Veterans Affairs Committee on Feb. 25th, 2014

[Ronald Griffis]

Yes.

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

Many category A and B reservists do not know that they are eligible for provincial disability and earning loss benefit programs. Those programs provide benefits that often fluctuate between 80% and 90% of the earnings, which is 5% to 10% more than what is provided through the Service Income Security Insurance Plan and the earnings loss benefit.

Should the new charter at least grant the equivalent of what is provided to all other workers?

[Ronald Griffis]

I understand that the provincial members are entitled to make an application under the benefits that are authorized by a province.

By the same token, the earnings loss benefit, with respect to the reservist finding out about it and the lack of information, we have brought it to the attention of Veterans Affairs Canada on a regular basis, and as recently as last week, that they need to communicate to a greater degree to advise veterans of what is available for them. Right now there are veterans who are 67, 68, 70 years of age who come to us and say they want to make a claim, and can we tell them if this is going to be available, and can we tell them if they will be successful. We assist them in filling out the various forms and explain to them everything they can possibly seek an award for. Veterans Affairs has agreed with us on several occasions that their communication skills need to be addressed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chicoine.

We'll now go to Mr. O'Toole, for six minutes, please.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Chair, it's really good and it's an honour for me to be back on the committee. As a veteran and as an MP, it's good to be here.

I've heard the terms “gung-ho” and “hurry up and wait” used. I heard both terms a lot when I was in the CF. “Hurry up and wait” applies both to serving members and spouses. I remember that term well.

I'm going to concentrate more on Mr. Griffis. I have a couple of questions.

Tim, I've known you for some time. Certainly, I think the program that you help grow and run under Dr. Westwood is really world-class. I think the more people—whether they are advocates in the Legion or True Patriot Love, or within VAC—see the impact it has, the better. I'm encouraged to hear about your expansion of services in French, which I think is critical. As well, your comments are welcome.

Mr. Griffis, I want to compliment you on your caregiver portion. Part of the reason I was involved in starting the True Patriot Love Foundation with a group of other people, was after Rick Hillier started the Military Families Fund and the challenges and the stresses on the family started being brought into the wider discussion. That is something that successive governments over the last 50 years haven't addressed properly, so thank you for your advocacy on that point. Canadians now understand it a lot more. That was something which True Patriot Love focused on specifically as the first major donor to the Military Families Fund.

My question is on the max injury award. I find, as both a veteran and a lawyer, there's a lot of confusion with this comparison to civil courts.

In a civil court a damage assessment is essentially a one-time payment. The government is looking at the lump sum right now, and is that appropriate, does that address it. The comparison to civil courts leaves out the fact that veterans will receive education and training assistance, the veterans independence program supports within their own home, often, depending on their status, a move post-CF, long-term lifetime assistance with home-based modification needs, health.... None of those are available in a civil court context for a negligence suit.

Do you think that the benefits, and the cost of those benefits, should be part of the discussion of a lump sum? They don't exist for someone in a civil court.

[Ronald Griffis]

I'm under the impression that in civil court they would have an actuary come forward and point out that the young person, or the person who was injured, over the course of their life would receive x amount of dollars, would receive the cost of living, various expenses.

In the various cases that you mention, I agree with you; I agree with you on some aspects of what you're saying. Some veterans really appreciate the lump sum award, and some veterans require the Pension Act. There has to be consideration with respect to that.

I'm aware recently that it seems to be the older veterans are the veterans that are coming forward and seeking benefits. I know that the older veterans are in favour of the lump sum award, to the extent that when they receive a lump sum award and they're also receiving a pension, they have requested that I contact VAC and they say, “Please put the money from my pension”—$100 extra a month or whatever—“into a lump sum and give it to me; I don't want the pension increase.”

It is interesting from that point of view, but I also take into consideration the young veteran, such as Major Campbell, and Corporal Kerr, who is an excellent example out of Sudbury, who are going to require extensive consideration with respect to their futures. You have an excellent point there with respect to it. It's going to take some clever thinking on how to get around that and how to address it so that it's very fair. Once again, I appreciate an actuary will come in and do something of that nature. It's a very sensitive subject, I think.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Thank you.

I'm not sure how long you've been in a leadership role with the UN peacekeepers, but I appreciate the work that your 28 branches have done. Were they in a position to comment after our government made changes the first time to the new Veterans Charter?

[Ronald Griffis]

Yes.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

As you know, the new Veterans Charter was passed by the previous Liberal government, but the permanent impairment allowance, PIA, and supplement were additions to address the most serious cases among veterans. Did your group have a position on those changes?

[Ronald Griffis]

Yes, they did. The position was that the criteria for the veteran to take that particular one of the three categories for the PIA are very hard to obtain. In some cases, it might even be as high as 98% incapacitated with respect to that. That particular designation is extremely hard to come by.

It is appreciated, but by the same token, there are various categories that VAC puts you in with respect to the degree, in their opinion, of your impairment. Whether it be a hearing aid or whether it be loss of limbs, you come up according to their schedule, which is available.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Thank you very much, Mr. O'Toole. Time passes quickly.

Mr. Karygiannis, you have six minutes, please.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Thank you.

I really appreciate you folks being here.

Mr. Griffis, there are some older vets who will say that the lump sum is something they would appreciate. I have spoken to some of them, and they've said, “I don't know how much time I have left. If I'm going to get $30,000 or $40,000, I'd like to get it now and be able to do whatever I need to do with it.”

However, there are the younger vets, like Mr. Laidler, who have just come out of the forces. If they're diagnosed with a severe stress disorder, or they've lost a couple of limbs, and all of a sudden we sort of.... It's been referred to by some veterans as the “meat chart”. We give them a lump sum of $200,000 or $300,000.

I don't think anybody has received more than $300,000, Mr. Laidler, although I could be mistaken, but $300,000. If you were a corporal, you'd get about $60,000, correct?

[Tim Laidler]

For the lump sum payment?

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

No, no, if you're in the military, $60,000.

[Tim Laidler]

Yes, about that.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

That would be for five years of pay. After five years, if you started at 28 or 29, you'd reach 34 or 35 with nothing left. Of course, you can invest that, but with $300,000, I don't think that can give you enough money for you to be able to.... At 10% return, you'd get, I don't know, $30,000, or less than that.

I'm just wondering if you can tell us, in your mind, if the lump sum award is something that is favoured, is something that should be continued, or is something that maybe we should look at abolishing.

[Ronald Griffis]

Let me deal with the last part first.

I respectfully suggest that the lump sum should not be abolished. There are veterans who are very senior in age who are now recognizing that it's available to them. Veterans who are 80 years old are coming forward.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

I appreciate that, as I stated, but I'm talking about the younger vets.

[Ronald Griffis]

Once again, it's a sensitive issue. I don't think one particular aspect of it will suit all. I think it has to be on a case-by-case basis and examined very carefully.

If there is a young man who is going to aspire to higher things, he is going to need the assistance. He is going to need a pension. Perhaps if he is going to be successful in later life....

There is a veteran from Afghanistan whose name, I believe, is Moncur. He's from Windsor, Ontario. His difficulty, or one of his difficulties, is that he was shot in the head by friendly fire and he now has memory loss. He will need both if he wants to continue to go school and perhaps open up a business. I think he will need both.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

What you're suggesting, then, is that we should look at a combination of a lump sum maybe for the older vets and a monthly pension for the younger vets. Would I be summarizing that right?

[Ronald Griffis]

I would say it's somewhere in that area, but I think on a case-by-case basis it should be looked at very carefully.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Laidler, I'll turn to you now, because you're a younger vet. You probably weren't in Afghanistan at the time my cousin Christos Karigiannis got blown away. I think it was just a little bit before you were there.

Have you come across younger vets in your age group who are in support of the lump sum, or are the majority of them in support of getting some sort of a pension as well as some of the benefits that the NVC has, such as going back to school?

I mean, this is not brand new. This is something that existed. If you go to the older vets, to the people who were returning after World War II, and if you talk with the engineering faculty, they will say to you that they were all in Ajax. There were about 15,000 to 20,000 of them.

Would you say that the majority of the younger vets are looking for the lump sum or for something that would be there with them for the rest of their lives?

[Tim Laidler]

It really is a key question that needs to be answered, and unfortunately, I don't have the perfect solution. It's split, as I said. Some veterans, like me, would love to take a lump sum and start a company. For some veterans who are also struggling, it's the worst thing for them to get this much money. They end up going on a bunch of vacations, buying a truck, and then they've spent it.

I agree that it's a case-by-case approach. I definitely think that the broadest comment I can make whenever this discussion comes up among my colleagues is just mass confusion. Nobody really knows exactly what they're entitled to and they make comparisons—

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

If I were to come to you for advice, and say, “I'm your age and I'm confused,” what would you tell me to do?

[Tim Laidler]

I'd definitely encourage you to start by going to the Royal Canadian Legion and speaking to one of the service officers. Filling out a one-page form allows them to be your advocate and to start getting you the benefits—