Bill C-55 (Historical)

Enhanced New Veterans Charter Act

An Act to amend the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act and the Pension Act

This enactment amends Part 2 of the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act by making the permanent impairment allowance available not only to veterans who are eligible for a disability award under that Act, but also to veterans who are eligible for a disability pension under the Pension Act. It also introduces a supplemental amount to the permanent impairment allowance for the most severely and permanently impaired veterans.
It amends Part 3 of the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act to provide Canadian Forces members and veterans with a choice of payment options for a disability award.
It also amends the Pension Act by making the exceptional incapacity allowance available not only to veterans and members of the forces who are receiving a disability pension under that Act, but also to veterans and members who are receiving both such a pension and a disability award under the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act.

[Gordon Moore, Dominion President, Dominion Command, Royal Canadian Legion]

Mr. Chairman, good afternoon. It's a great pleasure to appear in front of your committee this afternoon. I'm pleased to be able to speak to you this afternoon on behalf of more than 320,000 members and their families.

The Royal Canadian Legion is well situated to address the impact and the effectiveness of the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act, commonly known as the new Veterans Charter, as well as the Enhanced New Veterans Charter Act, as a result of Bill C-55.

The Royal Canadian Legion is the only veteran's organization that assists veterans and their families with representation to Veterans Affairs Canada and the Veterans Review and Appeal Board. We have been assisting veterans since 1926 through our legislative mandate in both the Pension Act and the new Veterans Charter. Our 23 professional service officers are located across the country and provide free assistance to veterans and their families with obtaining benefits and services from Veterans Affairs Canada. Please note that you do not have to be a Legion member to avail yourself of our services.

Our national service officer network provides representation starting with first applications to Veterans Affairs Canada through all three levels of the VRAB. 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 almost 3,000 veterans to VAC and also to VRAB. Over 75% of these veterans received benefits under the new Veterans Charter.

Additionally, we met with more than 12,000 veterans and their families from across the country regarding VAC benefits and services. There is no other veterans group with this kind of direct contact, interaction, provision of support, and feedback from veterans, their families, and also the caregivers. l believe we can speak confidently and with credibility regarding the effectiveness of the new Veterans Charter and the Enhanced New Veterans Charter Act. Our comments will address specifically the requirement for mandatory review, the obligation of the Government of Canada to our veterans and their families, specific deficiencies, and finally, the requirement for effective communication of the programs and services to support our injured veterans and their families.

Starting with the requirement for mandatory review, in 2006 the new Veterans Charter was adopted without a clause-by-clause review in parliamentary committee and in the Senate, because of a perceived urgent need to better look after younger veterans and their families and to facilitate their transition to civilian life. The government made a commitment to continuously review and evaluate the programs and services, and if necessary, to amend the legislation to address emerging needs or unanticipated consequences under the spirit of a living charter.

The Legion supported the introduction of the new Veterans Charter on the basis that it would be a living charter and improvements would be made when required. In 2011, almost five years later, the first real changes occurred with Bill C-55 and the implementation of the Enhanced New Veterans Charter Act. Despite these changes, there are still shortcomings in the programs of the new Veterans Charter, which are designed to assist veterans and their families with their transition to civilian life.

In Bill C-55, section 20.1 of the Enhanced New Veterans Charter Act, it states:

Within two years after the day on which this section comes into force, a comprehensive review of the provisions and operations of this Act must be undertaken by any committees of the Senate and of the House of Commons that are designated or established by the Senate and the House of Commons for that purpose.

While the government promised that the new Veterans Charter would be a living charter and that its ongoing improvement would be an enduring priority for the government, the first real change came after five years of addressing deficiencies, and significant deficiencies still remain. If it is a living charter, then the government must live up to its commitment.

We urge the government to institute a regular two-year charter review to demonstrate to veterans and their families the government's commitment and promise that it made to our veterans, and the obligation of the Government of Canada, which is at the heart of this discussion.

Turning to the moral obligation, the Legion is concerned that the government has forgotten the moral obligation to look after veterans and their families who have been injured as a result of their service to Canada. The government put them in harm's way; now the government has an obligation to look after them. This obligation on the part of the Government of Canada is stated clearly in the preamble to the Pension Act, the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act and the War Veterans Allowance Act, but not in the new Veterans Charter.

This recognized obligation must be stated and reaffirmed in the new Veterans Charter. Our veterans need to know that when they are injured as a result of their military service, the government will provide the resources, tools, and care to ensure a successful transition to civilian life. It is as simple as that.

Effectiveness of the new Veterans Charter and enhanced new Veterans Charter.... In 2013, the Veterans Ombudsman of Canada delivered a series of comprehensive reports on the effectiveness of the new Veterans Charter, which focused on the financial compensation, the complexity, and the limitations of the vocational rehabilitation programs for our injured veterans, and the care of their families.

Based on his findings, the Veterans Ombudsman called for urgent action to address the key shortcomings. Number one is the insufficiency of the economic financial support after age 65 to eligible totally and permanently incapacitated veterans. This is a small number of the most vulnerable of our veterans. It is unacceptable that veterans and their families, who have sacrificed for this country, live their lives with insufficient financial means.

Number two is the drop in income for veterans after release from the Canadian Armed Forces. The earnings loss benefit provides only 75% of the pre-release salary.

Number three, access for those severely impaired veterans who meet the eligibility criteria for a permanent impairment allowance and the supplement is complicated, and there are difficulties accessing these benefits.

Number four, it's unfair that the former part-time reserve force members who have been injured attributable to their service, receive a reduced earnings loss benefit.

Number five, the compensation for the pain and suffering related to a service-related injury or illness, the disability award, has not kept pace with the compensation provided to our disabled civilian workers who receive general damages from the courts. These same issues have been at the forefront of the Legion advocacy as mandated by the delegates at our Dominion conventions in 2008, 2010, and 2012.

Additionally, in May 2013, the veterans consultation group, which includes 20 veteran organizations, sent a letter to the then Minister of Veterans Affairs raising similar priorities. This deserves highlighting—20 veterans groups were unanimous in their position.

More recently in October 2013, the same veterans consultation group reinforced these priorities to the government. The group unanimously agreed that it was time for this government to have a heroic moment and do what is right for our veterans and their families. The veterans groups, the Veterans Ombudsman of Canada, the new Veterans Charter advisory group, and this very committee have all stated since 2006 that the government must resolve, as a matter of priority, the key financial deficiencies of the new Veterans Charter.

