Proceedings of the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs
Issue 5 - Evidence - November 4, 2009
OTTAWA, Wednesday, November 4, 2009
The Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met this day at 12:05 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: I call the meeting of the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs to order. Thank you all for being here.
Good afternoon, senators and witnesses. This is the eleventh meeting of our subcommittee. As everyone knows, we have been studying the implementation of the New Veterans Charter for the past several weeks.
The subcommittee would like to hear the views of our witnesses today on a number of issues. Is the New Veterans Charter meeting the needs of veterans still serving in the Canadian Forces? Have the Department of National Defence and Canadian Forces identified any anomalies, gaps or inequities in compensation and benefits provided by the New Veterans Charter, as compared to the Pension Act, that therefore create different classes of injured personnel within the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces? Has the Canadian Forces communicated any such findings or lessons learned to Veterans Affairs Canada for consideration in any amendment of the New Veterans Charter? Last, has Veterans Affairs Canada, VAC, responded adequately to the Department of National Defence and VAC's expressed concerns? To address these issues and to enlighten us with their analysis of the ongoing implementation, we are fortunate to have this afternoon Major-General Walter Semianiw, Chief of Military Personnel for the Canadian Forces. Sir, you have appeared before us before, I think.
Major-General Walter Semianiw, Chief of Military Personnel, National Defence: Yes, I have, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: We welcome you back. The general enrolled in the Canadian Forces in 1982. He served at the brigade, area, division and task force levels in a variety of command and staff appointments at home and abroad.
[Translation]
He has been Chief of Military Personnel since July 2007.
[English]
Also appearing today is Ms. Muriel Westmorland, Chair of the New Veterans Charter Advisory Group. I believe this is her first appearance before this committee, and we welcome her.
[Translation]
The main role of the New Veterans Charter Advisory Group is to monitor the programs, rehabilitation providers and the main service organizations for veterans and to provide advice to the department on the ongoing implementation of the New Veterans Charter.
[English]
This advisory group was established by Veterans Affairs Canada in 2006.
I will now ask Major-General Semianiw to begin his opening statement, followed by Ms. Westmorland.
Maj.-Gen. Semianiw: Thank you. It is indeed a pleasure to be here before you with my command Chief Warrant Officer Jim Labrie, to discuss the services and benefits provided to Canadian Forces Veterans. I understand that this subcommittee has been studying the implementation of the New Veterans Charter for the past several weeks, and I trust that we can provide and contribute to your review as well as add to the testimony provided by previous witnesses. I will keep my opening remarks brief so we have more time for questions.
[Translation]
The Canadian Forces personnel function embraces dozens of lines of operation and hundreds of enabling policies, programs and activities.
As Chief of Military Personnel, I am responsible for two strategic functions: personnel generation and personal support.
Personnel support includes providing responsive welfare, care and support programs for personnel, casualties and their families. When this support is not provided properly, then personnel generation and ultimately operational effectiveness are affected.
This is why the care for the fallen, injured, and their families is my number one priority. When Canadian Forces personnel are injured or become ill, they must have the confidence that they will receive the treatment and rehabilitation services necessary to restore them to health and normal functioning and that their families' needs will be met.
If they cannot resume military service, they need to know that the Government of Canada will support them as they make new lives for themselves.
Veterans Affairs Canada shares the Canadian Forces' commitment to provide Canadian Forces personnel and their families with comprehensive care and services.
The two departments have a strong partnership and collaborate closely to integrate services and provide continuity of support. I can expand on this collaboration during the question period, if you wish.
[English]
The New Veterans Charter, which came into effect in April 2006, transformed the way Canada cares for its ill and injured Canadian Forces personnel and their families. It changed the focus from a disability pension to a suite of flexible and comprehensive care and support programs that maximize the opportunity for Canadian Forces personnel to heal, rehabilitate and successfully transition to a productive life.
I am a strong proponent of the charter and its broad suite of benefits and services. With the charter, we now have a comprehensive and integrated approach to the care of ill and injured CF personnel and their families. The seven elements of the charter — disability award, financial benefits, rehabilitation services, job placement, group health services, support to families and case management — are designed to work together.
Is it perfect? No. We have been working with the Veterans Affairs Canada, which answers one of the more critical questions that were posed by the chair, and its advisory groups to identify gaps in the New Veterans Charter program and benefits. You have heard from others that the New Veterans Charter was designed as a living charter, to be updated as deficiencies are identified and new needs emerge. We are at that point, in our opinion — "we'' being the leadership of the Canadian Forces — where improvements are required, and we believe there are four areas that need particular attention.
The first is early intervention. Veterans Affairs Canada's mandate is to provide services when Canadian Forces members leave the Canadian Forces. For many of the services and benefits, this works well. However, in areas such as rehabilitation and support to families, it would be more beneficial if the member and his or her family could start receiving help sooner than the day after release from the Canadian Forces. In short, our sense is that we would like to see Veterans Affairs Canada able to provide support once the injury occurs.
The second area is financial support. The Earnings Loss program was designed to provide the Canadian Forces member with 75 per cent of his or her gross salary while engaged in a rehabilitation program. For higher-paid personnel, this amount may be adequate. However, for our more junior personnel, who may be supporting a family on one income, this amount is not sufficient. In addition, personnel who are severely disabled and suffer from permanent, debilitating or catastrophic injuries should receive higher compensation for the non-economic impacts of their injuries than others who, though injured, can continue to function in a somewhat normal way with something of a good quality of life.
[Translation]
Third, improved access to college and university education. While there is some flexibility in the vocational rehabilitation program to permit Canadian Forces veterans to complete post-secondary education, we need to make it easier for these veterans to access college diploma and university degree programs if they are able and motivated to do so.
[English]
The fourth area is family support. By no means the least important area that requires improvement is the provision of additional family support benefits and services, such as counselling, training programs for family caregivers, respite care, education and assistance. Often, the primary caregiver for the ill and injured veteran is the spouse or a family member, and they, too, can suffer emotionally, socially and economically. Family support is key to the successful rehabilitation and reintegration of the Canadian Forces member, but families need help to be able to cope with the stress and demands of providing this support.
In closing, the New Veterans Charter has had a profound and positive impact on the way Canada treats ill and injured Canadian Forces personnel. However, the charter is not perfect, and we knew that. That is why it has been named and noted as a living charter and contains a number of areas that require improvement.
However, as an aside, I would hope that whatever changes we make, if there are changes to be made, they are made as part of the New Veterans Charter strategic framework. By having a strategic framework, it is ensured that programs are integrated and delivered in a more effective and efficient way than they were in the past.
I want to thank the members of the Senate subcommittee for studying this very important matter and for your strong support for the members and families of the Canadian Forces. I would be pleased at this time to turn it over to Ms. Westmorland to talk about her role in this work.
The Chair: We would agree to proceed with both witnesses' statements and then move on to the question period.
Muriel Westmorland, Chair, New Veterans Charter Advisory Group: Thank you for your kind welcome. It is a pleasure and honour for me to appear before you today to present a brief overview of the work of the New Veterans Charter Advisory Group and to highlight the key elements of our report. I will add a comment that, having heard the chief's remarks, I will be repeating a number of the same issues, so please bear with me.
The Chair: It shows a consensus.
Ms. Westmorland: Absolutely.
I will not take up too much time to provide you with this information, but I felt it would be important to set the scene, as it were. I will then be happy to answer questions you may have to the best of my ability.
The New Veterans Charter Advisory Group was established in 2006 and had its first meeting in the spring of 2007. I had previously been a member of the Veterans Affairs Canada - Canadian Forces Advisory Council, VAC-CFAC. It produced the report Honouring Canada's Commitment: "Opportunity with Security'' for Canadian Forces Veterans and their Families in the 21st Century. This was under the chairmanship of Dr. Peter Neary. The last paragraph of this report states:
. . . the men and women of the Canadian Forces, wherever they serve . . . should be assured at all times that our country has a comprehensive, coordinated, and easily understood plan for their future.
As you know, this report moved into the realm of discussion. In 2006, as has already been stated, the act now known as the New Veterans Charter came into effect. It is known as the living charter in that there was an initial commitment to review and evaluate continuously the programs developed under the New Veterans Charter. The New Veterans Charter Advisory Group, NVCAG, was established in the context of the latter. Its role was to provide advice and guidance to the department as it implements its modernized services and programs and to monitor the ongoing responsiveness of these initiatives in meeting the needs of Canadian Forces clients, RCMP clients and their families.
This advisory group has representatives from approximately seven veterans organizations; a family member whose husband died as a result of injuries in service; and academics with backgrounds in rehabilitation, treatment of mental health conditions, disability management, return to work and policy issues affecting health and wellness.
At our first meeting, we were charged with developing a report on the New Veterans Charter suite of programs over the next several months. I immediately established three working committees to focus on families, economic needs and rehabilitation. These were ably chaired by Colonel Don Ethell, Brigadier-General Joe Sharpe and Dr. Vivienne Rowan, a clinical psychologist working with both active forces members and veterans.
The development of this report was based on major principles encompassing determinants of health, wellness and the life course. It is important to stress these. The evidence regarding the key determinants of health is solid. There is no question that families, economic support and early intervention are important factors not only in preventing illness but also in maintaining wellness.
The life course is a concept stressed in the Gerontological Advisory Council's report Keeping the Promise. It reminds us that when we think about the needs of veterans, we need to think about them in the framework of their lives, not only at one period in time. It is with those principles in mind that the New Veterans Charter Advisory Group has developed the 16 recommendations contained in the report.
We chose not to prioritize the recommendations. We were asked if we would by VAC, and the committee as a whole felt strongly that they are all important. It was not our job to prioritize.
The first group of recommendations relate to strengthening family support services. You will hear repetition here. First, take steps to create and maintain a respectful family-centred culture in all VAC programs. That is critical. I was fortunate to visit seven bases when I was on the VAC-CFAC council. I met with families and heard their stories first- hand. Most of you are well aware of the tremendous stress and strain on family members and the tremendous care giving role they enact. This is an important piece.
Second, fill service gaps to ease the transition to civilian life. This focuses on the need to make services available to families. We do not want to leave them feeling that they cannot access services because they are only the spouses.
Third, improve access to skilled and knowledgeable health care providers. While there is certainly a commitment, there is a concern on the part of the committee that access to skilled and knowledgeable health care providers is not an easy road for families by any means. We need to ensure that is happening.
Fourth, provide more support for family members caring for veterans. A caregiver role is not an easy one. While there are some supports in place, the role of the caregiver is critical. There is much concern, particularly from committee members who have experienced illness and injury, that the caregiving role is not given the support it needs.
Fifth, provide more support for survivors and families of the fallen. This speaks for itself. It encompasses all of the above.
The second group of recommendations are about ensuring financial security. The general has already related his concerns. A number of those are on our list of recommendations.
First, there is and has been for a while a concern about the legacy of the insurance-based approach to economic benefits. The SISIP framework is still in place. Looking at individuals through the lens of the insurance attitude and the insurance framework is a big concern. It limits the opportunity for individuals to feel supported as far as their financial security and future is concerned.
Second, ensure that disabled veterans receive a fair, equitable income consistent with a normal military career. There was major concern about the Earnings Loss Benefits being pegged at a private salary and not giving consideration to the kind of career an individual would have had. I have done a lot of legal work and know that the courts make settlements that look at what a person might have achieved during his or her career.
Third, increase access to the Permanent Impairment Allowance.
Fourth, ensure that non-economic loss awards are comparable to those offered in civil society. The discussion was around the lump-sum disability award. Not everyone shared this concern, but the issue definitely needs to be raised. There was discussion that Veterans Affairs should be looking at structured amounts and not simply offering individuals a lump sum. As many of you are aware, some individuals will squander that money quickly because of a number of issues. If that money is going to be in place, it needs to be provided with a lot of financial support and help to the individuals who receive it.
The final of the three groups of recommendations is raising the bar for rehabilitation services and outcomes.
First, modernize the rehabilitation program. This is critical. We emphasize the importance of integration. That is an essential part of rehabilitation. Integration means starting early. As a rehabilitation professional, I cannot overstate the need to begin these services very quickly.
