Proceedings of the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs
Issue 4 - Evidence - October 7, 2009
OTTAWA, Wednesday, October 7, 2009
The Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met this day at 12:09 p.m. to study the services and benefits provided to veterans and their families (topic: implementation of the New Veterans Charter).
Senator Michael A. Meighen (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good afternoon. We are pursuing our study with respect to the service and benefits provided to veterans and their families, specifically with regard to the implementation of the New Veterans Charter. The New Veterans Charter, as you will recall, was implemented over three years ago. Therefore, the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence thought it would be appropriate at this stage to see how its implementation is proceeding, examine the pluses and possibly the minuses, and determine which areas need more attention and which are functioning well.
This being our initial hearing, we have called upon two very distinguished witnesses who I am sure can set us off on the right path. We will hear today from the Royal Canadian Legion, as well as the Veterans Ombudsman. I am sure we will gain great insight from their perspective on the implementation of the charter.
As people are well aware, the Royal Canadian Legion is a non-profit, dues-supported, fraternal organization with approximately 1,600 branches in Canada, the United States, Germany and the Netherlands. Since the time of its formation in 1926, the Legion has focused its efforts on the fight to secure adequate pensions and other well-earned benefits for veterans and their dependants.
Representing the Legion today, I am pleased to introduce Pierre Allard. I also wish to thank Mr. Allard, who was to have been one of our witnesses late last spring. Unfortunately, events overtook us and he sat through a hearing without having the opportunity to testify. We are glad we are able to rectify that error, Mr. Allard.
With Mr. Allard today is retired Colonel Patrick Stogran, the Veterans Ombudsman. The Veterans Ombudsman is an impartial, arms-length and independent officer with the responsibility to assist veterans to pursue their concerns and to advance their issues. It is also intended that the appointment will raise the awareness of the needs and concerns of veterans, and enhance the confidence of veterans that their views are indeed important. The ombudsman is mandated to uphold the Veterans Bill of Rights and to view individual and systemic issues arising from it.
The Royal Canadian Legion, because of the difficulty of late last spring, last appeared before us on February 13, 2008. After an inordinately long delay, we are pleased to have you back, Mr. Allard. Of course, the ombudsman appeared back before us in May 2009.
Mr. Allard, I understand you will lead off with a short statement followed, perhaps, immediately by Colonel Stogran.
Pierre Allard, Service Bureau Director, Royal Canadian Legion: Thank you for your kind words. It is a pleasure to be here today, appearing in front of your committee. We would like to commend you for your support of veterans and their families. It is obvious that you care, so there should be no doubt that the Legion also cares for veterans and their families.
As I said, I am proud to be here today on behalf of our Dominion president, comrade Wilf Edmond, who cannot be here.
We care in the Legion in a number of ways, including the representation and advocacy service which we provide through our service bureau at no cost to applicants, whether they are Legion members or not. We care through our benevolent assistance, our housing initiatives, our youth programs and through various ``support our troops'' programs.
One of these Legion programs worthy of mention during this week of mental health is the veterans transition program. I would ask to distribute a brochure on this program, which has not been translated but which I will refer to.
The Chair: Have you given it to the clerk?
Mr. Allard: Yes.
The Chair: Are the members of the subcommittee willing to accept distribution of this document, which is in the English language only?
Senator Banks: Agreed.
The Chair: It is agreed. Thank you.
Mr. Allard: Thank you. This brochure describes a veterans transition program that is operated by our British Columbia/Yukon Command. This program assists veterans of the Second World War, the Korean War, the Cold War, peace operations and, most recently, retired military personnel from Afghanistan. Often referred to as ``dropping the baggage'' and ``invisible wounds,'' this program has succeeded in having a positive life-changing impact upon participants and their families.
The course outline includes learning about effective transition process; the effect of post-traumatic stress disorder; the impact of untreated trauma as it relates to career, family relations and social settings; and, finally, referrals to community health and social support services. This program is entirely —
The Chair: I apologize for interrupting you. I am lost. Are you reading from this presentation?
Mr. Allard: I will come to that in two seconds.
The Chair: I see. You are reading from that document that was distributed. I understand.
Senator Day: I do not have what you are following. Is there enough for everyone?
The Chair: I am not following anything because I could not.
Senator Banks: Are we waiting for copies?
Gaëtane Lemay, Clerk of the Committee: Yes.
Senator Wallin: Why do you not revert to the original copies for now?
Mr. Allard: I will revert to the original copies.
Mr. Allard: I wanted to point out that this program has been operating since 1998. It predates OSISS, the OSI clinics and the OTSSC clinics.
You have previously been briefed by the Minister of Veterans Affairs on a number of issues, including the health benefits review, homeless veterans and the New Veterans Charter, NVC, programs. We are somewhat surprised that this update did not include a more substantial response to the very important recommendation of the Gerontological Advisory Council, GAC, namely, the recommendation for a needs-based veterans integrated services which would eliminate the complex eligibility criteria grid. It is enclosed in my report here, close to the blue pages.
You were told that improvements to the veterans independence program, VIP, had achieved this objective. You were also told that Veterans Affairs Canada, VAC, continues to operate within their authorities while the homeless veterans issue requires more study. We are aware that Veterans Affairs Canada has adopted a continuum of care with integrated/seamless system of needs-based services along a life course. This does not mean that VAC has redesigned the three components of health care programs — long-term care, VIP and treatment benefits — for which modern veterans, as a whole, are not eligible.
Even though one may be tempted to think that the language now used by VAC could suggest that a needs-based approach has been adopted for the three components of health services, the reality is that very complex eligibility criteria grids are still in place. Even though the minister suggested in March 2008, when appearing at this committee, that ``we would like to move to a needs-based system as opposed to an entitlements-based one,'' veterans must still deal with at least 18 eligibility groups with subsidiary criteria.
VAC may now speak the language of the GAC report Keeping the Promise; however, VAC has not eliminated the barriers to accessing services and benefits, and has not seen fit to include the modern veterans in some of these benefits.
You were told about joint VAC/CF, Canadian Forces, integrated support teams that now look after the critically wounded soldiers returning from Afghanistan. We applaud this process. This concept is an exceptional process of which we are fully supportive. You were not told, however, that these joint personnel support centres are not fully manned, even though we have been in Afghanistan for almost 10 years, or that the majority of the modern wounded veterans have not yet transitioned to veterans' status and are still under the care of the Canadian Forces.
Even though these wounded warriors may have benefited from some elements of the New Veterans Charter, NVC, they have not yet tapped the full resources made available by Veterans Affairs Canada in the context of the New Veterans Charter's suite of programs. Furthermore, some may be eligible for a permanent impairment allowance but cannot collect this allowance until they retire, which seems grossly unfair.
As for looking after high-needs veterans, you were not told that Veterans Affairs Canada is facing challenges in case management. VAC's internal evaluation of a pilot project of the Halifax rehabilitation case management reveals significant problems with case plans not conforming to the principles of case management. Problems have been identified with respect to fragmented directional guidance, unclear boundaries for case management, confusion surrounding roles and responsibilities, inappropriate approach to case management and focus on benefit delivery rather than case management. More than anecdotally, this description of the problems in the Halifax district appears to be consistent across the country.
You are likely aware that the government made a commitment to invest $1 billion into the New Veterans Charter programs over the first five years of this program. Yet, by VAC's own accounting, they have exaggerated the financial resources required, which seems to be a trend in all VAC program forecasts. We have seen the same exaggeration of resources required to implement new programs in both Agent Orange ex gratia compensation and in the pre-1981 VIP expansion to spouses and caregivers.
The Minister of Veterans Affairs told you in March 2008 that the New Veterans Charter is accomplishing the goals of dealing with ``the realities facing our modern-day veterans'' but that ``It still needs fine tuning. . . it was meant to be a living document, an open book that is evolving with the needs of our veterans and their families.'' We are almost at the end of 2009 and are still waiting for this fine tuning.
The reality is that since the New Veterans Charter received Royal Assent in May 2005 and was implemented in April 2006, Veterans Affairs Canada feels that the expectations created by VAC with the central agencies upon program approval were highly unrealistic. These are all quotes, by the way, from official VAC documents.
We would suggest that these were not expectations. They were rather a commitment that, under a living charter concept, the issue of lump sum disability awards versus disability pensions would be reviewed within two years of program implementation.
It is now more than evident that it is unfair to ask a family of four to survive on 75 per cent of a private's salary for two years while a private is going through rehabilitation — 75 per cent of a salary that is taxable, by the way — and that this is better than what there was pre-charter. The reality is also that pre- and post-charter, the private would, in most instances, if medically released, really be receiving the same two-year benefits not from Veterans Affairs Canada, but from the service income security insurance plan, SISIP, while any disability pension payments would be offset from SISIP benefits, an unfair policy that persists to this day, notwithstanding reports from the Veterans Ombudsman and from the Canadian Forces ombudsman.
The Chair: And from this subcommittee.
Mr. Allard: You are quite correct, sir.
After SISIP rehabilitation, under the Pension Act, the private could be eligible for a non-taxable disability pension for life, which could be greater than his guaranteed 75 per cent taxable salary under the NVC, which terminates at age 65, and his lump sum disability award.
We are aware that Veterans Affairs Canada has had a broad, formal evaluation done by our evaluation directorate, which steps outside the current frame and looks at the overall outcomes and effectiveness of the program. The first stage to develop an evaluation framework is completed, and the findings reveal that the ability to evaluate the NVC programs in 2009-10 will be constrained in outcome measurements by the lack of clients who have completed the longitudinal ongoing performance survey.
Because of the slower-than-expected take-up of the program, VAC feels that it would be desirable to delay evaluation of NVC outcomes until at least 2011-12 — these are their words — though an indication of outcome performance may be feasible in 2009-10, using limited data available plus a one-time client survey. In view of the known limitations, chances are that this analysis will be lacking in depth and that conclusions will not be definitive. This can be used as an excuse to delay the required improvements.
Unfortunately, the reality is that there are known gaps in the services and benefits provided under the New Veterans Charter. These gaps are evident in the area of financial benefits, rehabilitation and case management, and care of families.
We now have two classes of modern disabled soldiers, most of whom are still serving in the Canadian Forces, while the CF appears reluctant to release them until we are out of Afghanistan or at least until the CF has resolved the issues of return to work, accommodation and/or universality of service. In practice, this means that still-serving wounded soldiers are receiving either disability awards post-2006, or disability pensions pre-2006, and that frustration is growing to a boiling point as they are comparing the financial benefits in both programs. It is becoming obvious that some are less than enamoured with the NVC benefits.
The Legion cares for those who serve and those who have served. They and their families need our support. A living charter has to be more than words. If the required urgent corrective actions and improvements to the New Veterans Charter are not implemented, we will come to the logical conclusion that the foundations of the New Veterans Charter are built on sand. The New Veterans Charter needs fine tuning now rather than later.
Finally, we would like to comment on the Last Post Fund and on the issue of homeless veterans.
Our Dominion president, Wilf Edmond, recently issued a press release advocating for the extension of this program to modern-day veterans, lamenting the lack of political will. The Office of the Veterans Ombudsman has also published a report recently on this subject and on other related issues.
All Second World War and Korean War veterans qualify for the government's funeral and burial programs. This is not the case for all modern-day veterans. For example, we know that very recently three modern-day veterans needed donations money for a dignified funeral. Veterans should not need to rely on charity from the Last Post Fund. This is a responsibility of the government.
While the Legion is highly visible across the country with housing programs for veterans and seniors, where we give priority to veterans, the British Columbia/Yukon Command of the Legion is also reaching out in tangible ways to serve the needs of homeless veterans. Building on their experience of providing housing for homeless veterans in downtown Vancouver at Veterans Manor in the 1980s — which is still operating today, a very successful initiative — they are now partnering with Veterans Affairs Canada, Dominion Command Housing Centre for Excellence, the South Vancouver Island Zone Veterans' Housing Society, the Victoria chapter of the Canadian Peacekeepers Veterans' Association and the City of Colwood, B.C., to provide quality safe housing, food and support to homeless veterans.
Service in the Canadian Forces is dangerous. Nearly all defence operations place servicemen and women at great risk, whether it is physical, environmental, psychological or emotional harm. The Legion has consistently fought and continues to fight for appropriate services and benefits for those who bear the scars of service to their country.
Veterans Affairs Canada needs to respond to their needs in a timely fashion. Though much has been done, fine tuning is required now. We owe it to all those who have served.
Colonel (Ret'd) Patrick Stogran, Veterans Ombudsman, Veterans Affairs Canada: Thank you for the opportunity to make representation before you again on behalf of our veterans.
Disgruntled veterans have been sending complaints to the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman since April 2007 when the government first announced its intention to establish the office — and a full seven months before I was appointed.
[Translation]
Although the New Veterans Charter has not been the most contentious issue that we have been confronted with, veterans have been expressing concerns with it.
[English]
To date, we have heard complaints about the lump-sum disability award; the earnings loss benefit, specifically how it is offset by the disability pensions and the base salary used as the basis for those awards; inequities between the Pension Act and the New Veterans Charter, vis-à-vis reimbursement for treatments; eligibility criteria for the permanent impairment allowance, PIA, that appear to be too narrow; and the consultation process that brought the charter into being — there have been suggestions that it lacked transparency and inclusion.
The Chair: Could you tell us what EIA stands for?
Col. Stogran: EIA is from the Pension Act. There is an inconsistency between the way the extreme incapacitation allowance, EIA, and the permanent incapacitation allowance of the New Veterans Charter are administered. This gives rise to the concern that the permanent impairment allowance eligibility criteria are too narrow.
The Chair: Thank you.
Col. Stogran: Although we are seized of the issues relating to the New Veterans Charter, I will not define the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman's position on them. There are many moving parts and powers at play in the review of the charter at the present time.
[Translation]
What I am prepared to do is to express the principles that I feel should be embraced in the review process. The problems with this living legislation must be addressed as a matter of urgency. The trouble-shooting process must be comprehensive, and meaningful changes must be made in a timely fashion.
[English]
The review should be transparent. Canadians who accept the condition of unlimited liability and make irreparable sacrifices to serve our nation, the families and friends who support them and the citizens who are grateful for their service deserve to be in the know and have a say in what is fair.
The charter must not be considered in isolation from other problems that manifest themselves with Veterans Affairs Canada. The requirement to self-identify for eligibility, the excessive bureaucracy that characterizes the department's administration of programs and services, and the cumbersome approval, review and appeals processes will complicate a charter that itself is already convoluted and confusing.
The charter was implemented with the understanding that it needs fixing. Retroactivity should, therefore, be assured for all the veterans who have been affected by the charter since it has come into effect.
[Translation]
It is all about peace of mind. Nobody joins the Canadian Forces or the RCMP expecting to get rich.
[English]
However, they should be assured that if they are injured psychologically or physically in the line of duty, everything possible will be done to meet the expectations of a fulfilled life that they would have had coming into their respective professions.
In closing, one revelation I have experienced since coming into the job is that successive governments have demonstrated a readiness to accumulate debt at the expense of our veterans. Some examples of this are so compelling they undermine the sincerity of the chorus of loyalty to our veterans that everyone is so quick to join. Members of the Canadian Forces and the RCMP do not hesitate to take posts and make whatever sacrifices are required to keep us safe. We must demonstrate that same kind of commitment in fixing the New Veterans Charter.
The Chair: Thank you, Colonel Stogran.
I do not know whether my colleagues share my view. I do not understand the first sentence in your last paragraph: ``In closing, one revelation I have experienced since coming into the job is that successive governments have demonstrated a readiness to accumulate debt at the expense of our veterans.'' Could you elaborate?
Col. Stogran: I would submit that is a turn of phrase for the experiences of our Hong Kong veterans in the time it took to resolve their status as veterans. The merchant navy is another example. We seem continually to put these kinds of issues off and settle them retroactively. I would submit that if they are settled in a timely matter, everyone would feel fairly treated even if the monetary settlements do not reflect the sacrifices these people make for our country.
The Chair: It is a question of timeliness?
Col. Stogran: Yes.
The Chair: Thank you.
Honourable senators, those are the opening statements and it gives us lots of food to chew on.
Senator Wallin: Colonel Stogran, thank you again for coming back. You will remember your and the minister's last appearance. You said to us at that time, I am not in the business of solving vets' problems. We are in the business of making the system act responsibly on behalf of vets.
The minister replied, if we are not in the business of making a difference in the lives of veterans, who is in the business? This gentleman — meaning the ombudsman — has an important role to play.
Have you two resolved what your job is?
Col. Stogran: I have certainly resolved what my job is. The minister and I have met. I think we have as clear an understanding as one could with this kind of a job that is only two years mature, facing a number of moving parts and powers at play and a war in Afghanistan currently. I am confident we have moved forward from that last meeting.
Senator Wallin: Can you elaborate on how that relationship works? The last time you were here, you were not meeting, nor could you access the department. How does it work now on a regular basis?
Col. Stogran: We have not established a status quo yet that I am comfortable to report on. Information is moving more freely between us and the department, although it is not at the standard I think it should be. An understanding in senior levels of management within the department exists that it is to their advantage to offer full disclosure on issues because I will trumpet praise for the department's successes as quickly as I criticize them for their failings.
We have also learned from the last experience to submit a monthly situation report to the minister to advise him of where we are going and what we are doing. If there are any flags raised of concern for the minister, of course, I am at his beck and call to answer for any of the observations or things I am seeing in my day-to-day affairs.
The channels of communications have opened up. I am hesitant to get into much more detail than that. We have crossed the threshold with our first report on the Last Post Fund. As it stands now, I am not encouraged by the dialogue behind the scenes or in public that has erupted as a result of our report.
