Evidence of meeting #11 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 recommendations.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I'm not used to Mr. Stoffer and the chair being so confrontational with each other.
Mr. Marshall, thank you for coming forward. Before I get into my rounds of questioning, at the end you were talking with Mr. Stoffer about some of the legislative changes that have come about that have come from recommendations from your organization or other organizations you represent.
What are some of the other legislative changes you've seen in the last few years?
11:40 a.m.
Chair, Gerontological Advisory Council
The expansion in eligibility for the VIP for home delivered services. It was a long story. The department offered home care in two jurisdictions as an alternative to people on very long waiting lists. Perley was one of them, and I forget the other one. Then when it came time, they said they would go on the home care program. Six or eight months later they'd be told they could get this nursing home bed now; it was waiting for them. They thanked them and said they were doing just fine.
That exercise was expanded within legislative authorities, and then finally the legislative authorities were changed to enhance that, which is good. It takes the pressure off the waiting lists for nursing home beds.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
Absolutely.
That's an example of some of the legislative changes that you've seen made.
11:40 a.m.
Chair, Gerontological Advisory Council
I have to say, we never know how much was due to us or whether it would have happened anyway. We'd like to think we have had something to do with it.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
I do appreciate your comments about the Epp report, a very good report that was done by the former member for Provencher.
I want to start out my questioning by saying that I agree with you that we do have a responsibility to the men and women of the Canadian Forces and the RCMP, who put on their uniforms and serve our country day in and day out. That responsibility has to continue after they've been injured on the job one way or another. As you said, though, operational stress issues come up years later, oftentimes after the member has left the forces and doesn't even realize they have it.
One of the things I've seen and encountered in my riding several times is members who leave the forces, who are employed in another field, and they start having family problems. They come to realize they have PTSD or other forms of operational stress disorder. It's at that point in time that they really run into the wall, if I can say so. I'm sure you've experienced many of these cases as well. It seems to me that they no longer fit within DND, or the family no longer fits within the military family resource centre and all the other outlets that were there for them.
I was reading some of your recommendations. Could you put on the record some of the recommendations your committee made to make this process a better process?
11:40 a.m.
Chair, Gerontological Advisory Council
Are you talking about the new Veterans Charter advisory committee?
11:40 a.m.
Chair, Gerontological Advisory Council
Yes, good.
I anticipated that question a bit, but you'd better tweak me one more time. I'm sorry.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
No problem.
For example, I have a gentleman in my riding who spent 20 years in the Canadian armed forces. He spent about 10 years outside of the forces in private business. He was diagnosed with PTSD, but he no longer goes through DND or Veterans Affairs. At the end of the day, it's dealt with through an insurance company that has its own profit/loss margin it's looking to protect, and its own doctors, who do a fairly good job of protecting that. It creates red tape after red tape for these men and women, as well as their families, because their families oftentimes no longer have the resources they would have when one of them was in the military.
11:40 a.m.
Chair, Gerontological Advisory Council
Maybe it's not given much prominence, but in Honouring Our Commitment, the new Veterans charter advisory group makes the point that there does not seem to be the authority to keep track of veterans. Why shouldn't it be a permanent account, so to speak, that's there? Even if someone has just been discharged, there should be a way to monitor who's out there and some ease in getting back into the system. That would facilitate things.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
I would even go a step forward and say that if a military doctor afterwards diagnoses the individual with PTSD, then it is our responsibility to look after him. The onus should not be on him to prove to 15 more sets of doctors that he actually has that condition. That's what I'm looking for.
Also, the definition of family in some of your recommendations is very ambiguous--within the charter. How would you envision expanding that definition?
11:45 a.m.
Chair, Gerontological Advisory Council
The definition of family has been debated by the Gerontological Advisory Council and the new Veterans Charter advisory group. It is true that both reports are a little ambiguous about the family. It's maybe one of those things that's dangerous to define. I'm thinking of the U.S. context, where there is the “don't ask, don't tell” policy. The situation is very inflammatory in some circles, for example. Canadians are much more at ease about things like that.
The family, though, clearly includes spouses, whether in a formal legal arrangement or consistent partners. In our Honouring Our Commitment report, it includes children, but it may also include parents, for example.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
Exactly.
I believe in-laws are included as well, right?
11:45 a.m.
Chair, Gerontological Advisory Council
But to go back to the point just prior to that, there is this idea of needs-based rather than eligibility-based criteria. If you are a veteran and if you've ever worn the uniform and put your life at risk and you have issues or problems you need help with, you should be able to get it. You shouldn't have to go through a complex... Say you're 86 years old and you are having terrible problems with your back from riding a tank in Sicily in 1943. You shouldn't have to do that. If you're a veteran, you should be taken care of.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
Even these guys who are 56 years old, quite frankly--
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
The other part I want to give you a chance to answer is on the expectations. I don't think a lot of people realize--
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
--the next Chief of the Defence Staff is probably a private right now in the Canadian Forces. We have that general upward mobility throughout our Canadian Forces. There is an expectation that if you spend 20 years in the army, you're going to move along, but it seems there is a gap in the charter, so that these guys get frozen in at the level at which they get in.
11:45 a.m.
Chair, Gerontological Advisory Council
They get frozen in, say, as a private.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
Yes. Could you expand on the importance of that a little?
April 29th, 2010 / 11:45 a.m.
Chair, Gerontological Advisory Council
I have two books on life course sociology. One is called Restructuring Work and the Life Course, in fact. This is the life course principle in action here. The committee has recommended--also, you should start at the level of a corporal, because a private is not a lot.
It seems to me that if someone was willing to serve their country and in the course of doing so developed an injury, that person should just be taken care of. They shouldn't have to pay any financial benefit. These various programs in their complexity may pay 75%, but it's taxable now, so it piles up.
There is this principle in the life course called cumulative advantage and disadvantage. It's called the Matthew effect, from the Bible. To those who have much, much is given; for those who have little, little is given. It really suggests that's what happens, and there's evidence of it. Over the life course, it's as though the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. If you could intervene earlier, you could stop this fall into greater poverty.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
I'm sorry, we are way over time right now. We have time for half a round of questioning for the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party, and the Bloc. You each have five minutes. Then hopefully our witnesses will arrive; they landed a little while ago and are making their way here.
We will go to the Liberal Party for five minutes. Go ahead, Madam Crombie.