Veterans Affairs Committee on May 26th, 2015

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, can I...?

[The Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

We have four slots of five minutes. I have asked the members to give some time to the witnesses to answer, but the five minutes belongs to him.

I invite members, out of courtesy to our witnesses, to leave time for the witnesses to reply.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to address some comments that were made earlier about what this government, this committee, and everybody around this table sees in regard to veterans, which is the absolute point of this. To some of the other comments that were addressed—because I'm trying to address some of that—we do have some communications issues to deal with. We are at the pointy end of that stick. We have to make sure that veterans understand exactly what these programs are, and all these programs fit different veterans differently depending on their situation.

With all of that being said, I'm going to ask a question of Warrant Officer McKenna from a reserve perspective, because we haven't talked too much about reserves. Prior to the announcements made by the Minister of Veterans Affairs, reservists were receiving considerably less in the earnings loss benefit than their regular force counterparts. The minister announced that reservists, as we've seen in Afghanistan—and I see your campaign star right there—would often have sustained similar injuries in similar instances. In fact they all served in the same place. There is virtually no difference, as you all know. They are going to now receive the same earnings loss benefit as regular force members.

I'd like to get your comment on this and what you think will affect the overall wellness of reserve force veterans and, if 31 CBG is still on the phone and heard my question, I'd like to ask him the same question.

[Brian McKenna]

Thanks for that.

I guess I approach the question this way. Again, I'm happy to see the change. I think it's a move in the right direction. I'd even say it's stronger than that; it might be the right answer on that file. Where I'm troubled in this is that, as a reservist having lost a friend of mine from the reserves overseas and multiple other friends from the regular force overseas, it seems we had to wait until the death of Corporal Cirillo to go public before this got addressed.

Now I could be wrong and I don't understand the production of policy, so maybe I am wrong. But this is one of those things where not only do you need to do the right thing, but you also have to be seen to do the right thing. The perception was that it took someone dying at the war memorial to identify that there was a difference between benefits for the reserve and regular force, and we think that this should have been identified when Mr. Boneca, the first reservist to die overseas, was killed.

This was also addressed by Mr. Parent when he first took over office and was addressed by Mr. Stogran when he held the ombudsman's office.

So yes, I'm very happy with this announcement. What I'm scared about is how long it's taken us to get here. If we have flaws in this document that we're looking at in front of us at this moment, are we eight years from the next hearing to implement that? That's my concern, but I do support the change in that benefit.

[The Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Thank you very much, Mr. McKenna.

Mr. Valeriote.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you for appearing, gentlemen.

I am not nearly as optimistic, satisfied, or gratified as Mr. Opitz is. While this committee does have ongoing work, I don't think that it's the work of this committee to have to continually meet, continually receive recommendations when we've received tens of dozens of recommendations over the last three years, and to have to beg this government on behalf of veterans for what they already deserve. My question is going to be direct.

Mr. Bruyea, what recommendations would you make to amend this legislation on those three particular points? No amendment is going to be accepted, and nothing else is going to pass but this legislation, we know that, but if you could amend it on each of these three points that were made, what would they be?

And, Mr. Gray, I'm going to ask you the same question after Mr. Bruyea is done.

[Sean Bruyea]

Super.

I would first of all convert the critical injury benefit to actually raising the lump sum across the board.

Second, on the family benefit, I would just merely remove the family benefit and open up attendance allowance to all recipients, NVC clients.

Third, what I would do for the retirement benefit is essentially scrap the retirement benefit and just extend ELB until death.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Gray.

[Capt(N) Perry Gray]

I concur.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

With all of those?

[Capt(N) Perry Gray]

Yes.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Would you agree with me then that the critical injury benefit—and I know it's a specific benefit for a specific event at a specific time—again marginalizes those suffering from PTSD? Mr. Blais, you raised that point.

I'm wondering if Mr. Blais and maybe the others can join in on this. Should there not be a lump sum payment of an equivalent amount at least? We know we're not going to get the civilian award amount out of the government. Should there not at least be an equivalent payment of $70,000 to anyone suffering from PTSD when they're immediately diagnosed?

Mr. Blais, Mr. Bruyea, Mr. Gray, and Mr. McKenna, you're welcome to join in.

[Michael Blais]

I think being diagnosed and attributing it to service is essential. If we have incidents where one guy loses his legs, there's a traumatic incident with 12 guys involved, and three years later the guy who bore witness to all that comes forward, it's attributable. You know he was at that traumatic event. We should be making him entitled, absolutely.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Bruyea.

[Sean Bruyea]

We already have a mechanism in place for that: the accidental dismemberment insurance plan. We expanded it to include all ranks back in 2003, and yet this dismemberment benefit does not recognize people who are suffering debilitating psychological injuries. Yet you have situations where you have paraplegics who are able to fully function and work. Yes, their loss is a tragedy, but at the same time you have people suffering from PTSD who cannot work at all for the rest of their lives, and yet they are not awarded that benefit.

I think we've got to have some equality across the board here.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Gray.

[Capt(N) Perry Gray]

As everybody said, an injury is an injury. It doesn't matter what type it is, physical or psychological, it should be treated the same way.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Okay. Mr. McKenna.

[Brian McKenna]

My fear is that this benefit could essentially create a third class of veteran. My fear right now is that when you look at pre-lump sum, post-lump sum, there's your two, and now we have pre-lump sum, post-lump sum, post-lump sum qualifying CIB as a third. I don't like the separate classes of spouse. I don't like the second classes of veteran either.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

I just want to check if Mr. Fleming is still on the phone.

[Derryk Fleming]

Yes.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Fleming, would you like to answer that question? What amendments would you like to see to this?

[Derryk Fleming]

I believe that spousal care should be made available to all veterans, not just moderately and severely injured ones, because the spouses, the caregivers, until this point have not had any support whatsoever.

In terms of the actual transition, I take into account that this is a living document, so Bill C-59, division 17 is just one step of a number of steps.

So specifically I think you can do the most good by closing the seams of the football, as Brian mentioned, and doing the hand-off. I think there is some merit to this bill, specifically the hand-off. I think you're going to see real value come about from this bill in a really proactive manner, which is not to take away from what the other witnesses have said, but in a proactive manner. Having a seamless transition so the guys don't fall between the cracks as they're being released, I think is a strong point of this bill.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Thank you very much, Mr. Fleming.

Mr. Lemieux, you have the floor.