Second, improve case management services. VAC has started to do that with a major study being done by Jennifer Inglis. Many improvements are being proposed. Again, I want to stress that this needs to happen yesterday, not several months down the road.
Third, improve access to VAC rehabilitation services. Concern has been raised over families' not being able to access support because, obviously, the focus is on the veteran. The spouse needs to have support if she or he has to go to work because their significant other is unable to work and to earn an income. I heard from many family members when I visited the bases that some were professionals with excellent backgrounds who had to work elsewhere at a lower-paid job because they could not find relevant employment in their home area. This is a big concern to our committee.
Fourth, repair damaged relationships with providers. You might have questions about this. There was concern that providers in different parts of Canada have complained that they have to deal with so much bureaucracy that they are deciding not to service veterans. I have had therapists tell me they love working with veterans, but if they have to deal with so much bureaucracy on a continuing basis they may decide not to have these people as clients.
There is also an issue about payment. I have had other professionals complain that the payment is not commensurate with what they are worth and that there is a delay in payment. Providers are giving their professional advice and providing programs; therefore, they need to be assisted and compensated appropriately.
The next major point is the active promotion of New Veterans Charter programs and services. If I heard it once, I heard it a hundred times — there is a lack of communication. There are certainly attempts to try to improve this. I support using every available technical means — the Internet, blogs and Twitter — all the most common electronic ways that social networking can occur. It is a way to reach not just younger veterans, but older veterans, too; I would like to consider myself computer literate and I use the computer all the time. We should be using every available method to get the message out. There is still concern that people find it confusing and are not sure where to go for help.
The last issue has two points. The issue is to establish performance measures, gather data and assess impact. The first point is monitoring programs and services, which I think speaks for itself. The second is investing in research. I want to make a quick comment about that.
As a researcher in rehabilitation, I can tell you that we do not have enough research. Dr. David Pedlar, the director of the research directorate at VAC, is working very hard to improve that. He started on a research project looking at transition. They are discussing a longitudinal study, but we do not have enough data to inform us and inform the decisions. We need to continue to do that.
There are opportunities for VAC to be a leader in the field of providing services. Our committee felt that was something we needed to state very importantly in our report. I have been involved in rehab across the country. I know that each province provides rehab services very differently, which is a big concern to families, veterans and serving members.
We should try to emphasize doing the best possible thing; we are looking at individuals who have given up a lot to serve their country. We need to emphasize that nothing is too much when looking at providing the right kind of care and support to families and individuals.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for allowing me to brief you with these remarks. I look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Westmorland and Major-General Semianiw for your presentations. They were succinct, clear and frank. I was pleased to see there are areas of commonality and there seems to be a measure of agreement as to where we should be concentrating our efforts. No doubt more of that will come out during the question period.
Senator Dallaire: I am very happy to see you, Ms. Westmorland and Major-General Semianiw. I will even say Violet Parker back there, who was the veteran from the first days back in 1988 when a lot of this started up.
Ms. Westmorland, the report from your group, which we have just received and gone through, is quite significant. As you were drafting your report, did you find any pressures whatsoever on your body to modify, change or influence the content?
Ms. Westmorland: Absolutely not. There was never any interference, subtle or otherwise, formal or informal. In fact, I would not have been sitting in the chair had I felt that was the case.
Senator Dallaire: Do you see the advisory board as a continuum instrument within the department, as the living charter is? Does the advisory board also continue? To whom do you report? Do you report to an assistant deputy minister, to a deputy minister or to the minister with your content?
Ms. Westmorland: It has been through VAC, through the director general of policy and programs, Darragh Morgan; but I have communicated with Brian Ferguson and, more recently, with the deputy.
As for the continuation, it has been presented to all the advisory groups — the Ad Hoc Advisory Group on Special Needs, the Gerontological Advisory Council and the New Veterans Charter Advisory Group — that discussions are under way to modify the advisory group process. I understand some of that is because of the cost of having these advisory groups come together.
As a committee we did discuss continuing, because there was concern that although we have finished the job as far as the report goes, there is still more to be done. I have talked to Darragh Morgan more recently and there is now a rethink of having this group continue in some form, and I think that is appropriate.
Senator Dallaire: I think it is absolutely critical that you continue to do the follow-through of what you have discovered and what is ongoing in this living document as an internal and progressive instrument.
Do you sense that there has been a cultural change within the administrative body of Veterans Affairs Canada in applying this completely new philosophy of support to veterans — from the old methodology to the new one? You have mentioned that many people are at work, and there is a feeling that maybe we are smothering the system and creating enormous amounts of difficulty for people to get those services because of paperwork, a process that is trying to use old stuff and not necessarily adjusting to the new stuff.
Ms. Westmorland: That is a very valid point. My reading is that the individuals heading up the bureaucracy have their hearts in the right place, but we are looking at the whole of Veterans Affairs here. You all know the geography of Canada. From the feedback I have had from individuals who have dealt with Veterans Affairs and from senior bureaucrats, we still need to work hard at changing this culture.
There are individuals who are used to the old way of doing things. There is a lot of control in the minds of the front- line workers who like to dot the I's, cross the T's and have people filling out 300 pages of forms. This cannot go on: it is very stressful for the individual trying to access services.
Therefore, there is a need to educate. There is a need to do that much faster than it is happening now. There is a commitment to do so, but it will take a while, and it will take some monitoring, as well.
Senator Dallaire: I do not propose we move it from Charlottetown, but maybe a formal institution for training and education people within that department to this new philosophy might be better than the odd course here and there. Would you agree with that?
Ms. Westmorland: I would say so. I know there are efforts under way to do that. As far as the detail goes, I cannot answer that, but I think your point is well taken.
Senator Dallaire: Very rapidly, Major-General Semianiw, your rank level is Chief of Military Personnel, not an assistant deputy minister of military personnel. Is that correct?
Maj.-Gen. Semianiw: Yes.
Senator Dallaire: Is that an EX-3?
Maj.-Gen. Semianiw: Yes.
Senator Dallaire: We have been receiving assistant deputy ministers from other departments, which are EX-5s. Why are you an EX-3, with having to take care of 80,000 people, and your civilian counterpart is an EX-5? Does that influence whether you are able to influence the battle amongst your peers and in this town?
