Evidence of meeting #71 for Veterans Affairs in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was changes.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:40 a.m.
NDP
Sylvain Chicoine NDP Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank all of the witnesses for having come here to share their positions with us.
I would like to know if all of you have studied the proposed amendments. Do you have any concerns regarding any part of the wording in the bill that is being submitted to us today, or are you in complete agreement with it?
9:40 a.m.
President, Canadian Veterans Advocacy
I think there's a problem in one sense that we haven't identified, and that is the inclusion of war pensions from other nations. By definition, these war pensions are identical to the Veterans Affairs Canada award. Those pensions are allocated for pain and suffering, yet they are still included in the criteria when veterans are approaching through the means test or whatnot. We don't think this should be included. If they are pensions for pain and suffering, not income replacement, they should have no bearing on an income replacement or income-based criteria.
9:40 a.m.
NDP
Sylvain Chicoine NDP Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC
I would like to ask the other witnesses if they have any concerns or any comments they would like to have taken into account, or whether the text of the bill suits them.
9:40 a.m.
President, Aboriginal Veterans Autochtones
As I was sitting here earlier, when the member from Veterans Affairs was here...I understand clearly what the proposal is. I understand it's the World War II vets and the Korean War vets, and now my colleague here is bringing up the other issue. But as the issue sits right now, I understand it completely and I do support it on behalf of the World War II vets and our Korean War vets, of which we have a number.
In that context, I also have to agree with Mr. Blais regarding what's going to happen on the front with our veterans of today. Is this something that is part of this committee's commitment under this proposed legislation? I don't know. That's something I can't answer. Only you, Mr. Chair, can answer it for me.
9:45 a.m.
NDP
Sylvain Chicoine NDP Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC
Thank you.
Mr. Blais, you referred vaguely to expectations regarding retroactive payments. No decision has yet been made on that.
I would like each one of the groups to tell me what their expectations are concerning retroactive payments and what this represents to their members. No decision has been made yet. This whole issue is rather vague. I would like you to come back to that and tell us precisely what your expectations are, and what would be acceptable to the groups you represent.
9:45 a.m.
President, Canadian Veterans Advocacy
I think our expectations are very clear, and they have been established by the judge in the SISIP ruling. We have a government. God bless them, they want to harmonize with this legal decision. But harmonization must be complete. We can't cherry-pick through the issues we'd like to present, i.e., such as that we'll start the payments as of this date with no retroactivity, but if we're harmonizing to a program where retroactivity has been accorded, where the dignity has been accorded, we're creating a level where there are two standards. That's not acceptable to us. We believe that one veteran, one standard, should be the principle for all foundations through Veterans Affairs Canada.
We believe it is discriminatory, first of all, to exclude modern veterans, those who served in the Cold War. It would also be discriminatory were we to have a different policy for ELB or war pensioners' allowance when the government's primary objective is to harmonize these two programs with the SISIP decision. We expect full retroactivity—no more, no less.
9:45 a.m.
NDP
Sylvain Chicoine NDP Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC
Thank you.
Mr. Blais, in your opening statement, you also talked about your concerns regarding age-related criteria. I would like you to tell us more about that. This concern you mentioned is not entirely clear to me. You spoke about this briefly and I would like you to expand upon it.
9:45 a.m.
President, Canadian Veterans Advocacy
Certainly.
We have a situation now where through the ELB and the SISIP program the government has correctly, I believe, identified a threshold that provides for the basic dignity of life, that being food, shelter, and clothing.
Once this threshold has been identified, it must be applied through all harmonized projects, or so we believe. If we have this harmonization of a standard of poverty threshold, for lack of a better description, of $40,000, then that $40,000 criterion should be applied during the war pensioners' allowance application process. Many people are living well below that. By definition, they're applying for this war pensioners' allowance, and as such, many are being denied.
This carries over to the Last Post burial fund too—$12,000 is a ridiculous.... No one sitting at this table expects a veteran to live a productive and dignified life earning $12,000 a year. It's not possible. Nor can we expect him to save money for a dignified burial.
I believe this harmonization of the poverty threshold must be applied equally to all programs that are being harmonized.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Greg Kerr
Thank you very much, Mr. Blais.
Now Mr. Zimmer, for five minutes, please.
May 21st, 2013 / 9:45 a.m.
Conservative
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC
Thank you for coming today.
Recognizing all the veterans in the room who have served our country so well, I thank you for your service.
Mr. Black, I want to ask you a few questions first.
