Veterans Affairs Committee on April 8th, 2014

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

We're okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Okay: then you'll be instructed that we'll do the business thing early.

Sorry about that. I do want to thank you very much. It was very helpful today. We look forward to incorporating your thoughts into the study as we go forward.

[Voices]

Hear, hear!

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

We'll suspend for a few minutes, and then we'll start again.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Thank you to everybody who's here. We'll get into detail later.

We have this difficulty that happens on Tuesday nights. We are into longer committee meetings but we have votes that we have to go to and the bells go at 5:15. We're going to start the presentations, we'll stay here until 5:30, maybe slightly beyond that, and then we have to go upstairs. We'll break, we'll come back down after the votes, we'll reconvene, and then we'll do the rounds with the committee.

So thank you for your indulgence and I just want to make sure...we changed the process a bit, so we're going to have Mr. Donald Leonardo, founder and national president of Veterans of Canada. We're also going to have Robert Thibeau, president of the Aboriginal Veterans Autochtones.

We'll start with you, Mr. Leonardo, and then we'll go to Mr. Thibeau, and probably by that time we'll have to suspend for the votes.

So thank you for coming.

[Donald Leonardo, Founder and National President, Veterans of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Hi, I'm Don Leonardo, I'm with veteranscanada.ca which is a social networking web site for those who have served in uniform, and it's a veteran community.

We have over 7,400 members registered in our veteran community. It's a place where they can meet old friends, make new ones, post blogs, comment on the blogs, and keep up-to-date on current events having to do with the veteran community. We had one member who reconnected after 50 years with somebody they went through boot camp with. So this is a big deal for them, to be able to hook up with old friends, and they can do it through our veteran community that has been up and running for over four years now.

So with that I'm going to continue our subject today, and that's a review of the new Veterans Charter.

The first thing I want to talk about is the fact that I am one of the members of the stakeholders that sit with Veterans Affairs. About four years ago, we came together as one group and decided that we were going to support each other. That support was that we wanted to go forward with the previous studies that Veterans Affairs paid for through the new Veterans Charter advisory group and their report, the special needs advisory committee and their report, and the gerontology report. So we wrote a letter to the minister saying that we wanted to see these...what was the number?

[Sean Bruyea, Retired Captain (Air Force), Advocate and Journalist, As an Individual]

There were over 300 recommendations.

[Donald Leonardo]

It was 300 recommendations to fix the new Veterans Charter.

We were told that this was going to be a living charter. I don't know who the doctor is who is going to give CPR to this charter, if it is living; we've had one change in ten years. You may say it's not ten years, but even if you come out with a bill tomorrow, it is still going to take a year and a half to implement, just as Bill C-55 did, That's one change in ten years—for a living document.

Why is the veteran community so upset? It's because we're sitting here and we have to do study after study, when the studies have already been done. You've spent millions of dollars having veterans come to sit in these committee meetings and talk about the problems in the new Veterans Charter. You've spent millions of dollars going through the problems within the veteran community and discussing how we can support the veteran better. You spent millions of dollars, but we're still not providing support for families or for the wife of an injured veteran when she has to quite her job to look after her husband.

A veteran is losing, even if he gets the earnings loss benefit; he gets a 25% pay deduction, after being injured. I'd like to know which member of Parliament here would take a 25% pay cut, along with all the bureaucrats and all the government employees. They were injured in the line of duty and have to take a 25% pay cut while they go through treatment, rehabilitation, and so on.

I've been through the new Veterans Charter from the start to the end of it. I'm now totally and permanently impaired, so I've gone through the whole charter. I can attest to it. Why should an injured veteran take a 25% pay cut and then his wife have to take a 100% cut while she looks after him?

We need to start listening to these recommendations from veterans organizations such as the stakeholder committee, the Legion-hosted veteran consultation group, and so on.

I support the three priorities that have been said over and over again by the Legion, by the National Council of Veterans Associations, and by the other stakeholders. I support the three priorities that the Veterans Ombudsman has brought forward over and over again.

I think it's time to make a change. We need it done quickly this time.

Recently, when I was told that I was going to come to Ottawa and speak before you....

Actually, before I go on with that, there is one thing that I forgot to mention; Sean just pointed this out.

The other thing is that in 1972, a sergeant who retired from the military got a pension when he turned 60, and it was indexed. He got a pension of about $1000 a month. A sergeant who retired yesterday with the same amount of time and same rank will get $3000 a month. If there is a cost of living or CPI increase every year, why is there such a difference between the sergeant who got out in 1972 and the sergeant who gets out in 2012? Can you tell me why?

The reason is that there were top-ups in the early 1980s and 1990s that topped up the National Defence salaries and left the veterans behind. Increases for the veterans have been under 2% per year. That's why they're falling behind. That's why they can't even afford to go into extended living, because even that costs more with Chartwell Retirement Residences.

We need to increase the amount of money that they get from even their own superannuation, and with the injured veterans we need to ensure that there's normal career progression, because they should not be penalized because they were injured in the line of duty.

As I was saying, I polled the 7,400 members of Veterans of Canada, and the immediate response was that the fact is that everybody is stalled at the gate before they even start the new Veterans Charter. A year and a half ago you had the study on VRAB, but it's time to fix the problem. The solutions that were put forward have not changed a single thing.

This is the entry into the new Veterans Charter, so I have a solution to the problem. I've passed out a handout. The solution is a new way to process and approve injury claims for veterans.

In embarking on the road less travelled, Veterans of Canada has canvassed its more than 7,400 members. The majority of our members want to see a better and fairer system put in place that reduces time and wait periods, a system that is proven and that gives the benefit of the doubt, as the Veterans Ombudsman stated previously.

Over the past several years there have been requests to have more veterans employed within the Government of Canada, even to the point that we have now put forward a bill that I feel is very good—I've been pushing for this for years—which provides for priority hiring for veterans.

