Veterans Affairs Committee on April 1st, 2014

[Richard Blackwolf]

Our organization at the time was a member of the NCVA. As Chairman Forbes has brought it out, that was our position in those days.

Concerning what we have today, I can remember that when I was young, at the end of World War II, there were gratuities. People, including our family members, the ones who survived the war, came home in 1947, and they had options—the Veterans' Land Act and that kind of thing. I don't recall any great controversies or upsets with people, and my grandfather was an expert on these things.

But what I'm trying to say is that five years later, in 1950, when the call to arms went out again for the young people in our families and across the country for the Korean War, had the provisions they had at the end of World War II been insufficient and caused a lot of problems, our family and many of the others from across the country would have said no to their sons going until they were fixed. That's what will happen here.

There's a website I was going to point out today called Wars in the World. Right now there are about 256 conflicts going on. There is a potential always that two or three of them could blow up. Who is going to fight this war? Until this is fixed, I can tell you right now that on our website we'll have banners saying that nobody is going. We don't want anybody going until this is fixed. It has to be fixed.

[Deanna Fimrite]

Mr. Chairman, I believe your question was whether we were consulted about Bill C-55.

I wasn't in my position back then. My predecessor, Lorne McCartney, would have been the Dominion secretary-treasurer at that time. I would assume that if ANAVETS and the NCVA and the Legion and the other veterans organizations were consulted, we likely would have had different priorities from what you found in Bill C-55 at the time, but that is what came out of it.

So we would have been consulted, but—I cannot say this for certain, so you'd have to ask my predecessor—my guess would be that our priorities, as given at that consultation, would have been not quite the ones that came out in Bill C-55.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Okay, thank you very much.

Mr. Valeriote, please.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you all for coming today to speak to us.

Mr. Forbes, in other language and based on an opinion that I have now arrived at after being here for just a little more than a week, the government has been ragging the puck on fixing the veterans charter and addressing the real issues.

I have looked at and have read most of “Improving the New Veterans Charter”, from the veterans ombudsman. I have looked at reports. He says there are three main flaws: financial instability caused by reduced post-release income and insufficient after-65 support; limitations in vocational rehab and assistance; and third, insufficient support to families.

He says then in his report that we should look at everything with this lens: the adequacy of the programs or whether they are appropriate; the sufficiency of the programs or whether they are supported financially and with proper human resources; and finally, whether they are accessible to everyone who needs the program.

I'm listening to all the different presentations today and last week. Everybody has their own idea of how to fix things, though we all agree on what's broken.

Mr. Forbes, you come from a legal background, and I got the clear impression that you've been involved previously in personal injury cases for people other than veterans. You talked about future cost of care, loss of income, and a pain and suffering award—those three elements.

That intrigues me. Do you think that the application of this approach that the courts take has merit when it comes to veterans with these kinds of total and permanent disabilities, something like structured settlements and others that you no doubt have been involved in?

[Brian Forbes]

As I touched on in my submission, I put forward the supposition that we're always looking for a model. What is the model we should use to compensate our veterans? We had a Pension Act model, which had its strengths and weaknesses; we've had disability insurance, which has its strengths and weaknesses; we looked at workers compensation—I think this committee has looked at it—as another model. I don't know why we don't look at what the courts do.

I appreciate the question, because as I suggested earlier, we have general damages now—under the new Veterans Charter, coincidentally—which are about $50,000 short of what a court might award. We have sort of future care costs, because our health care programs and treatment benefit programs more or less cover the future care costs of our veterans. They could be improved, but this is a component that a court would look at.

And a court would look at future loss of income. That's what we do not have. Under the charter, we have a frozen income. If a young corporal or private is badly injured, he walks out of the service firstly with a 25% reduction of income; he winds up with a fixed income with a small cost of living increase maxed at 2% for the rest of his life until he reaches the age of 65, and then he's cut off.

The courts would not do that. The courts would look at future loss of income and project the career earnings of that young private or corporal and award that as part of the overall assessment of damages.

We looked at this in the new Veterans Charter advisory group, and our proposal was to use that as the model: use the empirical evidence, which could be very easily found, as to where a private or corporal would wind up if he lived through his normal military career. Give him that amount of money and increase his salary as it would have been increased had he stayed in the service, which is where he wanted to be in the first place.

So to answer your question, rather than going on at great length here, yes, I think the court model would be an excellent parallel, which would at least address this idea of future loss of income, which is missing from the charter.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

All right, thank you.

