Veterans Affairs Committee on Nov. 26th, 2009

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Do you support the Veterans Charter, Ms. Richard?

[Louise Richard]

Well, I'm for the principle of improving the benefits for our modern veterans, but from what I see, the charter does not do that at this time, so in a nutshell, no. I didn't at the time and I don't at this time.

There are good parts of the new charter, but I found nothing wrong with the Pension Act. The Pension Act, along with SISIP, worked well. The Pension Act needed some tweaking done, but I don't feel that the new legislation as a whole needed to come in.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

What about you, Mr. Gray?

[Capt(N) Perry Gray]

Like Lieutenant Richard, I supported the modernization task force. What should have happened was that the department should have looked at the Pension Act and modernized it to take into account the changes that have occurred in Canada, because there should have been a continuation, not a revolution. The new Veterans Charter does not bridge the gap between what existed and what we have today.

What we needed to see was the older legislation modernized. We needed to make sure that everything that applied to veterans then applies to veterans now, with changes that reflected the changes in Canadian society and the government's responsibility.

We're saying, for example, to bring back the pensioners training regulations. That would mean that there's both vocational training and university training, so that we, people like Mr. Fraser and me, can apply to the federal government for jobs that require university education as a minimum requirement.

We also say to get rid of the lump sum and reintroduce the non-taxable benefits that were guaranteed to people back in 1945. Why is the modern veteran considered a different character than the wartime veteran?

In Canada we believe in equality. As far as I'm concerned, the new Veterans Charter may have been considered good for veterans, but it was anti-Canadian. It discriminates against people in the veterans community. When all of you in the House and the Senate supported the charter back in 2005 because you felt that it was anti-veteran not to support it, you were being anti-Canadian.

The social contract between you, the government, and us, the people, should be similar to every other social contract in this country. If you do not do away with divisions in the veterans community, then you're continuing to push forward with discrimination, and that is against basic human rights in this country.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

I was a member of this committee, as was Mr. Sweet, when the Veterans Charter was adopted in 2005 and enacted in April 2006. Now, the committee is reviewing the charter, but you do not seem pleased about this. I have a problem with that. Rarely does a government changes its strategy completely in the space of two years. As I said, I was on hand when the first Veterans Charter was adopted and I did not hear any complaints like the ones I am hearing from you today. Everyone was united in their support for this initiative.

You're telling me things I was unaware of. The fact remains, however, that in 2006, we were prepared to draft a new charter. I'm prepared to accepted your recommendations completely, but I think we need to allow enough time... It's all well and good to want to modernize the charter, but things were different five years ago. We did not have troops in Afghanistan, among other things. Today, I think we need to follow the standards.

I'd like to get your opinion. Do you think we failed to do our job properly, and do you think that it's simply a case of the situation evolving more quickly than we are. I can't answer that. When we adopted the charter in 2005, people praised this initiative. However, you're telling us today that it leaves much to be desired. I have a problem with that comment and I would like to get your opinion.

[Capt(N) Perry Gray]

I'd like to respond to your comments. The modernization task force and the development of a new Veterans Charter was supported in principle, as we've stated. However, it was an exclusive, restrictive, narrowly focused, non-transparent development that did not give appropriate time for full discussion within the veterans' community and did not reflect the stated concerns of veterans and Senate and Commons committees and subcommittees. The veterans supported the new Veterans Charter with the understanding that regular reviews would be part of the process and that changes would be implemented.

The department has not adopted any of the 200-plus recommendations made by politicians of this committee, the special needs advisory group, the Royal Canadian Legion plus other veterans groups, the DND ombudsman, and the VA ombudsman. VAC repeatedly ignores input from external sources, even those it created to advise the department, because the people who wrote the new Veterans Charter consider it perfect and will not change it.

For example, this committee created a report concerning the VA ombudsman that was unanimously supported by everybody on this committee. That report was rejected by the department.

