Evidence of meeting #10 for Veterans Affairs in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was charter.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Noon
Bloc
Robert Vincent Bloc Shefford, QC
There are allowances for adapting your vehicle because disabled individuals still need cars. I suppose that your car has been adapted for you and the necessary equipment installed so that you can get around as you want.
Noon
Ad Hoc Advisory Group on Special Needs
Once again, there are specific programs, benefits, and services within Veterans Affairs. Yes, there is an allowance for car adaptation. It changed in November and is now more restrictive. I'm going through this argument right now with Veterans Affairs, so from a personal perspective, I have some challenges with being reimbursed for some of the things done to my vehicle. But that is not part of an attendant's allowance or a spousal allowance. Those are aids to daily living for which Veterans Affairs does provide some support. They're all being reviewed, and certain things are being capped and cut back. That's a whole different argument, but you're in the right frame of mind.
Noon
Bloc
Guy André Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
I have just a brief question. In your opinion, what is the main difference between the accidental dismemberment insurance plan and the lump sum veterans disability award? Is there any difference between these programs in the way that injuries sustained during a mission are assessed?
12:05 p.m.
Ad Hoc Advisory Group on Special Needs
The Canadian Forces has an accidental dismemberment plan, not Veterans Affairs. Veterans Affairs has the lump sum award, which this year is $276,000. It covers paraplegia, quadriplegia, blindness, and loss of limb. They are two different and separate programs.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Thank you, Mr. Henwood.
Thank you, Monsieur André.
Now we will go to Mr. Stoffer for five minutes.
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
Major Henwood, first of all, thanks for your service, sir, and thank you for being here today and talking openly and frankly.
Pierre Allard of the Legion was here last week. He said the last report the ad hoc committee had done was actually given to the DVA in June of last year. Is that more or less correct?
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
They received the report from your committee in January.
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
Okay. Have you had a response in writing from them on your recommendations? He said that after all this time they haven't received a written response to their recommendations. Is that true?
12:05 p.m.
Ad Hoc Advisory Group on Special Needs
That is true.
As a caveat, as an advisory group, we are not expected to receive a response. We only provide advice. If the department chooses to respond, they can do so.
They responded verbally. They have briefed us. They briefed us on what they learned from the report and what they were doing in a macro sense, but it was not a specific written response.
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
You've done four reports since the committee began years ago, and they haven't provided written responses to your written reports.
12:05 p.m.
NDP
12:05 p.m.
Ad Hoc Advisory Group on Special Needs
We started as an ad hoc advisory group. We took it to mean we would give them the information. We're ad hoc. They do not therefore have to respond back. We're only providing information.
It would take them a lot of time to provide a response on every item. I'm not surprised.
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
Okay. SIr, obviously, you've focused over time on the financial restraints, and you've made some very good points.
One of the reasons all the opposition parties at the time, including the Conservative Party at the time, supported the new Veterans Charter was that it was a step up from only giving money to helping to rehabilitate people to get back into society, along with their families. More importantly, it was a living document. When these problems arose, as you said, with unintended consequences, the government of the day could look into it and make suitable changes. The charter would actually become an improvement and not a reversal of support for these veterans. It's the reason that all the parties unanimously moved forward on this. Unfortunately, it's now 2010 and a number of recommendations haven't yet been adopted.
It's very clear regarding the lump sum, but many people have told us that you can't give young people some $200,000 and expect them to be fiscally responsible. As you said, they'll go out and buy a car, or a house, or something, and the money is gone. What happens then? I'd like to hear your comments on that.
Secondly, Okill Stuart of the National Council of Veterans Association was featured in The Gazette, basically highlighting the fact that the government is transferring Ste. Anne's over to the Province of Quebec. It will mean that future veterans will not have access to hospital beds that some of our World War II and Korean veterans now have access to. Although he didn't say this, the premise will be that the medical care for modern-day veterans, in terms of what World War II and Korean veterans now get at the Perley, Colonel Belcher, Camp Hill, Ste. Anne's, etc., will eventually be transferred to the provinces.
Would you agree with a statement like that? Modern-day veterans under care will not be allowed access to hospital beds that are paid for by the federal Department of Veterans Affairs. Do you agree with that statement?
12:05 p.m.
Ad Hoc Advisory Group on Special Needs
Funding for long-term care beds and the number of beds are an issue that we have not yet dealt with for the special needs veterans, because most special needs veterans under the new Veterans Charter are 20 years, 30 years, or 40 years of age.
12:10 p.m.
NDP
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
I'm thinking of the peacekeepers, the guys who are now in their late sixties or early seventies.
12:10 p.m.
Ad Hoc Advisory Group on Special Needs
The chances are that if they have pension conditions, it would be the Pension Act, not the new Veterans Charter. As for contract beds or long-term care beds, I've been assured there will be beds, but I don't know who will pay for them.
12:10 p.m.
NDP
12:10 p.m.
Ad Hoc Advisory Group on Special Needs
We had recommended that instead of providing a lump sum up front, they perhaps structure it over the life course, do it as an annuity, as a structured payment, or in lump sums, but smaller lump sums at 25, 30, 35, 40. We provided these recommendations to the department as a way to work around the lump sum legislation, because they're struggling. It's in law; they just can't unilaterally change it. They have to come with a proposal, and they have to be careful not to upset the apple cart from what was voted by all parties. They have to sort of meander through those minefields, so to speak, on how to keep it within the spirit of the law yet provide a service to the veteran.
We have a challenge here. When you look at the numbers, the dollar signs, it's the financial stability. I'm not an old guy yet. But I have an amount deposited in a bank account once a month. It's a roll-up of the kids, the spousal, the attendant's allowance, and my disability pension. It comes in once a month. When I went to get a mortgage, I could prove that I had dollars. Whether you call it an income or a pension or an allowance or an award, there were dollars and they were coming in from the Government of Canada on a monthly basis. You could take it to the bank.
These new guys get a one-time lump sum award. Whether they put it in the bank or lock it in an annuity, when they go to get a mortgage, when they're 30 or 35 years old, they can't prove income. They can prove wealth. They can prove an amount. But it's harder to get things like a mortgage. So there's a fundamental difference between a lump sum versus even a small amount on a monthly basis.
Take a 20-year-old and $276,000. If the 20-year-old lives for 50 years, when you crunch the numbers, get the calculator out, it's not quite the same as getting $25,000 or $30,000 a year for 60 years, where you have the stability, and when you die, you know your spouse will be looked after. Under the new Veterans Charter, when you die, that's it. Your spouse gets CPP and OAS. There's not even a survivor benefit.
So there have been changes. And the lump sum is not working there. There are many examples now of these young guys.... They're single. They're not looking down the road. Let's say they get married 10 years on; they find that special person who will marry them despite their disabilities. They've spent their lump sum award; therefore, now they're even further challenged raising a family on nothing.
And Veterans Affairs—let me give a balance here—has, for the special needs veteran, the permanent incapacity allowance. It's a taxable benefit ranging from $500 to $1,500 a month for life. It doesn't pass over to the spouse upon death, but it's for life. It's taxed—that's fine—but the three degrees of accessing that PIA are very restrictive. So it's possible to be permanently incapacitated, unable to work, and not be able to qualify for PIA.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative