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.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to raise a point of order, though, Mr. Chair. I would like Mr. Easter to withdraw his unnecessary, unparliamentary comments that he made earlier in the committee meeting. I don't want to reiterate the words he said. They were very unparliamentary. If he withdraws them publicly now, I will not bring it forward to the House.

The other issue is that on this he has called us on this side liars. This is a pattern that happened yesterday in the veterans affairs committee. When the minister brought forward Bill C-55 and accused the Liberal opposition in the Senate of blocking the expedition without giving unanimous consent, the Liberal critic, Ms. Sgro, accused us of being liars. She has yet today to find out that she was wrong. In fact, the Liberals did block Bill C-55 in the Senate, with unanimous consent. Here, once again, we have a member, a Liberal critic—

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

I have a couple of items.

First, I wonder if the analyst can give us some more formal understanding in the future as to how VRAB became a separate agency. I'm not quite sure when or why that happened, but it would be interesting to know why the department did that.

Second, Mr. Chairman--and I say this with great respect--we can't have any more cancelled meetings. You don't need witnesses to have a meeting. I understand what you're trying to do and what the clerk was doing, but there are many things we can discuss among ourselves in a cooperative nature in order to move certain things forward to help the department, so I would encourage, Mr. Chairman, that there be no more cancelled meetings, if it's possible.

The third part is that 112 North is empty right now, and I'm wondering why we can't get that room. I say it with great respect. There's the television, but it would be nice to have that room back. I know veterans, when they come in, feel more comfortable, and it's easier. Maybe I'm getting lazy in my old age, but it's right down there after question period. It's right there. I wonder why we can't have that.

Lastly, the previous witness we had before this told us that over 3,500 individuals will be assisted by Bill C-55. We know that not to be true. Those are the regulation changes, not legislative changes, so I'd just like the committee to keep in mind that experts from DVA can come in and give us erroneous or false information, or maybe they just made a serious error in judgment. I don't know, but when they answered 3,500, the real answer was 500 over five years. That's quite a change in figures. I just wanted to leave it out there that sometimes department officials aren't necessarily correct themselves.

If we could just halt the cancelled meetings, we could talk about whatever. It would be a nice way to spend a couple of hours with my friends on both sides of the fence here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Second, this is a budget for witnesses for Bill C-55. The amount requested is $4,400.00. That was for witness expenses; then we had a video conference, and there were miscellaneous expenses. It's $4,400.00.

Can I have a motion to accept that budget?

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Jonquière—Alma, QC]

Yes, I had some very specific goals in mind for the tour across Canada.

I first wanted to meet with our staff, of course, everywhere we have an office in the regions we were visiting. I also wanted to meet with the organizations representing our veterans. Finally, I wanted to see the residences and shelters available to assist the homeless so that we could talk with stakeholders about their methods of identifying homeless people and see what kind of measures they were taking to support them.

Of course, I also went to military bases to tell our forces what we were hoping to achieve with Bill C-55. I noticed that people did not seem to have the right information. They were not aware of what was in the new charter or what would happen to them once they left the Canadian Forces, if they got to that point. They were not aware of the services they would get from our department. They were surprised to see all the services that we would provide them with and that we are currently improving to better serve their needs.

I would like to go back to the lump sum payment. With Bill C-55, we would be changing the lump sum payment so that they could either take a one-time payment or spread it over how many years they choose. That does not mean they would be making the right decision.

If you were in their shoes, what would you do? You would ask your spouse, your friends or your family what was best for you to do in your situation. Would it be better to take some of the money to buy a house? Or would it be better to spread it over time, as some of them have already received $250,000 from the Department of National Defence? Those are the changes we are making, and they are a real improvement.

We would certainly like to give more. That's always the case. But we have been going in the order of priorities. We consulted with veterans' organizations. We asked them what changes were most urgent. And we established the priorities with them. They are backing us up as we speak. They are urging the government, the Senate and everyone else to pass this legislation in the coming days, since we don't know what looms ahead in the House of Commons.

These types of tours are really important. They allow us to reach people. People can then meet with me and share how things are.

Even in the House of Commons—I can ask the members—how many times have you come to me with an envelope, not a brown envelope...

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

That's registered on television too, I'm quite sure.

Let's just settle down here for a minute and realize that we're at an estimates meeting. I think we've heard two or three times that we're not on Bill C-55, and all we've dealt with is Bill C-55.

Please ask some questions, Mr. Blaney, and please, let's talk about the estimates. I'm quite sure the estimates will also be impacted by Bill C-55. That is where we are, and we're going to go to questions, please. We will, as a committee, make mention to the Senate that maybe they can get Bill C-55 through quickly.

Could we have a question, please?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Chair, this is unfair comment. We work, as you know, in a non-partisan way. We passed Bill C-55 in one meeting, and I think it's unfair that members are using that opportunity to say things that aren't even true.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I am very honoured to be replacing the parliamentary secretary and I thank my colleagues for having faith in me today.

I would first like to congratulate the minister for Bill C-55, which addresses many of the gaps you pointed out. I obviously think it is unfortunate, especially for our veterans, that the Liberal members of the Senate have not given their unanimous consent in order to move the bill forward as quickly as possible.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Good afternoon, Minister. We are pleased to have you with us today. I think this is the first time that you have appeared before this committee.

As you said, we have met with many veterans and several groups. I was surprised to hear you say that the services for veterans were moving forward, that you were improving the system and that you expected further achievements down the road.

We heard several witnesses: the president of the Royal 22^nd Regiment Association, Mr. Renaud; retired Colonel Pat Stogran, a former veterans' ombudsman whose contract you did not renew; Mr. Bruce Henwood, from the Special Needs Advisory Group; Mr. Victor Marshall, chair of the Gerontological Advisory Council; Mr. Sean Bruyea, a former member of the armed forces. Mr. Mark Campbell, a soldier who stepped on a bomb in June 2008, also appeared before another committee. The generally held opinion was that the New Veterans Charter deprives disabled veterans of 40% of their income.

According to several witnesses we heard here when we studied the New Veterans Charter, it seems undeniable that the abolition of the monthly pension in favour of a lump sum payment greatly penalizes a number of veterans.

We in fact saw certain statistics in this regard. A person with a 20% disability used to receive approximately $600 to $800 monthly. Now that person would receive approximately $50,000.

If you were 21 or 22 years old, Mr. Blackburn, and you were given a choice between receiving $600 to $800 per month for life and receiving a sum of $50,000, which would you choose?

How can you tell us that you are improving the situation for veterans when you are depriving these people of a large part of their potential income by abolishing this monthly lifetime benefit? You know very well that in Quebec, as well as in other provinces in Canada, petitions were circulated asking that the lump sum payment be abolished in favour of a return to a monthly lifetime pension.

There are young people who have accidents when they are 20 or 25 years old. If, as Bill C-55 provides, this lump sum payment of $50,000 is divided into two or three payments, that only amounts to $10,000 or $15,000. It is not sufficient, it won't allow disabled persons to meet their needs for the rest of their life.

What happens in those cases?

Some mothers came here to tell us that it was often the family that then had to take on the costs related to a soldier's serious injury.

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Jonquière—Alma, QC]

Thank you for your comments and questions.

With regard to our veterans who are returning from Afghanistan, we have put in place a special team to process their files more quickly. For instance, decisions on rehabilitation programs are handed down within a two-week time frame. As for benefits they may obtain under the department's various programs, be it the disability benefit or others, we have also accelerated the process and we can respond to their applications within 16 weeks. People may wonder why it takes 16 weeks when it should be done within three or four. There are also all sorts of reasons for that. Previously the turnaround time was 24 weeks, it is now 16, and we are continuing to improve the process. However, in order to make a decision we need all of the relevant information, the medical information in particular. It is very important that our employees have all of the documents in hand so as to be able to make a decision. Often, some of the information comes from the Department of National Defence, in particular the files and other documents, and all of this takes time.

Allow me to tell you that we are really making progress, making improvements. In the coming days our frontline employees will have the power to make decisions. And so they will no longer have to refer the case to levels above them, which led to delay after delay. The whole process within the department is evolving in order to meet our veterans' needs more quickly.

In addition, I will not deny that our department has aged as our veterans have, veterans of the Second World War, the Korean War and our various peace missions. And then our modern- day veterans appeared. We were not prepared from this sudden culture change, and the change in the needs of our modern-day veterans. These are completely different needs, as compared to those of our older veterans. For instance, we were not prepared to process their files using the Internet, and we are still not able to do so. This is one of the changes we are making. We will see what answers tomorrow's budget will contain in this regard. We are truly undergoing a period of major change and we are taking that reality into account, and the needs of our military people.

