Proceedings of the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs
Issue 5 - Evidence - June 16, 2010
OTTAWA, Wednesday, June 16, 2010
The Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met this day at 12:06 p.m. to study the services and benefits provided to members of the Canadian Forces; to veterans; to members and former members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and their families (topic: implementation of the New Veterans Charter).
Senator Tommy Banks (Chair) in the chair.
[Français]
The Chair: I call the meeting to order. This is a meeting of the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs, which is a subcommittee of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence. With us today, on my far left, is Senator Lucie Pépin; next to her is Senator Roméo Dallaire, with whom I am sure you are familiar; and to his right is the distinguished Senator Michael Meighen, who was my distinguished predecessor in this chair and with whom Major Henwood, in particular, is familiar.
To my left is our clerk, Kevin Pittman. To my right is our invaluable interpreter of military jargon, General Cox; and to his right is Senator Joseph Day, a graduate of RMC, a member of the parent committee, and a former chair of this committee as well. I am surrounded by former chairs, which is a very good thing by which to be surrounded.
This subcommittee is looking at the effectiveness of the New Veterans Charter and studying the services and benefits provided to members of the Canadian Forces and to veterans under that charter, as well as to members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and their families.
Our guests today are two distinguished officers, Major (Retired) Bruce Henwood, Chair of the Special Needs Advisory Group of Veterans Affairs Canada, SNAG, and an officer with whom this committee is very warmly familiar; and major Mark Campbell, the Regimental Veterans Care Officer of Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, two battalions that I think are in Edmonton. In my home city of Edmonton, we are proud of the residents there of that distinguished regiment, which has a long history with our city.
First I have to point out, senators, that the first regimental band of Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, when it was first stood up, was the Edmonton City Police Band, which enlisted to a man and that day became the regimental band of Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, a very long time ago, before even I was born.
Gentlemen, I think you have some things to tell us. I will ask Major Henwood to proceed. You have the floor, sir.
Major (ret'd) Bruce Henwood, Chair, Special Needs Advisory Group (SNAG), Veterans Affairs Canada, as an individual: Good afternoon, honourable senators, honoured guests, ladies and gentlemen.
Thank you for the introduction. I will confirm that I am the chair of the Special Needs Advisory Group for Veterans Affairs Canada. Its acronym is SNAG. I do not know whether that is apropos or not.
SNAG was formed in August of 2005, in advance of the New Veterans Charter implementation. SNAG's mandate, unchanged since inception, is to identify to Veterans Affairs Canada, VAC, gaps and problem areas within the New Veterans Charter pertaining to those most seriously injured veterans and their families. SNAG's composition is five veterans, all disabled veterans, and five clinicians in their own areas of expertise. SNAG has produced four reports. The fifth report is in progress as we speak. These reports have identified many gaps and shortcomings in the New Veterans Charter.
You have heard from other witnesses, including VAC officials, about the construct of the New Veterans Charter. You have learned that the New Veterans Charter has shifted from one of disability management to that of well-being and re-establishment, without addressing and fully identifying the seriously disabled veterans' permanent disabilities, which may further deteriorate over time.
You have heard over and over again the reference to families. The two areas that I would like to speak to today are this shift from disability management to one of re-establishment, and what has happened to the families. I would like to keep my comments focused on the small cohort of seriously injured veterans, as these, I truly believe, are the veterans who have been left behind as a result of unintended consequences of the New Veterans Charter.
The mantra that ``a veteran is a veteran,'' which we have heard many times, needs to be examined and challenged when it comes to financial security over the seriously disabled veteran's life. It is clear that this is not the case in Canada, as the veteran is not a veteran; there is the traditional veteran and new veteran distinction. The fundamental difference between these two classes of veterans is that the traditional veteran is cared for by Canada from time of injury to his or her death, and the family is supported even after the veteran's passing. What the New Veterans Charter and its shift to re-establishment has left behind is that the seriously disabled veterans' financial security is shattered, and those veterans, by virtue of their injuries, are compromised in any hope of re-establishment as Veterans Affairs Canada has envisioned. It is not working.
What you have not heard in your various testimonies — and I reviewed them all — is the difference between a traditional veteran and a new veteran when it comes to financial security. You have been exposed to some of the new and essential elements of the New Veterans Charter that may work very well for the majority of the veterans who have not experienced severe, life-altering, career-ending quality-of-life challenges as the seriously injured veterans do, on a daily basis.
What you have not heard is that the seriously injured new veteran's family no longer receives a spousal allowance, no longer receives children allowances, no longer receives an attendants allowance and no longer receives an Exceptional Incapacity Allowance. The latter two can increase in size, recognizing deterioration of health and quality of life over the life course of the veteran. The former two are direct support to the veteran's family. All four of these allowances are for life. They are tax-free; they are indexed; and they are paid on a monthly basis. These allowances provide the traditional veterans with financial security over their life course.
I will say this once and I will say it as forcefully as I can; these are all gone in the New Veterans Charter — gone.
They have been replaced by benefits such as a permanent incapacity allowance, whose eligibility criteria is so restrictive that of the 140-plus new veterans, only 10 have qualified for this so far. There is the earnings loss benefit, ELB, which was incorrectly described by Veterans Affairs Canada's own minister at one of these testimonies as a ``disability pension.'' It is not. It is capped at 75 per cent of pre-injury income. That is unfair, and we will hear more from Major Campbell on that.
Both of these benefits are taxed, and the earnings loss benefit ceases at age 65. At that time, the veteran would receive what has been dubbed the supplementary retirement benefit, which is only 2 per cent of any earnings under ELB paid out at age 65. It does not allow for any growth and investment over time.
There is the highly criticized disability award, awarded once for a lifetime of disability, without recognizing the family and with no consideration of health deterioration over time.
I remind you that I am talking about special needs for the seriously disabled — the guys that are challenged for the rest of their life. I can speak because I am one of them, as is Major Campbell.
Under the New Veterans Charter, there are vocational rehabilitation and job placement programs. However, I would submit that for the seriously injured veteran, taking vocational rehabilitation may not be an option, and gaining the equivalent to pre-injury income levels in a job placement program is doubtful. I have suffered that for 15 years.
Yes, VAC will tell you that some of these programs accrue to the spouse if the veteran is unable to participate; you have heard that. I would submit that if the veteran is unable to participate, the spouse is also most likely unable to do so because she is probably providing caregiving services.
You will hear that there are other program benefits and services available to the new veteran as part of the New Veterans Charter, but many of these previously existed for the traditional veteran, so what is new? For the seriously disabled new veteran, the New Veterans Charter is a step backwards and seriously compromises the veteran and the family over their life course.
When it comes to our seriously injured, these injuries have imposed — if I may be so bold as to say — a life sentence of challenges that Veterans Affairs can help mitigate but never eliminate. Veterans Affairs should be seen as a champion of the seriously disabled. It should remove the financial insecurity barrier being experienced by our new veterans so that the life sentence of challenges is not further exacerbated by a life sentence of financial subsistence or a substandard quality of life for the veteran and the family.
I would ask — plead — that Canada treat its seriously disabled new veterans —
The Chair: — and their families as it has treated generations of traditional veterans and their families, with generosity, stability and security.
Maj. Henwood: Thank you, senator.
The Chair: Thank you, major.
Major, before we hear from Major Campbell — and I hope we will agree we should hear from Major Campbell before we begin questions — when the committee, of which you are the chair and which is comprised of five veterans and five clinicians, makes its report to Veterans Affairs Canada, what reaction do you receive? I believe you said there have been four reports. What do you feel about the reaction you get towards those reports, which I presume reflect some of these views?
Maj. Henwood: Absolutely. We are an advisory committee; and on the reports we submit to Veterans Affairs for the department's review, the feedback has been verbal. They have identified that many of our recommendations and suggestions are good; but in the past five years, the movement or the changes have been minimal to nil.
Senator Meighen: Could I ask a question of clarification? Major Henwood, when you are appearing here today, are you appearing in your name, in the name of SNAG or in the name of disabled veterans generally?
Maj. Henwood: I would like to say all three. I believe I am an informed veteran, courtesy of what I have learned from being involved.
Senator Meighen: I can certainly attest to that, but are you representing SNAG as well?
Maj. Henwood: I would like to say so, yes.
Senator Meighen: Thank you. Do you have any idea, even vague, how many seriously disabled veterans we are talking about? I am thinking of the newer veterans, not the older veterans, from Korea and the Second World War — veterans such as Major Campbell.
Maj. Henwood: Those numbers are hard to derive, but our estimate is around 200.
Senator Meighen: That is post-Korea, is it? We are talking about Bosnia and others.
Maj. Henwood: That is post-April 2006.
The Chair: In other words, is it those who are dealt with under the New Veterans Charter?
Maj. Henwood: Correct.
The Chair: Colleagues, we have been joined by two other senators — the deputy chair of this committee, Senator Fabian Manning, and Senator Plett, who I believe has joined us today as a member replacing Senator Wallin.
Senator Plett: Yes.
The Chair: Before Major Campbell speaks, I want to say that colleagues may have heard me mention an announcement in Edmonton about three weeks ago of the establishment of Valour Place. It is sort of a clone of Fisher House, which some of us have seen before. Major Campbell, you made an inspiring set of remarks at that event, and I want to thank you for it. It was wonderful. You have the floor, major.
Major Mark Campbell, Regimental Veterans Care Officer, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, as an individual: Good afternoon, honourable senators. I have the dubious distinction of being the senior serving disabled veteran in the Canadian Armed Forces. As a function of that, many of the younger soldiers I have met on various activities associated with soldier rehabilitation programs and so forth have looked to me as a senior guy to represent some of their concerns.
What I am about to say today encapsulates everything I have been told by junior disabled serving soldiers, as well as what I understand now about the New Veterans Charter as it will apply to me when I finally take off the uniform.
My primary thrust is very similar to Major Henwood's, that the New Veterans Charter's significantly financially disadvantages our most vulnerable, challenged and needy veterans. Approximately 20 per cent of our new veterans are seriously disabled to the point where a transition to a meaningful and gainful rewarding civilian career has been irreversibly compromised.
I will explain why that is so. With the focus of the New Veterans Charter being on a transition to a gainful and rewarding civilian career, the problem is that our most seriously disabled veterans cannot take advantage of those enhanced programs within the New Veterans Charter. At the same time, they will actually earn about 30 per cent less in terms of financial support.
The earnings loss benefit, as you have heard Major Henwood speak to, is 75 per cent of the soldier's wage when he or she is released from the Canadian Armed Forces. This is problematic. Why are veterans who have sacrificed limbs in the service of Canada forced to endure a 25 per cent reduction in their family's annual income as a result of having become disabled in the service of Canada? I find that very strange.
The Chair: Is it indexed in any way?
Maj. Campbell: It is indexed, to my understanding, at the rate of inflation, cost of living. However, it does not take into account what would likely have been future promotions, pay raises and so on.
Above and beyond the fact that our soldiers leaving the forces based on their disability receive a 25 per cent reduction in their family's annual income, the problem is that it is also a discriminatory system because it is based on your salary and your rank at the time you are medically released from the Canadian Forces. Seventy-five per cent of salary for a senior major such as myself is $75,000. Seventy-five per cent of salary for a corporal is approximately $37,000. How do you support a family on $37,000 for the rest of your life, because you cannot make a transition due to your disability to a new civilian career?
Furthermore, someone like me has paid into a military pension for 25 years; it has been docked off my salary. That is clawed back as part of my 75 per cent overall earnings cap. Therefore, it would be very difficult for me to ever earn more than $75,000 a year for the rest of my life to support my family, which is a 25 per cent drop in my annual income. A corporal cannot sustain a family on $37,000 a year. A private is even less than that, and I would suggest to you that that is very close to the median poverty line.
This is what we will be doing to our soldiers. Right now, the vast majority of the several hundred seriously disabled soldiers we are discussing here today are like me. They are still wearing the uniform because they cannot afford to leave the forces. We are trapped in uniform.
In some cases, my case included, being in the military environment is a difficult proposition now. Every time I put on this uniform, I die a little bit inside because all it does is remind me of what I have lost and what I can no longer do. When I go to the base to go to work and I see young soldiers running around doing soldier things that I used to do, all it does is reinforce the disability in my mind. The situation is mentally corrosive for many of these soldiers to continue serving, yet they have no choice. The minute they take off the uniform, they lose 25 per cent of their family's annual income. That is a difficult proposition.
Depending on what Veterans Affairs Canada literature you read, the department keeps changing its tune on what that maximum $250,000 one-time lump sum payment is for. I have been told it is compensation for the loss of your limbs. I have read that it is compensation for pain and suffering, and I have also read that it is now intended to assist in satisfying the immediate financial needs of the injured soldier.
I can tell you my $250,000 disappeared very, very quickly. I had to buy a brand new minivan for $32,000 because they would only modify a brand new vehicle. Also, since my house was deemed unsuitable for renovation to make it wheelchair accessible, I had to sell that house and construct a new barrier-free home. That money was gone immediately.
Depending on what we are calling it and what it is for, is $250,000 adequate compensation for the loss of your legs and the loss of quality of life for your family? It completely disrupts the entire family; it is not just the soldier. Everything is upside down. My wife has twice the stress. I cannot even change a light bulb at home. This is the situation we face.
I have chronic phantom limb pain two or three nights a week where I cannot sleep. Is $250,000 adequate compensation for that and for a lifetime of pain and suffering? I would suggest it is not.
I would also suggest a cap of $250,000 based on the loss of two limbs, or the equivalent in terms of eyesight, is completely inadequate. What about the soldier I know, a young reserve corporal in Sudbury, who is missing not just both legs but also an arm? He received no additional compensation for that arm. Once you max out at $250,000, that is it. Half of my injuries, including the loss of a testicle and the loss of intimate marital relations with my wife of 25 years, are not compensated. They are not considered because I maxed out with two legs. The ruptured right eardrum and the loss of hearing are not compensated in any way, shape or form.
I think we need to return to an injury-based compensation system. I believe there needs to be some form of lump sum up front for the immediate costs, and I believe we then need to return to a monthly series of allowances that Major Henwood has alluded to for family support and so on. That will provide the soldier and the soldier's family with a reasonable standard of living and a long-term financial security that is currently missing in the New Veterans Charter.
The last point I would like to bring up is barrier-free housing. I had to build a barrier-free home. I barely had the financial resources to do that, and I had to chew up my one and only inheritance to make it happen, carrying two mortgages, the whole nine yards. It is very, very difficult. It is impossible for a corporal.
That same corporal I told you about who will live the rest of his life with one arm in an electric wheelchair has been living in a hotel in Sudbury for two years. The government pays for that. They do so because he cannot afford to build himself a barrier-free home. This corporal, with one arm, is now actively seeking a charity that will assist him in constructing a barrier-free home. Why is a soldier who sacrificed three limbs in the service of Canada dependent on charity to have a place for him and his family to live?
It is disgusting, and I believe the Canadian public would be outraged if they knew about the things Major Henwood and I are discussing today. People go across this country and say the New Veterans Charter is a great deal. It is not; it is a step backwards, and we need to get back to where we were, and we need to do it soon. We cannot study this thing to death.
Major Henwood's fourth report was tabled in January 2009. Not a single recommendation has been acted upon. The New Veterans Charter Advisory Group tabled a 58-page report with 299 recommendations in it at the end of last year. Not a single recommendation has been implemented.
We need to get on with this because time is running out for us soldiers trapped in uniform. We will eventually be forced out under our medical release conditions. Yes, most of us are accommodated for two or three years in order to try and sort our life out, but that clock has been ticking since 2006 for the first set of new veterans, and time is running out. We need action now. We need to stop studying this thing to death and get on with doing it. Even if it means just going back to what we had under the Pension Act, we need to make it happen, and we need to make it happen now or we will have young soldiers missing limbs sitting on the street corners of major metropolitan centres rattling a tin cup. I think I will leave my comments at that. Thank you very much.
The Chair: That is a very unhappy prospect, major, which I think would be found distasteful by everyone in this room.
We have been joined by the distinguished Senator Nolin who has much experience with NATO, for example, and has kept up to date with the deliberations of this committee as well and is very familiar with them.
The first questioner is Senator Meighen.
Senator Meighen: Thank you, chair. As you say, it is very unsettling testimony, but we thank you both very much for bringing it here.
As I understand it, and I think it is not surprising, what you are advocating, first and foremost, is that those who are seriously disabled are not likely able to benefit from reintegration into the workforce thrust, which is central, as we hear testimony to that, to the New Veterans Charter, and that therefore we should rethink the level and the type of compensation and coverage that is afforded to seriously injured veterans. Is that, boldly put, your major message?
Maj. Campbell: Precisely, senator. We need to get back to at least where we were.
Senator Meighen: Can you anticipate any difficulties in defining a seriously disabled veteran? This is not a trick question; I just hope there would not be. Is it someone who has lost a limb or an eye?
