Evidence of meeting #48 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 c-58.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

General  Retired) Walter Natynczyk (Deputy Minister, Department of Veterans Affairs

8:45 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Royal Galipeau

Good morning and welcome to the 48th meeting of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.

Normally we meet in a more intimate room, so I don't have to exert my voice so much. We're very happy to be here today.

Before we begin, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank my friend from Sackville—Eastern Shore, Peter Stoffer, for the excellent work he did chairing the last couple of meetings of this committee. On behalf of the committee I'd like to congratulate you, Sir Peter. For the record, His Majesty, King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands, has recently knighted our colleague Peter Stoffer for his services to both the Netherlands and Canada.

8:45 a.m.

Some hon. members

Hear, hear!

8:45 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Royal Galipeau

Today, it is our honour to welcome the Honourable Erin O'Toole, Minister of Veterans Affairs, and his deputy minister, General Walter Natynczyk (Retired).

Welcome, Minister. I remember when we both used to sit there, and I remember we both behaved when we sat there, so I want you to see that the work we did when we sat there is an inspiration to all members here, because they're all going to behave throughout this meeting, not just because I'm holding the gavel.

The minister will make a 10-minute presentation and then committee members will each have six or seven minutes to direct their questions to the minister and to the deputy who, obviously, also outranks him. I guess the record should show that we have here the minister, the deputy minister, and the parliamentary secretary; and the one with lowest rank is the minister.

Please note that Mr. O'Toole and Mr. Natynczyk will be with us for 90 minutes, after which we will adjourn the meeting.

Mr. Minister, you have the floor.

8:50 a.m.

Durham Ontario

Conservative

Erin O'Toole ConservativeMinister of Veterans Affairs

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much. It is good to be back here. I remember fondly, in my first year in Parliament, being a part of this standing committee. It's good to see you and the clerk. Some of the members of the opposition were at the committee at that time, as were some of my colleagues in the Conservative caucus. It is an honour for me to be back appearing before you as minister, particularly after a profound period of progress and reform in the last number of months.

I'm also joined, as you said, by my deputy, retired General Walter Natynczyk. You stole my joke, Mr. Chair, about the retired general being deputy to an average retired captain. I'm very fortunate to have Walt, and I have long known about his passion for military families and for veterans.

Also, from my department I have some senior leaders here who will have additional information should the committee require it. I have Bernard Butler, director general of policy; Michel Doiron, the ADM for service delivery; and, Maureen Sinnott, director general of finance.

I want to start my remarks by saying that my time on this committee was formative in my development as a parliamentarian and with regard to the knowledge base I'm working from as Minister of Veterans Affairs. Your reports, both those from the time I served on the committee and the report on the new veterans charter, have been formative in my consideration of legislation and reform. I want to thank all 54 of the witnesses who appeared before this committee as part of your intensive look at the new veterans charter. Some are here in the audience today.

Then there's my background before Parliament. As many people know, I did serve 12 years in the Canadian Armed Forces in the Royal Canadian Air Force. I'm proud of that time. When I left the uniform, I worked in the non-profit and “support our troops and veterans” area with my Legion, Branch 178, and with the True Patriot Love foundation, which I, along with some other passionate Canadians, helped create. I've also worked alongside amazing Canadians from coast to coast, some who have served and some who have not served, in groups organizing walks, with Wounded Warriors, Treble Victor—I'm wearing their pin today—and Canada Company.

This is the background I bring and this is why I was so honoured when the Prime Minister asked me to serve in this role.

My team has worked with veterans groups, the veterans ombudsman and the Department of Veterans Affairs. The work done by the deputy minister, the former Chief of the Defence Staff, General Walt Natynczyk, is really something to behold.

I want to thank all parliamentarians and all veterans groups for giving me your priorities and working with me going forward.

Your study on the new veterans charter was an important one, and the most important finding, beyond your 14 recommendations, was that the approach to wellness, transition, and support for the veterans and their families is sound. In fact, I think on page nine of your report you urged keeping the new veterans charter and its approach to transition, but you clearly said that there needed to be a better charter with fixes.

I'm sorry, it was on page two. It works for most veterans, as you said, but “'most' is not enough”, to quote your report.

I agree that most is not enough. The new veterans charter was brought in by the last Liberal government, implemented starting in 2006 by the Harper government, reformed in 2011 by the Harper government with the addition of the Permanent Impairment Allowance supplement, leading up to Bill C-58 now before Parliament, which was introduced at the end of March and is the most comprehensive update to address some of the issues in areas in which the new veterans charter was not meeting all needs. It was meeting most, as your committee report showed, but we need to fix gaps to make sure that it serves veterans and their families and strives for excellence in that regard.

I am very happy that Bill C-58, the Support for Veterans and Their Families Act, has been introduced in the House of Commons. It makes essential changes to the New Veterans Charter.

Bill C-58 builds upon the work of this committee in your study on the Veterans Charter and addresses some of the gaps that were highlighted over the last few years by the ombudsman, by several veterans stakeholders, and last June by this committee.

I'll go through those briefly, now; they are before Parliament awaiting approval.

The retirement income security benefit is perhaps the most urgent fix needed for the new veterans charter, highlighted clearly by the ombudsman, highlighted by the Royal Canadian Legion, naval veterans, and a range of other stakeholders. It was a problem on the horizon, Mr. Chair.

Very few to no new veterans charter veterans are 65 now. But it was clear that as some of them hit the age of 65 and lost their earnings loss benefit, they would have a steep decline in their income in their retirement years post-65. That was an unintended gap in the new veterans charter, when the income supplement of earnings loss ended. We've remedied that gap, particularly for those who served in the military, were injured, and did not have pensionable time to provide them with pensionable income at that stage of life.

The retirement income security benefit will kick in at 65 to ensure that in retirement there's a predictable amount of financial security for the rest of that veteran's life, based on 75% of their pre-65 Veterans Affairs revenue. Important to note, the survivability is sound in this. The surviving spouse gets some financial security on the death of the service member, something that did not exist with the exceptional incapacitation allowance under the old system, Mr. Chair.

So we're learning. We are very proud that we've addressed that with a retirement income security benefit.

The second benefit in Bill C-58 is the critical injury benefit. That's a benefit that will pay $70,000 to a veteran who has been injured in a sudden, traumatic event. This is another area in which the new veterans charter did not foresee all circumstances of men and women injured from service. The disability award in the new veterans charter—the so-called lump sum—is calculated when the recovery of that veteran takes place and their permanent disability over a lifetime is assessed.

What that disability award did not take into consideration was the pain and suffering of recovery: the multiple surgeries, time in intensive care, and time in recovery themselves after these surgical interventions. There was no recognition of that, and no pain and suffering compensation for it. It's a gap that the critical injury benefit will address.

Also in Bill C-58 we provide the family caregiver relief benefit for the most seriously injured. When a caregiver in the home—a spouse, or even an adult child—is really becoming the informal caregiver to that veteran. Veterans Affairs will often pay for a professional, contract caregiver in a home and for support. But we all know that those are nine-to-five accommodations. The new normal for families living with a serious injury changes their life. This will give relief by providing that family member almost $8,000 tax-free per year to use in any way that helps them overcome some of the challenges of caregiver fatigue.

We know that all families bear the stresses of an injury, mental or physical, in the household. We've been trying to address that through additional counselling for family members for operational stress injury support for the families and use of the Family Resource Centres for veterans and their families upon release.

This latest family caregiver relief benefit is yet another benefit intended to help the families of the most seriously injured. This is an area I will continue to explore as minister, because I know the critical role that family plays in the wellness of a veteran.

We've also expanded and made eligibility criteria easier for the permanent impairment allowance, adding approximately 305 new veterans to that lifetime permanent impairment allowance payment. That's another element that was recommended in your standing committee report last June.

We've also implemented what I called respect for the reserves, to remind Canadians that without the men and women who serve in our reserve units across the country, we would not have the capability of the Canadian Armed Forces that we have today. We've ensured that class A and class B reservists earn the same earnings loss benefit entitlement as regular force, or class C.

It's about respect. Just a few days ago, it was a year from our National Day of Honour celebrating the 12-year mission in Afghanistan and honouring the sacrifice. Twenty-five percent of those people were reservists. We have also added at least an additional hundred case managers and a hundred benefit adjudicators to deal with some of the backlogs.

These changes represent fundamental improvements to many systems, services, supports and programs that veterans need in order to successfully make the transition to civilian life.

I could go on, Mr. Chair, but I see my time is up.

Colleagues, I urge support of Bill C-58. I want to thank the standing committee, the ombudsman, and the veterans. I appreciated that you came together with your recommendations. Since we've moved on many, I hope we can pass Bill C-58, and I look forward to your questions.

9 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Royal Galipeau

Thank you very much, Minister.

Mr. Stoffer, go ahead.

9 a.m.

NDP

Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and it's good to see you are back in the chair.

I thank the minister and the deputy minister very much for appearing before us today. I thank both of you gentlemen for the fine work and representation you did on Canada's behalf recently in the Netherlands for the 70th anniversary. I thank you both very much for that.

Minister, I just received an email from Gord Jenkins regarding Bill C-58 and what you told him. Bill C-58 was introduced by the government, yet we haven't seen second reading of the bill yet. It hasn't even come to this committee yet. However, in the email to him, you are implying that the opposition parties are delaying these reforms.

Mr. Minister, with great respect, you introduced the bill. The government introduced the bill. It hasn't been brought before this committee. In fact, this committee has had two cancellations. We have been asking for Bill C-58 to come to the committee. We have some amendments, and we have indicated to the parliamentary secretary that we could pass the bill fairly quickly, but we can't do that unless we actually have the bill come before the committee. We understand now that you have indicated that this bill will now be part of the budget bill, which means that this bill does not have to come to the committee. It will all be wrapped up in the budget omnibus bill, which basically means that no veteran, no veterans' organization, and not even the opposition will have an opportunity to debate this bill in committee.

Mr. Chairman, after 18 years in the House of Commons, I find it rather unusual that when a government, either Liberal or Conservative, introduces a bill and it doesn't come before the appropriate committee for us to do what we are supposed to do: review it, look at it, and pass it. If you wanted clear passage of this bill, we have already indicated that we like this bill. There are some changes that have to happen. There is no question that we have some amendments for it. I have indicated that before but, sir, we haven't seen the bill.

Can you explain to me how the opposition is holding up this legislation when we don't even have the bill before the committee?

9 a.m.

Conservative

Erin O'Toole Conservative Durham, ON

Thank you, Mr. Stoffer.

Certainly, you do have many years here in Ottawa, sitting both on SCONDVA and on this committee. In fact, you are the only member of this committee who voted for the new veterans charter.

I have made a commitment to veterans to get these reforms passed before this Parliament rises. That is my commitment. Most of Bill C-58 was recommended by this committee, so the substance of the bill actually came from this committee. The 54 witnesses I referred to all supported these reforms and want to move on them. Two years ago, the ombudsman recommended what has become the retirement income security benefit.

My concern, with all due respect, is that the committees have talked about this since your early years on the new veterans charter and the veterans affairs committee. We need action. It's a fair comment to say there is more to do. I have said that this is a living charter and there will be more to do, but these reforms are important. These are benefits and programs for veterans and their families that I've told them, including Mr. Jenkins, will pass in this Parliament.

My initial discussions, including emails you sent out that were sent to me by veterans, indicate that you would prefer more committee time, more study, and ultimately delay of these benefits before July. I won't allow that to happen. You can fairly comment that there is more to do, Mr. Stoffer, but since most of Bill C-58 comes from your recommendations, I hope to goodness we can get these passed. Bill C-58 is still on the order paper, but now with your opposition day motion yesterday, challenging the priorities of Bill C-58, I guess—that's the only thing I could see that that day really tried to do—it is clear you wanted to delay, and I won't allow delay to happen when I have made a commitment to veterans.

9:05 a.m.

NDP

Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS

Minister, with great respect for the position you hold, that is simply not true. We in the opposition—I can't speak for the Liberals—have never indicated a delay of Bill C-58, and to indicate we have is simply not true.

I have another question for the deputy minister.

Deputy Minister, is Mr. John Larlee of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board still employed by the Veterans Review and Appeal Board?

9:05 a.m.

General Retired) Walter Natynczyk (Deputy Minister, Department of Veterans Affairs

I missed the question. Are you asking whether he's still employed? No. He completed his tenure a few weeks ago.

9:05 a.m.

NDP

Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS

Very good. Thank you very much.

The last question for you.... I know you can't give a complete answer right now, but is it possible to have from the department a complete analysis of how much money the government plans to save? Korean and World War II veterans are quickly passing on, and they are not using the facilities of these long-term care beds at Camp Hill, the Perley, Colonel Belcher, etc.

Can the government give us an estimate of how much money they plan on saving because of the fact that these individuals will no longer be using those services because they won't be with us? If it's possible in the future to have that kind of estimate, it would be most helpful.

I believe my time is up.

9:05 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Royal Galipeau

You have another 35 seconds.

9:05 a.m.

NDP

Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS

Then I'll end on a positive note. I wanted to tell the committee that last Monday, in Halifax, we had our 70th anniversary commemoration, and the minister was kind enough to send me his speech because he couldn't be there. He was in the Netherlands. I think it's the first time I can recall that an opposition critic read the minister's speech to a crowd of 400 to 500 people. I wanted to thank the minister for that opportunity, but don't forget we're not letting you off on C-58 by the way.

Thank you so much.

9:05 a.m.

Conservative

Erin O'Toole Conservative Durham, ON

Thank you.

I'm not sure if I should refer to you as Sir Peter, or how you got the Prime Minister to grant you an exemption from the Nickle Resolution.

9:05 a.m.

NDP

Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS

No worries.

9:05 a.m.

Conservative

Erin O'Toole Conservative Durham, ON

Certainly I'm proud of the Dutch Canadian community who in Canada have kept the memory of the liberation alive, and certainly going to the Netherlands, as you have in the past, you see how the Dutch people keep it alive, so I want to thank you for making sure there was a special event in Halifax.

I do think on Bill C-58, as I said, this is a living charter. I think C-58 and our reforms in 2011 show it's up to us to make sure we constantly meet the needs of veterans and their families today and in the future. It's fair comment to ask what our next priorities are, but C-58 needs passage in this Parliament. I've made that commitment, and that's why it's included in the budget implementation bill to make sure I have that backup plan.

9:05 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Royal Galipeau

I'd like to advise the committee that the last six minutes lasted seven minutes.

Monsieur Lemieux.

9:05 a.m.

Conservative

Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

Thank you very much, Chair, and thank you, Minister, for being with us today.

I'd also like to thank you for directing your comments to the legislation that is in front of the House. I want to thank you for your commitment to have it passed before we rise at the end of this session. I think that's extremely important. Otherwise, they are just promises never delivered upon. I think that's critical.

I would say to Mr. Stoffer that it's in the budget implementation act. In the past what's happened is the portions that pertain to a particular committee, for example the veterans portions in the budget implementation act that would pertain to this committee, will probably be sent to this committee. We have to wait to see what the finance committee decides, but I wouldn't be surprised if this committee will review the clauses in the budget implementation act that refer to the comments the minister made today about the new initiatives and passing them into law.

Minister, I'd like to ask you a question about Bill C-58, about the legislation in front of the House, and that has to do with the critical injury benefit. I think it's a great initiative, but I think it could be misunderstood for example when compared to the disability award.

There was a great example given at the time of the announcement of a soldier who would collect the critical injury benefit, but I'm wondering if you could elaborate for the committee on the difference between the critical injury benefit and the disability award.

May 12th, 2015 / 9:05 a.m.

Conservative

Erin O'Toole Conservative Durham, ON

Thank you, Mr. Lemieux.

The critical injury benefit was meant to address something that the disability award did not, which is those cases of someone suffering a traumatic injury, but because they made a full recovery, their compensation under the disability award, the lump sum as it's known, was very low. In fact, all members of this committee can point to veterans who would fall into that category, such as veterans who spent time in the role 3 hospital in Afghanistan, in Germany in intensive care, or sometimes had multiple operations, but because they had a positive recovery—because our role 3 hospital in Afghanistan was one of the best in the world—their recovery put them at a disadvantage under the new veterans charter disability award. I don't want to name names, but we can all think of cases where someone had that injury and got a very low disability award. That actually impacted their wellness because they took that to mean that the system did not acknowledge their traumatic period of pain, suffering, and recovery.

The critical injury benefit is meant to try to address that. At the same time, it also addresses some of the most seriously injured men and women from Afghanistan, but the critical piece is that it's now compensating for the pain and suffering of recovery. It's in addition to the disability award and it very much also could apply while the person's still in the Canadian Armed Forces recovering. It's a quick payment. The hope is that they recover and stay in the Canadian Armed Forces, but it's an inherent pain and suffering and recognition award.

It is meant to be very targeted. Regarding the new veterans charter, the biggest challenge that the ombudsman has pointed out is the myth that has developed around it that there's only this lump sum and that's all a veteran gets. We're all trying to dispel that myth because it's not fair to Canadians to leave them with that impression. What the new veterans charter does is focus on transition, so early rehabilitation and financial and medical support, and then for the more moderately to severely injured, it stacks benefits on top of one another. That makes it a little more complex.

So there's a disability award, there's potentially a critical injury benefit, and then the veterans will get earnings loss while they're doing rehabilitation, an earning loss benefit that is an income supplement. They may get the permanent impairment allowance. They may get a permanent impairment allowance supplement. For many of them, at 65 they will then get the retirement income security benefit. As you see, it's a stacking approach. What we're trying to do for the most seriously injured is to streamline those stacked benefits—the PIA, the PIAS and RISB—into a single pension for the most seriously injured.

