Evidence of meeting #19 for Veterans Affairs in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was charter.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Parm Gill Conservative Brampton—Springdale, ON
Can you tell us a bit about that in terms of whether all of it came from DND or VAC or was there a certain portion of that came from DND or from VAC?
As an Individual
When I say $266,000 that is my DA that I received from Veterans Affairs. I received $250,000 from SISIP which is insurance that I paid for over and above what Veterans Affairs offers. I think my total dollar figure was $566,000.
Conservative
Parm Gill Conservative Brampton—Springdale, ON
Just to clarify, $266,000 came from Veterans Affairs?
Conservative
Parm Gill Conservative Brampton—Springdale, ON
You said that roughly $250,000 came from SISIP, I guess.
Conservative
Parm Gill Conservative Brampton—Springdale, ON
Okay. The other question I have is assuming that you must have had some experience with the joint personnel support unit.
As an Individual
Currently I fall under the chain of IPSC Calgary, which falls under JPSU Edmonton. It's a release and retention command, so I've had a lot of guidance from them. They've been managing my case for the last couple of years.
Conservative
Parm Gill Conservative Brampton—Springdale, ON
Can you share your experience on that with us, please?
As an Individual
When I originally went to the IPSC in Calgary, it was a rather new organization. The whole JPSU idea is fairly new to the military. There were a few teething problems getting off the ground at the start, but I would say in general my experience has been positive. They put me back in a work environment at the museum where they could manage my progress, and at the same time I was doing something I thought was meaningful, staying connected to my regimental family, etc. There was a group of specialists there who could watch my transition, make sure I knew about these programs, make sure I hit my medical appointments, and things like that. It's definitely a beneficial unit to have, definitely.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Greg Kerr
Unfortunately, it doesn't transfer.
This is all very friendly. We're up against it because of the votes coming up.
One of things we talked about was the cooperation between DND and Veterans Affairs, how that might be streamlined, and so on. If you have any additional comments you'd like to send along in writing, we'd certainly appreciate getting those as well.
As an Individual
My main thing would just be to re-emphasize the earnings loss benefit, and change needs to happen with that. The fact that a member who decides to go back to work is penalized for doing so, to me and most veterans, that's unacceptable. If I want to contribute in a meaningful fashion, I should be able to do so. Under the old system I could go back to work and I would not be penalized for doing so. To me, that's a lot more incentive to get veterans out there. Even if they're doing some kind of menial job, they're still engaging within their community. That is the one thing that absolutely needs to be addressed.
The other is what happens at age 65 with the 2% lump sum. That absolutely needs to be addressed because, again, there are going to be a lot of severely disabled veterans who are going to be out in the cold and they're going to be in rough financial standing when they reach retirement age. I would stress that those are very important points, and those really need to be addressed.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Greg Kerr
We're going to suspend for a couple of minutes to thank our witness and then we'll move on to the next witnesses.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Greg Kerr
Okay, we're back in action. We had a wonderful get-together to decide who's going first, and when we get started I'm going to let you folks go in that order if you don't mind.
I want to welcome you all here this afternoon. As you're well aware, we're continuing this study of the review of the new Veterans Charter. It's very important that we get your views on record. I think you know the routine: we have the presentations, each organization has 10 minutes to do so, then we do a round of questions. Because there is a vote that's going to take place upstairs, the bells go at a quarter after five, what we'll do is we'll continue until you finish your presentations, in other words we're not going to leave at that time but we definitely have to be upstairs by a quarter to six. We will come back down and then resume the questioning, so you'll have time to regroup or figure out further strategy while we're upstairs doing our business.
So thank you very much for being here and I believe, Mr. Forbes, we're going to start with you.
We have Brian Forbes, chair of the National Council of Veteran Associations in Canada. Also, Derrill Henderson is with you, the vice-chair, national secretary, Hong Kong Veterans Association.
Thank you very much for joining us.
Mr. Forbes, please begin your presentation.
Brian Forbes Chairman, National Council of Veteran Associations in Canada
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First of all, I'd like to thank the committee for inviting us to your session on this very important subject, the review of the new Veterans Charter.