Let's now offer some other jobs. Let's start the Bureau of Pensions Advocates up again so that we can hire veterans as claims processors. Making the initial claim is a stumbling block for veterans. They fill out the paperwork, but they never have the right documents, and then it is kicked back and we have a problem, because then they have to go through appeals.

If we went back to the pre-1996 Bureau of Pensions Advocates system and hired some claims processors to be with the Bureau of Pensions Advocates, we could have a checklist that indicates that the medical documents from National Defence are attached, the medical documents from Veterans Affairs are attached, and the medical documents from the civilian doctor are attached. This is an opportunity to have a proper claim submitted so that it can be properly adjudicated, and without haste.

The next thing is to get rid of VRAB and get rid of the current system of adjudicating and bring in an evidence-based system. Right now, with National Defence there is a medical review board, and it has been that way for years. It actually works.

Why not just mirror that National Defence board with Veterans Affairs? Hire ex-doctors and ex-nurses, ex-doctors' assistants, 6A and 6B medical people who served in the military—giving more jobs to veterans within the system—but have them adjudicate, because they're the people who treated us. They know the injuries we've had, they see the records, and they understand the x-rays—they were the ones who were doing this.

The only time they would actually see the claim is if someone had been out of the military for a while. The ones coming over from the military have already been adjudicated by the medical review board, so send it to the Veterans Affairs medical officer and he can sign off on it and just pass it to whoever puts numbers to it from the table of disabilities. This is a simple system.

Next, if they happened to turn down a claim, then the appeal process is this. In the U.S. they've started veterans' courts. And yes, they are for criminal cases, but we can have a veterans' court in each province, and either a retired or a sitting judge could sit in each province. On the appeal, your BPA lawyer sits with you and a Veterans Affairs lawyer sits on the other side and argues the benefit of the doubt, just as in a criminal case, beyond the shadow of a doubt.

This is a fair system, allowing for a judge who has spent his whole career on the bench to weigh the evidence presented and then make a decision. This is an evidence-based system that I am proposing.

Lastly, we now have some research that has been done in Kingston, and there is research that has been done all around the world, on veterans' injuries and problems. If that research team happens to find new information or evidence that shows that some of the claims they had turned down are actually legitimate, then we can have a database—this is the age of technology—so that instead of going through the whole process again, the medical doctor in charge of the Veterans Affairs medical review board will just ask them to take all the similar cases out and approve them because new medical evidence has been shown.

This is a very simple system that I'm putting forward. I think this would make the flow to the new Veterans Charter much quicker instead of having people wait four or five months for the first adjudication. Then it goes to the first appeal for another four, five, or six months. Some of these cases go on for six, eight, ten, or twelve years. Recently I was shown one from 1998. We need to speed this up based on medical evidence. That's the way to go. The consensus in the veteran community is that it would be a better process.

I thank you for letting me come and attend today. I hope I provided some solutions instead of just saying this is bad and that is bad. I hope I have provided you with some thought and some solutions, and I hope we can move forward helping those who are seriously in need of help.

I thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Thank you very much, Mr. Leonardo.

I'm sure we will get to the questioning after the votes, as I see the bells are starting to go now.

We thank you for that.

We'll now go to Mr. Thibeau.

As I say, we have about 10 minutes or just a bit more, so keep that in mind, please.

[Robert Thibeau, President, Aboriginal Veterans Autochtones]

Mr. Chairman, honourable members of this Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, fellow veterans, ladies, and gentlemen, I acknowledge the fact that we meet here tonight on unceded Algonquin territory and I thank the Algonquin people. I also thank the creator for the opportunity for me to address the concerns of not only aboriginal veterans, but all veterans.

My name is Robert Thibeau. I am the president of the Aboriginal Veterans Autochtones, an organization which represents aboriginals from across Canada, as well as North America. I also represent tonight the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami. I received an email today sanctioning what I have to say today and they are in agreement with the majority, if not everything that I have said, especially as it deals with some of the issues that I will speak on. I also by memorandum of understanding with first nations veterans of Canada, the Assembly of First Nations veterans, and the veterans of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples....

This is my second appearance in front of this committee and I must say that once again, it's a privilege to be here and I thank you for that privilege.

Before I speak in regards to the issues on the new Veterans Charter, I believe it is important that I speak on issues surrounding aboriginal veterans. The historical military contributions made by aboriginals since the period of contact are well-documented and certainly have a major impact on how we view Canada today as a free and prosperous country. Aboriginal alliances and their contributions were instrumental in the failure of the Americans to gain any ground occupied inside Upper and Lower Canada during the War of 1812 and contributions after Confederation saw large numbers of aboriginals enlist to fight for Canada in both world wars as well as Korea. These contributions today to Canada continue.

What has not been totally recognized is the discriminatory practices against aboriginals, more so against veterans of first nations, regarding both the Soldier Settlement Act and Veterans’ Land Act, which not only affected the veteran but also impacted the families as well. You may be surprised that both acts did not apply to status Indians unless they enfranchised, in other words relinquished their identity as Indians. Income benefits for spouses of those serving overseas...in a majority of cases did not receive those benefits or they were lowered by the Indian agent. The office of Indian Affairs had made a plea to Veterans Affairs that returning aboriginal veterans should be the responsibility of Indian Affairs and not Veterans Affairs Canada.

What I have just presented to you can be found in a paper authored by Dr. Sheffield entitled, “A Search for Equity.” This paper studied the treatment of first nations veterans and dependants of World Wars I and II, and Korea.

I'd like to read an excerpt from an email I received from one of our veterans after I placed an email regarding my appearance here today. “Thank you for the information hereunder. I am familiar with the new Veterans Charter, having been a member of the Royal Canadian Legion branch 96 for the past 60 years and speaking personally as a WWII war service-related disability pensioner and as a warrior Métis, I have absolutely no complaints whatsoever.”

