Veterans Affairs Committee on March 6th, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Okay, folks. We will get under way. It's that time of day.

Mark, welcome. Did you bring your credentials? It's nice to have another Nova Scotian here, right across that causeway.

We are continuing the statutory review of the Enhanced New Veterans Charter Act. We've had a good round of witnesses so far, and we're very pleased today to have representatives from the Royal Canadian Legion and from the NATO Veterans Organization of Canada.

You folks know the routine by now. We hear your comments, then we go around the table and ask some questions, and we go from there. We really appreciate your input into this. We know the challenges are there. We're looking for the advice you can offer. Thank you for coming.

I'll introduce you all, and then you guys can figure out who's going first, okay?

We know Gordon Moore, of course, Dominion president at Dominion Command. With him is my very good friend Brad White, Dominion secretary, Dominion Command.

You're well aware of how things work here, for sure.

From the NATO Veterans, we have Gordon Jenkins, who is president, from the head office. Also, there is Percy Price, acting director of advocacy, from the head office.

Welcome to you all. Each group has 10 minutes.

[Gordon Moore, Dominion President, Dominion Command, Royal Canadian Legion]

Mr. Chairman, good afternoon. It's a great pleasure to appear in front of your committee this afternoon. I'm pleased to be able to speak to you this afternoon on behalf of more than 320,000 members and their families.

The Royal Canadian Legion is well situated to address the impact and the effectiveness of the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act, commonly known as the new Veterans Charter, as well as the Enhanced New Veterans Charter Act, as a result of Bill C-55.

The Royal Canadian Legion is the only veteran's organization that assists veterans and their families with representation to Veterans Affairs Canada and the Veterans Review and Appeal Board. We have been assisting veterans since 1926 through our legislative mandate in both the Pension Act and the new Veterans Charter. Our 23 professional service officers are located across the country and provide free assistance to veterans and their families with obtaining benefits and services from Veterans Affairs Canada. Please note that you do not have to be a Legion member to avail yourself of our services.

Our national service officer network provides representation starting with first applications to Veterans Affairs Canada through all three levels of the VRAB. Through the legislation, the Legion has access to service health records and departmental files to provide comprehensive yet independent representation at no cost. Last year our service officers prepared and represented disability claims on behalf of almost 3,000 veterans to VAC and also to VRAB. Over 75% of these veterans received benefits under the new Veterans Charter.

Additionally, we met with more than 12,000 veterans and their families from across the country regarding VAC benefits and services. There is no other veterans group with this kind of direct contact, interaction, provision of support, and feedback from veterans, their families, and also the caregivers. l believe we can speak confidently and with credibility regarding the effectiveness of the new Veterans Charter and the Enhanced New Veterans Charter Act. Our comments will address specifically the requirement for mandatory review, the obligation of the Government of Canada to our veterans and their families, specific deficiencies, and finally, the requirement for effective communication of the programs and services to support our injured veterans and their families.

Starting with the requirement for mandatory review, in 2006 the new Veterans Charter was adopted without a clause-by-clause review in parliamentary committee and in the Senate, because of a perceived urgent need to better look after younger veterans and their families and to facilitate their transition to civilian life. The government made a commitment to continuously review and evaluate the programs and services, and if necessary, to amend the legislation to address emerging needs or unanticipated consequences under the spirit of a living charter.

The Legion supported the introduction of the new Veterans Charter on the basis that it would be a living charter and improvements would be made when required. In 2011, almost five years later, the first real changes occurred with Bill C-55 and the implementation of the Enhanced New Veterans Charter Act. Despite these changes, there are still shortcomings in the programs of the new Veterans Charter, which are designed to assist veterans and their families with their transition to civilian life.

In Bill C-55, section 20.1 of the Enhanced New Veterans Charter Act, it states:

Within two years after the day on which this section comes into force, a comprehensive review of the provisions and operations of this Act must be undertaken by any committees of the Senate and of the House of Commons that are designated or established by the Senate and the House of Commons for that purpose.

While the government promised that the new Veterans Charter would be a living charter and that its ongoing improvement would be an enduring priority for the government, the first real change came after five years of addressing deficiencies, and significant deficiencies still remain. If it is a living charter, then the government must live up to its commitment.

We urge the government to institute a regular two-year charter review to demonstrate to veterans and their families the government's commitment and promise that it made to our veterans, and the obligation of the Government of Canada, which is at the heart of this discussion.

