Veterans Affairs Committee on March 27th, 2014

[Michael Blais]

No, well, you're somewhat incorrect. We propose that the $1.5 million be as a foundation on the lump sum award. That's through consultation, that's not Mike Blais just picking a number out of his hat. That's the response from many veterans who we've talked to on this issue. On the Pension Act, they don't even want to go back there.

I find it very disingenuous that a veterans' organization representing 300,000 people who have united other organizations, where you're probably adding another 40,000 people to the equation, would not respect the wishes of the wounded as they have been clearly stated by the Equitas foundation. I also found it very disingenuous that an organization at that level that fought so hard to get the benefits in the Pension Act, that stood up for so many generations of veterans, is now abandoning this generation of veterans. Most repugnant to me, it will compare a modern-day veteran's sacrifice to some poor schmuck on the side of the road who got hurt in an accident in a carefully regulated safety environment. There are two different standards here.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Okay, Thank you.

I had the opportunity yesterday to follow through telecast or by reading the report following the meeting, the presentation before the Senate. Yesterday, Lieutenant-General Walter Semianiw, the assistant deputy minister of Veterans Affairs, said that he supported the idea of exploring perhaps an advisory council with credible experts that may include, and I'm quoting, “veterans, family members, maybe some spouses and those who know these issues inside and out. They could provide advice to either the minister or the department as one of the voices as we move ahead.”

It's been said by Mr. Stoffer, everyone around this table, that we know this is a living, breathing document, the new Veterans Charter. Do you support that kind of advisory council?

[Michael Blais]

No, I don't and I'm going to tell you why.

This government has spent thousands upon thousands of dollars already on advisory councils. We've struck two. At the first stakeholders' meeting that I went to we brought forward all these resolutions. Three advisory groups spending thousands upon thousands of dollars, spending hours upon hours of study.... Very brilliant people put their minds to this—ignored. So what? Now we're going to reinvent the wheel? Now we're going to start again? We know what's wrong. We know our people are suffering in the now.

Now it's time for you to embrace what we're telling you—not only me, every witness who comes forward—and bring forward that legislation that will fix it. That's what we want.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Okay, I have a third question, sir.

Is this—and anyone can answer this.... I'm new to the committee. This is only my second meeting, and I understand that reservists receive less for the same injuries than people on active duty, and those who were post-Veterans Charter receive less than those who were pre-Veterans Charter.

So my impression is that we're creating three different classes of veterans. I've read some of the Equitas briefings. I think this is almost unconstitutional and a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Would you comment on the inappropriateness of that three-class system that's being created?

[Sylvain Chartrand]

It is very inappropriate because we have augmented the regular force by about 25% in Afghanistan. Why are we different? Those with knowledge of the military know, and it's an undeniable fact, that reservists have always been shafted.

Now we're creating another system and we are not providing the same level of financial benefit. This is not acceptable. I will tell the committee some exclusive news now. Not only are reservists getting shafted financially, but now my team has worked very hard for less for many years. Reservists are entitled to workers' compensation of up to 90% of the highest salary. That does not mean the military salary; it means the highest salary. So now we're stuck in another situation, that reservists who are entitled to workers' compensation.... We have the government—who is not informing the reservists of this right to this day.... I've been going to the Department of National Defence, up to the minister's level, on this.

So we need to ensure that we provide reservists with a fundamental right—because workers' compensation is not a privilege, it's a right. It's an obligation to declare injuries, but we are not doing it.

Thank you.

[Michael Blais]

When we treat someone with fiscal discrimination—for lack of a better word—and then we send them to isolated communities across the nation, we take away that bracket they've been in..... The combat team is gone, the base is gone, all of those support elements that were inherent there are gone. The peer support is gone. Then we consign them to a life of poverty.

I say poverty, by this committee's description of a $40,000...the end results are sometimes catastrophic, but they could be prevented if we had a standard that was equal for all. If we treated reservists that we sent to war as we treat our regular force, we could save lives. We could make lives better.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Thank you very much.

We now go to Mr. Hayes, please, for six minutes.

[Bryan Hayes, Conservative, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Blais, we've heard your comments around the lump sum payment. I'm interested to know if you can give me a sense of some of the other financial benefits you support within the new Veterans Charter.

