Good.
Mr. Chairman, I believe you have our submission. I'll try to go through it as quickly as I can, but there are important parts to it that I'd like to emphasize.
As a matter of background, upon the enactment of the charter in 2006 the government declared that the legislation represented a “living charter” and made a formal commitment to the veterans' community that as gaps and inequities were identified, immediate remedial action would be taken to address these deficiencies. Unfortunately, the government has largely failed to fulfill this commitment with regard to a significant number of substantive issues impacting upon the financial security and compensation benefits of disabled veterans in violation, in our opinion, of the social covenant that the Canadian people owe to our veterans and their families.
Through the consultation process that led to the enactment of the charter, it was recognized by all veteran stakeholders and indeed, I would suggest, by the government itself that the veterans charter was an imperfect document. I would underline that the government commitment to address inequities was fundamental to the acceptance of the charter by the veterans community. There has been some misunderstanding of this over the years, but that was the process. The commitment to alter, the commitment to identify mistakes and flaws and rectify them, was fundamental. I'm sure everyone at this end of the table would agree.
Recent studies, including that of the new Veterans Charter advisory group of 2009, this standing committee's report in 2010, which was entitled “A Timely Tune-up for the Living New Veterans Charter”, and the recent ombudsman's report of October 2013 clearly identify the self-evident inadequacies of the new Veterans Charter.
Mr. Chairman, we can summarize those deficiencies as follows.
First is the financial instability and decreased standard of living caused by reduced post-military release income and insufficient financial support after the age of 65 for totally and permanently incapacitated veterans. I'm sure you've had many witnesses who have talked to that point.
Second, the unduly restrictive application of the permanent impairment allowance provisions of the charter unreasonably constrains the number of disabled veterans who are able to qualify for appropriate levels of entitlement for this important allowance.
Third, there is the insufficiency of the lump sum disability award in its failure to parallel the non-economic awards that are awarded by the Canadian courts.
Fourth, there are the limitations in vocational rehab and educational funding, which impact on secondary career aspirations and employment options for veterans.
Fifth, there is inadequate support to address difficult family environment scenarios as a consequence of military service.
Mr. Chairman, the government's inertia in relation to this list of well-established concerns is simply unacceptable to the veterans community. The government has done a number of things over the last eight years, but they have done nothing to substantially change the charter in these major categories of concern, except in a brief effort with regard to Bill C-55.
The NCVA has consistently demanded over the last number of years that Veterans Affairs implement an overall plan of action to fulfill its commitment not only to reforming the charter, but also to dealing with other outstanding issues impacting on seriously disabled veterans and their health care.
In accordance with the fundamental conclusions of the aforementioned studies, it continues to be our position that, notwithstanding the ostensible economic constraints that have faced the country over the last few years, the seriously disabled veterans should be given immediate priority in the implementation of the first phase—and I emphasize “the first phase”—of VAC's plan of action for legislative reform.
In our opinion, there is no higher obligation on Veterans Affairs Canada and the veterans community than the responsibility to address the requirements of seriously disabled veterans and their families. In this regard, we take the position that budgetary restraints should never be a consideration in satisfying the needs of the seriously injured or the permanently incapacitated. In the NCVA's view, immediate implementation of a comprehensive course of action to legislate charter reform, pursuant to the recommendations of the various advisory groups—this standing committee, this standing committee's report of four years ago, and the veterans ombudsman's report of October—would represent an important step towards meeting the controversy surrounding the much-maligned lump sum disability award through these proposed enhancements of the complementary benefit and the income support programs in the current legislation.
We have encouraged the new minister, Minister Fantino, and his predecessors to get out in front of the significant criticisms of the charter with such a plan of action and to adopt a proactive approach vis-à-vis this committee review that is presently taking place.
Given the significant and exhaustive studies already completed on charter reform over the last five years, it was our expectation indeed that the minister would be in a position to present recommendations to this committee as part of your evaluation.
The minister appears to be suggesting to the committee that he wishes to hear your views before he's prepared to initiate any action. It seems to me that the time for action is long overdue.
Based on the consensus of all of these advisory group proposals and the unanimous position of the 60-member organizations of the NCVA, in our judgment these further reforms to the charter should include the following. If I may, let me touch on these, Mr. Chairman.
First, the SISIP long-term disability program should be eliminated to eradicate the insurance culture constraints presently contained in the charter. It is to be noted that at the time of the enactment of the charter, VAC committed that as a fundamental precondition to the passage of the legislation, the SISIP LTD program would be eliminated as soon as possible so as to remove the restrictions that were inherent to the overall income replacement program. That was again a fundamental commitment to our acceptance of the charter in 2006.
In this regard, the earnings loss benefit should be increased to 100% of pre-release income and in relation to permanently incapacitated veterans be paid for life and not terminated at 65, as is currently the case.
In addition, the projected career earnings of a Canadian Armed Forces member should be employed as the standard for the payment of the earnings loss benefit. In this context, VAC should adopt the approach utilized by the Canadian courts in assessing the concept of future loss of income, which specifically addresses the projected lifetime earnings lost by a plaintiff in a personal injury claim.
Mr. Chairman, we're often talking about what model we should be following under the charter. We talk about the Pension Act, we talk about disability insurance programs, we talk about workers compensation. Why don't we talk about what the courts do? The courts look at all of these features. Yes indeed: they have a lump sum award as general damages, they have a future loss of income projection, and a future care cost element.