Turning to the moral obligation, the Legion is concerned that the government has forgotten the moral obligation to look after veterans and their families who have been injured as a result of their service to Canada. The government put them in harm's way; now the government has an obligation to look after them. This obligation on the part of the Government of Canada is stated clearly in the preamble to the Pension Act, the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act and the War Veterans Allowance Act, but not in the new Veterans Charter.

This recognized obligation must be stated and reaffirmed in the new Veterans Charter. Our veterans need to know that when they are injured as a result of their military service, the government will provide the resources, tools, and care to ensure a successful transition to civilian life. It is as simple as that.

Effectiveness of the new Veterans Charter and enhanced new Veterans Charter.... In 2013, the Veterans Ombudsman of Canada delivered a series of comprehensive reports on the effectiveness of the new Veterans Charter, which focused on the financial compensation, the complexity, and the limitations of the vocational rehabilitation programs for our injured veterans, and the care of their families.

Based on his findings, the Veterans Ombudsman called for urgent action to address the key shortcomings. Number one is the insufficiency of the economic financial support after age 65 to eligible totally and permanently incapacitated veterans. This is a small number of the most vulnerable of our veterans. It is unacceptable that veterans and their families, who have sacrificed for this country, live their lives with insufficient financial means.

Number two is the drop in income for veterans after release from the Canadian Armed Forces. The earnings loss benefit provides only 75% of the pre-release salary.

Number three, access for those severely impaired veterans who meet the eligibility criteria for a permanent impairment allowance and the supplement is complicated, and there are difficulties accessing these benefits.

Number four, it's unfair that the former part-time reserve force members who have been injured attributable to their service, receive a reduced earnings loss benefit.

Number five, the compensation for the pain and suffering related to a service-related injury or illness, the disability award, has not kept pace with the compensation provided to our disabled civilian workers who receive general damages from the courts. These same issues have been at the forefront of the Legion advocacy as mandated by the delegates at our Dominion conventions in 2008, 2010, and 2012.

Additionally, in May 2013, the veterans consultation group, which includes 20 veteran organizations, sent a letter to the then Minister of Veterans Affairs raising similar priorities. This deserves highlighting—20 veterans groups were unanimous in their position.

More recently in October 2013, the same veterans consultation group reinforced these priorities to the government. The group unanimously agreed that it was time for this government to have a heroic moment and do what is right for our veterans and their families. The veterans groups, the Veterans Ombudsman of Canada, the new Veterans Charter advisory group, and this very committee have all stated since 2006 that the government must resolve, as a matter of priority, the key financial deficiencies of the new Veterans Charter.

These are the same issues identified by the Veterans Ombudsman in his recent reports. There is consistency and agreement but there has been no action. Now is the time for action. Within this context, the Royal Canadian Legion continues to assess the top three issues requiring immediate resolution by the government. These are: number one, the earnings loss benefit must be improved to provide 100% of the pre-release income and be continued for life; number two, the maximum disability award must be increased and consistent with what is provided to injured civilian workers who received general damages in a law court; and number three, the current inequity with regards to ELB for class A and class B reserve force members for service-attributable injuries must cease.

Mr. Chairman, it's time to take action on these three key issues. At the same time, the Legion calls upon the government to expedite the review of the new Veterans Charter. We recognize the importance of a transparent and open review. It is important that veterans groups, veterans and their families, and subject matter experts have the opportunity to provide evidence to this review.

The Legion agrees with the deficiencies identified in the Veterans Ombudsman's report “Improving the New Veterans Charter”. The reports are well researched, evidence-based, and informed by actuarial, independent analysis, and as such, should be used as the baseline for the parliamentary review.

This is a focused road map with achievable recommendations. The Veterans Ombudsman also uncovered a glaring gap that needs immediate action. There are approximately 400 veterans deemed totally and permanently incapacitated who are not in receipt of any allowances. This means the new Veterans Charter's permanent impairment allowance and supplement or the Pension Act's attendance allowance or exceptional incapacity allowance should apply to these veterans.

While they are in receipt of the earnings loss benefit, it is a monthly income that ends at the age 65. When these veterans, who have been injured attributable to their service reach 65, their income will substantially be reduced. This is an urgent problem as these are the most vulnerable, seriously disabled veterans who are at risk of living their retirement years in poverty. This is unacceptable and needs urgent action.