I am the chairman of the National Council of Veteran Associations, and I'm also the chairman of the executive committee of the War Amps of Canada. I'm accompanied by Derrill Henderson, who is our vice-chair, and is the national secretary of the Hong Kong Veterans Association, which is a member group of the NCVA.
The NCVA, Mr. Chairman, was founded over 80 years ago and today reflects an umbrella organization of some 60 distinct veterans associations, formed to ensure a strong and independent voice on issues that are of significant concern to the veterans community at large.
If I could just take a moment, Mr. Chairman, I would like to, before I start my formal presentation, just indicate to you that, as many of you will be aware, the former chair of the NCVA, Cliff Chadderton, passed away last November. I would like to take this opportunity to publicly thank the members of this committee, particularly your vice-chair, Peter Stoffer, for the generous tribute that you paid Cliff in the House of Commons on December 3 of last year. This was not only appreciated by our organizations, but was also appreciated by the Chadderton family.
For over 35 years, I had the privilege to work with Cliff as the association's solicitor for the War Amps, as the secretary general of the NCVA, and also as his personal legal counsel. As you all know, Cliff dedicated his entire life to protecting the interests of veterans and their families. He was an inspirational leader of the veterans community and his tenacity and determination were legendary in the many crusades that he took up on behalf of Canada's veterans.
He was a truly remarkable advocate for the disabled, and particularly the amputee community.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, if I could just start my presentation, I did want to make that observation and record it for—
Chairman, National Council of Veteran Associations in Canada
Good.
Mr. Chairman, I believe you have our submission. I'll try to go through it as quickly as I can, but there are important parts to it that I'd like to emphasize.
As a matter of background, upon the enactment of the charter in 2006 the government declared that the legislation represented a “living charter” and made a formal commitment to the veterans' community that as gaps and inequities were identified, immediate remedial action would be taken to address these deficiencies. Unfortunately, the government has largely failed to fulfill this commitment with regard to a significant number of substantive issues impacting upon the financial security and compensation benefits of disabled veterans in violation, in our opinion, of the social covenant that the Canadian people owe to our veterans and their families.
Through the consultation process that led to the enactment of the charter, it was recognized by all veteran stakeholders and indeed, I would suggest, by the government itself that the veterans charter was an imperfect document. I would underline that the government commitment to address inequities was fundamental to the acceptance of the charter by the veterans community. There has been some misunderstanding of this over the years, but that was the process. The commitment to alter, the commitment to identify mistakes and flaws and rectify them, was fundamental. I'm sure everyone at this end of the table would agree.
Recent studies, including that of the new Veterans Charter advisory group of 2009, this standing committee's report in 2010, which was entitled “A Timely Tune-up for the Living New Veterans Charter”, and the recent ombudsman's report of October 2013 clearly identify the self-evident inadequacies of the new Veterans Charter.
Mr. Chairman, we can summarize those deficiencies as follows.
First is the financial instability and decreased standard of living caused by reduced post-military release income and insufficient financial support after the age of 65 for totally and permanently incapacitated veterans. I'm sure you've had many witnesses who have talked to that point.
Second, the unduly restrictive application of the permanent impairment allowance provisions of the charter unreasonably constrains the number of disabled veterans who are able to qualify for appropriate levels of entitlement for this important allowance.
Third, there is the insufficiency of the lump sum disability award in its failure to parallel the non-economic awards that are awarded by the Canadian courts.
Fourth, there are the limitations in vocational rehab and educational funding, which impact on secondary career aspirations and employment options for veterans.
Fifth, there is inadequate support to address difficult family environment scenarios as a consequence of military service.
Mr. Chairman, the government's inertia in relation to this list of well-established concerns is simply unacceptable to the veterans community. The government has done a number of things over the last eight years, but they have done nothing to substantially change the charter in these major categories of concern, except in a brief effort with regard to Bill C-55.
The NCVA has consistently demanded over the last number of years that Veterans Affairs implement an overall plan of action to fulfill its commitment not only to reforming the charter, but also to dealing with other outstanding issues impacting on seriously disabled veterans and their health care.
