Veterans Affairs Committee on May 12th, 2015

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I will, to that, point out that the ombudsman also had praise for many of the things that were happening. Just as the Auditor General, as you pointed out just a few moments ago, pointed out some deficiencies but also pointed out where things had gone well.

My point is that it's always going to be a work in progress. We're always going to be trying to adapt. We're always going to be playing catch-up of some sort.

Can you put a little ministerial frame around that, the challenge that you have, that the Department of Veterans Affairs has, with the constant changing, the constant unknowns? In 10 years we'll be saying, gosh, we didn't know we'd have thousands of veterans from some other conflict.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Absolutely. I think the new veterans charter was created to try to focus on wellness. Each year we have about 1,200 men and women in the Canadian Armed Forces who are released from service for medical reasons. In some cases it's from a service injury. In a very small number of cases, thankfully, it's a very serious injury. It could be in a theatre of operations or in training.

In the old system, it was very important to be in a special duty area and injured. That's not the case now. At the end of the day, the goal has to be getting those people to a good place after their military careers. The more ability they have to recover, to rehabilitate, and to find new purpose and meaning in a second career, the more we have to facilitate that. The goal of the new veterans charter was to focus that financial support and rehabilitation quickly to help with transition. Because if transition goes well, they leverage their military careers into great careers after service.

There are some who will have a very difficult time transitioning, whether from physical or mental injury from service. Those people need additional supports, clearly. That's why in 2011, our government introduced the permanent impairment allowance supplement. It's why Bill C-58 has the retirement income security benefit. It's why we're looking at the critical injury benefit.

This committee, in its report last June, said that there should be a focus on moderately to seriously injured veterans because they have the hardest time transitioning. I have essentially followed the advice of this committee, of the ombudsman, and others to try and target that. The less serious the injury, the greater the ability of the vocational rehabilitation training, up to $75,000, to get that person into a new career.

As I say to a lot of veterans, there are three pillars of recovery. There's the health of the veteran, the wellness of their family, and the second career. I put family in the middle because it's critical. If the second career doesn't go well, it affects the other two. The living charter concept we built into Bill C-58 with the purpose clause in proposed section 2.1 is very similar to recommendation 2 of your report in terms of our ongoing obligation to our veterans and their families.

[The Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Mr. Minister, I know that you're anxious to hear the questions that Mr. Lizon will ask you. He has the floor.

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

Thank you very much.

Thank you witnesses for coming here. Thank you for your service.

Minister, I would like to ask you a first question to clarify something. Yesterday, during the debate, I listened to the speeches from the opposition. The government was accused of slashing funding for veterans. Could you clarify this? Is this true? Has our government decreased the funding for veterans?

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

No. As I said in an answer earlier, in comparison to spending when we formed a government in 2006, we're spending on average about $700 million more, but we're spending it in different ways.

All parliamentarians, including Mr. Stoffer, who I think has been here longer than anyone else, has seen the attention paid to mental health. When I was in the Canadian Armed Forces, there was very little discussion of operational stress injuries or post-traumatic stress disorder. In fact, as I said, the first operational stress injury clinic opened by the Canadian Armed Forces wasn't until 2002.

This is an area where we've been expending a lot of time and resources because it's a new area. If somebody gets support with a mental health condition or injury, they can get back on the road to wellness. We need to reduce the stigma. These clinics didn't exist even 15 years ago. We'll have 26 by the end of this year and we will need to do more. We're spending more but we're spending in new ways. We're trying to build flexibility into the system.

As someone who comes from the private sector, I say that our department has a challenge we're rising to meet. We have seriously injured veterans who are clients of Veterans Affairs in their late twenties and early thirties as well as clients in their mid to late nineties. They have different needs and they expect to draw their services from Veterans Affairs in different ways. It's an immense challenge and that's why we're trying to build flexibility into the system by expanding access points through Service Canada for basic support, offering more home visits, and developing the My VAC online account, as well as mental wellness apps for PTSD and operational stress. Older veterans—and I've even heard some parliamentarians—might mock an app for a phone, but the reality is that a lot of our young veterans from the Afghan war have never had a bank book in their lives. They've done everything on their smartphones. We have to appeal to what they expect in terms of service delivery.

