:
Welcome to the 51st meeting of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.
[Translation]
This evening, we are continuing our study of division 17 of part 3 of Bill , An Act to Implement Certain Provisions of the Budget Tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015 and Other Measures.
[English]
During the first hour this evening we will hear from Mr. Bradley White, Dominion secretary of the Dominion Command, and Mr. Ray McInnis, director of the service bureau, Dominion Command, both from the Royal Canadian Legion. I want them to note that I'm wearing my legion pin from the friendliest branch in the region, 632.
We will also hear from Mr. Wayne MacCulloch, national president of the Canadian Association of Veterans in United Nations Peacekeeping, as well as Ms. Debbie Lowther, co-founder of the Veterans Emergency Transition Services.
[Translation]
This part of the meeting will end at 7:30 p.m. We will then have a brief pause.
[English]
During the second hour of this meeting we will hear columnist, media personality, and academic researcher, retired captain Sean Bruyea. We'll also hear from Mr. Derryk Fleming, national administration member of the 31 CBG Veterans Well-being Network; Mr. Brian McKenna, representative from the B.C. Veterans Well-being Network; and Mr. Perry Gray, editor-in-chief of VeteranVoice.info. We also have Mr. Michael Blais, president and founder of Canadian Veterans Advocacy.
Are you making four different presentations or just one?
You have 10 minutes each.
The legion starts.
:
Honourable Chair and members of the committee, good evening, and thank you.
I do agree with you, Chair, that 632 is the friendliest branch in all of Ottawa.
It's a great pleasure to appear once again in front of the committee. I'm pleased to speak on behalf of our Dominion president, Mr. Tom Eagles, and our 300,000 members and their families.
[Translation]
This evening, we will do our presentation in English. However, we have provided a copy of our brief in both official languages.
[English]
The legion has been asked to discuss specifically division 17 of part 3, which amends the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act to add a purpose statement to the act; improve the transition process of Canadian Forces members and veterans to civilian life; establish a retirement income security benefit to provide eligible veterans and their survivors with a continued financial benefit after the age of 65 years; establish the critical injury benefit to provide eligible Canadian Forces members and veterans with lump-sum compensation for severe, sudden, and traumatic injuries or acute diseases that are service related, regardless of whether they result in permanent disability; and finally, to establish the family caregiver relief benefit to provide eligible veterans who require a high level of ongoing care from an informal caregiver with an annual grant to recognize that caregiver's support.
The division also amends portions of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act as a consequence of the establishment of the critical injury benefit.
Please note that our comments are directed specifically to this section of Bill and not to the entire omnibus bill.
The Royal Canadian Legion is the only veteran service organization that assists veterans and their families with representation to Veterans Affairs Canada and the Veterans Review and Appeal Board.
The legion's advocacy program is core to our mission, and we have been assisting veterans since 1926 through our legislated mandate in both the Pension Act and the new Veterans Charter. Please note that veterans do not have to be legion members to receive our assistance; we provide it free of charge.
Our national service bureau network provides representation, starting with their first applications to Veterans Affairs Canada and through all three levels of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board. Through the legislation, the legion has access to service health records and departmental files to provide comprehensive yet independent representation at no cost.
Last year our service officers prepared and represented disability claims on behalf of over 3,000 veterans to VAC and the VRAB. There is no other veterans group with this kind of direct contact and interaction with, provision of support to, and feedback from veterans, their families and, of course, the caregivers.
When it comes to serving veterans and their families, the legion continues to be the only veterans organization in Canada advocating for and providing assistance to all veterans.
The legion recognizes that progress is being made for veterans and their families in this budget and recommends that the NCVA provisions of Bill be passed as soon as possible. Is it everything we have been advocating for? Does it answer all of the 14 ACVA recommendations? No, it does not, but it is a very positive step forward.
This bill lays out important enhancements that will improve the care and benefits provided to veterans and their families, especially for our veterans who have turned or will be turning 65 in the very near future. We need to ensure that they have financial benefits beyond age 65 for life, including that provision for their survivors as well.
However, we do have many questions on how the retirement income security benefit, the RISB, is calculated, and until we receive and review the complete policies on the RISB, the critical injury benefit, and the family caregiver relief benefit, we will not see how adequate these benefits will be to our veterans and their families.
Our principal concerns remain that the maximum disability award must be increased to be consistent with what is provided to injured civilian workers who receive general damages in law courts. As well, our concern with the family caregiver relief benefit is that it does not adequately compensate a spouse who has to give up a full-time job to become a caregiver. What is proposed is a respite benefit. Most families today are dual-income families and sometimes that service member works two jobs to support the family, so in essence when he gets injured three full-time wages are lost. We would prefer to see something akin to the Pension Act's attendance allowance reinstated.
As I previously stated, Bill , in division 17 of part 3, does not answer all of the 14 ACVA recommendations. The Royal Canadian Legion will not rest until all these recommendations have been addressed and adopted, and we will not cease in our efforts to push the government to honour its obligations.
We have not shied away from making our stance on these issues known. We have shared our position paper, “Veterans Matter”, with all Canadians to encourage an informed debate on veterans' issues in the future.
I want to address the issues of communications and accessibility.
