers the most sweeping changes to veterans benefits and services in more than half a century, but this is not the end of our work. I'd like to refer to the new charter as an open book, a living document that will evolve with the changing needs of our veterans.
When the original charter was written 60 years ago it was designed to help veterans returning from the Second World War, and then Korea. It may surprise you to learn today that the average age of Canadian Forces members being released from the military is 36 years old. By almost any measurement, 36 years of age is the prime of life, and starting over in your prime is not always easy.
The new charter is meant to serve as a bridge to help veterans and their families make the transition from military life to civilian life. That's not all it does, however. In fact, let me be very clear: the new charter is designed as a fresh commitment to our veterans and their families that this country will stand by them for life.
This strategy includes a new dual award approach that is far more generous than the single award disability pension it replaces. Under the new charter there's both a disability award, which is a lump sum tax-free payment of up to $250,000, and an earnings loss benefit equalling 75% of a CF veteran's pre-release salary. As well, there are a number of other services, including expanded health care and rehabilitation programs, and vocational training and support.
No less important, however, is the simultaneous commitment we are making to our veterans' families. The fact is that we never know when a military career is going to be interrupted when we send our soldiers on high-risk missions. They need to know we're also going to be with them and there for their families if things go tragically wrong.
The new charter does that. It provides immediate financial support to our veterans' survivors and dependent children, and then delivers long-term help. The charter includes specific measures for spouses to go back to school or to obtain other job training, if or when they decide they are ready to join the workforce.
The new charter also ensures that we are there when any dependent children want to pursue a post-secondary education.
As well, the new charter recognizes that not all injuries are necessarily physical. More than ever, CF members are being deployed on longer and more dangerous missions, and they are being asked to serve on subsequent missions with less time to recuperate from the last one.
Members of the RCMP also face unprecedented stress with modern-day threats and conflicts, both at home and abroad. We witnessed some of those in Toronto last week with the 17 arrests in connection with the alleged home-grown terrorist cell.
All of this has led to a sharp rise in the number of mental-health-related cases. The number of VAC pensions for post-traumatic stress disorder has jumped more than 350% over the four-year period ending March 2005. In fact, Veterans Affairs Canada has nearly 9,000 clients pensioned for mental-health-related conditions.
We realize this is the new reality facing our troops, and we're working with the Department of National Defence to provide the kind of comprehensive mental health care and support our veterans need. Last month, for example, we opened a new operational stress injury social support facility, which is located off-site from CFB Gagetown. The location is almost as important as the treatment itself, because it recognizes the discreet and sensitive way mental health issues need to be handled.
Too often, troops suffer mental illness in silence. As some experts have pointed out, there is still a social stigma attached to mental illness that leaves some soldiers hesitant to seek help in the full view of their fellow troops. We're trying to address this full range of issues and needs.
l've distributed among you some examples to help compare the differences between the benefits and services available under the new charter and the old system. If you like, I would be more than pleased, with my officials, to walk you through the examples when we move into the question-and-answer portion of our meeting.
l'd like to emphasize, however, that these improved measures for modern-day veterans take nothing away from the care and support our war service veterans have come to expect from us. Just the opposite is true. This is an important point. Of the 837,000 veterans in Canada, 258,000 are war service veterans, and sadly, about 25,000 of our war service veterans are passing away every year.
We owe it to them to make sure their final years are as rewarding and comfortable as possible. That includes helping them to live independently for as long as they can, in their own homes. And when our elderly war service veterans do need to enter a long-term care facility, we want them to be confident they will get the specialized health care they need and deserve. That's no small consideration when we currently have almost 10,600 veterans living in long-term care facilities.
We are bringing this same level of commitment to the other issues our department is tackling. The Agent Orange issue at CFB Gagetown is a case in point. Our new government is determined to address concerns raised by CF members, veterans, civilians, and area residents about herbicide use at the New Brunswick training base.
In fact, Prime Minister Stephen Harper is the first national leader to deal with the problem head-on. He wants a resolution; it is a commitment our new government has made. As a result, my department, which has taken the lead role on the compensation side of this issue, is studying a variety of options and models. And I feel very good about the support l've been getting from my colleagues and individual MPs, many in this room and many in opposition, Mr. Chair.