These are the same issues identified by the Veterans Ombudsman in his recent reports. There is consistency and agreement but there has been no action. Now is the time for action. Within this context, the Royal Canadian Legion continues to assess the top three issues requiring immediate resolution by the government. These are: number one, the earnings loss benefit must be improved to provide 100% of the pre-release income and be continued for life; number two, the maximum disability award must be increased and consistent with what is provided to injured civilian workers who received general damages in a law court; and number three, the current inequity with regards to ELB for class A and class B reserve force members for service-attributable injuries must cease.

Mr. Chairman, it's time to take action on these three key issues. At the same time, the Legion calls upon the government to expedite the review of the new Veterans Charter. We recognize the importance of a transparent and open review. It is important that veterans groups, veterans and their families, and subject matter experts have the opportunity to provide evidence to this review.

The Legion agrees with the deficiencies identified in the Veterans Ombudsman's report “Improving the New Veterans Charter”. The reports are well researched, evidence-based, and informed by actuarial, independent analysis, and as such, should be used as the baseline for the parliamentary review.

This is a focused road map with achievable recommendations. The Veterans Ombudsman also uncovered a glaring gap that needs immediate action. There are approximately 400 veterans deemed totally and permanently incapacitated who are not in receipt of any allowances. This means the new Veterans Charter's permanent impairment allowance and supplement or the Pension Act's attendance allowance or exceptional incapacity allowance should apply to these veterans.

While they are in receipt of the earnings loss benefit, it is a monthly income that ends at the age 65. When these veterans, who have been injured attributable to their service reach 65, their income will substantially be reduced. This is an urgent problem as these are the most vulnerable, seriously disabled veterans who are at risk of living their retirement years in poverty. This is unacceptable and needs urgent action.

Finally, I want to address the issue of communication and accessibility. Why are we still having a conversation about which is better, the Pension Act or the new Veterans Charter? The new Veterans Charter was developed to meet the needs of the modern veteran. It's based on modern disability management principles and focuses on rehabilitation and successful transition.

I will state that the Legion has never completely endorsed the new Veterans Charter as it was presented in 2006. We've been steadfast in our advocacy for its change to better meet the lifelong needs of our veterans and their families. However, it's time to stop the rhetoric and focus on the issue. We have an obligation to understand the complexities and interrelationships, and inform about and explain the new Veterans Charter. Our veterans and their families deserve nothing less.

The new Veterans Charter and the Enhanced New Veterans Charter Act are comprehensive and complex. Our veterans and their families need to know what programs are available to assist them and how to access them: financial, rehabilitation, health services, and family care. The government needs to ensure the resources and programs are in place to meet their needs. The government needs to review the accessibility to these programs and ensure that front-line staff are available and knowledgeable in order to assist veterans and their families. This must not be a self-serve system.

The Legion was gravely concerned when General Rick Hillier, former Chief of the Defence Staff, in the CTV News network Remembrance Day telecast on November 11, 2013, stated as follows, regarding the new Veterans Charter: “That needs to be rewritten completely because it does not look after our veterans, particularly over a long period of time.”

Further, he stated that the lump sum may seem to be significant, “but a 22-year-old soldier who has lost both of his legs and is suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder is still going to be without his legs 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 years from now”. He said, “They're still going to be suffering somewhat from PTSD and they're going to need support throughout that time. And the veterans charter does not do it.”

Most Canadians have this understanding of the new Veterans Charter as well. I would suggest that this understanding highlights the ineffectiveness of the government's communication of the programs and services available in the new Veterans Charter for our injured veterans and their families.

Lastly, it highlights that it's time for this government to start communicating and to proactively reach out to all veterans across the country and ensure that they're aware of the financial compensation, rehabilitation programs, health care services, and family care programs that are available and how to access them.

It's also time for 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 but also the strengths behind the legislation, the programs, and the services and benefits. We too can help our veterans and their families.

In summary, this review is about the effectiveness of the new Veterans Charter. The Office of the Veterans Ombudsman has conducted the most comprehensive research and analysis work undertaken on the new Veterans Charter. The analysis is done. It's thorough and unbiased. Mr. Parent personally tested his recommendations with most of the veterans organizations and stakeholders. It is consistent with recommendations since 2006.

Use this report as the blueprint for action. The path to improving the new Veterans Charter is clear. Let us not be focused on issues on the periphery. I urge you to stick to the critical core issues, as these impact the day-to-day lives of our veterans and their families. I encourage you not to delay but to expedite this review and take real action.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to speak.

Opposition Motion—Canadian Forces

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, before I start I want to answer the question from the Conservative MP. If he honestly believes that a new budgetary framework will come in for Veterans Affairs, then it should be introduced in a government bill like it was with Bill C-55, which we fully supported. In lumping this into an overall budget with thousands of other spending items and cuts and everything else, we would have to express confidence in the government. I can assure members it will be a long day before we in the NDP ever express confidence in the government.

Today we heard him talk about a very important motion brought in by my colleague. It is an honour, and at the same time there is a bit of sadness, that we bring this to the floor of the House of Commons. Veterans should not have to fight and struggle to get the benefits they so rightly deserve. They have already fought for this country. It is their country, regardless of political affiliation, regardless of government or opposition, that owes them the ultimate and unlimited responsibility, because they have the unlimited liability. The military, the RCMP, and their families deserve no less.

Let us go over a bit of the track record of the current government. The reality is that it took a five-year lawsuit to settle the SISIP clawback, the insurance payment clawback that was being deducted from disabled veterans. It took a ruling from Judge Barnes. It forced the government into an $888 million lawsuit. If the Conservatives had listened to us many years ago, it would have been settled; there would have been less angst among the members of the veterans community, and it would have saved the government and the taxpayer a lot of money. However, they did not.

Now what happens? They are now taking RCMP disabled veterans to court on the exact same type of issue. There are over 1,200 people in a class action lawsuit against the government right now. They have been asked by the RCMP and their families, by the Royal Canadian Legion, and by us repeatedly, to stop the court proceedings, work with the legal team and the RCMP veterans and give them the respect, dignity and payment they so rightly deserve. Their answer is that they are going to go to the courts.

There is another lawsuit going on, with Equitas, against the government, over certain aspects of the new veterans charter. What did the crown attorneys presenting the case for the government say in that lawsuit? These are smart lawyers. They get their directions directly from the government. They indicated that there is no fiduciary or social moral responsibility for the veterans community; that only applies to the aboriginal community. I am paraphrasing.

