Evidence of meeting #51 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-59.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Bradley K. White  Dominion Secretary, Dominion Command, Royal Canadian Legion
Wayne Mac Culloch  National President, Canadian Association of Veterans in United Nations Peacekeeping
Debbie Lowther  Co-founder, Veterans Emergency Transition Services
Ray McInnis  Director, Service Bureau, Dominion Command, Royal Canadian Legion
Brian McKenna  Representative, BC Veterans Well-being Network
Derryk Fleming  National Administration Member, 31 CBG Veterans Well Being Network
Capt  N) Perry Gray (Editor in Chief, VeteranVoice.info
Michael Blais  President and Founder, Canadian Veterans Advocacy
Sean Bruyea  Retired Captain, Columnist, and Academic Researcher, As an Individual

7:20 p.m.

NDP

Christine Moore NDP Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Okay. Thank you.

My second question has to do with spousal allowances.

When we do the calculation of the 50% of the 70% and the 75%, a wife ends up with a benefit of about 26% of her husband's gross revenue when he leaves the forces.

Let's be honest. A number of veterans are men, and they have wives. So these are women who can have access to these benefits. It often happens that women are unable to work and haven't worked throughout their husband's career. They simply supported their husbands as best they could in the course of his duties.

When these women were younger, they have nothing but this amount, since they aren't entitled to old age security because of their age. Do you think that's reasonable, especially considering the sacrifice that a lot of wives make because of the family situation created by a military career?

7:20 p.m.

National President, Canadian Association of Veterans in United Nations Peacekeeping

Maj Wayne Mac Culloch

As I mentioned, it equals a gross amount of about $15,000 a year, which is well below the poverty line. I can't imagine how someone receiving that amount alone could have an acceptable quality of life.

7:20 p.m.

NDP

Christine Moore NDP Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

So—

7:20 p.m.

Dominion Secretary, Dominion Command, Royal Canadian Legion

Bradley K. White

I'll give you an example. My spouse served in the Canadian Forces for 11 years. After we had our second child, she decided to get out of the military and follow me with the children. She worked various jobs all the way through because we were posted in various places. And let's be honest, Petawawa doesn't really have a lot of jobs for spouses. So spouses in the military, if they don't have guaranteed employment, don't earn a lot of money, wherever they be. It's very difficult for them, and it's also very difficult when you move around for them to get employment at each base that you're posted to.

7:20 p.m.

NDP

Christine Moore NDP Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Do you think it would be appropriate to look further into the situation of spouses of veterans to ensure that the income provided to them is feasible?

7:20 p.m.

National President, Canadian Association of Veterans in United Nations Peacekeeping

Maj Wayne Mac Culloch

Yes, but we would like the bill to be passed quickly. We could then make the necessary changes. There would at least be the start of a solution, which didn't exist before.

7:20 p.m.

NDP

Christine Moore NDP Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Do I have any time left, Mr. Chair?

7:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Royal Galipeau

You have 45 seconds.

7:20 p.m.

NDP

Christine Moore NDP Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Okay.

In terms of benefits for family caregivers, I would like your comments on the amount that has been allocated. Is it enough and will it really make it possible to do what was set out?

7:20 p.m.

Dominion Secretary, Dominion Command, Royal Canadian Legion

Bradley K. White

I don't understand the first part of your question.

7:20 p.m.

NDP

Christine Moore NDP Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Do you think the amount for family caregivers is sufficient?

7:20 p.m.

Dominion Secretary, Dominion Command, Royal Canadian Legion

Bradley K. White

As we mentioned earlier, everyone here is in the same boat. It would probably be preferable to receive—

a family attendant's allowance

—instead of a caregiver's allowance, which is—

respite allowance

We want something like the former attendance allowance, which was paid under the Pension Act.

7:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Royal Galipeau

Thank you, Mr. White.

Mr. Lizon, you have the floor.

7:25 p.m.

Conservative

Wladyslaw Lizon Conservative Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to all the witnesses for coming here this afternoon. It's great to see you here again.

Before I ask a question, I want to make a few points to clarify certain things.

First of all, the veterans ombudsman who was here this morning did not mention half measures. He said, actually, that it was a good step in the right direction. I think it was Mr. Forbes who mentioned half measures.

What I would really like to stress is that we can play political games here and point fingers at each other—I can point fingers at someone—and say, “Do you remember what happened in 1994-95?” But we're not here for this. I am really very proud and happy that I have been able, by my own choice, to serve on this committee since the beginning of this Parliament. I did not grow up here in Canada, but I grew up among veterans. I remember my grandfather on my mother's side—not very well, but I remember that he was missing his right arm. He lost it in the war of 1920, and he already was married and had children. He came back and had another three or four. My mother had 11 siblings.

I heard all sorts of war stories. Growing up, I truly believed that one day I would go to war and fight like these guys about whom I heard stories. It took time to grow up and realize what war was. I realized how fortunate my generation, born after the war, was and how grateful we should be for those who went to fight, those who served after, and those who are serving today—we have some of them at the table here—to protect us: my generation, the generation of my children and grandchildren, and I hope many generations to come.

We may have different political agendas, but we are here to serve the veterans. You gentlemen remember that when we were doing the review of the Veterans Charter, the question asked of many groups that appeared here—and several times the question came from me—was, if you had to choose, what would be the first things you would change in the Veterans Charter?

I'm not pointing fingers at all those members of Parliament in 2006 who decided, without any opposition, to pass the charter. They had great intentions; some things came up. That's why it is a living charter; that's why we have to look at it. Truly, I would not like to feel, after all the work at the committee....

You probably know the story from Greek mythology of the Greek king Sisyphus, who was punished and had to roll a boulder up a hill and never made it: the boulder would roll back. I hope we are going in the right direction and addressing the issues. I hope that's what we've done.

I think that what is in Bill C-59 is addressing the issues that were raised—not all of them—and my understanding and that of those who were at the committee is that the agreement was that it would be an incremental change.

I would love to have you address this and comment on the issues I raised.

7:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Royal Galipeau

You have one minute to do it.

7:25 p.m.

Dominion Secretary, Dominion Command, Royal Canadian Legion

Bradley K. White

I, too, grew up with veterans. My grandfather was a company commander in Dieppe. He served with Lieutenant-Colonel Merritt, who received the Victoria Cross for his actions in Pourville. I knew Mr. Merritt when I was a young lieutenant, and I listened to his stories, so I know them well.

We all hope that what we're doing here is serving our veterans and making their lives better. That's why we do this. We're not politicians. That's why when we address you, we address you collectively as the government, regardless of what party you belong to.

As was mentioned, Robert Borden said years ago that it's the obligation of the government to look after those they send away to serve. We in the legion believe very much that it's the government's obligation to do that. You are all government to us. So our position is to advocate on behalf of those veterans to make sure that after they've served, they're looked after, to make sure that they have a healthy and productive life after they've been injured. That is our aim.

Is it incremental? Yes, it's incremental. But remember, 2006 and Bill C-55 in 2011 were the first steps to improve and breathe some life into the charter. We now have some more incremental steps in Bill C-58, which have been incorporated into Bill C-59, to do that again. We won't stop pushing. We said that in our statement.

7:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Royal Galipeau

I thank you very much, Mr. White.

I thank all the witnesses for their enlightening comments this evening.

We're going to take a short break and then we're going to entertain some new witnesses in the second hour.

Thank you.

7:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Royal Galipeau

I want to thank Mr. McKenna for bringing this meeting to order. He has talents that I would like to emulate.

In this second hour of this 51st meeting we have a number of guests. I want you to know that there is a guest who is not sitting at this table, but who will not be silent. He's with us by teleconference. This is Mr. Derryk Fleming, a national administration member of 31 CBG Veterans Well-being Network. He's reaching us by teleconference from St. Catharines, Ontario.