It's a challenge, but we have an incredible team and we're going to try to meet that challenge with flexibility

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

Minister, can you explain to this committee how the family caregiver relief benefit will help the family members of veterans? You addressed this yesterday during the debate, but maybe if you could explain it to this committee it would really be beneficial to us.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Lizon.

This is an important benefit, and it's part of several reforms we've done in recent years to try to provide more support for the family. This is a living charter. I want to do more in the future because the family is so critical to the wellness of the veteran. We've expanded to allow veterans and their families to use family resource centres, and we've expanded psychological counselling and support to family members, not just the injured service member.

The family caregiver relief benefit is targeted at the most seriously injured to provide flexibility for those people who are informal caregivers in the home. I hope it will serve as the model for doing even more in the future. It's a little under $8,000 annually in terms of payment. We're trying to build it with as little administrative burden as possible because we don't want to make it paperwork intensive. It serves to provide flexibility for caregivers if they need to attend a child's graduation or summer camp, have their own surgery, get some extra professional help, fly in a family member, or just recharge their batteries. It's there as a tax-free grant just to provide some flexibility.

Does it solve all problems? Absolutely not, but it's recognition that there's caregiver fatigue. I talk regularly to military spouses, the Caregivers Brigade, a range of people, and we're trying to do a number of things to support the family.

Rehabilitative experts also say that the more you can provide supports that do not require the spouse or partner to leave their vocation or job, the better. This is so that they make that choice on their own, because their wellness is important. You don't want everyone leaving their career and part of their personal wellness to support someone who's injured in the home.

I think it's an important first step.

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

My last question would be about the impairment allowance, the expansion of the benefit, if you can address that.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Yes, this committee, in its report last June, did say that the eligibility criteria for the permanent impairment allowance were too rigid. We've listened and loosened the eligibility requirements in terms of the assistance to daily living and some of the criteria factored into the qualification for this benefit. We did that as of April 1. The result will be approximately 305 new people receiving this lifetime permanent impairment allowance benefit, likely in addition to other supports they are receiving from Veterans Affairs. We listened to this committee, and I want to thank you for it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Mr. Donnelly, go ahead.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank both the minister and the deputy minister for being here at committee. I appreciate that.

It has recently come to my attention that some military families are being told that they are no longer eligible for the Canada child tax benefit while they are stationed abroad. Not only that, but they are being put in arrears by the Canada Revenue Agency for the CCTB amount that they have already received. I am hoping that you will talk with your cabinet colleagues to rectify this situation.

Given that the government has signalled its intention to vote in favour of yesterday's NDP opposition motion to recognize the social covenant that exists between veterans and the government, does this mean that you plan to instruct the government lawyers to stop fighting veterans in court and reach an immediate settlement with those veterans who have launched a legal lawsuit against the government seeking this recognition?

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Donnelly. It's good to see you here at the committee.

I've spoken to my deputy, and we will look into the Canada child tax benefit issue. Obviously, that would be a Canadian Armed Forces issue, not a Veterans Affairs issue. I am not familiar with the specific issue, but we will look into it.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

I'll go to your motion from yesterday. In my speech that followed your speech, I thanked you for bringing the motion. I think anytime we have a substantive debate on care for veterans and their families in the House of Commons, that's a good thing. As I noted in my debate, my first day as minister in the House, in response to my good friend Peter Stoffer, I quoted Robert Borden's words in relation to the just appreciation that Canada owes the men and women who serve us. This is an almost 100-year-old statement of the tremendous obligation, as I describe it, that we owe to our veterans. It is not an obligation frozen in time, so we need to constantly look at the needs now and in the future.