I'm going to ask each of you, Deanna, Brian, and Richard. The government likes marks on these things. On a scale of A to F, with F for failure or A-plus for really good, how would you rate the government's response to its covenant, the social covenant and sacred obligation that was to be manifested through the new Veterans Charter?

Deanna?

[Deanna Fimrite]

Mr. Chairman, I think everybody answered that question. It's missing in legislation, and now the government—

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

—A to F?

[Deanna Fimrite]

—although it may not be the minister.... The minister has committed in public that he believes that there is some sort of covenant—

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

—A to F, though.

[Deanna Fimrite]

—but the government lawyers are not quite there. So I have to give them at least a D-minus.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Forbes.

[Brian Forbes]

I'm glad you've asked that question, because as you know, the idea of a social covenant is fundamental to what we're doing here today and what we do in the veterans community and what I hope this committee looks at on a regular basis.

I know the term was used last week before this committee that there's a disconnect. There's a disconnect between what the minister is now saying publicly and what the Department of Justice is arguing in the class action Equitas Society lawsuit in the British Columbia Supreme Court.

You'll find our letters to the editor attached to my brief, by the way, in case you want our full response.

Our feeling is that the government should be ashamed that they would go into a court of law and argue that there is no such thing as a social covenant that protects our veterans, and that's where I see the disconnect. I found that the minister—and I don't mean to be disrespectful—saw the light a couple of weeks ago and said: wait a minute; I agree with all of that, that there's a social covenant, there's an implicit contract, there's a sacred trust. He said that in a press communiqué, and we welcomed it.

But we still see the Department of Justice arguing in the courts that there's no such thing as a social covenant. It wasn't even a necessary argument to deal with this case. Why did they raise it? Why didn't the minister instruct the Department of Justice to take that off the table? That is sacrilegious in the veterans community.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I asked that in the House.

[Brian Forbes]

When you talk about social covenants, you don't dare suggest that one doesn't exist.

I'm sorry. I got on a bit of a rant, but I welcome the question. What it comes down to is yes, I think it's a D-minus. The actions that have been implemented to deal with the flaws in the charter are unsatisfactory; they're unacceptable.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I asked the question yesterday, by the way, and got the same—

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Mr. Blackwolf, could we have your answer, please, because we are slightly over our time.

[Richard Blackwolf]

Thank you, honourable Chairman.

Yes, I was in the courtroom for those three days. I watched the expression of the judge. I watched the expressions of the people there. I saw Justice Canada present their case. Mind you, they're trying to block an action. Their whole point of being there is to dismiss that action, so they're going to be saying things like that.

I know that the veterans are horrified. But for me, as an aboriginal.... If you've sat in any courtrooms with aboriginal things going on.... The government says all those same things, including that they don't exist.

Setting that aside, we look upon.... There's a civil-military covenant, and it exists because the governor and the Privy Council have the authority to declare war. The governor, on the advice of the Prime Minister and Privy Council.... That's where the Canadian Forces are deployed, whatever actions they're going to take.

The relationship between the governor and Privy Council and members of the Canadian Armed Forces, who are taking the oath and provided unlimited liability, is a fiduciary relationship. And that's where it comes in. That's the connection between the civil.... The government is transitional. Canada is the people and also the honour of the crown, which is this other part up here. Both of them have fiduciary responsibility.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

A to F?

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Thank you.

[Richard Blackwolf]

F.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

It's kind of like question period, Frank. You don't know what you're going to get out of this thing, do you?

Mr. Hayes, please, for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The same questions will be directed to all of you. They are comprehensive questions.

Mr. Forbes, I'm going to direct them to you first.

Mr. Chair, I'll leave you the liberty as to whether you allow the others to answer, because they are a bit comprehensive.

I just want to understand, in terms of preparation for today's meeting and the recommendations you have all brought forward, how these were identified, how you solicited feedback, and was there, in fact, unanimity?

In terms of how you identified feedback, did you send out the proposed recommendations to all your members, or did you send out a request asking your members for recommendations? On top of that I want to know, are your recommendations prioritized, and if not, would you be prepared to prioritize them in writing for our group?

In terms of the report you're presenting to us today, did you send it out to your members for their feedback and for their support prior to bringing it forward to our committee?

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Mr. Forbes, you probably can use up all his time on the question by yourself.