The members of the veterans community were outraged when they heard this. I have asked the minister and the government on six separate occasions whether they do or do not have a moral, legal, social and fiduciary responsibility to care for those they put in harm's way. What do we get? Absolute silence.

We should not have been too surprised when we saw what happened the other day. I know the minister, deep down, probably regrets what happened. I am sure that he does. However, the reality is that it happened. This type of conduct has happened with veterans across the country for sixteen and a half years, through ten different ministers and from two different parties. What I witnessed the other day was the lowest of the low. That is why we had no choice. They brought in the so-called Veterans Bill of Rights, which we knew was toothless because there is no punishment. If they break a certain element of the Veterans Bill of Rights, they just say they are sorry and they move on. However, every single day of the year our veterans, RCMP, and their families, deserve the utmost respect, dignity and courtesy.

It is our job, whether in government or in opposition, to listen to their concerns. We may not like what they are telling us. We may not like the manner in which they are telling us. However, we get paid very well, and ministers get paid even better, to listen to those concerns. It is our responsibility. We could not sit here if it were not for the sacrifice of the men and women who put on the uniform, and their families, and that of the RCMP who serve us in Canada.

Veterans have unlimited liability. That means they are willing to risk their lives so that you and I can be here, Mr. Speaker. We, again, have the ultimate responsibility for their needs and that of their families, all the way to and including their headstones.

A while back the government presented a budget and said it was going to spend millions more dollars on the Last Post Fund. However, it did not change the litmus test of who could qualify for that fund. Service members who make $12,000 or less may qualify for proper burials, but those who make over that limit do not qualify. Even though the government put more money into it, two-thirds of the applicants are still denied and the Conservatives refuse to correct that.

On the issue of the closure of offices, I want to tell the people of Canada and the Conservatives right now that when they are kicked out of office in the next election, we in the NDP will reopen those offices and make them better, so they provide better services to the men and women who serve our country.

There is something else the government is doing, and many people are unaware of this. When the last Korean overseas veteran passes away, all of the contract service beds across this country will be finished, aside from rare exceptions. Right now the Perley, Camp Hill, the Belcher and other hospitals across the country that service veterans are subsidized by the federal government. When the last Korean veteran dies, the modern-day veterans from 1954 onward will no longer have access to those beds paid for by the federal government.

The federal government is downloading this responsibility onto the backs of the provinces. The previous Minister of Veterans Affairs said that health care was a provincial responsibility. I remind the government that the care and treatment of veterans, RCMP members and their families is a federal responsibility, and to download that to the provinces is unacceptable. In Nova Scotia alone, a $41 million download will happen in the near future. It is unacceptable when we see floors of hospitals being closed for veterans and being transferred over to provincial uses.

The men and women who serve our country deserve no less. They deserve to have the best treatment. As Rick Mercer once said, when we take them from heaven on earth, which is Canada, and send them over to hell on earth, we should give them a gold card and make sure we give them platinum service when they come back.

There are many veterans I deal with who are getting very good service from the Department of Veterans Affairs. That is true, and I compliment the workers of the department who are providing that service. However, the problem is that many others are not getting that service. There are approximately 700,000 men and women who retired from the military who have dependant spouses and the DVA has a client base of just over 200,000, so more than two-thirds of that base is not being serviced now. Many of them do not require the services, but they may one day, and many more veterans are coming online.

I want to highlight two of my constituents, Kim and Blair Davis. They have given me permission to do this. The minister's office knows this file very well, because a few months ago I held an open press conference with the Davises. He had a serious brain injury from a LAV rollover accident and explosion that killed a few of his buddies. He has had major operations and is suffering severely from psychological problems, including PTSD and others. He has not asked for the government to give him a Rolex watch or a trip to Florida, but for basic rehabilitation services. He has asked for things like VIP service to help him, his wife and his family.

Several months went by and I got an email from him yesterday saying, “I am at my wit's end with this government. I simply do not know where to turn. Please, please help me and my family”. When a press conference is held, the government says it is going to look after the family and do all sorts of things, and two and a half months later I get an email saying it has not done anything yet. This is indicative of a government that simply is not listening.

In my final words, I will implore the Minister of Veterans Affairs and the Minister of National Defence to please stop the cuts to these departments and hire the mental health workers that are required. The government can pump money in, but if there is a bureaucracy delaying the hiring of these mental health workers, it is simply not working. I implore these two fine men to please get off their chairs and do something in a rational, speedy manner so that the men and women who serve our country in the RCMP and the military and their families will get the respect and dignity they so rightfully deserve.

[Kevin Berry]

With Bill C-55 they brought the bottom up to $40,000.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

Thank you, Mr. Berry. Thank you, Mr. Chisu.

Now we'll move on.

I'll take the liberty as the acting chair to ask my questions, but I won't have any questions; I'll just make a statement for all of you. I'm making a statement because I honestly feel that the aspect of the charter, how it came about, and the causes of it, are sometimes misunderstood by people in my own party and others.

There are three people in this room who were here when the charter was voted on, but there's only one person who was there when it was being negotiated. That was me, along with the late deputy Jack Stagg. In order to get the New Democratic Party's support, we had to have a thorough review and understanding of every aspect of the charter. The process of the charter had been going on for years. The process was done in earnest in 2004 and 2005, in the middle of the Afghan conflict, after we had already lost the four guys at Tarnak Farms, two of whom came from the area where I live.

The aspect of the charter was that it was a living document. The six major veterans groups and all the political parties at that time were convinced that it was a living document. The new benefits arising from the charter as you went from a lifelong pension to not just cash but care—to allow the modern day veteran the opportunity to be rehabilitated, to get re-educated, for them and their family to move forward and feel they still had worth to their society, whether in the military or in the private sector—was the premise of the charter.

We knew that in any new document of this nature where you're changing the paradigm, there would be problems. The fact that it was a living document was what sold it for everyone, that this thing could be opened up immediately and changed. Unfortunately, the only change was Bill C-55, which was five years later.

We already knew within nine months to a year that there were problems starting to arise from the charter. Some of those problems are the following, and if they were addressed earlier, I'm sure, Mr. Scott, that you and your team wouldn't be here today. It's about who determines the disability amount.

In the many cases at the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, if you have a hearing loss or something, they'll give you one-fifth of a payment. You can appeal to get two-fifths or three-fifths. A veteran may feel they are disabled to that extent, but the department may feel that they're only determined at this extent. Therein lies the large gap. Who determines what your disability is, especially when it comes to OSI or PTSD? That is one of the major problems we have right now.

