Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 100 of 1010
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
Thank you.
I want to thank our witnesses for being here this evening. I know some of you were there last evening. We've had some very good testimony from our witnesses. As I mentioned in my opening remarks yesterday, what we have in front of us as a committee, and what we will ultimately have in front of us in the House when the bill goes back to the House, are very concrete measures that are aimed at benefiting veterans. When they pass into law, veterans will benefit from these measures.
Your testimony is much appreciated. It is acknowledged that this is not the end of the work. In other words, this is not the end of the line. This is a beginning, in a sense, but the measures are very concrete in nature.
What I've heard most witnesses say is that they support the measures as they are presented. They might have suggested changes, but they support what is contained within the legislation moving forward so that veterans will actually benefit.
Perhaps I'll just ask Mr. Blackwolf. Would it be an accurate representation of your position that what is in front of us would be of benefit to veterans and should move forward?
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
Thank you very much, Chair.
Maybe I'll just start by commenting. Mr. Chicoine said that the ombudsman had said these were half-hearted steps. I want to clear the record; that's not what he said at all. I have his remarks in front of me. He said:
The proposed legislation represents significant progress on several issues of longstanding concern to veterans and their families. Because it is narrowing the gap on needed changes, it is important that it pass quickly and be implemented without delay.
That's what he actually said.
If I heard each of your testimonies correctly—and I appreciate everything you had to say to the committee—when you look at the legislation itself and the key measures contained within it, what I heard each of your organizations say is that you too support the measures within the legislation, that you too recommend that it pass as quickly as possible so that veterans can benefit from what is actually contained within the legislation. Is that correct?
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
Sure, absolutely. The minister's here, but if he were not here I would still say that I think it's fair to say that the minister has said that the Veterans Charter does not stand still. It is a living document. There is always work that needs to be done. There are gaps that need to be filled, but these steps are important steps.
Let me highlight one of those important steps. The critical injury benefit is significant, I feel—$70,000 dollars tax free. And of course it's for a veteran who is injured and suffers that injury from a significant event related to service.
I wanted to ask the legion your thoughts on this critical injury benefit. I don't believe it's something you had asked for specifically, but there it is. It's in the legislation. I think it's a good sum of money to help a veteran cope with having sustained a serious injury in a single traumatic event, but could I have your comments on that?
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
Okay.
I'll just comment on your point because it came up in one of the presentations as well that all the details aren't there. I would say it is part of the legislative process, in a sense. There is just sort of a rhythm to how things are implemented.
The first key steps are securing the funding, passing the legislation, and then of course the regulations follow. Before regulations are implemented, there is consultation; they are gazetted, and there's feedback. Actually the regulatory process allows flexibility because I think you might have valid concerns.
If everything were locked down in legislation and the only way you could make a change was to put it right back through the legislative process, you might say that's a bit rigid, can't we have a bit more flexibility to accommodate such and such a circumstance, or such and such a changing situation? I think that's why the regulatory process is there. It doesn't have to go through the full legislative process again. The regulatory process is meant to be very responsive.
So, yes, there will be some details that will follow, but I would say that I feel these initiatives are put forward in good faith, are meant to benefit our veterans, and there's a consultative process that will take place before the regulations are finally promulgated in their published form.
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
Debbie Lowther, did your organization have a chance to look at the critical injury benefit? Did you have any comment you wanted to make on that particular benefit?
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
I think it's targeting seriously injured veterans.
Am I done, Chair? Thank you so much, Chair.
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
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?
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
Mr. Chair, if I may, there is nothing I said in my statement that was political. I'm talking about very real legislation that is in front of the House, and the legislation is actually in black and white, and it has to be voted on. So MPs are going to have to—
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
It's not a point of order, Frank. Don't waste our time like this.
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
I'm just wondering if I can get a clarification on your answer. What would your recommendation be to the committee on how to deal with this legislation here and in the House?
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
That's good.
Thank you.
I'd like to build in Mr. Derryk Fleming's response as well.
Are you still with us, Mr. Fleming?
