Dr. Aiken.
Evidence of meeting #17 for Veterans Affairs in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was military.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #17 for Veterans Affairs in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was military.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:55 p.m.
Director, Canadian Institute for Military and Veteran Health Research
You're right that you can't always wait for the evidence to make a decision. I think that part of what you have to do is weigh the existing evidence and make your decision based on that and based on the fact of somebody being a veteran and having served their country.
To use the example of the depleted Agent Orange, the studies that came out of the U.S. were on people who actually had Agent Orange dumped on them, not those who were just in the vicinity of Agent Orange. With Agent Orange it's actually graduated on level of exposure, and unless Canadians were serving with the American military during Vietnam, there weren't really any who had that kind of exposure.
That's where I mean that the evidence is critically important as you make the decision. You may still find in favour of that veteran, and I would certainly never say that anything should win out over anything else, but it's really critical to look at the evidence carefully.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
Mr. Cundell has some experience. That's why I asked the question.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Greg Kerr
But I don't want it to cut into Mr. Gill's time.
That's why I'd like to get to him if I could, please.
3:55 p.m.
Publisher, VeteranVoice.info
As with any soldier, sailor, or airman who is facing a medical release, the first thing that goes through his mind is financial security. By cutting off these benefits at 65, you're not giving him any hope for financial security and you're increasing Wounded Warriors' base of homeless veterans. You are not staying current with CIMVHR's research, because these veterans will go off the rails at all times if they're not faced with financial security. To cut them off at age 65 is to put an expiration date on your gratitude to the soldier who sacrificed his quality of life, because injuries don't stay the same.
I sustained my injuries at 36 and right now I'm 52 with a skeletal system equivalent to a man who is 65, the eyesight of man approaching 70, and a lung capacity cut in half. I literally would be going crazy if I did not have the financial security to take care of my wife. So, yes, take them past age 65 until the veteran passes, then take care of the wives and the families.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Greg Kerr
Thank you very much, Mr. Cundell.
Now we go to Mr. Gill, for six minutes, please.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Parm Gill Conservative Brampton—Springdale, ON
Mr. Chair, I also want to take this opportunity to thank our witnesses for appearing before the committee and helping us with this important study.
My question is basically for all of you. The committee has been asked by Minister Fantino to conduct this comprehensive review of the new Veterans Charter as it has evolved and as it is prescribed today. Above and beyond the mandatory review of Bill C-55, understanding that we have a very diverse panel of witnesses with us this afternoon, can you tell us if your respective organization called for a comprehensive review, and do you support the committee's comprehensive review of the charter as a whole?
My second question is, to what extent were your organizations involved in the consultation process on Bill C-55?
Let's go down the line.
3:55 p.m.
Director, Canadian Institute for Military and Veteran Health Research
As we started CIMVHR, I personally was involved in the original analysis of Bill C-55, specifically as it pertained to special needs veterans. Those are people who are deemed to have a disability over 78%, as disabilities go. Is that terminology familiar to everybody?
Prior to that, in my academic capacity, I had sat on the special needs advisory group to the Department of Veterans Affairs, specifically to the new Veterans Charter advisory group. At that time, we certainly found that the financial benefits were not equivalent for seriously disabled veterans, which is 1% of the veteran population, but they are the most seriously disabled. We found that the financial benefits were not equivalent.
In terms of supporting or not supporting the review, once again I would ask that you turn back to the evidence and to what you're hearing from the constituent populations. I think the ombudsman's reports as well are excellent and well done.
4 p.m.
National Program Director, Wounded Warriors Canada
We weren't directly consulted on any of the changes, etc., but I think it's pretty clear from our presentation, our unanimous support around here in thinking about how the ombudsman's report did a pretty good job of outlining where the shortfalls are. There's no use in going back and saying what could have, should have, would have been done. We would say that we're pretty clear on hearing from our constituency that there needs to be changes made.
The charter was designed to be a living charter. It was designed to be reviewed. It was designed to be improved when there were shortfalls. Address them. It seems pretty simple to me.
4 p.m.
Publisher, VeteranVoice.info
I did deal with the fallout from Bill C-55 in our virtual community.
As I told you, it's a website, open forum, so people could have input. The input was that you're not living up to the way you sold the new Veterans Charter to us. It's not a living document. We're going on nine years and you've only done three improvements, three. That is not a living document. If it is, pull out the paddles, because it's time to bring it back to life.
The ombudsman's report is thorough, in the present and in the now. Then after you write your report and the implementations are done, there are going to be other problems; hence, it's classified as a living charter, as told to us by Mr. Stoffer, consulted by Mr. Stagg, when they brought this out in 2005. It's a living charter.
As I said, you are acting in a procrastinating manner. You're not turning it out fast enough. The veteran community is very upset at the lack of efficiency of these committees and the way you're ignoring our ombudsman, who is methodically going through this in a non-partisan manner.
4 p.m.
Director, Canadian Institute for Military and Veteran Health Research
We put an academic on the ombudsman's team, so he was able to really structure his report soundly.
4 p.m.
Conservative
4 p.m.
Conservative
Parm Gill Conservative Brampton—Springdale, ON
The other question I was going to ask is for Ms. Aiken.
You mentioned in your remarks about the research forum and the success it had. I'm wondering if you could talk a bit more about that, please.
4 p.m.
Director, Canadian Institute for Military and Veteran Health Research
Certainly.
Every year in November we host the Military and Veteran Health Research Forum. We typically engage well over 400 stakeholders, who are academics, military veterans, the whole group.
It has rapidly become the premier event around the world now for military and veteran health research. Last year we had over 10 countries represented. What we do is bring front-line cutting-edge research to the fore, so it can be taken forward and implemented into policies, practices, and programs that are going to have an impact on veterans in the next six months, two years, five years, immediately. It's not a lot of bench science, which is great and well funded and is needed, but we really work at the clinical knowledge translation end of the spectrum so that we can make an immediate impact and a difference in the lives of veterans and their families.
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Greg Kerr
Good. Thank you very much.
Now we turn to Mr. Valeriote, for six minutes, please.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Valeriote, as in chariot. I always have to do that.
4 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
4 p.m.
Liberal
Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON
I welcome anything, believe me.
To the witnesses, thank you for appearing, and I hope you don't mind my calling you by your first names. I come from the agriculture committee, and in typical rural friendly fashion, everybody is called by their first names. I'm going to ask Chris or Phil the first question, then Alice, and then Ron.
Either of you can answer the first question. It is about what I understand from your presentation is an inadequacy or gap in transitional programs for our serving members transitioning into their role as veterans. A lot of them are young, have come in and out during their twenties, and they've really sacrificed their best learning years. As I understand it, one of the better ways to aid them is to help them with skills training to help them find jobs. A job would relieve so much pressure. Imagine the emotional and psychological impact of having a job. I would like you to comment, after I ask the other two questions, about the adequacy of those transitional programs.
Alice, you talked about your interest in health care. Again, as I understand it, there is a reasonable health care service for our acting members of the forces and for their families.
4 p.m.
A voice
[Inaudible—Editor]
March 25th, 2014 / 4 p.m.
Liberal
Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON
Okay, well you can comment on that as well.
Then there is an even greater gap or deficiency and breach of continuity when they leave the forces and become veterans and go to a severely diminished service by comparison. I would like you to comment on that, especially on the effect on people who have PTSD and may not even know it, or have PTSD, are being treated for it, and then lose that treatment when they leave the forces and become veterans.
Ron, I keep hearing words like “social covenant” and “sacred obligation to care for veterans and their families throughout their lives by allowing them to maintain a quality of life that is worthy of the sacrifices that they have made for Canada”. That has a specific meaning for me. It means we have to look after our veterans. We have to maintain a quality of life so that, as you say, they don't wind up on the streets after turning 65.
Do you feel that the new Veterans Charter has been applied in a way that this feeling, that sentiment, actually manifests itself in the programs that are offered?
Should those words be included in this legislation in a preamble of sorts, and what would they mean if they were?
Chris or Phil, could you go first?