It's the future loss of income parallel that I'd like to propose to this committee to consider seriously as the model. We can talk about it later, if you'd like.
I might just say that as an interim measure, one of the problems we have confronted over the last number of years is that the SISIP program is administratively very difficult to extract from the system. If that continues to be the case, we are proposing that there be a top-up; that Veterans Affairs top up the insurance policy— bump the coverage from 75% to 100%, change the termination date from the age of 65 to the end of life, and get rid of the COLA cap. There is a 2% COLA cap under SISIP of which you may or may not be aware, which hasn't had any impact because inflation hasn't been quite as rampant as it normally is. But 2% is the cap.
The idea of applying the future career projected loss of income is something that can be put in as a VAC element to the SISIP policy. We obviously would like to see the policy eliminated, but it has been eight years. It's time to do something as a solution by way of a top-up.
The restrictions and complexities of the permanent impairment allowance guidelines should be addressed, so as to allow greater numbers of disabled veterans to qualify for appropriate levels of entitlement for this important allowance.
We have noted in our submission, Mr. Chairman, that the PIA was intended to be a fundamental component of the financial security and compensation package contained in the charter in relation to seriously disabled veterans. In effect, the objective of the allowance was to address the loss of career earnings suffered by a totally and permanently incapacitated veteran.
As evidenced by the findings of the recent veterans ombudsman’s report, the restrictive application of the PIA by Veterans Affairs has led to the conclusion that this significant allowance has largely failed to fulfill its purpose.
Statistics developed by the ombudsman demonstrate that more than 50% of seriously disabled veterans have not qualified for PIA, which is shocking. Of those veterans who have been granted PIA, 90% have been awarded the lowest grade, grade 3. In effect, that means, with a $20,000 allowance, that 90% of the most seriously disabled are only getting $6,000 to $7,000. It was meant to be much more.
Something that should be noted as well is that for the enhanced permanent impairment allowance you have to qualify for the primary PIA before you get the enhanced version, which means that if you don't make the first grade, you don't make the second grade. That, to us, is absolutely contrary to the intent of the legislation.
We have spent considerable time in this submission talking about our proposal. I won't read it all; I'd just refer you to it, on page 4. It basically talks in terms of a simplification of this PIA allowance.
Why don't we simply look at the disability award of the veteran? If the veteran has a 70% or more disability award, then give them a grade 1 PIA. Don't force them to go through applications, don't force them to get medical reports. He's a primary class A seriously disabled veteran, permanently incapacitated. Do we really have to ask such a veteran to go through a process to get a grade 1 PIA? I don't think so.
From 48% to 78%, a grade 2 would be automatically awarded. In this way, we would be in a position to actually take away the complexities of the allowance and create an administratively efficient solution. As I've concluded in our brief, this would allow PIA to satisfy its original objective as conceived under the charter.
Quickly, the lump sum disability award should be increased, as I mentioned earlier, to be commensurate with what's paid in the Canadian courts. The differential now is approximately $50,000 between the two. In our opinion, there is no justification for a lower amount being paid to a disabled veteran who is severely injured in the service of his country. Why should a plaintiff in a motor vehicle accident be entitled to $50,000 more in general damages compared to a veteran who was seriously injured in Afghanistan?
Educational benefits should also be expanded to both of the rehab provisions of the charter so as to address the vocational and occupational constraints faced by many returning veterans with serious service-related disabilities.
We do commend the minister for his announcement of last October where he bumped, in effect, the VOC rehab program to a $75,000 cap for individuals, which is a substantial increase.
Our only concern is that there are so few veterans who are granted eligibility for educational grants. In the process of the veterans ombudsman's study, they discovered that only 31 veterans since the year 2000 have been granted an educational eligibility. There have been 32 under the SISIP program. If we're going to effectively recognize that education is a serious requirement for a seriously disabled veteran then the system has to give that recognition.
The last concern is on compensation: the discrimination that currently exists with reference to specific classes of reservists, particularly those who are seriously disabled, should be eliminated in the charter and also in the SISIP provisions.
With regard to family concerns, we have two recommendations. In order to recognize the caregiving requirements that many disabled veterans confront to cope with their incapacities, the attendance allowance provisions of the Pension Act should be added to the charter in recognition of the financial costs faced by many families.
And lastly, the charter should acknowledge that veterans with dependants—those who have family members who are dependent on them— should receive a higher level of compensation either through the augmentation of the lump sum disability award or an increase in the earnings loss benefit for such veterans and their families.
Many of you will know that the Pension Act does recognize that distinction. Under the Pension Act, if you have a spouse or you have dependent children, you get more pension. We don't recognize that under the charter and that is of concern.
If I could conclude, Mr. Chair, we commend the minister for his immediate commitment upon receipt of the ombudsman's report to effectively initiate this review that you are now all participating in. We do commend the minister on his emphasis that the most seriously injured, support for families, and the delivery of programs by VAC are important priorities.
However, in our judgment, the aforementioned proposed reforms have been studied and studied to death, Mr. Chairman, and analyzed for many years, such that the gaps and voids have been readily identified by all of the advisory groups, by your committee, and by the ombudsman in the recent report.
In our considered opinion, it is long overdue for VAC to become proactive and implement remedial legislation to address those well-established concerns and live up to its obligation under the social covenant to Canada's veterans and their dependants.
For a government that professes to support our military, the lack of substantive action to reform the charter is truly unacceptable and represents a betrayal of the government's commitment to the veterans' community.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I apologize for taking longer than I should have.
