Veterans Affairs Committee on Nov. 21st, 2013

[Bryan Hayes, Conservative, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

It does.

On top of that, how is it working so far? In your experience to date, are there some improvements that can be made in that area, or do you think that's an area that this committee should explore?

We're looking to explore areas for improvement with the new Veterans Charter, and if in your opinion this isn't an area.... We obviously want to prioritize, I would think.

[LGen Walter Semianiw]

Clearly I would say that transition is an area you should focus on, to better understand it.

If you agree that the new Veterans Charter is strong and is providing support, and while it needs improvements we're going to work on those, and this committee will provide advice, and if you agree that the support of the Canadian Armed Forces is strong, which it is—the Canadian Armed Forces health care system is first rate, the 14th health care system across the country, with outstanding support for mental health—at the end of the day, the question is about that period where you transition. It would be worth the committee taking some time to look at that transition, how well it is going, and what could be done better, if needed.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

General Semianiw, thank you very much.

Folks, if we could have private conversations outside the room, that would be most helpful.

To let the committee know, at the end of our second round of questioning we'll be going in camera regarding the supplementary estimates, in order to get that done. We were supposed to have done that at the last committee. Unfortunately, with the ignorance of the chair—I take full responsibility—we didn't do it. But we will get it done this time.

Now for our four-minute round, Mr. Hoang Mai, please.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

LGen Semianiw, thank you for being with us today.

This is a much talked about issue. My role as an MP has really opened my eyes. Every year, my riding, Brossard—La Prairie, holds events marking Remembrance Day week. In taking part in those events, I realized a number of things. I was fortunate enough to spend a lot of time with veterans, an opportunity that opened my eyes greatly. I am tremendously grateful to them for all they have done and given.

I have a concern about the New Veterans Charter. The ombudsman's report came out and was fairly critical of the charter, especially as it relates to those who are seriously wounded, to disabled soldiers.

What the ombudsman has been saying is that there will be a financial hit for the veterans who are most severely wounded, who are disabled soldiers, especially after age 65. Some of the comments are really strong. They're saying that elderly veterans and families are left out in the cold, and we heard that they could live out their old age in near poverty under the new charter.

What would be your response to that?

[LGen Walter Semianiw]

I would say we need to look at the report in a little bit more detail. What the report says, in the end, is that it's only 406 veterans—not 40,000 or 400,000—who might live their twilight years in some financial distress. That's 406 out of 200,000. But it doesn't matter. Even if it's one, it's not good enough.

I've spoken to the ombudsman's office on this issue. The other thing we need to remember is that the benefits go down post-65, but at the same time, the Government of Canada benefits kick in post-65, the old age security and others. It is an area that we're looking at, the post-65 piece.

But I'd like to give you some of the theory behind this. The other thing they parsed out of it is that those who leave the Canadian Armed Forces with a pension are not included in this group. So what we're talking about is a group of men and women in uniform, veterans, who left not too long after they enrolled, prior to that 20-year pension gateway. They're getting out probably between 20 years and 40 years.

If you look at the development of the charter, it was focused on that issue to ensure that you get back to work. The ombudsman's team and I talked yesterday, and the issue is all about creating wealth. Is everyone getting an opportunity to create wealth so that when they hit 65 they don't have to rely on all of the programs that are in place? The challenge is to look at that group to see whether or not that's true. We can't corroborate it; we need to look at it a little bit more. But he did identify 406 out of a vast array of veterans and their families.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

As you mentioned, even one is too many. What do you say to people who enrolled before 2006? Their benefits are different, not as beneficial as they were when they enrolled.

[LGen Walter Semianiw]

What I'm hearing in that question is that the new Veterans Charter is better than the old system, and I'm happy you acknowledge that. Remember, veterans had a choice in 2005-06 to see where they wanted to go on this. You're right; some wanted to stay with the older system, and this is a reminder for the committee. Legislation was passed during a transformation of the nation and of society. Society today is different from what it was many years ago. I'm not a sociologist or an expert, but it is different. What we are seeing and hearing is that those veterans, prior to 2006, are satisfied with the support they're getting, except in one area. This is fascinating, and it's very important that you hear it.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

Mr. Semianiw, go very quickly, please.

