Thank you.
Good afternoon. Thank you for inviting the Canadian Veterans Advocacy to testify before parliamentary committee today. We are grateful.
My name is Michael Blais. I am the president and founder of the Canadian Veterans Advocacy. Accompanying me today are Director Sylvain Chartrand and Director Jerry Kovacs. During the question and answer period, Director Chartrand will respond to queries in reference to the statistical analysis on the new Veterans Charter and the Pension Act, and the plight of Canada's wounded reservists. Director Kovacs will respond to the issues identified through the ongoing consultation that we have presented as solutions through our harmonization proposals.
We have provided written documentation that clearly defines the CVA's harmonization proposals. I would note that the CVA principles are defined through extensive consultation within Canada's veteran and military communities. The message that I bring to you today represents the voices of thousands of veterans who have served in all areas; their families; Canada's Memorial Cross mothers, fathers, and widows; and far too many serving members who, in the aftermath of the war in Afghanistan or service in former Yugoslavia, Haiti, and Africa, will soon become Veterans Affairs' responsibility.
There are several issues worthy of discussion; many are complex. I would reaffirm the CVA support in principle for Ombudsman Parent's report. We are very concerned about the state of poverty many disabled veterans will confront after age 65 and the lack of recognition and comprehensive support for veterans suffering from environmental contaminations such as Agent Orange, depleted uranium, or the profoundly disturbing consequences of emerging mental wounds.
I will conform to the committee's mandate, however, and focus on three issues of concern.
Reservists.... I am pleased to note that this is one issue where consensus has been reached within the veterans community. To that end, I will request that you fulfill your obligation to the thousands of reservists who have been summoned and who have offered great sacrifice on behalf of this nation, not only in Afghanistan but in many areas of the globe wherein the threat of both physical and mental violence was, and perhaps is, a clear and present danger. Why is the leg of a reservist worth less than the leg of a regular force member, when both were catastrophically injured in the same incident? Or two legs? Or two legs and an arm?
I would speak to Corporal William Kerr, whom I have assisted as an advocate. Tracy Kerr and her family are now responsible for ensuring Canada's only surviving triple amputee's quality of life is assured. They too have been called upon to offer great sacrifice. Mrs. Kerr needs your help. There must be equality, recognition of sacrifice, understanding, and compassion dictated by need. Need, not budgetary restraint....
I am obliged to speak to the adverse issues our war widows and mothers and fathers of men and women, unmarried, who have offered the ultimate sacrifice to this nation.... I am profoundly saddened to note that there are Memorial Cross widows, such as Mrs. Joan Larocque, who have been excluded and consigned to an existence far below the $40,000 poverty threshold that this government deems necessary to provide the basic necessities of life: food, shelter, and clothing. All Memorial Cross widows, regardless of the time when their loved ones passed, must be accorded the new Veterans Charter earnings loss benefit, particularly those who are living beneath the poverty threshold. We must also include the VIP services for them. The two-year restrictive window on vocational training must be waived, and the opportunities for vocational assistance extended indefinitely.
I'd also speak to the plight of parents of unmarried fatalities, and suggest, with all due respect, that their profound sacrifice to Canada be formally acknowledged through the provision of VAC pain and suffering awards in addition to the Memorial Cross.
Why are they excluded when they were identified as the primary next of kin? Should they not be treated with the same level of respect as any other primary dependant, the widows and the children?
Finally, I would address the most contentious issue, the pain and suffering quotient of the new Veterans Charter. This issue, without question, defines the sacred obligation. It is the very essence of the sacred obligation—a contract, a social contract, with Canada's sons and daughters sent into harm's way. The award is unique, separate from income replacement programs such as SISIP and ELB, or the many service-related provisions provided, depending on the veteran's needs.
We have commissioned an unbiased, strictly statistical analysis of the Pension Act and NVC, and have submitted our conclusions to the committee. Unequivocally, the pension plan provided better compensation and more services to disabled veterans than does the new Veterans Charter.
That being said, we have a sacred obligation to those who we as an advocacy would serve. Our duty is clear, and we must respond with all due diligence. We must accept the fact that the concept of the lump sum award is appealing to veterans approaching the twilight of their years, or younger veterans who have dreams and require the funds to build the foundation of a new life beyond transition, beyond military service. We must also be cognizant of the wounded in Afghanistan, supported through the Equitas Society's quest for equality, and the court-inspired questions particularly in reference to the sacred obligation, the social contract that has been raised.
How do we as a nation reconcile the divergences between generational desires? How do we as a nation create mechanisms that will satisfy the needs of veterans of all generations without weighing one generation's needs over another's?
Today the Canadian Veterans Advocacy will provide you with a solution to this complicated dilemma, a solution that will respect the most sacred obligation Canada bears for all generations of veterans. We propose harmonization and the option of choice, choice between a respect-driven lump sum award and the Pension Act.
With regard to the lump sum award, Canadian Veterans Advocacy acknowledges the voices of those who would prefer a lump sum award. What we do not acknowledge or support is the current level of financial compensation, or the new Veterans Charter's practice of excluding spouse and children. Nor do we agree with or support the Royal Canadian Legion or the many prominent veteran organizations they have united under the banner of the consultation group on this issue. They would propose solutions that compare the sacrifice of Major Mark Campbell—whose legs were explosively amputated, who suffered serious internal injuries, including the loss of a testicle, who has a brain stem injury and complex PTSD—with the plight of a civilian awarded legal damages due to negligence at the workplace in Ontario.
This is unconscionable. There is no comparison. The sacred obligation is not accorded to a litigant in a lawsuit. The sacred obligation is reserved for Canadians who have sworn allegiance to this great nation, who have borne arms in our name and bled in battle, who have suffered in peace with unwavering loyalty and offered great sacrifice while treading in harm's way in Canada's name.
Clearly the compensation quotient of the lump sum award must reflect and respect the sacrifice borne. Surely we are obligated not only to the wounded but also, as provided in the Pension Act, yet denied in the NVC, to the spouses and the children who were here today, those whose lives have been catastrophically affected by their father's or mother's service-related physical and mental disability.
CVA proposes, for those who wish to choose the option of the lump sum award, that a 100% disabled veteran be awarded a tax-free lump sum of $1.5 million; that there be a supplementary lump sum award for a wife in recognition of her sacrifice, of $250,000; and that there be a supplementary pension award for the children in recognition of their sacrifice, of $50,000 per child. Conversely, those who would prefer to embrace the Pension Act provisions would be free to do so for a modernized program that would harmonize the Pension Act provisions with the new Veterans Charter opportunities.
Thank you for inviting the Canadian Veterans Advocacy to speak to these issues. We pray that our words have inspired the spirit of our nation within you, and that you will indeed craft legislation that is comprehensive and that will restore, not ignore, that will embrace, not replace, the sacred obligation that we—you, I, and all Canadians—bear for those who stand on guard for thee with true patriot love.
Thank you.