We have here at the table as an individual Mr. Sean Bruyea, retired captain. I gave a lengthy description of all his merits a littler earlier. From Canadian Veterans Advocacy we have Mr. Michael Blais, president and founder. From VeteranVoice.info we have Perry Gray, the editor-in-chief. And of course there's man I admire for bringing this meeting to order, Brian McKenna from the B.C. Veterans Well-being Network.

In order to better manage the time, given that we have a number of witnesses and we only have one hour, can we agree to presentations of seven minutes each? Does this make sense? Who will go first?

Mr. McKenna.

7:40 p.m.

Brian McKenna Representative, BC Veterans Well-being Network

Thank you.

It will be seven minutes. I timed it earlier.

My name is Brian Robert McKenna. I'm a resident in the riding of Newton—North Delta in British Columbia. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today with regard to these matters.

The issues in front of us are serious ones. I'm honoured both to be here in this great building and perhaps to have a small role in making some progress on these issues. I'll take a couple of seconds to introduce myself and then I'll get going.

I'm a soon-to-be-retired warrant officer from the Royal Westminster Regiment in the army reserves. That retirement is not my choice; it's the military's choice. I come to you today as a representative of the B.C. Veterans Well-being Network.

I've experienced a number of the situations that this committee is tasked to review. My release from the Canadian Forces is due to my inability to meet the requirements of the universality of the service. I was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder in 2012, and also suffered some intestinal damage due to a bug I caught in Afghanistan. While I'll always have pride in my service, there's a large hole in my own self-worth as I struggle today with the realities of losing my connection to the organization I loved. I'm one of the folks you guys talk about. I'm coming to terms with the fact that the organization I risked my life for no longer has a position for me.

I have read the bill in question and I'm filled with a number of thoughts and emotions as I contemplate it's content.

I'm saddened that we are now fixing these problems in 2015 instead of years ago, but I am happy that these issues are finally in the public light. In the fairness of giving credit where credit is due, along with knowing how long it takes to produce in-depth policy, I'd like to give some credit both to the current administration at VAC and to the previous minister's staff, who I'm sure had a hand in these files.

I have to say, the changes being considered are positive steps. I'm optimistic, and more important than that, I am trusting that, through you people, real veterans will see some real improvements on these issues.

I'd like to bring your attention to a few thoughts I had upon reading the points being discussed.

Division 17 of part 3, as described in paragraph (b) of the legislative summary, refers to the transition process and enabling the Minister of Veterans Affairs to essentially engage sooner. I see value in that. The current situation of major engagement being initiated by the department upon release could be described as a football throw. We know in these cases which department is throwing and who is supposed to catch, but in football some passes are incomplete.

What we should strive towards is more of a football running play where the ball is secured in the receiving player's arms before the line is hit, enabling them to hit the line running. I ask the committee to consider that VAC should be the lead agency in the health care of the veteran as soon as the release message is in the hands of the soldier.

So much mental stress is due to the add-on factors that compound the problem originally faced. Ambiguity is a major stressor. In the current situation, the affected service member faces statements like, “may qualify” or “can apply for” and often, “can apply for later upon release.” Perhaps we could change some of those to, “will receive” or, “is entitled to,” before they leave the Canadian forces and move to the unknown.

I would further suggest that, upon receipt of the release message, the soldier's VAC case manager be assigned. At that point, not upon release, they could begin to apply for the full suite of Veterans Affairs benefits.

This would serve to alleviate conflict and draw cleans lines as to who is actually the lead care provider for the member as they transition, instead of the current scenario, which again, is the football pass.

A risk of having two organizations looking at the same case is the likelihood that at some point, in some cases, there may be confusion about who is actually in charge. Establishing a policy of engaging the case manager earlier, when release is known as opposed to when release is complete, has the potential to remove some of the variables in the transition process.

Lastly, I'd like to identify a concern with what is described in paragraph (c) of the legislative summary. My concern is with the surviving spouse in respect to the benefits mentioned.