The other one is the access to earnings loss benefit and permanent impairment allowance. We saw all the charts that said that if a person got a lump sum they would also get the following, all the way through. One of the concerns, of course, was the age 65 restriction, which the ombudsman pointed out. That is a very severe problem that needs to be addressed. There is no question about that.

The other one is that a lot of these benefits were made taxable. We saw a chart here the other day by the department that had a big part of it as a benefit, but a large part of it was taxable. If you got $2 million, $340,000 of that was taxable, so you really only had $1.7 million in that regard. Therein lies one of the aspects.

It is the access to the additional programs. It is the speed at which you are able to get them. It's the ability of veterans and their families to get the attention of the department in a timely manner to address their issues immediately, so that all their issues can be addressed.

Unfortunately, we're all to blame for this, through the bureaucracy in the department to the politicians themselves. Those accesses were slow. In some cases they didn't exist at all. In some cases, the veterans were so upset that they just hung up the phone and said they couldn't deal with these people.

In 2005 and 2006, when this charter was done, it was done with the best of intentions, by all the veterans groups and all the politicians who were here. I was on the plane when the four leaders at that time agreed to it. They fast-tracked it to get it through, knowing full well that if problems arose they could deal with the issues right away.

The purpose of this committee, as Mr. Hayes said, is that when we're done with our hearings we want to achieve the best new Veterans Charter that we can. We want to enhance it so that Mr. Berry, Mr. Bedard, Mr. Kirkland, everyone else, and especially your son, Mr. Scott, can get the benefits they so richly deserve, in a timely fashion, knowing full well that not one veteran has ever asked us for a Rolex watch or a trip to Florida.

I can assure you that a lot of veterans in the previous system had just about as many complaints as those in the new system. I deal with a lot of World War II and Korean veterans, and guys who retired in the sixties and seventies, who have just as many serious complaints about the old benefits that you good folks do with the new benefits.

So there is a system failure here. Our job, and our promise to each and every one of you, and I can say this on behalf of the committee, is to do the very best job we can.

We have three veterans on the committee right now, one behind us. Mr. Karygiannis knows all too well what the loss of someone in Afghanistan means, as one of his relatives also paid the ultimate sacrifice.

I just want to conclude, before we move on to Mr. Lobb, by saying that it always amazes and uplifts me when I see disabled veterans helping disabled veterans.

Mr. Bedard, Mr. Berry, and Mr. Kirkland, thank you. Thank you very, very much for what you're doing, not just for other veterans but for yourselves as well. Thank you especially to your families. We thank them for sharing you with all of us.

Now I'll move on to Mr. Lobb for four minutes, please.

[Jim Scott]

Thank you very much.

I would like to reiterate that we really appreciate this opportunity to appear before your committee, first as the parents of a veteran, and second, in my case, as the president of the Equitas Disabled Soldiers Funding Society, which is a non-partisan, volunteer, and now national organization.

With my wife Holly, I am a parent of a Canadian Forces Reserves soldier, Master Bombardier Daniel Christopher Scott, of the 15th Field Artillery Regiment, a reserve unit in British Columbia, who was severely wounded in Afghanistan on February 12, 2010. The second of our three children, Dan did two tours of duty in Afghanistan, coming home badly injured.

At the age of 24, in the service of Canada and because of an accidental bomb blast that took the life of Corporal Josh Baker and injured four other Canadian soldiers, my son had to have one of his kidneys removed, his spleen removed, and part of his pancreas removed. As a result of that, his life has been changed. For these injuries, he received a settlement under the new Veterans Charter of $41,500, with no other benefits such as retraining or earnings loss benefits.

It was difficult for me to believe that my son's life-threatening injuries were deemed to be worth so little. I should add a bit here. My wife actually works for an insurance company. Her job is to take litigated files and determine the one-time lump sum cash value. She has 200 files at any one time. We just couldn't understand why this was so disproportionately low. I also learned from my son that this was not unusual. Many of his fellow soldiers who were coming back from the Afghan conflict were being seriously disadvantaged by the lump sum payment under the new Veterans Charter.

I approached the government directly and was given assurances that the enhancements to the new Veterans Charter under Bill C-55 and additional funding for soldiers would address all these problems. However, I haven't seen this promise fulfilled as far as the compensation goes for the individual soldiers affected. I still see these small lump sum payments.

As a result, I sought legal advice and collaboration, which eventually led me to Don Sorochan, with the law firm Miller Thomson. As a consequence of Miller Thomson's agreeing to represent the soldiers legal interests pro bono, somebody had to pay for their disbursement costs. Mr. Sorochan convinced me that we would have to form a society that would raise the disbursement costs to go forward with this program, and that was the beginning of the Equitas Society. It was strictly to fund the disbursement costs.

However, soldiers started to contact us with their cases. It was an awful lot of work. Sometimes for three hours a day we would have to respond to e-mails and phone calls. I know that Don Sorochan is in the same boat. We received hundreds of calls and e-mails.

As a result of these examples, we found three key issues with the new Veterans Charter that were somewhat troubling. We divided the cases into the severely disabled, the moderately disabled, and the partially disabled.

For the severely disabled who receive their lump sum payment and monthly benefits support, we found that, compared to the previous Pension Act, they could be financially disadvantaged by approximately 30%. This is due to the new Veterans Charter reduction of benefits at age 65, and the fact that there are tax and clawback considerations to their monthly settlements, which is not normal for a workmen's compensation monthly payment.

Also, we found in talking to the soldiers that the clawback is actually a disincentive for these severely disabled members to find other employment. We encourage all of them to go forward with their lives, but for some reason, getting their money clawed back starts to make them want to just collect money. So we have some issues with the way that's being administered.

Secondly, we have the moderately disabled. These are Canadian Forces members who will be discharged because they don't meet the requirement of universality of service and who will receive two years or more of earning lost benefits as they're retrained. But they can be disadvantaged tremendously by up to 65%, because if you take the total cash value they would get over their lifetime under the old system, they have said to us that under the new system—and we believe them—there is a big gap in the benefits.

But what I would really like to emphasize is the Canadian Forces reserve members—especially from the province of British Columbia where we don't have a standing military base, so we raise the army with reserve soldiers—have been sent into harm's way. They have injuries. They've come back and these injuries are not such that they will be removed from the reserve unit. They're not discharged, so none of these programs come into play. However, they have to take their injuries into the civilian workplace and try to get employment.