However, signs are that things are moving. We have to analyze this on a period of perhaps the three-year term I will be serving in this job and have active reflection at that point in time.
Senator Wallin: Mr. Allard's criticisms are quite specific. Do you feel as though the Legion has access to VAC to raise these issues? Is there someone listening to you? How do you access the system?
Mr. Allard: I access the system through two ways.
As a service delivery arm representing clients, we have a good rapport with the department. We use some of their tools and business processes.
On the advocacy front, I sit as a member of the New Veterans Charter advisory group. I am aware of things that need to be done to improve the New Veterans Charter. In my introductory remarks, I was using quotations from internal documents in the department that indicate to me there could be delays in moving forward with the recommendations put forward by the New Veterans Charter advisory group.
For example, we officially sent our report to the department, I think, in June. We still have not received any official reply, nor have we been told that the report could be released to the public. This indicates to me that there is a lack of timely response to our sound recommendations. They would resolve some of the issues I have identified. However, I am concerned based on what I see internally in their documentation and based on what I know is not moving forward very quickly.
Senator Wallin: You talked about the slow uptake of some of the programs and, therefore, an inability to collect long-term data. We are at year eight. I am sure there would be some data. Is that soldiers' reluctance or is it systemic?
Mr. Allard: The reality is that the soldiers who have been wounded have been retained within the Canadian Forces. They have not been released. There was no process to help with their transition. The integrated support service will help this transition. We are almost 10 years into the Afghanistan conflict, and we are setting this up just now. This excellent project has been championed by the Chief of Military Personnel, Major General Semianiw, and we need to embrace it and move forward to know what will happen in the transition.
The Chair: I have a supplementary for clarification. We were all concerned at one time when we understood what ``universality of service'' meant — someone who could not perform at 100 per cent was released. Today, it would appear that the CF is making an effort to maintain those who wish to stay in. Is that right? Is your criticism that the support programs to address the injuries of those who wish to continue serving are not in place to a sufficient degree?
Mr. Allard: We do not know yet because the support to these still-serving members is provided by the Canadian Forces. They have set up their own rehabilitation program to look after their injured members. Yes, universality of service is being resolved, which is excellent, so that those who wish to continue serving in the forces will be able to do so. I am hopeful on that count. However, I am aware that because we have still-serving members who are either receiving a disability award or a disability pension while still serving and comparing these two types of benefits, a great deal of havoc has resulted. There is something wrong with the system. Some who have transitioned, such as corporals, are surviving on 75 per cent of their previous salary, which was calculated when they retired, and that is grossly inadequate. The fact has been recognized by the New Veterans Charter advisory group.
We need some action now and we need some finality. I am worried that the Gerontological Advisory Council report, Keeping the Promise, was buried after 2006. The department did not take action on that so I am concerned that the report of the New Veterans Charter advisory group will also be buried.
Senator Wallin: I visited Petawawa to look at one of these operations and understand what they are trying to do. They seem to be trying to keep some soldiers employed, even though they might not meet the standards for universality of service, so that they may transition to pension. Many of these service members are young and do not have their 10 years in yet. Are you fine with that?
Mr. Allard: I am fine with that. It is an excellent program. However, it is unfortunate that it was not put in place sooner.
Senator Kenny: Welcome, Mr. Allard and Colonel Stogran. I will start with a short statement, if I may, chair, followed by a couple of questions.
My perception is that we are aiming awfully low when it comes to veterans. We are talking about people who voluntarily put themselves at unlimited risk and return home damaged. It seems that the level of compensation accepted as the norm does not come close to resembling the level of compensation one would receive in the case of civilian litigation resulting from a comparable accident in Canada.
These people volunteer to place themselves at risk. I do not understand how the level of the lump-sum payment could be considered appropriate or the idea of 75 per cent of taxable income that was established at an earlier date. I question why we tend to lowball or penny pinch people who have gone through an experience to take care of us. If we had the same experience, naturally we would want all kinds of extra assistance, well beyond what we receive in salary. Having $250,000 to last for the rest of one's life sounds sufficient until you figure out how long and complicated that will likely be.
The only way in which we can truly help these people is with rehab processes and a great deal of money. We seem to be short on the money side of that equation. I have no idea why that is so when we have plenty of money to give these people. No one disputes that they deserve it. Everyone in this room would look at someone who has been injured and say: Wow, I cannot imagine how much money it would take to make me feel okay about being in such a position.
Based on that, please talk to me about the problems with the lump-sum payment and about the reality of living on 75 per cent of your taxable income. It seems to me that most families budget to 100 per cent of their income and, if someone happens to be away or not there, their fixed costs remain at 100 per cent of what they were living on before.
I would like to hear comments from both witnesses on this to provide me with a better understanding of why these are supposed to be reasonable payments for people who have had their lives turned upside down.
Mr. Allard: There is a certain degree of ambivalence about what I am to say, so I will state it upfront. I was a champion of the New Veterans Charter when it was introduced because it is a good program. However, it needs fine tuning now. I will give you an example. I will preface this story by reminding people that we cannot legislate against personal choices. A soldier was killed in Afghanistan and his widow received death benefits as a result. However, widow, who perhaps gambled the money away, committed suicide. The grandmother is looking after the three children and is seeking benevolent assistance from us to help them to survive. This is wrong. This may not have happened under the previous Pension Act because the children would receive a form of dependant benefits until they reached the age of majority. The dependant benefits would not be taxable. This does not happen under the New Veterans Charter. That problem needs to be fixed.
Senator, you referred to the 75 per cent taxable salary that the corporal would receive. Under the Pension Act, benefits were not paid on the basis of rank. Rather, they were paid on the basis that you were eligible to receive those benefits. Whether you were a private, a colonel or a general, you received your monthly pension, which was non- taxable and not linked to the service salary. As well, it was increased if you had dependant children, and it did not end at the age of 65. In terms of the private who accesses these benefits today five years after he has retired, the calculation of that 75 per cent of his economic loss benefit will not be based on what the current salary of a private is, but what it was when he retired five years earlier. That makes it even worse.
