Evidence of meeting #42 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 c-55.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:50 p.m.
First Vice-President, Association du Royal 22e Régiment
In other words, there are so many conditions that nobody understands them, even in the army. They're trying to figure them out. They say it's impossible. They say “We are not administrators. We've been trained to kill. That's it.”
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
We have to move on. We're on the next question, sir, please.
Mrs. Gagnon, please.
3:50 p.m.
Bloc
Christiane Gagnon Bloc Québec, QC
Good afternoon, Mr. Sylvestre and Mr. Renaud.
I am standing in today for my colleague Guy André, who could not be here because of the weather. Nevertheless, you should know that I have been keeping a fairly close watch on this file since my father is, himself, a veteran.
You raised an important point, regarding the eligibility criteria for these benefits. It is always a complex process to determine the nature of the after-effects and the level of severity at which a member is considered to have a disability. The disability can also be psychological, but it seems that type of injury is being overlooked.
You are quite right to be outraged by what the minister is offering. After reading the bill and following the debate in the House of Commons, I would say it is aimed at reintegration. And that is not a bad thing. We need to help young veterans who are able to re-enter the workforce quickly, or somewhat quickly, and give them the tools they need to do so. Needless to say, that will be difficult to achieve for those who are more seriously injured but not enough to be considered 100% disabled.
As you know, we are at the eleventh hour here, because the bill is being passed this afternoon. The Bloc Québécois was anxious to have you appear before the committee to discuss the overall implications of the new measures.
I want to ask you something about the bill. You are aware that we cannot put forward any amendments today as it would require more money. We would need a royal recommendation for that, and we do not have the power to make that kind of amendment. So even though an amendment was moved today, it will not go through, and the bill will pass. It is seen as a step in the right direction, even though it will not solve the whole issue of the pressure being put on parents, spouses and family members. We know it will not really solve anything.
Your testimony today is important because it will enter into the record of the committee and give the minister reason to continue examining the issue. We pushed for action. But the minister would never have come as far as he has. Do you remember initially when he said the new charter was great? I had to have 6,000 people sign a petition to get him to change his mind, and others pressed him as well. And today, we are seeing that there has been a slight shift.
I would like you to speak to the disability criteria again.
You are absolutely right when you say that a 22-year-old will not go very far with $50,000 or $100,000. The parents are the ones who will have to bear the financial burden.
3:55 p.m.
President, Association du Royal 22e Régiment
I do not want to jump all over the minister for the step he took. I said it publicly on Radio-Canada. I even commended him for it. It is a step in the right direction but does little to solve the problem.
It makes for a fine announcement, though, especially when he talks about the $40,000 minimum and throws the other measures in there. The public is not well-informed on the matter. Some veterans jumped on the $40,000 bandwagon, and some even asked me to pipe down, since veterans were going to be getting $40,000. They think we are getting $40,000. What I want to know is where are the veterans with that money. But, of course, that is a normal reaction. Everyone knows it is government money, and that money comes from us. We pay taxes too.
As for the eligibility requirements, you have to be at 120%. I hit a mine in 1952 when I was in the Korean War. I spent 18 days in a coma and 8 months in hospital. I was no more than a piece of meat lying on the ground when they picked me up. It is only by the grace of God that I am alive today.
That is how I know how difficult it is to hit that 100% threshold. It is like catching a shooting star. You have to be eligible.
I saw a young man who lost both his legs, both cut off above the knee.
3:55 p.m.
Bloc
3:55 p.m.
President, Association du Royal 22e Régiment
Based on the assessment, his disability was not even at 100%. What does it take? Should he have lost both arms and legs? The eligibility criteria are very strict to be able to get those amounts of money.
3:55 p.m.
President, Association du Royal 22e Régiment
People who see this in the media only see the extra $1,600 on top of the $1,000, which makes $2,600. And they think that's a great start. But who is going to get that? Not many would be entitled; they certainly would not fill this room.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
I think your colleague would like to respond. You have only about 40 seconds.
3:55 p.m.
First Vice-President, Association du Royal 22e Régiment
Madam, you are talking about rehabilitation. They have been in Afghanistan for about eight years now, right? How many of them would be able to work in the public service? How many are working there now? I don't think any of them work there, because they are not welcome. That’s not right either.