The motion you brought forward yesterday, I think, stimulated some good discussion in the House. As I said, it falls short, actually, of proposed section 2.1 of Bill C-58, our purpose clause, which builds in the specific language from Robert Borden that specifically speaks to all veterans, not just the injured, and then says that the act itself must be liberally construed. In fact, that was a recommendation this committee made last year, so I was a little surprised that your motion yesterday did not have that same construction in terms of the fact that the purpose clause, the obligation, must be liberally construed to promote a “benefit of the doubt” approach in terms of support for veterans and their families.

I think that what we have in Bill C-58 is superior, on a few levels, but I am glad we had almost a day of discussion in the House of Commons. We had some great personal stories from members of Parliament who have served, have bases in their ridings, have travelled to Vimy Ridge, and have spent time with veterans. That was a very positive development. It is also a key reason why our government will be, I believe tonight, voting in favour of your motion, Mr. Donnelly.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Okay, thank you. I work closely with Equitas on the development of that motion, and they are still interested in knowing where the class action lawsuit is going to go.

In the remaining time, I have two questions. Will you commit, Minister, to separate Bill C-58 from the budget implementation act, so that this committee and the opposition can deal with this and move it forward in a timely manner, as opposed to bundling it with an omnibus budget bill? If that is the case, I think you'll find a speedy passage, and perhaps there is a possibility of getting it through, as opposed to putting it in with the BIA.

You mentioned earlier in your remarks those veterans who have passed away and that those funds have not been reinvested back into veterans programs. Could you comment on why that isn't the case? Why aren't they reinvested in existing programs?

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

There are a few questions there.

In terms of Bill C-58 and the budget implementation act, the budget implementation act will ensure that I meet my commitment to veterans and their families about passing these benefits, these reforms, before Parliament rises. I've made that commitment. I think it's important. Since most of Bill C-58 came from this committee, I would love our House leaders to work together to have quick passage of Bill C-58 standalone.

My early feedback, and what I heard in terms of comments on some of these new benefits, is that this was not going to be achieved. Even yesterday, your opposition day was really the first substantive response—if I could call it a response—to Bill C-58 by your party, that was six weeks. As I said, the debate was a good one, but I can't allow delay, whether intentional or not, to fall into place to delay these benefits.

As I've said, fair comment would be that there's more to do, but that's not a reason to delay the benefits that are in Bill C-58. I won't let that happen.

[The Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Mr. Opitz.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Minister, for being here. General, it's always a delight to see you, sir.

Just to follow up on something that call sign "Hawnski" said earlier in terms of this being a living document—and it is—as we've seen between the wars over the last century, but also in just the last 30 years, a lot has changed. As the general will remember, back in the seventies and even eighties, if you had a Cyprus Medal, a CD, and a set of wings, you were fully decorated.

Nowadays, to look at the soldiers, with the number of missions that they have, so much has changed just in three decades alone. This is something we definitely need to bear in mind. That's why this is so much a living document. We have to address the concerns of our veterans as they go along. Things do change and you need that flexibility to be able to adapt to it, so, Minister, I congratulate you on implementing and instilling that flexibility into the plan.

Minister, as you talked about benefits and awards, you also used the word “pension”. I'd like you to equate those words together and define what all of this adds up to in the end for a veteran on a program of benefits and awards.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Opitz, and thank you for your service for many years in the Canadian Armed Forces, and the work you've done with veterans on transition and hiring programs. It's appreciated.

When I unveiled the retirement income security benefit, which was a key priority of this committee, of the ombudsman, of the Legion, of NATO vets, and of a number of organizations addressing this issue at 65 for moderately to severely injured veterans, at that time I said that I wanted the department to move toward a predictable and understandable lifetime payment for our seriously injured. People understand what a pension is in terms of that permanency.

With the new veterans charter there are a lot of supports and benefits, but because they're stacked on top of one another, we have potentially three or four lifetime benefits. They're different things stacked on top of one another: permanent impairment allowance, permanent impairment allowance supplement, retirement income security benefit. We need to streamline those into a single payment that's understandable for those veterans that are eligible. That will give them peace of mind. It will also allow Canadians to know that support is there.

