Veterans Affairs Committee on Dec. 11th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Thank you.

We'll now go to Mr. Valley for five minutes.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for all the answers.

You talked about the Veterans Charter and that we're working on the bill of rights to improve things. I need to understand what we have.

You've talked about the fact that when individuals are disabled and we can't rehabilitate them, they obviously get a pension, because it's what you're there to serve. How does the pension work? Does it go past 65 years of age?

[Brian Ferguson]

I'll attempt to answer generally, and then, if I miss anything, Ken will add some additional points.

Basically, you can take the case of Sergeant Jones, who was mentioned earlier by Mrs. Hinton. If that individual came into the system today and had been medically released from the armed forces, he would be eligible for a disability award for injuries of up to $250,000.

Ken, is it in increments of $25,000 or $12,500?

[Ken Miller]

It is actually in increments of 5%. It's 5% and upwards, and 1% increments are below that.

[Brian Ferguson]

When they got that award under the old system, they got a pension. Under the new system, they'd get an award. Under the old system, it was all they got.

Under the new system, they also have protection for lost earnings. In other words, they are eligible if the injuries require that they go into rehabilitation. During the period of time they're in rehab, they are guaranteed to receive 75% of their indexed pre-release salary, plus whatever disability award they receive.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

What if they can't be rehabilitated?

[Brian Ferguson]

That determination is made after a period of time. They're guaranteed to receive 75% until they're 65. They then get an additional retirement supplement of 2% of their earnings from the earnings-lost benefit, during that period of time, to compensate for the fact that they're unable to contribute to a pension plan.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

When Sergeant Jones hits 65, his pension will be cut off and he'll get the supplement on top of the Canada Pension Plan, but there'll be no CPP because he wasn't eligible to put into it.

[Brian Ferguson]

He would get 2%.

I don't know. We'd have to look at the circumstances.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

We're not trying to point fingers here. We're trying to figure out if we're going to have a bill of rights that will cover all the bases.

If he's receiving a pension.... As for the age, as we know, people are working longer and everything. If 65 is the arbitrary figure, shouldn't we be looking at the bill of rights to try to get some protection for these people past that age? We no longer have to retire at 65. I'm concerned about that aspect of it.

[Brian Ferguson]

I want to be absolutely technically clear on the response, so I'll ask Ken if he has anything to add on how it works at age 65.

[Ken Miller]

“Pension” is probably a bit of a misnomer in this context. It is compensation, and it splits primarily into two pieces.

The disability award, which compensates for pain and suffering, is non-economic. It's the part that compensates through a one-time lump sum payment of up to $250,000.

The other part is economic compensation. If there has been an impact on someone's ability to earn income, then that's what it compensates for. Because it replaces income the individual would have earned, this may come into question, as you suggested.

Conventional thinking was to go up to about age 65, which is also a point at which other retirement benefits, superannuation, and so on, kick in. Given its policy objective, the program would go to age 65. If someone is permanently disabled and receiving only 75% of income up to age 65, it's the policy rationale for providing that one-time lump sum award at age 65. It's 2% of all the lost earnings that would have been received over a lifetime.

There's also an additional benefit that Mr. Ferguson didn't mention, which is quite important for those who are most seriously disabled. It's a benefit that recognizes the loss of a career path or a career opportunity because of having such a serious disability. It pays a monthly amount through three grade levels that range between $500 and $1,500, depending on the severity, and it's a lifetime payment that in fact continues beyond age 65.

We have a safety net program for individuals after age 65, which is the time when lost earnings stop. If they are in low-income situations and don't have other various retirement streams, as most individuals would have, they would then become eligible for Canadian Forces income support. It is a fairly basic level of support, but it's a level of support that continues indefinitely, regardless of age.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Thank you. I'm glad for the explanation, but I think it's up to this committee to recommend in the future that if there is a gap and that 65 shouldn't be there because of changes in society, we should look at that. It shouldn't be an arbitrary thing to cut off.

When somebody is disabled and unable to be rehabilitated, how much support do we give to the spouse at that point? Is it something we should be looking at to make sure they can take some training to get to the decent job level they need to support the person who can't be rehabilitated? What level of support is in there, and is it something we should be looking at to address correctly?

[Brian Ferguson]

It's in the legislation and regulations. If the individual is cognitively impaired, cannot be retrained, and is permanently disabled, the right for training and job placement would devolve to the spouse.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

As Mr. Sweet mentioned, sometimes departments don't mesh well together. Is it a problem? Is it something we need to look at?

[Brian Ferguson]

We have the responsibility under the new Veterans Charter to ensure that job placement activity is successful. We work with other departments in that area to ensure that we collaborate on job placement opportunities, but we have the fundamental responsibility to ensure that the job placement activities occur, including assistance with job finding, training, and other things that might be helpful.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

I'm glad you do have that responsibility, but if it is something that needs to be addressed, since you're handling the operations this is the time to correct it in the bill of rights, if there is an opportunity.

[Brian Ferguson]

Our understanding—and correct me if I'm wrong, Ken—is that the charter design provides us with that, so we think the design is solid.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

We're only nine months into it, so we may identify a problem, but I'm glad it's there to work. What we want to do is reduce the cracks that people fall through.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Ms. Hinton.

[Betty Hinton, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

I have a follow-up on what Mr. Valley said. How many spouses have actually accessed the education opportunity under the bill of rights?

Mr. Stoffer, I want you to know you're not alone. We have the very same problem in my end of the country with seniors who have been married for 55 or 60 years. Then one gets sick, the other is still relatively able, and they split them up; or they're both ill, and they split them up. If it makes you feel any better—it doesn't bring me much relief—those are provincial decisions. So on the federal side of things, you can feel good that we at least ensure a veteran's bed, so we're doing our part. We'll just start booting the provinces to make them do their part too.

Mr. Ferguson.

[Brian Ferguson]

I'll ask Ken if he has any stats on that. If we don't, we'll endeavour to get them for you.

[Ken Miller]

I don't have any I can provide, but I'll certainly undertake that. It may be a little early in the program, because veterans who would have entered rehab are probably still engaged in rehab.

[Betty Hinton, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

I don't want you to go to a great deal of trouble. There must be some cases where you would know immediately that the veteran wasn't capable of working anymore. I wonder in how many of those cases the spouse has been put in some sort of new training system to help support the family.

[Ken Miller]

There may well be, and I'll certainly undertake to look at that.

I should point out to you that the purpose of rehabilitation in our rehab program, from the point of view of the veteran, is not simply to re-engage the veteran in work. Some veterans can certainly benefit from rehabilitation and may never re-enter the workforce. If the program can assist them to become better engaged to participate better with their families and their communities—in other words, to improve as far along that continuum as they can—that is something of value, and part of the goal of rehabilitation. So it's not singularly for employment.