Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, and distinguished members of the committee. Thank you very much for having us here. We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to testify on behalf of the Equitas Society.
My name is Major (retired) Mark Campbell. I am one of the six representative plaintiffs in the Equitas class action lawsuit; and my compatriot here, Corporal (retired) Aaron Bedard, is another one of the six plaintiffs.
We'd first like to express our gratitude for what was included in budget 2017, which, of course, was an education benefit—yet to be defined, but an education benefit nonetheless—and a family caregiver recognition benefit. Both of these new benefits are long overdue, and we are certainly grateful to all the authorities associated with the adoption of those initiatives within budget 2017. The devil, of course, is in the details, and we don't know the details yet as regards the education benefit and the qualifying criteria, which we often find become exclusionary in their actual application on the ground. That remains to be seen. Our concern lies primarily with the financial compensation package and financial parity between the former Pension Act and the current new Veterans Charter.
As you may or may not know, the Equitas Society was in fact formed as the fundraising arm of the class action lawsuit, which seeks, above all other things, parity with the former Pension Act for those who fall under the new Veterans Charter as of April 1, 2006. I'm a perfect case in point. Had I been injured on my first tour of duty in 2002, I would be under the former Pension Act. As it is, I was injured in 2008 and on my second tour of duty in Afghanistan, and as a result my injuries are covered under the new Veterans Charter. A direct result of that is a 46% reduction in my family's expected financial compensation over my lifetime. That is a significant amount of money—yes, 46%. The concern here is that although budget 2017 makes allusions to a reinstatement of the pension for life for Canada's veterans, the can was kicked down the street yet again. We have seen deferred yet again any details regarding the pension for life, implementation timelines, and details of the implementation—indeed what it would entail, in essence.
Our concern, of course, is this ongoing disparity between the former Pension Act and the new Veterans Charter, and the financial implications thereof, not just for the veteran himself but for the larger family unit as well, which may as well be included in the definition of veteran because they're there every step of the way along the journey with the veteran. Moreover, we have yet to see some family benefits restored from the Pension Act. We've yet to see any importing of some of the benefits available under the Pension Act into the new Veterans Charter, as has been recommended by the minister's policy advisory group.
Our concern is what appears to be a dragging of the feet, if you will, in consolidating the financial benefits for veterans into something that's easily understood. The benefits package right now continues to become more complicated as opposed to more simplified. At the end of the day, it comes down to, yes, the dollar amounts, and the money in veteran families' pockets in order to have a moderate standard of living, and to be able to do the things that other Canadian families, in many cases, take for granted, such as raise children, send them to school and help them launch into their own young adulthoods.
I'm going to leave my comments at that.
One other thing I will say, as I hand the mike over to my compatriot here, is that Equitas is interested in parity in all aspects of veterans' care and compensation—and that would extend to access to mental health and mental health facilities.
At that point, I'll turn it over to my cohort.