As you slide down the scale of serious injury, mental or physical, the focus truly has to be on the rehabilitation piece, income support through earnings loss, vocational rehab, retraining, and re-education to get into that second career; all of this whether or not they have accumulated pension time in the Canadian Armed Forces.

If you joined at 18 and wanted to be a soldier, sailor, or airman for the rest of your life, and an injury changes your plans at 32, what is the best option if you can physically and mentally get into a new role that's good for you, your family, and your future? Let's facilitate that. With these fixes, we're going to start getting the balance, as the committee said, not just working for most veterans because most is not enough.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

I know you've worked through True Patriot Love and other organizations, such as Canada Company, and you've focused on PTSD, but I don't think a lot of people really understand the work that's going forward in terms of wellness and the collaborative efforts we have with groups like CIMVHR. In fact, the DRDC itself is doing scientific work in trying to identify markers in individuals who may be prone to operational stress injuries. There's collaboration happening to try to address these issues but yet get ahead of that curve and address it ahead of missions as opposed to post-missions.

Could you comment on some of that work that's being done?

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

I can. I have to say without hesitation that the most rewarding part of the months I've been minister has been in meeting other veterans helping veterans. As you said, I worked with some great organizations of Canadians: True Patriot Love, Canada Company, Treble Victor, Wounded Warriors, all doing great things. Some of them served; some of them didn't.

In Esquimalt I met a young master seaman who got out from an injury, Bruno Guévremont, and within a year he was already giving back and helping veterans. I met Fraser Holman helping elderly veterans in Sunnybrook. He was a former fighter pilot wearing a smock that says, “Volunteer” and helping veterans he never served with. He is a retired general.

CIMVHR, the Canadian Institute for Military and Veteran Health Research is run at Queen's University and RMC but has a network of, I think, 24 universities across the country. It is also run by a veteran, Alice Aiken. Alice and Stéphanie Bélanger, who run CIMVHR, are pulling together the resources. The University of Alberta is doing some great physical rehabilitation work. Other universities, such as the University of British Columbia with Dr. Marvin Westwood trail-blazed the veterans transition program.

We need to reach out and try a total approach to wellness. On mental health we're really doing that. We recognize there is not a one-size-fits-all solution. With CIMVHR we have a pilot right now on service dogs, which they're helping us lead; 50 dogs are being deployed. We're also working with Paws Fur Thought with Medric Cousineau, a decorated Sea King navigator. So we're reaching out to some of this expertise and exploring pilots to see if we can bring more flexibility into programming to meet the needs of veterans. It's similar with equine therapy with Can Praxis and the guys in Rocky Mountain House, Alberta.

Once we know of programs that offer some support for the veteran and the family, we then try to evaluate and see if we can make this available to more people beyond the pilot. Is it helping not just symptom relief but helping the underlying condition? CIMVHR and the research element is critical, so that we can really learn from these programs and learn how we can help more veterans as a result.

[The Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

I notice that when witnesses don't want to look at the chair, they don't look at the chair.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

It's a fine looking chair, too.

[The Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The minister has agreed to be here for 90 minutes. I know some of you have obligations immediately after the meeting. But since the 90 minutes aren't up and to be fair, I'd like to propose another round of questions. But each one has only one minute, and one minute means 60 seconds, including the response.

Mr. Stoffer, you have the floor.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Very quickly, then, on Bill C-58 with the $7,000 grant for caregivers, would you be willing to revise that to match it to the attendant allowance with the five grades to at least give someone who has to leave their place of work some sort of liveable income and respite care while they have it, because $7,000, in my estimation, Mr. Minister, as nice as it is, is simply not enough for those who have to quit their jobs to care for people. A higher allowance to the attendant allowance would be better appreciated, I believe.

Would you accept that amendment?