Evidence of meeting #37 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 orange.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Member, Widows on a Warpath
I just said that it's the same for me. I receive the same thing as Bette receives. It's $79 a month.
Member, Widows on a Warpath
I don't receive a disability pension from my husband. I do receive part of his regular pension.
He had terminal colon cancer. When I tried to apply for a disability pension after the fact, I was told I could not apply for it because cancer is not a disability pension illness. I was denied because of that. I was also told that because he didn't apply for a disability pension before he died, I can't qualify for it now.
Member, Widows on a Warpath
You indicated that dates were set and had to be adhered to because they had to set a date. To my way of thinking, dates were set. All victims of the chemical spray agent orange would be compensated from 1956 to 1984. Those are the dates that should be indicated--not 1966 and 1967 but those dates there, 1956 to 1984 and beyond. When they stop spraying, then they need to look at a closure date, but not until then.
I wanted to bring that up because the dates were stated. They were set when the Prime Minister stood up and said that all would be compensated from 1956 to 1984.
Thank you.
Conservative
December 8th, 2009 / 10:35 a.m.
Conservative
Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, ladies, for coming today and telling us your personal stories. It must be difficult to reach back and think about those times and be able to put them forward in a public manner. I appreciate that you've done that.
You also might be interested to know that the members of this committee, unlike most committees up here in Ottawa, by and large work well together in a non-partisan manner, while most committees, I think, operate in a partisan manner. It is in the spirit of the veterans that we work to do the best we can for veterans.
I wonder if you would comment on the communication that took place for those in the 1966-67 timeframe. Could you tell us what your experiences have been in dealing with those people in your areas, and how well they felt the communication process worked?
Conservative
Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON
It was the process to inform and educate those who might be potentially eligible.
Member, Widows on a Warpath
The first communication we had after we made application was that you have not proven your husband was deceased on or after February 6, 2006, and therefore you are denied the ex gratia payment. That was the first communication. We were excluded, denied, because of the date.
Conservative
Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON
What I was trying to get to, though, was the significant campaign that went forward. It is a tremendous project to try to educate and notify people from coast to coast, as you mentioned before, with national press releases, news conferences, and online materials. Granted, not everybody is online, and we recognize that. There are publications such as the Salute! newsletter, and there was a substantial news campaign or publication campaign.
Generally speaking, were there any comments from people saying that they felt they had missed it somehow? It was an extensive program in terms of the media. Is there any thought on that?
Member, Widows on a Warpath
I actually would like to respond to that, if I may.
I am a civilian and I have dealt with a lot of civilians who did not even apply because the forms were so complex. When they called to see if this qualified or that qualified or where they needed to go, they were getting different responses depending on who they talked to. The training at VAC, when this first came out, for the employees was just as confusing, I believe, as it was for the civilians who tried to apply. The list of conditions written on the ex gratia form--that was a criterion you had to have--were written in terms that a physician would understand, not the everyday person. I feel that this was done on purpose to discourage people not to apply. People even thought they were going to lose their medicare if they applied, or some of their old age pension. There was a lot of confusion with it.
You cannot tell me that everyone who did qualify did apply, when it was designed to discourage a lot. I realize that it is Veterans Affairs and there's a lot of talk about veterans and what have you—
Conservative
Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON
I'm sorry to interrupt you, Ms. Hogan. That's a good point that you made, and I think it was also in the initial speeches when the meeting kicked off today, about the forms. I noticed that here in the briefing there's no mention of simplification of forms. Is that in any of your suggestions? I know you read some. Was that in any of the suggestions there?
Member, Widows on a Warpath
It should be. That is something that needs to be added, most definitely.
Conservative
Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON
Perhaps when you submit them to the clerk, that is something you could add--
Conservative
Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON
—with maybe some examples of where it is complicated and how to simplify it, because I'm sure they'd be interested in that feedback to be able to improve future processes.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Your time has expired.
Now we're on to Mr. Andrews for five minutes.
Liberal
Scott Andrews Liberal Avalon, NL
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Unlike Mr. Lobb, I'm a new member to Parliament and a new member to the committee, and I'm getting up to speed on these issues very quickly.
I have to take one exception to Mr. Mayes' comments, when he talked about the government paying out compensation for residential schools and all these—
Conservative
Colin Mayes Conservative Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
I didn't say compensation, I said settlement. There's a difference.
Liberal
Scott Andrews Liberal Avalon, NL
Okay. I'm sorry, there is a difference. Settlement.
My point is that they were forced to do most of the ones he listed because of class action lawsuits. It's unfortunate that it comes to this, and I'm somewhat familiar and I understand there's a class action going on in my province of Newfoundland and Labrador on this very issue.
One question would be this, if you could help me: are there any other class action lawsuits that you're familiar with?
As for my second question, you're right, dates are important, and governments can pull dates out of the air and February 6, 2006, was a date they pulled out for that particular program. On that issue of being alive on February 6, 2006, is there a date that you would like to see that at for compensation purposes? I know we've talked about from 1956 to 1984; we've talked about the list as well. I'm just curious about that date.
My third question is to you, Ms. Matheson. On those documents you received from...I believe you said Veterans Affairs, your name was on the list and then it wasn't on the list, and then they kindly said, well, would you mind returning that one. How many people who were identified on that list had been removed on the second list? Did I understand that correctly?
Member, Widows on a Warpath
We really don't know; I had three lists given to me. They gave me the second. They asked for my list back and told me that in return they would give me a new list. They sent me my new list but it was totally different from the first. They scrambled it, and they did whatever they could to really confuse us.
I really can't pinpoint the exact amount.
Can you, Bette?