Finally, I want to address the issue of communication and accessibility. Why are we still having a conversation about which is better, the Pension Act or the new Veterans Charter? The new Veterans Charter was developed to meet the needs of the modern veteran. It's based on modern disability management principles and focuses on rehabilitation and successful transition.

I will state that the Legion has never completely endorsed the new Veterans Charter as it was presented in 2006. We've been steadfast in our advocacy for its change to better meet the lifelong needs of our veterans and their families. However, it's time to stop the rhetoric and focus on the issue. We have an obligation to understand the complexities and interrelationships, and inform about and explain the new Veterans Charter. Our veterans and their families deserve nothing less.

The new Veterans Charter and the Enhanced New Veterans Charter Act are comprehensive and complex. Our veterans and their families need to know what programs are available to assist them and how to access them: financial, rehabilitation, health services, and family care. The government needs to ensure the resources and programs are in place to meet their needs. The government needs to review the accessibility to these programs and ensure that front-line staff are available and knowledgeable in order to assist veterans and their families. This must not be a self-serve system.

The Legion was gravely concerned when General Rick Hillier, former Chief of the Defence Staff, in the CTV News network Remembrance Day telecast on November 11, 2013, stated as follows, regarding the new Veterans Charter: “That needs to be rewritten completely because it does not look after our veterans, particularly over a long period of time.”

Further, he stated that the lump sum may seem to be significant, “but a 22-year-old soldier who has lost both of his legs and is suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder is still going to be without his legs 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 years from now”. He said, “They're still going to be suffering somewhat from PTSD and they're going to need support throughout that time. And the veterans charter does not do it.”

Most Canadians have this understanding of the new Veterans Charter as well. I would suggest that this understanding highlights the ineffectiveness of the government's communication of the programs and services available in the new Veterans Charter for our injured veterans and their families.

Lastly, it highlights that it's time for this government to start communicating and to proactively reach out to all veterans across the country and ensure that they're aware of the financial compensation, rehabilitation programs, health care services, and family care programs that are available and how to access them.

It's also time for us to understand the new Veterans Charter and the Enhanced New Veterans Charter Act. This should be a priority. Our veterans need to know not only the weaknesses but also the strengths behind the legislation, the programs, and the services and benefits. We too can help our veterans and their families.

In summary, this review is about the effectiveness of the new Veterans Charter. The Office of the Veterans Ombudsman has conducted the most comprehensive research and analysis work undertaken on the new Veterans Charter. The analysis is done. It's thorough and unbiased. Mr. Parent personally tested his recommendations with most of the veterans organizations and stakeholders. It is consistent with recommendations since 2006.

Use this report as the blueprint for action. The path to improving the new Veterans Charter is clear. Let us not be focused on issues on the periphery. I urge you to stick to the critical core issues, as these impact the day-to-day lives of our veterans and their families. I encourage you not to delay but to expedite this review and take real action.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to speak.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Thank you very much. You were very clear, Mr. Moore. We appreciate that.

Before I go to the next witnesses, I want to extend a welcome to all the veterans who are sitting with us today as visitors. We appreciate your interest in being here. Certainly, if you have your own personal comments at some point that you want to leave behind, send them to the clerk or send them to the parliamentary secretary, but certainly, anybody's comments are welcome because we take this very, very seriously.

I would point out as we go to the next one that for this presentation we only have it in English. We haven't had a chance to have it translated, so we'll do it verbally, and then everybody will receive the copy. That's the general rule, that we can't circulate it in only one language. We have it, but we will make—

What?

[A voice]

[Inaudible—Editor]

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Okay.

Mr. Jenkins and Mr. Price, we appreciate you being here. I'm not sure which one of you...?

I shouldn't have been surprised. Please, you have the floor before we ask questions. Thanks for coming.

[Gordon Jenkins, President, Head Office, NATO Veterans Organization of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We only finished it an hour ago, Mr. Kerr. That's why it's not translated.

My roots are Franco-Ontarian, but I live in Nepean now, which is 100% English-speaking. I don't often have the opportunity to speak French. You can ask me your questions in French, but please speak very slowly.

It is a pleasure for the NATO Veterans Organization to be asked back again to address the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.

I notice, as you did, Mr. Chairman, no fewer than six other veterans organizations around the room. I have a sign here reading “applause” for some point in my speech.

We urge all members of this committee to continue to work towards seeing improvements to the well-being and welfare of Canada's veterans. NATO veterans have all served this country in times of conflict and in times of peace and have done the nation's bidding. We have all proudly served. We now ask, in return for the sacrifice we made in the name of Canada and all Canadians, that this committee hear our concerns and influence the changes that we must see actually occur.

For far too long there have been significant and embarrassingly long disconnects between the policies emanating from the government and the harsh realities faced by the Canadian Armed Forces and our former service personnel, the veterans. Our veterans represent a legacy of service to Canada. Let us now see a legacy of respect and equality from a grateful nation towards our veterans, one that is moral, legal, social, and—the big one—financial.

Our colleagues of the Royal Canadian Legion have addressed the issues. They are all on our list; we support all of them. NATO vets have been asked by this committee to appear today, and if we wouldn't mind, to mention three items. We have three and a couple of further ones.

Those three items are care and support to the most seriously injured veterans, support for veterans' families, and improvement to the way Veterans Affairs Canada delivers programs under the Veterans Charter concerning services and benefits.

Those are the three areas. If any member would like to discuss these with me or Mr. Percy Price offline, we would be pleased to discuss them. Mr. Price is the NATO Veterans acting director of advocacy. For eight years he was an adjudicator with the Veterans Review and Appeal Board and for 23 years was a Royal Canadian Legion veterans counsellor. He still does that work.

NATO Veterans' comments today are directed to the shortcomings of the new Veterans Charter that are known and experienced by our modern-day veterans. We cannot let these issues continue, as the well-being and welfare of our veterans is at risk. Each member of this committee has a responsibility to see that changes are made to the new Veterans Charter, and NATO Veterans of Canada stands ready to assist in providing advice and recommendations to you.

But remember that veterans will also hold the government accountable for inaction and partisan politics. The days are long over, as you've noticed, when veterans will suffer in silence along the lines that a good soldier never complains and just follows orders.

We, of all people, have earned the right to be vocal about the hardships we face at the hand of negligent policies and a lack of leadership in addressing these known shortcomings. As an elected official, I am certain you will all agree it is important to work closely with communities and local interests. These are the people who elected you and whom you represent.

There are 750,000 veterans out there. They all have families, and most of them vote.

I'll now turn it over to Mr. Price who will address the three issues that we were asked to address.

[Percy Price, Acting Director of Advocacy, Head Office, NATO Veterans Organization of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, I will deal with the seriously injured veterans. DND and VAC must ensure that all seriously injured veterans make application for pension claims and allowances before being discharged from the service, including the RCMP.

Seriously injured veterans must also include those individuals with PTSD. The severely injured veterans, upon discharge, and during their transition to civilian life, are at a very high risk to further injury and death. We highly recommend that Veterans Affairs Canada monitor their rehabilitation, mental health services, health care, and support for their families.

VAC must maintain regular personal contact with veterans and their dependants. It is recommended that Veterans Affairs Canada have a team of trained personnel to deal with issues for seriously disabled veterans, and PTSD. This team may save the lives of our veterans who are high risk, as witnessed in recent months with numerous recorded suicides. Veterans Affairs must give priority to all seriously injured veterans, including with PTSD, in all pension benefits and allowances.

As for support to veterans' families, Veterans Affairs Canada must keep a high level of communication with veterans and dependants to ensure that the well-being of all is carried out. Often, veterans experience difficulties with drugs, alcohol, psychological problems, and marital difficulties, with no advice. In view of this, it is recommended that Veterans Affairs Canada provide the appropriate counselling and lines of communication, with personal visits, to identify critical problem areas, with referrals to support groups. Veterans Affairs Canada must give priority for veterans to attend community colleges and universities, coupled with priority job placement and educational grants for deserving applicants. VAC often focuses on the actual veterans' issues, and not the extended family, which we think is very important.

Improvements to the way that VAC delivers programs under the Veterans Charter concerning services and benefits.... We at the NATO Veterans feel that it is imperative that VAC provide a higher standard of program and services to every veteran and their dependants. We have deep concerns with the recent VAC closures of district offices across Canada, and with the reduction of staff in the head office and also in the regional and district offices. This will affect the delivery of service, will overload the remaining staff, and will result in reduced productivity.

The Veterans Review and Appeal Board's proposal to conduct hearings by video and teleconference is indeed depriving the veterans of their rights to appear before a personal hearing for assessment and entitlement board hearings. The type of hearing should be at the discretion of the veteran.

