Evidence of meeting #36 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 recommendations.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Bonjour à tous.
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the 36th meeting of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. We're studying a review of the new Veterans Charter.
We're pleased to have with us today Hugh Marlowe Fraser, from the Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association, as well as Louise Richard, from the Gulf War Veterans Association of Canada.
I see someone else there, but they don't have a label. Do we have another witness?
9 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
That's fine.
Now that we've named the witnesses, we'll continue. We'll start with the opening remarks.
Mr. Fraser and Madam Richard, do both of you have opening remarks?
Madam Richard, why don't you begin? Then we'll go to Mr. Fraser.
9 a.m.
Hugh Marlowe Fraser Advocacy Executive Director, Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association
That's fine.
9 a.m.
Louise Richard Freelance advocate for disabled veterans and their families, Gulf War Veterans Association of Canada
May I begin?
9 a.m.
Freelance advocate for disabled veterans and their families, Gulf War Veterans Association of Canada
Good morning, Chair and members of the House committee on Veterans Affairs. Thank you for inviting me here today as part of your ongoing study of the new Veterans Charter.
I am Louise Richard, lieutenant, navy, retired, a registered nurse with post-graduate studies in mental health, and I am disabled as a result of my service with the Canadian Forces in the 1991 Gulf War.
I will first give my formal presentation. Then, joining me for questions will be Captain Perry Gray, retired, editor of the website VeteranVoice.info and co-author of Canada's first ever ombudsman's report on Veterans Affairs.
As the original co-founder of the Gulf War Veterans Association of Canada, I was one of the only voices speaking out for positive change in Veterans Affairs during the mid-1990s. I was later joined by retired Captain Sean Bruyea, also an advocate for veterans' rights, who is well known for his nationally recognized efforts to positively change how disabled veterans and their families are cared for by Veterans Affairs.
It is because of efforts like ours, which have articulated the suffering and plight of disabled soldiers and their neglect at the hands of the Canadian government, that Veterans Affairs was forced to initiate the modernization task force. Please imagine the sense of abandonment and futility that I and other veterans felt when Veterans Affairs made no effort whatsoever to involve me or any other veteran in the development of the details of the new Veterans Charter.
Subsequently, in May 2005, the new Veterans Charter passed without debate in the House of Commons in less than five minutes. Never before in a parliamentary democracy has an initiative that profoundly affects the lives of so many people been passed so quickly.
In the place of public discussion about the charter, Sean Bruyea and I appeared before a rushed Senate committee hearing the next day. What quickly became clear to me during that testimony was that the speed with which this legislation was haphazardly written had prevented all politicians, and all but a handful of veterans, from understanding the details of what was passed so quickly in Parliament. That is why, almost five years later, we find ourselves in the regrettable position of attempting to force a highly resistant bureaucracy to change parts of the charter that should never have been put into the legislation in the first place.
For example, when Sean Bruyea and I testified to oppose the charter as it is written, we adamantly objected to replacing the lifelong disability pension with a one-time lump sum payment. Giving one-time compensation to an injured soldier, sailor, or air-person who will endure a disability for the remainder of his or her life is not only insensitive, it is not Canadian.
Any military member transitioning out of the forces faces a difficult time adjusting to civilian life. When that soldier is injured, especially psychologically, handing over a lump sum in the midst of such stress is negligent care at best and speaks to a disgusting lack of compassion. In certain cases, the soldier's mental disability may impede the normal decision-making process, and the money may not be wisely invested. We once again strongly urge a parliamentary committee to have Veterans Affairs immediately remove the one-time lump sum and return to a lifelong disability pension.
Four years ago, we also pointed out that the earnings loss benefit designed to replace the SISIP long-term disability unfairly forced disabled veterans to first enter the rehabilitation program before collecting a reduced salary. Forcing a disabled and highly vulnerable veteran into a rehabilitation plan to receive money for food and housing is equivalent to workfare programs, which have been universally denounced throughout the developed world.
In contrast, the SISIP long-term disability is far more compassionate, providing much-needed income first. Then, when the injured veteran and his or her family are ready, the veteran can enter the vocational rehabilitation program. We therefore urge this committee to remove the requirement that an injured veteran enter the VAC rehabilitation program in order to collect the earnings loss benefit.