Certainly I'm happy to see the needs and contributions of the spouse being considered. My concern is that these spousal benefits are tied to the income of the veteran. Both the earning loss benefit tied to 75% of the pre-release salary and the proposed continued financial benefit past age 65 are not received by a veteran who has other forms of income that go higher than the threshold described.

The concern is that when that veteran dies, since the veteran did not collect the benefit because of making too much money, the surviving spouse then does not receive the entitlement.

My suggestion to this committee is that you study and produce a mechanism that delivers the characteristics of the benefit to all those who would have qualified, regardless of whether or not, because of finances, they actually received it. That way we avoid making a second class of surviving spouse upon the death of the veteran.

I'll close my comments by reiterating one point. The symptoms and presentations of PTSD are tough to live with, in some cases completely crippling. Regardless of the effect and severity of mental health conditions, there is a constant: these conditions are worsened by a lack of clarity about what your next few years are going to look like. Facing a mental illness while staring at financial insecurity and potential job loss is the perfect storm to worsen the very conditions we are attempting to treat and alleviate.

Financial stability for veterans isn't just part of mental health, but in some cases it is their mental health. I can only encourage you to dig deep into these proposed revisions to try to flush out as many inconsistencies as possible, so that upon royal assent the detailed implementation of the act matches the intent.

Thank you.

7:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Royal Galipeau

Thank you very much, Mr. McKenna. You're also an example for the clock.

I wonder if I could have Mr. Fleming.

7:45 p.m.

Derryk Fleming National Administration Member, 31 CBG Veterans Well Being Network

Yes.

7:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Royal Galipeau

Can you hear me, Mr. Fleming?

7:45 p.m.

National Administration Member, 31 CBG Veterans Well Being Network

Derryk Fleming

Yes, I can.

7:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Royal Galipeau

We'd like to hear you. You have seven minutes.

7:45 p.m.

National Administration Member, 31 CBG Veterans Well Being Network

Derryk Fleming

I'd like to thank Brian right off the bat. He made three of the four main points that I wanted to express.

I'd like to thank the honourable members of all parties of the standing committee for allowing me this opportunity to speak.

In division 17, I believe that overall the legislation is reasonable and prudent. It will assist veterans and their families who have the most serious needs. It addresses their long-term financial security needs—although Brian did raise an excellent point there—it provides some measure of respite for their primary caregivers, and it establishes the critical injury benefit. Most importantly, it will do much to close the seam between a CF member's release and their accessing services through VAC in a much more proactive manner.

Those veterans most in need will be better looked after by this new piece of legislation. I believe strongly that the standing committee will act in the best interests of all veterans.

More work needs to be done in the transitioning of less seriously injured veterans. Priority hiring in the federal service is [Inaudible--Editor], as is the creation of Canada Company. Helmets to Hardhats also can play a vital and important role.

One area that hasn't been discussed and is a very important missing piece is the synergy between the federal government and the provinces. The provincial governments' ministries of colleges and universities have little understanding of the training and experience that a veteran brings to the workforce.

Recently, the British Columbia Institute of Technology has created a process of translating these skills for civilian accreditation purposes, but more colleges and universities in each separate jurisdiction need to be encouraged to follow suit.

Ideally, once a CF member is released both VAC and the member should have a clear understanding of the provincial accreditation that members would already have, guiding their retraining choices and entering into the civilian workforce much more quickly than starting at zero once again. The smoother the transition, the less strain on both the member and the family, and the resources needed to facilitate that transition can be achieved.

To accomplish this outcome requires [Inaudible--Editor] initiatives and diplomacy between the federal and provincial levels of government. It will not require vast sums of funding to accomplish this coordination. If successful, it will streamline the transition profoundly, however.

For the sake of brevity, I don't want to repeat some of the main points that Brian has already illustrated; they're actually much better than what I had written. But this is one missing piece, and if we're going to transition the majority of veterans who do not qualify as moderately or severely injured, we don't want to leave them out of the mix as well.

I thank you for the opportunity and respectfully submit, Derryk Fleming, 31 CBG Veterans Well-being Network.