Maj. Campbell: I would define it as someone who could not advantageously take advantage of all of the opportunities that VAC will offer under the New Veterans Charter. A person should benefit from vocational rehabilitation with a strong likelihood of getting that person gainful employment, which is defined by Veterans Affairs as 66.66 per cent of your pre- release wage, so in my case $66,000 a year. If vocational rehabilitation will not do that for me, then my chances of having gainful employment are slim to none. Therefore, I will be subjected to the earnings loss benefit and the resulting 25 per cent loss in my family's annual income.
The Chair: As a quick question, I want to ensure we understand the arithmetic, because you mentioned earlier a clawback.
If you got a job tomorrow afternoon, Major Campbell, for $50,000, would the benefits available to you top that up to $75,000, and that is it?
Maj. Campbell: Correct, senator.
The Chair: So there is no advantage to you getting a job.
Maj. Campbell: The way I look at it is the first $25,000 is free. I have my military pension, which Veterans Affairs includes in the 75 per cent maximum that they will pay under the earnings loss benefit. So the first $25,000, over and above my $50,000 military pension, I am basically working for free.
The Chair: Right.
Senator Meighen: So if you get a job for $100,000?
Maj. Campbell: Then I would earn $150,000.
Maj. Henwood: ELB is then stopped.
Maj. Campbell: You receive no earnings loss benefit.
Maj. Henwood: However, you will be entitled to your Canadian Forces pension.
The Chair: Of course, a corporal injured on the first rotation would have no pension.
Maj. Campbell: Correct. Precisely, Mr. Chair. That is a significant issue. As well, a corporal is very unlikely to have the necessary qualifications to take advantage of the priority hiring program that Veterans Affairs is so proud of and that does not seem to be working very well. It is a hollow promise for the vast majority of particularly junior soldiers who were forced out of the military on a medical release with a disability because they do not qualify in terms of academic qualifications or bilingualism. It is a hollow promise. It means nothing.
The Chair: Thank you. I apologize for interrupting, senator.
Senator Meighen: It was a very important clarification.
We have had testimony, and I think we have been impressed by it with respect to the difficulties faced by, as the chair was describing, a corporal in the first rotation. Seventy-five per cent of his or her salary is not enough to live on. We do not know, but maybe that corporal would have been Chief of the Defence Staff in 30 years. Maybe that corporal still would have been a corporal in 30 years. We do not know.
Have you thought about a possible solution? Would it be a floor or a ceiling, a minimum amount?
Maj. Campbell: I understand where you are going, senator. We need to move away from that and treat everyone the same. If you are missing two legs, you are missing two legs. Why do I get $75,000 a year and a corporal missing two legs gets $35,000? That is what I mean by the earnings loss benefit is discriminatory based on rank. We need to move away from that model and go back to an injury-based compensation model.
The Chair: I have to point out that Major Henwood is the example, which under your distinguished chairmanship we tried to fix. It is precisely the problem that Major Henwood is talking about.
Senator Meighen: Because of his rank, he was not entitled to the maximum amount.
Maj. Henwood: Your memory is good there.
Senator Meighen: We are perhaps unduly proud. You did all the work, but we take some pride in the fact that we were a participant in getting that inequity changed, and maybe there is another one here.
Can I just carry on with the lump sum for a moment? I have two final questions. With regard to that lump sum, regardless of the state of the veteran, we have heard criticisms based on the fact that, particularly for a younger soldier I guess, it is hard to deal with. The soldier might spend it in a way that someone as old as I am might say is somewhat foolish — buying a fast car or something like that. You cannot dictate to people what they do with their money regardless of the amount. How can we help people in that situation under the charter or otherwise to act wisely and with a view to the future?
Maj. Campbell: Veterans Affairs currently allocates up to $500 for financial advice.
Senator Meighen: However, you do not have to take it or seek it.
Maj. Campbell: You do not have to take it or seek it. I do not know that it is appropriate to force it on people, and it is a difficult proposition. I have seen exactly what you are speaking about, senator. I have seen young soldiers missing a limb with a new pickup truck. That money is one shot right now. It is a one-time deal, but if you are going to give people money, you cannot tell them necessarily how to spend it unless you withhold funds until they prove that, one, it is going to a converted vehicle that they need for mobility and independence and, two, potentially is associated with a new-home- construction assistance grant.
Maj. Henwood: SNAG has proposed several options to Veterans Affairs on how to manage the disability award. You could do it blended. You could do an annuity over time, or, instead of a lump sum, you could revert to monthly pension. A 100-per-cent-pensioner today would receive about $2,000 a month from Veterans Affairs for life.
Senator Dallaire: Non-taxable.
Maj. Henwood: Not taxable. If you were to take the rough figures of $24,000 a year and the veteran lives for 50 years, that is a significant increase in financial security over a one-time upfront lump sum of $250,000 or $276,000.
If that veteran wanted to buy a pickup truck, he could get a truck loan at $500 a month for 10 years. He gets his truck, but he still has that stability, that cash flow to fall back on.
Veterans Affairs will tell you about taxable, non-taxable, and about non-economic and economic programs and benefits.
At the end of the day, you have to be able to touch the tangible. It is important to have the security of an amount going into your bank account once a month, be it for a mortgage payment, a vehicle payment or an investment for retirement. Right now, there is nothing.
Senator Meighen: Both of you gentlemen are here to discuss what you know a great deal about, and that is the situation of the seriously disabled veteran. Have you any comments whatsoever with respect to the New Veterans Charter as it pertains to the non-seriously injured veteran? Is the goal of VAC, as you understand it, to reintegrate the non-seriously wounded veteran into society and to provide the programs they have enacted under the New Veterans Charter? That makes sense in that case.
Maj. Campbell: The enhancements to what were in many cases existing services anyhow are on the right track for the most part. However, the financial security that comes from even a partial disability under the old Pension Act is a huge enabler to successful transition to civilian life as well.
The problem right now is that several hundred of us are, as I said, trapped in a uniform between a rock and a hard place. We are all still serving, so we have not seen if VAC's enhanced programs are of any use. I can tell you that the priority hiring system for most young veterans is completely inapplicable. It is a hollow offer; it means nothing.
It is too early to say whether their enhanced services make sense, but I believe that thrust toward successful reintegration of the injured soldier into society —
Senator Meighen: Or the uninjured soldier.
Maj. Campbell: Or the uninjured soldier, absolutely. It makes good sense, but it is the 20 per cent that VAC has completely missed the boat on.
Senator Meighen: I cannot resist, chair. I misled you by saying that was my last question. When Major Campbell said ``trapped in a uniform,'' it cuts both ways. I remember the early days on this committee when we heard complaints that as soon as soldiers were injured and could not pull their weight, they were out. People were upset by that. General Hillier led the charge and there now seems to be an effort to keep people in because most soldiers, sailors and air force personnel love the CF and want to stay.
Your case is different. I understand why you say ``trapped in a uniform,'' but is that not an advancement for your uninjured or lightly injured colleagues in being able to stay in without being kicked out just because they cannot perform at their previous level of 100 per cent?
Maj. Campbell: Yes and no. I believe it is a little bit like sweeping the dirt under the carpet. The problem is that sooner or later there will be a challenge because people with non-operational injuries — in other words, someone who had a pallet dropped on their foot in Canada and were not injured on special duty — are still getting kicked out at a regular rate. The only people being retained more or less against standing regulations for universality of service are people who are operationally injured overseas. Sooner or later, someone in Canada will challenge that.
There was a promise made by General Hillier, which has been maintained by General Natynczyk. I briefed General Natynczyk personally on what I believe to be the shortcomings of the New Veterans Charter. He has as much as said to me that the reason he is retaining all operationally injured soldiers who wish to be retained for as long as they like is purely because of the problem with the New Veterans Charter. He wants to help them maintain their existing income.
Senator Meighen: Thank you.
Senator Manning: I thank our witnesses for their wonderful presentations. I would like to discuss compensation.
Major Campbell, you talked about receiving $75,000, $50,000 of which is your pension and then there is the $25,000. Without the pension, where would you be?
Maj. Campbell: If I did not have a pension, technically, under the earnings loss benefit, they would provide the entire $75,000.
Senator Manning: That was 75 per cent of your salary when you were injured; is that correct?
Maj. Campbell: Correct. I made approximately $100,000 a year.
Senator Manning: I am concerned more about the younger soldier. I am not trying to take anything away from you; I am just trying to get a number. Some of the numbers you are throwing out concern me when you say a private, for example, receives 75 per cent of their wages and would not have much of a pension.
Maj. Campbell: That is absolutely correct.
Senator Manning: What is the salary of a private?
Maj. Campbell: I am not sure what a private makes. A corporal makes around $50,000, give or take. I will use him as an example, so 75 per cent is $37,500. Because he does not have a pension as he has only served for four or five years, Veterans Affairs provides the entire $37,500, but that is not enough to support a family for the rest of your life.
The Chair: What is the length of time when your pension becomes vested?
Maj. Campbell: Ten years on medical release.
Senator Manning: Can you give us an idea of how the injury-based compensation model relates to what you receive today? If you lost a leg, you would be compensated for losing that leg. There is an amount associated with that loss, and there is an amount associated with losing two legs, and two legs and an arm.
Maj. Campbell: The amount for an entire limb is $125,000; two limbs, $250,000. That is the current maximum for the one-time lump sum. If you are missing a third limb, you cannot go further on the lump sum compensation model.
The Chair: The maximum is actually $276,000.
Senator Manning: How does that compare to the injury-based compensation that was in place?
Maj. Henwood: Veterans Affairs has a grid on which they determine what the percentage would be. A single limb lost would be 50 per cent of disabled multiple limb loss, two or more is 100 per cent. They have established amounts of what 100 per cent equates to in dollars and cents. Roughly, 100 per cent is about $2,000 a month. It is based upon multiple minor disabilities or major significant disabilities, but it is capped at 100 per cent.
In addition to that, for the traditional veterans under the Pension Act, Veterans Affairs had allowances that accommodated for deterioration of health over time or secondary injuries as a result of your primary injury, and that was called the exceptional incapacity allowance. That kicked in at around 90 per cent on the scale of 100 per cent and topped things up a little bit more.
It was based on injury. It had nothing to do with rank. It is a fixed figure that is adjusted annually. If you are assessed at 50 per cent for a lost leg and your back gives out, you can go back for reassessment and your pension assessment may increase to 75 per cent over time. However, it would be capped at 100 per cent.
The Chair: I just want to make sure we understand what we are talking about.
The percentages to which you refer are of a notional amount, not of salary. Am I right? The figure of 100 per cent is about $2,000 per month.
Maj. Henwood: Correct.
The Chair: They are not percentages of salary.
Maj. Henwood: It has nothing to do with salary.
Senator Dallaire: If I may interject, that is not correct. It was based on the salary of a private in World War II. It was augmented over the years to keep pace with the standard of living and so on. That is why it is $2,000 a month maximum, tax free. Depending on your tax level, you can compute that. If you are at a 50 per cent tax level, it is the equivalent of $4,000. That was the basis of the 100 per cent process. If you had a wife and a couple of children, it could add another couple hundred dollars here and there. The maximum you could reach was about $3,000, tax free for life.
If you are in that range and you have a pension on top of that, you might be taxed, for example, at 50 per cent because of the total amount. That $2,000 per month could be worth $4,000, which totals $48,000 per year. In five years, you have nearly reached the $250,000 and you have $48,000 per year for the rest of your life.