Furthermore, this question has been raised: why are the SISIP long-term disability and the earnings loss benefit restricted to 75% of release salary? If Canada truly honours the sacrifices and the losses endured by our disabled soldiers, and if a disabled soldier is forced to leave the forces in order to live the rest of his or her life on disability while attempting to raise a family, then that veteran should be earning 100% of release salary, not 75%.
Please do not compare what we do and what we must endure to what a public servant does. We sacrifice much when we join the forces, and we give up everything we love and honour when we are forced from the military due to our disabilities.
I would like to make one final point about SISIP long-term disability and the earnings loss benefit. Both of these income loss programs unfairly deduct amounts for Pension Act disability pension payments.
DND ombudsmen have written more than six letters and reports wherein the office clearly denounces the practice of deducting Pension Act payments. The Veterans Ombudsman agrees. A majority in the House of Commons voted to stop this deduction. The Standing Committees on National Defence and the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs also voted to stop the deductions. More recently, the Senate Standing Committee on National Security and Defence voted to stop the deductions.
Chair and members of this committee, what will it take? What will it take to have the bureaucracy do what Parliament and other representatives tell it to do? What is the purpose of having elected officials and ombudsmen if they are ignored by bureaucrats who don't seem to care if we die or are disabled in defending our country?
The stubbornness of the bureaucracy has forced the matter of the unfair deductions from SISIP to the Supreme Court. We urge this committee, as part of its study on the new Veterans Charter, to have the deductions of Pension Act payments from SISIP LTD and earnings loss benefits cease immediately.
I had the honour of sitting on the Veterans Affairs special needs advisory group, better known as SNAG. During my time with the advisory group, SNAG produced its first report, which made more than 70 recommendations for change at VAC. Veterans Affairs has not implemented a single change. Furthermore, we were forced to sign confidentiality agreements that have prevented these reports from being made public.
It was because of this unacceptable control by Veterans Affairs, but mostly because of the many flaws in the new Veterans Charter, that I announced my resignation when the charter took effect on April 1, 2006. It is my understanding that since my resignation SNAG has produced a further three reports, with more than 150 recommendations. Due to the unnecessary secrecy that VAC has placed on the reports, as I understand it VAC has not implemented one single recommendation, and I cannot go into detail about those recommendations because I am also bound by the confidentiality agreement.
Supposedly, both the new Veterans Charter and the special needs advisory group were created to address the needs of veterans who need help the most, usually those who are pensioned above 70%. As a veteran of the Gulf War and an advocate for those who served in the Gulf, I have seen far too many disabled veterans and their families fall through the cracks while the families fall apart. Most of these veterans are overwhelmed by their symptoms and life in general.
The new Veterans Charter does nothing to improve the poor manner with which severely disabled veterans are treated and cared for by Veterans Affairs. It is a fact that the severely disabled require more medical care. However, Veterans Affairs applies the same limits to health care for severely disabled veterans as it does for those who suffer a single minor injury.
In order to receive more medical care, requests have to be made, with full justification provided by at least one medical doctor even though Veterans Affairs has the condition on file. The authorization is far from immediate. Instead, the request is passed from district to region and then to head office in Charlottetown and/or to one of the three treatment authorization centres. Even if authorization is given when the veteran is clearly suffering a severe and chronic disabling condition, the same process must be repeated each and every year.
Such bureaucratic nightmares have to end. The first step in this process is to perhaps supply a distinct and differently coded Veterans Affairs identification card to those who are severely disabled and/or require ongoing care for chronic symptoms.
This brings me to the issue of conditions that may not meet Veterans Affairs' highly rigid authorization guidelines for treatment approval. For example, Gulf War veterans, like many veterans of modern combat, suffer conditions that are not easily understood. Complex physical conditions are pensioned by Veterans Affairs as chronic fatigue, fibromyalgia, and even post-traumatic stress disorder.
However, giving a name to the disability does not mean that Veterans Affairs will provide treatment for the symptoms, even when treatment is prescribed by a licensed medical doctor. This practice has not changed, and indications are that treatment guidelines may be even stricter under the new Veterans Charter due to how disability awards are calculated.
This stubbornness on the part of Veterans Affairs has to end. Vastly more flexibility has to be included in medical treatment authorizations. If a medical doctor prescribes a pharmaceutical drug or a medical treatment, then Veterans Affairs must immediately authorize the treatment without making the severely injured veteran or his or her doctor jump through hoops.
As a Gulf War veteran, I monitor international efforts to improve treatment for those disabilities suffered by many men and women who served in the Gulf. Recently I was invited, at my own expense, to attend the latest American Gulf War advisory research committee meeting, in Washington, D.C. These advisory committee meetings discuss the latest in medical treatments and research. The public can attend and committee reports are published openly.
I personally contacted Deputy Minister Suzanne Tining so that Veterans Affairs Canada could send a representative to the meeting to be held in Washington. After promising to get back to me, neither Ms. Tining nor anyone else contacted me for further information. This is unfortunate.
Over the past 15 years, the U.S. has focused a great deal of resources on research, outreach, and education in order to provide care for their Gulf War veterans and veterans in general. It is sad to say that I receive far more support regarding the Gulf War illnesses from Americans than I do from the Canadian government.
To me, Ms. Tining's casual dismissal of this important opportunity to help Gulf War veterans, as well as all veterans, shows the apathy and ignorance in Veterans Affairs Canada. The combination of having the head office located in P.E.l., along with the VAC head-office staff making little or no attempt whatsoever to know veterans issues or know personally the clients they serve, is unacceptable.
Head-office staff admit to me that they are removed from knowing the clients. To them, we are mere files and numbers. The details of the new Veterans Charter and the extreme stubbornness of the Veterans Affairs bureaucracy to change anything in the legislation that might favour the veteran tragically speaks to just how far removed Veterans Affairs decision-makers are from the veterans they falsely claim to serve.
In closing, I thank you once again for inviting me here to speak today. As my main area of specialty is the ongoing issues affecting Gulf War veterans, I have a wealth of information that I would like to present to committee at a future date. I sincerely ask that you invite me back to testify on developments in research and treatment of Gulf War-related illnesses, areas that Veterans Affairs Canada needs to address for hopefully the benefit and improved treatment of all injured veterans.
Regarding the new Veterans Charter, I urge this committee to invite Captain Sean Bruyea to testify. He was the first in Canada to study the charter in detail and report publicly on the many shortcomings in the legislation. He is one of Canada's best resources when it comes to caring for our disabled veterans and their families. Sadly, the bureaucracy and many organizations have treated Sean Bruyea with disdain for his opposition to the charter.
It is ironic that we are now sitting here four years later and virtually every veteran and every veterans group agrees with the analysis of the charter that Captain Bruyea and I presented four years ago. Veterans Affairs is alone in not understanding the charter's flaws.
In order for your study to be productive and to yield the results that Canada's veterans need, I recommend that you save Sean Bruyea's testimony until the end of your study. He has an admirable ability to see through the smoke and mirrors created by the bureaucracy.
Thank you.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
9:15 a.m.
Advocacy Executive Director, Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association
Hopefully you all have the opening remarks that I've put together here.
9:15 a.m.
Some hon. members
No.
9:15 a.m.
Advocacy Executive Director, Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association
Oh, they're--
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Mr. Fraser, the policy of the committee is that they have to be in both official languages. It's not translated so we'll just have to take your testimony. We'll translate your remarks and distribute them after the fact.
9:15 a.m.
Advocacy Executive Director, Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association
I'm sorry. When I read the guidelines, I thought that it was remarks over 10 pages that needed translation. I apologize.
Good morning, Mr. Chair and committee members. I'm Marlowe Fraser, Executive Director of Advocacy for the Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association and a member of the New Veterans Charter Advisory Group. I'm also a representative on the Gerontological Advisory Council.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the committee for allowing me to testify today and provide my view and experience as a disabled veteran who has a family that has been through the system under the Pension Act and the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act, hereafter referred to as the new Veterans Charter.
I would like to extend my thanks to the chair of the New Veterans Charter Advisory Group, Professor Westmorland, for her excellent leadership and guidance. From Veterans Affairs Canada, I would like to acknowledge and thank Mr. Darragh Mogan, general director of the policy and programs division. Lastly, I would like to thank my fellow colleagues of the New Veterans Charter Advisory Group for their friendship and support.
By way of an introduction, I would like to provide you with a bit of my military background, injury history, and resulting medical release from the Canadian armed forces so that you may know a little more about me before questions begin. Next I would like to explain how I became a member of the New Veterans Charter Advisory Group and what I have tried to provide to the debate and discussion around the new Veterans Charter. Mainly, being a veteran myself, I would like to provide you with a veteran's perspective, as have Louise and others, on the issues and problems in respect of the new Veterans Charter.
I would like to touch on the three indicated gaps in the report--families, economic needs, and rehabilitation--not specifically with regard to the recommendations in the report, which I am sure you will have questions on, but with regard to the concerns that Canadians, along with veterans and their families, have raised to me over the years since I've been involved with the new Veterans Charter and its coming into force.
The report does provide background and information to support our decision-making towards developing the recommendations. However, I want the committee to hear today about some of the key points CPVA put forth in developing the report. Additionally, I would like to state some of the positive steps VAC has already taken since the committee formed in 2007. It is fair to suggest that VAC has been working hard alongside the New Veterans Charter Advisory Group by acting on facts as they have become available.
In closing, I would like to comment on why the recommendations of the New Veterans Charter Advisory Group need to be acted on now by government.
I joined the navy in 1982 and was medically released in 2002 as a petty officer first class marine engineering artificer. I was 17 when I joined and 38 when I was released medically. I broke my neck in the Gulf War in 1991 while working on board HMCS Protecteur in the Persian Gulf. The CF was my family and my life: I knew nothing else.
As you have already heard in earlier testimony, being injured and released medically from the CF is nothing close to being injured in a car accident. In fact, I would say they are diametrically opposite, other than the physical injury.
At that time in my life, I did not even know about VAC. My life was operational while I was serving my country at sea on a ship. In my case, someone was labelled sick, lame, or lazy and sent to shore to be dealt with by the medical system before release. Over the next few years, my family and I learned the hard way about applying for pensions and becoming a civilian. I wanted to give up after the second appeal; however, luckily for me, I had a mentor who came to my rescue. And yes, I mean rescue.
Several years later, I went back to school and re-entered the workforce with help from VAC. In the course of all this, I made myself a promise, which was to take what I had learned and use it to help others. As a result, I became involved with the veterans issues through the Gulf War Veterans Association as vice-president and now am involved in my current position in the CPVA.
I was recommended to the New Veterans Charter Advisory Group by retired Brigadier-General Larry Gollner, whose seat I took over in CPVA. Over the last two years in the New Veterans Charter Advisory Group, I have tried to provide the perspective of the veterans and the families of CPVA members, as well as my own experience, so that others would see the issues from what we in the navy call the coal face. I think I have accomplished that.
However, I am here today to try to do the same, because I know you have heard from our chair, VAC senior staff, and other more distinguished members of our group, who I know have already provided you with clear insight into our reasoning and rationale for the report recommendations. I know this because I have listened to the webcasts and have read the transcripts available on your website to date.
I would like to move on to the three major gaps that were identified in the report: families, economic needs, and rehabilitation. Each has a supporting subcommittee that took an in-depth look at the issues of all stakeholders while consulting past research and research ongoing at the time.
I was on the economic needs subcommittee. Numerous presentations were given from experts, the CF, veterans, other committees such as the special needs advisory group, and VA staff working on areas such as case management. I want to highlight some of the concerns CPVA brought to the table, along with the other members, to augment the work done by the group on the three gaps.
Families are fully impacted by veterans' disabilities. My disability is my family's disability. Being released from the CF was as big a shock for my family as it was for me as a serving member. They lost the support of the military family resource centre and their social network. In some cases, families lose their home if they are living in military housing, which was my case.
Economic support is key to the successful transition from the CF for disabled veterans and their families. It is an imperative, which is reduced to a level substantially below what members are used to having towards supporting their monthly costs, not to mention that the majority of CF members have allowances as part of their normal pay, which they lose because the income they receive is based on 75% of their base salary, taxable. For example, there are the sea duty allowance, the air crew allowance, and the living differential allowance, just to name a few. These allowances can be substantial in augmenting your income.
For rehabilitation, change is paramount. You're trying to manage your disability and at the same time you're leaving the world you know, with no job and an unclear future. If you have a psychological injury, everything just gets more difficult for you and your family, which in some cases leads to drug abuse and divorce.
I know that a lot needs to be done and that's why we were brought together to form the New Veterans Charter Advisory Group by VAC. However, a lot has already been started by VAC. Currently, they have completed a major redo of case management and are working on a VAP and a long-term case strategy. I worked on the reworking for the case management and was part of that group.
Moreover, from research completed, a review of highly disabled veterans and their families is also under way. The auditing and evaluation department of VAC is also now getting involved to provide clear measures and goals under the new Veterans Charter, another area that we identified for improvement.
My point is that since I became a member of the New Veterans Charter Advisory Group there has been great improvement by VAC for veterans and their families. We are making progress.
Finally, in my opinion, I can say that during the time I have spent working with VAC staff, I certainly observed the decisions and the commitment towards veterans and their families. As a veteran, I would like to acknowledge it and thank them for that. The main problem is government and not VAC staff.
But as we all know, our work is not done. There is a lot of catching up to be done for the years of inaction. All the recommendations are important. For that reason, the New Veterans Charter Advisory Group did not prioritize them. They all should be implemented. As I said in my introduction, the recommendations of the New Veterans Charter Advisory Group need to be acted on now by government.
As CPVA's executive director of advocacy and a member of the New Veterans Charter Advisory Group, I'll do what is requested of me to help this committee move forward on the report and recommendations. There was a clear commitment from the government and all parties that the new Veterans Charter would be a living document, which was one of the reasons it received full support from the veterans organizations that were consulted at the time, CPVA being one of them.
Government inaction cannot be justified by stating that there's no money or that it's because of the economic state of the country. Government can find and has found money for other things of lesser importance in the past. It has to be about doing what is right and reasonable for veterans and their families, not money. What veterans and their families want is a hand up, not a handout. The government needs to look at the Veterans Bill of Rights and read carefully the part about providing veterans and their families with dignity and respect.
Thank you once again for this opportunity to come before you, give testimony, and answer questions on this very important subject.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Thank you very much, Mr. Fraser.
Now we will move to our usual rotation of questions. We will begin with the Liberal Party for seven minutes.
Mr. Oliphant.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to our guests. I'm sorry for being late. I got held up en route.
I just want to find out who Captain Gray is, as I missed the introductions.
9:25 a.m.
Captain N) (Retired) Perry Gray (As an Individual
I'm here representing VeteranVoice.info. It's a website that is open to all veterans. We provide information about all things that concern the veterans' community.
I'm also the co-author of the report that was presented to this committee and also other organizations. It talked about what we needed in a veterans ombudsman. This report, along with the special needs advisory group and other organizations, was influential in getting the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman established.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Thanks.
Starting out with Ms. Richard, thank you for your service to the country and also for your perseverance since that time.
I've read about SNAG, but I would like a little more help with what that group is, what it does, what your experience of it is, how it operates, and its effectiveness or ineffectiveness. That would be helpful for me.
9:25 a.m.
Freelance advocate for disabled veterans and their families, Gulf War Veterans Association of Canada
SNAG is to obtain input on the development of regulations for those persons who may have the greatest apparent re-establishment challenge. In examining the proposed regulatory content with actual clients, the goals would be to determine if proposals meet clients' needs, if there are variations on the proposals that would better respond to those needs, and if there are any significant gaps in the proposed government response from a benefit and service perspective.
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Is it a subgroup of the charter advisory group or is it a special group assigned to Veterans Affairs Canada?
9:30 a.m.
Freelance advocate for disabled veterans and their families, Gulf War Veterans Association of Canada
It's a special group.
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Okay. Thanks. We'll talk to the department more about that, then. I'll get the technical details.
9:30 a.m.
Freelance advocate for disabled veterans and their families, Gulf War Veterans Association of Canada
Yes, okay.
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
9:30 a.m.
Freelance advocate for disabled veterans and their families, Gulf War Veterans Association of Canada
It was created before the new veterans charter came into effect, basically to look into many discrepancies or...what's the word I'm looking for...I said it in my speech. I have memory issues with my illness. I apologize for that.