I also want to point out that we are processing our modern-day veterans' files in light of the New Veterans Charter approved in 2005. This should be an evolving charter but in reality there were no changes made over four or four and half years. Why was this the case? The situation was not the same. When our modern-day veterans come back injured from Afghanistan, for instance after having had a leg amputated, they are still members of the armed forces and they remain there during two or three years on full salary. It is only after that period that they deal with us and that they really come under Veterans Affairs Canada. All of this reality caught up with us quickly over the past 18 months, and this has meant that we must now pick up our pace. This is what we are doing at this time. Bill C-55 has not yet been passed. For that reason, we will not be able to give our modern-day veterans all of the benefits we want to give them. All of the flaws that need to be corrected will not be as long as the bill has not become law. Moreover, there will be a six-month lag before the regulations come into effect.

I tried to give you some specific details to reply to your comments.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Thank you.

Welcome, Mr. Blackburn. I'm glad that we finally have you here before the committee. You've been the minister for quite a while and, for a variety of reasons, this is your first chance to come before us, so I'm glad that you're here. Thank you for coming and attempting to address us and for hearing some of the issues that we hear on a day-to-day basis from veterans and their families when they come before us.

We certainly hear from our departmental officials, with their desire to make a difference, but we also hear from many about the inadequacies and the large percentage of our veterans who are not getting their needs met. Given the fact that we have a lot of men and women coming home from Afghanistan in the next short while, I would expect an increase in the budget. I know you also referred to the fact that there would be a decrease in other areas.

How are you planning to ensure that your department will be sensitive to the many needs of the men and women who are coming home? How are you going to monitor the refusal rate of so many veterans, who come to us here and express their frustration with the department because of not being able to get satisfactory services, experiencing far too much red tape, and so on?

Regulation change could have been done instead of Bill C-55 on some of these issues. Why did you not choose to go that route, and why did you instead introduce a bill that will require a lengthy time to make these changes?

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Jonquière—Alma, QC]

Mr. Chair, as far as these budget numbers go, it is important to understand that every action and decision made at the Department of Veterans Affairs is geared toward improving services and benefits for Canada's most deserving citizens.

The changing demographic profile of Canada's veterans, their changing needs and requirements, and our involvement in Afghanistan have all resulted in more modern-day veterans than we anticipated applying for and receiving benefits under the New Veterans Charter. We are also seeing situations where new medical conditions arise at a later date or where additional difficulties affect veterans. As a result, veterans who already receive a benefit are coming back to us for additional help.

I also want to point out that our efforts over the past year to improve the process of awarding disability benefits have contributed to this increased spending. As of the end of February 2011, the number of disability claims processed increased by 15% this year over last year. As a result, we've put $72 million more in the hands of Canada's veterans.

We have also seen an increase in the uptake of the rehabilitation and career transition programs. The year after the New Veterans Charter was introduced, there were just over 1,100 veterans taking advantage of these programs. This year, there were over 3,800, and we are forecasting over 4,600 next year. That's a 22% increase. It is important to keep in mind that Canada's veterans and their families are the main beneficiaries of this spending growth.

Mr. Chair, you will also notice that we asked for an additional $9.4 million to support the veterans independence program. This reflects the fact that Canada's veterans are still in good health. Our traditional war service veterans are living longer and healthier lives, so they are able to remain in their homes with the help of grounds keeping and housekeeping services. This means fewer of them are moving to long-term care facilities. Again, this is another indication that our programs are effective and being well-used by veterans.

In relation to the spending on the Agent Orange program, I made an announcement in Fredericton back in December that the program would be extended. Our government committed additional funding, some of which is reflected in the numbers you see for both this year and next year. Essentially, that allowed us to change the program's criteria. First, we removed a restriction on eligibility. That allowed more widows to apply for the ex-gratia payment. Second, we changed the date in terms of getting a diagnosis. Since the announcement, we have contacted nearly 1,300 individuals to obtain consent to review their file, and we actually have received a number of new applications as well. The bottom line is that as of March 11, 2011, we have approved payments for over 300 individuals.

Once again, these increases speak to a desire to improve the quality of life for Canada's veterans and their families. They also underline some of the fundamental changes made to how we conduct business at the department these days. We are making real progress in reducing the complexity of the processes and programs, overhauling service delivery, strengthening partnerships with the Department of National Defence and others, sustaining the New Veterans Charter, and adapting the department to the changing demographics of our veterans.