What we have here is not a temporary problem. You can go back 60 years since the Pension Act was revised after World War II and you'll see that a series of shortcomings can be laid at the feet of that department. There are World War II veterans who are still not getting benefits.

A senior bureaucrat in the department stated to the Senate committee in 2006 that 275,000 World War II veterans and dependants were not receiving the benefits they needed to do the things that enabled them to stay in their own home. That's the veterans independence program. This committee was told in 2006 that it would take as much as $500 million to give that program to all those veterans.

It comes down to the fact that it costs too much money to implement all the programs that existed prior to the new Veterans Charter. Within the department, the new Veterans Charter was considered a good replacement because it would cost less money. I hope you understand that. This is a legacy of shortcomings over more than 60 years within a single government department.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Gray.

Mr. Gaudet, thank you.

Do any of our other witnesses want to add anything to that?

All right.

Now we'll move on to Mr. Stoffer for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thanks very much to all of you for coming here today and thank you to Mr. Gray as well.

Louise, as long as I've been a member of Parliament, you've been at committees. I think this is my twelfth time with you at a committee. I've always admired your stamina in doing this, because as you know, as I'm sure each and every one of you knows, when a veteran calls up DVA and is refused a first time, in many cases they just say, “Well, that's it”. They go away and don't fight it anymore because either they are arguing or suffering various concerns, either physical or mental, or they are aged. I dealt with an 88-year-old veteran the other day who was denied a hearing claim. He doesn't want to pursue it anymore, because he just doesn't have the wherewithal to fight it.

We have I think anywhere from 700,000 to 750,000 retired veterans and RCMP officers, with their spouses, and I believe that DVA has a client base of around 220,000, so there are many people in the veterans and retired RCMP communities who aren't receiving benefits. Maybe they're unaware of it or whatever, but I will try to defend the department as best I can.

As long as I've been here, I've noticed that there have been positive changes in the ability of Veterans Affairs to meet the needs. I honestly believe that each and every member of the department I've met has the sincerity to help veterans where possible. The problem in many cases, of course, is the legislation and the bureaucratic willingness to make that change. It is always a challenge.

One that I'd like you to comment on is the SISIP. Two DND ombudsmen, this committee, the Senate committee, and everybody else has said to fix it. It's a simple fix. I'd like to know why, in your opinion, that hasn't been done.

I always like to give a plug to folks, and I'd like to mention Albina Guarnieri, the former minister's staff, and the current folks we have now. I want to give a plug to Taylor Codie and William Olscamp, who are assistants to the current minister. Every single time I've called up with an issue, they have been there front and centre.

Was the problem resolved in the way I would have liked? Maybe not, but they at least gave me an answer in a short period of time so that I was able to move the assistance on. They are just two examples of many people within the department.

My last question, if you can answer this, is on the ability of what we call the living document. What sold many people on it was that it was a living document and could be changed. I'd like your comment on that, plus the fact that in many cases we hear the term “benefit of the doubt”, such that if there is a difference of opinion between you, the veterans, and the DVA, the benefit of the doubt must apply to the veteran's case.

Louise, we've been working with a fellow in Montreal. Ask me if the benefit of the doubt has ever applied to his particular case? I will just leave that with you.

Thank you. Again, on behalf of all of us, thank you so much for your service.

[Hugh Marlowe Fraser]

Thank you for your comments and your support for veterans and veterans' issues.

First, as far as the SISIP issue goes, I agree. I heard a lot around the table in the two years that I was part of the committee. The talk at the time was certainly that they were moving ahead on the rehabilitation part of SISIP, that VAC was going to take it over and there was work being done in that area.

The whole insurance attitude towards dealing with veterans just doesn't work, as I stated in my opening discussion. There is a lot more debate and discussion in the report about that. It's just wrong. Let's say I serve my country, I'm injured, and I'm being released because of that. I'm trying to be rehabilitated and I'm on medication or being treated medically, but then they cut my salary by 25%, tax it, and then kick me out of an organization that I was part of since I was 17 years old. That just doesn't work.

