Veterans Affairs Committee on Nov. 19th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you.

Mr. Lobb.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you guys.

A lot of the questions we've heard so far this morning have been very detailed and to the point. For context purposes, I'd like to take a step back and lay some groundwork, using the thoughts or opinions you guys have. One is the relationship between your advisory group and the department. Do you think it's a positive relationship? Second, what other interactions do you have with the department, other than delivering your reports?

[Prof. Muriel Westmorland]

Actually, I was asked a similar question by General Dallaire at the Senate when I appeared a couple of weeks ago. We were set up as an advisory committee to advise the department. Having sat on VAC-CFAC, I had an understanding of what that meant. We had as our framework some very brief goals. We were left to develop these, and so we did, with much discussion. At every meeting, we had a senior bureaucrat, Darragh Mogan or Ken Miller, who would bring issues of policy to our notice.

I want to stress that our committee quickly established that, for information purposes, we wanted to have staff members from VAC present during our discussions. We requested people who were working in the programs related to economic issues, rehabilitation, and families. We invited them to provide us with information, and we challenged them along the way. That was the kind of process relationship we had.

In the beginning, the only directive we had was that this was an advisory group, charged with considering our stated goals, developing them, and reporting the results to the department. There were no constraints imposed on us in the performance of our task. I want to make that clear.

As to the report and its submission, we have improved some of the steps in our process. There have been some changes along the way, but we realize that there is still a lot to be done. That is the process in outline form.

I know that Colonel Ethell will want to add a few words.

[Col Donald S. Ethell]

To go back, the only time--and I'm sure our chair will indicate the same thing--something has been decided by the Department of Veterans Affairs was very early on in CFAC. In our deliberations we were given the challenge to rewrite the old charter or write a new one. We deliberated and discussed it and the decision was made by VAC to write a new one. Quite frankly, that made a lot of us quite happy, because we wouldn't be infringing on the traditional veterans.

Another point I would like to make is on the crossover of the various committees that we've discussed. We have a policy—in some portions of VAC they don't particularly like it, but that's just the way it is—where we have a crossover of the chairs of the various committees attending each other's committees. For example, although I was on her committee, I was also there as the chair of the mental health advisory committee, as was Professor Victor Marshall, who chairs the GAC, as was Bruce Henwood from the SNAG committee. The SNAG committee is meeting next week in Charlottetown on one of the routine meetings, and we will be there, as flies on the wall, and will make a short presentation.

We have found that this crossover of the chairs going to each other's meetings prevents a lot of duplication and is an exchange of information, to the extent that we have established an almost quasi-chair committee, if you want to use that term, with great rapport and so forth.

Is that--I hesitate to use the term--too powerful for VAC? I don't think so, because they know where we're coming from. It's all for the veterans and their families.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Thanks.

I appreciate the comment about the crossover. In my brief time of being a member of Parliament, I've often thought that different committees within the House, and Senate committees as well, could maybe learn a thing or two about duplication and crossovers, so I can appreciate your comments on that.

I have one other question. In light of the fact that you mentioned you do have a member from time to time at your meetings advising you or briefing you on policy or casework, do you feel within your advisory committee or group that you have autonomy, that your group is autonomous? Other than the one suggestion about rewriting it or doing a new one, have you ever felt pressure to appeal or appease the Department of Veterans Affairs in anything you have tracked down?

[Prof. Muriel Westmorland]

No. Basically, no. That would be my very short answer, because we really haven't. There was a very open and honest discussion at the very beginning, with Darragh Mogan present. We have it, I'm sure, in our record of proceedings somewhere, but he said very clearly “Make this report as honest as you want to make it, because we need to hear from an independent group”. That is exactly what was stated.

[Col Donald S. Ethell]

If I may, that was to the extent, sir--and our chair will support this--that we were extended. We were supposed to be finished last year, and Mogan and company said “Get it right. Take a little more time.” And as you can see, this report, in my opinion, is an excellent report and it has been well received.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you very much.

Now we will go on to the Bloc Québécois for five minutes. Monsieur André.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

I want to thank all of you for your excellent testimony.

I have two or three questions I want to ask. I will try to be brief, since I have only five minutes.

Ms. Westmorland, you have been a natural caregiver twice. It is very hard work. I looked into the issue of natural caregivers in my other career as a social worker. I worked with natural caregivers all the time.

We often hear about natural caregivers burning out and the sense of guilt they may feel. A lot of support has to be given to these natural caregivers. Today, various networks provide that support, such as the CLSC in Quebec, as more and more people are living with seniors who are losing their independence. It is the same situation. But I think your case is different because the stress level is even higher.

