Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for having us.
I am a veteran as well, having spent 32 years as an infantry officer with the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry. I'm one of the six plaintiffs in the Equitas class action lawsuit that continues against the Government of Canada based on what we perceive to be unfair levels of financial compensation for those under the Pension Act versus under the current new Veterans Charter. As well, I have served the last two years on the minister's policy advisory group here in Ottawa.
A fundamental enabler for what we're talking about here, which is transition, is long-term financial security. This government has taken steps to provide that through the so-called pension for life. Unfortunately, from our perspective, the pension for life falls far short. The pension for life does nothing to improve the financial situation for 88% of moderately to lightly disabled veterans, those who are expected to move on and transition to a full second career with gainful employment. Those who are not severely disabled will continue to receive approximately 40% less under the pension for life than they would have under the Pension Act.
The pension for life does not achieve parity with the former Pension Act for 12% of the most seriously disabled veterans. Here is why. Under the Pension Act, disabled veterans have dual income streams. They have two income streams. They have their tax-free medical disability pension, and they have their entire taxable military service pension they paid into for the duration of the time they served in the military. There are two distinct and separate income streams with no clawbacks or crossover.
Under the pension for life, the income replacement benefit provides a single income stream. The military pension, however, is the first thing that's clawed back by the Manulife Insurance Company, or Veterans Affairs Canada, as income. We will never achieve parity until that dual income stream is restored for those who are going to fall under the pension for life. This requires that the regulated income replacement benefit not be made subject to the clawback of the military service pension and CPP disability, and it needs to be a protected, legislated, indexed benefit not subject to amendment by bureaucratic regulation. That is the income replacement benefit.
For 80% of the moderately or slightly disabled, parity with the Pension Act can only occur if the monthly pain and suffering award is substantially increased.
Furthermore, the pension for life fails to combine the best parts of the former Pension Act and the new Veterans Charter, as was specifically recommended by the minister's policy advisory group. The attendance allowance and the exceptional incapacity allowance were not ported over from the Pension Act as specifically recommended by the minster's policy advisory group.
Furthermore, family benefits, which existed under the Pension Act, were not restored under the pension for life, although a caregiver recognition benefit, which comes into effect this April, does provide $1,000 per month tax-free to a spouse or family member who has become a primary caregiver. Now in most cases, those people had given up full-time careers to become those primary caregivers, so you can imagine that $1,000 per month, even tax free, doesn't come close to replacing my spouse's former $60,000-a-year income. There is no income replacement benefit for family primary caregivers.
The last thing I'll address before turning it over to my compatriot here is the education benefit. One thing you need to understand when we talk about this wonderful education benefit, which provides $40,000 at the six-year service threshold and $80,000 at the 12-year service threshold, is that most will not qualify. What we mean by this is, the fact of the matter is, the vast majority of the injured and disabled are privates and corporals, junior ranks who we send through the door first and place into the position of greatest danger, with less than six years of service required to meet that initial qualification threshold for the education benefit.
Furthermore, it is unclear how any of our reserve force with two years of equivalent service full-time are going to qualify for the same education benefit. As far as we're concerned, the education bit is a red herring; it's smoke and mirrors. It's the same with the priority hiring for the federal public service. The vast majority of your applicants are going to be corporals and privates. With less than six years of service, no bilingualism, and no university education, how do you qualify for a public service job? You can't.
I'll now turn it over to Aaron Bedard, who will speak to mental health and suicide.