Veterans Affairs Committee on March 23rd, 2010

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

So the definition of an offset then is not clear. There's a list as opposed to a definition.

[André Bouchard]

That's correct.

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

The list is such that it could include things that could be reasonably understood to be pain and suffering, benefit or income. There could be some vagueness.

[André Bouchard]

Yes. The policy as it is written does not make a distinction like the CPP or the CFSA. It's all classified under a list of reductions. In the broad sense, it's classified as being essentially benefits. Some of it is also income; the CFSA is income.

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

But a CPP disability award for dismemberment would not offset an award for PTSD. Are those separate or combined?

[André Bouchard]

With respect to SISIP, it doesn't matter for what reason the CPP is being received. If someone is in receipt of CPP disability, it is part of the list of offsets under the policy, so it would be reduced from the 75%.

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

So SISIP then is essentially filling the holes where other programs are not covering, but it's the first claim.

[André Bouchard]

That's right. We're kind of considered a last payer, but in fact we pay first. We will pay upfront 75% of benefits at the time of the member's release. Then the member signs a statement of understanding that should they get benefits from CPP, the Pension Act, or earned income, they have to report this, and then the 75% will be adjusted accordingly.

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

Thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you very much, Mr. Bouchard.

Now on to the Bloc Quebecois.

Monsieur André, pour sept minutes.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Good morning. I am very pleased that you are here this morning with us. It is always interesting to have witnesses to help us understand the New Veterans Charter that we are currently examining here in the committee.

I have a question for each of the representatives. Of course, I would first like to ask Mr. Kettle a question if my colleague can let him work a little bit.

Mr. Kettle, your role is to offer spiritual and also psychological support to military personnel and veterans, who have sometimes been involved in very difficult missions.

Could you talk to me a little bit about how fragile the people you meet with can be, as a result of their difficult military missions and the increasingly common problem of post-traumatic stress syndrome? We have some statistics on this. Last week, we were told that one out of every eight soldiers was dealing with PTSD. I would like your comments on that.

[BGen D.C. Kettle]

Unfortunately, I will have to give my answer in English. It is a bit too technical for me to explain in the language of Molière.

First of all, because of the way we train our soldiers, sailors, and air personnel today, the training is so real that we've been able to reduce a lot of the trauma that our troops are facing, simply because they have anticipated the kinds of environment and threats they would be up against. However, in my opinion, there's still going to be far too large a number of our troops who are traumatized by the toxic environment they find themselves in, for example, in places like Afghanistan.

To respond to your question, our troops are not as susceptible to the trauma they are facing as they were in the past. We're endeavouring to make training more and more realistic and are preparing our soldiers, sailors, and air personnel properly so that we reduce the amount of post-traumatic stress disorder we'll be facing.

However, we have no idea right now what the delta is. It will be in years to come that we will see what the challenge is. We're hoping it's not going to be too high.

Did that answer your question, sir?

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Basically, you are saying that by anticipating the difficult situations that young people, who are often 18, 19 or 20, may have to face, the post-traumatic stress related to operations on the ground can be reduced.

[BGen D.C. Kettle]

The other aspect is, of course, excellence in leadership. Often PTSD is a product of soldiers, sailors, and air personnel feeling they're not properly led. We certainly have solved that riddle.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

That is not necessarily what I have heard before, but that is your answer, and I respect it.

Mr. Bouchard, our Liberal colleague asked a question about the Veterans Charter. The current system is to provide a lump sum payment instead of a monthly allowance, as was done under the former charter. I have some questions about that.

I am thinking about these young people, who are 18, 19 or 20. I have met military personnel who were preparing to leave for Afghanistan. It is always surprising to see how young they are. One of the slogans used to attract young people to the Canadian Forces is "No life like it." But once they are in the field, they realize that it isn't necessarily the greatest life. And sometimes accidents happen.

I am wondering about the lump sum payments. Some young military members who are 22 or 23 and going through a difficult period or suffering from a stress disorder are receiving this kind of one-time payment. In some cases, they spend the money too quickly, so they can kick up their heels or escape from their problems. It is sort of part of getting back to civilian life, if I understand correctly. As a result, parents and loved ones end up supporting them. I would like your comments on that.

[André Bouchard]

I believe that Colonel Blais would be in a better position to answer your question.

[Colonel Gerry Blais, Director, Casualty Support Management, Department of National Defence]

My role within the Canadian Forces is as Director of Casualty Support Management. So I am responsible for all the programs and services provide by the Canadian Forces that are not health care services as such.

I am also the commander of the new casualty support units that have been established across the country. So I am in charge of a large number of young people who have been wounded. To answer your question, I would say that it does happen in a number of cases. It is difficult for these young people to manage that amount of money, especially when they return, since many of them have physical injuries and do not know that they are also suffering from emotional problems. I think that is quite natural when people have experienced traumatic events of this kind. In many cases, whether because they are young or they have been involved in very serious incidents, they are not capable of managing the money.