As I mentioned, productivity at Veterans Affairs is up by about 15%. We have increased our team of adjudicators, improved our business processes and introduced better monitoring. We are doing a better job of communicating with veterans, giving clearer direction as to the type of information we need in order to be able to move forward with an application.

We have also made certain investments in technology. These are minor investments for the moment, and of course we have to quicken our pace. We will do more on this front.

I must mention other important progress: between January 2010 and January 2011, we reduced the number of disability claims waiting to be adjudicated by 36%. We are processing disability applications faster. As of early this month, March 8, 78% of first applications were completed within 16 weeks. The result, of course, impacts our budget for the upcoming year.

For 2011-2012, we project spending $3.5 billion, an increase of $109.1 million in comparison to the previous main estimates, or 3.2% from the previous year. I wish to point out that expenses related to Bill C-55 will not be added to the budget as long as the law has not been enacted, but we have provided for the costs related to the program. Some projects have already been approved and there are several others to come.

And finally, Mr. Chair, I don't want to leave you with the impression that all we do is spend money at Veterans Affairs Canada. We are very cognizant of the tight fiscal environment in which our country finds itself. There are some decreases in next year's anticipated spending amounting to $85 million. This is due to a decrease in the forecasted number of War Service Veterans who will receive benefits from the department. As such, some program spending has been adjusted downward.

As well, the Veterans Review and Appeal Board has been established as a separate entity under the Financial Administration Act, which means that the expenditure will no longer appear in the department's spending. These estimates represent an important commitment by the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Government of Canada to invest significantly in the health and well-being of Canada's veterans and their families.

I have enjoyed travelling across the country these last few months and talking with our veterans and telling them about the service improvements taking place in their name. Their feedback and yours have been invaluable, as has been the advice from their advocates. I of course plan to continue that dialogue to ensure all of our programs and services are continuously adapted and adjusted to better fit the evolving needs of both our traditional and modern-day veterans and their families.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

I want to say something regarding the point of order, Mr. Chair.

I find it inappropriate to interrupt the witness, who has come here to meet with us today. First of all, my colleague's comments are out of place. The Prime Minister impressed upon us the importance of getting Bill C-55 passed quickly. He put the situation into context.

I think the members of this committee should at least have the decency to listen to what the witness has to say. Afterwards, every member will have an opportunity to ask the minister questions.

Interrupting the witness while he is making his opening statement is uncalled for.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Excuse me for interrupting. The minister is here to talk about the estimates, and talking about a Conservative-dominated Senate and saying that the Liberals are holding up Bill C-55 is, I think, totally out of line. It's out of line to be mentioning it. I suggest that it's probably not even true, because we have been very committed and have been on the record, and this committee put it through very quickly.

I really object to the minister going off what he should be talking about--the supplementary estimates, which is what he came here for--and making accusations, which at this particular moment I'm not going to be running over to the Senate to find out about, because I know it's a Conservative-dominated Senate and no longer a Liberal-dominated Senate.

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, fellow parliamentarians and all of you here today, ladies and gentlemen.

I am pleased to appear before the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs to present the budgetary estimates for my department, Veterans Affairs Canada, for the last fiscal year and the upcoming one.

But before I get into the numbers, I would first like to thank the members of the committee for their work on Bill C-55. Thanks to your understanding and compassion, we have been able to move quickly towards the passage of this meaningful bill in the House of Commons. I thank you and Canada's veterans thank you.

Allow me to digress for a moment. We wanted to fast-track this bill through the Senate. But it seems that the Liberal senators would not let that happen, I have just learned. I am not sure whether you can intervene to help us at all, but we all know how important it is that we vote on the bill as soon as possible. There is talk of a vote of non-confidence in the government on Friday. At least we will have done everything we could on our end.

Once the bill known as the Enhanced New Veterans Charter Act has received royal assent, it will give our most seriously injured soldiers broader access to better financial support as they transition to civilian life. We can all agree that these changes are a step in the right direction.

As Veterans Ombudsman Guy Parent told the committee on March 1, this bill is a small but important step that should not be delayed to try to improve it at this stage. That work will continue as we go forward.

Enhanced New Veterans Charter Act

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Pursuant to an order made March 9, Bill C-55, An Act to amend the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act and the Pension Act is deemed read a third time and passed.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)