Evidence of meeting #2 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 subcommittee.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Neil Ellis
If you want to comment on it today, we could have comments, or we could look at where the work plan's going with it. We have some time today, or we can wait.
The researcher has offered to present the four big pillars.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
11:25 a.m.
Jean-Rodrigue Paré Committee Researcher
It's good to be working for the committee again. I know most of you now.
Depending on which group, which expert, or which stakeholder you will be speaking to, there are some issues that have been coming back over and over since 2006. Many of these issues are recurring. There was a stakeholders group. The Legion was the big representative, plus the ombudsman, plus smaller groups, and they were speaking with the government. That group had highlighted a few key priorities. In this document, I have connected these priorities with the ones that were highlighted in the mandate letter. There are four big themes that I think are still current issues with veterans groups and veterans in general.
The first one is support to families. It has been identified as somewhat of a disappointment. Before the new Veterans Charter came into force in 2006, one of the key pillars of the new Veterans Charter was supposed to be support to families. The results were sort of disappointing. Since the coming into force of the new Veterans Charter, all these, as we say in French, lacunes, have been highlighted concerning families and how individual spouses of veterans cannot access services on their own. They have to go through the veteran and they need some sort of permission to access services. If veterans suffer from any sort of mental issues, for example, they will not, sometimes even for themselves, ask for help, so it's very difficult for people from the family, spouses and children, to get the support they need. That was a key issue that was highlighted for many years.
With regard to financial support for families, in comparison with the scheme coming from the Pension Act, the new Veterans Charter is not very advantageous in terms of general amounts that are provided. There was some criticism of that, and this is also an issue that has been going on. Access to rehabilitation services and support services for individuals and families are two big areas.
Transition to civilian life has been an issue since we have had a professional army, let's say. Before that, civilians were going to war and were then going back to their civilian life. Now they are professionals. They want to have a career in the army, so they are not going back home after their service. They want to have a career. If, for reasons of physical or mental disability they have to be released from the forces, it is a big issue for them. It's much more difficult to integrate into civilian life when you've never had the experience of living in civilian life before getting into the army. It creates new challenges that are very different from those of older veterans. The structures in National Defence and in Veterans Affairs have not adapted very rapidly to these changes. A lot of work has been in progress in the last five years. A lot of efforts have been made to make it easier for veterans to transition when they are released.
Those who are releasing voluntarily don't have much of a problem. Compared to the rest of the population, they have an easier time getting jobs. The problem is for those who are disabled and who have to leave the forces for medical reasons. These are the people who have the most difficulty. We have heard a lot about the rate of suicide in the forces. In the forces themselves it's not so much of a problem. It's a problem of course every time there is a suicide, but the problem is much more acute and significant for veterans. If we have to compare, and it's a bit impersonal and inhuman to compare that to the rates for the general population, in the forces, the statistics are comparable to those for the general population. For veterans after they have left, it's 50% higher.
The problem is there is an issue within the forces, but the issue is much more dramatic and severe for veterans. There is a real issue there, and it's difficult because there's no systematic tracking of veterans after they leave the forces.
There's the difficulty that is very hard to handle.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
Cathay Wagantall Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK
Are you saying that we don't have a list of the key factors that are causing it to be higher after? We don't know?
11:35 a.m.
Committee Researcher
It's very difficult. We don't know.
The biggest hypothesis is that the transition itself—
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
11:35 a.m.
Committee Researcher
— is a very high stress factor. When they become veterans, the only real cause that has been identified for suicide later on has been previous long-term depression and exposure to very tragic events.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
Cathay Wagantall Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK
Perhaps this would be something really good for this committee to delve into, to try to determine what those triggers are so we can at least identify—
11:35 a.m.
Committee Researcher
It is certainly a current issue.
For the other aspects of the transition, the more administrative, the Department of National Defence and the Department of Veterans Affairs, a lot of work has been done by this committee in previous years, in the last couple of years. I know that both departments are working very hard to make sure that their programs are aligned and all that. Ms. Mathyssen's motion addresses that. It has been an issue. There is work going on. The committee might be interested in knowing what efforts have been put in place and what is the status of these initiatives right now. That would be a topic too.
The third aspect is financial support for veterans. There has been this discussion since the implementation of the new Veterans Charter, of course, pensions, lifelong pensions versus disability awards. On rehab, a rehab-based focus instead of financially supporting veterans and letting them find their way.... This has been an ongoing issue. The committee had decided unanimously that going back to the Pension Act or some similar scheme was not an option. It was decided unanimously in the June 2014 report. Experts had been coming to this committee explaining why to have lifelong pensions instead of sort of forcing, in a way, the rehab process...encouraging rehab through other means than simply financial support was the best way of ensuring that many veterans would go back into the workforce. That has been a topic of study in many reports of the committee in the last 10 years.
Apart from that, there are still issues with a few key benefits that were introduced with the new Veterans Charter. The disability award, of course, is not at the level that the Supreme Court has said by similar compensation it should be. We know that in the U.K. the scheme is very similar and the disability award is twice as high. There are issues with the amount of the disability award.