If there are more financial benefits that should be included in the new Veterans Charter, I would be interested in what you think those financial benefits would be.

This again is outside of the lump sum—

[Michael Blais]

Thanks for that, because I get a lot of flak at times. They say I'm too negative on the new Veterans Charter. I'm negative on certain aspects, the sacred obligation for one thing. But we're not talking about that.

The ELB is a positive thing. It was brought in to provide that net. It has worked, definitively. We have over 7,000 veterans on ELB now. We cannot deny that it is not effective, and I won't tell you it's not effective because it is effective.

On the second issue, I know the Legion has brought this forward. On the ELB, I have a problem with the position in the sense that—not that the 100%.... They would say that if you are on ELB you should get 100%. I don't know about that. My personal conviction is that it should stay at 75% and just go tax free because that was the intent in the beginning.

But the problem with the entire concept is that they've ignored those who are on SISIP. We can't say if you're on ELB, we're going to give you—in my scenario—a tax-free disability thing, when meanwhile, by definition, Canada's most seriously wounded veterans are on SISIP. There was no two-year expiry date that they went beyond and then a mental wound surfaced and they came back to the fold but it was too late for SISIP, and ELB reached out to provide that security net.

So if it's going to go that way...and I would recommend that it be tax free, but it has to include SISIP. It just can't be ELB and create two standards of veterans again and I'm sure create another class action suit again because of it.

[Bryan Hayes, Conservative, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

In terms of the vocational rehabilitation program and the training, is that something you're supportive of? Is it a good program? Do you think that something needs to change?

[Michael Blais]

There have been enhancements. I would note that many of the provisions in the Pension Act or through SISIP.... I'm on the old system, and there was maybe not as much money in those days by any means. I know that it's up to potentially $70,000 now. Well, that didn't exist back 10 to 15 years ago—that's for sure—but there are positive things.

This is why I'm here today talking about harmonization, because those good things and the things that were good things there are what harmonization is all about. Let's do the best we can for our veterans. Let's acknowledge the positive in the new Veterans Charter. Let's listen to what they want. Let's provide legislation that makes everyone happy.

[Bryan Hayes, Conservative, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Maybe you have done this in the past, and if you have, please accept my apologies, but for our committee, would you be prepared to put clearly in writing what you support in the new Veterans Charter and what you absolutely oppose in the new Veterans Charter, and prioritize that in some way for our committee?

[Michael Blais]

I certainly would. But my intention in coming today was to be positive and to provide a venue for you to look at a harmonization proposal that identifies the issues where we're lacking, discusses those issues where we're lacking, and comes forward with legislation.

Sure—if you want me to write a little blurb about what I like and what I don't like and what I think you should do, by all means, I would love to do that.

[Bryan Hayes, Conservative, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Absolutely 100%.

I'm looking at the comparative evaluation of the Pension Act and the new Veterans Charter, including the actuarial analysis and things like that. It's complicated, because there are so many different scenarios. I'm wondering how this compares to the actuarial analysis that was conducted by the ombudsman. Does it line up or are there some differences in what you're saying versus what the ombudsman is saying versus some of the things we looked at? That's question number one.

Question number two is this. Do you believe that, depending upon the circumstances—because we looked at many different scenarios with the actuarial analysis—of a particular individual, that one or the other might be better?

[Michael Blais]

One or the other might.... Well, here we go again. This is why we brought forward this harmonization so we don't have that equation that you just talked about, which in turn means somebody's getting bumped because he's not eligible for the old system. If that one was better, in that case, well, there's a perfect example of why I'm speaking to a harmonization, because it's not always the same. You're right, there are instances where it goes back and forth, and that's why we have to be open-hearted on this and look at these numbers legitimately.

We have issues, for example, with actuaries when we look at inflation rates, for example. They're all over the place. Well, they're not really all over the place. There are a couple of other issues that are minor. But the bottom line is the numbers we've used and the numbers they've provided, those numbers are what we have today. Believe me, we were not out to make anyone look bad here. We are trying to provide you the tools that you need to have this legislation come forward. If there's something on this paper that you might find.... We've been pretty intense. We've had it checked over by a few people, as you might imagine, and we're not infallible, but the fact of the matter is that these numbers are pretty hard and they're pretty hard to dispute.

[Bryan Hayes, Conservative, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Thank you very much, Mr. Hayes.