The new Veterans Charter was developed to meet the needs of modern veterans. It is based on modern disability management principles. It focuses on rehabilitation and successful transition.
It must be stated that the legion, while endorsing the new Veterans Charter as it was adopted in 2006, has also been steadfast in our advocacy for its change to better meet the lifelong needs of our veterans and their families. We all have an obligation to understand the complexities and interrelationships, and to inform about and explain the new Veterans Charter for the people who it concerns. Our veterans and their families deserve absolutely nothing less.
The new Veterans Charter and the enhanced new Veterans Charter Act are comprehensive and very complex. Our veterans and their families need to know what programs are available to assist them and how to access them, whether they are financial, rehabilitation, health services, and/or family care programs. The government needs to ensure that resources and programs are in place to meet their needs and to review the accessibility to these programs, while ensuring that front-line staff are available—and knowledgeable—to assist veterans and their families. This can never become a self-serve system.
Most veterans and their families do not have a good understanding of the new Veterans Charter. I would suggest that this highlights the ineffectiveness of the government's communication of the programs and services available under the new Veterans Charter for our injured veterans and their families. What is required is proactive communication to all veterans across this country to ensure that they are aware of the financial compensation, rehabilitation programs, health care services, and the family care programs that are available and of how to access them.
Lastly, it is also time for all of us to understand the new Veterans Charter and the Enhanced New Veterans Charter Act. This should be a priority. Our veterans need to know not only the weaknesses of the programs but the strengths behind the legislation: the programs, the services, and the benefits. We, too, can help our veterans and their families.
Since commencing our advocacy in 1926, the legion's advocacy and programming efforts continue to evolve to meet the changing demographics while supporting our traditional veteran community. However, notwithstanding the capacity of the legion, we certainly believe that the Department of National Defence and Veterans Affairs Canada have a responsibility to ensure that policies, practices, and programs supported through a sustainable research program are accessible and meet the unique needs of all veterans, with a goal of enabling the healthy transition of all our veterans and their families through this very challenging, changing, and sometimes difficult life course.
Finally, I would be remiss if I did not mention our World War II veterans and post-World War II veterans who are now seeking assistance through the legion for access to the veterans independence program. These veterans are often frail, and they are approaching the end of their life. They are a very proud group of people who have never applied to the government for any type of disability benefit assistance, and now, because they want to remain independent in their own homes rather than going into a long-term care facility, they cannot access the VIP and benefits for frailty because they do not have an established eligibility for a disability or a lower income.
Last October, we sent a high-priority list of resolutions to the , including a resolution that all veterans be deemed eligible for VIP benefits based on need, irrespective of their having established disability entitlement or low-income status. We urge the government to action this resolution without delay. We understand that the response to these resolutions will be forthcoming from the department very soon.
We agree that the passage of Bill , and particularly those provisions that affect the new Veterans Charter, is a step in the right direction. Let me thank the committee for the work it does on behalf of our veterans. The legion appreciates the opportunity to come before the committee to brief you on our perspective on issues of concern to Canada's veterans.
I would also at this time like to extend to the committee the opportunity to visit our national headquarters, which we call Legion House. It would be opportunity for us to provide you with a full brief on how the legion is one of Canada's great institutions, and how we support Canadians, our veterans, and our communities.
Once again, thank you. Merci.
:
Mr. Chair and members of the committee—
[English]
thank you for allowing me to testify before you today. Veterans are grateful for the attention you have given to their needs and your work in addressing a number of shortfalls in the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act, commonly called the new Veterans Charter, and its attendant regulations.
The 14 recommendations of your report last summer have provided a significant first step in redressing gaps in current legislation meant to assure the well-being of veterans by dealing with the top issues facing our most severely disabled veterans. While the new benefits for veterans, contained in Bill , constitute another step in the right direction, it is but a small step and does not fully address the long-standing top priorities of veterans and their associations.
To recap, for the past several years traditional veterans' groups have been unanimous and consistent with regard to their top three priorities: the earnings loss benefit must be improved to provide 100% of pre-release income, continue for life, and include increases for projected career earnings for a Canadian Forces member; the maximum disability award must be increased consistent with what is provided to injured civilian workers who receive general damages in law court; and the current inequality with regard to earnings loss benefits for class A and class B reservists, those with fewer than 180 days, for injuries attributable to service, must cease.
Further key shortfalls to be addressed were outlined in the assembly's latest letter to the , dated July 18, 2014.
The provisions of the new Veterans Charter unreasonably constrain the number of disabled veterans who are able to qualify for appropriate levels of entitlement to this important allowance.
The exceptional incapacity allowance concept, founded under the Pension Act, should be incorporated in the new Veterans Charter. This allowance has traditionally addressed the impact of the disabilities suffered by 100% veteran pensioners, with reference to their difficulty to cope given their overall capacity. Introducing the exceptional incapacity allowance into the new Veterans Charter would augment the limitations of the permanent impairment allowance, particularly in circumstance where a seriously disabled veteran confronts the ravages of age.
In order to recognize the caregiving requirements that many disabled veterans confront to cope with their incapacities, the attendant's allowance provisions of the Pension Act should be added to the new Veterans Charter, in recognition of the financial costs faced by many families in this context. The new Veterans Charter should acknowledge that veterans with dependants should receive a higher level of compensation, either through the augmentation of the lump-sum disability award or through an increase in the earnings loss benefit for such veterans and their families.
