Veterans Affairs Committee on May 26th, 2015

[Bradley K. White]

Absolutely, from our presentation, but as well we said we still want to meet those other conditions as we stated from the start.

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

Sure, absolutely. The minister's here, but if he were not here I would still say that I think it's fair to say that the minister has said that the Veterans Charter does not stand still. It is a living document. There is always work that needs to be done. There are gaps that need to be filled, but these steps are important steps.

Let me highlight one of those important steps. The critical injury benefit is significant, I feel—$70,000 dollars tax free. And of course it's for a veteran who is injured and suffers that injury from a significant event related to service.

I wanted to ask the legion your thoughts on this critical injury benefit. I don't believe it's something you had asked for specifically, but there it is. It's in the legislation. I think it's a good sum of money to help a veteran cope with having sustained a serious injury in a single traumatic event, but could I have your comments on that?

[Bradley K. White]

Very quickly, and I'll turn it to Ray.

We had asked for comparability with what civilian courts were giving out, and that would be a little bit more than $70,000, but I'll let Ray address the issue.

[Ray McInnis, Director, Service Bureau, Dominion Command, Royal Canadian Legion]

It's not something we asked for. It is positive—$70K is a lot of money. It is tax free, but it's going to be to a select group of veterans.

I would like to see a lot of details on it. I know the policies and the regulations are not done yet. It's very confusing when I look at the CIBs to understand who it's going to actually be for. I can read the Qs and As, and I saw what they are, and they give one example.

We want this bill to pass, and then when we see what the policies and the regulations are it will give us a chance to further speak about it.

What I am happy about, though, is that it will not go to a level 1, level 2 review within a department. It's actually going to go to the VRAB process, so we'll have a better opportunity to review the case and to present appeals on it.

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

Okay.

I'll just comment on your point because it came up in one of the presentations as well that all the details aren't there. I would say it is part of the legislative process, in a sense. There is just sort of a rhythm to how things are implemented.

The first key steps are securing the funding, passing the legislation, and then of course the regulations follow. Before regulations are implemented, there is consultation; they are gazetted, and there's feedback. Actually the regulatory process allows flexibility because I think you might have valid concerns.

If everything were locked down in legislation and the only way you could make a change was to put it right back through the legislative process, you might say that's a bit rigid, can't we have a bit more flexibility to accommodate such and such a circumstance, or such and such a changing situation? I think that's why the regulatory process is there. It doesn't have to go through the full legislative process again. The regulatory process is meant to be very responsive.

So, yes, there will be some details that will follow, but I would say that I feel these initiatives are put forward in good faith, are meant to benefit our veterans, and there's a consultative process that will take place before the regulations are finally promulgated in their published form.

[The Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Monsieur Lemieux has left you 45 seconds to respond.

[Ray McInnis]

I will make one more comment, that we are very open to the department also reviewing the regulations and the application process. My service offices across the country will be completing the applications, so it's important that we see the regulations to fulfill that requirement as we move forward.

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

Debbie Lowther, did your organization have a chance to look at the critical injury benefit? Did you have any comment you wanted to make on that particular benefit?

[Debbie Lowther]

We did and we do agree that it's not a benefit that's going to help everybody, obviously. But we're of the opinion that if it helps some then it's a positive thing.

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

I think it's targeting seriously injured veterans.

Am I done, Chair? Thank you so much, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Thank you.

I'd like to remind members of the committee that these are five-minutes rounds. As you're getting close, keep an eye on the chair if you don't want to be cut off. You also want to be fair to the witnesses so they can answer your long-winded preambles.

Go ahead, Mr. Valeriote.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Sorry about this preamble, Chair.

Thank you, witnesses, for coming today. The testimony you've given, frankly, has been very balanced. I'd like to point out to you that the ombudsman also said that this does not mean that the gap has been closed. So while you're trying to get your talking points from these witnesses and everything else, it's important that we recognize that there's balance to this.

Sir Robert Borden said:

The government and the country will consider it their first duty—

—not their second duty, not their third duty, but their first duty—

—to see that a proper appreciation of your effort and of your courage is brought to the notice of people at home that no man, whether he goes back or whether he remains in Flanders, will have just cause to reproach the government for having broken faith with the men who won and the men who died.

That first duty means that it comes before all other priorities. I would propose to you that this government's priority has been to balance the budget in an election year. As a result they've given the minister only a certain amount of money and told him to sprinkle it out there and try to have the most impact visually so we can sell something to our veterans. But I would propose to you also that our veterans don't buy it, because almost every veterans' group that has come before this committee has said that it is only a half measure. While the gap is being closed there's so much more to do. Frankly, I don't know why we didn't just do it.

For instance—and you've talked about this—with the critical injury benefit, you've already said the amount of $70,000 is not enough, Mr. McInnis. There is no reference to people with PTSD. You both agree that they've been marginalized yet again. I know there are other benefits available to them when PTSD emerges, but so too are other benefits available to those who suffer injuries along the way.

Would you propose that we amend this to include a $70,000 payment to those people who suffer from PTSD, if and when PTSD emerges? Could I hear from you, Mr. Mac Culloch?

[Maj Wayne Mac Culloch]

Thank you for asking.

The membership of my association would prefer to see the bill pass quickly, and then we will continue to work toward our objectives in the future.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

So you don't think there should be any reference to PTSD in that section?

[Maj Wayne Mac Culloch]

I don't believe we should amend the bill at this point. The membership of my association would like to see it pass speedily.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Is that your position too, Mr. White or Mr. McInnis?

[Bradley K. White]

We've been at this a long time. We've been at the discussions, and the recommendation has been put forward from the committee. All the way through we've been studying this to death. We have some movement; we need the movement to keep going.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

All right.

[Bradley K. White]

In the future when we start talking about that, when you're talking about the $70,000, as long as it's related to a service-related injury, regardless of when PTSD may manifest itself, that money should be available to the individual. But we have to get moving. We don't know what the policy is, what the implementation is, what the background is going to be on how this is going to be implemented. We need to know that.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

The family caregiver relief benefit is $139 tax free a week, which is $7,238. You made reference to it, Ms. Lowther, and I think Mr. Mac Culloch, as also being inadequate and that greater sums of money should be paid. Would you like to see that amount increased?

Ms. Lowther.

[Debbie Lowther]

I agree with my counterparts, in that our organization would like to see the bill pass quickly and then worry about modifications at a later date. At a later date we would like to see that amount amended, but at this time we would just like to see the bill passed.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

It's taken almost 10 years to get to this point. Do you think that somehow in the very near future these sections are going to be revisited, given the history of the changes that have been made, and that somehow these are going to increase, Mr. McInnis?

[Ray McInnis]

Mr. Chair, do I have a second on this one?

[The Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

You have five seconds.

[Ray McInnis]

Excellent. A family caregiver is actually not in our minds a caregiver. As we said, it's a respite. That's all it is. As you heard this morning, it's not based on $139 or $129 a week. It's based on 30 days. They have the money that way, the $7,200 for a 30-day respite. What we want to see, and we'll go back, is a caregiver. A caregiver can either be borrowing something from the Pension Act on the attendance allowance and/or getting something from the legacy of care where they're getting $100 a day. That program ends in September this year, but we should be looking at that. That will give at least $35,000 or $36,000 a year to a family for a caregiver. This is a respite. Call it what it is. It's a respite, $7,200. It's not caregiving.