Some of them spend their whole amount. However, others are more reliable and, if we were to offer them a position, as was suggested at the first meeting of the committee, they would be able to earn a living and you wouldn’t be responsible for them. But that is not the case. Could you tell me how many Afghanistan veterans found a job with the public service? I think you would have to look long and hard.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Okay. We move on now to Mr. Stoffer, please, for five minutes.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
Gentlemen, first of all, thank you very much.
Sir, it's a real pleasure to see the liberation medals from the Netherlands on you. Thank you both for your service.
On the $40,000 thing that we've been discussing with my other colleagues, I'm not sure if you're aware, but you don't need Bill C-55 to move the $40,000 amount. You don't need a legislative amendment to do that. You just need a regulatory amendment to do that. So it could be $40,000, it could be $80,000, it could be $100,000, but you don't need Bill C-55 to move that amount. So that's problem number one. And it's unfortunate that Veterans Affairs has indicated that for the $40,000, Bill C-55 has to pass, because they're two different things altogether.
The biggest problem that I have, although the bill is a small step in the right direction, is that the government should have taken a great big leap to assist, because the reality is, according to the Library of Parliament, only 20 severely injured veterans have received the permanent impaired allowance since 2006. Only 20. This bill will probably help a few hundred more, but you and I both know that there are thousands upon thousands of veterans and their families who require assistance in a variety of ways right now. So although this is a small step forward, it is a tiny step.
So I just want to ask you this question. You deal with government all the time and Department of Veterans Affairs officials. Why were they so timid in this legislation, when they could have taken a big leap forward? With all the advice they got from our committee, from veterans groups, from the Gerontological Advisory Council, their own advisory board, of all the recommendations to move the issue of veterans care forward, why do you think they were so timid, in my own opinion, and moved the bar ever so slowly forward?
4 p.m.
First Vice-President, Association du Royal 22e Régiment
Some of them are affected mentally when they come back.
4 p.m.
President, Association du Royal 22e Régiment
It's a political game. They want to show people that they are giving a lot by spending little money. That's politics. They say they are giving a big cake when in reality it is just a small May West.
When they are making announcements, everything seems great. Not all the information is provided. I understand that, in a press conference, you are not supposed to give all the details. We don't say that the disability has to be 100%, that it takes this or that, because then people will say that they aren't giving anything.
I am not criticizing their contributions, but I think it’s not enough. As for introducing a bill and amending it, that should have been done using common sense, by removing the lump sum and continuing with the old system, with pensions and with qualifications. That is quite normal. We know the money comes from the government. We are not asking the government to provide veterans with a living. If they can support themselves, that's great.
I got a law degree and I have practised for 38 years with my infirmities. I would drag myself in. When I was not able to go, I would not go and make up for it with my pension. That's what pension plans are for. Pensions are there to help veterans, not to have them stay home and stare at the moon. The goal is to make up for the deficiencies in their lives, the parts they cannot make up for themselves. But a pittance will not cut it, because there are too many conditions and very few people will receive the money. That's just the way things are.
There are two amounts. There is the $1,609 and a conditional amount. Even if a guy receives the $1,609, that does not mean he will get the other $1,000 in full. Once again, other special and very strict conditions apply to qualify for the $1,000.
When they are announcing it, they say he will receive $1,609 and an extra $1,000 for life. There’s no mention of the conditions for receiving the $1,000.
That is what we are fighting for. In my case, I am entitled to a full pension. I'm not expecting anything else from the government, but I am doing this for my other colleagues who are broke or for the young people who might be homeless in the future if the situation stays the same. They will be like the people living on welfare.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Greg Kerr Conservative West Nova, NS
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I'm going to say very little and let the gentlemen use the rest of the time to speak. I take it from the member for the Sackville—Eastern Shore part of the province that he's going to move an amendment to this. I think we're all in agreement we have to move forward.
So I would like to hear you take the rest of the time to discuss what suggestions you think should be added, if any.
4 p.m.
President, Association du Royal 22e Régiment
Are you asking me to add what I want?
I want the amounts to be more reasonable than the $1,609 and the $1,000. Trying to get the $1,000 is like reaching for a star. So the eligibility criteria should be less strict.