Bill , as it currently stands, does not fully address any of these recommendations. Specifically, the retirement income security benefit provides for a maximum of 70% of pre-age-65 earnings loss benefit, which itself is a maximum of 75% of pre-tax, pre-release salary, or, when you do the math, 52.25% of the pre-tax, pre-release salary, without any provision for projected Canadian Armed Forces career earnings increases. A survivor would receive 50% of the retirement income security benefit. This falls far short of the recommended 100% of pre-release salary, with projected career earnings increases.
Let's put some numbers on this. A regular force corporal currently earns $56,568 per annum before taxes. The earnings loss benefit would reduce that figure to $42,426. After age 65, the pre-tax amount of the retirement income security benefit would be $29,700. His survivor would receive $14,850 annually. Both of these amounts are well below the poverty line.
Note that these are maximum amounts, and under Bill they would be reduced by unspecified other amounts. What quality of life could the veteran or the survivor expect to experience under these circumstances? This alarming situation will be further exacerbated by other government cost-shedding actions, such as the current readjustment of cost sharing for the public service health care plan, which many veterans depend on for supplemental health insurance. It will be changed from the current 25% participant and 75% government share to a 50-50 scheme. Where will veterans and their survivors find the means to keep pace with this and other cost increases under the retirement income security benefit?
The solution to the quality of life that disabled veterans deserve lies not in what Bill proposes, but rather in adoption of the long-standing recommendations of veterans. It is our hope that this new benefit is but the first step towards meeting our stated needs. The Canadian Association of Veterans in United Nations Peacekeeping therefore supports inclusion of the retirement income security benefit in Bill , but calls on government to commit to meeting the full requirement in its next session.
The family caregiver relief benefit is a welcomed addition to the suite of benefits available under the new Veterans Charter. However, at $7,238, it falls far short of a similar benefit under the Canadian Armed Forces compensation and benefit instructions, article 211.04, which provides $36,500. This discrepancy has not been explained, and an 80% reduction in assistance cannot fail to have dramatic consequences on the disabled veteran and his or her family. While the association accepts this benefit as another small step in the right direction, it once again calls on government to adjust the family caregiver relief benefit to the amount of compensation and benefit instructions, article 211.04, while maintaining the current breadth of applicability and duration of such payments.
The critical injury benefit is another new benefit available to those who have suffered traumatic injury requiring immediate hospital treatment. While it is welcomed as yet another small step toward improving the quality of life for those injured in service to Canada, the government’s rationale for this unexpected benefit has received a mixed response from association members. It appears to exclude those who suffer from operational stress injuries unless those injuries are immediately incapacitating. The history of this type of injury generally carries with it a period of latency, thus denying the benefit’s support to its sufferers.
This differentiation would drive a further wedge between those with physical injuries and those with operational stress injuries, both of which have severe impacts on the families of the injured. Previous strides in gaining acceptance of operational stress injuries as a bona fide injury could be nullified by the proposed immediate physical trauma and later OSI distinctions. While still supported, the association would like further work to occur to close this apparent gap.
I would like to bring a further concern to your attention, namely the frequent references in Bill to “prescribed sources”, the determination of the value of prescribed sources, “prescribed factors”, and what constitutes a single and sudden occurrence. These, and similar phrases, leave much of the value of the new benefits in doubt.
As occurred in the permanent impairment allowance, Governor in Council regulations so restricted the availability of the benefit to veterans, and limited the majority of approvals to its lowest level, that it had little of its expected impacts. Veterans would like to be assured that the provisions of the new section 2.1 of the new Veterans Charter will be amply reflected in the creation of new regulations and revision of existing ones.
In summary, the members of the association support the provisions of Bill that seek to amend the new Veterans Charter, and urge its speedy passage through Parliament to royal assent. However, significant gaps remain in the support that disabled veterans need from government. The association wishes to impress on all parliamentarians the importance of these gaps and the speed with which they must be closed.
Thank you for your attention.
:
Well, thank you, first of all, for asking VETS Canada to attend this evening and asking me to speak on behalf of the organization.
VETS Canada is an organization whose mission is to assist homeless, at-risk, and in-crisis veterans of the military and the RCMP. My husband, who is a veteran, and I founded the organization in 2010 after he stumbled across a veteran whom he had served with who was homeless in Halifax.
During the past five years we've had the privilege of helping over 500 veterans across the country. We've expanded from Halifax right to the west coast. In June of last year we were awarded a contract with Veterans Affairs as service providers in the field of outreach to homeless, at-risk, and in-crisis veterans. In the past five years, as I said, we've had the opportunity and the privilege to assist over 500 veterans.
One thing we've noticed is that every veteran's story is different. Every veteran's set of circumstances is different. There's no cookie-cutter solution to helping any one of them. One common denominator we see in our work is that the men and women we've assisted have not made a successful transition from their life of service to their civilian life.
A great deal of effort and rigorous training goes into preparing the men and women to serve their country, and we feel it would be wonderful if they were given the same amount of training and preparedness on the other end, when their career is coming to an end, particularly for those who are being medically released, as it is unexpected.