He is not talking about our new Veterans Charter, he is in fact talking about his treatment when he got out of the war in 1945. The only comparison I might make would be the differences now between the present charter and the post-World War II excellent method of treating World War II veterans. Moreover, that refers to the veterans post-war processing on one zone 1945 discharge and the wonderful benefits derived thereof, namely the war service gratuity and the re-establishment credit.

This statement outlines the discrepancies all too evident in the new Veterans Charter today. There have been significant changes with the charter with respect to aboriginal veterans and how they are treated. The new Veterans Charter is now a hot topic of discussion, which includes all veterans and we are now included in that process. There are some issues which mirror veterans across Canada but there are others which are distinct to aboriginal veterans.

Now I would like to read some excerpts from the Prime Minister's announcement of the new Veterans Charter in 2006:

I would like to take this opportunity once again to thank these men and women for their efforts and to let them know that Canadians are proudly standing behind them and their mission....

In future, when our servicemen and women...leave our military family, they can rest assured the Government will help them and their families' transition to civilian life. Our troops’ commitment and service to Canada entitle them to the very best treatment possible.

Regarding the earnings loss benefit, currently the benefit provides 75% of pre-release salary, terminated at age 65 for a totally and permanently impaired veteran. The Aboriginal Veterans Autochtones and its partners view this as unacceptable. Those who have suffered and are classed as permanently impaired should never be concerned that they will lose any financial stability, especially beyond the age of 65.

In addition, we, along with all our other veterans groups, believe that the ELB should be 100% and continue beyond age 65. As has been said, an appropriate table must be developed in a fair and just manner to ensure veterans with permanent impairments are looked after by a grateful nation. As has also been mentioned, it is the approach utilized by the Canadian courts in assessing the concept of future loss of income specifically addressing the projected lifetime earnings loss in a personal injury claim. So if this is applied to civilian workers who are not deliberately placed in harm's way by their employer, why should this concept not be applied equally as well towards all permanently incapacitated Canadian Armed Forces members?

The ombudsman's report of 2013 addressed the issues of the ELB, and his report is quite thorough. He addressed the PIA and the supplement, and, as noted, the average financial payments to those who qualify. Neither Veterans Affairs Canada nor the ombudsman provides any explanation about the discriminatory factors that mean of the 1,428 totally and permanently incapacitated veterans, only 274 will receive all benefits, some will receive ELB only, and others will receive nothing. There appears to be a wide interpretation of the term “totally and permanently incapacitated”. The disparity in numbers between those who receive both the permanent impairment allowance and supplement and those who do not make the benefits appears to be window dressing.

With regard to reserves, the policy awarding smaller benefits to a reservist is based on the deemed standard monthly salary of a reservist, whatever that amount may be. This policy may provide soldiers for hire on the cheap, but it places a higher value on a regular force soldier involved in the same incident with identical injuries than it does on a reservist. Both regular and reserve force individuals with like injuries will suffer the same incapacitation throughout their lives and should receive the same salary considerations and minimum rates of the recommended table payable to a totally, permanently incapacitated veteran. The charter must be changed to provide equal and appropriate benefits to all totally and permanently incapacitated veterans.

With regard to veterans who are over age 65, some, but not all, disabled veterans will have a CFSA pension benefit and will also have accumulated credits towards their CPP benefit that should enable them to sustain themselves after the age of 65 when ELB benefits are cut off. That is for some.

About 274 totally and permanently incapacitated veterans receive both the permanent impairment allowance and supplement until aged 65. These individuals may or may not be able to prepare themselves for post-65 financial requirements. However, a totally and permanently incapacitated veteran who did not receive the permanent impairment allowance or its supplement and also has a CFSA pension and insufficient credits towards the CPP is placed in a financially precarious position. Once again we strongly argue the case for those permanently impaired veterans and the responsibility of the government and Canadians to honour the social contract that has finally been acknowledged to some extent by the current minister.

The ombudsman has completed a great deal of work in consultation with veterans, and his report should be closely scrutinized.

With regard to the disability award, this benefit is generally misunderstood and is awarded for pain and suffering only. The fact that it can be paid in a lump sum or increments is irrelevant. It must not be seen as an income replacement benefit, because it is not.

The ombudsman has pointed out that the value of the maximum benefit has not kept pace with awards of Canadian courts to civilians who were not placed in harm's way, as were Canadian Armed Forces members. It is unfortunate that this anomaly was not corrected in 2011 with the other amendments of Bill C-55; however, there is no reason why this cannot be done now, and this must be a priority of the government.

It is also our view that the Equitas lawsuit is a negative blemish on this current government. It is our view that this should be withdrawn instead of wasting funds to pay for unnecessary court costs at the expense of those who have sacrificed a great deal for this country, and who also saw Afghanistan as a mission in which we very much had to be involved. Now it's time to step up and look after them in the fairest and most equitable way.

I know I'm going a little over the time. Please bear with me.

Communications to remote and rural communities are concerns that will impact those affected by the recent closures of the Veterans Affairs offices. How do we ensure that information regarding benefits is delivered to our veterans on reserves or those living in remote areas? Remote reserves in B.C. are only one example where, as a result of those office closures, aboriginal veterans, as well as other veterans in northern B.C., will now have to travel upwards of 16 hours to seek information from VAC. I do not believe that Service Canada is an alternative.

We must also consider the Canadian Rangers, who will in all likelihood become clients of Veterans Affairs in the future. As a look ahead, and without the creation of another bureaucracy, we should look at the resources that may be effective and are already there. The army chain of command operates in the remote regions in northern Canada, and therefore they are in direct contact with those soldiers. It may well be possible to utilize military trainers who are attached to those soldiers as a capable resource to deliver and possibly to provide brief presentations on Veterans Affairs and the benefits those soldiers may be entitled to.

For those communities that do not have high-tech computers or communications capabilities—and there are many—maybe we could be using the Canadian Forces recruiters to provide information to veterans as a secondary duty in order to ensure that information makes its way to veterans, both aboriginal and non-aboriginal.

