Veterans Affairs Committee on April 1st, 2014

[Brian Forbes]

I'll try not to take up the entire six minutes but within the NCVA organization we have what is called a legislative agenda. Obviously Mr. Henderson who is vice-chair is very familiar with this. In all the years I've been with the NCVA and the years that Mr. Chadderton was the chairman—I've been the chairman for the last five years—we've had a legislative agenda at our annual meeting, which is brought forward to all our membership. It's based on the input we get from the membership through the year and we adopt that legislative agenda. Of what I presented today 95% was sourced from that legislative agenda. All our member organizations had an opportunity to speak to it at our annual meeting, to amend it, and at the end of the day, adopt it. That is how the NCVA operates.

We have 60 member organizations; we have about 85% attendance at our meetings, which we're quite proud of. We have a very comprehensive protocol as far as our legislative agenda.

As far as prioritization, I must say, first of all I would share again the view that as a veterans consulting group you are probably familiar with the fact that we meet regularly. There are 20 organizations, we're one of them, the other two groups here are part of that group. We meet at the Legion, the Legion hosts the meetings, and we come together and create priorities.

I'm going to say something that is a little different today, which is we have been pursuing three priority issues, which Deanna identified in her submission earlier and I have touched on in my submission. We identified those two years ago. The reason I want to speak to this is that at that point the government was going through an economic recession. The government reaction to a lot of our proposals was that they didn't have the budget for that, they couldn't do that, they had to deal with the budget of the day, the economic crisis of the day. We cooperated to some degree. We limited our priorities to those three. We asked if they could at least do these three right away. We've waited for two years. We've not seen anything come from those three recommendations.

So when I brought my recommendations here today—and I have about 10 on my list if you're counting—it's a new world today. In 2015 we're facing a government that says they're going to have a budget surplus, hopefully the budget will be balanced in 2014. It's a different world. We'd like to get the charter right. We're a little tired of the one-off solutions of Bill C-55. Bill C-55. was an attempt to at least give the veterans a little something to placate them. It wasn't nearly sufficient. It didn't nearly address the proposals that were on the table. The Legion groups do have priorities, we do support them, but I would like to think your committee would go beyond that. I'd like to get this right. Let's get the charter right. We've had eight years to do it, let's get it right and stop doing incremental changes. That's my view on your questions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Would the other two like to comment briefly, please?

[Richard Blackwolf]

I agree 100% with Chairman Forbes. We were a part of the original committee and this Royal Canadian Legion committee. We've set three, and at the minister's meeting on October 2 we put those suggestions to him, he accepted them, and nothing's happened.

[Deanna Fimrite]

With regard to the Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans in Canada, we have 67 units across the country and seven provincial commands. We have a structure very similar to that of the Royal Canadian Legion. We have Dominion conventions every two years, resolutions come from the membership to that committee, are passed at the convention, and brought back to Ottawa as my mandate for the work of the office for the next two years.

In addition to that I have a 16-member board of directors that has a provincial president from every provincial command within our association, as well as a Dominion vice-president from every province in which we have units. All those people have been consulted in that presentation and the majority of our priorities come from the resolutions passed by our membership.

In addition to that I have also consulted with Robert Cassels, a Dominion past president of ours who served on the VAC-CFAC advisory council as well as the new Veterans Charter advisory group, as well as past president Ken Henderson who served on the gerontological advisory council, my predecessor Lorne McCartney, and our honorary president Gerry Wharton. All very knowledgeable on what has gone on with the legislation.

I would agree with Brian that when we had a list of priorities to be changed, we were told by the government of the day we couldn't do all those, give us three. We gave the government three and still nothing happened. Those are definitely the top three priorities but if we can add some priorities, as Mr. Forbes has eloquently spoken to, let's do it and get it right.

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

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

We'll now go to Monsieur Chicoine, for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank all of the witnesses for being here with us today.

I would like to go back to the existence of the social pact between the Canadian population and veterans. Do you think it would be a good idea, in the preamble of the New Veterans Charter, to state that that social pact exists, so that no one can deny it?

[Deanna Fimrite]

I don't believe that it's in the new Veterans Charter. I believe it's in the Pension Act, it's in the War Veterans Allowance Act, and it's in the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act, but it is not found in the preamble and there is no construction paragraph in the Canadian Forces members and veterans rehabilitation act.

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

In fact, I asked you if you were in favour of spelling out the existence of this social contract with the Canadian population in the preamble of the New Veterans Charter, so that no one may deny its existence.

[Deanna Fimrite]

Yes, absolutely, I asked for that in my presentation.

[Richard Blackwolf]

Most certainly.

[Brian Forbes]

Yes, I'm sorry, my French is not terrific, but I did understand the question.

My only comment would be that it is one thing to talk about a social covenant, it's another thing to implement the true meaning of a social covenant. If the minister wants to speak of believing in a social covenant, then we'd like to see some action with regard to the implementation of it. It's an academic exercise as to whether there is or is not a social covenant. It's very important to the foundation of all veterans legislation going back to World War I because it was used as a basis.

If you don't mind my expressing my concern in this area, if you start talking about “maybe it doesn't exist” or “maybe it shouldn't be enforceable”....Governments are faced with all sorts of competing interests, and there's a long list of people who come to your doors and ask for various things.

If veteran groups are just one of those and they have no priority in the system, then God forbid what will happen to the veterans community. There will be no priority assessed because it doesn't have a spot in the queue which it's had for 100 years. And if someone in the government is suggesting today that the veterans community has lost its spot in the queue, that's extremely troubling.

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

My question is for you Mr. Forbes, since you are a lawyer.

Would the fact of including that in the preamble of the New Veterans Charter correct that problem? In another trial, could attorneys continue to deny the existence of that social pact? What would the solution be to prevent attorneys from claiming that that social pact does not exist?

[Brian Forbes]

I didn't catch the question. My system is not working.

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

I'll ask it again. What is the solution to eliminate the possibility of a lawyer saying again that the social contract doesn't exist?

[Brian Forbes]

Are you referring to the Department of Justice argument in the British Columbia Supreme Court? I have some very strong feelings about what the minister's responsibility should be.

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

What should that responsibility be?

[Brian Forbes]

Yes, exactly, you have a very good question.

The minister has suggested, until very recently, that he has a hands-off attitude with regard to the class action lawsuit in the British Columbia Supreme Court. If the Department of Justice wants to argue that there's no social covenant, it's apparently his position that he will not intervene, he will not issue an instruction to take that off the table. I find that objectionable.

It is the minister's responsibility as the Minister of Veterans Affairs to instruct the Department of Justice as to the position they will take in a legal suit that is being brought by a group of seriously disabled veterans. We find it offensive that the minister has not intervened. It's not the Department of Justice that argues principles for the government, it's the ministers of the various departments that have to instruct.

We've been on the other side of these cases for many years and we have found that ministers have been involved, so we're somewhat dumbfounded as to why this minister has had a hands-off attitude.

I hope that answers your question.

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

How much time do I have left, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

I think there's time for one more.

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

My question concerns financial support for schooling.

The government announced a $2 million envelope over five years, that is, a maximum of $75,000 for post-secondary studies for each veteran. A rapid calculation allows me to say that if each veteran asked for $75,000 to pursue university studies, only 27 veterans could ask for that assistance.

Is that envelope sufficient to help more veterans?

[Brian Forbes]

It's interesting, you've done this math. We did it ourselves and we were struck with the same conclusion that there's only a certain amount of budget available for educational assistance under this new program. We thought initially it was a typographical error because if you're going to initiate a program which is at $20,000 and bump it to $75,000 so that people can basically take on educational assistance as part of a skill set learning, you would think there would be more budget. I would encourage someone to ask the minister as to whether that amount is correct.

The concern we have is that if it is correct then there clearly is a consistent problem which has been in place for some years, which is that so few veterans are found to be eligible for educational assistance that there's very little impact on the budget. Now, I hate to think that would be the conclusion of what I thought was a well-intended change in the VOC rehab regulations, but you have the same mathematical conundrum that we do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Hawn, please for six minutes.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And thank you all for being here. I want to make a couple of points first.

You know, when somebody passes away as a serving member, they get supplementary death benefit which is twice their salary and that happens immediately. The CDS authorizes a cheque and it's cut immediately.

With respect to the last point, veterans affairs programs are demand-driven. There is no $2 million limit on the $75,800. It is demand-driven. If more people apply and they qualify, they get it. There is no artificial $2 million limit. It is demand-driven like most veterans affairs benefits. So, let's please put that aside. It's not true.

Mr. Forbes, you mentioned the Brit system of up to a million dollars and so on. We had another group come in last meeting who suggested the lump sum needed to be $1.5 million and so on. You're suggesting roughly $350,000. You want to look more into that and I would encourage that.

Now, defining catastrophic, what is catastrophic? To me somebody like—you're familiar with Steven Fletcher, our quadriplegic MP who's effectively a quadruple amputee. He has this much movement. To me that's catastrophic. I don't think anybody would argue that. I don't want to get into splitting hairs here but somebody who has lost a couple of legs—which none of us could put ourselves in that position—but they have otherwise full capacity, would that be called catastrophic in terms of a potentially million-dollar settlement?

[Brian Forbes]

Well, as you say, Mr. Chairman through you to Mr. Hawn, catastrophic is the terminology used in Britain at the top end of their lump sum awards.

Let me just throw this out to you. We are very familiar with a number of the amputees who have come back from Afghanistan having suffered the consequences of an IED injury. Yes, they have lost two limbs but, my God, they have lost so much more—