In recent years, the veterans have indicated their unhappiness with the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, and often do not want to appear at hearings, as they feel that the members of the board are against them. To create a better rapport, we recommend that the chair of the VRAB, or his or her designate, attend the annual second career assistance network program, SCAN, which is conducted across Canada at Canadian Forces bases. This would facilitate a better understanding between the Veterans Review and Appeal Board and our veterans. Of course, the Veterans Review and Appeal Board chairman attends national conventions every two years with the Legion, and they also attend conferences with service officers across the country.

The NATO Veterans Organization of Canada firmly believes that Veterans Affairs Canada has the most outstanding and excellent benefits and services in the world. But what's most important to the veterans and their dependants is how these services and benefits are delivered to them. It is the responsibility and obligation of Veterans Affairs Canada and the government to deliver these benefits in a first-class manner.

They did not fail us; let us not fail them.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Thank you very much, Mr. Price and Mr. Jenkins.

[Gordon Jenkins]

I just need to make my conclusions, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

I knew you'd get the last word in, for some reason

Please go ahead.

[Gordon Jenkins]

I didn't go to Acadia for nothing, sir.

The new Veterans Charter was introduced in 2006. There's been one amendment, with three items to it. This was before NATO vets was even formed.

The new Veterans Charter was a four-year study by the Department of National Defence and the veterans affairs committee. Since its inception, the charter has been studied by many panels—I won't list them all—including Queen's University, the Claxton papers; this Parliamentary standing committee; and more recently, a number of excellent reports from the Veterans Ombudsman. Would you believe there are close to 200 recommendations out there that have been made for improvements to the charter? To date, very little of substance has been done to address these issues.

The most obvious discrepancy in the charter is the provision of proper financial support for those veterans with severe disabilities, particularly those in the lower ranks. Changes need to be made to the new Veterans Charter to ensure that veterans with severe disabilities receive compensation equivalent to that under the previous pension act . The most obvious discrepancies come from programs or benefits that were eliminated under the NVC.

Additionally, changes need to be made to address the lack of financial support for veterans, as has been mentioned by the president of the Legion, after the age of 65, when veterans may have the most need. All benefits should continue until the time of a veteran's death, and they should not be stopped once the veteran receives the Canada Pension Plan or Quebec Pension Plan. Like other Canadians, veterans earned the CPP or QPP.

The discriminatory policy that applies to reserve force personnel serving side by side with regular force, but who are compensated at a much lower scale for equivalent injuries, is a gross injustice that must be fixed. What's the difference if I lose my arm or he loses his arm. He's regular; I'm reserve. I get less. That is inexcusable.

Overall, to change the new Veterans Charter to accommodate veterans with severe disabilities and include those items outlined above would not be very costly, since only 4% of all new Veterans Charter veterans are considered seriously disabled.

One of the most important recommendations is that creating separate standards and pension categories for veterans with severe disabilities may ensure that the new Veterans Charter supports veterans who are most in need. The current feeling within the veterans community towards the government in general, and Veterans Affairs, is one of, to put it mildly, dissatisfaction about the lack of action to correct the many known—200—deficiencies that have been noted. These have all been documented by the office of the ombudsman. Timely implementation of these measures would go a long way to regaining the support of your veterans community and provide a starting point for a more positive relationship between all concerned parties.

Members of the standing committee, please, the time for talk and studies has long since passed. It is now time for positive action, as Gord said. The bottom line is that the time for action is now. The veterans cannot wait any longer.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Thank you, Mr. Jenkins.

Before we go to the committee members, now that you're well settled in here, I just want to point out that there was a question the other day from a member, who is not here today, about the time.

I want to point out, particularly, Mark, that the committee passed that each member will get six minutes. There seems to be some question as to the timing. As we go around I just want to point out the member has six minutes. If the witnesses are over, we'll allow the witness to have the extra time if necessary. But the questioner will go no further than six minutes, just so we're clear on that point, if you don't mind.

We'll start with, Mr. Stoffer, please, for six minutes.

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

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.

To the Royal Canadian Legion and the NATO veterans group, thank you all very much for coming before our committee today and helping us assess how we move forward on the new Veterans Charter.

Before I start, sir, I just want to mention what an excellent tie Mr. Galipeau is wearing today. It's very classy. As he is a very classy gentleman I want to put that on the record very much.