The reason we're here today is to discuss division 17 of Bill . It's the opinion of VETS Canada that the retirement income security benefit, the critical injury benefit, and the caregiver's benefit are all positive first steps. We do support that they be passed; however, we have some concerns about whether or not they will be the end of the road. It's our hope and our wish that they remain just that, first steps. There is a lot of improvement there.
We feel that the retirement income security benefit could be higher than the 70%. We would like to see the critical injury benefit be more inclusive of those men and women who suffer with OSIs, as these injuries, generally, do not immediately present themselves.
Something that would be nice to see included in the caregiver's benefit would be training for caregivers—and I'll take off my VETS Canada hat and put on my caregiver hat for a moment. My husband had PTSD, and when I was his caregiver—and I still at times am his caregiver—I didn't know if I was doing the right thing. Caregivers need training. They could be doing more harm than good, so it would be nice to see training for caregivers included in that caregivers benefit. Along with the amount of the benefit itself, it would be nice to see it revert to something a little closer to the attendance allowance.
In summary, as I said, VETS Canada does support the passage of Bill , but it is our hope that it remains just first steps and that there's room for improvement. We like to say: Is it better than what was on the table yesterday? Yes. Is there room for improvement? Yes.
Thank you.
:
Sorry about this preamble, Chair.
Thank you, witnesses, for coming today. The testimony you've given, frankly, has been very balanced. I'd like to point out to you that the ombudsman also said that this does not mean that the gap has been closed. So while you're trying to get your talking points from these witnesses and everything else, it's important that we recognize that there's balance to this.
Sir Robert Borden said:
The government and the country will consider it their first duty—
—not their second duty, not their third duty, but their first duty—
—to see that a proper appreciation of your effort and of your courage is brought to the notice of people at home that no man, whether he goes back or whether he remains in Flanders, will have just cause to reproach the government for having broken faith with the men who won and the men who died.
That first duty means that it comes before all other priorities. I would propose to you that this government's priority has been to balance the budget in an election year. As a result they've given the minister only a certain amount of money and told him to sprinkle it out there and try to have the most impact visually so we can sell something to our veterans. But I would propose to you also that our veterans don't buy it, because almost every veterans' group that has come before this committee has said that it is only a half measure. While the gap is being closed there's so much more to do. Frankly, I don't know why we didn't just do it.
For instance—and you've talked about this—with the critical injury benefit, you've already said the amount of $70,000 is not enough, Mr. McInnis. There is no reference to people with PTSD. You both agree that they've been marginalized yet again. I know there are other benefits available to them when PTSD emerges, but so too are other benefits available to those who suffer injuries along the way.
Would you propose that we amend this to include a $70,000 payment to those people who suffer from PTSD, if and when PTSD emerges? Could I hear from you, Mr. Mac Culloch?
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to all the witnesses for coming here this afternoon. It's great to see you here again.
Before I ask a question, I want to make a few points to clarify certain things.
First of all, the veterans ombudsman who was here this morning did not mention half measures. He said, actually, that it was a good step in the right direction. I think it was Mr. Forbes who mentioned half measures.
What I would really like to stress is that we can play political games here and point fingers at each other—I can point fingers at someone—and say, “Do you remember what happened in 1994-95?” But we're not here for this. I am really very proud and happy that I have been able, by my own choice, to serve on this committee since the beginning of this Parliament. I did not grow up here in Canada, but I grew up among veterans. I remember my grandfather on my mother's side—not very well, but I remember that he was missing his right arm. He lost it in the war of 1920, and he already was married and had children. He came back and had another three or four. My mother had 11 siblings.
I heard all sorts of war stories. Growing up, I truly believed that one day I would go to war and fight like these guys about whom I heard stories. It took time to grow up and realize what war was. I realized how fortunate my generation, born after the war, was and how grateful we should be for those who went to fight, those who served after, and those who are serving today—we have some of them at the table here—to protect us: my generation, the generation of my children and grandchildren, and I hope many generations to come.
We may have different political agendas, but we are here to serve the veterans. You gentlemen remember that when we were doing the review of the Veterans Charter, the question asked of many groups that appeared here—and several times the question came from me—was, if you had to choose, what would be the first things you would change in the Veterans Charter?
I'm not pointing fingers at all those members of Parliament in 2006 who decided, without any opposition, to pass the charter. They had great intentions; some things came up. That's why it is a living charter; that's why we have to look at it. Truly, I would not like to feel, after all the work at the committee....
You probably know the story from Greek mythology of the Greek king Sisyphus, who was punished and had to roll a boulder up a hill and never made it: the boulder would roll back. I hope we are going in the right direction and addressing the issues. I hope that's what we've done.
I think that what is in is addressing the issues that were raised—not all of them—and my understanding and that of those who were at the committee is that the agreement was that it would be an incremental change.
I would love to have you address this and comment on the issues I raised.
It will be seven minutes. I timed it earlier.
My name is Brian Robert McKenna. I'm a resident in the riding of Newton—North Delta in British Columbia. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today with regard to these matters.