It's quite sad because a lot of them say that they were going to be police officers and so on, and I ask them, “Can you run” or “Can you walk”? No. But then how are they going to do that? Their settlements are $26,000 or $40,000. It's just not enough to compensate them for the fact that they're going to have a permanent disability for the rest of their lives. But they aren't discharged from the reserves so they don't trigger any of these other programs.

When the program first came in it was supposed to be that they would remain in the military so it wouldn't really have been an issue.

The last issue we found, which is somewhat different from the promise in the new Veterans Charter is that a lot of the home units are making special deals with their soldiers so they can compensate them directly. Although this is very commendable, the individual soldiers know that this guy is getting this deal at this unit and that guy is getting this deal at that unit. It actually creates a lot of issues while people try to compensate for the fact that the new Veterans Charter is not accommodating to them.

The other issue is that some of these side deals are quite questionable if you were to look into them. It puts a tremendous amount of stress on the soldiers who are supposed to be reintegrating into society to know that the light of day cannot really shine on how the rehabilitation programs work. I can talk more about that offline.

In summary, the settlements under the new Veterans Charter in many cases do not equal the settlements under the previous Pension Act or under the Workers' Compensation Act, or even lump sum payments awarded by the courts.

I've left a 30-page document, in both French and English. There are some factual changes to this document but it does outline the issues here when we compare the new Veterans Charter payments to workers' compensation, to court settlements, and to previous pension acts.

I'm not saying that the new Veterans Charter doesn't work, but there are cases that have been outlined to us where it simply has failed or where there are major gaps in the program.

Don.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

We greatly appreciate that and we wish you and your family and everyone the very best. We look forward to working with the person who will be replacing you. We hope you have a lot of fun.

I have a couple of questions for you. You mentioned that there are 7,000 people being case-managed. You mentioned the number, but the reality is that over two-thirds of our veteran community are not even being serviced now by DVA. They don't have the benefit, or they have never applied, or maybe they were denied or something of that nature. Have you planned for an increase in that regard?

I mentioned to the deputy minister and the minister when they were here that you said that any veteran could have a home visit. That's not necessarily correct. We did 11 case trials in Halifax. Besides getting the response from DVA that they would get back within two to five days, the reality was that a person has to be case-managed before they have a home visit. A lot of veterans thought they wouldn't have to go in and workers would come to their house and help them fill in the forms on their very first call. I said, “I don't think that's the way it works.” So we'd like you to reiterate that for the record.

For Mr. Hayes's and the committee's sake, and for those who may be listening, Bill C-55 was authorized and approved by Parliament in 2011. Section 20.1 refers to a “comprehensive review of the provisions and implementation of this Act”. That's where this study came from originally, and that amendment actually came from this committee. When the bill came before the committee, this is what we unanimously adopted. I just want to put that on the record. That's why we're where we are now.

We thank you again, sir, for your service and I look forward to your response.

[Guy Parent]

That was brought about with Bill C-55? I would say offhand it would be the permanent impairment allowance supplement, because of access to PIA. The permanent impairment allowance provides income after 65. That's probably one of the best ones that was brought about there. The others were certainly important as well, and they certainly enhanced the quality of the charter. Going back to what you said, change is not always sufficient, but again I agree with you as to how do you define it. Now we're using charitable donations to bury some of our soldiers who can't afford to be buried. Is it because no change has been made? No, there have been changes made to the funeral and burial program, yet we still have a whole bunch of soldiers who were buried using charitable donations.

[Guy Parent]

Nothing was done officially that has actually, that was at that point in time.... The first official enhancement to the charter was Bill C-55. From 2006 until 2011, changes might have been brought about—changes to process, changes in other areas of administration—but the charter itself was never reviewed and was never really looked at in terms of the individual part and parcel of the charter and whether or not it met the needs of the veterans. I think that's the important aspect of what we're saying.

Of course, we know that in the department there's a continuous...that improvements are done. I think one of the difficulties, and it's certainly one thing that I keep harping on with the department, is the fact that when you make some improvements, tell the people, and identify them as being related to the new Veterans Charter. You can't wait for five years and then produce a list of 160 recommendations and say, “We've done that.” Well, that's fine, but people need to know, because then they'll realize there has been some work done on it. Sometimes, maybe, it's not the fact that there was no work done, but that people were silent about the work that was done. That's the important part.

But the first official enhancement to the new Veterans Charter was brought about by Bill C-55.

[Guy Parent]

Many of our recommendations would solve this situation, such as, for example, providing better access to impairment allowances, as we stated in our report. Even though Bill C-55, the Enhanced New Veterans Charter Act made improvements to the impairment allowance, access is still very restricted. Opening up access to that allowance would correct some problems.

I also stated that increasing the earnings loss benefit from 75% to 90% would give these veterans an opportunity to increase their retirement income. It would therefore be proactive.

We would like the department to consider these options.

[LGen Walter Semianiw]

The charter is not perfect, but it's a strong foundation on which to build, as we did with a series of enhancements to better support our most seriously injured veterans or families in 2011, also called Bill C-55. As the minister touched on this week, these improvements represent an investment of approximately $189 million over five years and are benefiting approximately an additional 4,000 veterans.

They include, first, an increase in the monthly financial allowance under the earnings loss benefit, bringing the minimum annual pre-tax income for full-time regular force personnel to $42,426—and that is the 2013 rate—for those participating in rehabilitation or who are unable to be gainfully employed; second, improved access to monthly allowances, including the permanent impairment allowance under the new Veterans Charter for seriously injured veterans; third, a new monthly supplement of $1,047 at the 2013 rate to the permanent impairment allowance, intended for the most seriously disabled veterans who are also unable to be gainfully employed; and fourth, more flexible options for the payment of the lump sum disability award.

Veterans and Canadian Armed Forces personnel receiving a disability award of more than 5% now have the choice of receiving a single lump sum payment, annual payments over any number of years, or receiving part of the award as a lump sum and the remainder as annual payments.

Mr. Chair, in closing, and before we take your questions, I want to stress that the new Veterans Charter reflects the government's commitment to the Canadian Armed Forces, an essential piece of Canada's place in the world. In order for Canada to be able to carry out future military recruitment and retention for missions at home and abroad, our men and women in uniform and their families must know that their needs will be met if they can no longer serve in Canada's military.

Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Chair, thank you very much for the opportunity to provide this short presentation.

