Evidence of meeting #30 for Veterans Affairs in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was care.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Service Bureau Director, Dominion Command, Royal Canadian Legion
That is right, if the person has not been deemed eligible for a pension.
Bloc
Service Bureau Director, Dominion Command, Royal Canadian Legion
Yes, but today, you are no longer eligible for a pension according to the new Veterans Charter. This is the case only under the Pension Act.
Service Bureau Director, Dominion Command, Royal Canadian Legion
We are suggesting that we solve this shortcoming, not by giving access to all modern veterans, but at least to those who have served in a special duty area, such as Afghanistan, or to those who have obtained a medical discharge.
October 29th, 2009 / 9:30 a.m.
Conservative
Bloc
Guy André Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
You said that we should reassess the issue of lump sum payments for disabilities relative to what we used to have, the disability pension. In your opinion, what are the shortcomings?
Service Bureau Director, Dominion Command, Royal Canadian Legion
The lump-sum payment was probably established in 2004. At that time, we had already begun to prepare the new program, which was finally presented and adopted in 2005.
In 2004, when we compared the lump-sum payments to those awarded by civil courts, the department felt that the lump-sum payment was adequate. Today, when you look at what civil courts are giving, you can see that the lump-sum payment is no longer adequate.
Also, when you look at what the Department of Veterans Affairs is providing, it could be suggested that the amounts granted by the workers' compensation boards are much smaller. However, what the Department of Veterans Affairs may not tell you is that the workers' compensation boards, out of necessity, have ruled that the lump-sum payment should not be more than 10% of the total amount that will be paid for an individual during a period of time, and that, in addition, there will be a monthly payment. So, in that sense, you are comparing apples and oranges.
So you have to look at the evidence: today, civil court decisions award much higher amounts than those provided under the Veterans Charter. There is one way that we could resolve this problem and that would be to give an annual cost of living adjustment. We could simply give this amount to people eligible for the lump-sum payment, we could give them an adjustment for the cost of living.
If we decide that we need to improve the new Veterans Charter, it is important to remember that these improvements should be retroactive. They should cover all of the people who receive benefits under the new Veterans Charter.
I did not mention family support, which is lacking, despite the best intentions of the people who implemented the new Veterans Charter. In order to have access to care, the veteran must first of all make an application and have it approved. So, in order for families to have access, the veteran must make an application and the application must be approved.
According to the act, in order for families to receive care, they have to go through provincial authorities. Some have even suggested—and this may be the only adequate solution—that military families that are subject to the provisions of the Canadian Health Act be deemed to be exceptions.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Thank you, Monsieur Allard and Monsieur André.
Mr. Stoffer is next for five minutes.
NDP
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, thank you again for coming before our committee.
I truly tremendously appreciate your work on this. I remember very well standing with you and Jack Stagg. Jack came to the parties and asked all of us about the veterans charter. We knew that the veterans charter wasn't perfect, but it was better than what we had before, and thus it received all-party consent very soon through the six major representations of the veterans organizations that are out there. We thought that was a very good day.
But the premise, of course, was that it was a living document, that if there were alterations, changes, things that were unforeseen, or even if they were foreseen, but maybe not as greatly as we had anticipated.... One of them, of course, is the aspect of the spouse. You indicated here that there are two classes of veterans. Well, I would argue that in many cases there are two classes of widows and widowers as well.
One of the issues I'd like you to elaborate a bit more on is SISIP. Some 6,500 individuals across this country have signed a class action lawsuit that is going before the courts in January of next year in order to get SISIP changed. We all know that such money gets clawed back or deducted from the other benefits they receive. In fact, they have to pay into it, and it's one of the few areas in which you pay into a program and then have that money taken away when you really need it the most.
I'd like you to elaborate a bit more on this. This committee, the Senate committee, and two DND ombudsmen have asked that this thing be changed, and it still hasn't been done. I'd like you to comment on that.
The second issue is Ste. Anne's. My great fear about Ste. Anne's is that if it is turned over to the province, the veterans eventually, after the World War II and Korean War veterans are gone, may be following a queue in what we call the provincial system. You've just said that yourself, sir.
You said that a lot of these veterans may fall under provincial jurisdiction, wherever they live in the country, when it comes to long-term care and access to care. That makes me quite nervous. We know that eventually our World War II and Korean War veterans will go; we lose roughly 80 to 90 a day now. The workers at Ste. Anne's are wondering who their clients are going to be in the near future.
Here's my concern. How can the government work with provinces to ensure priority access not just to some veterans, but to all veterans, and especially to their spouses as well? Because as you know, sir, there was the Janet Maybee case in Sheet Harbour; they were separated in the last few months of their lives. It was really sad that federal and provincial bodies couldn't get together to allow these two people to die together in dignity, that they had to be separated. That was quite upsetting. We still have that situation today so I'd like you to elaborate again.
Also, please give our best to the Governor General when you give her a poppy tomorrow.
Thank you so much.
NDP
Service Bureau Director, Dominion Command, Royal Canadian Legion
I'll answer your two questions.
The first one on SISIP is a very good question, because it brings attention to what I would call a fundamental problem with the new veterans charter, which is that it is still an insurance-based program. The new veterans charter has felt bound to follow all the rules and regulations that pertain to SISIP, which is an insurance program.
That's why they determined that the 75% compensation for salary was logical: it's what SISIP has in place. We now have the fallacy of continuing SISIP rehabilitation and continuing the same type of financial compensation that SISIP is providing while there is a legislated mandate to provide rehabilitation for veterans through Veterans Affairs Canada's program.
I understand that the Canadian Forces and Veterans Affairs have been talking for a number of years now and basically trying to come--together--to the conclusion that SISIP should be eliminated as far as rehabilitation is concerned, and that Veterans Affairs Canada should be the sole provider of rehabilitation. When you are briefed by Veterans Affairs Canada and informed that there are so many veterans who are now in the rehabilitation program, you should ask them how many of those are really being rehabilitated under SISIP. You'll be surprised to find out that probably 55% of the people who are under the rehabilitation program are under the SISIP program, while 45% are probably under Veteran Affairs Canada's program.
The SISIP clawback is unfair; you are quite right. We have said so, you have said so, the Senate has said so, and two ombudsmen have said so, yet here we are, facing a legal intervention. It doesn't make sense. It should be eliminated. I don't know what else to say.
Going back to long-term care, how do we ensure that veterans have access to long-term care? Well, there's a simple way. Under the current system, in 17 or 18 of the large contract facilities, there are beds that are reserved for veterans. Those are called priority access beds. The challenge or the dilemma is that because modern veterans don't have access to long-term care, and because among the traditional veterans some attrition unfortunately is taking place because of aging, there are now some empty beds. This is happening at Ste. Anne's right now. It will continue to happen.
For Ste. Anne's, at least, we're trying to suggest to the government that all those beds—I think it's 426 beds that are at Ste. Anne's right now—should continue to maintain their designation as priority access beds. This means that they should be reserved for veterans, letting normal attrition run through until there is less demand for these beds and then providing access to community residents.
Along the same lines, Ste. Anne's has a beautiful day program that looks after veterans who are not ready for institutionalization. They are coming to the day program and are actually reducing the cost for Veterans Affairs. We're not sure if the Province of Quebec has the same mandate to provide a day program; I suspect they haven't. Other provincial authorities do provide day programs, again saving costs and retarding institutionalization, but eventually institutionalization might happen in some of these cases.
In the continuing transition as attrition takes place in all of the larger facilities reserved for veterans across the country, I think the solution to is that there should be some attempt by Veterans Affairs to reserve these beds—maybe not as many as we have now, but a percentage of them—for the modern veteran, anticipating that they and their spouses will access them one day.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Thank you, Mr. Allard.
Thank you, Mr. Stoffer.
We'll go now to Mr. Kerr for seven minutes.
