Veterans Affairs Committee on Oct. 29th, 2009

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

With respect to economic security, I can read between the lines in your priorities that economic security is a foundational step. If the government decided to keep lump sum payments, do you have ideas on financial advice that should go with lump sum payments? Have you had discussions about that and whether that should be included as part of the benefit?

[Pierre Allard]

There are divergent views on the lump sum approach, to be perfectly honest. Even the provision of what is given now, which is $500 for financial advice, is a good step, but it's whether or not that's sufficient to look at a lump sum of, let's say, $250,000 or $260,000 and determine the best use of that disability award, especially in the financial circumstances we live in.

I suspect that some people who received a disability award in 2006 may have lost a percentage of that disability award. Whoever was making projections on what is sufficient to ensure financial viability for an individual based on a disability award and what the returns will be might have been, and probably was, wrong. The problem is compounded for someone who has mental health challenges or problems and who might not be able to make the right decisions.

We actually think that, first of all, the disability award has to be increased, but there should also be an option for a continuing payment in lieu of. I don't know how you would come to that program determination, but there has to be something that's done there to ensure that somebody who has mental challenges doesn't go and spend that lump sum foolishly, with his family suffering thereafter. Again, I fully realize that you can't legislate against personal choice, but maybe we have to look at all of these facets of how we provide benefits for serving members and veterans.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Allard and Mr. Oliphant.

That concludes our second round, by the way. We're now into our third round of five minutes.

We'll go on to Mr. Mayes, for five minutes.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I welcome our witnesses.

I want to bring some greetings from a new constituent of mine, Betty Hinton, who worked as a parliamentary secretary to this committee to forward the charter. Upon reading your submission, I'm sure she would be a little concerned that the implementation has left some outside the levels of care and the purpose of creating the charter.

But it can't all be bad. There has to be some good stuff. I'd ask if you could give me an overview of the good things you've seen in the charter. Has it all been bad or is there some good stuff?

[Pierre Allard]

I think I alluded to that at the start. A program that is oriented towards wellness and reintegrating Canadians into society is a very good approach. That is recognized in a number of other countries. Either they're modelling their programs on ours or we've modelled ours on theirs.

Having said that, I will note that it is not a panacea for every individual. The new veterans charter could not possibly foresee the critical injuries that have occurred in Afghanistan, where people need more than what is provided under the current system.

I can give you another example. A veteran coming back from Afghanistan who has lost three limbs shouldn't have to rely on charity to make improvements to his home because his home is not designed efficiently to look after his needs. If that is the result of the new veterans charter, then we have to look at the gaps and we have to find some solutions.

I think it was a program that was well intentioned, but I think it had an insurance model in mind. I don't think the insurance model is sufficiently structured to meet the needs of the modern veterans.

I would suggest that you invite as a witness to your committee Mr. Bruce Henwood, the chair of the special needs advisory group. You might have heard of their committee. They meet regularly with people who are considered to be high-level disabled veterans. He has some unique views on what is wrong with all the elements of the current charter.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

You have said that VAC has overestimated and continues to overestimate its budget. Could you explain what you mean by that?

[Pierre Allard]

If we look at what was identified as budgetary requirements for Agent Orange compensation, we will find that the moneys were not spent. If we look at what was identified as the budgetary requirements for the VIP extension for pre-1981 widows, we will see that the money was not spent. Those are examples of what I mean.

I'll go back to my previous example. The uptake on programs for seniors across the country, for example, is about 12% of the totality of the population. The uptake for veterans is about 12% to 14%, which is a little higher. I think the department should use those statistics to guide themselves when they're setting budgetary estimates. That's basically what I am suggesting.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

I would suggest that the budget was put in place with the idea that they didn't want to run out of money, so they did have more than enough. Once they started the program, knowing that there were some of those unknowns, they were just making sure they had enough money there to provide for that.

[Pierre Allard]

I think they overestimate the unknowns.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Okay.