My first question is for Gordon Moore. As you know, the Legion, and other groups, have been advocating for a long time not just on the charter but on other areas as well. I just wanted to put one thing in your preamble of the Legion and what they do. You talked about servicing veterans and their families. I assume you meant to say you also service RCMP members and their families as well. Is that correct?

[Gordon Moore]

Yes.

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

Very good.

I know the RCMP has nothing to do with the charter but I know your organization, and other organizations, keep an eye on the RCMP as well. I just wanted to put that there.

[Gordon Moore]

Our mission statement for the Royal Canadian Legion mentions all serving members and the RCMP.

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

Yes, sir.

I have a couple of things for you, sir.

Mr. Jenkins mentioned the number of recommendations that your organization and a number of others made with the Gerontological Advisory Council a few years back. He noted the number of recommendations that have been put forward and how very few of them have actually been accepted. I'd just like your view, the Royal Canadian Legion's view, about why there has been a reluctance to accept some of these recommendations...the other ones that have been there. Also, I have another question and it's for both of you. I'll ask the Legion first and then, Mr. Jenkins, you can answer second.

In the Equitas lawsuit, the crown attorneys who were representing the Crown—and I'm paraphrasing them—stated under oath that there was no moral obligation for the crown to care for veterans. I'm paraphrasing more or less what they said. Basically that moral obligation applies only to the aboriginal community.

Obviously many veterans organizations across the country were quite concerned when they heard this. The judge hearing the case indicated that there was an obligation to care for those veterans in that regard. My question, which I've been asking quite repeatedly, is this. Does the government have a moral, legal, social, and financial responsibility to care for those they asked to put themselves in harm's way? I haven't gotten an answer on that question even though this is now the eighth time I've asked it. I'm wondering what the Royal Canadian Legion's view would be on that as well.

I thank you again, you and all the other veterans groups, and especially Mr. Richard Blackwolf, an aboriginal veteran who is here today, for being with all of us. I thank you.

[Gordon Moore]

Mr. Stoffer, the Royal Canadian Legion's view on the moral obligation is that the government has a moral obligation to look after our veterans and their families, right to their last moments.

The government of the day has put them into harm's way, whether it happened 20 years ago or whether it just happened recently with them being in Afghanistan. The government has to understand that you're the one who asked them to sign the dotted line; you're the one who paid to have them trained; you're the one who paid to send them overseas; and you're the one who said, yes, you're going to go and fight for democracy, in Afghanistan, or wherever they had to go. Yes, the government has that moral obligation and they will.

As I stated in my report, there are three acts that state that the government has the moral obligation. When the new Veterans Charter was written, the moral obligation was kept out. That's the only place. No one at the time caught that. That's very unfortunate because it was something that came across that it had to be put into place because we had men and women serving in Afghanistan, we had to make sure that we were prepared back here, and this is how they sold the bill. We had to be prepared back here when our soldiers returned. But we had to be ready in how we're going to look after them, on the short term and also in the long term.

Mr. Stoffer, they've been looking after them in the short term, but they haven't been doing a good job on the long term. The moral obligation has to be there all the way through.

[Brad White, Dominion Secretary, Dominion Command, Royal Canadian Legion]

A good example of moral obligation is the United Kingdom government signed, about two years ago, their social covenant with their military on how it was going to respond to their needs once they had been deployed and moved out and possibly injured and returned home. Perhaps what the Canadian government needs to do is to also have a social covenant with those who serve its country.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to put on the record that one of the MPs who helped review the charter was the late Jack Stagg. I too missed that as well, so I'm responsible for that as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Do you care to respond, in a reasonable short time?

[Gordon Jenkins]

I'll be very brief. I couldn't put it any better than these two gentlemen to my right. I would like my response to be exactly the same as Gord's and Brad's.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Mr. Price, go ahead.

[Percy Price]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm sure you're well aware of the fact that those veterans who served in Canada only, they're under section 21(2) of the Pension Act. In the act under section 21(1), where there's a special duty area, Afghanistan, there shall be no deduction in injuries or whatever. If it occurs in a special duty area or in the theatre of war, the government is solely responsible and obligated to provide pension for that veteran.

However, under the other section, in Canada—not those war time or special duty areas—that would be a different issue. Certainly in war time or special duty areas, the government is solely responsible.

Thank you.