With regard to veterans health services, there has been talk in recent years, and now Health Canada and the provincial government of B.C. are in the process of transferring health funding directly to first nations in B.C. The issue here is that we cannot allow the historical negative practices of the past to affect aboriginal veterans and the responsibility that Veterans Affairs has to those veterans. Steps must be taken to ensure that the health problem of an aboriginal veteran does not take any of the money that has been given in a health funding envelope to reserves. To resolve this issue, consultation across Canada must identify veterans who are under Veterans Affairs care and entitled to benefits, or who will be future clients of Veterans Affairs, and must ensure that interdepartmental communications lead to concrete agreements in the interests of veterans and not at the expense of community funding.

Finally, some of our Canadian aboriginal veterans have completed service with the United States armed forces. They have served in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Their entitlements and benefits provided are under the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, or DVA. The problem is that in order to access these benefits they need to be inside U.S. borders. I would ask that efforts be made between VAC and the DVA to work out some form of an agreement that addresses the issue of travel for access to those benefits.

I'm not asking VAC to take over the responsibility, but in consultation with DVA, please see if there's a way we can address that.

The new Veterans Charter, when introduced, was unanimously accepted by all political parties, as well as the military chain of command.

At first glance, it appeared to address the needs of veterans and their families but over the years it was discovered to be deficient in some areas. One can appreciate that nothing is perfect, and the NVC must remain a living and working document.

We must come together as one, both veterans and politicians, to reach a consensus on how best we can look after the needs of those who have sacrificed for this country. Public support for this military and its veterans is at its highest level since the end of the Second World War.

A new generation of Canadians has looked upon our soldiers, sailors, airmen and women with pride and with honour. Veterans deserve to have the government answer, as best it can, the needs of its veterans and not forget the families. While financial compensation is only one part of the issue, health care is also a concern, and we must ensure that those benefits are available.

In addition, the families of those who have deployed around the globe have also suffered from the ghosts of war. They have stood shoulder to shoulder with loved ones who have deployed to areas where human life has not been kind. We must look at these family members as well, and we must reach out and touch the families the same way we're asking you to touch those veterans.

In closing, I would like to acknowledge the excellent work that has been completed by our Veterans Ombudsman, as well as recognize the Royal Canadian Legion Dominion Command for their continued hard work in addressing concerns on behalf of veterans.

History has not necessarily been kind to our aboriginal veterans and their families, but I see hope in the future, hope that as a veterans community, all issues of concern for all veterans of Canada will be equitable and just. I must insist that this committee disregard partisan politics and address veterans issues and concerns with one voice.

I challenge everyone on this committee to look at the issues and not party platforms. All Canadians have acknowledged the sacrifice of all veterans of all conflicts and peace missions of the 20th and 21st centuries.

I thank the chairman and all members of this committee for this opportunity to speak on behalf of the aboriginal veterans, their families, as well as all the other veterans.

Meegwetch, merci, qujannamiik, and all my respect.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Thank you very much, Mr. Thibeau.

Believe me, we weren't going to leave until you were finished. I'd rather see us all have to run upstairs than miss your presentation.

I appreciate your patience. We're going to suspend.

We'll go back and vote. You guys can entertain yourselves, and we will be back as soon as the votes are over.

The meeting is suspended. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

I'd ask committee members to take their seats. I'd also ask the witnesses to take their chairs, please. We are under a tight time parameter.

Okay, folks, as we said before the break, we have two more presentations and then we'll do our questions. We're hoping to get this in basically by 7:30. We'll do our best to do that.

At this point we welcome—not for the first time at the committee—Sean Bruyea as an individual. Also we have Harold Leduc back. It's good to see you both. I know you're going to be presenting us with all kinds of very thoughtful information, so I'm pleased.

Mr. Bruyea, you're going to go first, are you?

[Sean Bruyea]

Yes, Harold has thrown me to the dogs first. Thank you, Harold.

Thank you most sincerely, everyone here, for the invitation to speak today. It's a privilege.

Nine years ago Parliament passed the legislation we now know as the new Veterans Charter, or NVC. The elected members of the House of Commons never debated any of its clauses. They have yet to give serious independent and binding consideration to the dramatic changes that the NVC made to the relationship between Canada and those who were and are prepared to lay down their lives in her service.

In good faith, and I really emphasize in good faith, far too many people accepted the shoddy construction of the NVC because government promised to keep the renovations going. Near stagnant incrementalism, a dirty word in the first 50 years of veterans benefits in Canada, has become the sad new social contract between Canada and our veterans and their families. As the unaddressed recommendations accumulate, will the NVC become increasingly unfit to provide adequate shelter for our veterans and their families in the coming years? Veterans Affairs made pretenses to the glory of post-World War II veterans benefits. The originally aptly named Veterans Charter provided a host of programs for all veterans, whether they were injured or not.

In 2005 and in 2011, I testified to numerous parliamentary committees, providing evidence that the new Veterans Charter was not a charter at all, but a cynical repackaging of already existing programs with but a few limited additions. As for consultation, Treasury Board is unequivocal that consultation must be “clear, open, and transparent”. As well as incorporating input from the stakeholders, consultation must also clearly justify in detail why input is rejected in any final drafts. Such two-way exchanges have never occurred in anything called consultation carried out by Veterans Affairs Canada. Perhaps it is no surprise then that VAC in its latest senior management brief considers project code PC-20, titled “Expand Outreach, Consultation, and Engagement of NVC Programs” closed.

I was first to publicly raise concerns regarding the NVC along with Louise Richard, shortly followed by Harold Leduc. The bureaucracy's outrageous attempts to discredit me are on the public record, thanks in large part to media attention and legal proceedings. What is not on the public record is the bureaucracy's motivation. They were hoping to silence me and intimidate my colleagues. A genuine debate on the merits of the new Veterans Charter is not in the interests of Veterans Affairs Canada.