The issues in front of us are serious ones. I'm honoured both to be here in this great building and perhaps to have a small role in making some progress on these issues. I'll take a couple of seconds to introduce myself and then I'll get going.
I'm a soon-to-be-retired warrant officer from the Royal Westminster Regiment in the army reserves. That retirement is not my choice; it's the military's choice. I come to you today as a representative of the B.C. Veterans Well-being Network.
I've experienced a number of the situations that this committee is tasked to review. My release from the Canadian Forces is due to my inability to meet the requirements of the universality of the service. I was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder in 2012, and also suffered some intestinal damage due to a bug I caught in Afghanistan. While I'll always have pride in my service, there's a large hole in my own self-worth as I struggle today with the realities of losing my connection to the organization I loved. I'm one of the folks you guys talk about. I'm coming to terms with the fact that the organization I risked my life for no longer has a position for me.
I have read the bill in question and I'm filled with a number of thoughts and emotions as I contemplate it's content.
I'm saddened that we are now fixing these problems in 2015 instead of years ago, but I am happy that these issues are finally in the public light. In the fairness of giving credit where credit is due, along with knowing how long it takes to produce in-depth policy, I'd like to give some credit both to the current administration at VAC and to the previous minister's staff, who I'm sure had a hand in these files.
I have to say, the changes being considered are positive steps. I'm optimistic, and more important than that, I am trusting that, through you people, real veterans will see some real improvements on these issues.
I'd like to bring your attention to a few thoughts I had upon reading the points being discussed.
Division 17 of part 3, as described in paragraph (b) of the legislative summary, refers to the transition process and enabling the Minister of Veterans Affairs to essentially engage sooner. I see value in that. The current situation of major engagement being initiated by the department upon release could be described as a football throw. We know in these cases which department is throwing and who is supposed to catch, but in football some passes are incomplete.
What we should strive towards is more of a football running play where the ball is secured in the receiving player's arms before the line is hit, enabling them to hit the line running. I ask the committee to consider that VAC should be the lead agency in the health care of the veteran as soon as the release message is in the hands of the soldier.
So much mental stress is due to the add-on factors that compound the problem originally faced. Ambiguity is a major stressor. In the current situation, the affected service member faces statements like, “may qualify” or “can apply for” and often, “can apply for later upon release.” Perhaps we could change some of those to, “will receive” or, “is entitled to,” before they leave the Canadian forces and move to the unknown.
I would further suggest that, upon receipt of the release message, the soldier's VAC case manager be assigned. At that point, not upon release, they could begin to apply for the full suite of Veterans Affairs benefits.
This would serve to alleviate conflict and draw cleans lines as to who is actually the lead care provider for the member as they transition, instead of the current scenario, which again, is the football pass.
A risk of having two organizations looking at the same case is the likelihood that at some point, in some cases, there may be confusion about who is actually in charge. Establishing a policy of engaging the case manager earlier, when release is known as opposed to when release is complete, has the potential to remove some of the variables in the transition process.
Lastly, I'd like to identify a concern with what is described in paragraph (c) of the legislative summary. My concern is with the surviving spouse in respect to the benefits mentioned.
Certainly I'm happy to see the needs and contributions of the spouse being considered. My concern is that these spousal benefits are tied to the income of the veteran. Both the earning loss benefit tied to 75% of the pre-release salary and the proposed continued financial benefit past age 65 are not received by a veteran who has other forms of income that go higher than the threshold described.
The concern is that when that veteran dies, since the veteran did not collect the benefit because of making too much money, the surviving spouse then does not receive the entitlement.
My suggestion to this committee is that you study and produce a mechanism that delivers the characteristics of the benefit to all those who would have qualified, regardless of whether or not, because of finances, they actually received it. That way we avoid making a second class of surviving spouse upon the death of the veteran.
I'll close my comments by reiterating one point. The symptoms and presentations of PTSD are tough to live with, in some cases completely crippling. Regardless of the effect and severity of mental health conditions, there is a constant: these conditions are worsened by a lack of clarity about what your next few years are going to look like. Facing a mental illness while staring at financial insecurity and potential job loss is the perfect storm to worsen the very conditions we are attempting to treat and alleviate.
Financial stability for veterans isn't just part of mental health, but in some cases it is their mental health. I can only encourage you to dig deep into these proposed revisions to try to flush out as many inconsistencies as possible, so that upon royal assent the detailed implementation of the act matches the intent.
Thank you.
:
I'd like to thank Brian right off the bat. He made three of the four main points that I wanted to express.
I'd like to thank the honourable members of all parties of the standing committee for allowing me this opportunity to speak.
In division 17, I believe that overall the legislation is reasonable and prudent. It will assist veterans and their families who have the most serious needs. It addresses their long-term financial security needs—although Brian did raise an excellent point there—it provides some measure of respite for their primary caregivers, and it establishes the critical injury benefit. Most importantly, it will do much to close the seam between a CF member's release and their accessing services through VAC in a much more proactive manner.
Those veterans most in need will be better looked after by this new piece of legislation. I believe strongly that the standing committee will act in the best interests of all veterans.
More work needs to be done in the transitioning of less seriously injured veterans. Priority hiring in the federal service is [Inaudible--Editor], as is the creation of Canada Company. Helmets to Hardhats also can play a vital and important role.
One area that hasn't been discussed and is a very important missing piece is the synergy between the federal government and the provinces. The provincial governments' ministries of colleges and universities have little understanding of the training and experience that a veteran brings to the workforce.
Recently, the British Columbia Institute of Technology has created a process of translating these skills for civilian accreditation purposes, but more colleges and universities in each separate jurisdiction need to be encouraged to follow suit.
Ideally, once a CF member is released both VAC and the member should have a clear understanding of the provincial accreditation that members would already have, guiding their retraining choices and entering into the civilian workforce much more quickly than starting at zero once again. The smoother the transition, the less strain on both the member and the family, and the resources needed to facilitate that transition can be achieved.
To accomplish this outcome requires [Inaudible--Editor] initiatives and diplomacy between the federal and provincial levels of government. It will not require vast sums of funding to accomplish this coordination. If successful, it will streamline the transition profoundly, however.
For the sake of brevity, I don't want to repeat some of the main points that Brian has already illustrated; they're actually much better than what I had written. But this is one missing piece, and if we're going to transition the majority of veterans who do not qualify as moderately or severely injured, we don't want to leave them out of the mix as well.
I thank you for the opportunity and respectfully submit, Derryk Fleming, 31 CBG Veterans Well-being Network.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members.
Like many public announcements, these new programs seem to offer more financial support for the veterans community. Closer examination of each one can raise a host of potential problems.
The one question that this committee can ask VAC about any new financial policy is, how generous will VAC be? VAC has a reputation for being as stingy as Ebenezer Scrooge or Scrooge McDuck. As of 2014, only 227 clients had received 100% of the new Veterans Charter lump sum, out of 46,760 recipients. The CIB lump sum of $70,000 will be offered on a limited basis and, like the NVC lump sum, is based on a percentage calculated by assessing the severity of disabilities. Initial estimates suggest that hundreds rather than thousands will receive CIB.
The FCRB is expected to provide relief to approximately 350 spouses or caregivers by 2020. Why is this estimated number of caregivers so small? I would think that many primary caregivers would like to take a break, considering the fact that many of them did not expect to have to work for 24 hours a day, seven days a week, because of veterans' disabilities. In fact, the FCRB could reduce the number of divorces caused by caregiver burnout.
The RISB may benefit about 261 clients over the first five years of the program. In my opinion, the RISB also has a poorly justified limit. In addition, it will be 70% of pre-65 income. There are two concerns that I shall highlight. Why is there any decrease in a veteran's financial support because of a change in age? Is it assumed that veterans need less support after the age of 65? Based on the studies of VAC's own Gerontological Advisory Council, veterans are able to enjoy long life but only if they have good support.
In 2006, Greg Thompson, the incumbent minister, provided information on the veterans independence program for this very committee. He stated that 86,000 war service veterans did not receive VIP. He did not offer an explanation about why they did not receive support and added that providing them with VIP might never happen. He did acknowledge that that home care is better than institutional care, and the council also acknowledged that veterans were likely to live longer if they remained in their own homes.
VAC is also aware that most of the health care given to Canadians occurs when we are babies and then in the last months of our lives. This suggests to me that, rather than less money, veterans will need more money to maintain an independent lifestyle, which will likely include support during activities that elderly and disabled people find difficult or impossible.
It should also be noted that the age of 65 will stop being a benchmark by 2023 for old age security. Will VAC also raise the age of eligibility for the RISB? I think that using age as a factor contradicts the spirit of Canadian human rights. Pension Act benefits are awarded in recognition of the sacrifices made by veterans, as are other benefits provided by VAC. Decreasing these based on age is discrimination. Nobody improves with age, unlike wine.
In summary, these three programs are expected to benefit a very small number of the estimated 205,000 clients and their families. The RISB may also result in financial hardships at a time in life when clients may need to pay for more support. Why is VAC developing programs if only a few will benefit?
Thus, VAC seems to be advertising a lot but delivering only a little.
Thank you.
Good evening. My name is Michael Blais. I'm the president and founder of the Canadian Veterans Advocacy. Thank you for inviting me to attend committee tonight to speak to Bill and the creation of new programs designed to improve the quality of life for disabled veterans.
It is very gratifying to me to note that several of the primary issues that I found at the Canadian Veterans Advocacy in 2010 have been addressed recently. While there is a certain degree of scepticism within the veterans community I serve as to the timing of these announcements and the looming election, I am hopeful that the government is acting in good faith and that there will be merit in these discussions.
I understand there is only so much we can do with the limited time available to us. To that end, I'd like to focus on the shortcomings that I believe can be resolved at this time, if the government is acting in good faith, to ensure the proposals that have been brought forward will be inclusive to all veterans, not only those who have experienced physical trauma.
Critical injury benefit: I believe this is a positive development. However, what is very troubling to me is the fact that many who have sustained mental wounds will be excluded, due to the immediate prerequisite within the proposal. This exclusion is detrimental to our collective objective to eliminate stigma, to ensure that those who have sustained mental wounds are assured that the pervasive health insidious stigma does not relegate the seriousness of their sacrifice, as this does, to a lower state of recognition. There must be equality in acknowledgement of all serious wounds, physical or mental.