I'd like to say, first of all, that my son is in the air cadets. I've said this often before this committee. He's envious of what you've had to do in your life or what you've been able to do in your life. So again, thank you for your service.
I just want to speak specifically to long-term care. With what we've talked about in the BIA and what we're talking about in the amendments, from what I understand more than 2,000 veterans in long-term care will receive a greater subsidy for their care.
On account of this, do you think that all parties should move quickly to pass the legislation? What is the incentive, at the end, to pass this as quickly as possible?
9:50 a.m.
Executive Director, Air Force Association of Canada
Well, I believe the incentive is to answer the needs that have been articulated out there, and to add to the importance of dignity of life as veterans approach the end of their lives.
We have not received any specific observations from our veterans, and I don't want to speak for other veterans' representatives here, but I can only think that it's a positive response, and a necessary one.
The economic situation changes, and the conditions under which veterans continue to try to live change; the challenges are greater with each passing day. So I can only say that those changes to which you refer have to be considered as positive.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC
Mr. Thibeau, I heard you talking in your opening statement about how you're an advocate for veterans. On this committee, whether we're government or opposition, I think we'd all consider ourselves to be advocates for veterans. We have a job to do, and this is legislative, but we advocate for you, and I think the actions are being played out in this with that effect. I would like to just start off with that.
And thank you for being an advocate as well.
With the amendments that we discussed—and you have talked to them specifically—would you say the changes we've talked about here, such as the Last Post one, doubling the amount, and especially the allowance, are supported by veterans in your organization?
9:50 a.m.
President, Aboriginal Veterans Autochtones
I'm going to speak on behalf of Chief Percy Joe at this time, because I feel that the first nations group has probably been the one that's been affected more by some of the discriminatory practices of years and years gone by.
I spoke to Chief Percy Joe last night—and I apologize to the committee, Mr. Chair, for not having all this information available. I was informed last Wednesday of the meeting here today. I did as much research as I could, and I also spoke to an advocate of first nations. Chief Percy Joe is the grand chief of his band, but he's also the president of the First Nations Veterans. Some of the issues that have been brought out that I'd like to bring out...and this is from a phone call last night at midnight, when I spoke to Chief Percy Joe. I really feel that the first nations issue has failed to be dealt with appropriately over the past, and it continues up to the present.
Returning aboriginal veterans from World War II and Korea were not treated the same as the counterparts they served with and fought alongside. An individual who joined the military had to enfranchise, and when some of those people came back, they were no longer Indians by the definition of Parliament. Aboriginals found in some cases that they had lost their status as Indians, and those returning to the reserve did not receive the benefits that non-aboriginals received under the land compensation act. The land given to natives was land that was already on the reserve. In other words, the land didn't belong to that person; it belonged to that band or that council.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC
Mr. Thibeau, can I...?
I completely respect the topic you're discussing, but I guess specifically today we're talking about the BIA and about the war allowance—we're talking about those specific amendments. I guess I was asking you whether your organization supported those amendments as stated.
9:50 a.m.
President, Aboriginal Veterans Autochtones
Yes, we do support them, as well as First Nations Veterans of Canada, if I can speak on their behalf.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC
I probably have 30 seconds or less, so this is the last question. Were these two issues the top two issues for your organizations prior to their being addressed in the legislation? Were these the top two, or would they be among the top two?
9:55 a.m.
President, Aboriginal Veterans Autochtones
I would have to say no, they weren't.
9:55 a.m.
Executive Director, Air Force Association of Canada
I would agree with that. No, I don't believe they were among the top two.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
9:55 a.m.
Liberal
Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to pick up on Mr. Zimmer's last question. If these issues weren't in the top two for your organizations, what are they? If the Government of Canada were to address the two most serious grievances facing your organization, what would they be?
9:55 a.m.
President, Aboriginal Veterans Autochtones
For the aboriginal veterans, we're looking at the points that Mr. Blais brought up regarding today's veterans. Again, we certainly agree, because we also sit on the Legion consultation board, that one veteran equals one veteran. A veteran is a veteran is a veteran.
We are trying to get away from the distinction...and one of the points I'm trying to raise here in that earlier talk about first nations is the fact that there has been a discriminatory act against aboriginals in the military.
I'll give you one short example. In DND they say there are about 4% aboriginals. That's 4% of the people who self-identify. That's not the case. There are more than 4%. So we're trying to get that pride back as well.
But the top issues on the table right now are dealing with the issues of today's veterans.