Canadians go to war. They fight, die, lose limbs, minds, and families at your orders for our values, for our nation. They sacrifice to care for all of us. We do not do all this for bureaucrats, even though they may think differently. Then why is it that Parliament either through inaction or inability has failed to stand up to the bureaucracy? Senator Dallaire has put on the record that the minister in 2005 promised biennial reviews in committee. However, it took four years before the committee wrote its first report with 18 recommendations. Four years later, we are at it yet again with witnesses fighting to have implemented many of the same recommendations you included in your 2010 report.

Bureaucrats claim to have fully implemented and addressed 10 of your recommendations. However, I am unaware of any announcements of appropriate compensation for family members who take care of severely disabled veterans. Similarly, I am waiting for proof that VAC implemented “...as soon as possible the 16 framework recommendations made by the New Veterans Charter Advisory Group...including those entailing legislative and regulatory amendments”. One component of those recommendations: 100% earnings loss tracking career progression and typical career earnings.

But this is just a small sampling of the 160 recommendations that the deputy minister and her office claim they implemented. The DM certainly has the resources to creatively devise such claims as her staff has increased 500% in the past few years while veterans witness the closure of district offices and the removal of trusted front-line worker positions at those that remain. While veterans lose their trusted VAC workers, suicides continue, families fall apart through VAC inaction, veterans languish waiting for or being denied programs, Deputy Minister Mary Chaput has received her performance pay every year since her arrival at VAC three years ago. Is it any wonder veterans are angry? Why are Parliament and the Prime Minister allowing bureaucrats to receive their performance pay while these senior bureaucrats fail to implement Parliament's recommendations? You're the bosses.

There are greater problems with the NVC than just the empty and specious rhetoric coming from Charlottetown. I have tabled 30 recommendations to consider for this comprehensive review in my report titled, “Severely Injured Veterans and their Families: Improving Accessibility to Veterans Affairs Programs for a Better Transition.”

As both sides of the committee table have clearly observed, a VAC availability of programs does not equate to accessibility. Why, for instance, should widows or spouses of incapacitated veterans be time limited on any programs? In the Pension Act, all programs are payable effectively on the date of application. Why, then, is the earnings loss benefit payable when “the Minister determines that a rehabilitation plan or a vocational assistance plan should be developed”? Why are deductions for ELB increased annually when SISIP long-term disability, the public service disability plans, and many workers compensation plans freeze these deductions on the date the income replacement begins? Such pettiness is endemic in the new Veterans Charter.

Government is quick to march out the hypothetical, 24-year-old corporal from the Veterans Ombudsman's report who is projected to receive from VAC $2 million over his lifetime, ignoring that $350,000 of that must be repaid in taxes when none of the Pension Act benefits are taxable. The sad reality is that this corporal does not represent the norm.

As of September 2013, of the 76,000 Canadian Forces veterans who were clients of VAC, just 941 received the permanent impairment allowance. One can only receive this allowance if one is declared totally and permanently incapacitated, or TPI, the most seriously disabled veterans. Of this TPI population, only 38% have a disability assessment as high as this hypothetical corporal. Of those, only 22% are under the age of 45. This corporal represents fewer than 77 individuals or 0.1% of new Veterans Charter clients.

The ombudsman noted that of all the recipients of the permanent incapacity allowance, only one receives the highest grade of $1,724.65 monthly. As for the highly controversial lump sum, which now stands at $301,275.26, only 148 or 4.35%, of all lump sum recipients have been awarded this amount in eight years.

It's interesting to note that these actuarial comparisons assume that VAC adjudicates similar injuries under the NVC at the same level as the Pension Act. However, nothing could be further from the truth. The average award given out by VAC prior to 1995 for World War II veterans was 40%. After adjudication guidelines changed in 1995, the average award for all veterans sank to 25%. Since the introduction of the new Veterans Charter in the middle of the harshest and most violent combat to which we've exposed our military service since Korea, the average award is sitting at now just over 15%. Not only is a disability award inadequate, but access to this benefit is heartlessly stingy.

Yes, there are other programs, certainly. Currently only 14% of lump sum recipients are receiving additional benefits, and only 2% have any long-term economic assistance. Of all those totally and permanently incapacitated, none are allowed to access career transition or vocational services.

We already dehumanize those who most suffer from their service to Canada, the TPI veterans, by freezing their economic potential at a fraction of often artificially low military salaries at release. By preventing access to education and job assistance as a nation, we are in effect saying to them that we believe that our most disabled veterans do not deserve to benefit from lifelong learning and vocational experiences, all proven to lower health care usage and increase well-being incomes on all levels.

Contrary to the claim that the NVC offers opportunity with security, the reality shows something completely different. Canada Pension Plan disability, once accused of being insensitive and lacking compassion, now allows disabled recipients to receive $5,100 annually without reporting it to CPP if they're employed. Even if a TPI veteran were to have CPP overlook these earnings, the VAC income loss program would deduct every single penny. Contrary to claims by VAC officials, veterans are not focused on disability, nor were they under the Pension Act. Even with these onerous deductions, 35% of TPI veterans have a salary over $5,000, indicating to us that they would rather work and have their hard work mean little or nothing at all economically than not work at all.

Section 35 of the Pension Act states: “No deduction shall be made from the pension of any member of the forces because the member undertook work or perfected themself in some form of industry.”

The Pension Act offered much security for the veteran to explore as many opportunities as they wished. Sadly, the NVC incarcerates our most suffering veterans in a psychological and financial prison of frozen human potential for the rest of their lives.

As for families, the legislated mandate of the department defines both veteran and family as equals. However, families while the veteran is still alive cannot access programs independently, and the NVC only pays for family treatment insofar as it supports the veteran in his or her rehabilitation program.

We say we care about the career and health sacrifices of veterans' spouses who do much to care for our seriously disabled veterans. In spite of repeated calls we do not provide these spouses with any attendant allowance whatsoever.

