Thank you.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am here on behalf of the minister, who had to fly today to Winnipeg to attend a funeral. Mr. Izzy Asper was a great personal friend of the minister. He was also a great philanthropist and a great Canadian.
I will be reading from the remarks the minister would have made, so when I say “I”, that means the minister.
It has not been long since we met to review the departmental estimates. Today's detailed review of Bill C-50 is a continuation of our ongoing discussions on how we can best meet the unique needs of Canada's veterans, particularly our wartime veterans.
As we examine the bill more closely, you might find some of the highly technical details a bit of a challenge since so many of them make reference to other acts; give authority to changes in schedules; or revoke, invoke, or change regulations. The clause-by-clause description document will help guide you, but please feel free to call on these experts who can answer the specifics on any single clause in the bill that you might need clarification on.
For the purpose of my remarks today, I will speak to the big picture concerning our intent with this legislation.
As the minister indicated during our hearings last April, our client profile is changing dramatically. Over the next decade we will be seeing a persistent and precipitous decline in our wartime veteran population. In fact--and this is a sad fact--only one-third of the estimated 305,000 war veterans in Canada will still be living in 10 years. We will also experience an increase in our Canadian Forces clients, both retired and current, as disabilities related to service bring them into our sphere of operations.
These demographic realities of life will have considerable impact on how we deliver service to our clients. In fact, they have required us not only to reconsider and revamp our policies and programs, but where necessary to update and upgrade our legislation and regulations to meet our new demographic realities.
What has really driven the need for most of these changes has been the increasingly extreme old age of our wartime veterans and their spouses. Their average age is now in the early eighties. The urgency, severity, and multifaceted nature of their care needs can be such that my department's skilled staff must make decisions quickly. Some of our current programs limit their ability to do that.
In the House, the minister recently outlined some of the regulatory changes we have put in place to give us more flexibility in serving these veterans. Today I'm going to limit my comments to the specific amendments of this bill. There are two of substance.
On re-establishment of the education assistance program, while the package of proposals I announced last May focused primarily on war veterans, I felt it important to include a recommendation to re-establish the education assistance program that targets Canadian Forces veterans. The dangers for 21st century service life are becoming self-evident by the nature of the duty we place upon our military personnel, whether we ask them to fight raging fires in British Columbia, or serve for freedom and democracy in hot spots like Afghanistan.
The most recent tragic deaths of Sergeant Robert Short and Corporal Robbie Beerenfenger, killed by a land mine in that tragic war-torn nation, are a stark reminder of that reality. These two paratroopers from the 3rd Battalion of the Royal Canadian Regiment were but two of the 1,900-force Canadian contingent still serving in that dangerous territory. For the families of the two brave men who lost their lives just one week ago, it is an unimaginable sorrow, and our hearts and prayers go out to them. We can take some small comfort in knowing that at least one of the provisions of Bill C-50 will have a positive impact on the families of these men, who gave their lives for the peace and freedom of a very troubled land.
All Canadians would agree that such sacrifices made by our fighting forces in service to the country and the world entitle them to the best care Canada can provide. That includes financial protection for their family members should the very worst occur.
You will recall that in the House I said this program was removed by the 1995 budget legislation when it was felt that other avenues of funding, such as the Canada student loan program, were adequate. That was then; this is now. I believe that educational assistance for children of deceased members is part of the broader debt the Government of Canada owes to veterans who die either as a result of military service or with a disability pension assessed at 48% or greater at the time of death.
So we have reinstated the program, and you will find clauses 2, 3, and 4 most pertinent here, as well as clauses 11, 12, 13, and 14. We have made the provisions substantially more generous to reflect the higher costs for post-secondary education than when the program was discontinued. Specifically, there's an annual $4,000 maximum for tuition, and we have allocated a monthly allowance of $300 to go toward students' living expenses. These amounts are indexed to the cost of living.