In the current charter, as compared with the old one, were adequate improvements made in terms of support for natural caregivers as far as respite care and budget go?

Does the new charter significantly improve upon the natural caregiver services available to veterans? What improvements would be needed in order to provide more support to natural caregivers?

I have another question, but I think my five minutes will go by quickly, so....

[Prof. Muriel Westmorland]

I'll make a comment first, and probably my colleagues will want to add something too.

Certainly in terms of caregiving, when the new Veterans Charter was written it was intended to cover some of those gaps that were present in the old system. Again, Don makes the quip many times, and I'm going to share it because I think it does illustrate the culture, which is if we wanted you to have a wife we would have issued you one. So often the wife is the caregiver. That was a very poignant description for me when I first heard it.

I've visited bases with Colonel Ethell and others and talked to family members. I visited seven bases while I was on VAC-CFAC. It was patently obvious at that time before the new Veterans Charter--because I visited MFRCs, I met with spousal groups--that the spouses were feeling very disenfranchised and not in the loop. They were given as much support as possible in the MFRCs--and don't get me wrong, those are wonderful organizations--but they were still saying the same thing: that they are secondary citizens and do not feel they have a place at the table.

You are right on the money: it's a very stressful role, and when they were stressed out they felt they had to struggle to find the help. The MFRCs do a fairly good job serving members, but once the person becomes a veteran they're out of that system and then it becomes extremely difficult to get the kind of support that's needed.

VIP, as Don already mentioned, has improved things, because there are built-in opportunities there to support the caregiver, but it still has a way to go. Again, I think it is that bureaucracy and getting it organized quickly enough so the caregiving individual knows they really are cared about and they are equally important because they are supporting the individual who has been through such a traumatic experience.

Would you like to add something here, Don?

[Col Donald S. Ethell]

I don't know if the committee is aware of the Military Family Resource Centres at DND. It's not a VAC thing. Where a family is taking advantage of an MFRC, and I think there are 34 of them across the country and overseas, once the individual is released then his or her family--I almost used the word “dependants”, which is not a term you are allowed to use any more--would have to leave the MFRC.

So it may involve VAC, in that one of the recommendations we put forward was there could be a mechanism in place to have them continue, if required, to facilitate or have access to the MFRCs.

The MFRCs are in some ways autonomous from the chain of command locally, but General Semianiw's initiative a couple of years ago brought them together, meaning--and I don't speak for DND, but I've listened to him explain--you shall implement these programs in each one of your MFRCs and here is the funding to do it. Each MFRC of course does its own fundraising to take care of other issues, but in this case he dictated that certain elements of this matrix--if you want to use that term--were imposed from NDHQ. It's not a question of Big Brother watching; there was a disparity between the poor MFRC and the rich ones primarily in some of the more affluent provinces. I won't mention Alberta because I live in Calgary but they've got a very rich MFRC because they've got a lot of corporate backing. But compared to some of the others they don't have the money; Semianiw's choice sorted that out.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

There are so many acronyms around that I want to make sure that everybody knows that Military Family Resource Centre is MFRC. I'm sure everybody knew, but I thought as chair I should give everybody the benefit of making sure we are all on track with that one.

We are moving back to the Conservative Party for five minutes. Mr. Lobb.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Thank you again.

In our previous study we studied the programs compared to other G-7 and G-8 countries, the complete realm basically of everything from A to Z. I think it did provide a lot of input for the Department of Veterans Affairs to take a good look at where we're heading to. Obviously, there is always a lot of discussion and a lot of head scratching as to how you actually compare payouts, compensation, because of the different medical system jurisdictions throughout the world. It is quite a thing to try to wrap your head around it.

The one thing that consistently popped up in my head or raised a red flag, from what I could see--and probably my colleagues would tell you I mention this quite a bit--is financial literacy. There has been some discussion today about the relationship between DND and Veterans Affairs and the ongoing commitment to make that a very tight and fruitful relationship. In your observations, we've had some comment from Veterans Affairs that they do provide some financial literacy or some financial tools, and I understand DND is also beginning to do that as well. In your opinion, is there some more room for improvement?

We know in your recommendations there are pieces in there. In your opening deliberations today you mentioned several components about financial pieces. But what about the literacy piece of it? People who obviously are disabled from service have limited abilities to earn—I'm just being honest—and need to be able to manage it as effectively as they can. Do you have any thoughts or opinions on this piece?

[Prof. Muriel Westmorland]

Definitely. I would make a comment and then the general will follow up.

The issue of financial literacy--I really like the term--is critical. I think quite frankly in the past, and still it's currently happening, there was a tendancy to think, “Well, here are the benefits for you; you should embrace them, and that's great”, without really spending enough time helping individuals to understand what this means. In the report we talk about the fact that if the lump sum payment is actually being handed out, we would like to see more in the way of help around the financial literacy issue, and I have suggested structured payments would be an option.

It's overwhelming to people to understand how they're going to manage. They're dealing with enough trauma getting back on terra firma and back into civilian life, if that's the issue, or even adjusting to a different role within the military, than to have to struggle to find out what it is these payments mean. There's impact if they have families, and most do: how are we going to manage? We know from the research on determinants of health that one of the major determinants is the economic and financial aspect of life.

We felt very strongly that enough wasn't being done, to be quite frank, and I think your point about financial literacy certainly embraces that. We'd like to have more done in the area of assistance and help to individuals to understand what these payments mean and how they can actually use them to benefit their own family situation or their own individual situation.

General.

[BGen Gordon Sharpe]

Just very briefly, one of the issues that we did identify was there is a $500 figure that is granted to provide financial advice, which I think is probably too little too late in terms of the process.

This is coming back to the earlier issue when we were talking about transition between military life and civilian life. I don't think this can happen just at that point; it has to start inside the service career. I think Walter Semianiw is actually working on that, if I'm not mistaken, and making a lot of those progressive approaches to dealing with it. So it's starting to work on financial literacy early on so that as you transition out then it's not a new thing.

The point that Muriel makes is a very good one. This is the worst possible time for people to get a large cheque, particularly if the psychological or physical transition is really difficult for them, or that sort of thing. We have to do a little bit better there.

Again, this is one of those ones where you balance the individual's rights to certain things with the system of caring for the individual. To have a little bit more of a transition under the guidance of the chain of command is my sense, my feeling. The leadership has to continue to take an interest in these folks as they transition and to work more closely with the Department of Veterans Affairs than they have in the past. I know personally I've had a couple of opportunities to present very large cheques to individuals who have fought the system for very long periods of time. It wasn't always with a really positive feeling that you handed this cheque over to someone who was in the throes of still dealing with alcohol or drug dependencies, anger management issues, policing issues, or family violence issues. It's all those things, and you're handing them a cheque for a couple of hundred thousand dollars. It's not a good feeling from a command leadership perspective. So I think there's some work on that side.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

That's the round. There is a second round for the Conservative Party, so if you had more questions, as long as your colleagues are okay with it, you could.

Are there no other questions? Okay.

We'll go over to the Liberal Party for five minutes. Madam Sgro.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Chair, we normally don't have this much time to go around. What time does the NDP get another opportunity, or do they?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Yes, they do, in the third round.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

And we're in the second round now.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

That's correct. If you want me to be specific, we are three spots from the NDP spot, if that's what you'd like to know.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

I don't usually worry about those things. I only want to continue to fight for fairness. I think I've indicated that's an important issue for me, and it means fairness whether I always like it or not. I'll always fight for fairness, and Mr. Stoffer's questions are always quite enlightening.

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

Is that comment on the public record? We're not in camera, right?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

It's okay, I'll take it away in about half an hour.

I have a couple of questions. Going on to your report, where you talk about the earnings loss benefit, it's not considered earned income. I'm seeking your advice, because I think there are issues this committee would like to see changed, especially in and around that economic issue. Why is it that there aren't contributions done on an annual basis for those individuals who are no longer able to work to their CPP, so that when they get to 65 they have a CPP that at least gives them more than the very small amount they would currently get under the examples you put in here?

[Muriel Westmorland]

I'm going to ask Joe to respond to that.

[BGen Gordon Sharpe]

The earnings loss benefit is not considered earned income, but it is taxed, which is interesting. That's another one of our concerns, that we tax these benefits. It's not considered earned income for the purposes of the CPP, or for your registered retirement savings plan. Quite frankly, our sense is that this is wrong. It takes away the ability of the individual to increase their retirement benefits, and of course when they hit age 65 it ceases, it stops. It's a double whammy, if I can use that term. I think we've expressed that in the report, that you're not allowed to build up your own retirement benefits, either through the Canada Pension Plan nor through an RRSP based on this as earned income, but you lose it at tax, and at 65 you lose the whole damned thing. It's simply not a good situation.