In 2005 the bureaucracy promised case management and psychosocial rehabilitation as part of a slick sales job to sell the NVC to an unsuspecting Parliament and population. However, psychosocial rehabilitation does not exist in Canada in any measurable, consistent, and accessible format as we speak today. VAC did not have a viable definition until 2009, the same year the department was searching for a definition of “case management” in one of its own research reports.

Arguably Canada had the world's best rehabilitation programs for veterans returning from World War II. We can achieve great things once more. One path to repeat this excellence is to sincerely pursue psychosocial rehabilitation for both physical and psychological disabilities, but it will take investment and more than a senior bureaucrat's loathing of taking risks. Incidentally, this is the wrong personality type to be developing any new approach to an old social contract. They're acceptable administrators, but very poor innovators.

If we do nothing about the many NVC programs that are a disincentive to work, that focus on disability rather than ability, if we continue preventing opportunities for seriously ill veterans in our communities while we threaten their security, we know that this will increase health care costs. It will increase treatment and pharmacological drug use. Such short-sightedness will negatively impact the health outcome of their families while lowering the life expectancy of our most seriously injured.

Would it not be better to provide access to life-enriching education and opportunities to seek employment without penalty while these veterans in turn begin to pay more taxes, hence offsetting some of the disability costs? Does that not make better economic sense?

All veterans and their families, especially the most seriously ill, fulfilled their obligation at government's orders without delay, without complaint, and without excuse. All they rightly expected was that government would honour their end of the social contract immediately, expeditiously, and for as long as those veterans and families live.

For our most seriously injured and their families, miserly constructed and administered programs have soundly violated this quid pro quo. Government is clearly not holding up its end of the bargain.

Prime Minister Harper during the launch of the new Veterans Charter in 2006 promised:

In future, when our servicemen and women leave our military, they can rest assured the Government will help them and their families transition to civilian life. Our troops' commitment and service to Canada entitles them to the very best treatment possible.

This charter is but a first step to according Canadian veterans the respect and support they deserve. This was a promise from the current Prime Minister, not one from a century ago.

The dire situation where even the most loyal and timid of veterans organizations is speaking out has become a very loud alarm clock for our elected officials to stand up to the bureaucracy, and finally stand up for our veterans.

We must applaud this government's commitment to victims of crime. However, if this government is willing to come to the aid of those innocent persons who are victims of mindless violence, it should do no less for those men and women that the government has mindfully ordered into harm's way.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Thank you, Mr. Bruyea.

We'll now go to Mr. Leduc, please. Thank you very much.

[Harold Leduc, As an Individual]

Honourable Chair, committee members, thank you very much for the privilege of presenting before you. I'm here with mixed emotions because my case of abuse is still ongoing with the government and I think it's horrible. However, I will do my best to present and stick to the facts and the reason why I'm here.

I would like to start with a quote: “The biggest thing in Canada at the present time is the whole pensions question.” That was written by Major J.L. Todd, a member of the militia pensions and claim board in 1915. He said if this question was not removed from politics, we would have pension troubles in Canada. So here we are with those problems.

The blueprint to the problems we face today with the new Veterans Charter started in my estimation in 1995 with pension reform. As we know they had a whole new look at the World War II Veterans Charter as it was applied to World War II veterans and veterans who served in Korea as well. They realigned and got rid of some of the programs that were no longer usable or no longer required by the aging veterans.

But what they didn't do...and there were only two Canadian Forces veterans who presented during that whole pension reform. It was me and a gentleman named Luc Levesque from the Gulf War veterans. We didn't know what that whole study was all about. We presented on Gulf War issues.

Had we known what it was about and that they were taking away benefits, there would have been a different outcome because the alarm bells would have sounded then.

However, that changed the whole way that the government did business with veterans. Canadian Forces veterans are not considered in any of those reforms. In fact, benefits like the pensioner training regulations that specifically state right in it what Canadian Forces veterans qualify for were taken away.

If we fast forward a little bit and not too far forward, in 1999 there was a review of the veterans care needs study conducted by Veterans Affairs and part 3 was done on the Canadian Forces. What they found is that Canadian Forces had immediate transition needs. What was also happening is that the SISIP program was failing with National Defence. So Veterans Affairs made a conscious effort to overtake SISIP. That's why today the new Veterans Charter is an actual duplicate of the SISIP program. So now we have two programs in place when we only need one.

The new Veterans Charter was not designed to look after veterans in aging. Veterans Affairs said they would look after our aging needs after they sorted out the new Veterans Charter. Here we are, this many years later and they still haven't looked at them. In the meantime, the programs that we qualified for like long-term care and others are being sunsetted. They're being taken away from us while we're being distracted by this constant struggle with the new Veterans Charter.

During our time with the Canadian Forces advisory council, I did some research and I found.... I dug up all the orders in council that sent men and women in Canada to World War II, to Korea, and to the Canadian Forces operations on peacekeeping missions and wherever. I came out with a matrix and I put it together. According to this, we're all equal under the laws of Canada: Canadian Forces veterans, Korea, World War II, we're all equal.

Veterans Affairs brought that to the Justice Department. Justice Department came back with a legal opinion saying I was absolutely right. The bureaucrats at Veterans Affairs said they didn't have to treat us the same. When that was said, representatives from the Legion, the army, navy, air force, National Council of Veterans, Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association, Canadian Association of Veterans in United Nations Peacekeeping, and Gulf War veterans were in the room. Every one of them except for the Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association, which I was the national president of, said that they would follow the Legion's lead.

Now, prior to that, the National Council of Veterans, the Legion, the army, navy, and air force boycotted the Canadian Forces advisory council and anything to do with Canadian Forces veterans to ensure that World War II allied veterans got access from our government to the long-term care veterans independence program at World War II level and the Last Post Fund burial benefits. That's knowing that we were in consultation with the government of the day and they had clearly said that we qualified for those benefits. It's just a matter of opening them up to us.