My intervention is that all this fiddling, including computing the pension and the 75 per cent, is all mechanical and was instituted by staff and the department. It is nowhere near the conceptual base upon which the New Veterans Charter was built. In my opinion, staff have manoeuvred as they drafted the legislation and fiddled with its implementation in a way that is contrary to the fundamental premise under which the new charter was built.
What these men say about the severely injured is as bad as for those not severely injured. On top of that, the old charter also permitted the Veterans Independence Program. The VIP provided all sorts of benefits to the family, including grass cutting and other significant items.
Forgive me for my intervention, but it is in support of the fundamental fact that much of what we have now is nowhere near the conceptual base of the charter. It has to be fundamentally challenged.
The Chair: General Cox is preparing a piece for us next week. We shall review the promises made in 2004 having to do with the New Veterans Charter and its outlook.
Senator Manning: I thank Senator Dallaire for his intervention. He has more experience in relation to these issues than I do.
In your opening comments — going to the heart of what Senator Dallaire touched on — you said that the New Veterans Charter significantly challenges new veterans. I may not have stated your words exactly, but they were along those lines. One would think that something new and innovative would be an improvement. I am saddened to hear from your presentation that it is not.
I hope you can offer suggestions to us. I am concerned about the notion of compensation based on salary. A couple of weeks ago, we had a young gentleman here — I forget his rank. He was 22 years old, so he had an opportunity to move up in the forces. He was injured two and a half years ago at the age of 19. Have you any ideas or suggestions as to how we should address the concept of compensation based on salary?
Senator Dallaire mentioned the old system that may have been based on a private in World War II. In my view, there must be something on which decisions are based.
Maj. Henwood: Studies have to be done and studies, unfortunately, take a long time. Veterans Affairs came up with the $250,000 based on the premise of insurance payouts, workers' compensation boards and analysis of the systems in other countries.
If the premise of the Pension Act for the traditional veteran was based on a salary provided monthly, that may be the way to go forward. Get away from this lump sum and establish a baseline. No one will be happy with whatever baseline is established. The baseline should be no worse than what the traditional veteran receives, and move forward from there.
I do not suggest that the baseline be based on the salary of a private in World War II or a private in Afghanistan in 2010. Base it on an amount that will allow the person to have a reasonable standard and quality of life and reasonable expectations for the family. They would be able to afford orthodontics for their children's teeth, vacations and the golden years of retirement. Currently, we set these veterans up for failure later in life.
Whatever the amount may be, provide a baseline amount monthly for life. It will be a step forward from the lump- sum ``fire and forget'' that is happening currently.
Senator Manning: What opportunities do you have to bring your concerns to Veterans Affairs?
Maj. Campbell: I identified my major concerns through my case manager. She was directed to provide a briefing note to Minister Blackburn because I emailed the Prime Minister and requested an interview. They were finally interested in hearing my concerns.
Maj. Henwood: As a retired veteran, I have worked with the Ad Hoc Advisory Group on Special Needs for the last five years providing advice and suggestions to Veterans Affairs. They keep receiving information and hearing the same thing over and over again, but they do not necessarily make any adjustments or changes.
Perhaps changes are difficult given the way the New Veterans Charter was constructed. There are Treasury Board implications and all these financial issues have to be reviewed. Frankly, veterans do not want to hear problems about government mechanics. They just want to be assured that they will not be left destitute.
Senator Manning: I think you touched on the lump sum payment earlier with regard to other countries. We heard from witnesses that the lump sum payment is not necessarily comparable to other such payments in the world. However, other Canadian benefits on top of that payment are not necessarily made by other countries although their lump sum payment may be higher. Other countries may have a $500,000 lump sum payment, but after that, you are pretty well on your own. Given your experience, how do you respond to that comparison?
Maj. Henwood: I cannot speak about other countries because they offer blends of various things. Veterans Affairs says — not that I want to quote them — you cannot compare apples to oranges. We have a public health care system and the United States does not. We should not necessarily look at picking and choosing pieces of other countries plans, the ones that best fit budgetary requirements or whatever. We should design a model for Canada, for our standard of life, our quality of living and designed by us, for us.
The Chair: Colleagues, I have to refer again to the absurdity of the shortness of time in dealing with this most important matter and ask that we keep our questions and responses as brief as possible because we are finished at 1:20 p.m.
Senator Pépin: I listened to both of you and was thinking about each of your families — your spouses and children. The way you spoke, there is not much money for your families. If you return home physically disabled, you need someone to stay with you at home; that person cannot work outside the home. What are the major difficulties of the family when you come back?
Maj. Campbell: I can speak to all kinds of difficulties in the family. The family dynamic is fundamentally changed for the rest of the family's life. Like I said, and I meant it, I cannot even change a light bulb, let alone swing a hammer and do all those traditional male roles within the house. I have to try to find other ways of easing the load on my spouse, doing food preparation, but it is extremely difficult. Everything takes more time. Everything is more difficult when you have no legs.
I want to emphasize this point. I mentioned it earlier. There has been no compensation, as far as I am concerned, for the loss of my family's quality of life. There has been no ongoing compensation so I can take my kids to a baseball game because I cannot play baseball with them. There has been none of that. Because of the particular nature of the injuries that I received, the ones that were not compensated, like my missing testicle and scarring on the rest of my genitalia, I have no intimate relations any more with my wife of 25 years. That is a fundamental shift in the family dynamic.
Is it fair to my wife that I went off to war and got blown up? No, but that is a fact of life, and I believe that Canada owes a debt of gratitude to people who have gone off and done things on behalf of the country and have been injured as a result of it.