Luckily enough, I had a wife who was working at the time and I didn't own a house, but I just about went bankrupt. I was trying to go back to school at the same time, so it was just... That's how I got involved in all of this. It was just tremendously difficult. I survived it, and then I said, “Well, you know what? We have to fix this”.

The attempt with the new Veterans Charter is there, but the SISIP problem and the economic needs... It's a fundamental imperative for sustainable success for veterans. If you can't have a successful transition out of the military, that's with you for the rest of your career or the rest of your life, and then at age 65, it gets even worse. So at the two ends, at the age end and at the transitional end, it's just a mess. We're trying to fix it. The recommendations we put forth will help in that area, but certainly the SISIP problem has to go away.

In regard to “the benefit of the doubt”, well, I've been in front of the appeal board many times, and in my position now I advocate for veterans all the time. It's something that is legislated. It's in the Pension Act. They state it every time in their decision. You can appeal it, but it really doesn't carry relevance, like the legislative hammer, so to speak, where you have the benefit of the doubt. In most cases, you do not.

On the level of knowledge and communication in most cases, even in my case when I got turned down the first time, I just threw it aside. I didn't know anything about it. I thought it was done. I was just lucky enough to have somebody take me aside and say that 95% of the cases are thrown out the first time around, so no, I wasn't done. “What?”, I said. It was an education to get through it. Even to this day when you go into basic training, I don't think they provide any information or communication strategies on VAC, which is going to be your major supporter if you are injured. They just don't give you that information. If you're in the navy and are injured or broken, it's, “See you later”.

So the “benefit of the doubt”, legislatively, in my own personal relationship with VAC, is always stated but rarely followed, In the cases on which I have advocated, it has certainly not been the case.

I hope that has answered your question.

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

Thank you.

[Louise Richard]

I agree with what Mr. Fraser just stated.

For me as well, when I was medically released from the armed forces, I was not aware that to even receive SISIP you had to have 120 days post-release and you needed to have been medically released.

So as Mr. Fraser just said, it starts with release procedures. Many of us have not had a very good experience with that. Also, the information was minimal.

On the benefit of the doubt, I agree. It's in the Pension Act. It's stated everywhere. These are golden words that we hear all the time, but they don't seem to be applied at any time. If these words were respected and the veteran were respected, we wouldn't have any need for appeals. We wouldn't have a need for the Veterans Review and Appeal Board. We wouldn't have a need for so many bureaucrats and paper-pushers in the department, because there would be no need to appeal if the benefit of the doubt were to be applied. To me, they're fine words, but no one seems to respect them.

[Capt(N) Perry Gray]

There's another problem. Regardless of how well the legislation is written, it's overly restrictive in its administration. This is the bureaucrats' fault and it's a misunderstanding.

Time and time again, you will hear people say that they don't understand the military culture. We say that's because Veterans Affairs has turned its back on veterans in many different ways.

First of all, it doesn't give priority to hiring veterans. The people who most understand veterans are veterans. If the department that was created to service veterans is not giving priority employment to veterans, there's a fundamental problem.

Also, as I've said, the adversarial perception that Mr. Jack Stagg talked about is prevalent within the department. It seems that the first thing Veterans Affairs does when it receives an application from a veteran is to reject it. It seems to be the common belief that it's the same way that insurance companies reject claims and force customers to go back and fight it. We have to substantiate everything we claim and substantiation is not giving the benefit of the doubt. I have to go back and talk to my medical practitioners and get them to provide me with information.

The other thing that happens is that they don't properly communicate to you how you go through the appeal system. There's such a thing as a departmental review, but the department will tell you that first you have to appear in front of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board. Well, that's not true. Once you've finished the two stages of the veterans review and appeal system, the next step, they tell you, is to hire yourself a lawyer and go to a Federal Court.

The true system is that you keep submitting new information to get a departmental review so you don't have to incur out-of-pocket expenses hiring lawyers. But nobody in the department, except those who are sympathetic to veterans, will tell you that. Unless you become well educated, you don't know these problems and you don't understand things.

