Veterans Affairs Committee on April 22nd, 2010

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

For me to put the testimony of the witness into context, it is, frankly, important for me to understand where that is coming from. I understand the Legion's independence. It is well known to all of us and it has been well stated. The office of the ombudsman is less clear. That's why, for me to understand the testimony, I think it's a very fair question, and I'm pleased with the ombudsman's answer. That's not a problem.

But I think it is defensive of the government members, perhaps, to be worried about this, so I would like that on the record as well. The defensiveness, I think, is more concerning to me than the clarification that we are trying to ascertain the nature of the evidence that he is presenting.

With respect to that, does your term have an end point?

[Col Patrick Stogran]

Mr. Chair, my first mandate comes due on November 11 of this year. I'm anticipating that won't be the end date.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Allard, thank you for your presentation. What is helpful for me is that you're pointing out to me—I just want to clarify—that the aims and ambitions of the new Veterans Charter are generally agreed to by the veterans' organizations, as well as the Legion, which presented today, but the problems in its implementation seem to be profound. Is that a fair characterization?

[Pierre Allard]

I think that would be a fair characterization. Yes.

We are concerned about the implementation. We are concerned about promises that have been made about this living charter concept. We are concerned that it's just taking too much time to come to some rational conclusions.

We are afraid that we're going to see the same trend that we saw with the Gerontological Advisory Council report Keeping the Promise, which was trying to simplify the eligibility criteria grids for the health benefits. That came to naught. We now see a report that is in front of the minister, and we would expect that the minister would give us a reply, would give us at least an analysis of some of the issues that we have brought forward.

Some of this work is going on in internal audits. We're worried that they're not coming to the right conclusions when they're looking at these programs. You know, rebranding something from “job placement” to “career transition services” is nonsensical when the success rate is 3% in placing people in jobs, which was the initial objective of this program. Let's focus on what's important: the economic loss benefits, which are too low; the disability award, which is too low; and the fact the disability award is provided as a lump sum when sometimes it should be provided sequentially.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Allard.

Thank you, Mr. Oliphant.

Mr. Vincent, you have seven minutes.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Allard, earlier you talked about placement. I want to pick up on that.

Few people have been able to find a job after taking part in a military program. How can we make sure they find a job after training?

[Pierre Allard]

The problem has to do with duplication. There is some duplication in terms of employment assistance programs. Veterans Affairs Canada has a program, and the Canadian Forces has another. These programs help people find employment and make the transition from military to civilian life.

Clearly, Veterans Affairs Canada's program does not have the objectives we would like. When you look at the programs of the Canadian Forces, you see that discussions with prospective employers have already taken place for the exact purpose of finding jobs. The way I see it, all of this throws into question the objectives and results that were established when the programs were implemented. Why the duplication?

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Do you think it would be easier for these people to find employment? Mr. Stogran told us earlier that it was similar to a situation involving an industrial accident. It can be compared to the situation of people who have suffered an industrial accident. If, after experiencing an industrial accident, they want to find a new job that requires training, they have to find that training themselves and consequently their own employment. If it is a low-paying job, at $10, $12 or $13 an hour, the CSST will pay the difference between their wage prior to the accident and the new one.

Do you think that would make it easier to help them find employment?

[Pierre Allard]

I think you also need to consider the objective from another standpoint. There are those who have suffered serious injuries, whether physical or psychological. And despite every attempt to help them reintegrate into society, there is a strong possibility that they may not be capable of doing the job, of embarking on a career other than the one they originally chose.

What measures are there to help these people? There is the lump sum, or the earnings loss benefits program—the name escapes me in French—which provides compensation—

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

—at 75% of their salary.

[Pierre Allard]

—at 75% of their salary. That amount is too low. It was determined based on the salary of a private, the lowest rank in the Canadian Forces, and those individuals with severe injuries, who cannot find employment—

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Is the percentage of the salary not based on the person's number of years of service in the Canadian Forces? It is different for someone with one, five or ten years of service. Therefore, it is not possible to establish a minimum salary, as you said.

[Pierre Allard]

Most of the people with serious injuries—especially those in Afghanistan right now—are not those in the highest ranking positions. They are not majors or lieutenant-colonels.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

What is the average salary?

[Pierre Allard]

The average salary is very low for these people.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

How much then? $50,000? $60,000? At $30,000, that is not even the minimum salary.

[Pierre Allard]

$40,000.