When the charter was put together, there was a lot of consultation with a lot of groups, so I guess I have to ask, how did we get it so wrong? In regard to your submission, how did we miss all those points? It's quite a surprise, because there were a lot of intelligent people sitting around this table when we were working on the charter, and we were listening to the folks who were witnesses, but there seem to be a lot of holes here. Do you feel that these situations surprised us or do you think they weren't brought to our attention?

[Pierre Allard]

We were part of that consultation. So were other veterans organizations, academics, Canadian Forces members, etc. There was something called the Neary report, which provided the logic for basically improving on the Pension Act.

The intent of the Neary report was oriented towards care of families, better case management, rehabilitation, and the wellness program. However, if you read the Neary report, you don't see anything that talks about providing a disability award and providing economic loss benefit to a cap at 75% of salary on retirement. That was a governmental input at the last minute, I would say, which was a surprise to some of us.

As a matter of fact, when we were confronted with that reality, we asked the department to do some focus groups with Canadian Forces members to see how they would react to this. There were some misgivings. We were actually hoping that there would be an opportunity to discuss this in committee, but because the legislation was pushed forward--I think the legislation was actually read in third reading at a Senate finance committee, which had nothing to do with Veterans Affairs--I think we may have missed an opportunity to have a more sober overview of what the legislation really entailed, especially in the context of that breakdown between what the Neary report said and what the actual implementation was going to be.

I defended the new veterans charter. I did that in front of the media. I did that in Parliament. I did that at that Senate committee. Had I known what I know today about critical injuries and the lack of support to families, I would not have done that.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Allard and Mr. Mayes.

There are five spots left in the last round: New Democrat, Bloc Québécois, Conservative, Conservative, and Liberal. Fulsome answers have been given today, and that's no indictment; it's just that we have a tradition here that we only time the question, not the answer. It means that we've consumed a lot of time and there's some business to do at the end.

If we want to have that business looked after, you can either relinquish some of your spots or keep your questions tight, whatever you would like to do, to make sure there's some time at the end. Is that okay?

We'll go on to the NDP, then, with Mr. Stoffer.

You have five minutes, but again, please be brief.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll make a comment and then ask a very quick question at the end.

Judy, just for your information on the VIP, in 2005 we were assured by the then opposition leader in a letter to Joyce Carter that if the opposition was elected all widows of World War II and Korean War veterans would immediately receive VIP services--all and immediately. In 2008 an enhanced VIP package was introduced, which entitled 10% of them to get it, but under two strict new criteria: one, they had to have a disability tax credit; and two, they had to be income-based. That's not what the original letter said.

So now we have many women out there, and some widowers, who don't fall under the VIP criteria because of these new restrictions. I'll give you one example of a woman in Halifax. I've been fighting this for almost seven years now. Her husband died as a result of the nuclear incident at Chalk River. Before he died, he applied for VIP services and actually was accepted to receive them. Before they actually came to his house to deliver the service, he died. Because he did not actually receive the service, his wife doesn't get it.

I've been arguing in a peaceful, democratic way for almost six years on this issue for this one lady to get her VIP and they refuse every single time--three different ministers. It just frustrates the living daylights out of me. But that's just a comment in that regard.

I've always said this, and I think it's the premise of any government, that at the end of the day, whatever improvements are made to the charter are political and financial. There will be a cost to it, but I always look at it this way—and Mr. Allard said it as well—a veteran is a veteran is a veteran.

We have these graphs and charts and we need a team of Philadelphia lawyers to figure them out. Veterans don't know that. When they signed up, they had the unlimited liability. We as parliamentarians have the ultimate responsibility for their needs and those of their families, all the way up to and including the headstones. Once we get our heads around that, we can eliminate a lot of this bureaucracy, really attend to their needs, and divert some of that money to them.

That's just a political comment, I know, but I have a quick question for you, Mr. Edmond. We have a veterans ombudsman, Colonel Pat Stogran. I would like to know what relationship you and the Legion have with him in terms of consultation. Do you share ideas? Also, do you and other veterans groups get together to offer ideas and share them? Would this opinion of yours--and I know you can't speak for them--be similar to what they would tell us in the future if they come here?