The New Veterans Charter advisory group is making some recommendations about fixing the economic loss benefits. It needs to be done now, not tomorrow.
Col. Stogran: I do not know how much more I can add to this. It is a blinding statement of the obvious. One of the first things I did when I started looking into the New Veterans Charter was to commission an actuarial study. We asked for an actuarial study from the department to see if the financial benefits had been compared to the old Pension Act. We were assured that they had been compared. However, we received an actuarial study to determine how much it would cost the government for this new program. We went ahead and commissioned our own actuarial study, which we have not released because we are not certain that we have a full comprehension of the so-called holistic value of the New Veterans Charter. It goes without saying that, financially, a veteran is highly disadvantaged by the lump-sum payment.
There are circumstances where a lump-sum payment is beneficial. I like to break things down into fundamental principles. If you offer someone the maximum lump-sum payment for injures that are sustained in Afghanistan, chances are that, even if the person is returning with a physical impairment, there is also a significant psychological impairment that is returning, too. Within the New Veterans Charter, there are all sorts of references to financial counselling for these members that are returning. I remember coming back from Bosnia and had I all four of my limbs and all of my faculties. I have not looked at a pay cheque since that day. It does not become a concern. What is a concern, and what I have witnessed with some of my colleagues with whom I served in Afghanistan, is that they have come back with drug and alcohol dependencies and gambling dependencies. One good friend of mine has lost his house and family over gambling. There are huge questions relating to that.
I would like to go back to fundamental principles. Recently, a distinguished Canadian won a Nobel Prize for physics. A physicist can trace that back to E equals MC squared. I am asking questions at this point in our investigation. There are references to having an injured veteran reaching their full potential. I do not find that defined anywhere. Are we trying to achieve the full potential before injury or after injury? I do not see a common thread right through the New Veterans Charter.
There is a movement from disability towards wellness, and these rehabilitation packages and some of the things in the New Veterans Charter are long overdue. However, there are other unwritten pieces. A good friend of mine lost both legs in Afghanistan. He said to me, ``You could not give me $10 million to lose my legs.'' The most profound thing that he has experienced since he has been home was the Soldier On campaign, where he is competing in sled hockey and downhill skiing with people of like injures. I ask this: How are we moving from disability to wellness by the lump-sum payment and the 75 per cent?
Another one is a move away from entitlements towards needs. I do not see the string of logic within that. Within the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman, we are asking questions about these fundamental principles that have led to what my colleague has articulated as problems with it today.
The Chair: Before turning to Senator Banks, you said you are not in a position to tell someone what choice they should make, if they have a choice. Does the advisory committee or the Legion have a position on the question of the lump-sum payment as opposed to the pension, or are you saying indirectly that one could be appropriate for one person and the other for another person? That is, we cannot tell them what choice to take, but they should have a choice?
Mr. Allard: There should be an option. If someone wants to receive a disability award, so be it. If someone wants to receive a disability pension, so be it. I do not think it should be linked to rank. Previously, it was not linked to rank. I also do not think it should stop at age 65. There are a number of things here that are at play. Yes, you cannot legislate for personal choices. Some people will make bad choices, but when are you receiving a non-taxable disability pension every month, chances are that that income will continue. If you take the lump sum and you blow it, then you have blown it, end of story.
I should not say that. Sometimes people need that lump sum to fix their houses because they have come back and they have lost limbs, or whatever. They need to make their house liveable. Sometimes they will actually use their lump- sum payment to do that and then the lump sum is gone. They may actually then be stuck with that 75-per-cent taxable economic loss.
Col. Stogran: This past weekend, Corporal William Kerr in the town of Sudbury did a walkathon to try to raise the money to make his house wheelchair accessible. The friend of mine that lost both legs will be paying close to $1 million for a normal house in Edmonton — that is, one that will allow him to load the dishwasher and, perhaps, cook the odd meal for his wife, as we would reasonably expect to do in our own lifestyle.
I do not see it always a question of either/or. I think we should be putting ourselves in the situation of the people who are wounded and trying to re-establish the expectations of life that they would have had when they joined the profession.
Senator Banks: Welcome, Colonel Stogran and Mr. Allard again. My wife would prohibit me from ever cooking her a dinner.
I hope, Mr. Chair, that we will have an opportunity to return to Mr. Allard for a few minutes for him to continue addressing the subject that he raised — we moved away from it because we did not have copies at the time — if you think that is appropriate.
I know there are reasons for this, but I find it novel to consider a pension that ends when you are 65. That is a novel thought.
You said a few minutes ago, Colonel Stogran, that you did not find a string from a movement from an entitlements- based system to a needs-based search. Do you mean to say that you do not see any movement in that direction from entitlement to needs based?
Col. Stogran: I would say it is more of a logic train. Mr. Allard mentioned the benefits grids that are used. There are contradictions within the system. We have not gone down to that level of detail but when I ask, ``What does it mean, needs versus entitlements and getting away from it,'' my investigators have not been able to produce documentation that says, ``This is the theory upon which it is based'' so that we can compare and see if there is coherency through to what is actually happening within the various programs in the department.
Senator Banks: Although we have heard from others that they would very much like at some point to move to a needs-based system rather than an entitlements-based system, you do not have an opinion in that respect?
Col. Stogran: I certainly reserve judgment. I think there are arguments for both. I do not think one should exclude the other. Once again, I think there is a fundamental premise when we are approaching the needs of the veterans. A person joins a profession, any profession, with certain expectations of how their life will unfold before them. I did not become a general; I had no expectations that I would become a general. However, I thought that I would be able to provide for my family, that I would have a quality of life for myself and my family, and that I would be able to retire and do certain things with my wife at the golden age of 65.
I think that is the angle we should be taking this from. I would have difficulty quantifying what my full potential is today, but can I say categorically that if I lost both legs it would be a fraction of what it is today. I think those kinds of terms are difficult to quantify. It is difficult to base something as important as decisions on how we will look after people, not only until age 65 but also after that age. Does that mean some of these people become wards of the state as we are seeing with Korean War veterans and Second World War veterans? Are we establishing the conditions for that in the future?