[Janice Burke]

During this period, focus groups were held with Canadian Armed Forces personnel and veterans and separately with the families of Canadian Armed Forces personnel and veterans to feed into program design. In addition, in advance of the legislation being tabled, information sessions were held at bases across the country with Canadian Armed Forces members, veterans, and their families, involving some 800 participants.

The men and women in uniform told us that they needed services and benefits that were tailored to their needs and to those of their family and that support, wellness, independence, and a successful transition to civilian life. So we did that. The Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act and regulations, called the new Veterans Charter, was designed to build a future where there's opportunity with security. That's important, because the average age at military release is 37 years, an age at which they and their families need the assurance of a secure future. They needed programs that support them if they suffer from chronic pain, permanent disability, and/or operational stress injury. They needed programs that would support them should they be grappling with employment, income, and disability support issues as they moved from a very structured military environment to civilian life. Also, they needed programs that recognized that this transition is a major adjustment for their entire family.

Priority Hiring for Injured Veterans Act

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to speak to Bill C-11, introduced by the Minister of Veterans Affairs. This is only the second bill since the Conservative government came to power. That is very little considering all the issues that have been raised, including in the ombudsman's reports, and the recommendations on how to improve the new veterans charter.

It is a little disappointing that our government has so often ignored our national heroes over the past six years. The worst part is that the new veterans charter was supposed to be a living document, but the bill we are about to debate does not deal with the new charter. Contrary to what the minister was saying in response to the parliamentary secretary, the new veterans charter has not been routinely improved; it was improved only once.

When the charter was adopted in 2006, the concept of a living document meant that the charter would be amended as problems emerged. In the mission in Afghanistan, our troops suffered heavy losses. There were 158 deaths, and over 2,000 wounded soldiers came back, not to mention those who will be diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder in the coming years. According to a recent study, that is 14% of our troops, but we suspect that the number of injured soldiers and soldiers affected by stress is much higher.

It is against that backdrop that the new veterans charter was adopted by Parliament on the condition that it be a living document. That meant that it was going to be amended a number of times if required, as needs arose, or if the charter proved to be inadequate, as has been shown by the issues and comments raised in the past two years.

Since they came to power, the Conservatives have not kept that promise. The charter was amended only once in 2011, by means of Bill C-55. After seven years, a minister has finally decided to review the new charter in its entirety. It is not official, however, because the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs has not yet begun the official review. As specified in Bill C-55, that study was supposed to have begun on October 4. Today is November 21 and the House adjourns on December 11, so we will have hardly any time to begin studying the new charter before the House adjourns for the holidays, and we will not be starting again until next February.

That leads us to today's debate on Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Public Service Employment Act. Essentially, this bill seeks to give priority to veterans and members of the Canadian Forces who are released for medical reasons that are attributable to service. If, during the hiring process, the veteran demonstrates the essential qualifications required, the Public Service Commission will have to appoint that person in absolute priority, ahead of employees who are considered surplus or on leave. They will henceforth be in the highest category of hiring priority.

A second provision of the bill deals with the extension of the entitlement to priority, from two years to five. At the moment, veterans are in a regulatory category whereas public service employees are protected by the act. The government has therefore decided to include veterans in a category that is protected by the Public Service Employment Act.

This is a noble gesture on the part of the government. However, like the measures it has taken previously, such as the Last Post Fund, and the reimbursements for training and post-secondary education, these are half-measures that will have little impact on the quality of life of most veterans.

We will therefore support this bill at second reading, but we consider that it does not go far enough and that it raises questions that the government will have to answer. Moreover, in a climate of budget cutting, where we are seeing massive layoffs in the public service, this bill unfortunately will not really help veterans to get jobs in the public service, at least in the medium term.

This bill is actually a reaction to poor human resources management. The Conservatives have laid off so many public servants that veterans are no longer successful in being hired from the priority list.

What is most disappointing about the measures this government has introduced is the little impact they have had. I will not start listing off everything from 2006 on. I will only go back as far as the last budget, tabled in 2013.

The Conservatives announced with great fanfare that they were going to improve the Last Post Fund and double the refundable amount from close to $4,000 to a little under $8,000. An ombudsman, Patrick Stogran, had been mentioning this problem since at least 2009. The government waited some three or four years before addressing it. I would like to point out that it was a Liberal government that gutted the program in 1995 or thereabouts.

More recently, the Conservatives announced that they were increasing aid for training and post-secondary education, with maximum funding of $75,800 per veteran and a maximum envelope of $2 million over five years. As they say, the devil is in the details.

Although I do not know exactly how many veterans will apply for assistance under the program, let us take the amount of $2 million, for example, and divide it by $75,800, which is an accurate amount for someone going to university. If veterans receive the maximum amount, only 27 of them will have access to the program over this five-year period. Therefore, a little over five veterans a year will have access to the program.

I do not see how these measures will help our veterans. The Conservatives say they are increasing aid, but the criteria are often so strict that no one qualifies for it. It is easy to pull numbers out of the air and then make sure the criteria are so restrictive that the government will not be out of pocket at the end of the day. That is what the Conservatives are doing. They are using these tactics and saying that they are helping veterans, when what they are really doing is balancing the budget at their expense.

Now there is this bill that gives veterans priority for appointment to public service jobs. At first glance, it is a wonderful measure. However, on closer inspection, this bill is much less attractive because few public service jobs will be available in the coming years.

From 2006 to 2011, about 2,000 veterans made use of this priority entitlement. Of that number, 1,024 veterans secured a job in the public service. Of those 1,024 veterans, 739—72%—got a job with National Defence.

At Veterans Affairs Canada, the situation is somewhat more dire. Between 2006 and 2011, only 24 veterans got jobs at VAC, which corresponds to only 2% of all jobs.

However, our veterans, who have experienced the difficulties involved in the transition to civilian life, should be ideal candidates for jobs at Veterans Affairs Canada. They should play a key role in the development of VAC policies to ensure that those policies are designed for them and meet their needs.

The second-largest employer of veterans in the public service is the Correctional Service of Canada, which hired 54 veterans during that period, or 5% of all veteran hires. The Department of Human Resources and Skills Development is not very far behind with 44 hires, or 4% of the jobs obtained during this period.

When we look at these figures, it is clear that not all departments are making the same effort to hire veterans. Indeed, most departments have hired fewer than ten veterans, while others have hired none.

Therefore, these departments would have to undergo a major culture change to ensure that such measures actually help our veterans. As things stand right now, I am not sure that this will help even things out in terms of hiring more veterans in our public service.