I would respectfully remind the committee members that mental wounds are just as lethal as physical wounds. We must acknowledge the grim fact that more of Canada's sons and daughters have died as a consequence of suicide than the nation's sacrifice during the war on terror. Without effective intervention, this number will only rise. Furthermore, we must be cognizant that these intensely tragic numbers speak only to one segment of the issue, as Veterans Affairs Canada does not track suicides within the veteran community. These numbers may be exponentially higher.
We know now that mental wounds, when incurred during an operational period, are often not recognized or acknowledged by the individual until returning home and the cycle of despair begins to ravage the mind, adversely affecting self and the family unit. We also understand that many of our heroes suppress acknowledging the seriousness of the wound, fearful of stigma and career-ending ramifications, until the mental discord appears and finally the treatment is brought forward.
We must consider all serious national sacrifice equally. It should matter not whether you have sustained a physical or a mental wound. Should it not qualify for the prerequisites of the CIB because a mental wound is bereft of the need for immediate hospitalization? Amendments can be made to respect the national sacrifice of those who have sustained mental wounds as a consequence of their service, so that they, too, will be included in this compensatory proposal.
In regard to caregivers, this too is a positive step forward, aligning the NVC provisions with that of the Pension Act and providing annual respite for primary caregivers who have been consigned to a lifetime of caring for seriously disabled veterans.
Once again, however, caregivers who are caring for veterans who have sustained serious mental wounds have virtually been excluded. Spouses who care for their husbands 24/7, fearing the spectre of suicide on a daily basis, are not accorded the opportunity for dedicated respite while knowing their loved ones are cared for.
There must be equality and recognition that the impact that a mental wound bears upon the caregiver is extraordinary, that the threat of the wound manifesting catastrophically is clear and present long after a physical wound has been determined non-life threatening. I would encourage you to recognize the travail that caregivers of those with mental wounds are experiencing. Amend the legislation to include the plight of families who are dealing with mental wounds.
Regarding the retirement income supplementary benefit, this has been the cornerstone principle of the CVA since conception, that is, the plight of our disabled veterans when reaching aged 65. I repeat, it's for disabled veterans, ladies and gentlemen. The foundation of the RISB, a comparative to the average Canadian's post-retirement income at 70% of 75%, negates the disabled veteran's quotient completely. We're not speaking of ordinary Canadians; we're speaking of disabled veterans who are bereft of a lifetime of opportunity to prepare for retirement. Disabled veterans do not retire from being disabled. Indeed, as they grow older, they require additional help.
We believe there should be no reduction and that the 70% of 75% equation does not respect the needs of a disabled veteran. The RISB should ensure the quality of life provisions to which they have been accorded, the foundation of VAC's mandate, are maintained at 75%. We also find it disingenuous to include a permanent impairment allowance—an award that recognizes the fact that seriously disabled veterans require financial support to cope with their wounds in addition to the 75% ELB or SISIP provision—into the harmonization of these income prerequisites. Once again, these are seriously impaired veterans. To negate the PIA mandate through a RISB clawback formula—despite the fact they are still seriously disabled and have already sustained a significant physical reduction—when reaching age 65 will consign them to lives of near poverty.
We also have grave concerns about the proposals to give 50% of 70% of prior earnings to dependants should the veteran pass prior to the spouse. We find this is grotesquely insufficient. There must be equality in recognition of national sacrifice. A serious life-altering wound must be treated with the same level of respect, regardless of whether it's physical or mental in nature.
I have come here today to attempt to convince you to fulfill this obligation, this sacred obligation to the valiant who have sustained serious mental wounds and to their families who have offered such profound sacrifice on behalf of this magnificent nation.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable members of the committee, for the invitation. We have much to do so I will skip further formalities.
The proposed programs that bring us here today have been accompanied by an inundation of feel-good political announcements. Does the hype match reality? More importantly, do the programs fulfill identified gaps and address the evidence-based recommendations?
The retirement income security benefit claims it will top up to 70% of what the veteran received from government prior to age 65. However, this is based upon the veteran's earnings loss benefit, as already pointed out, which pays 75% of release salary, inadequately adjusted for inflation. The retirement benefit equates to the veteran effectively receiving 52.5% of their military salary, once again inadequately adjusted for inflation.
It is interesting to note that the ombudsman, Guy Parent, was quick to endorse this program during a partisan political announcement, yet Mr. Parent's office clearly recommended a retirement benefit matching 70% of a fully indexed release salary.
The department has been less than forthcoming as to what will be deducted from this income, but we are safe to assume that CPP, OAS, and the CF retirement pension will be deducted. We must know that OAS, a program for all Canadians, is transparent in its legislation as to how OAS is calculated. Do veterans not deserve the same sort of transparency for their benefits?
What we do know is that the calculation for the veteran retirement benefit does not include these other incomes in calculating the 70% benefit, but then will likely deduct these programs at 100%. This hardly meets the smell test, let alone the fact it fails to provide the veteran with even 70% of what he or she received in Government of Canada benefits prior to age 65.
We also must emphatically remember that the majority of veterans groups that are active in advocacy, the ombudsman, VAC's own advisory group, and this committee in 2010 have all repeatedly recommended that the 75% earnings loss benefit be substantively increased to anywhere from 90% to 100% of release salary, matching typical career progression and promotions.
