Veterans Affairs Committee on May 21st, 2013

[Dean Black]

None of the issues that have arisen have been articulated by veterans, members of the Air Force Association. As I indicated in my opening remarks, we defer to the Royal Canadian Legion. With over 300,000 members they tend to have an ear to more voices. The veterans that our organization serves are particularly quiet on most of this stuff. They don't seem to be as affected.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Blais, I know very well the issues that your organization advances. For the benefit of those here, if the two biggest issues facing veterans today were addressed, what would they be?

[Michael Blais]

A lump-sum award has to be the priority for all veterans organizations and veterans advocates who are sitting here. We have young men who have been viciously wounded, suffering mental and physical calamities, who have been forced by this government to turn to the courts for justice. What do they want? They want the same level of justice that was provided to World War II and Korean War veterans. They're not asking for anything more. This has to be the priority. Discussion and dialogue must start on this issue shortly.

We all know that there are different opinions. The Legion wants a lump-sum award. Other organizers want this. Older fellas want the lump-sum award because they're experiencing hearing loss. The point is, without dialogue, without addressing these issues, it will always remain the number one issue. Those people who have lost legs, who have lost their souls, who have lost their minds, are making it the number one issue.

The second important issue is the way we're treating our widows under the New Veterans Charter. There is a discriminatory standard there. They are not being provided the care and comfort that this nation owes to people who have sacrificed so much.

Third, long-term disability is becoming an important issue. As we've noticed through the Sunnybrook situation, the federal government really does not have the oversight required to ensure that the quality of life for these veterans is upheld. The provincial government is now paying for those beds. They're responsible for long-term care, and there is somewhat of a disconnect here. This situation is brewing at Sunnybrook, and you'll hear about it later this week in the news.

Where do I go, as an advocate? I've turned to the Minister of Veterans Affairs in good faith. God bless them: they've launched an audit and things were done, but things haven't been fixed. Here we are in a situation where those veterans who are in the dementia ward, those veterans who need the most care, are still sitting in their soiled diapers for way too long, still eating food that's mush, because it hasn't been served to them quick enough. We have an obligation. Where that obligation takes us is something this committee has to decide, especially on long-term care, now that the downloading has been completed and there is this grey zone.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

I want to ask you about clawbacks. This partially addresses clawbacks, but old age security, relief, and employment assistance from the department are still subject to deduction, even after these changes are made. What is your reaction to that, Mr. Blais?

[Michael Blais]

I think that's unfair. The reality is, veterans are confronting very serious financial discord when they reach the age of 65. There's a bridging clawback, a loss of their long-term disability benefits, whether it be ELB or SISIP. There's a loss of CPP. There are serious issues that will have a profound impact on their lives. This is something that we discussed at the ombudsmen consultations a couple of weeks ago. What happens to these guys after they're 65? Does our obligation end just because they've reached retirement age? I think it does not. I would suggest that we have to take effective measures to ensure that the basic $40,000 poverty threshold is met.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Thank you very much.

Mr. O'Toole for five minutes, please.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to echo the comments of Mr. Zimmer and thank you all for your service and your presentations here today.

I'm going to ask only two of you questions. I feel as an ex-air force guy I should ask the air force guy a question. But unfortunately, Mr. Black, I'm going to focus on the other witnesses.

Mr. Thibault, you've referred to the first nations veterans, and you said that your organization is a new group. Mr. Black mentioned that the Legion is trying to take leadership by bringing veterans advocacy groups together to prioritize needs and to collaborate. As a new organization helping aboriginal veterans, how are you coordinating with the first nations veterans?

We've heard today from Mr. Butler that the changes in the budget implementation act will mean that over 2,000 veterans will now have access to a greater subsidy for long-term care. I think he said there will now be 700 who will become eligible for health benefits. How is your organization taking these developments and making sure your members, or aboriginal Canadians, know about them and gain access to them?

[Robert Thibeau]

Mr. Chair, that's a very good point. We have the memorandums of understanding with first nations and with the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, so we can get the word out regarding all of these changes that are coming.

Communication is a serious obstacle. It was mentioned by Mr. Butler this morning. I am certainly hopeful that since we are dealing with each of our provincial directors, the word will get out to our veterans and others.

I have a serious case right now of a Korean veteran who passed away last year. I think his spouse certainly fits into the new portion of this. I don't know if he was collecting that pension, but I know he was collecting a disability pension, so there might have been a clawback on that. That's something we're certainly going to look at.

There is the ability for communication among first nations, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, and our own organizations through our provincial directors. That word is going to get out. Maybe that 3,000 will increase in numbers. I don't know.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

I think historically aboriginal veterans have been a group that has not accessed some of the benefits that have been available. It's good that there are probably more groups making sure that they have access.

Thank you for your more than 30 years. I see your CD with two clasps, so thank you very much.

Mr. Blais, I have a question for you. You had a comprehensive overview. You were very passionate, and I respect that. But you were comparing some of these changes to the $12,000 threshold for the Last Post fund. I'd like you to comment on the changes made to the Last Post fund in the budget. Specifically, the $12,000 is not an income, as you described it in your remarks. It's an assessment of assets to see whether someone qualifies as an indigent veteran. It's important to add that the $12,000 asset test does not include house or car. So if you're looking at an estate to determine whether a veteran is impoverished and needs the assistance of the government to have the funeral services taken care of, and the car and house are not included in the assessment of assets, and you don't feel $12,000 is fair, what would be a fair amount?