We talk the good talk, but when it comes to the New Veterans Charter, we are definitely not walking the walk, and the families are the ones that suffer. Everyone looks at the soldier and says, ``Oh, poor man, he is missing his legs.'' I can tell you, senator, during my training, the difficulties I have encountered, the chronic pain, the quality of life — all of that pales in comparison to what happened to my family. My son went from being an A student to failing every class in junior high school. I had to hire a tutor for him. I do not get any compensation for that tutor. It comes out of my pocket. There are all kinds of other expenses associated with the disability for which there is no form of any compensation. This disability has cost me a lot of money.
Senator Pépin: I know that there are support services for military spouses on the base, but do you have a special services centre for the family whose husband or father has been injured?
Maj. Campbell: I can tell you that I, my wife and both of my children are seeing mental health experts on a fairly regular basis. That is the kind of impact it has had on my family. The family is upside down, and it will never be standing — no pun intended — it will never be back on its feet. I had my legs cut out from under me. I had a career planned post military to get a vocational trade. I had been talking about doing that for years. I cannot do that anymore. I am adrift. I have no idea what my future will look like now.
Senator Pépin: There is some space to do something for the family.
Maj. Campbell: There is stress, a lot of stress.
Maj. Henwood: With the disability award provided under the New Veterans Charter, it is a lump sum paid once, as we discussed, but it does not recognize the family. A single soldier will receive X amount — $276,000 if he is severely disabled — but a married soldier will receive the same amount. There is no family disability award. The pain and suffering that is covered by the disability award ignores the family because it is the same whether you are single or married. I said in my opening remarks that the family almost seems like an adjunct — it has been added in as an afterthought. For the seriously disabled, families are critical. You could look at the breakdowns of marital families. Thank God for my wife. She is on record for saying she was able to fall in love with the same guy twice because I am not the same person I was before I was injured, and we kept our marriage together. Others have not been so successful.
I will say that if there was financial support that recognized the family, that would be tremendous. SNAG's fourth report, which you have probably never seen because it has not been offered to you, talks all about the family — a family disability award; a catastrophic injury allowance for those injuries beyond 100 per cent. The list goes on, including caregiving services. The default setting for the caregiver is the spouse, but they do not pay or train or remunerate the spouse. They expect the spouse to do it.
Senator Pépin: Thank you very much.
Senator Dallaire: After sitting on this committee for some time and having been part of encouraging the committee, under the previous chair, to conduct a study of the New Veterans Charter, I wish to inform the chair that it is my personal opinion that there is absolutely no way this committee will ever be able to provide an in-depth, fundamental report on the charter because there is just not enough time. We will not get the depth of information we require to do what is required of us in the review, even if we keep at this for the next year.
I wish to indicate that my correspondence to the two leaderships on making this subcommittee a full-fledged committee still stands. In the fall, I will commence the process of standing outside and making damn sure that people realize that the Veterans Affairs Subcommittee is receiving the short shrift, as opposed to committees like Official Languages and a number of others. I consider this to be a fundamental statement, to go on the record and state that I am a veteran and was also injured.
Second, when we started in 1997 — all the work and the committees with Dr. Peter Neary, who brought the report in — there were very few severely injured soldiers. Ten had been killed, but in regard to the severely injured, there were few. You were one of them, Major Henwood, and you broke a lot of ground. There were more, but the soldiers who were injured psychologically were not even in the equation, so we could not compute them at the time.
As I see it now, the charter was drafted with the less injured in mind more so than the severely injured. That is a major deficiency, which you raised, and it is valid because that fact did not come out strongly at the time, even though you were doing a lot of work. There are significant gaps in meeting the needs of those who are severely injured physically and psychologically.
Veterans Affairs is now doing an extensive year-long review of the charter. We have seen it, they have given us a copy, and it looks extensive. They are six months into the study. Have you, your organization, SNAG, or veterans been involved in providing input into that study?
Maj. Henwood: The only input we have provided is through our reports, so I am not aware that there is a draft revised charter. We keep hearing that the changes to the charter will be done within the envelope that Veterans Affairs has been given. They will try to push the boundaries to increase services to some areas. These are very small and incremental. They do not even touch the disability award. We need major changes. It is all window dressing.
Senator Dallaire: When the charter was brought in, the previous government made no envelope limitation. When it was implemented by the current government in April 2006, that started to appear. In the forces, they have no limit on the personnel side. They are providing money for different programs, such as keeping people who are injured in the forces, but they have absorbed that money at the expense of other envelopes. They are up to 62 per cent in human resources, where they used to be at 52 per cent because of a lot of those needs. Veterans Affairs seems to have established a cap, and that is totally artificial and requires that we review it.
With respect to your committee, we heard on the sly a couple of weeks ago that all the different advisory committees will be merged into one. Did you hear that?
Maj. Henwood: I have been involved in those discussions.
Senator Dallaire: What is the aim of that?
Maj. Henwood: I am not fully up to speed on it. The four existing advisory groups will remain in some form as committees of a council called the veterans affairs advisory council. The VAAC will have four or five committees, depending on the need at the time, to do different things. It is changing to ease the repetition on the part of department. Instead of having to brief four advisory groups on the same thing, they will brief the VAAC once.
Senator Dallaire: Except that the council will also take care of the old veterans. You are starting to mix the old and new veterans and two different regimes. The council will be able to get close to the politicians.
To whom does your committee submit its report? Is it to the minister, the deputy minister, or an assistant deputy minister? Who is the authority?
Maj. Henwood: The gentleman's name is Darragh Mogan, a director general.
Senator Dallaire: He might be an EX-2 or EX-3. When Admiral Murray was there, they were responding to the deputy minister at a minimum. On occasion, they responded to the minister. There has been a downgrading of inputs to the system.
My last point is that moving to a monthly amount, as you propose, goes against the fundamental argument of the original concept of not creating dependency on that amount so that people would want to reintroduce themselves into the workforce. However, in the case of the severely injured, that amount is an absolute requirement.
