Veterans Affairs Committee on May 26th, 2015

[The Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Good morning. Welcome to the 50th meeting of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.

This morning, we are beginning our study of division 17 of Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures.

To have a compelling start to this study, we will have the pleasure of hearing from two respected officials from the Department of Veterans Affairs during the first hour of this meeting: Michel Doiron, assistant deputy minister, service delivery, and Bernard Butler, associate assistant deputy minister, policy, communications and commemoration.

This half of our meeting will end at 9:45 a.m., at which point, we'll take a quick break. Then we will hear from Guy Parent, Veterans Ombudsman, joined by Sharon Squire, Deputy Ombudsman, Executive Director of Operations; as well as from Brian Forbes, Chairman of the National Council of Veteran Associations in Canada.

Each stakeholder will make a seven-minute presentation. Normally it's 10 minutes, but we have more witnesses now, so we're going to squeeze you in. Members will then have an opportunity to ask witnesses questions.

Mr. Doiron, you may go ahead.

[Michel D. Doiron, Assistant Deputy Minister, Service Delivery, Department of Veterans Affairs]

Thank you kindly, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, Chair, members, mesdames et messieurs.

As the chair said, my name is Michel Doiron and I am the assistant deputy minister for service delivery at Veterans Affairs. With me today is my colleague Bernard Butler, the acting assistant deputy minister of policy, communications, and commemoration.

I wish to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today on an issue of importance and great interest to veterans and their families, and that is those elements of the government's response to your committee's report of June 2014, titled “The New Veterans Charter: Moving Forward”, that are contained in economic action plan 2015, or Bill C-59. The legislation, if passed, will amend the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act, commonly known as the new Veterans Charter, to address a number of the concerns and gaps that have been identified.

There are essentially five legislative amendments/provisions contained within the bill.

The first provision introduces a purpose clause “to recognize and fulfil the obligation of the people and Government of Canada to show just and due appreciation to members and veterans for their service to Canada” and further provides that the “Act shall be liberally interpreted so that the recognized obligation may be fulfilled”.

The second significant provision enhances Veterans Affairs Canada's ability to support transition to civilian life. It authorizes Veterans Affairs Canada to provide information and guidance to Canadian Armed Forces members and veterans on the benefits and services that may be available to them in order to help them transition and to make decisions on applications for benefits and services prior to release.

There are three additional amendments that effectively create new benefits for veterans. These new benefits will strengthen the government's support provided to seriously disabled veterans and their families through the new Veterans Charter.

The first benefit, known as the retirement income security benefit, RISB, would provide moderately to severely disabled veterans—those who need it most—with continued assistance in the form of a monthly income support payment beginning at the age of 65.

The second benefit, the family caregiver relief benefit, would provide eligible veterans with a tax-free annual grant of $7,238 so that their informal caregivers, often their spouses or other devoted family members, will have flexibility or relief when they need it while also ensuring that veterans' care needs are met.

The third benefit, the critical injury benefit, or CIB, would provide a $70,000 tax-free award to support the most severely injured and ill Canadian Armed Forces members and veterans.

These new benefits will complement the existing suite of services and benefits available through the new Veterans Charter and add depth to the supports available both to those injured in service to their country and to their families from the Government of Canada.

As announced in the budget, additional staff will also address delays in service delivery, especially for the most seriously disabled and their families. We will hire more than 100 permanent case managers for improved one-on-one services. More than 100 new disability adjudication staff, temporary and permanent, will improve the processing time for veterans who submit an application for a disability benefit application. This is part of the department's commitment to service excellence.

Thank you for listening.

I will now open the floor, Mr. Chair, to any questions the committee may have for Bernard or for me.

[The Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Mr. Chicoine, it is your turn.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd also like to thank the witnesses for joining us today and answering questions.

Right off the bat, Mr. Butler, I'd like you to tell us what the new retirement income security benefit will entail. Will it encompass all of the amounts veterans are entitled to, meaning the earnings loss benefit as well as the permanent impairment allowance? Will the 70% formula apply to all the amounts that the veteran was entitled to before turning 65?

[Bernard Butler, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy, Communications and Commemoration, Department of Veterans Affairs]

Thank you for the question.

Mr. Chair, the benefit will be based on 70% of two income streams that the veteran would be receiving just before age 65. Those two income streams would be, one, the earnings loss benefit, so it presupposes that the veteran is quite disabled and has been on an extended earnings loss benefit up to that age. It will also be calculated on the basis of the permanent impairment allowance, and the permanent impairment allowance supplement.

What the benefit will ensure is that a veteran reaching age 65 will be guaranteed a minimum income from Veterans Affairs Canada of 70% of those benefits, less other income supports from prescribed sources. In other words, it's essentially an income support measure to ensure that the overall family income does not drop below a minimum of 70% of those identified benefits that are referred to: earnings loss benefit, permanent impairment allowance, and permanent impairment allowance supplement.

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

Okay.

If I understand correctly, then, certain amounts are being deducted. I'd like you to specify exactly which amounts are being deducted from the calculation you described.

[Bernard Butler]

These would be the amounts of income from other sources. An example would be if the veteran is eligible for superannuation benefits based on his or her military service, for instance, amounts that the veteran would be receiving through Canada pension plan, those types of income supports.

The whole intention of the retirement income security benefit is to ensure that there is a minimum level of income the family does not fall below. That's why in the calculation of it there will be consideration of income sources other than just those that are provided through Veterans Affairs Canada programming.

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

Great. Thank you.

As I understand it, the new benefit will be transferable to the spouse of the deceased veteran.

Will the amount transferred to the spouse be exactly the same? For instance, if the veteran dies at the age of 66, will his or her spouse receive exactly the same amount that the veteran had been receiving until his or her death, or will the amount be lower? My understanding was that the spouse would receive 50%. So I'd like you to clarify how much of the amount will be transferable to the surviving spouse.

[Bernard Butler]

Thank you for the question.

Mr. Chair, a surviving spouse would have eligibility in two circumstances. In a situation where a member or a veteran dies from a service-related illness, the surviving spouse would be eligible for this benefit at the same amount that the veteran would have been eligible to receive, in other words, at 70%. However, in the case where a member or a veteran dies not from service-related disease or disability and would be eligible for the retirement income security benefit, the survivor in those circumstances would be eligible for the benefit calculated at the rate of 50% of the amount that the veteran would have been eligible for.

Again, there are two circumstances. One is where the survivor is eligible in her own right because her spouse died of a service-related disability and she would be eligible for this benefit at 70%, the same basis as the veteran would be. If, however, the veteran, who would otherwise have been eligible for the benefit, passes away due to non service-related issues, then in those circumstances, the spouse would be eligible at 50% of the amount the veteran would have been entitled to receive.

[The Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Mr. Lemieux, please go ahead.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Thank you to our guests for being here to talk about this important legislation. I'm very happy it's included in the budget implementation act. I'm glad we have it here in front of the committee so that we're able to discuss the different aspects of it.

The first question I'd like to ask has to do with the purpose clause. You mentioned it in your opening remarks. I think it would be of interest to all members. I think the terminology that's been used in the purpose clause is terminology that all MPs have been seeking. I'm wondering if you could elaborate on that a bit.

[Bernard Butler]

Thank you for the question.

Mr. Chair, the purpose clause reflects the objective of ensuring, as per the direction of this committee in its report going back to June 2014, that there be some formal statement of recognition of the obligation of the government and the people of Canada to Canada's veterans and their families. Interestingly enough, historically there was a very similar clause contained in the pension legislation, as an example, but when the new Veterans Charter was introduced in 2006, it was omitted. The committee had pointed out that this was a gap, that there was no formal statement in the new Veterans Charter to reflect that obligation.

The purpose clause has two elements. One is to state that there is a recognized obligation to support veterans and their families. The second element is quite important, to the extent that it says that the act shall be liberally construed so that the recognized obligation may be fulfilled. That's a very clear direction to both government administrators and presumably the courts, that if they are faced with interpreting any aspects of the legislation, they should ensure that a very liberal interpretation is applied in order to fulfill the obligation reflected in the statute.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Thank you very much. Actually, Chair, I'd like to read the paragraph quickly, because I think there are people who might be listening to this committee but who don't have the legislation in front of them.

The purpose clause, as I read it in the legislation, is as follows:

The purpose of this Act is to recognize and fulfil the obligation of the people and Government of Canada to show just and due appreciation to members and veterans for their service to Canada. This obligation includes providing services, assistance and compensation to members and veterans who have been injured or have died as a result of military service and extends to their spouses or common-law partners or survivors and orphans. This Act shall be liberally interpreted so that the recognized obligation may be fulfilled.

Thank you for your indulgence. I just wanted to have that on the record. I think that supports the explanation we just received.

I would also like to ask a question about the caregiver amount. I think this is an important initiative for the spouses or family members of veterans who in fact care for them. Even though the veteran may be receiving home care through Veterans Affairs, this is an additional benefit to family members. I'm wondering if you could perhaps explain—I believe the amount is a little over $7,000, tax-free—who that amount is paid to. Is it paid to the veteran, or is it paid to a specific family member?

[Bernard Butler]

Thank you for the question. The benefit to the family caregiver, or relief benefit, is payable to the veteran. It will be payable in the form of a grant. It's a $7,200 tax-free benefit that will be paid. The intent of the benefit is to ensure that there is additional support to the veteran and to those providing care in the home on an informal basis, who need to have some relief, if you will, from that very intensive caregiving model, and at the same time to ensure that the veteran's care needs are in fact being met.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Does a veteran have to apply for it? For example, if one of their family caregivers is planning some time away to recharge, do they need to fill out an application form to say they'd now like to apply for this caregiver amount?

[Michel D. Doiron]

If the veteran is case-managed, he or she does not have to fill out an application. The case manager will do that for the veteran. If they're not case-managed, there is a document that will have to be filled out.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Are there receipts that have to be submitted? For example, if the family member decides that plan A is best to recharge their energy and refresh them to come back into a situation of looking after their loved one, while someone else might decide it's plan B or plan C, is the department involved in any type of approval process, or is it entirely up to the veteran and their family caregivers how they use that money to rejuvenate?

[Bernard Butler]

Essentially, the way the benefit is going to be designed, we're very concerned, as per observations of this committee over time and of our stakeholders and veterans organizations, to try to come up with models that are as flexible as possible while at the same time ensuring that the accountabilities under the Financial Administration Act are respected and honoured.

In this context the focus will be on determining the eligibility of the veteran because of their care needs and because they meet the central qualifications set out in the proposed legislation. The idea will be simply to pay that grant to them and at the end of the year there could always be a request to have some measure of accounting, but that will not be where the focus will be.

The idea will be to try to—

[The Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Thank you.

Mr. Valeriote.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Doiron and Mr. Butler, for attending today.

It's amazing how Mr. Lemieux's questions just draw out the cynicism and the absolute doubting Thomas that exists, because I've seen this window dressing before when he purposely emphasizes the statement of the obligation that shall be “liberally interpreted” so as to recognize the obligation that must be fulfilled. I say that because over the time that I've been here, I've seen anything but. I've seen an Auditor General's report that talks about how many people are denied and how many of those people appeal with a 60% success rate. It's just fascinating the struggle that our veterans go through.

Let me take it to the legislation to tell you why I'm even more cynical. I look at the CIB, the $70,000 payment that's going to be available to certain veterans who suffer “a sudden and single incident that occurred after March 31, 2006”—I'm not worried about the date so much—“a sudden and single incident” with “severe interference in their quality of life”.

I've asked you folks and I've asked others and I've been told, “Well, that is not likely to include people suffering from PTSD because PTSD arises later.” Unless through the miracle of medical reports that can attribute that to a sudden and single incident, those folks are out of luck, and the answer is, “Well, they have other benefits available to them.” Well, so do those people who suffer “a sudden and single incident.” You further marginalize those who suffer from PTSD. That is the hidden injury.

So tell me, what benefit is that to those suffering from PTSD?

[Bernard Butler]

Thank you very much for the question.

Mr. Chair, the critical injury benefit is again to be viewed as a benefit separate and distinct from the disability award. The committee full well knows that under the disability award program, compensation benefits are paid for disease or disability that is service related once it has stabilized. Most cases of post-traumatic stress disorder, as an example, become apparent oftentimes long after the fact. In those cases, once they are identified, once they're diagnosed, once they have stabilized, then compensation is payable on that basis in respect of PTSD and a range of mental health issues. So the—

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Right. But you could go back and say, “Your quality of life has been severely interfered with. We are going to give you $70,000 because you deserve what those others deserve.”

[Bernard Butler]

Again, the important consideration is that, in fact, the disability award payments do just that. What this critical injury benefit is about—and it's to be distinguished from the disability award—is it was designed to ensure that those veterans who suffer these sudden and traumatic injuries.... Oftentimes it may be on the battlefield as such. It could be in the circumstance of a garrison injury or the crash of a helicopter. It's to compensate for disability that arises for the pain and suffering before the disability has stabilized, which is not to say.... If I might just add, the way it's been designed—and you're not wrong; it may well be that the preponderance of those who are awarded the benefit may indeed suffer from physical injury, but it has been designed in such a way that it would not necessarily preclude a mental health effect that meets the criteria. In other words, you are so traumatized by the event that it requires you to go into a state of care.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Butler, you've used enough “mays“ that make it ambiguous. It tells me the government's further marginalized PTSD victims because they don't get an automatic $70,000 payment. Having said that, let me go to the second point that draws out my cynicism.

There is a $7,238 per year payment, tax-free, for a caregiver relief benefit. That amounts to $139 a week. I know there are people, in fact, there are some out there that we've seen having to chase former minsters around—Jenny Migneault, who's given up her job, and others like her who've given up a lot of their lifestyle and their income earning potential because they have a spouse or a partner—

[The Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Mr. Valeriote, do you wish an answer for this?