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
Good. I appreciate your hanging in there. It's hard when you're not actually physically present in the room.
I would like to ask you the same question. When you look at the legislation that's in front of the committee and Parliament, what would your recommendation be with respect to how that legislation is handled when it comes time to vote?
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
Great. Thank you very much.
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
Thank you to our guests for being here to talk about this important legislation. I'm very happy it's included in the budget implementation act. I'm glad we have it here in front of the committee so that we're able to discuss the different aspects of it.
The first question I'd like to ask has to do with the purpose clause. You mentioned it in your opening remarks. I think it would be of interest to all members. I think the terminology that's been used in the purpose clause is terminology that all MPs have been seeking. I'm wondering if you could elaborate on that a bit.
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
Thank you very much. Actually, Chair, I'd like to read the paragraph quickly, because I think there are people who might be listening to this committee but who don't have the legislation in front of them.
The purpose clause, as I read it in the legislation, is as follows:
The purpose of this Act is to recognize and fulfil the obligation of the people and Government of Canada to show just and due appreciation to members and veterans for their service to Canada. This obligation includes providing services, assistance and compensation to members and veterans who have been injured or have died as a result of military service and extends to their spouses or common-law partners or survivors and orphans. This Act shall be liberally interpreted so that the recognized obligation may be fulfilled.
Thank you for your indulgence. I just wanted to have that on the record. I think that supports the explanation we just received.
I would also like to ask a question about the caregiver amount. I think this is an important initiative for the spouses or family members of veterans who in fact care for them. Even though the veteran may be receiving home care through Veterans Affairs, this is an additional benefit to family members. I'm wondering if you could perhaps explain—I believe the amount is a little over $7,000, tax-free—who that amount is paid to. Is it paid to the veteran, or is it paid to a specific family member?
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
Does a veteran have to apply for it? For example, if one of their family caregivers is planning some time away to recharge, do they need to fill out an application form to say they'd now like to apply for this caregiver amount?
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
Are there receipts that have to be submitted? For example, if the family member decides that plan A is best to recharge their energy and refresh them to come back into a situation of looking after their loved one, while someone else might decide it's plan B or plan C, is the department involved in any type of approval process, or is it entirely up to the veteran and their family caregivers how they use that money to rejuvenate?
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
Thank you, Chair.
Perhaps you could explain something to the committee and to those who are listening. We have what I call important initiatives for veterans. They're in the budget implementation act before Parliament. We're going to be reporting it back to the House. Of course, every indication is that it will pass through Parliament before we rise for the summer, and it will go to the Senate.
Could you give us an indication of the implementation time once this has passed through the Senate, especially for these financial benefits?
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
Thank you.
Thanks, Chair.
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
Thank you, Chair. To our witnesses, thank you for being here.
Actually, it's an interesting discussion. Let me just ask a question about that.
I think the ombudsman made a good point that a lot of these circumstances are very personal, meaning they are unique to the individual who is being considered for benefits. For example, sometimes it's easy to think that the ELB, which is at 70%, should be at 80%, should be at 90%, should be at 100%, but there are other benefits too that a veteran may have access to. It's very individual.
For example, if someone is a moderately to seriously injured veteran, is the disability award being taken into consideration there? That can be quite a large lump sum payment up to $300,000. In addition to that, there's the SISIP payment for dismemberment. If a member lost an arm, lost an eye, lost two eyes, lost an arm and a leg, there could be a significant lump sum payment that is in addition to any type of ELB they would receive.
The third thing I would mention of course is the military pension. It is true some soldiers are young and may not be in the pensionable window, but there are others who are and would receive their military pension.
I think there are a lot of factors. If I may, let me ask the ombudsman about that.
When you're advocating a position for the ELB, for example, are you taking into consideration these other benefits to which a veteran may be eligible?
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
If I may, I would bring it to the legislation and what's in this legislation.
I really appreciated your remarks, and I particularly appreciated your fairness principles of adequacy, sufficiency, and accessibility, and how you looked at what's in the legislation. You defined what's in the legislation through your fairness principles.
I don't think anybody feels the work is now done and that's that. I think these are just important steps. They are milestone steps in terms of moving forward.
I would ask the ombudsman from that perspective, is your recommendation to committee members to actually pass this legislation so these new benefits can be implemented?
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
Great. Thank you.
Let me ask Mr. Forbes the same question, because I think this is a critical question. I think depending on who you speak to and what their emphasis is in terms of delivering benefits, there's much more that can be done in any one, two, three, or uncountable areas. However, this is a very defined bill, and it has very concrete measures in it, concrete measures in terms of financial benefits that will be delivered to veterans.
I understand you want more. I understand from your remarks that you're not happy with what's in there, but is your advice to committee members to support this legislation so it passes into law and will actually deliver these benefits to veterans?
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
Thank you, Chair.
Just as the meeting is winding down, I'd like to make a proposal to the committee. I think we all agree this is important legislation. A few days ago, I had offered to the committee that we have extra meetings. I was suggesting two extra meetings to make sure we hear from the most number of witnesses as possible. The opposition gratefully accepted one extra meeting, which is the meeting we're going to have tonight.
Mr. Chair, what I'd like to do is propose the second meeting for Wednesday evening, for just one hour. I say that because I believe there are four witnesses we haven't been able to schedule into the two meetings we're having, and this will give them an opportunity to talk about the legislation and what's in front of us. As I mentioned, certainly from our perspective on this side, it's important that we hear from as many witnesses as we possibly can.
I'd like to put that out to the committee, that we host one more meeting—a one-hour meeting, not a two-hour meeting—on Wednesday night.
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
It is short notice. It's meant to be accommodating to witnesses. They're not our witnesses.
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
It would be after votes. I believe up until votes we're all jammed up with other meetings, question period, and votes.
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
Yes, one hour. My proposal would be it would be after votes for one hour.
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
I don't think we can move it to next week because it has to be reported back to the finance committee by June 2.
I agree with you that it is short notice. I will say, too, that I offered a week and a half ago or two weeks ago to have two meetings. It's only now that the clerk has been trying to reach witnesses that we have found out that not all the witnesses can come to fill these two. The meetings will be full, but there are witnesses who said they could come on Wednesday night. As I said, they're not our witnesses or star witnesses. They're just—
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
I look to the opposition to see what....
I'm making it as a proposal, Mr. Chair.
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
Just end the meeting. Gavel her down.
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
Right. What I wanted to discuss briefly was, of course, the budget implementation act with the veterans clauses that are coming to committee. I believe that the finance committee referred those clauses earlier this week, on Tuesday.
I think, as we discussed at previous meetings, that type of legislation takes priority over other work and other studies. I believe that there are two meetings that we would be able to schedule, two regular meetings is what I'll say, within that timeframe on the normal Tuesday and the Thursday before we have to report it back.
What I'd like to offer to the committee, of course, is that we have a few extra meetings, if members are in agreement. If they would like more time to study the clauses of the budget implementation act that are coming from the finance committee, then I want to make that offer that we're certainly open to do them.
I would propose two additional meetings, but it could be one, as well. That's the offer I would make, Chair. I think it would give us more opportunity to study the clauses.
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
Chair, all I was going to say was that I think we definitely would have witnesses come in. These measures would have an impact on veterans, their families, and also serving Canadian Armed Forces members. I think it is important to have witnesses.
We have a normal process whereby the opposition parties and we as the government submit names of witnesses to the chair, and the chair arranges them for meetings. I think that's a fine process, and I recommend that we continue to follow it.
I think a three-hour meeting probably would be problematic, because what I have experienced before is that the MPs around the table end up having other committee meetings, and they just can't stay an extra hour. If we can get the work done.... If you're proposing that we get the work done in the two regular meetings, I have no problem with that at all, if that's the will of MPs around this table.
If we feel that we need additional meetings, that was my offer; we'd gladly have additional meetings. My proposal would be, based on previous experience, that those additional meetings be held at night after votes, maybe in the window between 6:30 and 8:30, because generally then it doesn't conflict with all of the other things that we have already planned in our schedules, and the commitments that we can't necessarily get out of—
A voice: Except dinners.