The Ombudsman has found that about 4,500 veterans per year participate in vocational rehabilitation services. On average, 220 veterans put their names on list of those eligible for job priority status, and, as a result, 146 veterans on average get a job in the public service. This is a very small number. This does not make much of an impact on the majority of veterans or even on many of them.

Moreover, the job priority status for veterans applies only to a very specific group.

The vast majority of jobs in the public service require bilingualism, a post-secondary diploma or even university education. Two to four years of experience is often also required.

Under current regulations, veterans are given a two-year priority entitlement. The veteran must already have a diploma in hand because there is not enough time to start a university degree. Even now, with the new deadline, there is not enough time for a veteran to go to university, if he so wishes, and be available within the time prescribed.

In addition, veterans who do not have a university degree are not overly interested in going to university for the extended period required. As I said earlier, 4,500 veterans participate in the vocational rehabilitation program each year. Only 63 veterans chose university-level programs; 32 received support from Veterans Affairs Canada and 31 received support through the service income security insurance plan. The other participants chose vocational training or college-level programs that lasted anywhere from 12 to 24 months.

That number, 63, caught my attention. Is it true that only 63 veterans chose university-level programs, or are people being discouraged from choosing such programs because of the severely restrictive criteria?

The Ombudsman wrote the following in his report:

While...Veterans Affairs Canada profess[es] to consider the needs of the client/Veteran, they normally do not permit training or education in a new career field if, at the time of release...the client...has skills that are transferrable to the...workforce....

They are required to take a job that does not interest them or one that pays less than a career requiring post-secondary education, simply because they have skills.

The government does not want to do anything that will cost a lot of money. That is the conclusion. In the end, it is not need that influences the decisions, it is the cost of funding education.

The government is putting a lot of focus on the helmets to hardhats program, as though the construction industry were the miracle cure for job transition for our veterans. I agree, it is a good program, but it is not available in every province and it does not cover all trades. As I said, it is not available in Quebec, unfortunately. I have received calls from veterans who are disappointed that they cannot access this program because it is not available in Quebec.

I believe this restricts our veterans' ability to improve their quality of life and their job prospects. For example, the ombudsman recommends entering into partnerships with other industries and organizations, such as the Retail Council of Canada, the Canadian defence and security industries and the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada. We have to have more collaboration from private sector players, who are not always aware of veterans' skills. Unfortunately, human resources departments do not know how to interpret the CVs of military candidates. A recent study revealed the scope of the task. The Navigator study, conducted for the Veterans Transition Advisory Council in late August, found that most of the 850 employers consulted have little or no understanding of veterans' skills. Only 16% of employers make a special effort to hire veterans.

Almost half of employers believe that a university degree is more important than military service when hiring. Only 13% said that their human resources department knows how to interpret a resumé from a military candidate. We have to do more in this regard.

To my mind, this bill has a major flaw. First, we have to remember that only Canadian Forces members medically released for service-related reasons will have access to the program. Previously, to be given priority, members of the Canadian Forces and the RCMP had to be released for medical reasons, whether they were service-related or not. That is also the spirit of the new charter. To qualify for Veterans Affairs Canada benefits and services, the injury has to be service-related. If the department ruled otherwise, the veteran could appeal the decision to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board and then the Federal Court. Unfortunately, this is no longer clear.

In addition, if a veteran needs to appeal a decision before a Canadian Forces tribunal or the VRAB, the procedures involved in these administrative tribunals can be very long. Does this mean that the duration of the priority, which begins the day the soldier is released from duty, continues to run out while these administrative procedures drag on? The ombudsman had this to say recently on his blog:

However, under the new legislation, the system will have to adjudicate an individual’s file to determine if the medical release is related to service or not. This could add additional red tape to the release process and potentially delay the ability to access priority hiring upon release.

Like the ombudsman, we are worried about this uncertainty. Would it not be better to use the recognition of the link between the injury and the service to determine the accessibility and length of the priority entitlement? This could be done two ways: either the reason for release is designated “service-related medical release” or the link between the injury and the service is recognized by VAC or the VRAB. Either way, the system remains consistent, some of the red tape can be avoided and we could ensure that veterans do not lose their entitlement priority.

This bill also creates categories of veterans, and we are against that approach. The NDP supports the principle of having a single category of veterans. That is not what this bill does.

Veterans of the RCMP are not included in the bill and remain in the regulatory category. I think that a member of the RCMP who suffered a trauma and wanted to get out of the policing environment to start a new career could have benefited from priority hiring under this bill. Including veterans of the RCMP would have been a way of thanking them for their service and sacrifices. Now members of the Canadian Forces released for medical reasons attributable to service will have this priority entitlement and others will not.

This bill should have gone further. One major problem facing the Canadian Forces is the principle of universality of service, which requires members who cannot be deployed to be dismissed from the Canadian Forces. This is not entirely fair. We understand the importance of this principle to cohesion and morale, but would it not be possible to include the duty to accommodate principle?

Do those who served their country not deserve to be given a job where they could continue to serve? That is what the RCMP does for its members. The Minister of Veterans Affairs says that the Department of National Defence wanted to maintain the status quo on this. However, would it not be possible for the Standing Committee on National Defence to study this issue? Does this government not owe it to our troops and our veterans?

For months now we have been asking the government whether it realizes that it has a moral, social, legal and fiduciary obligation toward injured veterans. The government's lack of response would suggest not. The NDP has said time and time again that it will honour this century-long commitment made by successive Canadian governments, except for this one.

Again, the NDP will support Bill C-11, but the government will have to address our concerns in committee and make the necessary changes to ensure that this bill benefits the largest possible number of veterans who need this priority entitlement for a smooth transition and a better quality of life for them and their family.

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Vaughan, ON]

Thank you for the question.

One of the things in our research and in just looking back on history, if you will, I needed to know how the new Veterans Charter came to be and why, and all of that. That was a very, very important learning experience, certainly for me, to be able to compare what was in the old pension system to what the new Veterans Charter brought on board.

I appreciate fully that this was something that came about as a result of a lot of input from veterans themselves and veterans groups, and the various political parties all joined in to provide enhanced benefits, services and programs, and support for veterans and their families, which then became known as Bill C-55, and then, of course, the new Veterans Charter and all of that.

Since that time, it truly has been a living document, because in the interim period and up to recent times, there have been well over 100 very significant improvements made. In fact, I think the number of actual changes is something in the area of 160. It has been a consistent ongoing effort to better align services, programs, and support for veterans and their families, keeping pace with the changing times up to this point in time.