[LGen Walter Semianiw]

It's in the area of mental health. What we're now seeing is that those veterans from the Bosnia era and before, particularly from Quebec, are now coming to our mental health clinics. After 2005-06, we put in place an outstanding mental health system that they are now realizing is much better. It's a system where they're going to get the support they need. We've captured that area of mental health where there were some challenges prior to 2005.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Mai.

We now go to Mr. Lobb.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Thanks very much.

I will just go back to the point Mr. Dionne Labelle made in the beginning about 75% versus 80% or 85%. At one point you said you can't only look at it as 75% or 85%, that you have to look at the entire component that goes along with it. I'm certainly not criticizing at all. I'm just trying to make another point.

In 2011 we took the minimum, from around $29,000, I think it was, up to $42,000 or $43,000 as the minimum for the earnings-loss benefit. So in some cases, if a Canadian Forces member's income is lower, it's actually probably closer to 90%. As you say, yes, it is 75%, the earnings-loss benefit, but it is a minimum of $42,000 or $43,000. That's an important component to point out.

Another point is astonishing to me—and I'm not commenting about any members of this committee, but members of Parliament, in general, and other members of the community, and even some veterans and some current Canadian Forces members think that if they are injured, the only benefit they'll receive from Veterans Affairs is a lump sum, which is astonishing to me. There are members of Parliament in this House of Commons today who think that.

What I always tell people when they ask me this is that this is the very beginning, and then you get into the earnings-loss benefit and potentially the permanent impairment allowance. Then you go into the vocational rehabilitation. And if you need to have psychological rehabilitation, it's there, and on and on. When I tell them that, they can't believe it. They're amazed there is such a program, from A to Z, that will look after our veterans in such a caring, courteous, and respectful way.

I just wonder if you could comment on that, if you want to add to that, because it is worth pointing out.

[LGen Walter Semianiw]

Mr. Chair, when we talk about the 75%, I think it's important, again, to stress that aside from the 75%, it's also a vocational rehabilitation program that provides up to $75,000, a program that allows you, as we've just made the changes, to be more pragmatic.

In the old program, if I was a carpenter in vocational rehabilitation, in training, I might have only been able to buy a pair of boots. Now I can buy two, three, or four pairs of boots. There is a lot more choice, actually, in that area, as well as going to university.

So you're right. You need to take a look at that entire suite of programs, versus just picking out the 75%. As Janice mentioned, it's not just 75%; it's more than that, if you have that need, if you have a PIA and you need other forms of supplement.

I would agree with you. It's something I found, Mr. Chair, as well. It's this whole issue that you don't really want to know until you really need it. If you were to ask me when I joined the Canadian Armed Forces if I was interested in what was going to happen in 20 years, I was probably less interested than I was in serving the nation and joining the infantry, which I did.

So this is part of the challenge with the NVC, because it's so comprehensive. When people finally do bump into it, it's overwhelming. What they do hear about and see bits and pieces here or there is that it's about the lump sum. I come back to it because I'm passionate about this. It's a lot more than a lump sum, as you said. That's the challenge. Sadly, that moniker has been connected to it. It's something that takes away from the real strength of what there actually is there. That's not to say, to be fair, that there may be individuals who may not like this part or that part, but you have to parse out the issue.

My colleague Mr. Hillier might be coming in after me, on the service delivery side. Remember, we do policy, communications, commemoration. At the end of the day, he delivers the service, and he delivers a first-rate, first-class service to us. We talk about—

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Another thing I just want to point out—

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

Mr. Lobb, unfortunately, your time is up.

[LGen Walter Semianiw]

I'll be quick.

In the end, we talk about dissatisfied or unhappy veterans. I hear that. I've heard that from individuals. But as I would say—and I've done this myself—here's my number, give me a call. I've talked to reporters. I've talked to many individuals. And when you finally get to the real story, it's far from where it started.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

Thanks very much, all of you.

As chair, I will now take the prerogative of asking a few questions on my own behalf.

First of all, I want to thank both of you for being here. We greatly appreciate it.

One of the questions I have for you is on the aspect of the reservists. How are they dealt with in this particular regard? It's one thing to be a regular forces member, retired, or a 3(b) release, but the reservists are the most challenging ones we have in terms of finding them and getting them the information they require to access the services.

