Veterans Affairs Committee on May 26th, 2015

[Brian Forbes]

—that you make that caveat part of the exercise.

[The Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Mr. Lemieux, you asked the question. Wait for the answer.

[Brian Forbes]

Let me just suggest that we would urge you strongly as a committee to obtain a commitment from the minister on the future course of action.

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

He is committed to that too.

[The Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Thank you very much, Mr. Forbes.

Mr. Valeriote, first I want to thank you for chairing the meeting in my absence. The thing was still there when I came back.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

I hope it's still there after you're finished with your questions.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I hope you haven't cut into my time by saying that.

You didn't take the bait, Mr. Lemieux.

It's rare that I disagree with the Veterans Ombudsman, very rare, but I don't believe these are adequate and I don't believe they're sufficient. I don't think $139 a week for a family caregiver relief benefit is adequate, and the critical injury benefit has completely excluded PTSD sufferers.

But what you have to say, Mr. Forbes, is far more important than what I have to say, so I'd like you to finish your prepared remarks. I'm going to give my time over to you if you would return to your remarks.

[Brian Forbes]

Thank you.

There's an important consideration when we're looking at the family caregiver relief benefit. Our belief is that the government is reinventing the wheel and that in the Pension Act we effectively have had an attendance allowance provision for many decades. The attendance allowance provision has been very beneficial to traditional veterans and their families where there's a caregiver need.

Certainly from our perspective—my other hat is that of chair of the executive committee of the War Amps of Canada—the traditional war amp found that the attendant's allowance provision was critical as he grew older and depended more on a caregiver, whether it was a spouse or family member. That in itself will provide $15,000 to $20,000 of tax-free money to a veteran and his family under the provisions of the Pension Act, which I think we should borrow for the purposes of the new Veterans Charter.

I would also suggest—and I appreciate your giving me this opportunity, Mr. Valeriote—that the DND policy of the attendant care benefit program is extremely important. It's part of their legacy of care program, which is excellent. We have a number of young amputees and their wives who are benefiting from this program. It provides as much as $3,000 a month or $36,000 a year. When you compare that to the family caregiver relief benefit of $7,200, there's a concern. Quite frankly, why should we reinvent the wheel when we already have benefits that will work and will be more fulsome and more comprehensive for the family?

Thank you.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I listened carefully to Mr. Doiron earlier, who talked about hiring 100 more people as part-time and full-time caseworkers. I could not get a commitment from the minister the other day on how many are for this year. Nobody knows. It's over five years. He then said, “Oh, there are going to be 2,000 more veterans that are coming online.”

By my quick math, that's 100 part-time and full-time divided among those 2,000, which is 20 each. The numbers aren't adding up for me. I believe they're wholly insufficient.

Could you comment on that, Mr. Forbes?

[Brian Forbes]

The first comment I have regarding these new announcements is that I do give the minister credit for at least proactively involving himself in the staffing question.

One of the concerns we have had, Mr. Chairman, is that as a veterans community we have been told over the last number of years that staff cuts, closure of district offices, and so on are fine, that effectively we can take care of the load of work that comes forward and of the applications from veterans. Now we're learning in the year 2015 that we're short.

Mr. Valeriote, whether we're short 100 or 200, we need new case managers, and we need new adjudicating staff members, after a period of time when we were told as a veterans community that these things would not be necessary.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Could you comment, Mr. Forbes, on your awareness—because I'm told that it isn't an issue by Mr. Doiron—of the transition of an active member to Veterans Affairs and their medical diagnosis? We know that Corporal Fitzgerald had his diagnosis downgraded from severe PTSD to depression, which disentitled him to benefits. I know that Captain Perry Gray appeared before this very committee months ago and related the very same experience, which is that for what they're told by doctors at DND that gets them basically pushed out of the forces, they're told the opposite by Veterans Affairs.

Do you have an understanding of what's happening in that regard? Could you explain it to us?

[Brian Forbes]

I think to be fair, Mr. Chair, through you to Mr. Valeriote, what is now being put on the table by the deputy minister, Mr. Natynczyk, is a new modus operandi with regard to the establishment of medical and disability findings. As you may know, our understanding is that the VAC case managers will be going to the front of the line and will be sitting down with the veteran before he is medically discharged—six months before, ideally—to determine his medical situation and those disability benefits that will be available to him when he is medically discharged through VAC. All of this is very positive. Hopefully this will alleviate what you've described in your examples, because we see them as well.

I have to say it's a work in progress because just the other day a young amputee out of Afghanistan came to us and he was totally confused. He's medically discharged as of last week. He hasn't got his SISIP benefit or his superannuation in place. As you know, the two set off. He's not clear as to where he should turn for his vocational rehab. Is it SISIP? Is it VAC? There's still confusion, but I think the minister and the deputy have a plan of action that will hopefully improve all of this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Mr. Hawn.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you both for being here.

There are a lot of moving parts in this discussion, and I think one of the problems that people are having from my point of view is understanding the purpose of some of these new benefits, the critical injury benefit, for example, and the family caregiver relief benefit. They are targeted and they are specific for specific needs that have arisen.

Regarding the critical injury benefit, for example, Mr. Ombudsman, somebody could collect that more than once. If you get shot somewhere, if you fully recover, you're not going to get a disability award because you've fully recovered—terrific. But you're still eligible for the critical injury benefit because you're going to go through some hell to get better, and that could happen more than once. It's a very specific benefit for a very specific purpose. I'll just use that as an example.

We talk about perfection, and obviously we always strive for perfection. Mr. Parent, will we ever get to 100%? Will it always be a work in progress? I think it will. We're always going to be striving to do more and better because things change. I've said this before, that in 1938 we didn't know we'd have hundreds of thousands of World War II vets. In 1948 we didn't know we'd have tens of thousands of Korea vets, and now we have tens of thousands of Afghanistan vets. In 20 years we'll look back and say that we didn't know we'd have tens of thousands of vets from something else. So are we looking at a work in progress?

When something comes out, and the ombudsman and the Auditor General always put out reports and there's some good news and bad news. The opposition always picks up on the bad news; that's politics. We always pick up on the good news; that's politics. But is it fair to say it's a work in progress?

This is progress. We need to vote on this. We need to support it. Frankly, all sides need to support it, but I know that won't happen because that's also politics. But are we just faced here with a continuous work in progress that we all have to be committed to, to make that progress and keep making that progress? Is it ever going to stop?

[Guy Parent]

That's a good question.

Mr. Chair, I said in my opening address that we are here because of a unanimous decision that brought this committee to agree on the recommendations from ACVA. This is what the answer to these recommendations is, the sequence of events that led us to today. Again yes, it's a step in the right direction and we're moving forward. I think what's important is the veterans' and families' needs will continue evolving, and we need to make sure there is a continuum in this movement of getting things better as well.

Also, it has to be veteran-centric, not just made to facilitate administration and not just to have easy legislation and regulations. Some of these things, I think, are important when you say their personal situation...like what will somebody's income be at 65? By being veteran-centric, I would expect that when a veteran turns 64, somehow proactively he's contacted by the department and somebody says, “You're going to be 65 next year. What's going to happen to you?” Let's do it now. Let's not wait until.... I have all kinds of processes and mechanisms in place.

Yes, I agree with you. To me we've opened a door and we need to put our foot in there now before they close it.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Forbes, to go to you with Mr. Lemieux's question, part of that...and maybe it's just a step, maybe it's a half-step to some. Maybe the glass is half empty, half full. Everybody can pick their metaphor, but the step is to support this legislation. Is that a fair statement?

[Brian Forbes]

I appreciate that. I would just share our pain in the veterans' community.

In 2006 the Veterans Charter was enacted and we were promised, as a basic veterans stakeholders' group, that this was a living charter and that each year there would be a total review, as we're doing this year in 2015, of the charter to identify those areas where there are voids and inequities. It's the frustration, I think, of 10 years of waiting Mr. Hawn, through you, Mr. Chair. This has finally reached a point where there's an opportunity to get it right, and it is discouraging in a way that we have not yet taken on all of the elements of this new Veterans Charter reform.

That is why I feel it's important that we continue the momentum. It may seem like an insignificant thing to you, but I would suggest that getting the formal commitment of the minister that this momentum will continue, and I know he's made strong statements before this committee and in other places, like the veterans summit, to that effect.

I think it's important, and I give credit to this committee. In 2011, when you passed Bill C-55, you made it a condition that the minister of the day would come back to you, as I recall, within six months, to take a look at the bill to see how effective it was. I would like to suggest you do that with regard to this bill.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Well, he has made that commitment. I tend to be a glass half-full guy and I'm going to keep trying to fill the glass. I'm not going to moan about the part that's not filled yet; I'm going to work to fill it. The minister has made that commitment and this committee has made that commitment, and everybody in the community writ large has made that commitment. We approach it maybe from different angles and so on, but I'll take that as saying that, yes, we should pass this as at least a step in the right direction.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Mr. Rafferty.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

I thank both of you for being here.

I agree with you, Mr. Parent, about being proactive and I think there's not very much of that at the moment. How that happens, I think, is a plan that should go forward to make sure people don't fall through the cracks.

We're talking about a timely review of the charter. I want to quickly ask both of you, what would you suggest was timely in terms of not only this committee, but committees carrying on? Would timely be every new session? Would timely be every year, every two years? Do you have a sense of what timely would mean to you?

Certainly it's not nine years.

[Guy Parent]

No, that's for sure.

Through you, Mr. Chair, I would say two years would probably be timely to my mind. There was a two-year clause in Bill C-55 and it seems to me that it takes a year or so to get things into place, and there are new missions and things like that which may affect the impact on veterans and their families. To me, two years would be a good time to look at that.

However, that doesn't mean the department should not look at it on a daily basis and every time an evolving need is made known. Certainly, as a special adviser to the minister, I can bring things to him as far as what is changing in the veterans community and what is evolving is concerned. Then the department needs to be responsive to that immediately, not wait for.... Always, my concern would be that if you set a specific time, people may wait on the thought that we'll be doing the review in six months. That's not meeting evolving needs, to my mind.

[Brian Forbes]

I wouldn't disagree with that, but I also think we're at a particular juncture at which it's time to continue the momentum that we've just built up. There are many more points, but I've identified six points this morning that have to be addressed in order to complete this current review of the new Veterans Charter.

I think there's a momentum now to continue this work. I know we're facing an election in the fall and anything can happen, but the reality is the department maintains itself and Veterans Charter reform should be on the table now.

I was asked at the veterans summit, Mr. Chair, what my new priorities are for our organization, and I said that the old priorities have to be completed. We've identified this morning—and you've seen this from many advocates over the last number of months—areas which the minister has yet to address. He acknowledges that. Let's be fair to the minister. I believe he is under budgetary constraints at this time. He can only do what he can do within the budgetary envelope.

It's an election year. There's a certain focus on this government regarding the budget and the balancing of the budget. Next year we'd like to see these issues come back to this committee. This committee doesn't have to do any more work. You've identified these issues. You've identified them, Mr. Rafferty, so why should we have to come back and redo that work when you've done an excellent job of putting together a package which has yet to be fully addressed?

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

I have one more quick question. I think I have time left, and perhaps both of you can answer.

There was a mention about private insurance. Certainly, all government departments and services are moving to privatizing a number of services. Just on a personal level, I think it's problematic in a department like Veterans Affairs to be moving more and more to the use of private insurers, and so on. You talked about gaps, Mr. Parent. Do either of you see any issues, any problems with this move away from actual Veterans Affairs employees?

[Guy Parent]

My first comment to that, Mr. Chair, would be that using some of the insurance system, like SISIP, with the new Veterans Charter was not very beneficial. Certainly, looking forward to the future I think we need to stay away from insurance approaches, because certainly a lot of the confusion now with vocational rehabilitation and with long-term disability has to do with us or the department actually trying to mimic what was in the SISIP program of the time.