[Michael Blais]

Well, to be fair, I think dialogue has to happen on that, Mr. O'Toole. It's not fair for me to come here as Mike Blais and say I need you to make that $40,000. You've got to balance that. That's not the object; that's not my intent in bringing these issues up. My intent is to start a dialogue, understanding that, yes, we have made a determination of what basic funds are required for the basic courses of dignity. Well, $12,000 is $28,000 short of that, right? That's the number they use.

I understand there are many veterans who do not own houses at the end of their lives and many who do not own cars. It's kind of a double-edged and maybe irrelevant point. The point is that we can focus on what their income is and use that as a determination of whether they need support for a dignified burial. I think when we look at a $12,000 margin, and we understand the good work that's being done by identifying poverty-level thresholds, we have to bring this into sync. I'm not saying $40,000 is the number. These guys are retired. There are issues here. Maybe it should be $30,000. Maybe we should have a dialogue to determine that and have people come and discuss what is needed, and have funeral directors come in.

Right now there's confusion. We want to get it right. It's the same with the legislation on the WPA. We want to get it right. We're not here to berate you or force you to make decisions. We're here to enlighten you, in the sense that there has to be a standard here, that your obligation as members of Parliament is real. We have an opportunity now. Through this budget implementation, these issues are being revisited in a legislative manner.

Why can't we take the time—if it takes another meeting or two to identify these problems—and effect positive change? When we talk about what the minimum should be, that's your decision. My job is to tell you that the minimum is too low right now and that many veterans are not being provided that dignified burial they require because of it.

We have funeral directors picking up the slack. This is not an unknown quotient, but it is an unacceptable quotient when we have veterans who deserve dignity at the end of life.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Thank you very much.

Now Ms. Mathyssen for five minutes, please.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much for bringing the information to us. It does put things into perspective. I very much appreciate your candour and your experience in regard to this.

I have some questions that I think have already been asked, but I want further clarification. I'll start with you, Mr. Blais.

In talking about this whole issue of veterans managing in their last years, there is the very fact that the Last Post fund has increased the amount payable but at the same time it has failed to improve the $12,000 threshold. When the government says it doesn't include the house or the car—if it indeed did, if those were not exempted—it would seem to me a lot of families would be left with nothing. You mentioned that many veterans don't have that kind of asset at the end of their lives. But if they do, if there's a widow, if there's a family left behind, what on earth happens to them if those assets are not exempted? It seems to me that the government is trying to portray these changes as something far more than what they really are.

You mentioned the need for discussion and dialogue in terms of how we square the circle around all of the veterans, particularly modern-day veterans. I quite agree that there does need to be further discussion. But at the same time, the government is talking about quickly passing the amendments we're looking at today, and how important it is that they be passed quickly. Yet they're lumped in with an omnibus bill, a huge bill that is many pages in length—I think it's approaching 400, or perhaps in excess of 400. Would it make sense to separate this out, to look at it more carefully, to understand it better, and perhaps to have the opportunity to pass it expeditiously once we have looked at it in a more thorough light?

[Michael Blais]

I think that's one of the most important things. It's nice when veterans are recognized and there are implementations brought forward. But we're in a position here now, and veterans are very aware of this, where the Conservatives have a majority. If they wanted to fix these issues that are in the forefront...they could have inserted this in the omnibus bill.

Now, conversely, in the manner of dialogue and comprehensive discussions, it serves nobody to rush through a bill without addressing the issues in good faith and with the time required to come to adequate results.

In a perfect world it should be separate. Not only should the war pensioners' allowance and the Last Post fund be discussed, but the lump-sum award and the issues that are confronting veterans should be discussed. You do have an opportunity to make this right before veterans have to go to court.

Veterans are disenfranchised. They are not living the quality of life that they were given to expect when they signed that oath of allegiance, when they swore allegiance to this nation. We have an obligation. I'll go back to that as many times as necessary. It is sacred. Our obligation has to be to those men. Nothing would make me happier than if the government were to come forward and say, “Okay, we've heard veterans' voices.” I hear that often. Now let's see some action: “We've heard veterans' voices; we are going to assemble the team. We're going to address the issues. You may not like the end result, but we're going to engage in dialogue. We're going to have witnesses come forward. We're going to hear your story, and if warranted, we're going to fix it.”

Now, I think it's warranted. I'm biased, of course. You have to have an independent, open mind. I think that by the time that process is completed, you would be feeling very much like I am, that the cost is not that much, considering that in the grand scope of Canada there are not that many disabled veterans. There are not that many veterans over age 60 who need care compared to the general population. We can make this work. It takes willpower on all parties' behalf, however, and a sincere effort to work together to make the lives of these veterans better.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Thank you very much.

The question was about three minutes, so you only had a couple of minutes to answer. That's the end of our question period.

I'd like to thank our witnesses very much for appearing today, and certainly I think you've added a lot of dynamic to what we're looking at.

I would remind all members that we have one more witness appearing next week, the Korean vets, and that will be the end of the witnesses. If there are suggestions or amendments, they must come in next week—sorry, next meeting, Thursday.

I would also remind you that we are obligated to respond back to the finance committee by Monday. So after Thursday's meeting, I have to send a letter, on behalf of the committee, outlining the thoughts and concerns, or recommendations, whatever the case may be. So be prepared to do that on Thursday. We'll also take a little time to do some committee business, looking forward, and so on.

Thank you very much.

We're adjourned.