Maj. Henwood: Yes.
Senator Dallaire: That requirement has to be introduced, not just the $250,000.
If we come up with a figure less than $66,000 but more than what the private is getting — and that does not include the pension and is not taxable — do you think we should take away the initial compensation of $250,000 or $300,000 that could be used to help someone get their first house built appropriately and maybe purchase a car?
Maj. Campbell: I know that Major Henwood and I differ somewhat on this point, but I believe it should not be one or the other. I believe that a blend is possible for legitimate start-up costs because the minute you are disabled, you need money. If you have a ``mobility kill,'' as we call it, you have to buy a van. It becomes a financial burden on the family if you do not have start-up funds.
I absolutely believe that you have hit the nail on the head, sir. I would be prepared to give up $75,000 per year guaranteed for the old system. Under the old system, I would be earning roughly $50,000 per year on medical pension, compared to Paul Franklin's $4,700 per month tax free. I would have $50,000 per year on a medical pension plus my military pension of $50,000, which is not clawed back. I would be back to 100 per cent. I would receive my pension that I paid into.
Senator Dallaire: Are the reserves being heard with DND, or are they still in the boonies with very little coming their way?
Maj. Campbell: I believe they are cared for much better than they were before, in particular with the somewhat shaky but continuing implementation of the Joint Personnel Support Unit model with the five regional centres, and the Integrated Personnel Support Centres, which are subordinate to the units. There is an IPSC in Calgary. There is no real regular force presence in Calgary, but there are several reserve units that had a high proportion of their reservists deploy. It is the same with the regiment in Edmonton. They are right next to the JPSU.
A legitimate, concerted effort is being made by the uniformed service to look after the reserve soldiers deployed overseas who have been injured.
Senator Day: I join other committee members in thanking both Major Henwood and Major Campbell for what they have done, what they are doing and continue to do for the Canadian Armed Forces, Canada and veterans who have been injured and those who have not been injured and want to know that their colleagues are being properly cared for. It must be difficult for both of you to make these statements before the subcommittee about the New Veterans Charter. We are told by Veterans Affairs that this is the right way to go. They feel very good about it. However, we have also heard from some who had been wounded. We heard from Master Corporal Franklin during his transition. His testimony on the new system provided the committee with a bit of a comparison to Major Henwood's comments on the old program.
Major Henwood, has anybody ever run through a comparison of where you would be if you were still in uniform or had recently been injured under the new program? How would they compare in terms of your lifestyle?
Maj. Henwood: We asked for the five disabled veterans on SNAG to have a comparison done between being under the Pension Act versus the New Veterans Charter. The offer was extended to us from Veterans Affairs and then withdrawn.
Senator Day: That would be helpful to us. We heard Master Corporal Franklin's comments about how he would be out of luck after five years under the new program.
Another point you made is that a program is designed for transition. The New Veterans Charter is designed for transition and reintegration. That is the concept. Those who cannot transition and reintegrate into the workforce are those who have been seriously injured, as you talked about. Has Veterans Affairs been advised of the possibility of two programs or two tracks? You said that the New Veterans Charter has some redeeming features for those who can be reintegrated, but what about the others who cannot be reintegrated?
Maj. Henwood: That is the problem.
Senator Day: Has Veterans Affairs been advised of what you would like to see done?
Maj. Henwood: If they have been advised, they have not shared it with us. We have not advised in favour of a dual stream New Veterans Charter. We were counselled strongly to stop talking about the disability award.
Senator Day: Major Campbell, the family issue is extremely important. You have been frank and open with us, and we thank you for that. We are told by Veterans Affairs that you get $250,000 and if you invest it properly, you will have money for your children's orthodontist and so on. Are you hearing such comments?
Maj. Campbell: I have heard that you are supposed to be able to invest and live off the dividends. Had I invested my payout when I was injured, I would have lost half of it in the stock market meltdown two weeks later. How can you tell soldiers to live off the dividends of a volatile system based on the stock market? They could lose their shirts overnight. Besides, you cannot invest that money because you need it right away to either build a house or buy a new van. The $250,000 as an investment tool is a red herring. It does not exist; it cannot be done.
Senator Nolin: My question was asked by Senator Pépin. When you responded to Senator Pépin, you mentioned that a document was circulating that we did not have access to. What is that document?
Maj. Henwood: You probably have not seen the four SNAG reports to Veterans Affairs.
Senator Nolin: I would like to see those.
Maj. Henwood: I am prepared to leave you with a copy of the fourth report. There have been four reports, and the first three were not as succinct as the last one.
Senator Nolin: Would you send us what you think we should see?
The Chair: General Cox has provided us with a list and précis of those reports and many other things, which the clerk has and which will be distributed to everybody this afternoon.
Senator Day: There seem to be so many reports and studies. Is it not time for action on this file? Soldiers coming back from Afghanistan are caught up in this situation. It is time that we brought this to the public's attention.
The Chair: We will try to do that in short order, as soon as we know what we are talking about, which is part of the process today. We may have to invoke General Dallaire as a witness.
I see the clock and the meeting is required to adjourn. However, with your indulgence, I recognize the deputy chair.
Senator Day: I move that we not see the clock.
Senator Manning: I want to be sure that we get those four reports.
The Chair: Senator Day moves that we not see the clock. Is there agreement?
Senator Manning: I have a concern in that regard. We have to be in the chamber. We have had that discussion before. I do not think it is right to have the discussion now. We need to follow the rules that are in order.
The Chair: Gentlemen, I think you understand that everyone around this table understands that we owe you and your colleagues a duty of care. We will try to do something about it to the extent that we can. I am grateful on behalf of all members of the committee for you having come here today. I apologize for the absurdity of the shortness of time we have to deal with this issue. I thank you very much.
(The committee adjourned.)