We are making progress, and we will see the results either this year or early next year. l'm sure if you asked any veterans, they would tell you that all they want from their dealings with the government is fair, equal, and effective treatment. This is a major reason why we have embraced, for example, a more open process for inviting applications for appointment to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board. Veterans deserve to have their cases reviewed by an independent, fair, and professional tribunal. They also deserve to have their cases heard in a timely manner, which is why I'm looking for ways to clear up a backlog of about 7,500 cases. Such delays are simply unacceptable.
I wish I had more time, because I'd like to elaborate at some length on our work fulfilling the Prime Minister's promise to appoint a veterans ombudsman and adopt a veterans bill of rights. Let me just say we are consulting extensively with our veterans organizations, individuals, and other clients to make sure we get both initiatives right the first time. If we do, we will properly demonstrate this government's commitment to openness, transparency, and accountability.
We will also be getting to the heart of what defines this department. At the end of the day, our sole interest is the care, well-being, and health of our veterans, and to keep the memory of their achievements and sacrifices alive for all Canadians. It's no more complicated than that.
In carrying out this simple and honourable mission in the coming year, the Veterans Affairs portfolio is seeking approval for a total of just over $3.2 billion in the 2006-07 main estimates.
At this point, I need to stress that these main estimates tabled on April 25 are based on the previous government's budget in 2005, and do not provide a completely accurate reflection of the current government's spending priorities. Briefly stated, the main estimates amount to a $350 million increase over last year's budget, and $250 million of this is directly attributable to the more generous new charter. It is a price worth paying, however, to make sure our veterans are treated with the respect and dignity they've earned.
I'll just highlight some of the big numbers now, and if you have any questions about the details, I'll be happy to answer them at the end of my remarks.
By far the majority of these funds, some $2.1 billion, or almost two-thirds of the total, will be paid directly to veterans and their families as pensions, disability awards, allowances for disability and death, and other economic support. Of this amount, $250 million will go to disability awards and allowances, earnings lost in supplemental retirement benefits under the new charter. I'm pleased to say only 7% of this departmental spending is for corporate services and program delivery costs. Health care benefits for our veterans and their families account for most of the remaining one-third of the department's budget.
The largest single expenditure on this side of the ledger is the approximately $368 million spent on long-term and nursing-home care for veterans, including the operation of Ste. Anne's Hospital near Montreal. I was at that hospital last week, and I can tell you our money is being well spent. Ste. Anne's is one of those government success stories we hear too little about. I had a chance to meet many veterans there, and they are as fine and distinguished a group as you could ever hope to be with. I did the same thing last week at Ridgewood in Saint John, New Brunswick.
In fact the several hours I spent there made for one of the most rewarding, emotional days in my first four months as the Minister of Veterans Affairs. When the veterans are shaking your hand and not wanting to let go, they're really saying thank you for the exceptional care they're getting. It's their expression of gratitude to a grateful nation. In turn, they filled me with even more determination to make sure we honour and serve our veterans with the respect, the dignity, and generosity of spirit they deserve.
St. Francis of Assisi once said, “Preach the Gospel at all times, and when necessary use words.” I look forward to working with you in the months and years ahead to make sure our actions on behalf of this country's veterans match our words.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Minister, I want to thank you for being here. I hope that this is the first of many such occasions when the committee has a chance to interchange with you, either formally or informally, and that we work together towards achieving the stated goal of service to our veterans.
I want to congratulate you on your appointment. I know that you have a personal commitment to the service of veterans, and I wish you well in that position.
I congratulate you on your start. I think you have the responsibility for implementation of the charter, which has been a six-year process of work by the staff at your department, in consultation with all the associations and organizations committed to veterans.
We've heard from the Royal Canadian Legion this week. We were very pleased with the consultative process that led us here.
Now is the implementation phase. Many ministers worked through that process, including the late Ron Duhamel, who would have been the minister when this process started. He was a great member of this House.
I know you take the job of implementation very seriously, and I congratulate you on the first step, which is that the retroactive awarding of benefits is now available to Canadian veterans who were lost overseas between the time of the royal proclamation and the implementation. I think that was a very good move by yourself and your colleagues, and I congratulate you for it.
There are many questions I would have for you in this short period of time. I'd like to talk to you about the flag at half-mast. I'd like to talk to you about Agent Orange and rolling out the money as quickly as possible. I'd like to talk to you about November 11, and the question of whether it should be a national holiday or not. About these, and the bill of rights and the ombudsman, I am sure my colleagues and the colleagues opposite will raise many points.
One of the more important challenges I would like to raise with you, Minister, is the question of the famous CPP clawback to pensioners, both RCMP and military. There's a very fuzzy understanding of that, and there has been some maybe misleading information given to veterans about how it would apply, if we could do it.
The House will be dealing with the private member's bill. It will probably be my duty to support this bill, so that it comes to committee and everybody can fully understand it. I know it will have no effect for veterans or RCMP pensioners, unless there is a royal warrant from government, because it would mean new spending.
However, there are some very important points as to how we should accept the basic principle of the bill being put forward. Even if it can or can't be retroactively applied to people already on pension, let the choice be given again to the people who are now contributing, so that when their retirement day comes, they would have the ability to have the Canada Pension Plan above their regular superannuation pension. We know that is the case for the RCMP and the veterans, but that would apply to anybody, I suppose, on the superannuation plan.
But the opinion or suggestion has been put out there that it's a stroke-of-the-pen possibility for government to implement such action: to retroactively end the so-called clawback for all veterans. I have a lot of pensioners in my riding, and if that is in any way possible, I can assure you I'd like to have that happen, because I'd like to have them see that money.
What I think is most important, Mr. Minister, is that there be a full understanding by each and every pensioner of what is the process, how did it happen, and what is the art of the possible in this question. I think that's a great challenge for yourself and for your officials.
:
You had an interesting introduction, but you've gotten into an issue that is a rather tough one to publicly explain, because you're basically talking about a pension where some of the benefits are clawed back, and you articulated what those are.
I guess one of the things we have to remember is that there are two groups who actually pay into that pension plan, the employee and the employer, and usually, in this case, the employer—the government—is paying in more than the employee. It's not as if it's only one individual contributing to the plan.
At the end of the day, as with anything else, there would be a cost to government of eliminating that clawback.
I believe, if I'm not mistaken, that clawback will apply to you and me upon our retirement as well.
From a human point of view, you can argue as to why government should do this, but at the end of the day it has to do with the costs we incur. It reaches across many branches of government.
I think the other thing you have to consider is that if in fact the clawback were eliminated, the cost to government at some point would have to be incurred by some other group. You could argue that even the pension plans themselves, as they operate and function, and given how the actuaries' projections and the costs extended over a number of years are calculated.... It would mean that at the end of the day if the clawback did not occur, the pensions would have to be reduced. In other words, at the end of the day there has to be a consolidation of all those facts in terms of what the net benefit would be to the recipient, the pensioner.
I guess what I'm telling you is there's no easy answer to it. I think everyone in this room, regardless of whether they're an accountant or were the President of the Treasury Board, would be sympathetic at a human level to the issue that occurs. But at the end of the day, it would have a huge impact on governments.
What I will tell you is—and “you” would be as a former cabinet minister and a member of the crown, if you will—that this is an issue the previous government has dealt with as well, unsuccessfully. At the end of the day, it's going to be a cost incurred by government, and I would argue that when everything is considered, in terms of the level of pensions received today and the fact that there are two contributors to the plan, it's much more complicated than it looks. I don't expect any federal government is going to step into that void in the near future. That would be my belief, Mr. Thibault.
That question is one I've been asked a fair amount by a lot of veterans groups, and you're absolutely right, it's a commitment we made during the campaign that we would deal with these two issues and bring in an ombudsman and a bill of rights.
Obviously, those are two commitments we made that we're going to honour. Now we can speak specifically of the ombudsman and the bill of rights, but I will tell you that we will consult with our veterans groups. In fact, this week the department met with all the major stakeholders, if you will, and individual veterans. So we're consulting very widely and we're examining other jurisdictions so that when we do it, we'll get it right.
Some of those jurisdictions have a great reputation in terms of how they deal with their veterans, as does Canada. Some of those countries do have a bill of rights and some of them do have ombudsmen. Among those jurisdictions that have some of the models and that the department has already consulted are Australia, United States, and Great Britain. They've gone to some of those jurisdictions to examine what they have versus what we might consider.
What encourages me.... The other night we met with the veterans groups and we broke bread together, as I often say. We had a chance in a setting somewhat like this to sit down over a meal and talk about some of the challenges there. We met with the Royal Canadian Legion president, Mary Ann Burdett, and most interesting of all, with Cliff Chadderton, who was actually involved with the committee stage back in the Parliament of Canada some 40 years ago, when it discussed how the office of an ombudsman would work, if you will. It's quite refreshing that time doesn't change a lot of things. There have been a lot of changes in 40 years, but some of the proposals they were considering back at that time are still relevant.
In the talks we have engaged a lot of people, and what we say is that nothing is etched in stone. I do know it is something the committee is going to look at as well, so we need your input. And, Mr. Chair, I know your committee is focused on helping us on that issue.
As we say, the book is still open. When we do it, we want to get it right, and we will get it right with your help.
Thank you.
Mr. Chair, I'm getting all the tough questions from the woman who is supposed to give me the easy ones. I thought this would be the question coming from Mr. Thibault when we started, because he's been after me on this one a few times.
The truth is it's a very complicated equation. As you well know, we are dedicated to a resolution to it, in all fairness, Mr. Chair. As you well know, this is an issue that's been around for fifty-some years, going back to the early days of CF Base Gagetown in New Brunswick, the spraying of herbicides and defoliants over the course of some of those years. Some of them are registered, some of them are not. But it's one where we're not going to be like successive governments, and I'm not saying that in a pejorative way either, because not all governments were Liberal and not all governments were Conservative, but the fact is that none of those governments in that fifty-some-year period dealt with it. Why? Because it's complicated and it's a difficult issue, so governments sometimes prefer to walk away from difficult issues. It's one we're not going to walk away from.
As you well know, our mandate is to deliver the compensation package to the veterans and civilians who were exposed. DND's role in this, the Department of National Defence, is that they're going out on a fact-finding mission, if you will. There are a number of tests that are ongoing, and the results of some of those tests have already come in. They've been delivered to us, if you will, for examination, and to the Department of National Defence. So we're working very cooperatively with National Defence on this file.
What I say, and have consistently said, is that a resolution to this is going to be knowledge-based, because previous governments have had a terrible habit of announcing programs and compensation plans and what not without thinking it through to its logical conclusion, if you will. Again, I'm not pointing fingers at individual governments. But we don't want the proceeds of a compensation plan to flow to lawyers and get tied up in a lot of legalese and roadblocks, which sometimes occur at all government levels when you get into a plan that has not been well thought out and knowledge-based.
By knowledge-based, I mean we're going to make sure that we have the scientific and medical evidence on which to build our case and build the plan, and we're going to make sure that we do the research necessary in terms of the human involvement, in terms of tracking the soldiers and the civilians on the base. It's very complicated, and I don't think I have to state any more than that, because all of you, I think is what I'm trying to say, understand just exactly how complex it is.
Veterans Affairs has a number of compensation models we're looking at, and I still believe we'll be in a position to present probably two cabinet compensation models sometime late in the fall, early new year, providing something doesn't unexpectedly happen at the base. There have been a few surprises in terms of some of the medical results or scientific results coming in, but for the most part we're pretty comfortable.
I have some of my experts with me from the department. This is where Veterans Affairs is really good in delivery of these types of programs. So we can tweak them or fine-tune them as we go along, but basically we believe that we can take a proposal to cabinet sometime later this fall or in the new year. So we're well on the way.
If any of the members want to get into the specifics on Agent Orange and the U.S. model and our model, and so on, I'll do that, because it gets complicated when you're talking and comparing a pension plan versus a compensation plan. Given the time, I'm more than pleased to get into some of the nitty-gritty detail or the differences in some of those plans, if you will.
:
Thank you, Mr. Shipley.
Everyone in the room, every member of Parliament, in a way, is almost an ombudsman for veterans, aren't they? I'm always amazed at how many letters I get, as the Minister of Veterans Affairs, from individual members of Parliament. There is a connection between members of Parliament and veterans for the very obvious reason that they fought for the democracy and freedoms we enjoy as one of the best examples of democracy in the free world. So there is a natural connection to members of Parliament and obviously between members of Parliament and our legions and veterans groups, because they work with our veterans very closely, as well.
I think that really goes back to the new Veterans Charter. We work through that. At Veterans Affairs, we have extremely talented and very dedicated individuals with huge caseloads who are trying to work through a system....
I believe I am correct in this number: I believe that five years ago we had approximately 9,000 applications a year before Veterans Affairs. Prior to the new charter, we had 35,000 applications per year before Veterans Affairs. That is just an astronomical increase. It's a 400% increase in applications. All those people are human beings, and there are families attached to those decisions. It shows you just how difficult it is to manage all that.
On top of that, we have an appeal process that truly is the best in the world. If a veteran is denied, we have an internal review process within the department to take another look at it. If we go to the appeal board, we have pension advocates--professional lawyers--who will represent the veterans when they appear before the tribunal, the quasi-judicial body.
So we have an appeal mechanism unlike any in the country. I guess if we were living in a perfect world, we wouldn't have as many appeals as we have, or the answers would be quicker and more forthcoming. But there have to be checks and balances in the system.
That was one of the things that drove the government to move to a new charter, to a new way of dealing with veterans, because in the old system, the only doorway for veterans to qualify for any level of service for anything else that might come their way was to have a pensionable condition.
I think one of the failings under the old charter was that we didn't concentrate on the wellness of the veteran and his or her family. A veteran might have been successful in getting a 20% pension, if you will. What we should have been doing, in my opinion, in hindsight--but hindsight is always 20/20, and we learn as we go along--is more than just hand out a pension. It is like the old axiom: give a man a fish, you feed him for a day; teach him how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.
That's a little of the philosophy behind the new charter. What we're saying is that the age of a veteran coming out of the Canadian Forces is 36. That means that by definition, he has about 29 years of work ahead of him or her in the workforce.
Under the new charter we're really addressing, Mr. Shipley, that frustration level, because a 20% pension, and I'm not trying to be crass and I'm not saying this in a pejorative way, is almost a prescription for poverty. We would see a lot of these veterans coming in and their only hope of getting ahead was to get more pension and get the pension from 20% to 40%, 50%, 60% or 70%.
If you talk to any of these veterans, they say that the best thing we could have done for them was provide them and their families with an education to get beyond where they were. There are some veterans that can't. We know that, and we have the permanent disability program for them. We have all those types of programs for veterans who can't be rehabilitated, if you will, and are totally disabled.
For the average veteran, I believe the disability award or the pensionable range was somewhere around 30%. You could ask yourself, “Could I live on that amount of money”? Well, the answer is no. So under the new charter there is emphasis on the family. For example, if somehow the veteran himself or herself could not be retrained, that same retraining and the funding to do that would be extended to the spouse of the veteran. I guess the fancy socialists would call it the holistic approach, but it's really a family approach to dealing with veterans, because it's more than just the veterans; it's their families. I hope over time this will ease some of the burdens that are placed on families.
I can remember coming to Veterans Affairs and sitting beside Brian Ferguson. I was pushing him hard on some of the same questions you're giving me. He said, “You know, we'll never give up on a veteran.” We will never give up on a veteran. We're going to do everything we can for that veteran and their family. So if this fails, we'll try something else.
Going back to Mr. Perron's question, and I guess Mr. Thibault's--it's sort of a theme here today--as many of you know, when we launched the new charter it was right here with the Prime Minister on April 6, sort of the kickoff of the new charter. Roméo Dallaire was in the room that day, and he was talking about building this bridge. I had met with him two days prior to the launch, and it was one of the best meetings I could have had. It was one of those days when I had a lot on my mind and was wondering whether I was doing the right thing or not. He said, “What you're doing, Mr. Thompson, is building a bridge that will transition us from military life to civilian life.” He thought that bridge was well constructed and well engineered, and said, “You're not going to take just the veteran across that bridge; you're going to take their family, which is something that has never occurred in the past.”
I don't want to run on and take up all of your time, the chair's time, or the committee's time, but I think that's really fundamental to what we're doing at Veterans Affairs. It's sort of a new approach, knowing that the old charter had sort of done its deed, if you will. If you examine some of the programs that existed following World War II and how successful they were, I guess with time they kind of wore themselves out.
I'm pretty confident that what we're doing is the right thing. At the end of the day, we're going to have better programs for our veterans and better opportunities to get them through some of the difficulties they experience.
As I often say in my speeches, it's not just bullets and bombs that affect our soldiers. We're talking about some of the stresses they're under when they're in extremely high-risk missions. Whether it's our RCMP officers in some of the streets of our downtowns, as witnessed last week in Toronto, or a young soldier in Afghanistan, the stress of that type of work and being away from your family is something that most of us can't imagine. So when they come back, we'd better have a wide range of tools and support systems to help them and their families. That's why I feel pretty good about what we're doing.
As we say, we're not going to get it perfect, but what we have is an open book. We're going to depend on people like yourselves to help us come up with better ways of dealing with it. I guess what I'm saying is I feel pretty good about it.
:
Really, at the end of the day, we just want to do the best we can for our veterans, working within all the budgetary restraints that all governments are subjected to.
When I go to the veterans hospitals and meet veterans.... I was down to Ste. Anne's. I will get on to the Ste. Anne's story.
I could actually talk about Ridgewood. In my opening remarks I talked about shaking the hands of veterans when they don't want to let go. I can remember one of the administrators said “See, they really like you”, and I said, “No, it's more than that. It's not me. It's you. You know, it's the men and women, the nurses that make up those veterans hospitals, and the janitor keeping the floors clean, and the men and women that just make the institution work.” Because if the institution wasn't working and I was in there, they wouldn't want to shake my hand.
It provides comfort to me, just seeing that we're doing a good job. And we can do better, and we know that. We always have little problems here and there popping up. I think for the most part we deal with them quite nicely, and always work to resolve them. I guess that's the most rewarding thing.
Most of the issues we've talked about here today we have to deal with incrementally. We can't do them all tomorrow. But I think at the end of the day, we do give it our best shot. I know that this is a line that I often use, but we do know that our men and women in uniform, when they take on a mission, give it 100%. Our Canadian soldiers, men and women in the field, are the best in the world. They are the best soldiers in the world, and they deserve the best treatment in the world when they come back home, when they really need us. We could argue that they've done their job, and now it's up to us to do our job to the best of our ability.
So I guess at the end of the day, I just want to see an improvement of services, knowing that Canada is very blessed to have men and women who will put on the uniform, who devote themselves to the freedoms and to all of the things that we take for granted in a democracy, like the rule of law, and the right to gather like this and debate issues. We sometimes take that for granted in the House of Commons when we're back and forth in debate.
The truth is we'll just keep doing what we're doing, and we're going to do our best to get over those little challenges that we see along the way, and surpass them.
I'm very pleased to be Minister of Veterans Affairs, and I thank you for your support here today.
Mr. Chairman, we'll work with the committee to achieve some of those good things for our men and women.
Thank you.
:
Mr. Chairman, since the minister is not in a hurry, we could have 20 to 25 minute rounds. Nevertheless, I will try to keep within the five minutes.
Mr. Minister, as you are no doubt aware, young people suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder are dear to my heart. I think of them as my sons because they have the same age as my sons. Seeing these individuals come back from their mission in a sometimes pitiful state breaks my heart.
I urge you to lobby the Minister of National Defence in order to better prepare these young people for the stressful situations they will experience in theatre or on mission. If these young people were better prepared mentally, and not just trained in how to use their weapon or work out, I think they would come back in better shape. This comment comes from the bottom of my heart and it is my most sincere wish.
Now, let’s talk about the Veterans Independence Program, the VIP, or the PAAC in French. I think it’s a good idea to try to keep veterans at home as long as possible and provide them with home health care. Since the 1980s, Quebec has had a system, which we call the CLSCs, that specializes in providing care to sick seniors in the province. It might be worthwhile to try to reach agreements with the Government of Quebec, which has some expertise in this field. This could be a cost-saving measure and could help a greater number of your 7,500 veterans waiting for care. I am making this suggestion only in passing; I don’t necessarily want to get into a debate.
I am happy to learn that you will try to resolve the issue of appointments to the board. I don’t know whether we can call this a problem. In my opinion, it is, but my friend Victor will say that it isn’t. Appointments need to be made, and more of them. In my opinion what is important is that the veterans’ representative be a pro bono lawyer or paid differently by the department, or I don’t know what, because military personnel who appeal their decision feel a little ripped off, whether that’s true or not. They know that the judge is a government employee, that the defence lawyer is paid by the government and that the lawyer defending them is also paid by the government. You can’t bite the hand that feeds you. This is something that could be improved.
Those are the main points I wanted to raise. We have to be human; we have to love these people. Perhaps we need to better educate our young people and show them the misfortunes that these veterans experienced, are experiencing and will experience. Along with the Department of Veterans Affairs, we can try to ensure a better world, one at peace.
We need to change our education and advertising system so as to reach goals like that. It’s not just about money, it’s also about showing humanity and having your heart in the right place.
Those are my comments. Greg, let me reassure you that if you ever need a hand, I will be there, but not necessarily to go to war, however!