Senator Banks: I hope not.
Mr. Allard: When I am talking about needs based, I am not talking about universal access. I know that a program cannot be put in place to provide long-term care for everyone that has ever served in the military when they reach that need for chronic care. In our discussions with Veterans Affairs Canada while we were still members of the Gerontological Advisory Council — and we since have left that council because we saw no action on that single recommendation contained in that report — what we meant as needs based would be enshrined in certain criteria. For example, you could get long-term care if you had served in a special duty area and you were medically released. There were some criteria there not to make this a universal program which would be unaffordable by the government. We realized that so we had these criteria in place.
Needs based does have to be somehow put in a certain envelope that makes it affordable to the government; we realize that.
Senator Banks: Once circumscribed, do you think that needs based would make more sense?
Mr. Allard: Yes. There are statistics that prove that Canadian citizens at large will access services and benefits like, for example, long-term care at a percentage of about 12 per cent. Twelve per cent of the population will need a particular program, so we do not need to fund programs at 100 per cent. About 14 per cent of eligible military members and veterans access programs. Using that statistic, I think we can fund a viable and affordable program.
Senator Banks: On the question of salaries, I understand that you think that it is okay that the forces retain soldiers, sailors, air men and air women who have been injured in the course of their duties in the service rather than kicking them out. Do I have that right?
Mr. Allard: That is right, as long as they want to be retained.
Senator Banks: Are they retained at 75 per cent of their salary?
Mr. Allard: No, no. This is a separate thing.
Senator Banks: That is after the fact?
Mr. Allard: That is after the fact.
Senator Banks: While they are in the forces they are paid 100 per cent?
Mr. Allard: They are paid 100 per cent of their salary at their rank. There has to be a meaningful return-to-work program, and that makes sense for those who are able and want to return to work. We can make exceptions for universality of service because there are positions in reserve units, et cetera. That is logical. These people have experience and have been well trained, so let us retain them. Those who want to leave can leave.
Senator Banks: I am looking at the eligibility profile table that was provided to us, which is a little arcane if we do not know what E1 and E15 are.
Mr. Allard: That is indicated on the back.
Senator Banks: I am sorry. Thank you. I will look at it more carefully.
Mr. Allard: This is just a small sample of what VAC staff are dealing with when assisting veterans with services. I only covered long-term care and the VIP. There is another one for health benefits. It is very cumbersome and complex. I pity the people who have to administer this.
Senator Banks: I am sure that in many cases people fall between and across these lines.
Mr. Allard: Exactly.
Senator Wallin: On the lump sum payment, again we had this discussion out at base. Veterans themselves, and particularly the younger ones, are very concerned about the few that are taking this money at a very young age without understanding that they cannot live on it forever, that after a couple of new cars and other things it is gone.
Their other argument is that they want those people to have a choice, even though they may make a bad choice.
Mr. Allard: There should be a choice between a lump sum and a non-taxable monthly disability pension, similar to what existed before.
Senator Wallin: That is right.
Mr. Allard: Those choices should be on the table for those people.
Senator Wallin: You support having both options?
Mr. Allard: Yes.
Senator Wallin: Thank you.
Is your view the same, Colonel?
Col. Stogran: I come from a culture of tough love. When we were in Afghanistan in 2002, the soldiers did not want to take part in the third location decompression. The families did not want them to. Their choice was to do it in Guam or in Kandahar, because I thought it would be good for them, and that is being practised now.
I think the system has to think of the broader picture.
Senator Wallin: That is an excellent point.
Mr. Allard: I would add that the current disability award is too low.
Senator Day: To make it clear, under the New Veterans Charter there is no choice between a long-term disability pension and a lump sum.
Mr. Allard: It is not there.
Senator Day: I wanted to make that clear for the record.
On the chart that we were just looking at, the numbers are identified on the back. Does ``E'' stand for eligible?
Mr. Allard: Yes.
Senator Day: Comrade Allard, it is good to see you again. I am glad you are here. Congratulations on your promotion to director of the Royal Canadian Legion service bureau.
Our researcher has told us a bit about what the service bureau does. Our understanding is that you provide service and assist veterans and serving members of the Canadian Forces and the RCMP and ex-serving members as well as their families, and that you have a network across Canada in the Royal Canadian Legion.
Do you receive a lump sum from Veterans Affairs Canada to help you perform this function?
Mr. Allard: No, we do not. We are entirely self-supportive in the Legion. We do this with our own funds. We do representations for veterans, members, RCMP members and families at all levels of the benefit process from first representation to departmental review. We also appear before the Veterans Review and Appeal Board at the review, appeal and reconsideration levels.
There is something lacking under the New Veterans Charter. Some people may be deemed ineligible for some programs, and there is no real redress process other than an administrative one. We offer assistance to people who have been turned down for these programs.
Senator Day: You do this without charging a fee to the client?
Mr. Allard: We do not charge our clients anything. It is free representation, whether or not they are Legion members. We have done this since 1926, and it is enshrined in legislation that we can play this role.
Senator Day: You appear as the advocate for a veteran or a veteran's family with Veterans Affairs Canada?
Mr. Allard: Yes, or with the tribunal, the Veterans Review and Appeal Board.
Senator Day: Are transportation costs paid for by the members for whom you attend?
Mr. Allard: If a veteran wishes to attend a review hearing at the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, his costs are paid for by the department.
Senator Day: Do you try to hitch a ride with him or her?
Mr. Allard: No. We do our appeals and representations before the tribunal at our Legion House at Dominion Command. We do the reviews at the BPA offices across the country because we do co-representation at review level with our Bureau of Pension Advocates colleagues.
Senator Day: Are you concerned about losing credibility and a conflict of interest if you were to receive some money from Veterans Affairs?
Mr. Allard: We do not want to receive any money from Veterans Affairs.
Senator Day: Could you do your job better if you had money from another source than just the members, whose numbers are dwindling?
Mr. Allard: We will cross that bridge when we come to it, but we would lose some credibility and freedom if we received subsidies from Veterans Affairs Canada.
Having said that, we do need to use some of their tools. For example, they do provide us with access to the client service delivery network, which is their database. We get access to that for our clients.
Senator Day: Thank you.
Colonel Stogran, when you were last here we talked about you building up your department. Are you at full strength now within the Veterans Ombudsman's office?
Col. Stogran: Yes, sir. Since I last reported to the committee, we have filled our establishment. We suffered a tragic loss in the passing of my director general of operations, my deputy. Jon Holland passed away at a young age and he is missed. That was quite a shock to our people and to our system.
We have picked up the pace, and I would say that by Remembrance Week of this year the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman will establish a level of public engagement that is pioneering in the ombudsman world in terms of public consultation, and a level of transparency that I think will earn the trust and confidence of our veterans as well as their families and friends.
Senator Day: Is the budget for your office determined by Veterans Affairs Canada?
Col. Stogran: No, sir. It is allocated from the centre.
Senator Day: It is allocated on an annual basis?
Col. Stogran: Yes, sir.
Senator Day: Who makes the allocation?
Col. Stogran: It is apportioned by government and it comes to us through Veterans Affairs Canada, but we account for our portion of the budget separately.
Senator Day: I understand. If you needed more money to do more critical work for veterans under the New Veterans Charter, to whom would you go to ask for that?
Col. Stogran: I would work with the deputy minister, but the department would be responsible for sending the Treasury Board a submission, an amendment or what have you.
Senator Day: This group that you are keeping an eye on, and from time to time making critical comment in relation to, are the ones that control your budget?
Col. Stogran: Yes, sir.
Senator Day: Thank you. With respect to Agent Orange that you mentioned, we understand that the program has expired now, but we as parliamentarians are still receiving many emails in relation to the Agent Orange problem, particularly with respect to base Gagetown over a good number of years. Are you engaged in that?
Mr. Allard: Environmental issues are very complex. We are concerned about one thing. First, the disbursements in that program were perhaps not sufficiently high. For some reason, Veterans Affairs Canada and the Canadian Forces have been putting together compensation packages for certain categories of veterans for about 20 years. Twenty years ago, the compensation was $20,000, and it is still $20,000 today. There is something wrong here.
The other issue is that, as far as we are concerned, ex gratia payments are fine, but ex gratia payments only correct part of the problem.
The fundamentals to receive ex gratia payments were relatively very liberal. However, if you then seek disability benefits for exposure to Agent Orange, the criteria to access these disability benefits are much more stringent. We have argued that maybe the disability benefit criteria could be relaxed. We have not seen action on that side.
Last, I will commend the department and the minister because, even though the time period has expired, I think that the minister will consider applications on a case-by-case basis. We sent some in to the minister that have been supported.
Senator Day: After the fact?
Mr. Allard: Yes, after.
Senator Day: Do you know what the terms and conditions are of this extension? Has there been any public announcement?
Mr. Allard: I think it is on a case-by-case basis.
Senator Day: Thank you. We will have to look into that with the minister and find out what criteria he is using.
Having a view at the clock, I will make my next question my final question, and it is in relation to psychological injury and post-traumatic stress. We have been very supportive of a centre of excellence at Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue near Montreal. We have been encouraging the minister and the personnel that work there to continue to expand that area of growing concern for Armed Forces personnel who are returning from deployment. We hear rumours and there have been articles published in various newspapers. I think the department has acknowledged that they are in the process of attempting to sell that facility.
Have you been involved from the point of view of post-traumatic stress disorder and that centre of excellence? Do you know what the plans are? Are you being consulted when this is being considered for sale?
The Chair: Senator Day, you should have received, and all members of the subcommittee should have received, the minister's letter where he indicated, as you said, that he was pursuing the possibility of transferring Sainte-Anne-de- Bellevue to provincial jurisdiction following along the lines of other transfers elsewhere in the country. It is more than a rumour.
Senator Day: The point I was trying to make, Mr. Chair, and I will let our witnesses answer, is there are really two activities going on at Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue, the first being what the minister's letter addressed, and that is providing medical and health support to aging veterans. There is another very important activity under the current military deployment situation, and that is the post-traumatic stress centre where people from all over Canada go. The minister's letter seemed to address the care for aging veterans, which is very important, but I think he misses the point.
The Chair: Or does not cover both points, as you said.
Senator Day: Thank you.
Mr. Allard: Our Dominion president, Wilf Edmond, actually wrote to the minister because he was concerned that we were not consulted on this issue, especially in the context of what you are talking about. The centre for post- traumatic stress disorder is very important. In our eyes, it is an important element of mental health care for our soldiers and for our veterans.
We were also concerned because we have been doing a funding campaign for a Legion house to actually provide respite for families that could be visiting veterans who are at the national centre for post-traumatic stress disorder.
We have been assured by the minister that, basically, the future of the national centre for post-traumatic stress disorder is not at risk, and we will be looking at that very closely to ensure that he keeps his word.
Senator Day: Colonel Stogran?
Col. Stogran: If I could take this opportunity to sort of explain how I see the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman fitting into things. I would go so far as to say that the committee at this point in time would probably be better served by having ANAVETS, Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans in Canada, and the likes of Cliff Chadderton and Don Ethell, who are the conventional forces in attacking these types of problems. The Office of the Veterans Ombudsman is more of a special forces A-team. In other words, we attack high payoff targets and focus our resources with a view to reinforcing the efforts of these groups, like the Legion, that look after these things.
I am certainly abreast of the situation with Sainte-Anne's. The complaints we have heard in that regard are very informal, along the lines of the same concerns that have been expressed here today. I have yet to apportion any resources to it because we are currently deployed on other issues.
The Chair: Colonel Stogran, I should indicate to you that most, if not all, of the individuals you mentioned are on our list of future witnesses.
Senator Day: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Day. We have a few minutes left, although we are under strict orders to be in the chamber by 1:30. One of our very knowledgeable and frequent guests at our subcommittee meetings is Senator Dallaire. I will turn the floor over to him now.