Here's what I find in terms of my meetings with veterans. On my desk right now I have 52 files of veterans from across the country, and Mr. Hayes, I'd be more than willing to give you a couple of them just for you to read, to show you some of the frustration they have. In fairness, it's not necessarily the charter they're frustrated with; it's getting the services from DVA in a timely fashion, as my colleague Mr. Hawn said.

I give you the example of Shane Jones in Halifax, who had three case workers in four months. He didn't care if it was a Conservative, a Liberal, or a New Democrat. He didn't care about cutbacks. He didn't care about the charter. All he wanted was help, and he wasn't getting it. He shouldn't have to do a press conference to get that.

In those experiences where we see people who are dissatisfied, it's not necessarily just the charter. On the charter, by the way, I was on that airplane the day that happened, and I recommend highly to everyone.... The true history of that was there was plenty of consultation with me and the late deputy minister, Jack Stagg. The Royal Canadian Legion, the ANAVETS, and everyone else were all consulted very broadly, but that said, one of the selling points was the living document point and the access to programs—not just the lump sum, but everything else.

The difficulty was in accessing the earnings-loss benefit, accessing the permanent impairment allowance, and accessing a case manager. Therein lie the challenges: it's getting to those programs. It's one thing to have them on his chart and say “Here's what he can get”, but it's getting them that is the frustration that many of these veterans and their families have. Hopefully, with the review of this charter, we'll be able to work with the department in order to streamline those processes to get them.

My question is for you, Ms. Burke, if you don't mind. There are roughly 8,000 case-managed veterans in the country right now. As we found out the other day, we heard the minister indicate that, yes, veterans, when these offices close, can call and get someone to come to their homes, but we know that's not necessarily correct, because they have to be “case-managed” vets. There are roughly 210,000 veterans under the DVA blanket right now. We have 740,000 veterans, RCMP, and their spouses in the country, so more than two-thirds of that community is not even being serviced by the government now.

Here's my question to you in this regard. For those who are not case managed and who have difficulty with the Internet and all of that other stuff, what suggestion would you make to us that we could tell them?

My second question for you is please, please, please...my colleague Mr. Mai said it very correctly: that cutoff at age 65 is very, very hurtful to people. No veteran—and I think I speak for the committee—should be losing money at age 65 in this regard.

I'm glad to see, sir, that you have indicated you would look at that.

I'll stop right there. I have more, but my time is almost up.

[LGen Walter Semianiw]

Yes, and I don't know who's checking your time or if I address the clerk right now.

It's a great point, and it has been mentioned three times in this room. We're privileged to have Andrea Siew here. I would ask the committee to look at this, because the Royal Canadian Legion has case service officers actually in the legions to help veterans. It doesn't matter where I am across the country, if I'm a veteran and I need help with filling out a form and getting support, they have folks who are full time—they're actually paid full time—in our legions, be it in Newfoundland and Labrador, be it in Quebec, be it in Ontario, where veterans can go to get that support.

I think it's an area that we haven't stressed enough. There are many veterans who actually use that great support that's provided by the Legion. Again, it's another area that you could look at, agreed, when it comes to getting the support that you would need.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

Thank you very much.

Now we'll move on to Monsieur Lizon, please, for four minutes, and his Nijmegen experience.

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Thank you very much.

First, to start, General, I would like to thank you for coming to Nijmegen to support our marching troops, myself included, and for marching with us. That was great.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

For clarification for the committee Hansard, Nijmegen is a town in the Netherlands that has the march.

The way you said it was kind of....

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Okay.

[LGen Walter Semianiw]

Also as clarification for the committee Hansard, Mr. Chair, the individual who mentioned it actually went and marched with the Canadian Armed Forces—

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

Yes, he did.

[LGen Walter Semianiw]

—on a gruelling march of hundreds of kilometres every day. He was there from the beginning until the end. A real bravo to him.

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

I would like to ask you to clarify the issue that was raised by the official opposition on the closing of centres. The average age, if I remember correctly, of World War II veterans is now close to 90, and for Korean War veterans it would be over 80. Is that right?