Why should veterans have to become as knowledgeable about veterans legislation as the members of the department that is here to serve us?

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Gray.

We'll now go to Mr. Kerr.

[Greg Kerr, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Thank you.

Good morning and welcome. We're very pleased to have you here.

We all know we're dealing with difficult issues. I think it's fair to say that anybody who's a member of this committee is certainly wanting to help and be part of the solution.

In your presentations and comments, I think you've shown the kind of challenges that we all face. Anything from groups working on fixing the charter and making it better, to the fact that the charter is basically rejected because it's the wrong thing to do, is part of the challenge we face. That's the kind of question I'd like to ask.

I believe in all faith that when the former government introduced the charter the intent was to make life better for veterans. I really believe that. The present government that we're part of looked at it that way, asking where we go with this.

I will start by saying, as I've said several times, particularly on the problems with SISIP, that we are facing things we have to correct. I don't think there's any question about that.

Rather than go back into the detail again... You've expressed it very well, and I do understand the sense of frustration and emotion, I really do, and we've heard it from others. But what I'm trying to get at is that we have a charter in place now. With all due respect to Captain Gray, I wouldn't want to leave this morning saying the charter is wrong, that we have to get rid of it and start all over. That's not going to happen. That definitely will not happen.

My first question to all of you, then, is about the fact that there are 16 recommendations coming forward from veterans organizations in the veteran review process in regard to trying to make this a living document. I'll start there. We can get into the details later.

First, Ms. Richard, if those 16 recommendations put forward by the veterans group now are accepted, what difference would that make with the issues you're facing? Are you comfortable with that? I'm not trying to put you on the spot.

Or Captain Gray?

[Capt(N) Perry Gray]

Do you mean to me personally?

[Greg Kerr, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Yes.

[Capt(N) Perry Gray]

None, because I'm not covered by the new Veterans Charter. Between 2005 and 2006, 35,000 people applied to VA for benefits, so they would not be covered by the new Veterans Charter. The RCMP, which is also a member of the veterans community in this country, rejected the NVC.

I pose a question to you, sir: do you support discrimination? The reason I ask that, sir, is that you're saying the new Veterans Charter will continue to be around, yet it doesn't benefit me, it doesn't benefit Louise, and I'm not sure about Mr. Fraser. Those of us who fall through the cracks are still covered by the original Pension Act.

As a member of your party, the Honourable Greg Thompson said that “...the new charter marks a long-overdue updating of the first charter...”. That was in his presentation to the Senate on May 31, 2006. He was wrong on several counts.

First of all, the new charter is a separate piece of legislation. The first legislation does not date back to 1945. It was introduced before that. So we now have two supposed charters when there's only one type of veteran. If I can't have the same benefits under one charter as I would under the other charter, that's discrimination, according to the legislation that you people produce every day.

[Greg Kerr, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Okay. I'm going to avoid getting into a debate with you about discrimination, because that's not why I'm here. We're here because we want to hear a full discussion and a full recommendation.

What I'm saying to you again is that if you're saying things have to be done separately from the charter, and you want to put it in that context, I'll listen to you. But I'm saying that we're told by the vast majority of veterans groups that we should get on with the 16 recommendations, which is the right approach to go forward. You're basically telling me that's a waste of time and I'm having some difficulty with that comment.

I guess I'll go over to Mr. Fraser.

In your view of veterans associations, are those 16 recommendations reflective of what the veterans groups want?

[Hugh Marlowe Fraser]

Certainly. There are six organizations represented there and they all agree that the 16 recommendations put forth were independent. I was part of the committee, I'm a veteran, I've been through all the issues myself, and let me tell you, it was independent. VAC was there as support. They didn't get involved and tell us what to do or anything like that. In fact, that's why we argued that the recommendations were all equally important. We didn't want to prioritize them.