Conservative
Greg Kerr Conservative West Nova, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Edmond and Mr. Allard, for being with us today. We've talked about this in the committee for some time and we're delighted that we're back into the review process. It's something that we've set as an extremely important priority because there are some significant challenges out there.
I appreciate your continuing candour, Pierre. It's always refreshing.
There are a couple of things I'd like to focus on. I think they're important. We know there's a review process under way. We also know that there's a separate look at all the programs in Veterans Affairs, where they are being studied right now. Therefore, the timing is absolutely critical, I think, to hit the next spring timetable.
We've had some candid discussions before about the Veterans Affairs interpretation, your interpretation, and so on. I think that's healthy. Whether we always agree is not necessarily important. If you were making recommendations today, if you were king, and assuming we can't get all of it done tomorrow, what I would like to hear you say is how you would order the list of essential priorities.
Service Bureau Director, Dominion Command, Royal Canadian Legion
I would not give you priorities. There are 15 recommendations in the New Veterans Charter Advisory Group report and all 15 recommendations are important. Some deal with families. Some deal with economic benefits. Some deal with rehabilitation. I think they are all important. They are fundamental to the care of veterans and their families.
We have fought very hard in committee not to prioritize this. We realize that somewhere along the way some political folks will want to assign a priority, but we think all of these elements are important.
Conservative
Greg Kerr Conservative West Nova, NS
I'm not questioning the validity of that, and I'm not surprised at your answer, but I'm going to push a little harder. The reason is that any time adjustments or changes are made, you know as well as I do that they don't all happen the same day, and I don't want to see a delay because they're trying to do all 15 things at the same time.
Do you see some being implemented more easily than others?
Service Bureau Director, Dominion Command, Royal Canadian Legion
I'll answer your question by going back to the commitment that this is a living charter, that the living charter gaps would be corrected within two years of introduction. That was done because there was no scrutiny of the legislation in committee, as you are well aware.
On that basis, I am very reluctant to suggest that one thing should be done ahead of the other. That is assigning a priority. Like I said, I think families are important, and there are tremendous gaps in the care of families right now. I can give you an example that I gave at the Senate. It's a true story.
We had a soldier who died in Afghanistan. The family received the death award. The spouse, who had two children, somehow gambled the money away, for whatever reason—we can't legislate against personal choices—and then she committed suicide. Now we have two orphans. Under the Pension Act, these two orphans would be receiving a non-taxable stipend every month. Under the new veterans charter, they receive nothing, so the grandmother who is looking after them is seeking benevolent assistance.
Families are important. Mental health for families is important. Mental health for children is important.
Rehabilitation is important. If you don't have good case management in rehabilitation, then you're flushing the water down the drain.
Economic benefits are important. If you don't provide the basic essentials of life, if somebody has to live below the poverty line, then you're asking him to make a sacrifice that I don't think you should ask him to make, because he's made a sacrifice on behalf of this country.
So no, I will not assign priorities.
Conservative
Greg Kerr Conservative West Nova, NS
Okay.
I'll continue anyway, because I know what a department has to do. I'm just making it clear in looking at these priorities that if they are implemented, they have to be implemented in a process that makes sense. I think it's important that we are aware of that.
You're well aware of that, because you know as well as I do how difficult it is to communicate with the new vets sometimes, in the sense that they don't always want to share information. They're not as forthcoming, but they are also very, very frustrated.
Service Bureau Director, Dominion Command, Royal Canadian Legion
I could tell you about the greatest feedback we're getting, and that's not answering your question....
Service Bureau Director, Dominion Command, Royal Canadian Legion
Okay. I'm getting closer. The greatest feedback that we are getting is that there are very, very bad feelings about the economic benefits.
Conservative
Greg Kerr Conservative West Nova, NS
I have just a few minutes left, but just on that point—because we'll have other evenings to really get into some of the detail—this has to work. This review has to work. The changes have to happen. We don't want to have an over-expectation, but at the same time, if we don't do it correctly, all of us, if we fail, the problems are going to get worse.