The Chair: I do not want to influence the witness, but it might be a little difficult for the witness to answer the first part of the question. The second part is whether it has an influence; he can certainly answer that, but as to the why, Senator Dallaire —
Maj.-Gen. Semianiw: It is fair question, Mr. Chair. My response, which is along the chair's line, is that I think you will have to ask the Chief of the Defence Staff that first question. The question has been posed to me. I am sure the senator knows it has not prevented me from doing what I need to do, given who I am and the approach I have used to get things done as part of the team. We are working with the Department of Veterans Affairs and others.
Senator Dallaire: Has the DND/VAC board detected a shift in cultural adaptation to the New Veterans Charter? You suggested that VAC start to take care of the troops and provide services sooner. Was it a result of a greater willingness to integrate their capabilities, including their computers?
Maj.-Gen. Semianiw: Since 2007, the DND/VAC Steering Committee, which is co-chaired by me, ADM Brian Ferguson, and ADM Keith Hillier, has met quarterly. We have put together a campaign plan that the senator would understand; and I can forward it to the committee. It lists all of our objectives, what we want to achieve, who is responsible for it and when we expect it to be done. I can say proudly that the second page contains information on the 30 to 40 things that we did. For example, we put our collective thoughts and wills together to ensure that the prosthesis policy in both departments was aligned. In 2007, we did that. We forced action on that specific targeted issue and brought the teams together. The policy is aligned such that when an individual leaves the Canadian Forces, there is seamless support from the Department of Veterans Affairs. The seamless Government of Canada approach has been positive. We have clear guidance and we meet quarterly. I am more than happy to send the list to the committee. The four areas that the senator mentioned are on the list.
In addition, I wrote a letter that included the list about one year ago and sent it to the Department of Veterans Affairs. As chair of the steering committee for about one year, I talked to many soldiers and air men and women about the challenges and what they envision under the New Veterans Charter, and I learned that they would like some focus work in this area.
Senator Dallaire: VAC launched a significant evaluation of the New Veterans Charter in June 2009. It is a three- phase approach, with the first phase ending in December. General, to what extent are you and DND queried or involved in that evaluation? Ms. Westmorland, how are you and your team having input into the evaluation?
Maj.-Gen. Semianiw: The two departments have agreed that it will be a joint submission.
Senator Dallaire: That was not indicated here.
Maj.-Gen. Semianiw: No, but about a month or two ago we agreed that it will be a joint submission. For example, once the work has been done by VAC, I take a look at it and have my team build on it to ensure the two departments are in sync going forward. If we go to a parliamentary committee, there will be a joint approach under a joint memorandum. That is a positive step to ensure that we work together on this.
I would submit that the items I raised today will find their way into that document through our input. Our intent is to stand up focus groups across the country of men and women who serve. I put one issue to the committee: There is so much out there, but it is not until you need the support and the service that you truly understand it. Currently, in the CF's magazine, The Maple Leaf, there is an insert to talk about the New Veterans Charter. We did that consciously to improve awareness. Regardless of that, the goal is to go across the country and set up focus groups so that we might get feedback from those who serve and those who use the services under the New Veterans Charter.
I have representation on Ms. Westmorland's board. One could say we are connected all the way down. Everyone knows my commander's intent, and she is hearing the intent that I provide at the top to the team. To be fair, my team worked with her to prepare my comments for this meeting because this is where we need to go collectively.
Senior VAC officials went before the Canadian Forces Advisory Council twice, the last time being about a month ago. That included the commanders of the army, the navy and the air force; the vice chief, the chief and me to talk about the New Veterans Charter changes. The proposals were representative of the leadership of the Canadian Forces. We talked for about one to two hours on what we, as a leadership, needed to do to see changes to the New Veterans Charter. The leadership is engaged with military personnel and with Ms. Westmorland, and we will ensure that the submission is joint.
Ms. Westmorland: I will respond to the audit and evaluation process. I thought it would be important to have the responsible team to our meeting last week in Ottawa. I invited Jonathan Adams and his team as a group because I wanted everyone to contribute to answering questions. I suggested that they not repeat what we had in our report recommendations; otherwise, it would be somewhat irritating to my committee. They developed specific questions for us to address. We spent close to one and a half days addressing those. It was a very good discussion. We have been involved in providing feedback and will continue to do so.
Senator Kenny: Welcome, Major-General Semianiw. Thank you for helping us to understand these difficult subjects.
I have difficulty with the notion of paying 75 per cent of someone's salary. Why is it 75 per cent? It is bizarre. It freezes people in that stage of their life forever and, therefore, makes no sense. I understand that you will address that. Of the people who died in Afghanistan, to date, 104 of them were privates, corporals or master corporals earning modest incomes. It makes no sense to force someone who is 28 or 29 years old to remain at the same level of living for the next 50 years — stuck with the same housing, the same kind of car, et cetera.
Maj.-Gen. Semianiw: I agree. One year ago, we quickly drew the same conclusion. This is the critical part, because it ties into the lump sum payment. Our sense is that the 75 per cent needs to be raised. For example, a private might earn $30,000, and 75 per cent of $30,000 is not much financial support for the rest of life, in particular given the sacrifice that was made. Take that, mentioned by Ms. Westmorland, and draw a line to what happens to a spouse who might have to leave her work and take a job of lower pay so that she is able to help her spouse. We want to know the salary amount on which the 75 per cent is based. When it is a private's salary or a corporal's salary, it is clearly not sufficient. I have provided some of my thoughts and recommendations on what it should be to the Veterans Affairs Canada. Currently, they are studying the issue. They agree that 75 per cent of a private's or corporal's salary is not enough.
It is not simply about the bottom line or raising the bar. It is about ensuring that, as mentioned by Ms. Westmorland, a factor is built in that recognizes the potential work and the potential income that might not be achieved because of the sacrifice made for the country.
If I have lost my legs as a private, what does that mean? What has now happened to me? Therefore, what is also built into what we have proposed is that we put in whatever bureaucratic word you want to call it — an escalator — that clearly takes into account that you would have achieved many more ranks than you did in the Canadian Forces had this not happened to you. There are two components to it and Veterans Affairs Canada is looking into that.
Mr. Chair, I do not have an answer to the 75 per cent because I am not from Veterans Affairs Canada. However, I do know that 75 per cent of a private's or a corporal's salary is not enough, and I do not believe it is fair.
Senator Kenny: At any rank, are you not saying that someone's foot is worth more if he or she is a colonel rather than a lieutenant?
Maj.-Gen. Semianiw: There are two components here. When you lose your foot or your leg, the same amount of money is paid to you. This is a comment I throw out to the committee. Much of the New Veterans Charter is an issue about awareness; is it exactly the same. If I am a private and you are a colonel and we lose our legs, we get exactly the same amount of lump sum.
Senator Kenny: Not the same pay though, is it?
Maj.-Gen. Semianiw: Correct. The pay is different so the compensation benefit is provided in that respect; but the second aspect, you are right, is that a colonel and a private have substantially different pay, substantially different situations, which is why we need to address what that lower amount, because it is not right. I would agree with you.
Senator Kenny: I do not mean to speak to you personally but as the institution that we are representing; why are we taxing these people? Have these people not paid enough to the country? What is the point of us taxing someone whose life has been turned upside down?
Maj.-Gen. Semianiw: It is a fair question. I would ask the committee to bring in the Minister of Revenue and pose that question. The taxation issue is not only in this area but in other areas as well. Again, I only come back and say it is a policy applied equally across the board. The question would be in this case for men and women who have sacrificed so much to Canada, should there be some type of tax exemption, and I would say yes, there should be, but I do not have the power to do that.
Senator Kenny: You have the power to recommend it.
Maj.-Gen. Semianiw: I have recommended it. We recommend it on a regular basis.
Senator Kenny: Fair ball.
What do they get for pain and suffering?
Maj.-Gen. Semianiw: The pain and suffering element is the lump sum. I am not clear on this because I am not from Veterans Affairs Canada so I do not know the answers to that. However, the sense is that the lump sum is a component of compensation of benefit. You would have to pose that question to the officials from the Veterans Affairs Canada.
Senator Kenny: That is for ramps, lifts and fixing up your home so you can get around.
Maj.-Gen. Semianiw: No, that is not true, Mr. Chair. Ramps and lifts are provided from separate money. What happens is the lump sum that you are given is for you. If you are injured and we have to go and provide changes to your home, that is done through a mobility policy. That is totally separate from the ramps and the lifts. That is not the case. My folks actually come in and have the cash to put in a ramp and lift. That is not what the lump sum is used for.
Senator Kenny: We are back to communications. I obviously have not done my homework or have not picked up on it.
Maj.-Gen. Semianiw: If I could, it is an important point here. When you look at the New Veterans Charter, remember that it is composed of five real, hard components: rehabilitation, which is new and was not in the old construct, which is medical, psychosocial, vocational; the second is health benefits, which are drugs, prostheses, the Veterans Independence Program, VIP, and people coming to your home if you are unable to shovel snow or clean the house; the third is the financial piece, which includes five components. Those are the Earnings Loss, which, if we have time to get into would be useful; the lump sum, also called the disability award; catastrophic payments, which I do not think are enough. When you have a catastrophic injury, there is a catastrophic effect on your quality of life. It needs to be raised.
Another component is job placement, which is new. The job placement program is there to help find work because the New Veterans Charter is founded on the conceptual view of independence. It is not based on an entitlement but independence. For example, you cannot get financial support if you do not accept to take the rehabilitation component. They are integrated. You would have to ask officials of Veterans Affairs why they are, but they are integrated. This is an integrated suite of support.
The second issue is that there are there are four areas that could strengthen the suite of support. Senator Dallaire raised the issue of service delivery. How do we ensure this suite of service that we build on will be delivered effectively? Ms. Westmorland talked about it. That is a separate issue.
The third is awareness — awareness both across the Canadian Forces and across the country. We need to improve awareness on the New Veterans Charter, probably also in Parliament and outside of Parliament, for all.
Senator Kenny: They have an excuse; I do not.
Maj.-Gen. Semianiw: I know. In the end, it is part of awareness, because what is being said by some, I would throw out, and I have tracked most of this, is that they confuse complexity with the program. Just because the program is more complex does not make it bad. We need to ensure that it is communicated, that folks really know what it is all about and, more important, that there are case managers who know the program inside and out. We are finding that men and women in uniform do not want to go to a website. Do not tell me they do; they do not. They want to sit in front of someone to whom they can lay out their challenges and problems and who can then tell them what it is they can do to help.
The key elements are getting the suite of programs right and ensuring the service delivery so that the case managers in Veterans Affairs and on our side of the house know these things inside and out so they know every which way they can help. We can show you people who know this who will say it is great. We need to improve on income loss connected to lump sum, but there are a number of domains here: awareness, the program and delivering the service.
Senator Kenny: General, help me with the age of 65. What do you expect someone under the program would live on when the 75 per cent that they currently get stops?
Maj.-Gen. Semianiw: There are two areas in the program. First, the health benefits continue after age 65. That includes drugs, prostheses and the VIP, which is someone to look after your lawn and the house. On the financial side at 65, it actually is cut. You would have to ask VAC officials, but given that, in the end, there are other government- wide or Government of Canada programs that kick into place.
If it means that at age 65 I go from a good quality of life or standard of living down to a low quality of life, I consider that unacceptable for anyone.
Senator Kenny: From what I am reading, it sounds an awful lot like at 65 they will get an old age pension, they will get a supplement to that, and no one can get by on that.
Maj.-Gen. Semianiw: You are right. I come back and say I would agree and that is a piece that needs to be looked at. I do not know whether Ms. Westmorland would like to add something.
Senator Kenny: At 75, whatever he or she is getting, why would it not continue forever?
Maj.-Gen. Semianiw: I would submit that it is a great recommendation that the committee should come forward with as an idea to put in as part of the report, because that is what we are saying as well.
Ms. Westmorland: I will not repeat what Major-General Semianiw said because I absolutely agree. Our committee has said this. We have major concerns about the 75 per cent for all the reasons that have been articulated. We have major concerns about the stopping of benefits after the age of 65 for all the reasons you have just indicated. That has come through in our report. We have a lot of detail in the report about why this is not good enough. When you think that individuals who are supposed to be getting this kind of support have put themselves in harm's way, it is really very distressing to think that they have to try to manage.
Having been in rehabilitation for years, I can tell you that the issue of socio-economic strength is a big one. You can heal people physically; you can try to help emotionally; but if you have stresses around lack of income, that very much compounds the problem. That is why I would echo what has already been suggested. This committee could assist greatly by taking this on and proposing changes. It is a very serious consideration, and it is not doing our veterans any service whatsoever.
Senator Dallaire: Mr. Chair, if I may ask a supplemental question, many of these numbers were snuck into the exercise and were not really part of the philosophy of the charter. It behooves us to follow up quite significantly these issues of age 65 and private and stuff like that, because those are staff interpretations of the charter, and they left a lot of people with a feeling that we are trying to lowball the cost of the charter instead of meeting the requirement. There is a value, and that is certainly the impression that many have.
Coming from the field, do you sense that we are trying to get it a bit on the cheap?
Maj.-Gen. Semianiw: Yes, that is the sense in the field, in part because of the awareness piece. Again, as I am sure you are aware, when it comes down to it, you look at the financial aspects of it. People do the calculations and say, "I get less this year. Therefore, it must be done because it is cheaper.'' That is the simple and straight answer.
Senator Kenny: You have been generous, chair, and Senator Banks is staring at me.
The Chair: I know what a frightening experience that can be. We will turn immediately to Senator Banks.
Senator Banks: Thank you for being here. I will ask three questions all at once. General, in this place — to save you the trouble — we speak to each other directly. We do not observe the same kind of formality as in the other place, with respect to the chair.
My third question is a specific one and it is something you said you want to address, general, so I will ask you to address the question of the Earnings Loss Benefits, a subject with which we have been engaged for the past couple of weeks.
My first two questions fall into the category of general, stupid and naive questions. You said, general, that just because it is complicated does not make it bad. To me, it does. My tongue is partly in my cheek, but we have been inundated and are continually inundated — and, if we are, I am sure the people about whom you are speaking are — with endless acronyms and a spaghetti bowl of procedures that must be followed. You said yourself that there are dozens of lines of operation. Ms. Westmorland said that we need an easily understood plan.
You have just said that the men and women who need these services do not need to know how it works. They will be sitting across from someone who does. I know some people who are unhappy with the prospect that, sitting on this side of the fence, you do not know what is going on and you are relying on someone else to tell you.
Do we need all of the gradations that are there? I gather from what you said that we do, but it really makes it difficult to understand and it makes it easy in some of the things you have talked about for the bureaucracy to place impediments, though unintentional; people have to cut through this thicket to find out what the truth is. We are always hearing about the necessity of making seamless transitions. If there were fewer elements, there might be fewer places to transcend.
The answer to my second question may be given in the answer to the list that you talk about. You talked about a list of objectives; we have one in the report from Ms. Westmorland's committee. What does Parliament need to do? If you provide us with the list you are talking about, I guess that would be the answer to that question.
Maj.-Gen. Semianiw: I have taken the New Veterans Charter — I did this on my own — and built my own crib sheet. It is actually not complex. What is complex is that it is more than one issue. The way things used to be was all about the pension. You never heard anything else about the other components, but there still were health benefits. People still got drugs and prostheses in the old programs, and you did not hear about it.
The program has turned it into a framework. When you turn things into a framework, I agree, you have a number of different headings. The only challenge is this: How do you call "job placement'' something other than "job placement''? You cannot call it health benefits, because it is not that. By increasing and expanding the program in a number of different areas, I am not saying it became more complex, but there are a number of pieces to this whole thing.
Senator Banks: Could you give us a copy of your crib sheet?
Maj.-Gen. Semianiw: Sure. It is not a piece of art, but I am more than happy to do so. You have a number of different components, for example a rehabilitation component, which is new; health benefits; financial; disability and job placement, and so on. There are other parts to it. Some would say that becomes complex, but it is just because we have added a number of programs to it.
The Chair: We have a copy of that. We could distribute it.
Who else has a copy of that or something like it?
Maj.-Gen. Semianiw: I made it up yesterday.
Senator Banks: If you need it, can you imagine how badly we need it?
Maj.-Gen. Semianiw: Perhaps.
The Chair: Or one of your customers.
Maj.-Gen. Semianiw: Perhaps you are right, but it comes back to my issue. I am firm on this. I still think there are three components. If it is about awareness, first, let us get the policy stuff right. Let us do what Senator Kenny, Senator Dallaire and Senator Banks talk about from a program point of view.
The second issue is — and I still believe this; I do not disagree with you — that we want people to know about the charter. If we did not, we would not have put so many mechanisms in place to learn about it. In the end, when you are hurting, and you are hurting badly; and your families are hurting, they need someone who knows this to help them. They cannot be told to go home, read something and come back.
My comment is more that we need to ensure that the people who are sitting in front of our people know this stuff inside and out. The question of whether we are there yet you have to pose to someone else.
The third piece is awareness. There are three domains. That is a way of organizing it in my simple infantry mind. Let us get the program, the service delivery and the awareness delivery right. Let us do better. I think we will then see people appreciate what I think is actually a good program. Job placement was not in the old program. All the different financial components were not in the old program.
We will get into lump sum later if you want to talk about it. It is a sub-component that is worth discussing. Again, I still think it is a strong piece, because it brings the program forward, which was part of the success of the approach. Does that help?
Senator Banks: It does. My second question: Is the list of the objectives you talk about, together with what we have from Ms. Westmorland's committee, the answer to the question of what does Parliament need to do? My third question is about Earnings Loss Benefits.
Maj.-Gen. Semianiw: Regarding what Parliament needs, I do not know. It is what I need to do with my counterparts with Veterans Affairs. It is to ensure that we have taken everything. For example, we are both focused to ensure that our information management technologies are integrated so that when we transfer medical information, for example, between Veterans Affairs Canada and the Canadian Forces, it is done seamlessly and not by people having to scan it in the middle of the night and then send it over. It is done in a seamless fashion. It is more for me. I think it is instructive for anyone who wants to read it. When you read it, you can see where I am. My number one priority when I became the Chief of Military Personnel — and it remains the case today into my third year — is care of the fallen, the injured and their families. That is where I spend 60 per cent to 70 per cent of my time. It would be less useful for Parliament; it is more for me. However, it would be instructive for whoever wants to read it. If you want a copy of it, I will provide you with one.