Yes.

[Jerry Kovacs]

Briefly then, the importance of your question—and it's a very good question—is addressed on pages 23 and 24 of the ombudsman's report, “Improving the New Veterans Charter: The Actuarial Analysis”. Those are the six items there on pages 23 and 24 that are extremely important—

[Bryan Hayes, Conservative, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

I'll look at it.

[Jerry Kovacs]

—and they were discussed yesterday at the Senate subcommittee as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chicoine, go ahead, please, for six minutes.

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to thank the three witnesses for being here today and for helping us in our review of the New Veterans Charter.

Mr. Blais, you briefly talked about the Memorial Cross Widows. Some of them live beneath the poverty threshold. Can you explain to us why that is so?

[Michael Blais]

Well, they're experiencing great distress. It's almost uncomfortable for me to speak of this because when I help people who are in distress like that—and we're talking about Memorial Cross widows—when they don't feel that their government has provided the empathy and compassion and understanding they need, it's difficult to fight. We have fought, and let me summarize.

Here's where we have a problem, and this is why I've said “all Memorial Cross widows” should be entitled. I mentioned Mrs. Joan Larocque at the time. Her husband died in 2005 at a point in time where the new Veterans Charter had been voted on, but not enacted. There was a gap there, and at that time, as you know, Veterans Affairs pensions were considered in the equation of income adjustments, right? As you know, through the SISIP lawsuit, those Veterans Affairs Canada pain and suffering awards are no longer allowed into that equation. Conversely, just recently, or in Bill C-55, we also brought in a $40,000 anti-poverty threshold, which we have identified correctly. I think, once again, if you're looking for a credo, there's another good one, identifying a poverty threshold, identifying a need for basic shelter, food, and clothing. We're not talking about Cadillacs here; we're talking about basic essentials.

Well, we have a situation where Mrs. Larocque is not being covered by the new Veterans Charter. She is being denied, even though her average mean income is under $30,000 a year. Now, come on, we all know how difficult it is to live on under $30,000. Maybe you don't, but I do, and I'm telling you, it's not fun. There are issues there, and for a woman, alone, who has sacrificed so much on behalf of this nation, we can harmonize this.

Here we go on harmonization. Well, good thing, new Veterans Charter; bad thing, Pension Act—harmonize, bring these widows into the fold. There aren't many of them, but we have an obligation to them that is very high, and it's probably one of the highest things that we can do. That's why we have the Memorial Cross. That's why we respect our widows and mothers on Remembrance Day, and every day of the year. But there's a lack there, and it's time to fix it.

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Thank you for those explanations.

Mr. Chartrand, I would like you to come back to the issue of discrimination against reservists.

Apart from the fact that they were not informed of their right to be compensated by their provincial working board, how does the new veterans Charter discriminate against reservists compared to regular armed forces veterans?

[Sylvain Chartrand]

We know the government has established that $40,000 is the minimum requirement, as was mentioned, so a reservist is only entitled, class A or class B with minus 180 days, to $2,700; that's 75% of the minimum, and taxable. So now a reservist is living on what, $32,000? This is not acceptable. This is a discrepancy.

One of the mechanisms that has been in place for over 25 years, and that no one is aware of in the Canadian Forces, which are certainly not disclosing this to their reservists, is that we are entitled to workers' board compensation. We are a federal employee. Just ask, and I think you are covered under workers' board compensation. In Quebec, that provides 90% tax free of the highest salary. The minimum is, I think, 75%, again, tax free. In Ontario...earnings loss benefit...$83,000. So why again are we still making a difference in 2014 between reservists and members of the regular force, such as Billy Kerr, a triple amputee? Why are his legs worth less than someone from the regular force? Why?

Why are we now, again, catching up, and we're having problems catching up? Why? We're in 2014. Everyone knew about it. Everyone knew we were entitled to workers' board compensation, yet no one told us.

Now we have another situation. You cannot collect workers' board compensation and your pension. So now a reservist who has workers' board compensation will get his pension clawed back. Does that remind you of something, Dennis Manuge and the RCMP? So I will be asking the minister to ensure that there is no clawback, as there are two...federal jurisprudence and much provincial jurisprudence, so that this does not end up in court. If it is not solved, it will end up in court, as did the Dennis Manuge case and the RCMP.