Now, my view is not necessarily the same as Mr. Gray's. I am covered under the Pension Act, and I stated in my opening remarks that I'm also covered under the new Veterans Charter. That's my current condition. If it gets worse, I'm covered under the Pension Act. However, I just finished the rehab program under the new Veterans Charter, because as long as you have a service-related need, you still can get coverage. If you have a new disability that you haven't already applied for, you can apply under the new Veterans Charter as a veteran, post the new Veterans Charter.

So I don't necessarily agree with the comments Mr. Gray is making directly in relation to their being two separate... There certainly are two separate legislations, but Mr. Gray and I, as veterans, certainly can apply for services if we have a service-related need. That's the way the legislation reads. You have your pension under the Pension Act. That's one thing. But if you have a new injury, you can apply under the new Veterans Charter.

I agree with you in that I don't think the charter is going to be trashed. The longest journey begins with the first step and I think it's long overdue. You know, we have all those arguments out there, but I truly believe that improvement will come for veterans and their families, because the big part that was missing with the Pension Act was families. We have families covered off now and there are a lot more benefits there. There's a lot of improvement.

I have some recommendations around the lump sum issue and how to improve that. They're in the report. The permanent impairment allowance is a monthly allowance. What we're suggesting in the report is that the prerequisites be changed. Right now, a permanent impairment... I have a permanent impairment. I have a chronic condition. Every veteran who gets a disability pension must have a chronic condition. The ability to get qualified for it is the problem. If you get the permanent impairment allowance, it's a monthly annuity, tax-free, just like it was under the old Pension Act.

That's what we're working under now in my organization, which is the Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association. I'm representing that organization here today. That's who I'm speaking on behalf of and we do support the charter. We support the recommendations. That's what we said at the committee.

Individuals have the right... I have my own personal views on some other issues. I'm not necessarily always in line because of my own personal issues, but I'm striving for the better good at the moment here to make sure we move these things forward.

That's the long answer, I think.

[Greg Kerr, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

If my time's going to run out, I'll come back later, but one of the things I did want to expand on--and maybe we'll get through it before it's over--is one of the things that clearly keeps being repeated, which is the communication. That's come up in other issues related to the whole thing.

One of the things I want to stress in communications is that I very much support what our professional people in the department are trying to do with veterans. We get a lot of compliments about the work they do. I think shots at government are fair, but I want to make it clear on the record today that, as far as we're concerned, the Veterans Affairs staff are doing an incredibly good job overall.

I know you want to respond.

[Louise Richard]

I just wanted to add something, sir, to what was said.

We can't go back in time. This legislation is here to stay, but honestly, if I had the choice between the Pension Act and this new Veterans Charter, it would be the Pension Act, hands down.

Something was brought up that is a very serious issue. It's the lump sum disability award versus a disability pension. It's very different. With a disability pension, you receive something monthly. You have a sense of belonging. You have a sense that there's an ongoing process, that someone actually cares, and that if something happens you may have some recourse. But under this new charter and the disability award in a lump sum, it's here you go, and move on.

Where's the continuity? Where's the ongoing support? Where's the sense of belonging? In a sense, a lump sum is an abandonment, wouldn't you find? Also, when they're severely ill or disabled, many people can't manage the financial aspects of things.

As Mr. Fraser was saying, yes, the new Veterans Charter does address families. Well, for many veterans who come back and are ill, the family unit just falls apart. I don't know if this has been looked into, but what happens with this lump sum settlement? Is the wife just waiting for this big chunk of money to come home so that then she divorces him or moves on? Who's managing this? Who has the best interests of the veteran in hand here?

To me, it's serious. The lump sum needs to go and the monthly pension needs to be brought back. If that's part of the 16 recommendations, well, then, I approve of that.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Madam Richard.

Thank you, Mr. Kerr.

We'll now go to Madam Sgro.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Before you start the clock, I have a question, Mr. Chair. Do we have Captain Sean Bruyea on our witness list for the future? How many meetings have we set aside for the review of this charter?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

We have five more meetings planned, but we didn't put a limit on the number of meetings so we can continue to add witnesses.