Evidence of meeting #18 for Veterans Affairs in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was way.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Walter Callaghan  As an Individual
Brenda Northey  As an Individual
Reginald Argue  As an Individual

7:40 p.m.

NDP

Irene Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON

I wanted to dig a little deeper with you, Mr. Argue.

You talked about when you were first released, I guess, in 1995. You had a knee problem and a lung problem. You got 5% for your knee and now you have 30% for both knees. Then in 1997 you were told not to ask for anything more. In 2006 you had the earnings loss benefit.

I just wonder if you could draw a connection for me in regard to how all of that evolved. What was the journey you undertook to get to a point where your benefits were more adequate?

7:40 p.m.

As an Individual

Reginald Argue

In 1996 when I went to the Veterans Affairs office in Calgary, I was called a civilian. I was told I wasn't a veteran. I was told by the pensions advocate that this is what I was going to get and to not come back ever again. The mindset there, despite the fact I had served in the military and gone overseas, was that, no, I was just a civilian. I think anyone who puts on a uniform and honourably serves in the Canadian military, whether he or she goes overseas or not, is a veteran.

What I found is that it took our troops going to Afghanistan to start to change the mindset. In the nineties it was so bad that a lot of people who were veterans were despised here in Canada. I'm from Vancouver Island. My wife and I moved back to Duncan, B.C. She was informed by one of the managers at one of the businesses in Duncan that I'd never get a job on that island because I was ex-army. I was just floored that someone would say that. That wasn't a rarity; that was the norm. A lot of us in the mid-nineties right up until the late-nineties were treated really badly because we were veterans. It took our going into Afghanistan to start to change the mindset of Canadians, and to start to provide more for the veterans. I think 2006 was when all parties came together.

Whether we like the new charter or not, it's a living entity. It's a lot better than the old one. We need input from Walter and so many younger veterans who are just getting out of the military, and even veterans from my age bracket. We need to come together and come to a consensus. That's what I really love about the new charter. It's a living entity, and you're having standing committees like this to have input.

7:45 p.m.

NDP

Irene Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON

You said that the lump sum payment has come up short. Now, there are some veterans who love it, and there are some who want to go back to the monthly pension. What is your sense?

7:45 p.m.

As an Individual

Reginald Argue

We should go back to the monthly medical pension. For example, I did a video interview with retired Major Mark Campbell, who literally died on an operating table three different times in Afghanistan. He lost both legs. He got $250,000. They brought him home and said, “Here you go. Here's all the money”. He had to buy a medically fitted van before he even got out of the hospital.

His home wasn't properly equipped, so he had to build a new home. He almost went bankrupt. He talked about this during the interview. Then his wife got kicked out of the military because she had PTSD, not because of the military but because of what she had gone through with her husband. At the same time, he's not getting any more money.

How can we do this to people who put the uniform on and are willing to stand up in defence of this nation? Whether we stay here or go overseas doesn't matter. We took an oath to protect our nation. We took an oath to protect our people. We took an oath to protect our flag.

All we're saying to the government in return is to, please, just treat us like ordinary human beings.

June 13th, 2016 / 7:45 p.m.

NDP

Irene Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON

Mr. Callaghan, you talked a bit about the clawback and Bill C-55. One of the things we heard today in London was how important it is for a veteran to feel that there is purpose in his or her life, and meaningful work. Something they can do well is key, as they did things very well in the service.

Does the clawback that you talked about prevent people from seeking meaningful work? Do they determine it's just not worth it?

7:45 p.m.

As an Individual

Walter Callaghan

Yes. There is only one simple answer. It's not quite that simple, but it is in a way.

When you are trying to find a new way of being, trying to find that new purpose, you're being told, “Well, if you try to do this, we may cut your benefits off. We're certainly going to claw your benefits back.” When you're challenged with that much more—and I speak primarily about PTSD when I make these comments, just so that's really clear. It is what I researched. It is my primary daily problem. When you're trying to find that new self, trying to find the purpose to be, and you're effectively penalized for trying, that demoralizes someone to begin with.

