Veterans Affairs Committee on June 14th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

Good evening, everyone, and thank you for coming out tonight.

I will call the meeting to order. This is meeting number 19 of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are studying service delivery to veterans.

Tonight we have in front of us two witnesses, Mr. Jerry Kovacs and Mr. George Zimmerman.

We will give each witness time for a statement of up to 10 or 11 minutes. Then we'll have an hour of questioning, and we'll go from there.

Welcome, gentlemen. Good evening and thank you for coming. Mr. Kovacs has given Mr. Zimmerman first up.

Mr. Zimmerman, you're up.

[George Zimmerman, As an Individual]

Thank you very much.

My name is Captain RCN (Retired) George Zimmerman. Let me first start by thanking you for the opportunity you've given to me to work with you on an issue that is so important to millions of Canadians, which, of course, is the well-being of our military and naval veterans in a just society.

Second, please accept my gratitude for your service to Canada. I understand very well the very deep sacrifices and the challenges and the long hours that go into public service. I served the navy in the Canadian Armed Forces for 38 years; 10 years as a reservist, and then 30 years as a military chaplain. Despite the significant demands of my military taskmasters over all that time, I'm immensely proud I had such an opportunity to dedicate myself to the two pillars that, of course, hold up a modern civilization, and those are the church and the state. I would, without equivocation, do it again in a heartbeat.

I retired as a senior officer in the office of the chaplain general with the rank of captain navy six years ago. I watched in sadness and somewhat in horror a government policy that on the one hand lauded our military members with the praise that probably had not been seen in generations but on the other hand tightened fiscal policies so much so that they ended up disrespecting the very people who had given so much, including, in many cases, their well-being, if not their lives, to this amazing country.

Political activity is often anathema to retired military people, as we've been so conditioned to defer to authority. But I was motivated, because of the last four or five years, to speak out with truth to power due to the amazing and distressing evidence of injustice that has been perpetuated against veterans and their families.

I'm part of a group called Canadians for Veterans, and our role is to amplify, through social media or any other means, the voices of those who are speaking in favour of well-being for veterans. We pay attention to and we repeat veteran issues as reported in the media. We advertise upcoming and commemorative events involving veterans. We raise awareness of issues raised through government actions or announcements. We laud all veteran support groups, including, for example, Quilts of Valour, which is not a political organization; it just wants to support veterans.

We see you and we see all of these organizations as Canadians for veterans. While we try to avoid being drawn into one political organization or another, we know there are injustices against the veterans. There is unfairness out there, and so with due respect, we are privileged really to speak truth to power, and I thank you for that.

The position of Canadians for Veterans is simply that we don't really care who fixes the issues; we just want to see them fixed. You, of course, as elected officials, are dedicated to the leadership of this paradise of a country. The last bastion of the privileges we all enjoy in this astounding country of ours, this amazing land, versus horrific chaos is really the uniformed men and women of the Canadian Forces. They are the very last bastion between order and chaos.

Of course, they are willing to make the ultimate sacrifices for this cause. They sign an unlimited liability clause, as you know, as volunteer citizens. In our opinion, their sacrifice in a just society as advanced as ours calls for real, substantive, and fair compensation, especially when their lives have been adversely affected by the orders issued by the Government of Canada.

I'm very aware and sensitive that you've probably been fed a firehose of information over the last six or eight months. I do not wish to add to that burden today.

Canadians for Veterans are also aware that there are many complicated issues in the pursuit of fairness for veterans' services and benefits; that is not an easy fix. However, the complexity is no reason not to get it right, not to get it done. We are very well educated, we are a mature nation, and I believe we can do this and we can do it right.

I understand the Prime Minister requires 15 deliverables of the Minister of Veterans Affairs. They were found in the mandate letter issued in November. I know that Rome was not built in a day. It takes time. These issues and the new ones that have emerged since then can't be fixed quickly.

However, our recommendation to you today is to cut through a lot of the noise and focus on three really big issues.

The first item of course, which is on all advocates' lips, is finding a way to deal with the lifelong pension as an option for veterans. We're aware of the Equitas class action lawsuit that is regretfully active again, but we still think that Veterans Affairs can advance this file without compromising the integrity of that legal process.

We think it would show good faith to Canadians if the minister were to give target dates, some milestones, and any other barriers that the department may be facing in completing this deliverable. If that alone were to happen I think the collective sigh of veterans across the nation would be heard in a very significant way.

Canada does not want to read about unfairness and injustices like those experienced by Major Mark Campbell, who had the horrific experience of losing both his legs in his second tour in Afghanistan, which was after the 2006 new Veterans Charter. As a result he missed by a tour the opportunity for a long-term pension.

The second deliverable, which is probably worth looking at as a priority, is that one of the most marginalized groups requiring the deepest study about fairness are those who have served Canada as reservists. It's very difficult to work with reservist veterans because in many cases they are living in areas under-serviced by medical services. I understand that.

Canada is not necessarily militaristic, she is militaristic necessarily.

The reserves of Canada have made possible our international contributions to allow us as a country to punch above our own weight. The dedication of those reserve forces and their families has empowered this nation in ways that need to be recognized. Veterans Affairs is called to deliver practices and policies that implement the principle of one veteran, one standard.

Canada does not want to read ever again about the machinations needed to ensure fairness for the family of the reservist Corporal Nathan Cirillo after his murder while literally standing on guard for Canada. One veteran, one standard had to be created artificially in his case because otherwise his family would have been treated with standards less than a regular force member who is killed in the same manner. Justice dictates that it should be automatic.

As our third priority, we suggest you focus on the completion of those deliverables that support families. Like you, military members want to know that their loved ones will be well treated in the event that they can no longer provide for them as a result of injury or disease or death.

The second-most affected and vulnerable people of the injured or killed military are the families. I would ask that your committee speak loudly and clearly for the children and the spouses.

Unlike you, these wage earners volunteer to be placed in harm's way. An assurance that their families have longer-term security is an essential and necessary condition for good service. Completing the two relevant deliverables of the mandate letter, ending the time limit for surviving spouses to apply for vocational rehabilitation and increasing the surviving spousal pension to 70%, would deliver that condition. Canadians should not be exposed again to stories of family neglect such as we saw in the case of Jenifer Migneault.

Completing these three deliverables for veterans I think would go a long way toward reassuring millions of Canadians that indeed we are living in an advanced and just society that takes seriously the sacrifices of the volunteers to our army, our navy, and our air force.

Thank you for your time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

Thank you.

Mr. Kovacs.

[Jerry Kovacs, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and members of the veterans affairs committee.

My name is Jerry Kovacs. I have been engaged in veterans advocacy work for the past five years. Although I have a relatively short military career compared to some, such as Reverend Zimmerman, as an infantry officer, many of the things I learned and saw remain with me decades later.

My civilian career as a lawyer and educator has taken me to Ukraine, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Palestine. I spent four years in the former Yugoslavia, two of them in Kosovo. My work often involved collaboration with other civilians, police officers from Canada, and individuals involved in helping people in post-war countries under reconstruction.

During the past five years, I have heard numerous times the comments and complaints that you are hearing now for the first time. As the military ombudsman said in Ottawa on June 7, there have been many studies and reports, many proposals, and many recommendations. It's time for decisions.

It is commendable that this committee is travelling to hear from individual veterans who live outside Ottawa or veterans who are not members of any veterans organization. There are approximately 800,000 veterans in Canada. Of that number, only 100,000, or 12.5%, are members of any veterans organization. It's important to hear the views and concerns of the other 700,000 veterans, or 82.5%, who are not members of any veterans organization. They too are defined as stakeholders by the department. Perhaps now, or in the future, they may receive benefits and services from Veterans Affairs Canada.

Twenty years ago, from 1995 to 1997, the veterans subcommittee of the national defence committee undertook an extensive two-year examination of issues related to the quality of life of veterans. The agenda was open. There were no time limits on speaking. Members of Parliament actually visited veterans in their own homes. The final report was issued in 1997. In addition, the MacLellan report, the Stow report, and Joe Sharpe's Croatia Board of Inquiry had wide mandates to examine how military members and veterans were being treated.

Neither Veterans Affairs Canada nor the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, formed since then, have ever had full public hearings into the services and benefits and policies and programs offered to veterans.

On March 8, the veterans ombudsman talked about the importance of outcomes before this committee. Outcomes, in Professor Barber's view, relate to his “deliverology” theory. Are services and benefits being delivered to clients effectively? Are the value and benefits of existing services and resources being fully utilized by veterans, the RCMP, and their families?

Services and benefits must be delivered in a timely, effective, and efficient manner. Veterans Affairs employees should continually ask veterans, through customer satisfaction surveys, whether they are satisfied with the manner in which they are being treated. A comprehensive survey is also warranted. To save taxpayers money, it could be done through SurveyMonkey.

In improving services and benefits to veterans and the RCMP and their families, this committee should divide them into three categories: one, things the Minister of Veterans Affairs can do immediately without parliamentary approval; two, things the departments of Veterans Affairs and National Defence can do immediately without parliamentary approval; and three, things that require parliamentary approval where Treasury Board approval is required, such as the federal budget.

The process for the transition from military to civilian life needs to be simplified. It needs to be made clear well in advance of the release date. Mechanisms need to be in place to ensure that on the release date, the veteran and the veteran's family have everything needed for a smooth move, or a seamless transition, from a career that ended voluntarily by retirement or involuntarily as the result of a medical release.

Too often in the past I have heard veterans say, at this veterans affairs committee, that they were not fully aware or informed of the services and benefits available to them. The department must take primary responsibility to ensure that veterans and their families know what services are available to them.

Medical and personnel records should be easily and quickly transferred, whether by paper or electronically. A copy should be in the possession of the veteran on release day.

Identification cards are long overdue, and the veterans' names should be in a database, cross-referenced with the service number so that their location is known.

Provincial health cards could identify an individual as a veteran. If the word “veteran” can be printed on a provincial licence plate, it can be printed on a driver's licence or health card so that health care professionals would be aware of any military conditions that a veteran in their care may have.

There should be a comprehensive application form for services and benefits. Eligibility for services and benefits should not require proving multiple times that an injury has been sustained. If a veteran is missing one, two, or more limbs today, chances are the same veteran will not have those limbs two years from now.

On service excellence, training in customer service should be delivered to Veterans Affairs staff on a continuous basis. Feedback on service delivery from the veteran and service agents or case managers is essential.

The committee should also provide a timeline for when things are accomplished. Being in the military involves timings. Veterans who are used to timings—what will be done, what day it will be done, what time it will be done—will want to know, as veterans, when services and benefits will be made available to them. Veterans want to know when the mission will be accomplished.

In closing, I wish to comment on a few items.

The first is the new Veterans Charter versus the Pension Act. During the 2015 federal election, the Liberal Party promised to return to the Pension Act. It has yet to occur. This is viewed by many veterans as a crucial benefit and an election promise made but not yet delivered.

Second, the Equitas Society lawsuit should not be viewed as an obstacle to making needed changes regarding services and benefits for veterans. If the changes are made, the reason for the existence of this lawsuit disappears entirely when the plaintiffs' demands are satisfied. The abeyance agreement ended on May 15. A new one could have been written. The existing one could have been extended. At any time, the parties can continue settlement negotiations via a settlement conference pursuant to rule 9-2 of the British Columbia rules of civil procedure. The parties should continue settlement negotiations. The Equitas lawsuit should not be used as an excuse for anyone to hide behind the words “No comment. It is before the courts.”

The work of this committee, Parliament, the department, and the minister can continue to improve the services and benefits for veterans, as Reverend Zimmerman said, while this lawsuit is ongoing.

Third, the expression “sacred obligation” has been publicly used, misused, and thrown about indiscriminately. I suggest “sacred” be replaced by the word “unconditional”. The duty, commitment, or responsibility to our veterans is an obligation based on their unlimited liability to Canada. An unlimited liability from them should be an unconditional obligation to them in return.

In Anne Cole v. Attorney General of Canada, a decision by the Federal Court of Appeal dated February 25, 2015, Mr. Justice Ryer, speaking on behalf of the court, said:

Parliament has mandated that a liberal interpretation of the Pension Act must be given with a view to ensuring that our country’s obligation to members of the armed forces who have been disabled or have died as a result of military service may be fulfilled.

The Federal Court did not feel the need to use a religious adjective to define the word “obligation”. It exists. In plain language, an obligation is an obligation.

This was confirmed in a Federal Court decision on May 31, 2016, two weeks ago, in Ouellette v.Canada (Attorney General), where the Federal Court extended the whole analysis to physical conditions. These two court decisions, last year and two weeks ago, are consistent with section 2 of the Canadian Forces' Members and Veterans Re-establishment Act, also known as the new Veterans Charter, which talks about, “recognize and fulfil the obligation of the people and Government of Canada to show just and due appreciation to members and veterans for their service to Canada.”

In addition, section 3 of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act states:

The provisions of this Act and of any other Act of Parliament...conferring or imposing jurisdiction, powers, duties or functions...shall be liberally construed and interpreted to the end that the recognized obligation of the people and Government of Canada to those who have served their country so well and to their dependants may be fulfilled.

Fourth, the failure of the Department of Veterans Affairs to always recognize this obligation has resulted in a growing cottage industry during the past few years. This cottage industry consists of individuals and organizations that are generating money from private donations and public funds. They are not all volunteers. Some of them are profiting from helping veterans. The abrogation by, or absence of, the government in meeting its obligation has created the vacuum for this to occur.

Fifth, this committee will perform a great service to veterans, the minister, and his department if it can identify barriers that prevent existing benefits from being improved and effectively delivered, and new ones from being implemented.

The words “one veteran, one standard”, “care”, “compassion”, and “respect” have been repeated all too often. Let's ask Petter Blindheim, a 94-year-old veteran living in Halifax about these words and what they mean to him and his family. He is a veteran; he is a Canadian. Veterans Affairs recently denied him a bed at Camp Hill Veterans' Memorial hospital in Halifax, where there are 13 beds vacant, because he does not need specialized care. I challenge you to name a 94-year-old veteran who does not need some sort of specialized care either today or in the future.

The sections of the statute that I just enumerated plus the two recent court decisions show that there is an obligation, an unlimited obligation, to deliver services and benefits to veterans and not to deny them. Care, compassion, and respect are needed in the decision-making process when granting the services and benefits earned by veterans.

There are three kinds of people in the world: people who make things happen, people who watch things happen, and people who don't know what's happening. It's time for Canadians to make things happen for veterans.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

Thank you.

We'll start with any questions.

Mr. Fraser.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Thank you very much, gentlemen, for your attendance here this evening.

Thank you very much for your comments and for your attendance.

Mr. Zimmerman, perhaps I'll start with you. I listened closely to what you were saying and, obviously, you referenced the minister's mandate letter. One of the things that's mentioned in the mandate letter, when it talks about re-establishing lifelong pensions, is financial advice and financial counselling for veterans who are transitioning to civilian life. I'm wondering if you can comment on your knowledge of veterans who have financial difficulties when transitioning into civilian life, and what may be recommended by your group in order to help them in that situation.

[George Zimmerman]

One of the things that crossed my mind is the nature of the injury and the age of the individual who has been injured. If you're looking at a head injury or you're dealing with post-traumatic stress disorder, there can be some impaired judgment involved. One of the things that concerned us was handing a 30-year-old or a 28-year-old $250,000, with somewhat impaired judgment. The fear was, of course, that they would go through that money quickly and end up with virtually nothing. I think that has happened in some cases I'm aware of.

How you control that or deal with that may be in the holy mysteries. It's very difficult. You're going to give a free-will choice and then not have free-will choice. It's sort of a categorical position, I agree. But that kind of situation needs some kind of addressing. Providing reasonable and reasoned counselling, at the level the individual can hear that counselling, I think would be necessary in order to create a viable option.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

With regard to reservists who have served and become veterans as a result of their service as reservists, they need support. You mentioned one veteran, one standard. Can you give us some examples of how reservists are treated differently now, and what could be done to close the gap in order to achieve one veteran, one standard, in your mind?

[George Zimmerman]

I was thinking about a number of friends of mine who have done their service, they've incurred some type of operational stress injury, have returned to their home units, and the home units have been unable to appreciate the nature of that injury and have taken sometimes disciplinary actions or otherwise marginalized those individuals. Certainly, I am aware of reservists returning to their hometown who have said this is the kind of thing they've experienced, and nobody wants to hear that. So once again they find themselves on the outside looking in.

The experience of trauma in a war zone is horrific, and certainly not something that is repeated in light conversation at a cocktail party, and it's very difficult for these people to express that. Without having support systems in place to be able to help them rationalize and work with their narratives in a positive and constructive way with appropriate medications and so on, they end up in very sad situations.

At one point, I can recall a medical team that went to a basement in Newfoundland because that's where the veteran was living. It was a small town and there was nothing around for that individual. His unit didn't know anything about it. We found out about it through the back door and sent a medical team from the regular forces to take a look and deal with him. That's the kind of thing that tends to happen. It's very difficult to solve that problem, because there are no services in particular parts of the country.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Right.

One of the things we've heard from a number of witnesses is the complexity of the whole system of benefits and dealing with or navigating through Veterans Affairs Canada and, obviously, different types of veterans having different access to certain benefits. I'm wondering if you believe that's one of the areas in which we could consider closing the gap and having a one veteran, one standard model where we try to reduce the complexity in order for people to understand what it is they actually are entitled to as veterans.

[George Zimmerman]

Yes, absolutely. I'd go a step further and have those benefits and services clearly identified in a document on release, so that the release procedure includes a seamless process into, “This is what you're entitled to; this is how you access it” both in writing and in a counselling one-on-one briefing, so that these individuals are not left not knowing. It needs good documentation so they have something to take home.

I would suggest follow-ups by the next stage, which would be Veterans Affairs reaching out and saying, “Did you get your package? Do you understand the package? Is there anything we can do with that package?” That would mean that Veterans Affairs would have to receive some sort of contact point from the released individual.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Kovacs, I have the same sort of question regarding navigating Veterans Affairs Canada and the complexity of the whole system. I know that there has been a movement to hire more case managers and reduce the ratio to 25:1. We've visited some of the Veterans Affairs offices and have heard that this is happening, and hopefully things will improve.

I wonder if you believe that lowering that ratio will assist in helping veterans navigate the benefits they're entitled to.

[Jerry Kovacs]

Yes, absolutely. Before the veteran is assigned a case manager, you could start one step sooner with the client service agents at the counter, with an orientation package, a pre-release information package that includes things like financial literacy and financial planning. As an example, the Canadian Securities Administrators, CSA, is actively involved across Canada in financial literacy and financial planning for Canadians. Eliminating the discrepancy among reservists involves eliminating the classes of reservists.

Having this information available beforehand would definitely assist the veteran.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

That's very good. Thank you. I'll yield to other questioners.

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

Mr. Clarke.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Hello. Thank you for being here with us this evening.

Yesterday evening, when we were in Toronto—yes, that's right; we have moved around so much that I nearly forgot where we were last night—, the veterans we met mentioned some of the department's practices that they consider disgusting.