And if they receive their benefits through an IPSC—another program, the insurance program—the compensation provided by Veterans Affairs Canada is deducted from their IPSC benefits. There again, you have duplication.

Why have both programs, when you need one that is more structured?

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

There are two programs because one is for those who are still in the Canadian Forces, and the other is for veterans who have made a claim. Take, for example, someone who leaves the Canadian Forces and who, three years later, realizes that their level of post-traumatic stress is higher and so files a claim. That person is then subject to the other charter.

[Pierre Allard]

In those cases, the person may receive an increase in their lump-sum payment, in their disability award, but they will not receive an adjustment equivalent to 75% of their salary. That is what we are talking about here. Is 75% enough? No. Does the 75% program do the same thing as another SISIP program? Yes.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

That is clearer. Now I understand.

Mr. Stogran, according to your annual report last year, for 2008-2009, you had difficulty collecting information. It had to do with unlimited access in terms of the veterans charter analysis. Was there an improvement? Is it better? Do you have more information on that?

Furthermore, as you know, there is a review and appeal board that hears cases. Should the board's decisions—we know it is an administrative board that holds public hearings—be made public? That is the case with all boards in Quebec. All decisions are available on the Internet. This would make it possible to see the case law that the panel relied on in making its decisions. As things stand now, we have no insight into that. We do not know how the panel comes to its decisions. In my view, it is not just you, Mr. Ombudsman, who should have access to that information, but the public as well. It would help in terms of making submissions and seeing what was said in previous cases.

[Col Patrick Stogran]

Mr. Chair, regarding the sharing of information, it's still problematic; however, we are making inroads with the department. We're in the process now of creating a memorandum of understanding with respect to the sharing of information.

Regarding the transparency of the tribunal, Mr. Chair, one of the hallmarks that I established for our office from day one was transparency. I believe that complete and total transparency for any arm of government is a very useful thing, especially in the case of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Stoffer.

Thank you, Mr. Vincent.

I just want to clarify with regard to your answer to Mr. Vincent. The MOU that you're talking about, is that for privacy purposes?

[Col Patrick Stogran]

No, Mr. Chair. We don't have any power to compel the department to provide us with information regarding such things as homelessness, so we came to an understanding that in order for me to have any credibility as an ombudsman there will be a sharing of information, within certain restrictions, which we'll agree to in advance.

But we will preserve privacy and act in accordance with the Privacy Act, and any security of information will be preserved, as will our own level of confidentiality. I hope that answers your question.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

That was what I was concerned about. Thank you very much.

Mr. Stoffer, for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much, gentlemen, for coming.

I want to focus my comments mostly on the facts of the long-term health benefits for World War II and Korean War veterans, and those modern-day veterans, and those that fall under the charter.

We were at Ste. Anne's Hospital the other week and noticed one of the wings was closed because of lack of clientele. The reality is that we have many post-World War II and Korean War veterans who unfortunately are in their late seventies now and don't have access to these beds because of the current regulation.

Colonel Stogran, you indicated that World War II and Korean War veterans have access to those beds, but the reality is that not all of them have access to those beds. They have to meet pretty strict criteria, which I've always found rather unfortunate, because they basically classify who gets in and who doesn't.

So that's my first question for you, sir. With the rapid decline of our World War II and Korean War heroes because of the aging process--I think figures show that we lose anywhere from 90 to 100 a day in this country--and that of the RCMP veterans, wouldn't it make at least compassionate sense that these modern-day veterans, post-1953, should have access to long-term beds like those at Camp Hill, the Perley, Ste. Anne's, etc., etc.?

I say that because yesterday we got a news release from London, Ontario, that Parkwood is shutting down 36 beds in the fall and 36 more next year. That's 72 beds that will be gone, and people will be laid off. This is happening right across the country. My fear is that when the last Korean War veteran dies, there will be no types of beds like this for veterans, and that in a pseudo-sense, basically, the government would be transferring that responsibility onto the backs of the provinces. I'd like both of you to comment, please. I do thank you both very much for that.

I have one slight statement on this. With regard to the delay, Mr. Allard, of the report from the aging council back from DVA, I agree with you that you should have had a response by now. But in fairness to the department, they have just received a new minister, Jean-Pierre Blackburn. Is part of the delay possibly to give the minister a chance to get up to speed on this particular problem before a comprehensive response is sent to you? I just say that in fairness to the department.

Thank you.