Senator Banks: Yes, please. You do not need any more resources, money or legislative change?
Maj.-Gen. Semianiw: Not at all. From a financial point of view, the Canadian Forces Health Services Group reports to me. I am not a doctor, but the Surgeon General reports to me. The direction that I was given about a year and a half ago, when we came into the job, was that where we will be is that no one in the Canadian Forces will not get the support they need because of lack of money. Spend whatever money you need to ensure they get support.
For example, we have now partnered with — and this is on the CF side, not on the VAC side — seven rehabilitation centres across the country. When our soldiers come back, we have taken a different approach than other countries. We try to get them near their families and into a rehabilitation centre, such as the Glenrose Rehabilitation Hospital out West, to do their rehabilitation.
We set up the Joint Personnel Support Units, which provide command and control and ownership for the ill and the injured and a suite of services. We got Veterans Affairs into these things; they are Canadian Forces units with Veterans Affairs people in them. The tool is available, already in place, if you change the view of providing service earlier. Veterans Affairs folks are already in these things that we have. We put that in place. At the end of all this, this is not about money. We will spend whatever we need to spend to ensure that people get what they need.
There always will be the challenge between what is needed and what is wanted. In almost all cases, we balance what is needed and what is wanted. If we look at the prosthesis side, we send those who have lost their limbs to the United States. We provide them with support. We have a Soldier On program. We have many programs in stage to look after them.
The one thing before I get to Earnings Loss that is always front and centre in my mind is the issue of what about in 10, 15 or 20 years. If you take a look at the support that is provided right up front, the attention, it is all here. We have made great strides in the Canadian Forces and Veterans Affairs to actually make it better than what it was. Is it perfect? It is not. Anyone can find it, but it is better than it was. We know where we need to go. My concern is always the future. I would like to see the Veterans Affairs Canada call every one of our injured veterans until they are no longer on this earth. This is done by other countries; they ensure a phone call is made once a year — they may not want to contact us — to ask how they are doing, how things are going, is there anything Veterans Affairs can do to give them a hand. If that individual is not there, they can talk to the spouse. We need to make that commitment in a small way. It would not cost a lot just to pick up the phone from now until whenever it is done to ask if we can give a hand. It would do a lot. It is not on the list, but if you ask me what I go to sleep with at night that is always on my mind, it is this one issue. I have said publicly and openly it is not about today; it is what about in five years. These men and women in uniform who have given the ultimate sacrifice in many cases, and their families — it is not just about them — however complex that family might be, that is the other element, how will we ensure they get the support they so rightly deserve not just today but in the future.
On the Earnings Loss piece, if I were to head into theatre and lose a limb, I would get the lump sum payment. I would still be in the Canadian Forces. This happens every day. Every Monday I get a report of who in the Canadian Forces is injured in these cases, where they are, where they are in their treatment, what is happening with support, so I have a personal interest in doing that.
Then you go through your rehabilitation. In all cases, no decision is made on you about your future in the Canadian Forces until your condition stabilizes. That can take years. In some cases, many cases, especially the catastrophic cases, it takes up to three years. Right now we will continue to employ you in the Canadian Forces until you decide what you want to do. As you saw with Master Corporal Paul Franklin, he wanted to move on to something else; that was his choice. As we have found in many cases, people will make the choice either to stay or to go at a certain point once they are in a stable condition. It ties into the lump sum, because the question is what happens during these three years when people are in recovery. I spoke to one soldier who lost both limbs, and he had it right on. I asked him his plan, and he said his focus was on getting better. After him, it is his family. After his family, it would be about his future. He had parsed this all out clearly about what he had to do. When do you make those big decisions?
That is part of the challenge when we look at the lump sum. You get the lump sum early on. On the one hand, we expect Veterans Affairs Canada to help us. They already are. They are already providing that lump sum early on. Remember that the SISIP program, which is now Canadian Forces, not Veterans Affairs, doubles up the lump sum in almost all cases.
Given that, once you come out of the Canadian Forces and continue on, the foundation of the program is on independence. I would submit probably the most important thing I have to say is based on independence. You go off and try to find work. Your employment then and what you make is correlated back to 75 per cent of your final salary, which means that if you are a private soldier who has lost both limbs, 75 per cent of $30,000; technically the program is saying that is what we think you will be at for the rest of your life. That is wrong. Ergo my comment, we need to raise that amount to ensure that as you move ahead, aside from the lump sum, there is recognition that it is more than just about losing limbs, paying the ultimate sacrifice when you are 21, 22, 23 years old. Many of these are young men and women in the Canadian Forces — some are older but many are young — who have their lives ahead of them.
If we work on that earnings loss to ensure it is raised, I would submit some of the issues, and through awareness on the lump sum piece, will slowly fade away. You still get a lump sum payment every month, but we cannot call it a pension because it is not a pension. You get that until you find work, and if the work equals what you would have got paid, 75 per cent, that is taken away. I think that bar needs to be raised to ensure that there is a support piece in there for that continued support. Call it what you want. Some would tell me not to call it a pension — whatever you want to call it. The Earnings Loss I believe needs to be raised from a minimum value and then take into account the view that, over the next number of years, there is earning potential that you will suffer given what you gave for this country.
The Chair: Could I ask a couple of questions on what you have just said? You emphasize that the lump sum payment comes early on. I detected in your voice great approval of that. Is that wise? Can you explain that and amplify why it is so advantageous to get it early on?
Maj.-Gen. Semianiw: It is on a case-by-case basis. I would submit that if we did not take that approach, there would be cases of people saying, "Why am I not getting my lump sum?'' It all depends. The issue has been raised. For those suffering from mental health issues, when should they be given the opportunity of what they want to do? Even not just with mental health, but when you have had such a grave injury and you have the lump sum there, it is perhaps —
The Chair: Given what you just said, "I am concentrating on me to start with, my family second and my future third,'' given that progression, is it wise to have $250,000 at the first stage?
Maj.-Gen. Semianiw: That is the question we should pose to all the different mechanisms of voice; we should ask all the focus groups what they think, because you will get a different answer. This might be a tough one. My sense in today's society is that you cannot take a policy and throw it on top of Canadian society and say it will apply to everyone. It is more complex than it has ever been. Families are more complex. I live with that every day. I would come back and say I think it is simple to take some principled ideas and quickly to come to a conclusion that maybe the lump sum should be paid later, but you will then have many cases where it should be paid now.
The Chair: At least let us look into it.
Maj.-Gen. Semianiw: Let us look into it; that is my message.
The Chair: Senator Banks asked you whether you need more money. I think you generally said no. The elements are all there. It is a question of prioritizing them and tweaking them.
Maj.-Gen. Semianiw: Yes.
The Chair: Case managers. You said, as I heard you, that it is important for an injured soldier to sit down opposite a real live human being and discuss a comprehensive but somewhat complicated plan that we have in place under the New Veterans Charter. Do you have enough case managers? Do you have people who can phone two years after I leave the service and discuss intelligently with me what you can do for me?
Maj.-Gen. Semianiw: I am not from Veterans Affairs.
The Chair: I am sorry.
Maj.-Gen. Semianiw: It is a fair question.
The Chair: You have succeeded in convincing us that you two are working hand in hand.
Maj.-Gen. Semianiw: Not speaking on their behalf, I can tell you that the Veterans Affairs Canada has increased the number of case managers, just as we have. We just added another 20. Now it is a capacity issue. I would say boldly that we have one of the better systems in place. At times it may be too complex and should be simpler. I accept that. It is actually pretty good in a number of different areas.
On the case management side, we have had to add 20 on our side of the fence. The way I depict it publicly is that there is a line in the sand. When you are nearer the forum, I will support you. When outside, it is the Department of Veterans Affairs. We need to get away from that view. It is a Government of Canada approach where the two departments work together to provide that support, which is why we had the Joint Personnel Support Units established in many cases across the country. Ten are fully operational now. You have Veterans Affairs people in there. The people in there are serving personnel from the Canadian Forces, already talking to Veterans Affairs people. We are already doing a lot of this, but we need to take it one step further.
The Chair: Does anyone have a very short question?
Senator Dallaire: You did not touch the reserves as such, which is a complex situation for both departments in follow-up, in how they are treated when they go back to Class A. They are isolated in villages and all this kind of stuff. Is there a far more sophisticated way that will be introduced in order to take care of the reservists?
As an honorary colonel, my unit gets nothing specifically to take care of the families. Your report does a marvellous job on that and is pushing the families more than the charter does, which is great, and also individuals and their families in their isolated areas.
Maj.-Gen. Semianiw: The first thing we did about a year and a half ago is put out a direction for reservists coming from operation. There are two elements. The first is coming from operation, not those for whom the injury comes back. Their piece is the front part. Coming off operation injured, you will remain on Class C — I can send you a copy of the Canforgen I put out — until both the medical system and the chain of command agree that you can move on to the next stage of getting back to quality of life. We have had reservists coming off mission, not going back to Class A if they are injured. They stay on Class C.
The second step is the Integrated Personnel Support Centres, IPSCs, under the Joint Personnel Support Unit, JPSU. As it broadens, you will see we have them in place for reservists. We have one already in place in Mainland Vancouver. The one in Mainland Vancouver, the IPSC for the ill and injured, provides command and control.
In Edmonton — the chief was just there — the hundreds of men and women in uniform who are part of the unit are posted to the unit. We posted everyone at SPHL, the Service Personnel Holding List, to these units. They know where you are. You have a platoon commander, section commander, who ensures you get the services you need and want. We have one of those in place in Mainland Vancouver for the reserve units there. The whole framework and structure actually covers the reserves from a command and control point of view on this side of the house.
The next thing we did — the policy is already in place — was to ensure that a reservist who is ill and injured and released from the Canadian Forces will get a transition interview from Veterans Affairs Canada. We put that in place.
The challenge is those who later on, on Class A, come back with issues. How do we ensure we keep track of that? We have put link nurses — not all in place yet — who are actually at the reserve field ambulances and tasked to track the injured on the reserve side. It needs to be improved upon, but we have put them in place in some areas now to ensure that if you are on Class A and things come back from a prior deployment or injury we have some control over you.
Senator Dallaire: The units do not understand the whole sales pitch of that. I think it will be phenomenal when we get that information in the units. I have 23 guys just coming back.
Maj.-Gen. Semianiw: That is a challenge, because progress takes time. It is too bad we cannot wave a wand.
The Chair: We have to cut it off there.
I think I speak for the entire committee when I say to you, Ms. Westmorland, and to General Semianiw, that this has been a particularly stimulating session and helpful to us in our deliberations. We thank you both very much. I should include Chief Warrant Officer Labrie. I am sorry I did not introduce you more formally, although the general did at the outset of our session. Obviously the general said all the right things because you did not have to jump in and correct him.
Maj.-Gen. Semianiw: Mr. Chair and members of the committee, clearly it is not only a passion. We are passionate. Hopefully you hear that. No apologies for getting passionate, because we are passionate about ensuring the men and women in uniform get the support they need. It is not perfect; we need to improve.
We clearly support and enjoy the passion of this committee to ensure that Canadians are reminded of this important thing we must do. It is committees like this that do that. Thank you all for the great work you do.
Ms. Westmorland: I want to emphasize that these JPSUs and IPSCs have made a tremendous difference already. It was just an excellent model that you instituted in relation to the links between VAC and CF. It is exactly the kind of integration that one wants to see happening. I congratulate the chief on his leadership in that.
There is no question that we need to continue to keep the focus, as we have discussed, particularly around issues such as communication, which is so big. We also have the issue of navigating a system — and I coined that phrase way back — because it is so complex. It really is complex. If we put our individual veteran at the centre, we should be going in the right direction. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Our next session will be here on November 26. We have tentatively invited two senior officials from Veterans Affairs Canada. Some of the questions that were raised today can be put to them. The committee is travelling the week after next and we will no doubt see and gather some experience from the bases that we visit.
Thank you all very much for your attendance today.
(The committee adjourned.)