In the final analysis, we didn't get those, and it's right on the Treasury Board's website. It says that we didn't get those benefits as a calculated risk for giving them to allied veterans.

We've been treated as second-class citizens since then in the veterans community and, to be quite frank, we've been discriminated against by those veterans' organizations that should have said, when the Department of Justice came back with their legal opinion, that “regardless of our bias towards World War II veterans, we believe you should all have the same benefits”. We wouldn't be here today if that had happened. Another travesty of justice is that the veterans who were sitting around those tables were collecting Pension Act benefits if they were disabled, so there you have veterans collecting Pension Act benefits advocating a lesser benefit for any who came beyond us. I opposed it from the beginning.

When the clause-by-clause came out for the new Veterans Charter, we were called to Ottawa with the minister and told, “Okay, here's the clause-by-clause: have a look at it.” We said okay and asked when we could discuss it. We were told that it was too late, that we couldn't talk about it, and that if we wanted to make any changes, what would happen.... This was from the minister of the day, and I'm not discriminating between one party or another one when I speak of ministers and government. I served for the Government of Canada and I sacrificed under the Government of Canada and it doesn't matter what party is in, because in my opinion, and I believe in the opinion of a lot of people, veterans issues should be non-partisan. We were told that we couldn't refer changes to the clause-by-clause, but we would be called back when the bill went through the legislative process at the first and second levels of both the parliamentary and Senate committees, and we could make our changes and there would be consultation.

There was absolutely no consultation and, as we know, the bill was rammed through the parliamentary process. Edgar Schmidt from the justice department worked in that area, and he has been on the record as saying that for years before the previous government, and for the years following into the current government, new bills were not given the scrutiny of the charter. That's one of the points that's being argued in the courts in Vancouver: the honour of the crown. So the new Veterans Charter as it stands now, and the enhanced new Veterans Charter, do not meet the smell test of the Canadian Charter of Rights.

I'm not going to go on. We've heard enough of what other people have said. I personally believe that you are not getting good advice from the veterans organizations. There has been no consultation from day one. In June of 2013, I sent throughout the broader veterans community some facts, as I'm laying them out today, and I put them out there to get veterans engaged in a dialogue. It was successful right up until August, when I decided to close it down. I engaged the veterans organizations. One or two of them came back and were involved, but the major organizations would not consult. If they consult with their members, which is rare, they will not consult outside of their groups, so if they call themselves a consultation group, they're consulting among themselves.

I know for a fact that they didn't come up with those points that they put out on the urgent issues of the new Veterans Charter. They didn't come up with those through study or consultation with the broader veterans community. They came up with them...what I've been told by some very respectable people is that they decided that those were important issues. Because the reality is—and we've heard some statistics from Sean—that when Veterans Affairs was putting this thing together, this new Veterans Charter, they knew that 80% of veterans were collecting 20% or less for disability benefits. They knew that figure, but what they did is they promoted the higher rate of 100% disability.

What I also have to say is that I remember what the minister of the day said when I questioned why they were ramming this new Veterans Charter through when it hadn't...at least let's make it a regulation so we can work on it and do something.... But they said, “Look, we've put it by the Chief of the Defence Staff and we had consultation with all of kinds of people.” I asked, “Did you tell the Chief of the Defence Staff what you're taking away?” She said no. The minister said, “No, we didn't tell what we were taking away, but he's agreed to it, and he's no dummy.” Those are the kinds of words they were saying. So the fact of the matter is that Veterans Affairs created the lump sum to rob disabled veterans of their lifelong disability benefits to pay for all the programs of the new Veterans Charter.

The new Veterans Charter is designed only for transition, not for lifelong, so the enhanced new Veterans Charter benefits and the recommendations of ELB beyond the age of 65, that's not what the new Veterans Charter is all about. The new Veterans Charter looks after transition into the work force and civilian life.

One of the things that Veterans Affairs did, after the Justice Department came back with their legal opinion, is they did a cost analysis of treating Canadian Forces veterans equally with World War II and Korean veterans. They found that it would cost $4 billion to treat us equally under the Pension Act alone. So they used that figure and their first figures with Treasury Board were, “We will build a suite of benefits for $4 billion”, because they knew that would be the cost payoff for the Pension Act benefits.

Now we have to separate out the disability benefit of part 3 from the new Veterans Charter because the Pension Act was not a problem. The problem that the bureaucrats were using is that since the government allowed currently serving Canadian Forces members to collect benefits while they're still serving, the bureaucrats said they are putting a burden on the Pension Act, which is not true.

They also said veterans are putting a burden on the Pension Act. What they weren't saying is that the government was negligent in providing Canadian Forces veterans with supporting benefits for transition and onward living since 1947.

So the whole this was built, in my opinion, on a whole bunch of misinformation. The misinformation continues. Although I'm having a great struggle with the current minister over my personal issue, I've gone to them and said, “Please ask these people to stop misleading Canadians”.

The ombudsman put out information in his report on the new Veterans Charter. He gave scenarios where the benefits would be $2 million for a person aged 24 over their lifetime. What he didn't say—and he left out of there purposefully because it was broached before the report went out—was that the same person collecting Pension Act benefits, which are still alive and well today, would get an additional $2 million over his lifetime and a lot of these other problems that we're talking about wouldn't exist.

So the ombudsman is putting out good information but only partial information. We have the veterans organizations doing the same thing, and we have misinformation coming from the government as well. Where does that leave the veterans?

You folks sitting around the table will be engaged in this as long as you're elected officials. We have to live with the consequences of these decisions and since the new Veterans Charter came out, it's been nothing but a fight.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Thank you, Mr. Leduc.

We're going to Monsieur Chicoine first.

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

I thank you, gentlemen, for being here with us today to help us with this study. I should mention that several of the comments and recommendations you made were also made by other veterans' groups, which only serves to reinforce all of these observations.

