Veterans Affairs Committee on Oct. 29th, 2009

[Pierre Allard]

She will receive the benefits that the veteran was receiving. In my example, if he was receiving groundskeeping, she will continue to receive groundskeeping, but there will have to be an assessment that she has a need for that groundskeeping. In other words, there will be a visit, more than likely, or at least a telephone call, from a counsellor or a client service agent to try to determine if the need is still there.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

So it's not automatic?

[Pierre Allard]

It's not an automatic passing on.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Thank you.

I have another question as a new member. You talked a bit about the SISIP benefit program. I'd like to have a little more understanding of that program and how it affects the veterans. Secondly, as part of that, I would particularly like to hear your comments on how you feel that benefit could be improved so that we aren't running into this situation you discussed earlier.

[Pierre Allard]

SISIP is an insurance plan that provides vocational rehabilitation for medically released personnel for up to two years, guaranteeing them 75% of their salary. Veterans Affairs Canada has a legislated mandate to provide rehabilitation, and not only vocational rehabilitation, but also social and psychological rehabilitation, to all veterans who retire, whether it be for medical reasons or other reasons, as long as they need access to the rehabilitation program. In other words, they must have a rehabilitation need.

There is something wrong with having a legislated mandate to provide a service and having an insurance program that provides the same service. In effect, part of the logic in the New Veterans Charter Advisory Group is that early intervention is important. Veterans Affairs Canada is mandated to provide early intervention, but they can't do it because SISIP is still there providing their vocational rehabilitation program, and only to the member, not to the family. So we should eliminate SISIP rehabilitation.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

That's the simple answer?

[Pierre Allard]

That's the simple answer. If I have a legislated mandate to services--and by the way, I do have to pay some small benefits for that--why would I pay into a program that's providing me insurance?

By the way, the Veterans Affairs Canada program should not be influenced by the insurance model. It stands on its own. That's the problem with the economic benefits that accrue if you are on rehabilitation: we're using the SISIP compensation model, which is fixed at 75%. It doesn't make sense.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Payne.

We'll now go on to the Liberal Party for five minutes.

Ms. Coady.

[Siobhan Coady, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Thank you very much.

I really appreciate your being here today.

My name is Siobhan Coady and I'm from St. John's South—Mount Pearl. I'd like to ask you a question specifically about veterans pavilions and the excellent service, of course, that they deliver across the country.

Most importantly, we do know that Second World War, First World War, and Korean War veterans have access to veterans hospitals and pavilions across this country. I have a constituent who is 74 years old. He's a peacekeeper. He served in the Middle East and saw combat, where he had a fellow peacekeeper die in his arms. Unfortunately, he does not have access to the veterans pavilions. Peacekeepers don't, of course, because they were not in the First World War, the Second World War, or the Korean War.

However, they have done a valuable service to our country. They've put their lives on the line. They also are recognized as veterans, of course, but again, they don't have access to the veterans hospitals.

I'm also concerned about those returning from Afghanistan, for example. Will they have access to veterans pavilions? I wonder, gentlemen, if you would care to comment about whether or not we should reconsider our present policy that designates veterans hospitals for only those who have served in the First and Second World Wars and the Korean War.

[Pierre Allard]

I guess I'll repeat what I said. Basically, as far as we're concerned, a veteran is a veteran, and a veteran should have access to long-term care.

We realize that a universal program might be unaffordable, but there could be some criteria set that would make it affordable. Those criteria would be service in special duty areas or special duty operations or being medically released. That would be a simple solution.

Based on access to or demand for programs, which we think is 12% to 14% among the veteran population, it would be an affordable program. You're quite right, though: they are not provided access and they should be.

[Siobhan Coady, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Sir, could you give me an estimate of how many of your veteran members were peacekeepers? A lot of them would be, of course, and there are those returning from Afghanistan. It's a growing number.

[Pierre Allard]

Again, to be very candid, we do not distinguish between veterans on whether they are peacekeepers, or from World War II or Korea, or peacemakers who served in Afghanistan. For us, a veteran is a veteran is a veteran.

[Siobhan Coady, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Thank you.

Are there any other services that all veterans do not have full access to? We know they don't have full access to the veterans pavilions. Is there any other service that you're aware of?

[Pierre Allard]

They don't have access to funeral and burial benefits. I presume you have read the report of the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman on funeral and burial benefits. They don't have access to that, while traditional veterans do. There are some restrictions on VIP. We could add that the RCMP, as a group, doesn't have access to VIP. So there are some anomalies in the provision of services to people who would be qualified as veterans.

[Siobhan Coady, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

So you would be supportive of a study investigating whether we could extend further services to all veterans.

[Pierre Allard]

We have been and are definitely in support of that. We were members of the GAC, which wrote the report, “Keeping the Promise”. It made a simple, fundamental recommendation that didn't have to be prioritized. We have now submitted another report with 15 recommendations that still don't have to be prioritized.

[Siobhan Coady, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Madam Coady.

Now we're on to the second round of five minutes.

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

Do I have 30 seconds?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Yes, you do. Would you like to ask another question?

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

I wanted to add a question, but I'll first make a comment to encourage you to keep your faith in not setting the government's priorities for them. We will resist that as well. Their job is to set priorities and they will resist regularly. Together, we will try to make sure they set their priorities so that we can then offer our opinion on their priorities.

[Greg Kerr, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Cop-out.

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

No. We didn't win the last election.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!