Senator Dallaire: Thank you for generously allowing me to ask some questions.
On March 17, 2004, I was with Dr. Neary when we presented the Minister of Veterans Affairs a discussion paper called Honouring Canada's Commitment: Opportunity with Security for Canadian Forces Veterans and their Families in the 21st Century, which was the fundamental document that produced, ultimately, the New Veterans Charter that I moved through the Senate with help from a fortuitous trip overseas by a lot of senior people.
In May of 2005, the department said they needed a year to take this new philosophy of the veterans charter from the old charter, which is very legislative based, to one that gives enormous authority to the minister to be able to manoeuvre all kinds of procedures, to be adaptable, to be responsive and, in fact, to be up to speed with the demands.
We are now three-and-a-half years later, and we are looking into the charter. You were saying we must tweak it, where I believe we have more fundamental requirements than adjusting it. I have seen nothing from the department yet on that.
I also wish to mention, before my first question, that this charter should be explained and not just by the department and the ADM, assistant deputy minister. It should be explained by an authority inasmuch as it is a whole different way of looking at the situation. It is not a charter to guarantee income. It is a charter to permit the individual not to be a dependant of the state but, in fact, to create his own ability to reintegrate into society and to be fully functional within the limits of their capabilities. They would be retrained for the rest of their lives or helped to find employment. If they cannot, their spouse and their families would, of which not much was said specifically on the family support and what directly goes to family, except one case that you indicated. We are in a different exercise completely.
The question is: Is this new philosophy, as you have described, Colonel Stogran, actually coming about in rules and regulations that are reflecting it? Or is it still a heavily bureaucratic process that is restrictive in permitting people to obtain the flexibility they need to achieve their aim?
Mr. Allard: Let us look at families. I agree with you. You are describing the program exactly as it was meant to be.
The challenge is, as I have indicated, that we have some people still serving who have not done that transition and who are actually receiving services from SISIP, not from Veterans Affairs Canada. It is very difficult to judge how effective that envelope approach to care will work out, whether it will encourage people to return to work.
The reality is that even today — here we are during Mental Illness Awareness Week — that families that may want to access mental health services in their own right are unable to do so unless the spouse has come forward to seek assistance.
I do not think that is what was intended when we talked about a New Veterans Charter. We intended to have support for the families in all realms, including mental health. Already we know that is not working, so that concerns me.
We have still-serving members receiving different types of benefits who are talking amongst each other and comparing these benefits, and it is creating a problem. Even though we have some people who are now receiving these benefits — let us say at the rank of corporal or private, having retired maybe five years ago — they realize that these economic-loss benefits are not sufficient. That is the reality out there, and I cannot find any other way to describe it. There are things that need to be fixed and fixed now.
You probably attended the Senate finance committee meeting when the bill was approved by all parties. I know that at that meeting there was a commitment that the New Veterans Charter would be looked at within two years. That is not happening.
Senator Dallaire: I find it difficult that three-and-a-half years later you feel we are not more definitive in whether this thing needs more than tweaking, but that the minister must look at the philosophy behind the charter.
Mr. Allard: We are being diplomatic.
Senator Dallaire: You are not invited to be diplomatic. That is on the other side of the river.
Col. Stogran: I do not know if the senator is aware, but the department's New Veterans Charter advisory committee recently submitted their report. It is within the department and has a whole host of recommendations very much focused on the family, which is important. My concern is that it will get caught up in a bureaucracy now and we will look at a piecemeal approach over the next 15 years to fix it.
Senator Dallaire: I had to go through Access to Information just to get the terms of reference of that outfit. They have been on the ground, and it was promised to be established within a year of establishing the charter. I think they have been on the ground barely a year and we have not seen the report. I do not want to go too far into that.
Are you still handling about 15 per cent of the cases?
Mr. Allard: I would say about 10 per cent. We have seen a move from applications or interventions for Pension Act disability benefits to New Veterans Charter benefits. Right now we are handling about 40 per cent Pension Act, 60 per cent disability benefits.
Senator Dallaire: We had accommodation before. Up to three years they were accommodated in the forces before being released.
Mr. Allard: Yes.
Senator Dallaire: That has been eliminated, as I have heard, and in fact they started to throw people out left, right and centre. Then they started to reduce that recently, as you have just described, because they are still in the system.
Are you saying that during that time there was no instrument to assist the serving members to go into civilian life, to take on veterans' benefits and to adapt during that time frame of accommodation? Is it only now with this new integrated capability that that exists?
Mr. Allard: We have a twofold problem. These people were retained; they were not coming out. The integrated personnel support centre, JPSU, has just been put in place.
Senator Dallaire: There was nothing for them before?
Mr. Allard: I do not think there was anything as substantial as there is now. Like I said, I commend the Chief of Military Personnel for putting this in place, but it is a little late.
Senator Dallaire: Okay. On the retroactivity, that is not an insignificant statement. The greatest fear we have is, if they tweak and fiddle with the established rules and regulations, the bureaucracy will feel it has more power because the minister has more individual power than in the previous act. Then they would create a bureaucracy and methodology that would make it very difficult — if not nearly impossible — to change. That is the odour that is coming out.
I think we should look at the fact that, if they change the rules and regulations in this act, that the retroactivity must be incorporated in it, not just when the rule changes. That is the flexibility we wanted the minister to have, not from the previous charter.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Dallaire. I am afraid we will be in deep trouble if I do not cut the discussion off at this point.
I thank our witnesses most sincerely for appearing again before us. I hope we can count on your ongoing willingness to do so. We may well have need of your testimony at another occasion.
Members of the subcommittee, I just wish to remind you that our next meeting is October 21 — two weeks from today — where we will hear from Colonel Gerry Blais and David Martin of DND, Department of National Defence, and Keith Hillier of VAC. They are coming to give us descriptions of DND and VAC procedures and organizations in place to support veterans and injured troops. Perhaps some of the questions Senator Dallaire posed at the end of this meeting would be well put to them.
Thank you for your attendance.
(The committee adjourned.)