I thank you very much for the work you did on the veterans charter. I still stand behind the charter. I thought it was a vast improvement over what we had, but we do have holes and they need to be gapped. Also, I'm glad you didn't pick out one of the 15, because they're all important recommendations.

Thank you.

[Wilf Edmond]

Thank you.

Really, there is a close relationship between the other veterans organizations and the Royal Canadian Legion. In fact, this weekend we have scheduled a meeting. We call it a “unity meeting”. In that meeting, we will be discussing similar concerns. I guess our main objective for the unity meeting would be to make sure that we're all on the same song sheet and singing the same song, as is said, to approach anything in regard to the veterans with a united front.

Yes, we do have a close relationship with the new ombudsman. He was formerly a member of our service committee. We fully support what he is trying to do right now.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Chairman, if you ever hear the president of the Legion sing Song for the Mira, you will know what he's talking about when he's singing from the song sheet. It is fabulous.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Edmond and Mr. Stoffer.

Now we'll go to the Bloc Québécois.

Madame Bonsant, vous avez cinq minutes.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Thank you very much.

I am the daughter of a veteran. My father and my uncle went to war, so I understand where you are coming from. When he came back from the war, my father always told us that he went to war for the family that he hoped to have, so that I would have the right to be here as a francophone woman defending values.

I find it somewhat annoying when you say that you have a program based on needs and yet you roll over and say that you have to choose from three principles. I believe that the person who fights in Afghanistan or in Korea is doing so to defend freedom, and it has nothing to do with whether or not he is married, has children, etc. That is my political opinion.

You talked about compensation for the victims of Agent Orange. During the last war, everybody was talking about it; I am not talking about orange juice.

Does your charter include all of the problems with military bases? The municipality of Shannon made the headlines last spring because the people who lived around the base were suffering from strange cancers. Nobody ever thought to check the soldiers who used to live on the base. Do you intend to track down all of the individuals who lived on military bases and who experienced problems linked to a substance with some scientific name that I do not know?

I would like to hear your opinion.

[Pierre Allard]

This is a problem not only for the soldiers, but also, at times, for the people who live close to these bases. We do not have the resources to conduct investigations and obtain information on the members. I think that it is incumbent on the government to do that.

As for the compensation given to the victims of Agent Orange, our view is quite simple. I believe that the first ex gratia compensation, $20,000, was paid 20 years ago. As it happens, we still use the same $20,000 figure 20 years later. This does not make sense, because it does not take into account the increase in the cost of living.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

It would be nice if my taxes to the federal government had stayed the same for the past 20 years.

Given that I only have five minutes, I would like to know if there is a difference between the payments made to veterans from the army, the navy and the air force. My father was in the army and my father-in-law was in the navy. They do not receive the same compensation. When my father-in-law died, they cut my mother-in-law's pension in half. Is that normal?

[Pierre Allard]

According to the Pension Act, there is no difference in compensation whether you were in the navy or in the air force. It depends on the disability rate. If the widow's pension was reduced by 50%, it is because the veterans' pension did not reach 48%. If the pension is 48% and over, the widow's compensation remains the same. If the compensation is less than 48%, the widow receives 50% of the compensation.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

What determines the percentage? I know that my father had tuberculosis, but my father-in-law survived two shipwrecks. His case was more psychological, it was less visible.

[Pierre Allard]

There are guidelines governing the eligibility for pensions. These guidelines are very structured and identify exactly what type of compensation is provided for every type of disability.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

That means that psychological problems are still a taboo subject in the armed forces.

[Pierre Allard]

No, not necessarily. On the contrary, there is a great deal of open-mindedness about that today. We realize that everyone can have mental health problems, whether you are in the army, the navy or the air force. The specific case you are telling me about, in my opinion, is, with the information that you have just given me, to do with the fact that a disability pension was set at a certain level for one individual and at another level for the other person.