Veterans Affairs Committee on Nov. 28th, 2013

[Col Denys Guérin]

It simply indicates that people who suffer from a total and complete disability, for reasons unknown, will not receive any benefits. We want to study this issue more closely. We don't see why so many people are not receiving any benefits.

[Manon Perreault, NDP, Montcalm, QC]

Yes, but are the criteria for a total and permanent disability the same in the New Veterans Charter as in the Pension Act?

[Col Denys Guérin]

You can be recognized as suffering from a complete and permanent disability under the new charter, but not under the Pension Act.

[Manon Perreault, NDP, Montcalm, QC]

That is completely different. Those are two different things.

[Col Denys Guérin]

They are completely different. The Pension Act has its own program for veterans who have a very serious disability. It is not the same as what we are talking about here.

[Manon Perreault, NDP, Montcalm, QC]

I imagine that it also has eligibility criteria.

[Col Denys Guérin]

That is right.

[Manon Perreault, NDP, Montcalm, QC]

Is there a difference between the two?

[Col Denys Guérin]

Yes, there is a difference because the programs are different.

[Manon Perreault, NDP, Montcalm, QC]

So the criteria are not necessarily the same. They are probably more strict in the Pension Act.

[Col Denys Guérin]

Not necessarily, but the criteria are different. The benefits are also not the same.

[Manon Perreault, NDP, Montcalm, QC]

Let's come back to page 4 of your document. It says that 406 veterans are suffering from a total and permanent disability, but that they will not receive any benefits.

A little earlier, Mr. Chicoine asked you a question. I am wondering how fast you think that number—406—will increase over the coming years.

[Guy Parent]

That will depend on the new clients of Veterans Affairs Canada. We can certainly make a projection based on those who are currently clients, because these people will eventually turn 65. The numbers contained in our report are up to date for that period. Since then, other people have applied for benefits. So that number will certainly have gone up.

Further, to clarify what I said, we are talking about 406 people, but all of these people, or those who will turn 65, will not necessarily be in the same situation. However, we at least have to identify who these people are. These people might have their own source of income, a retirement plan or investments. So not everyone will necessarily be in the same situation. What is important is that the benefits paid out under income compensation programs will cease when the persons turn 65. That is not the case under the Pension Act.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

Thank you very much.

We'll now move to my friend and great soccer player, Mr. Lizon.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, witnesses, for coming to the committee today.

I will start with a general comment. In listening to a discussion, we see different points of view and sometimes opposite points of view, but I can assure you that all of us here really care about veterans and thank you for your work. We also want to serve these people who serve our country. This is the main goal. We may have different views and different ways in which we want to serve them, but the ultimate goal is to serve our veterans.

Towards the end of your presentation, you said that while it is better, that doesn't mean it's sufficient. Generally speaking, how would you define sufficiency? When is it sufficient? In life, I don't think we ever reach the point where we can say, “Well, that's it, we've done it, it's great, and we don't have to do anything else.” There's always room to do better. When our life situation changes, we have to adjust and keep on. This is an ongoing work. I think this is the way it's going to be for many, many years to come.

I have a specific question to ask. In your announcement, you released all these important reports on the charter. You said, “And it's very hard to believe that statement when in fact for six years there was nothing done about the charter.” Do you truly believe that absolutely nothing was done to the new Veterans Charter in six years?

[Guy Parent]

Nothing was done officially that has actually, that was at that point in time.... The first official enhancement to the charter was Bill C-55. From 2006 until 2011, changes might have been brought about—changes to process, changes in other areas of administration—but the charter itself was never reviewed and was never really looked at in terms of the individual part and parcel of the charter and whether or not it met the needs of the veterans. I think that's the important aspect of what we're saying.

Of course, we know that in the department there's a continuous...that improvements are done. I think one of the difficulties, and it's certainly one thing that I keep harping on with the department, is the fact that when you make some improvements, tell the people, and identify them as being related to the new Veterans Charter. You can't wait for five years and then produce a list of 160 recommendations and say, “We've done that.” Well, that's fine, but people need to know, because then they'll realize there has been some work done on it. Sometimes, maybe, it's not the fact that there was no work done, but that people were silent about the work that was done. That's the important part.

But the first official enhancement to the new Veterans Charter was brought about by Bill C-55.

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

If you look at the improvements that were introduced since the charter came into force, what would be the best one, or the most important one, that you can think of?