9:10 a.m.

Conservative

Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

Thank you very much.

The example that was given of the critical injury benefit was a paratrooper whose chute doesn't deploy properly. He's injured upon landing and undergoes multiple surgeries, but after a one- or two-year recovery period, his disability is small. However, he went through one to two years of significant recovery and trauma. You're saying that the critical injury benefit would be of great benefit to him because of that traumatic period of recovery, whereas the disability award might actually be small because, if he recovers for the most part, then the disability award would be small.

9:10 a.m.

Conservative

Erin O'Toole Conservative Durham, ON

That's exactly it. Well put.

Apart from the payment itself, which is significant, in many ways it's less important than the recognition. The man or woman injured in service to our country, regular force or reserve, needs to know that their country respects and recognizes, not just that they were injured in service to their country but their road to recovery—as you said the two years in that example of a paratrooper—of surgery and of hospitalization. The physical and mental stress on the family through that period is not only compensated now, it's also recognized, and we're recognizing that it was a gap because of the way the disability award was calculated at recovery.

9:10 a.m.

Conservative

Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

I have just one last question, Minister.

This is not passed yet. In other words, it's in legislation. The budget implementation bill must pass for this to be implemented, this $70,000 tax-free benefit.

9:10 a.m.

Conservative

Erin O'Toole Conservative Durham, ON

That's correct. The new benefits contained in Bill C-58—the critical injury benefit, the retirement income security benefit, and the family caregiver relief benefit—are all new benefits that require parliamentary approval. As of April 1, we've already expanded inclusion in the permanent impairment allowance, and we've fixed the earnings loss issue for class A and class B reservists. We were able to do those immediate fixes with regulatory changes, but these three benefits are new. They require parliamentary approval. That's why I made the pledge to veterans and their families that they would pass in this session.

They were all contained in this committee's report last June, which is why, when it seemed that there was not a willingness to move forward quickly on Bill C-58, we've included it in budget implementation so that I can keep my commitment to veterans and their families.

9:15 a.m.

Conservative

Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

Thank you.

9:15 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Royal Galipeau

Mr. Valeriote.

9:15 a.m.

Liberal

Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Minister, and thank you, General, for appearing before us.

Minister, thank you for the wonderful program in the Netherlands that you included me in. It was remarkable. I was speaking to the general about it. Frankly, it was an overwhelming emotional experience.

While both of you certainly earned the respect of everyone around this table, it does not at all mean that we agree with your approach to the solutions that our veterans need to the issues that ail them daily.

You speak of Bill C-58. Mr. Stoffer has already addressed his concern about it not passing. My wager is that it's not going to get through this committee and then back to Parliament and passed, not because we're delaying it, but because I don't think it's going to happen in time before this Parliament rises, which is regrettable.

That said, proposed section 44.1 of that legislation—we've talked about this—defines those who are entitled to this benefit of the single lump sum payment as a result of a single injury at a moment. We've had the conversation about the fact that PTSD sufferers are essentially excluded from this because PTSD isn't that single event. PTSD often arises and manifests itself later.

I've been at briefings and, quite rightfully, I've been told that there are other benefits available to those who suffer from PTSD, but when you do not define PTSD as a traumatic injury, Minister, which it is, and do not provide for some form of lump sum compensation for those people later, then you marginalize those people—and there are thousands of them. In fact, I'll bet you that the ministry doesn't know how many people are suffering from PTSD out there right now. We've had people like Jenny Migneault having to chase your predecessor for help. I put it to you, sir, that while there may be other programs available to them, they are insufficient.

I have a question for you. You have indicated that while this legislation does not completely close the gap, it goes a long way in filling the gap. Even the veterans ombudsman appeared before this committee in April and said that while it is addressing some of the issues, it is not yet enough and it doesn't clearly meet all the needs of our veterans. Is it your proposition that this is all enough? If it is not all enough, and there is more to do, why aren't you doing it? We've given you, in many reports, the things that need to be done.

The only thing I can think of as to why you're not doing it is that your Prime Minister has said, “I'm sorry, Minister, this is all the money you're getting. I'm in austerity and I have to balance a budget in an election year, so we're not going to give you the money that's needed to complete all their needs.”

What is it? Have you done everything that you can do, particularly for those suffering from PTSD, and if not, why not?