In accordance with the fundamental conclusions of the aforementioned studies, it continues to be our position that, notwithstanding the ostensible economic constraints that have faced the country over the last few years, the seriously disabled veterans should be given immediate priority in the implementation of the first phase—and I emphasize “the first phase”—of VAC's plan of action for legislative reform.
In our opinion, there is no higher obligation on Veterans Affairs Canada and the veterans community than the responsibility to address the requirements of seriously disabled veterans and their families. In this regard, we take the position that budgetary restraints should never be a consideration in satisfying the needs of the seriously injured or the permanently incapacitated. In the NCVA's view, immediate implementation of a comprehensive course of action to legislate charter reform, pursuant to the recommendations of the various advisory groups—this standing committee, this standing committee's report of four years ago, and the veterans ombudsman's report of October—would represent an important step towards meeting the controversy surrounding the much-maligned lump sum disability award through these proposed enhancements of the complementary benefit and the income support programs in the current legislation.
We have encouraged the new minister, Minister Fantino, and his predecessors to get out in front of the significant criticisms of the charter with such a plan of action and to adopt a proactive approach vis-à-vis this committee review that is presently taking place.
Given the significant and exhaustive studies already completed on charter reform over the last five years, it was our expectation indeed that the minister would be in a position to present recommendations to this committee as part of your evaluation.
The minister appears to be suggesting to the committee that he wishes to hear your views before he's prepared to initiate any action. It seems to me that the time for action is long overdue.
Based on the consensus of all of these advisory group proposals and the unanimous position of the 60-member organizations of the NCVA, in our judgment these further reforms to the charter should include the following. If I may, let me touch on these, Mr. Chairman.
First, the SISIP long-term disability program should be eliminated to eradicate the insurance culture constraints presently contained in the charter. It is to be noted that at the time of the enactment of the charter, VAC committed that as a fundamental precondition to the passage of the legislation, the SISIP LTD program would be eliminated as soon as possible so as to remove the restrictions that were inherent to the overall income replacement program. That was again a fundamental commitment to our acceptance of the charter in 2006.
In this regard, the earnings loss benefit should be increased to 100% of pre-release income and in relation to permanently incapacitated veterans be paid for life and not terminated at 65, as is currently the case.
In addition, the projected career earnings of a Canadian Armed Forces member should be employed as the standard for the payment of the earnings loss benefit. In this context, VAC should adopt the approach utilized by the Canadian courts in assessing the concept of future loss of income, which specifically addresses the projected lifetime earnings lost by a plaintiff in a personal injury claim.
Mr. Chairman, we're often talking about what model we should be following under the charter. We talk about the Pension Act, we talk about disability insurance programs, we talk about workers compensation. Why don't we talk about what the courts do? The courts look at all of these features. Yes indeed: they have a lump sum award as general damages, they have a future loss of income projection, and a future care cost element.
It's the future loss of income parallel that I'd like to propose to this committee to consider seriously as the model. We can talk about it later, if you'd like.
I might just say that as an interim measure, one of the problems we have confronted over the last number of years is that the SISIP program is administratively very difficult to extract from the system. If that continues to be the case, we are proposing that there be a top-up; that Veterans Affairs top up the insurance policy— bump the coverage from 75% to 100%, change the termination date from the age of 65 to the end of life, and get rid of the COLA cap. There is a 2% COLA cap under SISIP of which you may or may not be aware, which hasn't had any impact because inflation hasn't been quite as rampant as it normally is. But 2% is the cap.
The idea of applying the future career projected loss of income is something that can be put in as a VAC element to the SISIP policy. We obviously would like to see the policy eliminated, but it has been eight years. It's time to do something as a solution by way of a top-up.
The restrictions and complexities of the permanent impairment allowance guidelines should be addressed, so as to allow greater numbers of disabled veterans to qualify for appropriate levels of entitlement for this important allowance.
We have noted in our submission, Mr. Chairman, that the PIA was intended to be a fundamental component of the financial security and compensation package contained in the charter in relation to seriously disabled veterans. In effect, the objective of the allowance was to address the loss of career earnings suffered by a totally and permanently incapacitated veteran.
As evidenced by the findings of the recent veterans ombudsman’s report, the restrictive application of the PIA by Veterans Affairs has led to the conclusion that this significant allowance has largely failed to fulfill its purpose.
Statistics developed by the ombudsman demonstrate that more than 50% of seriously disabled veterans have not qualified for PIA, which is shocking. Of those veterans who have been granted PIA, 90% have been awarded the lowest grade, grade 3. In effect, that means, with a $20,000 allowance, that 90% of the most seriously disabled are only getting $6,000 to $7,000. It was meant to be much more.
Something that should be noted as well is that for the enhanced permanent impairment allowance you have to qualify for the primary PIA before you get the enhanced version, which means that if you don't make the first grade, you don't make the second grade. That, to us, is absolutely contrary to the intent of the legislation.
We have spent considerable time in this submission talking about our proposal. I won't read it all; I'd just refer you to it, on page 4. It basically talks in terms of a simplification of this PIA allowance.
Why don't we simply look at the disability award of the veteran? If the veteran has a 70% or more disability award, then give them a grade 1 PIA. Don't force them to go through applications, don't force them to get medical reports. He's a primary class A seriously disabled veteran, permanently incapacitated. Do we really have to ask such a veteran to go through a process to get a grade 1 PIA? I don't think so.
From 48% to 78%, a grade 2 would be automatically awarded. In this way, we would be in a position to actually take away the complexities of the allowance and create an administratively efficient solution. As I've concluded in our brief, this would allow PIA to satisfy its original objective as conceived under the charter.
Quickly, the lump sum disability award should be increased, as I mentioned earlier, to be commensurate with what's paid in the Canadian courts. The differential now is approximately $50,000 between the two. In our opinion, there is no justification for a lower amount being paid to a disabled veteran who is severely injured in the service of his country. Why should a plaintiff in a motor vehicle accident be entitled to $50,000 more in general damages compared to a veteran who was seriously injured in Afghanistan?
Educational benefits should also be expanded to both of the rehab provisions of the charter so as to address the vocational and occupational constraints faced by many returning veterans with serious service-related disabilities.
We do commend the minister for his announcement of last October where he bumped, in effect, the VOC rehab program to a $75,000 cap for individuals, which is a substantial increase.
Our only concern is that there are so few veterans who are granted eligibility for educational grants. In the process of the veterans ombudsman's study, they discovered that only 31 veterans since the year 2000 have been granted an educational eligibility. There have been 32 under the SISIP program. If we're going to effectively recognize that education is a serious requirement for a seriously disabled veteran then the system has to give that recognition.
The last concern is on compensation: the discrimination that currently exists with reference to specific classes of reservists, particularly those who are seriously disabled, should be eliminated in the charter and also in the SISIP provisions.
With regard to family concerns, we have two recommendations. In order to recognize the caregiving requirements that many disabled veterans confront to cope with their incapacities, the attendance allowance provisions of the Pension Act should be added to the charter in recognition of the financial costs faced by many families.
And lastly, the charter should acknowledge that veterans with dependants—those who have family members who are dependent on them— should receive a higher level of compensation either through the augmentation of the lump sum disability award or an increase in the earnings loss benefit for such veterans and their families.
Many of you will know that the Pension Act does recognize that distinction. Under the Pension Act, if you have a spouse or you have dependent children, you get more pension. We don't recognize that under the charter and that is of concern.
If I could conclude, Mr. Chair, we commend the minister for his immediate commitment upon receipt of the ombudsman's report to effectively initiate this review that you are now all participating in. We do commend the minister on his emphasis that the most seriously injured, support for families, and the delivery of programs by VAC are important priorities.
However, in our judgment, the aforementioned proposed reforms have been studied and studied to death, Mr. Chairman, and analyzed for many years, such that the gaps and voids have been readily identified by all of the advisory groups, by your committee, and by the ombudsman in the recent report.
In our considered opinion, it is long overdue for VAC to become proactive and implement remedial legislation to address those well-established concerns and live up to its obligation under the social covenant to Canada's veterans and their dependants.
For a government that professes to support our military, the lack of substantive action to reform the charter is truly unacceptable and represents a betrayal of the government's commitment to the veterans' community.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I apologize for taking longer than I should have.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Greg Kerr
Thank you very much. Would you mind changing seats? The next presenter is going to be Deanna Fimrite. If you could face all of the committee members, I would appreciate that.
From the Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans in Canada, we have Deanna Fimrite, the Dominion secretary-treasurer. We're pleased to have you here and as you know, you have more or less ten minutes. That's just a guide, so please go ahead. We'd like to hear from you.
Deanna Fimrite Dominion Secretary-Treasurer, Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans in Canada
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, it is a great honour to represent Dominion President George Beaulieu, our executive, and the approximately 15,000 members of Canada’s most senior veterans association, The Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans in Canada, or ANAVETS for short. Our association has a long history of contributing to the consultation process with governments of the day in relation to services and benefits affecting the well-being of veterans, current serving members of the Canadian Armed Forces, as well as former members of the RCMP.
ANAVETS was a contributing stakeholder in all the committees and advisory groups leading up to and following the passing of the new Veterans Charter. We understood that as the traditional war veterans were aging, the programs and services were being adjusted to remain relevant with their changing needs. Conversely, these same programs and services were inadequate in addressing the needs of a new, younger generation of veterans.
The new Veterans Charter was to encompass a holistic approach to disability management and career transition and to encourage health and wellness for not only the veteran but the entire family. The new approach was to be easily adaptable to changing situations and requirements and, as such, was considered to be a living charter, which meant that as needs changed or we realized gaps in services and support, the legislation would be easily adjusted to remedy those shortcomings.
Unfortunately, in the eight years since the all-party passing of Bill C-45, the only enhancement of the legislation has been with Bill C-55, which delivered the minimum pre-tax income standard of $40,000 for earnings loss benefit, the introduction of the permanent impairment allowance supplement, and offered options to veterans on how to receive their disability award. There continue to be major shortcomings with the new Veterans Charter that have not been addressed, leaving veterans and veterans groups feeling duped with respect to the promised ongoing improvements to address gaps as they were discovered. To this end, we request that a biennial review of the charter be instituted to confirm the government’s resolve to truly make this a living charter.
It is of further concern that the legislation was written without the construction paragraph that can be found in the Pension Act, the War Veterans Allowance Act, and the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act, which is commonly referred to as the social covenant. In light of the comments made by government lawyers in the Equitas lawsuit, we request that the following paragraph be enshrined in the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act. I will read that for you.
The provisions of this Act shall be liberally construed and interpreted to the end that the recognized obligation of the people and Government of Canada to provide compensation to those members of the forces who have been disabled or have died as a result of military service, and to their dependants, may be fulfilled.;
This would put an end to the ongoing debate regarding the moral, social, legal, and fiduciary responsibilities that this nation’s citizens and its government have with regard to their commitment to the care of and compensation to veterans and their families. For those who were willing to write a blank cheque for up to and including their lives for this great nation, we owe them nothing less.
It is clearly understood that both rehabilitation and transition success is heavily correlated with financial stability. Injured veterans are much more likely to be able to concentrate on their rehabilitation program if they are not burdened with the concern over how they will be able to financially support themselves and their families. It is not surprising then that the most pressing priorities encompass issues of a financial nature.
In April 2013, the Veterans Consultation Group, consisting of 20 veterans groups, unanimously agreed that the following items needed to be the top priorities for immediate resolution. These priorities were reiterated by the same group in October 2013 and are issues that have also been identified by the veterans ombudsman’s report on the new Veterans Charter.
One, the earnings loss benefit must be increased to 100% of the pre-release salary and include provisions for loss of projected career earnings, be continued for life, and be indexed according to the consumer price index, removing the currently mandated 2% cap.
Two, the inequity of compensation paid to class A and B reservists with less than 180 days' service who receive injuries attributable to service cease.
Three, the maximum disability award be increased so that it is consistent with the amounts provided by a court of law to injured civilian workers.
These priorities remain unresolved and we implore this committee to recognize them in your deliberations as being the most vital items requiring immediate action.
The veteran’s ombudsman has provided a comprehensive set of reports including an actuarial analysis of the new Veterans Charter and has outlined the deficiencies with the programs and services provided therein. His review is unbiased, comprehensive, and fully supported by ANAVETS and we urge this committee to consider all of his recommendations in this comprehensive review. He has highlighted, as a major concern, the circumstances surrounding the most seriously injured veterans.
It is recognized that severely injured veterans may never have the ability to work permanently again. It is these veterans who are most vulnerable at the age of 65 when their earnings loss benefit is suddenly ended. A mere 2% retirement supplement is insufficient when over the years their income has been reduced to 75% of their salary, hampering their ability to save for their retirement years. Furthermore, although taxable, because the earning loss benefit is not considered earnings income, it does not give the option for continuing to contribute to the CPP, thereby reducing the amount of future income to be received upon reaching the age of 65 or 67.
It is therefore imperative that the totally and permanently incapacitated veterans be eligible to receive the permanent impairment allowance and the permanent impairment allowance supplement. We are deeply concerned that the ombudsman has found that over half of veterans deemed totally and permanently incapacitated are not in receipt of the PIA and the supplement when, by Veterans Affairs' own definition:
A Veteran may be determined to be Totally and Permanently Incapacitated if the Veteran is assessed as not having the capacity to return to any occupation which can provide suitable, gainful employment as a result of the permanent health problem(s) for which the Veteran is eligible for the Rehabilitation Program.
The amount of PIA payable is based on the extent of the veteran's permanent and severe impairment, and the payment of the PIA supplement is based on whether the veteran is totally and permanently incapacitated to the extent it prevents the veteran from performing any occupation that would be considered suitable, gainful employment.
In light of these similar definitions, it would be expected that all veterans who are considered totally and permanently incapacitated be automatically eligible for the PIA and PIA supplement. In addition, the attendance allowance and exceptional incapacity allowance should also be made available to severely injured veterans if required.
When a Canadian Armed Forces member becomes ill or injured the entire family unit is affected. In many cases spouses become caregivers or breadwinners and family dynamics change or break down. When dealing with mental health issues of a spouse or a parent, anxiety is often heightened and access to support systems becomes imperative. When transitioning from military to civilian life, there needs to be a continuum of care for the family members who are affected.
Military families often require short-term counselling, workshops, group therapy, child care, and referral services, all of which are available to them through the military family resource centres. After their family member releases from the forces, currently all of these supports are no longer accessible. Family members need to have access to counselling in their own right, as well as similar support services for child care, and respite care for those spouses who are giving full-time care to their injured partner.
In many cases, military spouses have given up career and education advancement to follow their husbands and wives as they received new postings and to raise children alone when duty called. When a CF member is seriously injured, it is often the spouse who becomes the full-time caregiver, further hampering their ability to work outside of the home. The Government of Canada needs to address these issues by offering respite care and compensation for full-time caregivers.
With the recent office closures and an overall reduction in front-line staff at Veterans Affairs Canada, there is a concern that the quality and timeliness of program delivery will suffer. This is an item that all veterans groups are watching closely.
The process in which members are transitioned from the care of the Department of National Defence to Veterans Affairs Canada requires continued harmonization, so that all transitioning members are acutely aware of the services available to them, and the eligibility, timeline, and required documents they need to access these programs and services. Adjustments to eligibility requirements and expansion of the timeline in which veterans and their families have to apply for the programs should be re-examined, in order to ensure that undue hardship is not put on these members at a time when they are ill and unable to handle the pressure of time constraints and unnecessary bureaucracy.
To conclude, in order to truly ensure that our servicemen and women are able to successfully transition from a life of service to country, to a fulfilling life of civilian employment, we need to invest in their future. By making certain that they have the financial stability to concentrate on their health and vocational training, we can ensure that they are well-equipped to start a new and fulfilling career. For those who have received injuries that preclude them from that ability, we must ensure that they and their families are cared for and compensated in a manner such that their quality of life, as near as possible, be no worse off than had the injury never occurred.
Since the introduction of the new Veterans Charter in 2006, there have been many reports issued from advisory groups, stakeholders, and parliamentary and senate committees highlighting over 200 recommendations on the necessary improvements needed for the new Veterans Charter. Add to that the comprehensive review and recommendations put forth in the ombudsman's report, and there is a clear road map for improvement. Now is the time for action.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