Are you aware of the department's good and not so good practices in its daily dealings with veterans?

[George Zimmerman]

Nothing is coming to my mind, right off the top.

[Jerry Kovacs]

There was a time, perhaps more than a year ago, when we heard some informal evidence from veterans who indicated they were not always being advised of all the services and benefits available to them.

Whether or not this practice has ceased since then, I don't know. It seems to me that if you have what the department calls a suite or an array of benefits for veterans, they should be informed about these services or benefits that are available or applicable to them prior to release, if possible.

Whether the department does that through service agents and case managers, or with the assistance of Legion service officers is another matter.

I don't think any service agent or case manager would deliberately refuse to inform a veteran of the services and benefits available to them. The question is ensuring that veterans know what's available and that they apply for the appropriate services and benefits.

I can't provide you with any information about veterans who have told us that they were denied services or benefits other than the news reports that we see about refusals, or veterans who have gone to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board or the Federal Court. They have still applied for these services and benefits, it's just that they didn't receive the result they hoped for.

In terms of outright refusal, no.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you.

And you, Mr. Zimmerman?

[George Zimmerman]

One of the things I've run across is accessibility; our seniors have trouble accessing services and benefits through Internet services. Picking up a phone and having a live person at the other end is probably the only alternative for that class and age bracket.

A number of people complain they can't work their way through it. They're so confused and don't know what to do with it.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Zimmerman, you talked about issues, and you put three of them forward, but you also talked a few times about injustice and unfairness. Could you expand more on this? Do you have a specific example of the unfairness of actions or of a delivery model that, according to you, is unfair and relates to some injustice?

[George Zimmerman]

On the compensation package, I think the numbers are indicating that there are financial compensations that are less than one would get under workmen's compensation, for example, if one were injured in the same way. I don't have those specific numbers in my head, but I became aware of some of that.

The difference in services provided to reservists and regular forces I think was underlined with Nathan Cirillo's family. That family ended up with a fair package, but the amount of work required in order to make that happen was fairly significant. In my mind, that should not happen. That should be automatic. I've certainly worked with reserve members who are suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, and they find it very difficult to access the same kinds of services immediately upon their release.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

You both talked about the option of restoring the disability pension. I would like to hear your views on that. Would you like it to be similar to the 1919 pension model or are you thinking of a different model?

[George Zimmerman]

What I liked about the mandate letter was the opportunity to provide an option for wounded veterans to receive a long-term pension benefit or a one-time payout. What I liked about it is that it respects an individual's right to choose, and at the same time, a business case can be made to see what is in their best interests. If I'm a 20-year-old receiving $250,000, how does that compare to a lifelong allowance that takes me and my spouse through to the age of 90, for example? There is a business case that can be made in those terms.

As to whether it actually fits the 1919 model, that's a specific question, and I really don't have the answer to that. Really, I'd have to take a good hard look at what the 1919 model is all about.

It's the long-term benefit that these Afghan vets or post-Cold War vets are receiving that's giving them so much difficulty, because the money runs out. If they're wounded at the age of 25 or 30 and their money runs out at 50, 20 or 25 years later, we're leaving them in the lurch, and we did not leave their parents in the lurch.

[Jerry Kovacs]

This goes to the issue of financial security, which the Veterans Ombudsman talked about a few weeks ago. Financial security is a relatively subjective concept. It means different things to different people. Financial security for an individual may be something entirely different from financial security for a veteran who is married, or for a veteran who has children, right? Their needs will differ depending on their individual circumstances.

When you're reviewing the testimony and writing a report, I think it will be important to differentiate the two things. On the one hand is the financial aspect of it, which would be the lump sum award, for example. That financial aspect is different from the aspect of the services available to veterans, such as the veterans independence program, or the funeral and burial benefits, or the caregiver's allowance. That's a benefit, a program, or a service that's available. Always keep the difference between the two in mind when you're reviewing the testimony.