Veterans Affairs Committee on May 26th, 2015

[The Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Thank you very much, Mr. Fleming.

Mr. Gray.

[Capt, N) Perry Gray (Editor in Chief, VeteranVoice.info]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members.

Like many public announcements, these new programs seem to offer more financial support for the veterans community. Closer examination of each one can raise a host of potential problems.

The one question that this committee can ask VAC about any new financial policy is, how generous will VAC be? VAC has a reputation for being as stingy as Ebenezer Scrooge or Scrooge McDuck. As of 2014, only 227 clients had received 100% of the new Veterans Charter lump sum, out of 46,760 recipients. The CIB lump sum of $70,000 will be offered on a limited basis and, like the NVC lump sum, is based on a percentage calculated by assessing the severity of disabilities. Initial estimates suggest that hundreds rather than thousands will receive CIB.

The FCRB is expected to provide relief to approximately 350 spouses or caregivers by 2020. Why is this estimated number of caregivers so small? I would think that many primary caregivers would like to take a break, considering the fact that many of them did not expect to have to work for 24 hours a day, seven days a week, because of veterans' disabilities. In fact, the FCRB could reduce the number of divorces caused by caregiver burnout.

The RISB may benefit about 261 clients over the first five years of the program. In my opinion, the RISB also has a poorly justified limit. In addition, it will be 70% of pre-65 income. There are two concerns that I shall highlight. Why is there any decrease in a veteran's financial support because of a change in age? Is it assumed that veterans need less support after the age of 65? Based on the studies of VAC's own Gerontological Advisory Council, veterans are able to enjoy long life but only if they have good support.

In 2006, Greg Thompson, the incumbent minister, provided information on the veterans independence program for this very committee. He stated that 86,000 war service veterans did not receive VIP. He did not offer an explanation about why they did not receive support and added that providing them with VIP might never happen. He did acknowledge that that home care is better than institutional care, and the council also acknowledged that veterans were likely to live longer if they remained in their own homes.

VAC is also aware that most of the health care given to Canadians occurs when we are babies and then in the last months of our lives. This suggests to me that, rather than less money, veterans will need more money to maintain an independent lifestyle, which will likely include support during activities that elderly and disabled people find difficult or impossible.

It should also be noted that the age of 65 will stop being a benchmark by 2023 for old age security. Will VAC also raise the age of eligibility for the RISB? I think that using age as a factor contradicts the spirit of Canadian human rights. Pension Act benefits are awarded in recognition of the sacrifices made by veterans, as are other benefits provided by VAC. Decreasing these based on age is discrimination. Nobody improves with age, unlike wine.

In summary, these three programs are expected to benefit a very small number of the estimated 205,000 clients and their families. The RISB may also result in financial hardships at a time in life when clients may need to pay for more support. Why is VAC developing programs if only a few will benefit?

Thus, VAC seems to be advertising a lot but delivering only a little.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Mr. Blais.

[Michael Blais, President and Founder, Canadian Veterans Advocacy]

Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Michael Blais. I'm the president and founder of the Canadian Veterans Advocacy. Thank you for inviting me to attend committee tonight to speak to Bill C-59 and the creation of new programs designed to improve the quality of life for disabled veterans.

It is very gratifying to me to note that several of the primary issues that I found at the Canadian Veterans Advocacy in 2010 have been addressed recently. While there is a certain degree of scepticism within the veterans community I serve as to the timing of these announcements and the looming election, I am hopeful that the government is acting in good faith and that there will be merit in these discussions.

I understand there is only so much we can do with the limited time available to us. To that end, I'd like to focus on the shortcomings that I believe can be resolved at this time, if the government is acting in good faith, to ensure the proposals that have been brought forward will be inclusive to all veterans, not only those who have experienced physical trauma.

Critical injury benefit: I believe this is a positive development. However, what is very troubling to me is the fact that many who have sustained mental wounds will be excluded, due to the immediate prerequisite within the proposal. This exclusion is detrimental to our collective objective to eliminate stigma, to ensure that those who have sustained mental wounds are assured that the pervasive health insidious stigma does not relegate the seriousness of their sacrifice, as this does, to a lower state of recognition. There must be equality in acknowledgement of all serious wounds, physical or mental.

I would respectfully remind the committee members that mental wounds are just as lethal as physical wounds. We must acknowledge the grim fact that more of Canada's sons and daughters have died as a consequence of suicide than the nation's sacrifice during the war on terror. Without effective intervention, this number will only rise. Furthermore, we must be cognizant that these intensely tragic numbers speak only to one segment of the issue, as Veterans Affairs Canada does not track suicides within the veteran community. These numbers may be exponentially higher.

We know now that mental wounds, when incurred during an operational period, are often not recognized or acknowledged by the individual until returning home and the cycle of despair begins to ravage the mind, adversely affecting self and the family unit. We also understand that many of our heroes suppress acknowledging the seriousness of the wound, fearful of stigma and career-ending ramifications, until the mental discord appears and finally the treatment is brought forward.

We must consider all serious national sacrifice equally. It should matter not whether you have sustained a physical or a mental wound. Should it not qualify for the prerequisites of the CIB because a mental wound is bereft of the need for immediate hospitalization? Amendments can be made to respect the national sacrifice of those who have sustained mental wounds as a consequence of their service, so that they, too, will be included in this compensatory proposal.

In regard to caregivers, this too is a positive step forward, aligning the NVC provisions with that of the Pension Act and providing annual respite for primary caregivers who have been consigned to a lifetime of caring for seriously disabled veterans.

Once again, however, caregivers who are caring for veterans who have sustained serious mental wounds have virtually been excluded. Spouses who care for their husbands 24/7, fearing the spectre of suicide on a daily basis, are not accorded the opportunity for dedicated respite while knowing their loved ones are cared for.

There must be equality and recognition that the impact that a mental wound bears upon the caregiver is extraordinary, that the threat of the wound manifesting catastrophically is clear and present long after a physical wound has been determined non-life threatening. I would encourage you to recognize the travail that caregivers of those with mental wounds are experiencing. Amend the legislation to include the plight of families who are dealing with mental wounds.

Regarding the retirement income supplementary benefit, this has been the cornerstone principle of the CVA since conception, that is, the plight of our disabled veterans when reaching aged 65. I repeat, it's for disabled veterans, ladies and gentlemen. The foundation of the RISB, a comparative to the average Canadian's post-retirement income at 70% of 75%, negates the disabled veteran's quotient completely. We're not speaking of ordinary Canadians; we're speaking of disabled veterans who are bereft of a lifetime of opportunity to prepare for retirement. Disabled veterans do not retire from being disabled. Indeed, as they grow older, they require additional help.

We believe there should be no reduction and that the 70% of 75% equation does not respect the needs of a disabled veteran. The RISB should ensure the quality of life provisions to which they have been accorded, the foundation of VAC's mandate, are maintained at 75%. We also find it disingenuous to include a permanent impairment allowance—an award that recognizes the fact that seriously disabled veterans require financial support to cope with their wounds in addition to the 75% ELB or SISIP provision—into the harmonization of these income prerequisites. Once again, these are seriously impaired veterans. To negate the PIA mandate through a RISB clawback formula—despite the fact they are still seriously disabled and have already sustained a significant physical reduction—when reaching age 65 will consign them to lives of near poverty.

We also have grave concerns about the proposals to give 50% of 70% of prior earnings to dependants should the veteran pass prior to the spouse. We find this is grotesquely insufficient. There must be equality in recognition of national sacrifice. A serious life-altering wound must be treated with the same level of respect, regardless of whether it's physical or mental in nature.

I have come here today to attempt to convince you to fulfill this obligation, this sacred obligation to the valiant who have sustained serious mental wounds and to their families who have offered such profound sacrifice on behalf of this magnificent nation.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Thank you very much, Mr. Blais.

Mr. Bruyea.

[Sean Bruyea, Retired Captain, Columnist, and Academic Researcher, As an Individual]

Super. It might be seven and a half minutes, but I will proceed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

It will be seven minutes.

[Sean Bruyea]

Okay. Super, Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable members of the committee, for the invitation. We have much to do so I will skip further formalities.

The proposed programs that bring us here today have been accompanied by an inundation of feel-good political announcements. Does the hype match reality? More importantly, do the programs fulfill identified gaps and address the evidence-based recommendations?

The retirement income security benefit claims it will top up to 70% of what the veteran received from government prior to age 65. However, this is based upon the veteran's earnings loss benefit, as already pointed out, which pays 75% of release salary, inadequately adjusted for inflation. The retirement benefit equates to the veteran effectively receiving 52.5% of their military salary, once again inadequately adjusted for inflation.

It is interesting to note that the ombudsman, Guy Parent, was quick to endorse this program during a partisan political announcement, yet Mr. Parent's office clearly recommended a retirement benefit matching 70% of a fully indexed release salary.