I suggest that the government go back to the previous system. Overall, the New Veterans Charter is not bad. I have examined it from cover to cover since law is my former profession. I am able to go over a bill with a fine-toothed comb and see what it's all about, and so on.
The charter as a whole is good, but not the lump sum, especially when we know it has been done for economic reasons. We buy meat, but human flesh is not for sale.
When people are being sent to combat international terrorism in Afghanistan, I am with them. If I was young, I would go to Afghanistan because it's for a good cause. But if a guy gets hurt, he shouldn't just get a small pittance. He has to receive something more substantial so that he can be reintegrated into society and live like any another person. If he has lost his limbs or part of his head or his mind because of serving abroad, why wouldn't he be entitled to the same system as before? It's an economic reason, pure and simple. It's a lump sum of $200,000 or maybe $300,000.
I did some research. In England, they get $800,000 for the same thing. That's $800,000 in Canadian dollars. If that amount is invested in a good portfolio, you won't be living in the lap of luxury, but you can get by. However, it is not possible to live with $275,000, unless you buy an annuity that will give a good return. Either it won't be for life or the annuity won't be big.
I think the minister has good intentions. We met with him after he was appointed. We met with the ombudsman. He came to Quebec City. I was sitting next to him and we talked as equals. He is just like any other person and I think he has good intentions.
Yet the government as a whole has mishandled the issue or cabinet has rejected it. I don't know, but, in my opinion, the amounts are not reasonable.
The conditions are too strict and the amounts are not sufficient. If the bill is passed, there will be a few dollars more than before for those with more serious injuries and with 100% disability. But the rest won't get anything. There is no icing and there is not even a cake. There's nothing. There are just a few crumbs.
The figure of $40,000 certainly came up in the press conference. But that's just mixing things up. This has nothing to do with the injuries the people suffered in Afghanistan. Keep the charter in its current form, but, in terms of pensions, we should revert to the previous system and assess each soldier's state accordingly. If he is 50% disabled, he will be entitled to a given amount for the rest of his life.
I was injured in 1953. I was in my twenties and I have lived my life with my injuries. I continued to make my way through life. People couldn't see what was underneath my clothes for me to be able to function like another being. My intellectual capacity was good, because I had already finished a classical education when I enlisted in the army. So I was ahead of other soldiers.
I was accepted into university and was able to pursue a higher education, but not all soldiers have the same opportunities. It is not their fault. They can learn a trade. They also need to have all their limbs. If a guy wants to be a welder, a climber or do something in construction and he has two artificial legs, he won't be able to do it. He needs to get reasonable compensation, like any other person.
That's what I think the government should have done. It got on the wrong track with this. It took a step in the right direction, but it's a small step. It's one step in a long flight of stairs. It climbed up one step, but it should have climbed higher. That's what I think. I have gone through it. I have been entitled to a pension for 58 years now. I am familiar with all the twists and turns of the process.
It was not that complicated for me. My file was very thick. When you come in pieces, it is not that complicated to be assessed. It's not like there are a ton of them. There are cases here and there. Guys got killed when they stepped on mines—
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Sir, I think your comrade has a short statement to make, please.
4:05 p.m.
First Vice-President, Association du Royal 22e Régiment
I am talking about the ones who are injured. The media covers all those who die or get killed. But injured veterans are kept in hiding everywhere. In Valcartier, they are kept outside the fence, for example.
I have the following question. Let's say someone in a wheelchair who has to stay home receives the maximum amount. What happens when this person gets older? These are not lifetime pensions. Those who are injured get a lump sum, but when they need help, they have to pay for it themselves. When injured veterans get a large sum, do they have to pay for the help they need?
That could include any assistance they might need at home, for example. After WW2, I had hip surgery. The first time, I got all possible help and equipment at home. But when I had my left hip operation, that was no longer the case.
Some soldiers come back with serious injuries and they can't even walk. You can't give them a job because they are not able to work. But some can work, although they are injured and are missing two legs. They have the education they need. Isn't there a way to recommend that public servants hurry up and eliminate prejudice against veterans? Veterans are not welcome, because they are regarded as people who steal jobs and have large pensions. Public servants are completely against the idea of hiring them, and that's a proven fact.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
I'd like to take this time to thank both of you this afternoon for coming in, and again, thank you for all the service you've given to this country.
We're going to take a very short recess, and then I'll ask the ombudsman to come to the table, please.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Order.