I was also concerned about the apparent unfairness to those who, during the eight-year interim when the program was cancelled, incurred education costs on their own. We are tracking those students who applied and were turned down. We are prepared to make lump sum payments to compensate them for at least some of their out-of-pocket and tuition expenses. I am sure this will be a welcome relief to those who might still have outstanding student loans. We are even covering those who did not attend post-secondary schools, perhaps because the education assistance program was cancelled. Those who now want to reconsider their education will be eligible for a maximum of four years of post-secondary assistance at the new rates we indicate in this legislation. Eligible students can qualify for assistance until their 30th birthdays.
There is enhanced compensation for POWs, or prisoners of war--a term you don't hear very often any more. In recognition of the terrible psychological and physical conditions of wartime incarceration, we are proposing to enhance the compensation to benefit short- and long-term POWs. As you know, the legislation currently provides a difference in coverage to prisoners of war, depending on whether they were Japanese POWs or European POWs. For both categories we have created a new 5% pension for those who were incarcerated for a period between 30 and 88 days. Like the other categories of disability payments, these amounts are indexed to the cost of living.
For prisoners other than those incarcerated by the Japanese, we have increased and added levels of compensation: from 25% to 30% of a basic disability pension for those who were prisoners of war for between 911 and 1,275 days; from 25% to 35% for periods between 1,276 and 1,641 days; and from 25% to 40% for periods totalling at least 1,642 days of imprisonment. This additional compensation will most benefit Dieppe POWs, many of whom were incarcerated from 911 to 1,275 days, and merchant navy POWs, who were often incarcerated for even longer periods of time. These amounts will also be indexed and are tax free.
It seems to me at this stage of their lives this extra money will be most welcomed by POW veterans.
Now we come to the definition of a veteran. This may sound a little odd, but I think you'll see what we're getting at here. There is another item that is both significant and yet relatively minor. I know that sounds like a contradiction in terms, and it is. Let me explain what I mean.
You'll notice that we have fixed an anomaly in service recognition for the purposes of eligibility for our war veterans allowance. It was an anomaly that sparked much debate in the media last year. Veterans and their organizations perceived a couple of Federal Court rulings interpreting what type of service had to be included when applying for the definition of a member of the forces under the WVA Act. Indeed, quite a number of veterans took the time to write and express their heartfelt view that the outcome, if left untouched, would truly result in a denigration of the recognition of their wartime service. We can safely say that there has not been a flood of applications from persons in this similar situation.
I was convinced that legislative change was needed to ensure the proper intent of the original legislation could be achieved, and we have done that. It was understandably a sore point with our veterans, so we fixed the wording. As was said in the House at second reading, we owe our courts and quasi-judicial bodies the clearest legislation possible to administer or make judicial rulings on. We have now done that with this small change to the language of the act.
On the changes in this bill and the increased coverage as a result of the changes to regulations, I just want to touch upon their financing. The department will fund these proposals through internal reallocation by modifying the attendance allowance program.
This program, which has been in place since 1919, is a monthly amount that may be awarded to an individual who is receiving a disability pension and/or prisoner of war compensation. The individual must also be totally disabled and in need of attendance because of his or her physical or mental disability. Over time, the eligibility had expanded to include significant numbers of veterans who do not strictly meet these criteria. It is opportune now to return to the original purpose of the attendance allowance.
Current and revised programs will cover most contingencies the allowance used to cover. The money freed up by modifying the old program will be used to increase legitimate benefits for the very beneficiaries we are discussing today. In short, the changes I have been discussing will provide a better way of meeting the urgent needs of veterans through the use of more appropriate tools while maintaining the AA program itself. No one will be taken off the allowance, as current recipients will be grandfathered.
I want to add that veterans' organizations are in agreement with how we are reallocating our funds. They think we will now be making much more effective use of our money, targeting the right people with the right programs. I hope, my colleagues, that you agree. I would be glad now to take your questions.
I would like to add on a personal note that sitting up here doesn't make me one bit smarter than sitting down there, and I would ask that you direct any technical questions to our officials, who can certainly handle them in a better manner than I can.
Thank you.