Veterans Affairs Committee on Nov. 26th, 2009

[Louise Richard]

It was basically to focus on those most in need, which is 70% and more in the veteran community. It was—that's right—created after our testimony in May 2005 in regard to the new Veterans Charter.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

I'll give you my apologies. My memory's okay, but I wasn't here then, so I'm still playing catch-up on a lot of these issues.

We are very much indebted to you for your help on all these issues, but I may ask questions that you think I should already know the answers to.

[Louise Richard]

Yes, and we were focusing on the flaws of the new Veterans Charter because it was such a huge report, with such immense changes, and 60 years later. We wanted to make sure that it was fully reviewed and revised before the new charter would come into effect.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

So we are late in doing it, but we are now trying.

This question could be to either of you or to both of you. One of the main goals of the new charter was to move from a model of dependence, a sort of patronizing model that would keep people dependent on the system for a long time, to one where we try to give veterans more independence in their decision-making, in their ability to do that. What I am hearing from you is that maybe one size does not fit all.

[Capt(N) Perry Gray]

I'd like to answer that question for you.

The then minister, Albina Guarnieri, stated that the reason for the drastic rewrite of the Pension Act was that the disabled veterans had become too dependent on Pension Act benefits. First of all, it was supposed to be a rewrite of the Pension Act, not the creation of new legislation. Secondly, this was despite acknowledging that it was the minister's failure to provide supporting programs for disabled veterans and their families that created the minister's perception of dependency.

This attitude is summarized in the words of the former deputy minister, Jack Stagg, who said:

What we found in the pension system was it was a kind of perverse system, in effect, because we had quite a large number... We took a number of files between 1998 and 2002 and looked to see how many people were coming back to us for additional pensions. People were making this their life's work. We had people coming back anywhere from 9 to 17 or 18 times, looking to boost a pension...

We try, of course, in Veterans Affairs, to be fair and to judge rationally how sick or how disabled someone is from the services they rendered for Canada. They will tell us they are sicker than what we believe or what they can prove, and it becomes a kind of adversarial battle.

This is important to emphasize here: they thought we were looking for a handout rather than a hand up, as Mr. Fraser stated, and this perception permeates Veterans Affairs. It's an adversarial process rather than a collaboration between the veterans and the department. That has to be rectified.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

I guess what you're suggesting is that if you recognize it in that way, it's different. I think that was an attempt, an all-party agreement and attempt to rectify that situation, but you're saying it doesn't rectify it. It actually does not help.

[Capt(N) Perry Gray]

In fact, the special needs advisory group reported to the same people who said the charter was perfect. What hope is there for VAC accepting changes to the charter if the people who created it do not see that it needs to be changed?

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

I think that part of it was to be a living document. Unfortunately, it has taken longer to get to this point. I'm not defending this at all, because frankly I don't need to. I'm new.

I'm trying to understand. Part of it was to be a living charter. I think all parties agreed that it might not work perfectly.

[Capt(N) Perry Gray]

In fact, when the Honourable Greg Thompson first appeared in front of this committee, as well as the Senate committee in May and June of 2006, he said that he was uncomfortable with portions of the charter and that things would change. He said that “openness and transparency” would be the case under his leadership.

I suggest that you read the minutes of that session as well as his first presentation to the Senate subcommittee.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

How's my time?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

You have about 20 seconds.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Before I go, I want to acknowledge the presence of another one of our members here, Siobhan Coady from St. John's South—Mount Pearl, who has been quite interested in the review of the charter. We're a little bit of an augmented team from the Liberal Party today.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

I have one quick question on SNAG. Was this a creation of the department? You mentioned that there were several reports given to the department that weren't made public. Could you elaborate on that?

[Louise Richard]

That's right.

It was created by the Senate, wasn't it?

[A voice]

[Inaudible--Editor]...testimony.

[Louise Richard]

Because of the Senate testimony it was created. Yes.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

The department created it?

[Louise Richard]

That's correct.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

And they have how many reports?

[Louise Richard]

They have four reports at this time--

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

We'll get back to you.

[Louise Richard]

--and there were over 200 recommendations. So that's four official reports and over 200 recommendations that have yet to be implemented.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Madam Richard.

Now we're on to the Bloc Québécois.

Pour sept minutes, Monsieur Gaudet.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am happy to be back here. I have a few very simple questions to ask you.

Do you support the Veterans Charter?

Mr. Fraser?

[Hugh Marlowe Fraser]

Thank you for your question.

Our organization, the Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association, supports the charter and the idea that it is a living charter. The committee that we represented ourselves on... I sat on the committee for the last two years. With the implementation of the recommendations in the report that was just released by that committee, we think it's a major step forward.

By no means is that the end. There's still much more work to be done, but we are suggesting that all of the recommendations put forth now need to be adopted immediately, those requiring legislative change, and funding on the ones that don't. That would be a major step forward.

There are still issues around the lump sum payment. When you read the report, you'll see the recommendations around the permanent impairment allowance and how it's applied. There are issues around families, caregivers, and the VIP. A ton of improvements are required. I think a major step forward would certainly be to implement the recommendations. From that perspective, we support it.