Implementing this universally supported recommendation would result in a dignified income loss program, which would in turn provide a dignified retirement benefit for our most injured veterans. Today we are witnesses to the consequence of government's repeated dismissal of this evidence-based research and recommendation in this paltry payout from this proposed retirement benefit.
The family caregiver benefit is another puzzling creation. No veteran group, parliamentary committee, ombudsman, or advisory group asked for this benefit in this form. What others have asked for is everything from matching the DND caregiver benefit, which pays up to $36,500 in any 365 cumulative days, to providing spouses of TPI veterans with their own earnings loss benefit to compensate for their lost income while they're caring for their disabled veteran spouses.
One of the easiest solutions would be merely to open up attendance allowance to new Veterans Charter recipients. However, the proposed family caregiver benefit pays $7,238 per year, equivalent to the lowest levels of attendance allowance, which pays up to $21,151.44 annually.
New Veterans Charter clients are prevented, under this legislation, from accessing the attendance allowance. Attendance allowance recipients are prevented from accessing the new family caregiver benefit, yet the criteria for each are different. If new Veterans Charter programs are so good, why is this one closed to Pension Act clients? If the Pension Act so inadequate, why are NVC clients prevented from accessing attendance allowance?
The critical injury benefit will provide a one-time payment of $70,000 to eligible Canadian Forces members and veterans “for severe, sudden and traumatic injuries or acute diseases that are service related, regardless of whether they result in permanent disability”. Countless veterans have come forward, telling us that disabling PTSD, traumatic brain injury, and loss of organ function are being low-balled below the approximately $40,000 average disability award payment.
How can government justify to a veteran suffering a lifelong disability that their disabling pain and suffering merits far lower a payment than a veteran who temporarily suffered an injury?
This leads to the obvious question on many Canadians' mind: from what bureaucratic orifice did this benefit originate? Absolutely no one in the veterans community, the ombudsman's office, the committee, or advisory group asked for this benefit. We know little of the criteria, but we can guess.
The criteria will be so stringently defined as to restrict the benefits to only two or three individuals per year out of a totally disabled and permanently incapacitated veteran population of 4,000 veterans, and a CF serving and veteran population of 700,000 individuals.
How is this in any manner fulfilling Canada's obligation to all of our veterans and their families? It is not. Why did government not do what we've all been asking and increase the amount of the lump-sum benefit to at least match court awards for pain and suffering? We are inundated by slick PR campaigns and political photo shoots on the importance of military service and of being a veteran, but when it comes to addressing shortcomings for those most in need, government delays deflect, and unfortunately have been lightly dancing on the suffering of our veterans and their families.
Bill proposes wording regarding an obligation to our serving members, our veterans, and their families, to provide services, assistance, and compensation. It is more encompassing than the construction clause of the Pension Act. However, both offer little substance and are essentially meaningless.
To what end is the obligation? Is it to rehabilitate, to re-establish or offer opportunity, well-being, employment, quality of life or education, or perhaps provide a clear service standard? An obligation without a goal is meaningless. Why does this obligation recognize assistance to only injured members, veterans, and their families? Is Canada not responsible for all veterans? The duty of the minister under the Department of Veterans Affairs Act is for “the care, treatment or re-establishment in civil life of any person who served in the Canadian Forces”, and “The care of the dependants or survivors”. Is this not what the NVC promised but has so far failed to deliver?
I'm consistently honoured to appear before committee and to have my comments placed on the record. In the past, I have provided over 100 recommendations in original reports with often unprecedented observations, likely more than any other individual or organization. In my last submission, I provided 30 easy and doable recommendations, which would have minimal expenditure and—
:
Thank you very much, and thank you to our witnesses.
I have not heard a single MP around this table or a single MP in the House of Commons limit future initiatives. I have just not heard anyone give any indication whatsoever that once this legislation is passed, that's it.
I've heard the exact opposite. I've heard it's a living document, and that these are great first steps. Some political football is being played, and just to give you an example, the opposition is asking what has taken so long. We even heard that tonight. The government, through the minister, picks some key initiatives, six, seven, eight of them, announces them, puts them into legislation. Some of them have already been delivered, for example, the better access to the PIA, the respect for reserves. So the minister takes some key initiatives and moves forward faster.
Why aren't you doing more? What's taking so long?
I want to remind everybody on this committee that there's very real legislation sitting in front of committee right now that's going to be back in the House with very real benefits and initiatives for veterans, and there are veterans who will benefit from them. I think we have to keep that first and foremost in our minds, especially if we're trying to put the veteran at the centre of everything, because we can play a little game and say if only it were different, then I would vote for it.
Yes, but what about the veteran who is eligible for one of these new benefits? When this passes into law, are you saying tough luck for him because it wasn't quite the way you wanted it. That's part of the political consideration that has to be, I think, swept aside, so we focus on what is in front of committee and what is in front of Parliament. That leads me to my question.
Mr. Blais, I'll open with you. I'd like to know what your advice is to MPs on this committee about this legislation, these measures that I consider to be very real benefits for very real veterans: to vote for them, to support this, to pass this quickly?