Veterans Affairs Committee on Nov. 26th, 2009

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I appreciate it.

The other one that's of interest is the ELB limits. They're not considered in earned income; that's what it says in this report. So this would mean that when we calculate your RRSP eligibility that earned income is not included.

[Hugh Marlowe Fraser]

That's right.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

So that reduces your ability to have room for RRSP contributions. This might be a tough question, but more than 60% of Canadians aren't using their space now. Is that really an issue, to be honest? Do veterans have the income to add to the space or are they using up all their space at present?

[Hugh Marlowe Fraser]

It's the least of our worries. We don't have the extra income, generally speaking, for investment considerations. If you're on a disability pension, you're making... It's pretty tight if you're raising a family. It's all relative, of course, depending on the level of disability, and I know people who have more severe injuries than I have. I had a cervical spinal fusion and I have my limitations, but for a lot of people, it doesn't even come close in a lifetime.

When I lost my career, what I had to do, and not to even get back to the pay scale I was at before I retired years ago... I gave up a lot. I can only speculate what it's like out of 100% or whatever for somebody who has lost both legs or has post-traumatic stress disorder. The economic benefit doesn't come close to compensating.

As I said in my opening statement, we want dignity and respect, and what's reasonable. Nobody is here for a handout. We want to be treated with dignity and respect by our government, and what's right, and with the commitment our government made what's right is to treat us fairly.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Wallace, I'm sorry. The time has gone very fast. You're well over.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I'm just going to tell them one thing about pensions.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

There will be two spots afterwards.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

The finance committee is going to be looking at pensions at the beginning of the new year and maybe starting at the end of this year. It might be an issue you may want to bring forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Wallace.

We will now go to the Bloc Québécois. You have five minutes, Mr. Roy.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Wallace, I agree with you that it would be nice to invite veterans to come and share their views on pensions with the Standing Committee on Finance.

My first comment is directed to Mr. Fraser.You stated that no particular priority was assigned to the 16 recommendations. As I'm listening to you speak, I sense that there are at least three major themes coming out of this morning's discussions.

First of all, there are the financial considerations which obviously are very important to you. Family and personal security are important.

Then there is the culture of the department, that is the way the department operates. I'm not comfortable talking about the culture of the department because the public service is merely enforcing laws and policies. I'm tempted to use employment insurance as an example. Changes have been made to the EI system and a client who comes into an EI office and who has made a mistake is almost automatically accused of fraud. The same holds true for taxes. It's more the way policies are devised that ensures that under these systems, the client is almost automatically considered guilty, even before he has the opportunity to state his case. It's true of the Income Tax Act and of employment insurance and I'm sure it must be the same for veterans.

However, you have to understand that public servants are only applying the law. The politicians are the ones who make the law. I have some personal views on this subject. The system needs to be changed so that clients are not automatically deemed guilty before they even have an opportunity to defend themselves.

The third point concerns follow-up measures, or the help veterans receive when they are discharged from the forces after being injured and when they want to return to civilian life. To my way of thinking, it is critically important that each person receive personalized help. You say that you become mere numbers and that follow-up measures are impersonal. As a result, you find yourself all alone dealing with the bureaucracy. Some people are unable to handle this.

Have I summed up the three priority areas you identified for us this morning? I'd like to get the opinion of the three witnesses.

[Hugh Marlowe Fraser]

Thank you for your insight.

I would say that my three priorities are economic needs, families, and rehabilitation. You spoke generally about all three. These are the three major gaps and there are areas within each one. I'm partial to the economic needs because I was on the committee and I know about the direct impacts, but they're all important and they all need to be implemented.

It's individual, as you say. If you asked me as an individual and not as a representative of the Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association, I would give you my opinion on what I think is a priority. But as far as the report goes, they're all important and they all carry validity. We're representing the masses on the committee and we try to do it in a fair and equitable way. That's my answer.

[Louise Richard]

I just want to add to what Mr. Marlowe said.

That was a very good question, sir.

When the new Veterans Charter was implemented, there were over 8,000 cases to be heard under the Pension Act. You already had a system that was overwhelmed and very backlogged. Then, in comes the new Veterans Charter, with all these new programs and legislation. Even the staff admitted that to wrap their brains around this new Veterans Charter, it was so complex. There were many different levels of this and that. There were already three classes of veterans and all these subclasses of veterans. I mean, it's endless. No one seems to be treated equally. There are all these different things.

Although there are some good people within the department who are clearly willing to help veterans and guide them through this, they themselves are overwhelmed. Also, many of them who are caring and willing to put forth the necessary effort to help us have themselves never been approached for their own input into the new Veterans Charter. So they kind of feel they are doing everything they can for us, but their voices are not being heard either.

[Capt(N) Perry Gray]

I want to make one comment about what happens from one district to the next. The problem is a concern that was raised by a number of veterans and other groups. All the programs may not be applied equally across Canada, and the interpretation of policy, doctrine, and legislation, whatever you want to call it, may not be applied equally across Canada. When veteran A and veteran B get together and figure out that they are being treated differently, that's a problem.

There is no quality assurance practised by Veterans Affairs. When we get together to make comments, Charlottetown is not ensuring cross-Canada equality in the provision of services and how everybody understands these things. As Louise said, it's complicated because there's so much information that has to be utilized in day-to-day operations. There are 45 separate pieces of legislation alone that concern veterans.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you very much.

I'd like to advise the committee that we have only four spots left. As long as we stay disciplined and stay close to our time, we should be fine in making sure that every member gets an opportunity to ask questions.

Now we'll go over to Mr. Storseth for five minutes.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Could we have two minutes at the end of the meeting to do some quick business?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

That may not be possible at this point, but I'll try.

Mr. Storseth.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for protecting my time.

I want to thank everybody for coming today. It was a very interesting discussion. I think it is very important that we hear the pros and cons. I think that a lot of the discussion we had today was very positive.

I'm a new member on the committee, so to start I'd like to get a grasp on who we're talking to.

Mr. Marlowe, you represent the Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association. Roughly how many veterans do you represent?

[Hugh Marlowe Fraser]

We have a signed membership of 500 to 1,000 individuals, but we represent all veterans and families. We don't really carry the numbers on that. We represent anybody who comes my way or through the door.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

I'm sure that you would all represent anybody.

[Hugh Marlowe Fraser]

Yes. To be fair, the number is close to 1,000. It's about 800 to 1,000. I'm not the membership chair, so—

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Thank you.

[Hugh Marlowe Fraser]

That's as close as I have.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Ms. Richard, you represent the Gulf War Veterans Association of Canada. How many--

[Louise Richard]

No.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Sorry. That's what the paper in front of me says.