However, in my opinion, there is something we have not heard enough about, and that is the help that is available for families, be it for wives, husbands, children or other close relatives.

We were told that it is extremely difficult to obtain help, in particular for the spouses. We heard outside of this committee that some had to leave their jobs to take care of a spouse who was suffering from acute post-traumatic stress. They are offered very little psychological assistance.

I would like some more specific recommendations on what should be in the charter to help the spouses or relatives of veterans who are the most seriously injured.

[Sean Bruyea]

Would you like me to go first?

Monsieur Chicoine, that's an excellent question.

In my report I have some very specific recommendations. First of all, let's treat them as equals. Give veterans and family members their own identification card so that they can access programs independently. The first program to access independently should be health care costs for the family. Those should not be pegged to the disability of the veteran and they should not be pegged to whether that veteran seeks benefits at this point under a treatment program. They should be able to seek those benefits for treatment independently, especially if it's a totally and permanently incapacitated veteran. That's without question.

The next thing is I think we should entertain the fact that, at the very least, they require their own independent attendant allowance, a benefit that they receive for being a family member of a totally and permanently incapacitated veteran.

I would also recommend that, during the initial two-year transition after the military, they perhaps be given access to the earnings loss program. That's when the toll on the family will be greatest, as they all learn to adjust to these new circumstances.

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

Does anyone else have anything to say on that topic?

[Donald Leonardo]

Yes, I would love to be able to answer your question on that.

I'm going to give you a story of a soldier suffering from PTSD in Alberta. His wife and four kids were in the vehicle and the RCMP pulled them over because he was confining his wife and four kids thinking that he was in the Hells Angels and driving his minivan down the road. He was having these delusions. He got pulled over by the police, and they arrested him for confining his wife and family and they sent him for psychiatric care. Now he has a wife and four kids who have no money, because he holds the bank accounts.

I called the MFRC, and I found out that the military family resource centre does not look after veterans. I was surprised that they wouldn't look after the families of veterans who are in the Edmonton area.

So then I called OSSIS, operational stress injury social support, which does look after veterans in that area, but it is a program that is very underfunded. If the program were better funded, there would be better support for, in this case, a wife and four kids, who actually were being evicted at the same time.

This family ended up being split and heading for a divorce because there was no support for this family when he was arrested and incarcerated and sent for psychiatric care. The family was lost. There was no clergy even. OSSIS could have a whole list of clergymen from the Edmonton area who could go and sit with the family and help them through a situation like this.

There are lots of possible solutions, but first we need more support for OSSIS, and we need to expand that program, because the MFRC does not support the veteran's family at all. I would like to see more support, more money put into OSSIS, more people working for OSSIS, and I would like them to start partnering with clergy so that there would be full treatment for body, soul, and spirit.

[Harold Leduc]

If I could jump in, you ask an excellent question.

I apologize, but my French is not good enough for me to answer that question in your language.

That was a priority with the Canadian Forces advisory council, those very questions that you're asking, from what I've heard earlier. That was the priority. We've put a lot of time and effort into the needs of the families. That was translated in the new Veterans Charter for the spouses as, if a veteran is 100% disabled and can't continue, then the spouses can get the benefits to get their own retraining and whatever, but that doesn't address the needs of the family. While the veteran is disabled, the spouse becomes a 100% caregiver, and there is absolutely not enough for them and the kids.

[Robert Thibeau]

I certainly agree with the issue on OSISS. I also agree with Sean's description of an allowance for spouses. I'm a fortunate guy. I have a spouse, and the other thing that sometimes I get a little annoyed to hear when we talk about spouses is that we're normally talking about a wife, well: I'm a husband whose wife served in Rwanda and also served in Afghanistan during Operation Medusa as a physician's assistant, so she's seen a heck of a lot. I'm fortunate because I don't need those issues. I've spoken to other veterans.

There was one veteran in particular who I was dealing with in Gagetown, a young corporal engineer who came back and who had been involved in an IED explosion and had seen comrades die. I'm not sure, but Gagetown seems to have had a good effect on him in getting the care that he needed because his wife and he mentioned his son as well. Maybe there is something going on in some bases, but it's not blanket across the board. That's what has to be corrected. OSISS is an excellent organization but, again, as Harold and the others have said, it's underfunded, so we have to look at how we help families out. The ghosts of war are affecting those people as much as they are the veteran. That's what we have to make sure that we never forget.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Thank you very much.

Before I go to Mr. Lizon I'm going to point out that our meeting comes to an end at 7:30. I'm going to ask both the questioners and perhaps responders if you can be a bit more specific because there are going to be some committee members who aren't going to get to the questions at the rate we're going. I just want to warn everybody on both sides.

Thank you.

Mr. Lizon for six minutes, please.

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Again, welcome to all the witnesses and guests here. Thank you for your service.

We've heard many witnesses over the course of this study, the review of the Veterans Charter. At the end of the day the committee will have to do the report and propose recommendations. We've heard different opinions and not necessarily exactly the same as you presented here today. For example, on the ombudsman's report we had a group here who said, “Well, why are you even wasting your time? You should just go by his report, implement his recommendations and that's good enough.”

Gentlemen, if I can ask you, I don't think we can improve the charter in one shot. If we can make changes incrementally, what would be the priority you recommend that we actually do?

The second question I have is to the organizations on family services. What kind of services do you provide for veterans' families?

[Harold Leduc]

I can jump in on that one.

I don't know if we have the same translation of incremental. The lump sum was a solution to a problem that didn't exist. The lump sum is the most controversial part of the new Veterans Charter. People say that this is better than the old regime. There was no old regime. From 1947 until 2005, there was only the Pension Act for Canadian Forces veterans. You can only compare the other programs of the new Veterans Charter with the World War II Veterans Charter. We don't have to recreate the whole thing but we have to go back to the drawing board somewhat and put it in line with the Canadian Charter of Rights.