Mr. Pierre Lemieux: Yes, except dinners.
Anyway, that's the point I wanted to make. I would look to committee members.
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
If I'm hearing correctly, Chair, what we would have, for example, when the House starts sitting again after next week, is that on Tuesday we would have a meeting with witnesses. Then we would have one nighttime meeting with witnesses, and the regular Thursday meeting would be to discuss what we send back to the finance committee. Is that what I'm hearing?
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
Could I ask when would they want witnesses submitted to the Chair?
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
Shall we say before...today is Thursday....
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
I think that's a fine suggestion.
What I would recommend, Mr. Chair, is that we should get to the end of the work that we're about to do. We have that Thursday meeting where we're going to be discussing what we send back to the finance committee. We could use a portion of that meeting, of course, to map out the work we want to do in the remaining meetings before the end of the session.
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
Thank you very much, Chair, and thank you, Minister, for being with us today.
I'd also like to thank you for directing your comments to the legislation that is in front of the House. I want to thank you for your commitment to have it passed before we rise at the end of this session. I think that's extremely important. Otherwise, they are just promises never delivered upon. I think that's critical.
I would say to Mr. Stoffer that it's in the budget implementation act. In the past what's happened is the portions that pertain to a particular committee, for example the veterans portions in the budget implementation act that would pertain to this committee, will probably be sent to this committee. We have to wait to see what the finance committee decides, but I wouldn't be surprised if this committee will review the clauses in the budget implementation act that refer to the comments the minister made today about the new initiatives and passing them into law.
Minister, I'd like to ask you a question about Bill C-58, about the legislation in front of the House, and that has to do with the critical injury benefit. I think it's a great initiative, but I think it could be misunderstood for example when compared to the disability award.
There was a great example given at the time of the announcement of a soldier who would collect the critical injury benefit, but I'm wondering if you could elaborate for the committee on the difference between the critical injury benefit and the disability award.
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
Thank you very much.
The example that was given of the critical injury benefit was a paratrooper whose chute doesn't deploy properly. He's injured upon landing and undergoes multiple surgeries, but after a one- or two-year recovery period, his disability is small. However, he went through one to two years of significant recovery and trauma. You're saying that the critical injury benefit would be of great benefit to him because of that traumatic period of recovery, whereas the disability award might actually be small because, if he recovers for the most part, then the disability award would be small.
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
I have just one last question, Minister.
This is not passed yet. In other words, it's in legislation. The budget implementation bill must pass for this to be implemented, this $70,000 tax-free benefit.
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
Minister, you referenced your consultations with other stakeholders, for example, through this committee, with the committee, with the ombudsman, and with witnesses, etc. You held a very important summit where there was further consultation. I'm wondering if you could inform the committee about the summit and about those types of consultations you've done that have helped lead to the legislation in front of Parliament now.
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
Thank you, Chair. I want to thank our witnesses for being here.
Certainly I support the good intentions of the bill. I want to clear up some confusion, though. The law does not identify it as a lesser holiday. It was a witness who said that, and somehow it has taken on a life of its own and is being quoted as “Remembrance Day is a lesser holiday”. It is not a lesser holiday. It is simply termed differently from a statutory holiday, but that doesn't make it any less. I think we should be dropping that word “lesser”, because it was brought into the discussion by a witness who came before the heritage committee.
The second thing is that while I support the intention—I think it's a noble intention that we honour those who have fought and given their lives in the defence of Canada and Canada's freedoms—I don't think I'm going to be the first to say that tremendous confusion surrounds this bill. You hear it here today. I've read through all the transcripts and followed Mr. Harris' speech. Even Mr. Harris at the beginning—11 times in his opening speech in the House—called it a “statutory holiday”.
So there is tremendous confusion, and while we're trying to sort out the confusion here amongst MPs, imagine Canadians who are not following the debate closely and not listening to the interpretation and the clarifications. It is confusing what Canadians will think when it's raised to a legal holiday but not a statutory holiday. There's a lot of confusion here.
It has been implied that it is a day off. That's the implication, and I think it's what most Canadians are expecting when they look at this bill. They'd have to follow exactly what's going on to think differently.
I have another concern, and that is about the competing interests on what would be a statutory holiday, if it were a statutory holiday; that is, that the commercial sector would see an opportunity here and that there would be other events organized on this day. I think that Canadians right now honour Remembrance Day. They know that Remembrance Day is special. They honour it by attending a ceremony, the children in schools or others in their own way as Canadians, to pause and reflect on what the meaning of the day is.
Let me ask a question about consultation. Because of the confusion that I see, at least, I think it's really important to consult before a bill like this comes forward, because I think that dissipates confusion and you have the buy-in of stakeholders. You'd also have their input in terms of their saying, “Oh, that's not clear to us” or “This is not clear to us”. I'm not convinced that there has been a lot of consultation. I have read in the transcripts, I believe, that there was not official consultation with the provinces. There was perhaps some dialogue, but not consultation with the provinces.
But let me ask about the Legion, Mr. White. Was the Legion formally consulted on this bill and the way it's worded or what is being advanced, before it was tabled?
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
Mr. Blais, let me ask you about your organization. Were you consulted in a more formal...? I don't mean just a sort of discussion at the end of an event, but I mean on the intent of the bill. It's not that you would have seen the wording of the bill before parliamentarians, but were you consulted on the intent of the bill and the implied understanding? As I said, right from the very beginning there was confusion over whether it's a statutory holiday or not, and that came right from the proponent of the bill.
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
After the bill was tabled...?
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
No, I'm getting to the point here of consultation. This is an important bill that affects all Canadians.
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
It affects provinces and it affects schools and school boards—
Mr. Michael Blais: Great.
Mr. Pierre Lemieux: —and I'm simply trying to ascertain.... The word “legal” is an amendment—
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
I'll take a few more seconds to adjust that point.
I said “affected”, and clearly affected, because we have the school board—
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
I am. I'm looking right at the witness from the school board—
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Peter Stoffer): Very good. Thank you.
Mr. Pierre Lemieux:—and I'm saying “affected”, because the school board is here and has written a letter saying that this will affect children in school and it will affect the schools.
I will leave my case there. Thank you.
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
We should probably go in camera.
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
It was a suggestion. It is not a motion yet. I am looking at my colleagues. Last time Mr. Valeriote asked to go in camera.
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
Thank you, Chair.
I think we are fortunate to have Mr. Harris here with us today, so I thank him for being here.
I would like to ask him a question, if I may, through you, Chair.
What Mr. Lizon just pointed out was that Canadians don't really know the legal terminology of the act. Is it a “holiday”? Is it a “legal holiday”? As I mentioned, and as I think Mr. Valeriote said, there is confusion over whether that, therefore, makes it a statutory holiday or not. That's one comment.
The second comment is that the analyst has clarified that legally speaking there is no difference between the act's saying a “holiday” or saying a “legal holiday”.
So the question I want to ask to the proponent, to Mr. Harris, is this. Could you refresh our memories on the purpose of the bill, when we've just heard all of this discussion and I think that there is the risk of confusion? It's being clarified around this table, for example, but maybe not in the minds of Canadians who are not following every word that is being spoken here at the table.
If I may, I'd like to ask Mr. Harris that question.
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
Just to follow up on Ms. Ablonczy's comments, I understand the intent to clarify. I think that's a good intent but there can always be unintended consequences. My concern is that the unintended consequence is greater confusion even though the original intent was to clarify, which is kind of what Diane was saying. That's certainly my concern and I think the concern of some colleagues around the table.
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
You'd have to summarize that into something we could digest.
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
I agree. I think that's a great plan.
For my part, I'm actually glad it came to the veterans committee because I think just in the comments we had, the discussion we had, the analyst's notes, it's helped. It has added to the debate in a constructive way, so I'm actually glad it came here.
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
Yes, thank you, Chair.