That said, we are currently in discussions with people at Veterans Affairs Canada. We are reviewing a number of mechanisms to find a solution, even if it applies only to very serious cases. For those who suffer a back injury or a knee injury in the course of their regular duties, the lump sum payment may not be a problem. On the other hand, in the critical cases that you are talking about, for example, when someone loses both legs—these young people have their whole lives in front of them and may live for another 50 years or more—we may need to look at mechanisms that are a bit more flexible than what we have right now, I agree.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Blais.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Do you have any idea—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. André, I'm sorry. Your time is up. Thank you.

Now we'll go on to Mr. Stoffer, for five minutes.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I apologize for being late. I was just leaving another committee where veterans and RCMP personnel were talking about health benefits.

First of all, I want to offer our sincere condolences on the loss of a soldier in Edmonton yesterday, who succumbed to his injuries. It is never a good day in Canada when you lose one of your heroes. I offer my condolences to all who wear the uniform.

Sir, my first question is on the SISIP. I know you can't comment on the Supreme Court case, but I just want to remind you and this committee that it was this committee, the Senate committee, and two DND ombudsmen, plus the House vote in Parliament, that said to fix this problem and get it resolved. Unfortunately, these veterans have had to go to the Supreme Court of Canada to acknowledge that. I know you can't comment on it. But I just find it rather disturbing that these men and women who served our country have to go to the courts, after Parliament and various committees of Parliament and the Senate recommended--not unanimously, but they recommended--in most cases, getting this thing fixed. I find it quite sad.

That is not my question for you. You mentioned the reductions. Call me crazy, but I have met a tremendous number of disabled RCMP veterans and military personnel who were not forced out of the service but were medically released out of the service. They require all kinds of things, from physiotherapy to psychological training to prescription drugs, and so on, for them and their families. This is when they need those additional funds the most, yet we take them back.

Those are government regulations, not necessarily yours, but I find it rather disturbing that we would take money back from them when they need it most. They are getting this amount of money from over here, but now they are getting that, so this has to go back over here. It is as frustrating as hell for them when they have to do this.

What is even more frustrating is that at age 65, a lot of that stops. They go on reduced CPP, and they lose even more money, and that's when they need the additional funds the most.

I would like your comment on that. What would you recommend? I realize there is a cost to this, but at the end of the day, the men and women who wear the uniform and the military RCMP have unlimited liability. We, as parliamentarians, have the ultimate responsibility of meeting their needs all the way to and including the headstone. Wouldn't you agree?

[André Bouchard]

I would agree, but it's difficult for me to comment on what it should be. As I've mentioned, we work with the policy within a very specific framework and this is what we have to live with. This should not be the Government of Canada's policy with respect to those things.

Is it the right construct or not? There are always ways to improve any policies we have, and at any given time we make representations to improve the SISIP policy. One of the latest improvements we have made to this policy was last year. We made the Treasury Board submission and the Government of Canada agreed after to pay 100% of the premium, as opposed to the members, for all conditions attributable to military service. This was quite significant.

Another such improvement we made to the policy was in December 1999, when we made a submission and asked the Treasury Board to approve that anyone who was being released for medical reasons be entitled to SISIP LTD. So they don't have to fight for it. The fact that you're being released for a medical condition means this entitlement is there for up to 24 months. There are no ifs or buts. You're being medically released and you have this entitlement.

You're right. We always look at ways to improve it. I believe you mentioned the CPP, which stems from Bill C-201, and it has nothing to do with SISIP. But you're right that it is an offset when we get to age 65 and the Canadian Forces pension is reduced by this amount. It is essentially the construct of all of the various plans, and more so on an insurance platform. That's the way they're being constructed.

If I can go back to 1969, when SISIP was implemented, it was strictly for life insurance, long-term disabilities, and for conditions not attributable to military service. It meant that anyone who received a monthly Pension Act benefit could not apply for SISIP LTD. So they were out of the process.

Once we realized, between 1969 and 1976, that maybe some of those members were getting a very little pension amount under the Pension Act, a submission was made and was approved to include this group of people as part of the LTD group. The conditions that prevailed at that time was that we agreed that you would include this group, but the amount received as a monthly pension would become an offset. That's how it came about. That group was excluded initially and then they were included.

There is all kinds of historical background with respect to the monthly Pension Act amount and how it came about. First of all, in 1971, those who were serving in special duty areas.... This is not only from Bill C-41 in 2000, when those members could receive their monthly Pension Act amount while serving. There was a group from 1971 onwards who weren't allowed to receive this monthly Pension Act benefit if they had served in the special duty area. In 2000, when Bill C-41 was enacted, it provided this benefit to all other serving members, to all other CF personnel. At that point, anyone who had a condition that was attributable to service, although they were receiving a monthly pension, they could receive their pension while they were serving. We know the consequences of this. There was the 2003 ombudsman's report that said, in light of all of this, it's unfair treatment.

I cannot comment on the fairness of this process, but I can say that the premium structure of the SISIP LTD was based on the fact that there are reductions, like the Pension Act, the CPP, the CFSA, and monthly income. All of those are built actuarially into the pricing structure of the SISIP LTD.

It's a long-winded explanation, but there's lots of background that goes into this.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Bouchard and Mr. Stoffer. You're way over time, Mr. Stoffer.

I'm now on to Mr. Kerr for seven minutes.

[Greg Kerr, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

I was prepared to listen to you. I've always thought you were crazy like a fox, and you know that.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!