We just have a five-minute session here today with our veterans ombudsman, Guy Parent.
Welcome, sir, and please make your statement.
March 7th, 2011 / 4:10 p.m.
Guy Parent Veterans Ombudsman, Chief Warrant Officer (Retired), Office of the Veterans Ombudsman
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Honourable members of the committee, thank you for allowing me to say a few words today. I know that you have a very full agenda, so I will be brief.
I have followed with great interest the discussions in the House of Commons pertaining to Bill C-55, the act to amend the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act and the Pension Act. As the Veterans Ombudsman, as a veteran myself with 37 years of military service, and as the proud father of a son who has served in the Canadian Forces and in Afghanistan, I am grateful to all members of Parliament for their commitment to do right by veterans and still-serving members of the Canadian Forces.
The men and women who put on the uniform implicitly agree to risk their lives to defend our country and the values that we hold dear. In return, they have the right to expect from their government an integrated series of measures to support them throughout their careers and beyond. This country has a moral obligation to provide the very best support to them—particularly when they sustain career-ending, service-related injuries or illnesses—and to their families, who, in my opinion, do not get sufficient recognition for the sacrifices they make in support of their loved ones' military careers.
There is broad if not unanimous support among parliamentarians, veterans organizations, and others for the spirit of the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act, better known as the new Veterans Charter, in regard to its focus on wellness and transition to civilian life, compensation, and its more holistic approach to the needs of veterans and their families. The new Veterans Charter was seen when it came into force on April 1, 2006, and continues to be characterized as a significant improvement over the Pension Act.
Based on recent discussions on Bill C-55 in the House and elsewhere, I venture to say that this support for the spirit of the New Veterans Charter remains strong. However, there are also questions and concerns about the effectiveness of some of the programs and measures implemented under the charter and there is certainly room for improvement.
Over the past five years, there have been consultations, and sustained efforts by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, the Senate Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs, the New Veterans Charter Advisory Group and other advisory groups, veterans organizations and the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman, to identify shortcomings and improvements.
The New Veterans Charter is complex. Because it was difficult to anticipate in advance its shortcomings or unintended consequences, the government made a commitment to continuously review its programs and services and to amend the legislation, if necessary, to address emerging needs or unanticipated consequences. In this way, the New Veterans Charter was intended to be a “living charter”, and I believe that the principle of a “living charter” is as important as “the spirit of the charter” itself. However, it has taken five years for this principle to become reality.
On November 17, 2010, the Honourable Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Minister of Veterans Affairs, introduced Bill C-55 in the House of Commons, which is now before this committee for review. I urge you to return it to the House for third reading as quickly as possible. Some may view Bill C-55 as modest in scope because it does not address all the shortcomings of the charter, but it is a very important step in setting the precedent to make the charter a truly “living” document, as envisioned by you and your fellow parliamentarians five years ago.
Bill C-55 may not be as comprehensive as some would like, but by passing Bill C-55 you will immediately affect the lives of the most seriously disabled veterans receiving disability benefits under both acts, those who could not receive the permanent impairment allowance or the exceptional incapacity allowance because of a technical flaw in the charter. This change, combined with the introduction of a monthly $1,000 supplement for permanently and severely injured veterans, represents significant improvement.
There is of course much debate about the disability award and whether or not the payment options provided under Bill C-55 go far enough to address the concerns around the lump-sum payment. They don't, but it is important to remember that Bill C-55 is the first opportunity to make changes to the new Veterans Charter; it is not, nor should it be, the last of your opportunities.
The discussion about improvements to the disability award and financial benefits is an extremely important one, and it must continue. The issues raised are complex and, in order to make informed decisions, cannot be reduced to a comparison of the disability award and the disability pension in isolation of the charter's other programs and benefits. It may be that the next series of amendments to the new Veterans Charter will address improvements to the charter's dual compensation approach. That would certainly be consistent with the principle of the charter as a living document.
Bill C-55 is a small but important step in making the charter a living document and bringing about changes to the legislation to better address the needs of Canada's veterans and their families. It should be considered as the beginning of the promised ongoing renewal process that is needed to afford veterans the care they deserve. Other steps must follow, and soon. Waiting another five years to bring about further improvements to the new Veterans Charter would be unacceptable.
Thank you.