As we discussed at the end of our last meeting, this is something that I have been working on with his schedule. He's had a rather demanding schedule with a number of announcements and with, of course, the summit that he had organized and a number of other commitments as well. I don't have a final date today, but I will tell you that it's imminent. It will be very soon. I'm hoping to report back to committee, but yes, I'm working on that. Thank you.
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
I'll just say that I take his comments under consideration. The minister wants to come to committee. It's just a question of coordination. Thank you.
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
Do you see the discrimination?
Voices: Oh, oh!
Mr. Pierre Lemieux: He picks on me. It's all the time.
First of all, I want to thank you for coming here today. It's very educational for us as committee members to plug into you directly and to hear what you're doing on the ground to support veterans, and also, I think, to help Canadians support veterans. I think Canadians want to support veterans. They sometimes don't know how to go about it or what organizations are active, so your outreach is really important.
I wanted to ask Wounded Warriors about your program, the Can Praxis PTSD equine program. I had somebody ask me about it just this week. The person was a potential service provider, someone who said that they had heard about it. They obviously had read an article in the paper about equine therapy for veterans.
I wanted to ask you a little about the program, particularly, though, in terms of access. How would a veteran access the program? How would veterans find out where it's offered and how would they get access?
The second thing is that if there's a service provider, an equine organization or a farm with horses that are trained for therapy, etc., how would they let you know that they are available to assist with this program?
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
I actually think horses are very noble and very majestic animals and I think there is a bonding that takes place. My daughters used to ride, and I know the kind of relationship that can form.
Are you standing? Is it over? I'm sorry. I saw you look that way.
I'll stop there, Chair. Thank you.
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
Chair, I think we should just go with the plan, which is to leave 15 minutes at the end of the meeting to go over committee business. I don't think we can extend the meeting because a lot of us have commitments and we simply can't stay later. I would say, let's just launch and partition off 15 minutes at the end of the meeting where we'll deal with committee business.
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
Thank you very much, Chair.
Thank you very much for being here in front of committee today and for highlighting what we're studying, which is the transition process as well as transitioning programs. Maybe that's where I'd like to shift my questioning at the beginning. Some of the transition that a veteran goes through is related to process and of course some of it is related to programming in terms of what kind of tangible support they receive.
I wanted to ask a few questions about some of the more recent announcements. I ask it because the recent announcements by the minister are very much aligned with recommendations that you had made as the veterans ombudsman and also aligned well with recommendations that the committee made. Some were implemented and some were not quite implemented.
For example, I'm not going to list them all, but could I ask you to perhaps comment on the reserve parity? That is respect for reservists and of course that announcement was saying that part-time reservists would be treated, in terms of access to the benefit that they receive, the same as a full-time, regular force soldier. I'm wondering if you might have a comment on that. Did that achieve what it was you were hoping it would achieve when you made the recommendation?
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
That was my next question, because you're right, the reserve parity initiative has already been implemented through regulation. There are others that require a change in the act or in law, for example, and then will be followed by regulation.
You kind of answered my question. I was going to ask whether your recommendation would be that these initiatives should be supported so they can move forward.
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
Great, thank you for that.
I wanted to also mention something else. We've had a number of witnesses and I know you've been reading through all the transcripts. We had SISIP come and SISIP brought with them a lot of information about the programming that they offer. One of the comments that they did not make, but which I asked about afterwards—and that's kind of why I want to raise it right now—was their accidental dismemberment insurance policy.
When a soldier is injured, I think there is a fairly good understanding about the disability award, which is roughly $300,000 or up to $300,000 depending on the nature of the injury. It is delivered by Veterans Affairs. What's not always understood is that all soldiers, serving soldiers, are paying into SISIP. One of the benefits that SISIP offers is the accidental dismemberment insurance policy, which will pay up to $250,000. This is not to be confused with the disability award for accidental dismemberment, which could include for example, the more seriously injured veterans or serving members, the loss of a limb, the loss of eyes, that type of an insurance policy. The access to concrete tangible benefits in terms of an injury has two components to it. It has the SISIP component of up to $250,000 and the disability award of up to $300,000.
I'm wondering if you have a comment on that. Is that good? Have you had many complaints about that, or have you found that veterans appreciate having up to a maximum of $500,000 worth of compensation for a more serious injury?
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
Good morning, Mr. Chair.
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair.
Certainly I note the request and I thank you for your patience.
We've had a couple of things. The first is that a number of meetings have been interrupted, as you know, by votes, so in a sense it was good that we had not booked an appearance then. Second, the minister has had a number of announcements. Those have required, of course, preparation as well as the announcements themselves. It's been a very busy time for him and his office. Third, we know the budget is coming up, so to my mind it would be appropriate for him to appear once the budget has been tabled.
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
Yes, Chair, I am.
I would like to thank the witnesses for coming today. I know it's been an extremely busy time, so I'm glad we were able to lock in this meeting.
I just want to confirm some information.
First, what SISIP offers to members is that when they release, if they have an injury due to service or not due to service, SISIP is there for them. It's there for them for the first two years, and if it's a disability from which they cannot return to work, it's there until the age of 65. Would that be right?
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
This is particularly valuable because it covers non-service-related injuries.
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
Okay. So the person is in the service, but their injury could have been due to a car accident at a shopping mall on a Saturday afternoon. It was not service-related, but they were injured while they were with the military. They're covered by SISIP.
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
All right.
During those first two years, or up to the age of 65, SISIP covers 75% of their salary before they left...or just as they were leaving the forces.
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
What happens when someone is medically released and they have an injury related to service? They actually have a choice, I would guess; or maybe you could explain this to us. They could go to SISIP, because they have an injury that is related to service—you cover that as well—or they could go to VAC.
What's the step forward for that? What does the member normally choose? Is it completely up to them? What does the system say to them?
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
So DND is the employer and SISIP is a DND-managed program. VAC programs are other programs.
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
And you're saying that most or all cases will go through SISIP first, and then transition into VAC.
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
Okay.
Now, DND is the owner of SISIP, but we see Manulife on the forms. What's the role of Manulife with respect to DND and the administration of SISIP?
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
Who has the most interaction with the veteran? Is it SISIP? Is it Manulife? Is it DND? Is there a coordinated response?
If I'm a veteran, and I'm injured either due to service or not due to service, and I want to start interacting with SISIP, who will I be talking to, let's say, first, second, and third? How is that coordinated for the veterans so they have a clear understanding of what SISIP is doing for them?
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
Perhaps I could ask just one last question.
A veteran leaves the Canadian Forces. In his mind, he is not injured and his body is not injured. One year later, he has an injury that he wants to make the system aware of. His release has already happened. He could go through SISIP. He could go through VAC. He would be obligated to go to SISIP first under those circumstances as well, because SISIP pays first. Is that the thinking?
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
Thank you very much, Chair.
First of all, thank you very much for your presentation. Certainly our actions in the Netherlands were critical moments in Canada's history.
General, I certainly appreciated your recounting of some of the things that went on there. I must give all credit to the battery commander, destroying bridges with artillery from 14 miles away even though they're eight-inch shells. That's quite a feat because artillery, especially in World War II, was not known to be particularly accurate. To take out a bridge is quite a feat.
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
Yes. Thank you for filling us in on that.
I want to ask a general question. I see a list of different participants, particularly to the Netherlands. There are members of the Canadian Armed Forces, students, including cadets, tour groups, etc. Who's coordinating all of that? Are they being independently coordinated, for example, with the 150 members of the Canadian Armed Forces, or is it falling under a particular umbrella like Veterans Affairs?
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
Okay. I see on some of the dates you have Government of Canada delegation only. What makes up the Government of Canada delegation?
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
That's what's meant by a Government of Canada delegation only. When there are visits to particular cemeteries, museums, or cenotaphs, you're talking about this group of 200 to 250 people.
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
All right.
I noticed on the May 9 there's a national street parade, a liberation festival. Where's that taking place?
Results: 1 - 100 of 1010 | Page: 1 of 11

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data