Veterans Affairs Committee on Dec. 10th, 2013

[Manon Perreault, NDP, Montcalm, QC]

In my riding of Montcalm, there is the Amicale des vétérans and the Royal Canadian Legion, but there is also NATO. Recently, these people spoke to me about the principle of universality of military service.

Could you elaborate on that?

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

Excuse me, Madame Manon, you have two seconds.

[Manon Perreault, NDP, Montcalm, QC]

Okay.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

Thank you, Madame Manon.

You can finish that very quickly; go ahead.

[Jim Scott]

I could talk about universality of service, but I am no expert on the universality of service, so I wouldn't want to mislead the committee as to what I do and do not know on that. I'm familiar with it in a broad sense, but I'm no expert.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

Mr. Scott, that's very kind. Thank you very much.

We'll now move on to Mr. Chisu, please, for four minutes.

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for appearing in front of the committee, especially the veterans from Afghanistan, especially my fellow engineer.

I am proud to be able to have served the country myself, both in peacekeeping operations in Bosnia in 2004 as well as in the war in Afghanistan in 2007. I consider my service a duty to my country and I always have been guided by what I can do for my country, being very well aware that I could be killed or severely wounded. Fortunately, I'm here with you today.

I would like to go back a little bit to what aspects of the Pension Act you feel are better than the charter. Could you elaborate on this, not only for the regular force people, but also for the reservists? What is better?

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

Mr. Berry.

[Kevin Berry]

Well, what you're talking about with reference to the Pension Act is the disability compensation, right, and what's better about it, right? Well, it's for life, for starters. The current lump sum system is equivalent to only about 10 to 12 years of the compensation that you would have received.

What was better about the Pension Act was that it only dealt with pain and suffering. Now, the earnings loss benefit that's part of the new Veterans Charter, that was handled by SISIP before the new Veterans Charter came in. You still got your 75% of long-term disability; it just came under SISIP. It was just a renamed program. You still got retraining through Veterans Affairs and through SISIP could go back to school, prior to the new Veterans Charter. These aren't new benefits.

The huge difference here is that for pain and suffering under the Pension Act it was a lifetime monthly pension that was commensurate with the degree of injury incurred and was relatively comparable to personal injury compensation elsewhere in the country. It's been replaced by, in some cases, one-tenth, in a small amount that comes up front. Yes, it's tax free, but all the other benefits are taxable. The old pension under the Pension Act was tax free, it was indexed, and it was for life.

The new benefits, the earnings loss benefits, are taxable. They only go to age 65. They're not indexed. If you're going to compare the two time periods, we were much better off under the Pension Act because that was money in our pocket to spend and to feel self-sufficient and move forward with.

Not everybody qualifies for retraining. The ombudsman's report this year says that 53% of veterans who qualify for these programs aren't even allowed to have access to them. They're denied by Veterans Affairs.

So there's an accessibility issue, but there's also the overriding issue, which is that the programs aren't as generous as what was offered under the Pension Act. That's why I'm saying it's disingenuous to compare the Pension Act to the new Veterans Charter, because the Pension Act only represents the disability award part of the new Veterans Charter.

You have to take into account things like the earnings loss benefit. That was SISIP under the old system. There was another program and another benefit that paid out for guys who couldn't work. They weren't left to their own devices just on the Pension Act; there were other programs in place. You have to compare the two systems comprehensively, not just the one piece of the Pension Act versus the entire new Veterans Charter.

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Okay.

Can you tell me how the old system helped a veteran to rehabilitate?

[Kevin Berry]

To rehabilitate? Okay—

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

To rehabilitate. It was in the old system a way to reintegrate a veteran into society.

[Kevin Berry]

The proper comparison would be to compare that to the War Veterans Allowance Act that followed the Second World War and was opened to Korean War veterans. That would be the proper comparison. That was proper reintegration on the part of government.

There are other folks, such as Harold Leduc, who are much more informed on this and who would be better to call as witnesses to speak to that, but comparing the two systems—Pension Act to new Veterans Charter—doesn't work.

With regard to retraining and rehabilitation, you could have been sent to retraining and rehabilitation during the time period prior to 2006, but it was under other programs. There were other retraining benefits. They were administered by Veterans Affairs and by SISIP. I received retraining through SISIP when I got out of the army in 2004. That was paid for by SISIP because I was a Veterans Affairs client under the Pension Act for my knees and ears. The retraining was there at that point.

[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.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Stoffer.

I have a little anecdotal story to build upon your comments about some of the former active members.

My grandfather was in World War II, and he was injured a few days after D-Day. A grenade went off in a tank and he was burnt. Shrapnel damaged his legs. He's long since been deceased, but my grandmother was telling me the other day that under the Pension Act, she receives $83 a month for his injuries.

So to your point, how do you put the value on that, of being burnt and not being able to wear shorts your entire life? I don't know. I just thought I would bring that up, because I think there has to be a little balance.

I'll also mention that I've been on this committee for five years. I asked to be on this committee to try to do what we can to move the bar forward.

All of that being said, I have a couple questions for you, Mr. Berry, if you don't mind answering them. If you don't feel like you want to answer them, don't answer them.

[Kevin Berry]

I'm an open book.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Okay.

I wasn't sure if I caught this right at the beginning. Were you a regular force member, did you say?

[Kevin Berry]

I was. I served with the 3rd Battalion, Royal Canadian Regiment, based out of Petawawa. I served in Afghanistan, on Roto 0, Operation ATHENA, from August 2003 until February 2004.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Okay. And you've answered my second question about when you left the military.

When you left, did anybody at Canadian Forces or anybody at Veterans Affairs have an interview with you to say “Sir, here are some of the programs, here are some of the options that are available to you”?

[Kevin Berry]

Absolutely.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

What happened during that interview?

[Kevin Berry]

The benefits were put forward to me. I had a good chain of command. When I injured my knees overseas in Afghanistan, I had a call in right away to Veterans Affairs, because the date of the claim beginning is when the date of the benefits kick in. I was compensated under the Pension Act.

I received my retraining benefits, as a Veterans Affairs client, through SISIP, because I was getting released from the military. You do meet with a social worker on your way out the door. On your way out, they'll say, hey, this is something you're entitled to. This was in September 2004, when my contract ended. I'd gotten in just prior to 9/11.

The thing is that in some cases, PTSD will incubate for decades. There are still World War II veterans coming forward saying “You know what? I've suffered with this over my lifetime.”

I came forward with PTSD in 2010. By that time, the rules had been changed. I'd been a civilian, I'd been working, I'd been earning income, I was gainfully employed as a bar manager, I was making my way, far in excess of what I was making as a private in 2004.

When I came forward and asked Veterans Affairs for help, I was told to go home, that I was clearly a mess, and that I was going to be taken care of. My pay at the time was 75% of my 2004 private salary indexed to 2010 and then taxed. So I went from earning roughly $4,500 a month to $2,100 a month. Due to the clawback, my $600-a-month pension under the Pension Act was clawed back.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

What year was this?

[Kevin Berry]

That was 2010. I was receiving $1,500 a month from that and another $600 a month from my Pension Act benefits. That's for my knees and ears, and those were injuries incurred during my time in service.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Again, if you don't want to answer the next question, that's fine too. I'm just curious to know what services Veterans Affairs is providing you with today to help you through your PTSD, which I'm guessing is still existing.