There is the difficulty of getting back up to pre-injury levels. Especially as reservists, we weren't paid every single day. Our pay was based on when we actually went in, except for the reserve force disability compensation program, which gets really complicated in another way in the last few months of our time in. When you're livelihood is based on how much you're able to work and then you're finally released, and finally you have some level of financial stability, you try to turn around and find a new thing to do, a new you, and that immediately challenges your financial stability. It is a barrier.

There's also a thing on what work even means, and I alluded to it briefly in an earlier side comment. There are a lot of forms of unpaid labour, a lot of volunteer-type work. If you're caught doing that, I do know veterans who have had their benefits cut: “Oh well, if you're good enough to do this, then you're good enough to go back to work.”

I've had this challenge thrown at me about my Ph.D. work. I cannot live off the small little fellowship that I get from U of T. I require my benefits to actually live. Those benefits allow me to focus on my research. With the nature of academic work, especially being a Ph.D. student in anthropology, I don't have set hours. I don't have set things that if I don't show up on a given day I'm at risk of being fired. The nature of that environment is fundamentally different from the labour market.

On top of that, being in social sciences, the previous Harper government made nasty comments that we're not going to “commit sociology”. I don't want to think what they might have said about anthropology. However, the nature of our social science is such that we are much more understanding and accommodating of each other's issues, challenges, and barriers. My PTSD does not directly impact my ability to do academic work. I'm able to do this because I set my own hours. Deadlines are more of a suggestion than a hard requirement.

When I do get the opportunity to teach, I prefer teaching the first and second-year courses. There are a lot of students. I actually get a thrill out of teaching, about lecturing. To be clear, I kind of like doing that. However, if I have a bad day where my demons are biting my ass so hard that I can't even get out of bed, there are colleagues I can turn to and go, “Hey take over for me today. I'll pick up some other day when you want to do that conference. I'll cover for you on that day.” The barriers are not there.

I cannot function in the normal work world. The set times, the requirements, and the constant threat that if you're not meeting a standard you're going to be fired, immediately get the hackles up. One thing that a lot of veterans with PTSD have—almost anyone with PTSD, but especially veterans—is anger, which goes back to our training itself.

That was long-winded. I'm sorry about that.

7:50 p.m.

NDP

Irene Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON

I have one last question to whoever would like to jump in.

Today we were at Parkwood hospital, and I'm so very fortunate that facility is in my riding. I see on a daily basis the really wonderful work they do, the expertise that has accumulated in terms of their staff, and how they are able to do remarkable things with veterans.

The problem is that post-Korean War vets have no access to long-term care. You will not have access to long-term care as those older vets have. It's something that I think we have to change in terms of the regulations, the relationship between the federal government and provincial caregivers.

Do you have any thoughts, any sense of how important long-term care is for post-Korean War vets?

7:50 p.m.

As an Individual

Reginald Argue

I live over in the Legion apartments here in Toronto. A service officer who lives there is trying to do a campaign to write members of Parliament and bring the issue about Sunnybrook to their attention. Korean War veterans and World War II veterans are not entitled to Sunnybrook. She's trying change the mindset. Once those veterans are dead, what's going to happen is that Sunnybrook is going to revert to the province. We need to stop that. If it happens, veterans my age, veterans Walter's age, and even upcoming veterans are not going to have any long-term programs. I'd like to know what's going to happen to us then.

7:55 p.m.

As an Individual

Walter Callaghan

I'll pass on this one.

7:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Neil Ellis

We're at the end of the meeting. We'll give you each a minute to close.

We can start with Brenda.

7:55 p.m.

Liberal

Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS

Can I ask a quick question? I hope it's not too trivial, but one thing we heard from veterans in my riding, and we also heard it from witnesses at our committee, has to do with the CF1 card. Do you have any comment on that card? I've heard from folks that it should be a photo ID card, that you should have proper identification to show you are a former member of the Canadian Forces.

7:55 p.m.

As an Individual

Reginald Argue

Right now there's no card that has your photo on it unless you served over 10 years. I think anyone who has honourably served in the military and been honourably released, whether reserve or full reg force, should be entitled to that photo card.

7:55 p.m.

As an Individual

Walter Callaghan

I fully agree with that. The previous photo IDs were a much better idea. This CF1 card looks like a Diner's Club, a Walmart, or a Costco thing. There's no real thing there.

The issue with the previous card was that you had to serve 10 years before you were eligible for it. In the same way, you can't use your rank or your retired status until you hit 10 years. However, these little aspects of identity can mean a lot to someone.

7:55 p.m.

Liberal

Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS

It shows the value.

7:55 p.m.

As an Individual

Walter Callaghan

It definitely shows the value. That would have been a much easier fix . I believe it was the NDI 75 or the NDI 20. This came through National Defence, not Veterans Affairs. The current ombudsman has talked repeatedly about bringing in a card. Why could it not have been done? Or just go back and force DND to remove this stricture of the 10-year mark.

For me, this is a sore point. When I was released, it was at nine and one-half years. It was not by choice, and there was no reason I couldn't have been kept on for an extra six months. That way, I could have gotten the card and kept using my rank with the abbreviation for “retired” so that I could maintain my military identity. Having that stripped away was difficult. Mr. Clarke asked about things I find disgusting. Well, here's another one: the stripping of our identity by a medical release.

7:55 p.m.

Liberal

Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS

Thank you.

7:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Neil Ellis

We'll turn the floor back over to Brenda. Do you have any closing comments?

7:55 p.m.

As an Individual

Brenda Northey

I want to thank you for this incredible opportunity to speak to you all and hear your wonderful answers.

We sometimes tend to look at veterans as liabilities on a balance sheet. From my experience working with the civilian population, and particularly those with high risk, I think we really should be looking at veterans and soldiers as assets. The training, the experience, the teamwork, and the values they bring to our society far surpass the qualities of many civilians I've seen in the job development world. We must find a way to involve them in civilian life, for if Canada loses their talents, we will lose an incredible asset.

Thank you.

7:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Neil Ellis

Mr. Argue.

7:55 p.m.

As an Individual

Reginald Argue

I don't really have anything to add. I'd just like to thank you for letting me speak for a little while to add my tiny input to this.

7:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Neil Ellis

Mr. Callaghan.

7:55 p.m.

As an Individual

Walter Callaghan

How much time do I have?

7:55 p.m.

Voices

Oh, oh!

7:55 p.m.

As an Individual

Walter Callaghan

I think I've gone on quite a bit. There's not really much more that really needs to be added. Well, of course there actually is, but I think everyone wants to go off after this.

I do want to reiterate one of the fundamental things that has to be shifted. Again, these are the closing remarks that I had in my initial statement. I will repeat them as my final remarks.

In the end, it doesn't really matter what programs or benefits are available if the veteran cannot access them. It is incredibly problematic that a key barrier to access is the failure by VAC to operate under the auspices of the benefit of the doubt, instead relying on an insurance-minded bureaucratic culture of denial by design.

Thank you for the time.

8 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Neil Ellis

On behalf of the committee, I'd like to thank all three of you for your input tonight and your service to your country.

Also, if you do wish to submit anything after you get home, you can send it to the clerk via our website. Also, for any colleagues who want to submit briefs, the briefs section is open till September 30. Those briefs can be up to 3,000 words long, but they don't have to be 3,000 words. If you have any colleagues or know of anybody who can't make it out or can't make the deadline for any of our meetings and they have comments, please encourage them to present a brief to the clerk. It will get to all of us.

Again, on behalf of the standing committee, thank you very much for the time you took out of your schedules tonight.

We need a motion to adjourn.