Granted, we can do better, and I think it's a very responsible thing we're doing, with your help and support, in that we'll now have a review and see if we can move forward in continuing this effort, but there has been a lot of effort to date, and I think that has to be acknowledged. We can't just constantly be negative about the progress, the support, and the commitment of almost five billion more new dollars to veterans programs and services since the new Veterans Charter came into being.

That's not chump change. That's a lot of commitment translated into program services. We have to thank the Canadian taxpayer for their contribution, their efforts, and their support to veterans, which continues.

We hope you can help us do even better.

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Vaughan, ON]

Thank you for that question.

As I indicated in my comments, this is an opportunity for us not only to do the review that was required of Bill C-55, but to amplify the work, the research, the kinds of review that will enable us to better define what our commitment is to veterans.

We heard about different terminology, different dialogue. I think it's important for us to come to a consensus or an agreed reference on what it is we are in fact endeavouring to do, whether it's a social contract commitment, social obligations, the sacred obligation, or all of those things. I think we should try to find what it is exactly we need to address. Hopefully those words will then reflect into meaningful action throughout the whole of our service and support for veterans.

I believe the new Veterans Charter should reflect this more clearly. We should state that up front. It should be our vision, our mission, and something that all of us can embrace as a purpose and intent for why we're here in our responsibility to our veterans and their families.

I think that should be something that you, I hope, can come up with and we can embody in this revisiting of the new Veterans Charter.

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Vaughan, ON]

Let me thank you for stepping in. We wish him well, of course.

I thank you for the opportunity to appear today as part of the comprehensive review of the new Veterans Charter.

I thank you for having introduced our deputy and the general, as well. I'll move on to my comments.

In 2011, Parliament passed Bill C-55, which created one new monthly payment, expanded the eligibility for two monthly financial benefits, and allowed veterans to break their lump sum into more flexible terms of their choice. It also added a requirement that these new measures be reviewed by Parliament in 2013.

Upon taking office, I heard clearly from the Veterans Ombudsman, veterans groups, and stakeholders that a wider review of the new Veterans Charter was needed. I therefore asked my parliamentary secretary to ensure that a comprehensive review of the new Veterans Charter be taken up in short order. I am pleased to be here today to discuss how we can improve the new Veterans Charter for veterans and their families.

As you undertake this review, l'd like to take a minute to discuss my hopes for your work.

It is my firm belief that you should focus the review on how the new Veterans Charter serves the most seriously injured, how our government supports Canadian veterans' families, and how Veterans Affairs delivers the programs that have been put in place.

Some have said this should be a travelling road show. I disagree. I believe Canadians and veterans from across the country should be able to submit their comments or insights to you directly, and I believe we should remain focused.

Colleagues, the new Veterans Charter was unanimously passed by Parliament under the former government after years of debate and study among experts, veterans' representatives, and veterans themselves. While we can never say everyone, the vast majority obviously concluded that the old pension system had outlived its usefulness.

I encourage members to read the Senate's report on the new Veterans Charter, issued last year.

I would also highlight a comment Senator Roméo Dallaire stated upon its introduction in the other place:

...it is with great anticipation that I am speaking to [the new Veterans Charter], which proposes to modernize our veterans' assistance and compensation program...in fact, a new social contract between the people of Canada and our veterans, both past and present.

Advances in medical knowledge and disability management, and changing demographics among the veterans population were just some of the changes that led to this new approach in 2005. As the situation facing Canadian veterans changed from 2005 to today, so too has the new Veterans Charter and how it is applied.

We will be distributing copies of a report my department has produced, which outlines 160 adopted recommendations which led to 107 improvements to the administration of benefits and services under the new Veterans Charter. These changes represent our collective effort to keep pace with changing times, but I will be the first to agree that more needs to be done.

Colleagues, since 2005 we have seen the effects of the war in Afghanistan on our military men and women. With the new payment and options introduced in 2011, more financial support has been directed to those who have been seriously injured. However, I am convinced, as I stated earlier, more can and should be done.

Our commitment to veterans is absolute, and has been so since our government was first formed in 2006.

One must only look at the overall Veterans Affairs budget to see how, even during a recession and a government-wide cost reduction exercise, Veterans Affairs spends approximately $700 million more today than in 2005.

The work our government does each day has been and can be called many things: duty, responsibility, commitment, social contract, obligation, sacred or not, or covenant. Colleagues, I believe it is all of those things.

Therefore, as part of this review, I ask you to determine how best to state our commitment to Canadians and their families and what is the best format to do so in the new Veterans Charter.

It is important that Canadians express through the parliamentary process exactly what is our shared duty, responsibility, mandate, obligation, commitment, or covenant to Canadian veterans.

Returning to the changing times, Veterans Affairs offices in eight locations across Canada have seen demand drop, and so yes, they are being closed. However, where veterans need them most, our government has maintained 26 Veterans Affairs Canada service centres, has established and supports 24 integrated personnel support centres and 17 operational stress injury clinics. In total, Veterans Affairs will have 67 locations across the country to meet the changing need but this is again only part of the story.

Imagine how many times a veteran has driven past a Service Canada office on the way downtown to pick up a brochure from a Veterans Affairs district office. Now, in locations where Veterans Affairs has never operated before, veterans and their families can visit one of 600 Service Canada sites to get the information they need.

As times have changed, so too have the rates being paid under the funeral and burial program. The average cost of a funeral today is just over $7,000. That is why last spring our government increased the maximum payment to $7,376 while providing an additional $1,200 on average to a veteran's family for any burial costs. In so doing, we have one of the most robust programs of our allies. By comparison, the United States provides just over $2,000, the United Kingdom provides $3,500, and New Zealand provides $1,800, all noted in Canadian dollars.

It is clear this program has kept up with the changing times, because of improvements made by our government.

I will also take a moment to speak about the supplementary estimates (B), which this year includes a request for another $20 million to support Canadian veterans' funeral costs, our commemorative promotional programs, and to increase the war veterans allowance and other health-related benefits. This further request for new financial support builds on our government's record of almost $5 billion in new financial support since 2006. With our administration costs on the decline, this means every new request for additional funding from Parliament will more and more directly affect Canadian veterans.

I have one final thought before I take your questions. The exercise you are embarking on is not one of the elusive pursuit of perfection, but rather is about finding the reasonable solutions that will focus on the veterans and their families who need them the most, especially the critically injured and the homeless as examples.

Mr. Chair and members, thank you.