The department has been less than forthcoming as to what will be deducted from this income, but we are safe to assume that CPP, OAS, and the CF retirement pension will be deducted. We must know that OAS, a program for all Canadians, is transparent in its legislation as to how OAS is calculated. Do veterans not deserve the same sort of transparency for their benefits?

What we do know is that the calculation for the veteran retirement benefit does not include these other incomes in calculating the 70% benefit, but then will likely deduct these programs at 100%. This hardly meets the smell test, let alone the fact it fails to provide the veteran with even 70% of what he or she received in Government of Canada benefits prior to age 65.

We also must emphatically remember that the majority of veterans groups that are active in advocacy, the ombudsman, VAC's own advisory group, and this committee in 2010 have all repeatedly recommended that the 75% earnings loss benefit be substantively increased to anywhere from 90% to 100% of release salary, matching typical career progression and promotions.

Implementing this universally supported recommendation would result in a dignified income loss program, which would in turn provide a dignified retirement benefit for our most injured veterans. Today we are witnesses to the consequence of government's repeated dismissal of this evidence-based research and recommendation in this paltry payout from this proposed retirement benefit.

The family caregiver benefit is another puzzling creation. No veteran group, parliamentary committee, ombudsman, or advisory group asked for this benefit in this form. What others have asked for is everything from matching the DND caregiver benefit, which pays up to $36,500 in any 365 cumulative days, to providing spouses of TPI veterans with their own earnings loss benefit to compensate for their lost income while they're caring for their disabled veteran spouses.

One of the easiest solutions would be merely to open up attendance allowance to new Veterans Charter recipients. However, the proposed family caregiver benefit pays $7,238 per year, equivalent to the lowest levels of attendance allowance, which pays up to $21,151.44 annually.

New Veterans Charter clients are prevented, under this legislation, from accessing the attendance allowance. Attendance allowance recipients are prevented from accessing the new family caregiver benefit, yet the criteria for each are different. If new Veterans Charter programs are so good, why is this one closed to Pension Act clients? If the Pension Act so inadequate, why are NVC clients prevented from accessing attendance allowance?

The critical injury benefit will provide a one-time payment of $70,000 to eligible Canadian Forces members and veterans “for severe, sudden and traumatic injuries or acute diseases that are service related, regardless of whether they result in permanent disability”. Countless veterans have come forward, telling us that disabling PTSD, traumatic brain injury, and loss of organ function are being low-balled below the approximately $40,000 average disability award payment.

How can government justify to a veteran suffering a lifelong disability that their disabling pain and suffering merits far lower a payment than a veteran who temporarily suffered an injury?

This leads to the obvious question on many Canadians' mind: from what bureaucratic orifice did this benefit originate? Absolutely no one in the veterans community, the ombudsman's office, the committee, or advisory group asked for this benefit. We know little of the criteria, but we can guess.

The criteria will be so stringently defined as to restrict the benefits to only two or three individuals per year out of a totally disabled and permanently incapacitated veteran population of 4,000 veterans, and a CF serving and veteran population of 700,000 individuals.

How is this in any manner fulfilling Canada's obligation to all of our veterans and their families? It is not. Why did government not do what we've all been asking and increase the amount of the lump-sum benefit to at least match court awards for pain and suffering? We are inundated by slick PR campaigns and political photo shoots on the importance of military service and of being a veteran, but when it comes to addressing shortcomings for those most in need, government delays deflect, and unfortunately have been lightly dancing on the suffering of our veterans and their families.

Bill C-59 proposes wording regarding an obligation to our serving members, our veterans, and their families, to provide services, assistance, and compensation. It is more encompassing than the construction clause of the Pension Act. However, both offer little substance and are essentially meaningless.

To what end is the obligation? Is it to rehabilitate, to re-establish or offer opportunity, well-being, employment, quality of life or education, or perhaps provide a clear service standard? An obligation without a goal is meaningless. Why does this obligation recognize assistance to only injured members, veterans, and their families? Is Canada not responsible for all veterans? The duty of the minister under the Department of Veterans Affairs Act is for “the care, treatment or re-establishment in civil life of any person who served in the Canadian Forces”, and “The care of the dependants or survivors”. Is this not what the NVC promised but has so far failed to deliver?

I'm consistently honoured to appear before committee and to have my comments placed on the record. In the past, I have provided over 100 recommendations in original reports with often unprecedented observations, likely more than any other individual or organization. In my last submission, I provided 30 easy and doable recommendations, which would have minimal expenditure and—

[The Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Thank you very much, Mr. Bruyea.

We have 20 minutes left. This means four rounds of questions of five minutes each. I would ask the members who will be asking questions to have some consideration for our guests, our witnesses, to give them time to answer.

The first five-minute slot will be shared between Madame Moore and Mr. Chicoine.

Ms. Moore, you have the floor.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

My first question is for Mr. Mckenna.

In the case of long-term disability insurance and the earnings loss benefit, the outcome of this percentage can't be lower than $42,426.

Couldn't we implement something similar in the case of spousal benefits, meaning a minimum amount that cannot drop below a certain amount? Do you think that amendment might be relevant?

[Brian McKenna]

I guess I'll answer the question this way. I think of the comments of the gentleman who appeared here for the legion, who answered on essentially the same point. If the items placed in front of us today in this bill are going to be enacted and then followed up by a wait-and-see period, then that's not good enough. If the items placed in front of us today are going to be followed up with immediate research into the things that have been presented to you today by us and the preceding ladies and gentlemen you've heard from, well then we're at a good starting point. It's very difficult for me to predict down the road what the appropriate dollar figures are going to be. I guess I have to leave my comments at that.

I would like the committee and the department itself to find out if everything presented here is fact. Leave here today and get to work right away on the improvements to the bill and the improvements to the numbers that have been discussed. But if we leave here today saying, “Okay, this is okay and we're going to wait and see what it's going to be like in a couple of years”, then I suggest it's not enough.

I hope that answers the question.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

My second question is for Mr. Gray.

You spoke about reduced incomes after age 65 based on the percentage. I believe it was decided that the amount would be reduced, based on the fact that veterans would also have access to an old age pension.

In your opinion, should the reduced incomes be limited to the amount of the old age pension, meaning that if what the person loses is higher than the amount of the old age pension, the reduction of the retirement benefit would not be higher than the amount of the old age pension that he or she is currently receiving?

[Capt(N) Perry Gray]

As I said, if you compare it to the Pension Act, your payments continue until you die. To say that after age 65 you don't need as much income is ridiculous. Your disabilities haven't gone away. Based on the fact the department has been paying out VIP for decades, independence in your own home is going to cost you more as you age, which means you need more money and not less money. As everybody has mentioned here, to ask when you're 87, and unable to do things, if you can afford to live on a smaller amount of money, the answer is no. That's based on most studies.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

So the lack of indexing is also a problem.

[Capt(N) Perry Gray]

Yes.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

You have one minute left.

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

That's fine. I will now take the time to correct what I said earlier.

In fact, Mr. Forbes is the one who mentioned this afternoon that these were half measures. The previous group seemed to be quite encouraged by the legislative measures. You seem a little more critical than the previous group. I somewhat agree with what Mr. Gray said.

The department introduced a bill that will help the most seriously injured people and people without income after age 65. However, it will benefit a very small number of veterans. I think Mr. Gray mentioned that this measure will benefit only a very limited number of veterans.

Mr. Bruyea, Mr. Blais, Mr. Mckenna, do you share that point of view, as well?

[The Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

That would be a yes or no answer. Mr. Chicoine ate the time.

I'd like to remind members of the committee we still have on the phone Mr. Fleming, from the 31—

Did we lose him?

[A voice]

We don't know yet.

[The Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

We don't know.

Mr. Opitz, you're next.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and through you, I would say—and we had great witnesses today as well, but some of this stuff bears repeating—there's a lot of understanding around this table. Starting with my grandfather, who fought in the battle against Bolsheviks in 1920, and my father—who's still alive at 95—throughout the Second World War from the first date till the last, as well as my mom who had some horrific experiences at the hands of the Nazis, I've lived this my whole life with veterans who returned and were told to suck it up, get on with life, and move on. This is something that from a very early age I was very familiar with in terms of how they dealt with things, and sometimes it wasn't done well.

As the ombudsman and as other witnesses said today, there is still a gap that needs to be closed. I'll tell you this committee will always have work for a long time to come. This will never be ended. As wars change, as we saw in 1917, as we saw in World War II, as we saw in Korea, and as we saw in other places, things evolve from conflict to conflict. At one time PTSD was shell shock and combat fatigue, and then finally diagnosed as PTSD. Now we're working with great organizations, like CIMVHR and DRDC, who work to discover what the markers are for PTSD, try to get ahead of that curve, and work on those things. As some of these very learned and very well educated scientists and academics—

[Capt(N) Perry Gray]

Excuse me, sir, do you have a question?

[A voice]

Thank you.

[Capt(N) Perry Gray]

We have 12 minutes left.