[Guy Parent]

That was brought about with Bill C-55? I would say offhand it would be the permanent impairment allowance supplement, because of access to PIA. The permanent impairment allowance provides income after 65. That's probably one of the best ones that was brought about there. The others were certainly important as well, and they certainly enhanced the quality of the charter. Going back to what you said, change is not always sufficient, but again I agree with you as to how do you define it. Now we're using charitable donations to bury some of our soldiers who can't afford to be buried. Is it because no change has been made? No, there have been changes made to the funeral and burial program, yet we still have a whole bunch of soldiers who were buried using charitable donations.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

You're over four and half minutes, Mr. Lizon, and Mr. Parent, but thank you. I really appreciate that.

I just want to say, Mr. Chisu, I'm shocked that you're over 60 years old. You look great for your age.

I'll take some questions now, courtesy of the chair position.

I want to thank all of you very much for coming.

I am a bit surprised. I've never seen an indication of tax being a benefit. You've got taxes there and it shows them as an overall benefit. I for one am a New Democrat, and we're accused of being tax and spend, but tax as a benefit, that's a new one on me.

This chart, though, is a touch misleading. On page 9 you indicate that 50% of individuals are not receiving the permanent impairment allowance. If you took away the tax and the permanent impairment allowance, that chart just about lines up with the Pension Act from before. That's the difficulty we have in explaining the new Veterans Charter when you're comparing apples to apples, or apples to oranges. If you don't have the permanent impairment allowance, and if you took away the tax that was not taxable under the old system, that line is almost the same. Some veterans who figured this out understand the argument that the old Pension Act was better than the new one, and this, I think, is where their argument comes from. If you don't have access to PIA, or you have challenges and difficulties due to PIA, that chart only applies to 50% of those individuals. As you just said, 50% aren't receiving it. Am I correct?

[Col Denys Guérin]

This is scenario one, the corporal who is receiving the allowances, so, yes, this is why this shows the allowances. The corporal in scenario five does not receive the allowances, so these lines would definitely be different.

The red, the tax, was not to say it was a benefit. It was just to show that there is a taxation element here that you don't see in the Pension Act, which is important here as well.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

The other thing that we tend to forget sometimes is the corporal who has been medically released at eight and a half years, if that's what he's got in. He or she loses the opportunity to go up in the ranks and become a captain, a colonel, a general, an admiral, or whatever. The reality is they lose out on tremendous economic opportunities in the lifespan of their possible career. In my view that is where the ELB, the earnings loss benefit, should be enhanced to reflect that.

My colleague, Mr. Rafferty, said it very clearly. You can have the best charter in the world, you can have all the programs in the world, you can have all the money budgeted in there, but if the people who are offering the advice and giving the training to assist our veteran community aren't there or aren't capable of doing it, or they're doing other things, then the veterans themselves get frustrated.

I have an e-mail here which I received yesterday from a gentleman from Lawrencetown, Nova Scotia. I'll go over it very quickly. He started to contact his case manager on October 28. On November 18, he went back again. There was no answer. He went back to the office and was told that every case manager in the Halifax office was off on training—every case manager. He was advised that maybe by December 2 they'd get back to him. This is a man who is suffering from severe post-traumatic stress disorder, and he has only one psychology session left. He's asking for an extension, but he can't get any answers because the people he works with aren't there to answer his concern.

When you talk to Veterans Affairs about the charter, about the access to the programs, about the shift within the department they're going through in terms of all the changes they're making, have you talked to them about the fact that you can have the gold-plated standard plan, but if you don't have the people in place to deliver that plan, veterans are going to be severely frustrated, and their families will be very frustrated as well?

I'll end by saying that I really appreciate your advice on having the charter reviewed every two years. I think that is something which we at committee should look at seriously. I think it's very important as a living document to refresh and update the charter as we move along, so I thank you very much.

I wonder if you could respond to that, please.

[Guy Parent]

I think you're quite right. Having the quality and the quantity of people to manage programs and to deal with people is important, and it's always something we look at.

I can't talk about personal circumstances or personal situations, but our office exists for that purpose, so the people who are frustrated with the process can come to our office. We'll find out why, for instance, everybody was in training at the same time and there was no availability of people there. That's what we're there for. People need to use our office to say they experienced that situation. As you know, my order in council allows us to do systemic issues, but the only way we can find out about systemic issues is to learn about the personal complaints, the personal frustrations of people, and that actually leads us to look at systemic reviews. Certainly, we need to know about these things.

The question about the closures is the same thing. We have mechanisms in place to find out if there are any more complaints from different regions, because there's an impending closure or not. That possibility is there, but we need to know about it.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

Thank you very much.

We now move to my colleague, Mr. Lobb, please, for four minutes.

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

Thank you for the package you've presented here today. Have you fully costed this? These recommendations may or may not get added into our thing.

What are we looking at if these are implemented?

[Guy Parent]

Gary was just dying to hear that question.