There was an issue with the permanent impairment allowance. This allowance is for those who are very severely injured, permanently injured for life. We are talking about 1,000, or 2,000 veterans in Canada right now. The criteria for getting this permanent impairment allowance, which has three levels, are incredibly complicated. No one really knows what makes you get this benefit. It has created frustration. Nobody knows why they get first level, second level, third level. A supplement has been introduced. The criteria for the supplement are not clearer than for the award. It's very complicated and there has been a lot of frustration. There have been some efforts by the government to open up the criteria to have some flexibility in the allowance, but we don't know as yet if the result has been that more veterans have got it or not. It could be a topic for a study.
The earnings loss benefit is, I think, financially the key issue since the introduction of the new Veterans Charter. If the earnings loss benefit had been fixed from the start, I don't think we would have had that much of a discussion with the disability award, because the earnings loss benefit is based on the insurance scheme of National Defence. It provides 75% of gross income. The 75% of gross income was linked to the insurance program of the forces. They simply provided the same amount, but with insurance programs if you want the premiums to be higher, you can say that instead of 75% you will have 85% or 90%. It's just a decision based on the amount of the premium. By aligning this, it created all sorts of problems. When military personnel are released for medical reasons, after having done what they've had to do and having been injured and having to be released, they are told, “By the way, you are losing 25% of your income. Here's a cheque. We're done.” As they perceive it, they are just being let go, and no support has been provided to facilitate the transition.
This earnings loss benefit or the equivalent is provided to all veterans for two years as an insurance program if they are released for medical reasons. After two years if they are permanently and very severely injured, they will get it until they reach the age of 65. After age 65 it's a big cloud.
There have been many recommendations to increase the amount of the earnings loss benefit to 85%, 90%, or 95% based on gross income, net income, or up to a maximum income. All sorts of schemes have been suggested.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
Cathay Wagantall Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK
During those first two years, are they still part of the forces or are they already a veteran?
11:40 a.m.
Committee Researcher
They are already a veteran. As soon as they are released from the forces, they get SISIP, which is the insurance program from National Defence, for two years. After two years, there is a reassessment if they are permanently impaired.
11:40 a.m.
Committee Researcher
If they are, they will get the 75% until they reach age 65.
This income doesn't give you access to retirement income. You cannot buy RRSPs based on that 75%, for example. So there's no retirement income that can be accumulated based on this. There is a small benefit that replaces that, but it's not as much.
There are still many issues with the earnings loss benefit that need to be fixed.
So we have support for families, transition to civilian life, financial benefits, and the last one is service delivery.
The Department of Veterans Affairs Canada has embarked on a process of total fundamental reorganization. It started about 10 years ago, but it has been accelerated in the last five or six years. It is completely redefining itself.
Ste. Anne's Hospital, which was the last hospital that was administered by Veterans Affairs, is being transferred to Quebec, so about 800 employees are leaving Veterans Affairs to go to the province.
The number of employees at Veterans Affairs has been going down for the last five years. The number of older veterans is going down because they are getting older. The focus that has been put on older veterans for many decades is now switching to younger veterans. They don't have the same needs. They don't have the same issues. That has triggered a total reorganization of the department.
There's a long-term plan in the department, so it will be interesting. Hopefully the committee wants to look at that to see where the government is going with this long-term plan.
Those are the four areas.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
Robert Gordon Kitchen Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Thank you very much. I appreciate it. It's very helpful to get that concisely put together.
I have four questions for you as we go through. You talked about support for families at the beginning. I guess the question I would have is on defining those families. Are we about talking myself, my wife, and my children, or if I'm an older veteran and my children have moved away, are we talking about children until age 25? Are parents involved when they are trying to access these services? When I say access these services, I'm basically asking if I am able to say I see my daughter struggling, so how can I get her services? Can I speak to that and do that? Can I ask for services for myself if I say I've seen my daughter struggling and I'm having some issues with that? Is that part of what you were discussing with that?
11:45 a.m.
Committee Researcher
The definition was part of a discussion in the committee about who should be included in families. Some had a very wide definition, some a narrow definition. If you look at page 1 of the document in the recommendations, you will see that was the result of the whole discussion: to have rehab services given to spouses or common law partners. Access to psychological counselling was also given to parents and children. It could be wider depending on who is dealing with the veteran the most. Financial support for family members of seriously disabled veterans was restricted to those veterans who were severely injured, as well as primary caregivers. The definition of “primary caregivers” is given in the health care regulations for veterans.
As to the thought process of defining the families, a very good, unanimous effort was made by the committee to arrive at some agreement. Depending on the services offered, the definition of family will be different.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Robert Gordon Kitchen Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Were those decisions recommended by the committee?
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Robert Gordon Kitchen Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Is that something we would just follow through step-by-step saying that it's already been done, or is it something that was never finished and we need to look at that to make those decisions?
11:45 a.m.
Committee Researcher
You can revisit that because at the end of the June 2014 report, the government had said that it would implement all the recommendations, not necessarily in the next six months, but all of them; this was part of that. The government had agreed that these recommendations be implemented. Everything can be revisited all the time, so of course, we can decide.
I'm just giving you the picture of what was done; a lot of background work was done on this.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Robert Gordon Kitchen Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Thank you.
You talked a little about mental health and suicide. Did they get into things like musculoskeletal health, orthopaedic health, chemical exposures, those sort of things? Were they all part of that same discussion when they talked about health?
11:45 a.m.
Committee Researcher
There was a specific report on chemical exposure. There was never a specific report on mental health and suicide. It was studied, but it was not published as a study and there were no recommendations. It fell on the order paper, so there was never a report.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative