Proceedings of the Subcommittee on
Veterans Affairs
Issue 1 - Evidence - December 4, 2013
OTTAWA, Wednesday, December 4, 2013
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.
Senator Roméo Antonius Dallaire (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good afternoon, honourable senators, and welcome to our first meeting of this new session.
I would also like to welcome those watching us on CPAC and to thank them for tuning in, especially the veterans who often watch the rebroadcast at two or three in the morning because, like me, they do not sleep particularly well at night. I think people who do that are very brave.
[English]
I have a short administrative point. Senator Wells and I — the steering — will be meeting later on today to look at the way ahead. We are now reviewing some of the efforts that have been going on over the last while to set the scene for the studies that we're looking at.
Certainly, the first thing we'll look at will be the transition study. If you remember, the steering committee was mandated to take a look at the draft. We will do what we can to get that out as soon as possible in the new year, as there is quite a significant amount of information that will be helpful to anybody who is involved with veterans or wants to be involved with veterans to assist them in the transition from the military into civilian life and gainful employment, we hope.
Thank you, Senator Wells, for being available to do that this afternoon.
Gentlemen, we have invited the Veterans Ombudsman, Mr. Parent.
[Translation]
Mr. Parent certainly went through some difficult experiences when he was a member of our search and rescue teams.
[English]
Ultimately, he was Chief Warrant Officer of the Canadian Armed Forces — so a lot of background there.
I gather you will have a short presentation and then we can go to questions. We end usually at about 15 or 20 minutes past the hour. We look forward to your presentation on your report regarding the veterans, which we have had with us for a while, and we look to some clarifications where required.
Guy Parent, Veterans Ombudsman, Office of the Veterans Ombudsman: Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and committee members. Thank you for the opportunity today to address the most important issue, the review of the New Veterans Charter.
I'd like first to introduce my team. I have Gary Walbourne, Executive Director of Operations and Deputy Ombudsman.
[Translation]
With me today is Colonel (retired) Denys Guérin, our lead on the New Veterans Charter review.
As I mentioned in my address to the House committee last week, I would again like to thank the Hon. Julian Fantino, Minister of Veterans Affairs, for having agreed to my recommendation for a comprehensive review of the New Veterans Charter, with special focus placed on the most seriously disabled, support for families and the delivery of programs by Veterans Affairs Canada.
[English]
In one week, much has happened that shows the necessity of completing this comprehensive review and implementing meaningful solutions as quickly as possible. The men and woman who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces willingly accept the risks to their health and lives that are inherent to military service. If they are injured or become ill and can no longer serve in uniform, the Government of Canada has a recognized obligation to help rebuild lives and restore, to the greatest extent possible, their health, financial independence and quality of personal and family life.
What Canadian Armed Forces members and veterans struggle with is why the government's obligation falls short of meeting their needs when they have given their all. Recent events have tragically shown that for some, the uncertainty of the future was such that they perceived there was no hope. We need to ensure that each member of the Canadian Armed Forces is fully aware that no matter what type of service-related injuries or illness they sustain, they will be financially secure for the rest of their lives.
We also need to strengthen the transition process to create more and better opportunities for vocational training and partnership with industry. This will create hope and will focus Canadian Armed Forces members and veterans on their future rather than on clinging to the past.
Finally, we need to fortify families so they are better informed and compensated for the critical behind-the-scenes support they provide to our men and women in uniform. Not only is this essential to the individual, it is also a matter of national security as it affects the ability of Canada to successfully recruit and retain members of the Canadian Armed Forces.
This obligation on the part of the Government of Canada to its veterans is stated clearly in preambles to such acts and legislation as the Pension Act, the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act and the War Veterans Allowance Act. Each states that the act shall be liberally construed and interpreted so that the recognized obligation to those who have served the country so well, and to their dependents, may be fulfilled. I fully support the recent calls from veterans' advocates and organizations to include this recognized obligation in the New Veterans Charter as in past veterans legislation.
Since April of this year I have published a series of reviews and reports to serve as a common factual reference to guide discussion and, more importantly, to channel action on specific New Veterans Charter program areas that need improvement. I have put forward evidence-based facts, analysis and recommendations on how to address shortcomings in the three program areas that are of most concern to veterans and their families: first, the financial instability and decreased standard of living; second, a vocational rehabilitation progress that is overly rigid in its focus on existing education, skills and experience, which constrains education upgrade and employment options; and third, difficult family environment situations due to insufficient family support.
My office has analyzed more than 200 recommendations for improvements to the New Veterans Charter proposed by various House of Commons and Senate expert advisory committees since 2006, including many of the 160 recommendations mentioned by Minister Fantino. We also held exhaustive stakeholder consultations.
[Translation]
Many recommendations that deal with the three key transition areas, financial support, vocational rehabilitation, and family support, have not been implemented and are continuing to affect veterans and their families, as can be seen with the spate of lawsuits against the government and the growing unrest in the veterans community.
[English]
Mr. Chair, I respectfully submit that most of the analysis and review of the New Veterans Charter deficiencies has been done. The path to improving the New Veterans Charter is clear. However, impeding that path is a worrisome trend. If we focus on issues on the periphery rather than on the more critical core issues, we will treat only the symptoms and not address the root causes which have far more significance in the day-to-day lives of our veterans and their families.
My report on improving the New Veterans Charter and the arterial analysis that supports it can serve as a baseline for how this living charter is reviewed by committees. The report's analysis of benefits and programs pinpoints exactly where the current suite of New Veterans Charter benefits is failing some veterans today and will continue to fail more tomorrow unless changes are made quickly.
Let me be blunt: All of us know where the gaps are in the programs. We don't need to study this for months. If we focus on fixing the fundamental gaps in the New Veterans Charter, many of the other complaints will disappear as we will have dealt with the root cause and not the symptoms.
If we fix only the following five items, think how different our conversation would be a year from now. The first is the insufficiency of the economic financial support provided after age 65 to totally and permanently incapacitated veterans. The second item is the drop of income for veterans who are transitioning from the military to a civilian career, because the Earning Loss Benefit pays only 75 per cent of pre-release salaries. The third is access to the Permanent Impairment Allowance. The supplement continues to be a problem for many permanently and severely impaired veterans. The fourth item is the unfair practice of providing a reduced Earnings Loss Benefit for part-time reservists who suffer injury or illness related to service. The fifth financial shortcoming is the non-economic benefit designed to compensate for pain and suffering, the Disability Award. This benefit was supposed to have kept pace with civilian court awards for pain and suffering but it has not.
Too often the debate that swirls around veterans' issues centres on the question, "Am I better off under the Pension Act or under the New Veterans Charter?" The reality is that we have two very different benefit schemes operating in parallel. My view is that we need to accept the fact that veterans are supported under two different benefit schemes and we are not going to rewrite the past.
Mr. Chair, I believe we must focus on addressing the challenges faced by veterans and their families today and tomorrow. So much of the rhetoric is on what has been done. Let us focus on what needs to be done. If we do not deal with these challenges now, we will have to deal with the human cost later. If we study history we know that more improvements will be required in the future because as the nature of conflict changes, so too do the needs of our men and women in uniform.
[Translation]
This is why I am recommending that a regular two-year review of the New Veterans Charter be enshrined in the legislation so that it continues to adapt to the evolving needs of serving men and women, veterans and their families and that it continues also to live up to the government's affirmation that it is a living charter.
[English]
Let me remind you as I reminded the house committee last week that next year is the one hundredth anniversary of the start of the First World War. When Canada entered that war, it was not well-prepared to deal with the thousands of returning casualties and with the ensuing demobilization. Today Canada is much better prepared to care for and support its ill and injured veterans and their families. However, as recent events have shown, "better" is not synonymous with "sufficient" and there is still work to do to ensure that this generation and future generations of veterans receive the care and support they need.
The year we commemorate the one hundredth anniversary of the start of the First World War and the year we end operations in Afghanistan should also be heralded as the year we fix the problems with veterans' benefits and build the solid foundation of care and support for years to come. We need to visibly show our commitment to our men and women in uniform now so they can have hope for a better future.
Mr. Chair and committee members, we built on the past to get to the present. Let us now build on the present to get to the future. All the tools are in place to do it now without undue delay. Our veterans and their families deserve no less.
[Translation]
The Chair: How very eloquent! Mr. Parent, thank you for your clear presentation. I was interested in some of your recommendations. I will now give the floor to the senators who want to ask you questions.
[English]
Mr. Parent: There are three slides I would like to address before we go to questions, if I may.
The Chair: We will go to that.
Mr. Parent: We have provided a package of slides that you can read at your leisure, but I would like to concentrate on the visual slide to give insight on what they represent and a bit of perspective. The first is on page 4 and it has to do with veterans' demographics and financial risks at age 65.
If you look at that slide in front of you, what is important here is to concentrate on what is an immediate need. Certainly, the fact there is a loss of income when veterans reach 65 is very important. We were able to focus on a group of veterans that would be in that dire need when they reach 65.
Here are the demographics: We started on the left-hand side with the total population of veterans in Canada, which is 700,000 and some people. From that we bring it down to the number of people who are actually Veterans Affairs clients, 135,600 and some, and then of course we went down to the veterans themselves who are Canadian Armed Forces clients, 76,400 and some people. These are Canadian Forces veterans who are now administered under the New Veterans Charter.
Of those people, if you go now to the right-hand side — and I remind you that this figure was when we published the report so it might have increased by now — 1,428 people were totally and permanently incapacitated, as designated by Veterans Affairs Canada, which means unable to generate wealth for the rest of their lives.
Of course, of those people, 406, when they reach age 65, will have no other income than what's available through other programs such as Old Age Security and that sort of thing. We were able to focus on those 406. When we are talking about people at risk after age 65, we are talking about that number of people. We're not saying they all are, but they could be, and I think that's important. I have had some discussions with the minister recently that it might not be 406; it might be more or fewer. I don't think the number is of significance here. Even one veteran who becomes destitute after he turns 65 is not right. We need to look at that aspect of it. That was slide 4.
If we look at slide number 7, what is important in our report that is of significance is the fact that to have a good discussion on what is available to veterans and their families we have to look at separating the economic benefits from the non-economic benefits, because that's always been the argument in the past. Now the lump sum award, for instance, is for pain and suffering, and it's a non-economic benefit.
If you look at that slide in front of you on the actuarial value, this represents the scenario of a corporal, 24 years old, four years of service and 80 per cent disability. If you look at the first set of columns on your extreme left, this is a combination of both economic and non-economic benefits. You have here the Pension Act, what it provided. You have the Pension Act with the court decision. Just to inform the committee, this was the SISIP decision of the court that provided that Veterans Affairs disability benefits were not considered income so they should not be subject to clawback. That increased some of the benefits on that aspect.
Then you have the New Veterans Charter. That's everything combined together. Now if you go to the extreme right, where you have the non-economic benefits, you see here that the non-economic benefits such as the pension, the New Veterans Charter is a lot less than the others, than the other two. That's the reason we decided also to separate the two. Pain and suffering are not necessarily linked to service. Anybody in Canada who loses a family member undergoes the same pain and suffering. I think this is a different arena where the discussion should take place.
However, if you go to the centre column, you can see now in looking at the economic benefits that the New Veterans Charter provides better benefits. That is really the gist of our report, the fact that this is an important aspect to consider. I urge you to read the report and get all of the intricacies that are linked to these slides.
The last one, page 8, is a very graphic identification of the drop in revenue that happens when you reach 65 years old. You can see in the scenario on the left-hand side that the individual there, a corporal with allowances, like the Permanent Incapacity Allowance, has a much better situation when he reaches 65, because these allowances remain for life, whereas the corporal in scenario 5, without the Permanent Impairment Allowance, actually gets to zero at 65, no income from VAC whatsoever. It's very important that we fix that as soon as possible.
I am now open for questions.
[Translation]
The Chair: We are now ready for question time.
Senator Nolin: Mr. Parent, my thanks to you and your associates for coming to see us.
Given that we do not have a lot of time and that we have already gone over all this — we met this summer and we have a good idea of the problem — I would like to find out about the short-term solutions.
We are talking about 406 veterans, actually. The number is not important but the principle is. There is a gap here, and when veterans, clients of yours who are permanently impaired, reach the age of 65, they fall in. How do we fix that? You have spoken to the minister. What did he tell you he would do?
Mr. Parent: We do not yet have a concrete plan except that, at the moment, it is important to identify the people who are going to come up against the situation when they reach 65 years of age. This is an opportunity to be proactive. We are not going to get 406 or 1,400 of them turning 65 tomorrow. It is important for the department to be able to identify them and make sure that they have an income after 65 or, alternatively, to find a solution so that they do have an income at that age.
Senator Nolin: Is this a problem with the legislation, with the act, or is it an administrative problem, one of interpreting the regulations? Where is the problem as you see it?
Mr. Parent: The problem is with the act.
Senator Nolin: Then the act absolutely must be changed.
Mr. Parent: Yes, the act must be changed. Just now, I mentioned 406 people who are completely and permanently impaired; from the 1,400 who have been identified, 50 per cent are not receiving the full permanent impairment allowance.
Veterans Affairs Canada designates those people as fully and permanently disabled.
Senator Nolin: Up to the age of 65.
Mr. Parent: The allowance is called the "permanent impairment allowance." Why do 50 per cent of them not receive it? It is very important to look at the eligibility criteria for access because the permanent impairment allowance is for life.
Senator Nolin: What happens at 65 that makes the definition disappear?
Mr. Parent: What happens is that the earnings loss benefit stops at 65.
Senator Nolin: Because they no longer have earnings at that point?
Mr. Parent: Correct. In our office, we have had actually cases of people who were in the Vocational Rehabilitation Program. They were in training, but, when they turned 65, they had their earnings loss benefit taken away.
It is there to help the transition for people who are in a rehabilitation program. The important things to fix are the loss of earnings at the age of 65 and the fact that, when they leave the armed forces, the first thing that happens is that 25 per cent of their salary is taken away.
The other important recommendation is to increase the earnings loss benefit to 90 per cent of their salary. That figure makes sense because, at 90 per cent, when you are not paying into a pension program, your income stays the same.
Senator Nolin: I am going to let my colleagues talk about the other recommendations, but I am going to come back to this correction.
The Chair: Before I let you go on, Senator Nolin, Senator Lang had a question supplementary to yours.
[English]
Senator Lang: I don't think Senator Nolin got an answer to his question. I may be wrong, but the question, I thought, was why are these 400 people not being categorized and recognized so that during their period of time and when they reach 65 they will get those benefits. Because you've told us they are incapacitated. These are the people that I think everyone around this table wants to help the most. Where is the problem? Is it in the adjudication? Is it in the administration? I think the political will is there and the financial resources are there, so why are these 400 people not designated similar to the other thousand that we talk about? Is there a way of correcting that?
Colonel (Ret'd) Denys Guérin, Team Leader for the New Veterans Charter Review, Office of the Veterans Ombudsman: The 400 people here are those who have been designated as totally and permanently incapacitated, but they're not all going to be reaching the age of 65 tomorrow. Some of them are going to be reaching the age of 65 over a number of years. The problem is that some of these people are not receiving the Permanent Impairment Allowance, which is provided for life. It is actually provided here to those who are totally and permanently incapacitated, and 50 per cent of them are not receiving it. When these people reach the age of 65, when they use what is called the Earnings Loss Benefit, they have nothing else in terms of revenue other than CPP and Old Age Security.
Senator Lang: That begs the question, why? My colleague is receiving it but I'm not, and we have the same injury. Who has made the decision that one will get the benefits and the other is denied the benefits? Is it the charter or is it the administration? Is there something wrong with the administration that has to be corrected?
Col. Guérin: That is a very good question. It is the adjudication of the benefit here that decides who gets it and who doesn't. That's one of the things that we are looking at in more detail because we are only able to look at it at the surface here during the NVC review. We are looking at that one in greater detail.
That is only one element of the answer. What also has to happen is that another benefit has to be created according to what we've come up with.
The Chair: I do want to touch on the whole, and this is one of the five particular points that was raised by the ombudsman. There is some technical information in regard to how people are identified in one or the other. That in itself is a process within Veterans Canada that has to be looked at in regard to people who are fully incapacitated. There is a way of looking at who gets it and who does not, but there will be also a legislative requirement.
Mr. Parent, would you be able to amplify the answer in writing to us? We have to take a bit more time in studying this thing. The fundamental element is that the charter bringing in the age of 65 is completely new. That never existed under the Pension Act nor under the 1943 act.
Mr. Parent: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think what is important to realize here is that when they move from the Pension Act to the New Veterans Charter, there were a lot of things that were looked at, and of course one of the weaknesses sometimes of the military person is the fact that we live in the present and don't think much about when we are going to turn 65 when you are actually only 25 years of age. That was probably something that was missed.
What is happening now is you see people before Afghanistan, for instance, who had careers in the forces. With a career, you can assume that you have a pension; right? If you have a service pension, you're okay after 65. Young veterans who are mission soldiers who join to go to Afghanistan or reservists who come back and get out of the forces did not get to the point where they have access to a service pension. When they turn 65, they don't have that to help them out. When we looked to going to an exhausted benefit ending at 65, it was almost assumed in those days that people would have a pension and that they would have no problem. We find now a lot of people just don't have that.
I'm not sure whether you're aware or not, but if you're medically released from the Canadian Forces, you must have at least 10 years of service to get an immediate pension. Again, if you have less than 10 years, then you don't have a pension for life. You could have a deferred pension, but you certainly don't have it while you are between the age you got injured and 60 years old. There are a lot of things, as you say, Mr. Chair, that were not looked at at the time that need to be looked at. We can certainly provide amplification in the answer.
The Chair: We will pursue Senator Nolin's question.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: I want to go back to the solutions. I do not want us to get lost in committees, reports, analysis. We know what the problems are. I want to know if your staff is supporting the department in drafting the corrections to the legislation. Is someone looking at the question of what we have to write in the act to fill the gap that presently exists and that is penalizing those 406 veterans? No one on your staff? There must be thought given to who is going to prepare the solution. If it takes six months just to ask the question, we will be going round in circles. You and I know full well that, if no one is thinking about a solution at the moment, it is going to take six months before we even start to think about a solution.
Mr. Parent: We are currently working with the department to help them to identify the people.
Senator Nolin: That is important to me. What is the department telling you?
Mr. Parent: They are developing a solution, trying to reach those people to make sure that they do not lose income when they reach 65.
Senator Nolin: If they identify them and technically, legally, legislatively, they cannot help them — unless there is an ex gratia payment, which we know is going in a completely different direction — what are they going to do?
Mr. Parent: They can help 50 per cent of them by providing them with access to a permanent impairment allowance.
Senator Nolin: I am worried about the other 50 per cent; they are in a black hole.
The Chair: Senator Nolin, the question has been asked. It needs a much more detailed explanation from the ombudsman and from the department.
Senator Nolin: The ombudsman has identified a gap, as is his role, and the department has to come up with a solution. But my fear is that, if the department is left to look for the solution itself, another year will go by.
The Chair: I am expecting the ombudsman to give us more information about the issue that he has raised. I hope that, at that time, we can get the minister and his team here to give us some answers. Your point is well made, Senator Nolin.
Senator Nolin: This is urgent. I did not use the word before, but I feel that it is urgent.
Mr. Parent: I agree with you entirely.
Senator Nolin: I am sure you do.
The Chair: Thank you.
[English]
Forgive me, Senator Lang, but we established a non-written tradition that the deputy chair would have access to the first question. I regret, senator, that you —
Senator Wells: You've already broken that rule.
The Chair: We've done well. Thank you.
Senator Wells: I would defer to Senator Nolin at any time.
With respect to the statutory or administrative roadblock, I note on page 43 you make note of the suggestion of a liberal interpretation or more liberal interpretation during assessment. Would that be under administrative, or is that sort of further down the line of where these assessments are initially done?
Mr. Parent: What is very important here is that all of these problems related to access, the criteria for accessing benefits and programs, in fact are all based on this liberal interpretation. For example, in the United States they have a presumptive judgment. That means that if you serve in the forces, it's assumed it will have an impact on your health, and right away that presumptive judgment is made.
In all of these things that we see, for instance, access to the Permanent Impairment Allowance, the criteria is so rigid that it's very hard for people to access that. Again, we are working right now with the department, preparing another report specifically on the Permanent Incapacity Allowance and the PIA supplement to actually get them to work these eligibility criteria, so it can be done within.
Another aspect that we have not mentioned either is that in the Permanent Incapacity Allowance there are actually three levels that people can access, and yet the majority of the people are at the lowest level, so why three levels? We are working right now on the process.
Senator Wells: Rather than have a liberal assessment of a set of guidelines, why wouldn't the guidelines include, as a default, a liberal, if I can call it that, small "l" liberal, of course — shouldn't the guidelines include the default being a liberal assessment rather than have that flexibility to say maybe not or perhaps? Am I explaining the question properly?
Mr. Parent: That's a good point.
Senator Wells: Why wouldn't the default be the liberal assessment?
The Chair: Allow me to intervene. When you read the legislation, it includes a whole series of regulations that are inside the legislation. And it is the tone and the content of these regulations that have established this atmosphere of not giving the benefit of the doubt, if we can use that term — or default — necessarily to the veteran. There is a constant requirement for them to prove, although you need a certain level of that. However, there is not a default mechanism.
A number of the points that have been raised here, contrary to what was recommended, may need legislation because they are in the act where too much regulation was put in and not enough flexibility was given to the minister.
Mr. Parent, a number of these points are, in fact, caught up in the act. Forgive me for intervening.
Senator Wells: That is a good point, and I would like to follow up on that, because a lot of decisions that I would say are the right decisions should happen as part of the program that is established as the default, rather than having to go to the minister's office — not that we would challenge the supremacy of the minister. To get the right decision, you shouldn't always have to go to the minister. It should be part of the process that's fair to the veterans and part of the process, even more importantly, that's fair to injured veterans.
The Chair: Again, going to the minister would be one thing — and he fights with the Treasury Board, and that's fine — but because of the way it's written, he actually has to go to the House of Commons. He has to go back to the cabinet and House of Commons to get new legislation. And that is quite a significant impairment to the minister's being able to move.
Senator Wells: Absolutely.
The other thing I wanted to ask, which is not so much away from that theme — but please talk to me for a moment about the whole idea of closure, on page 11 of your report, versus a transition and versus caring to well beyond retirement age. I think we can all agree that closure is good, but I think we can probably all agree that closure is not always available with a severe impairment.
Can you talk about the idea of closure, which is finite, and the idea of caring to the grave, and the idea that it might also be a crutch to closure?
Mr. Parent: When we talk about the post-service life, if you wish, I think what is important is to maximize the transition — to maximize the success of the transition. And that's what the New Veterans Charter is designed for with its transition through a vocational rehabilitation program.
What is lacking right now is that sometimes we forget that the family must transition as well, and there are very few programs in place for that. Also, we are finding out, unfortunately, with some recent events in the media that maybe families are not well prepared to deal with issues of members who have PTSD and OSIs and that sort of thing. Again, our recommendations in our report are that we need to get the people to actually transition better through that.
Also, in many cases we have spouses who sacrifice their careers and their income in order to take care of injured veterans, and there is no compensation for that.
If you put all of these issues together, you can see that the family can be in a very dangerous situation, if they are facing that. That's very important.
I'm not sure of the closure. I can't really remember.
Col. Guérin: I think the closure relates to the Disability Award, and I think the intent here was to say, "Okay, you are injured. We will provide you here with a lump sum so you can move on with your life." But it doesn't mean that you don't need additional economic support to help you move on and transition.
So it is two concepts: One is to say, "Here is the pain and suffering sort of closure type of award," but then we will support you while you transition to civilian life, or support you till age 65 or till the end of your life. It is two elements.
Mr. Parent: There is a misconception out there by some veterans that when we say "closure" — in fact, they look at the lump-sum award as being closure; that's it, they are finished. Well, it's not. If you understand the charter correctly, if you are unable to transition and to go through the vocational rehabilitation and be successful, there are mechanisms that fall into place to provide income.
Certainly, if you are permanently incapacitated, there are mechanisms — although hard to access at this point in time and maybe not adequate in some — but they are there to provide for life, like they did under the Pension Act. But a lot of individuals have commented that all they see is the lump-sum award.
Senator Wells: Thank you. I have so many more questions, but I will cede the floor in the interests of time.
The Chair: Thank you. Maybe we'll have a chance for a second round.
Senator Lang: I'm new to this committee, and I'm trying to understand fully what is made available for our veterans. I think we all agree around this table that veterans are a very important part of our community, and we really appreciate what they've done for our country.
At the same time, I'd like to get kind of a bit of an understanding. First, on the question of those who are 80 per cent incapacitated, we talk about going back to the 1,400, and you have said there are 406 that you have estimated; is that right? I think we really should hone in on that, because it looks like the immediate problem.
First, I want to clarify: The real issue here is administrative; it's not legislative. Is that correct — yes or no? I want to get it clear where the responsibility is to rectify the situation.
Mr. Parent: They are twofold: administrative, and the fact that the eligibility criteria, if they were broadened, would provide for 50 per cent of people getting the Permanent Incapacity Allowance, therefore income after age 65. Income after age 65, though, for people who are not permanently incapacitated, then there might be legislative amendments that need to be done.
Senator Lang: The viewer must be just as confused as I am, because my understanding — from what you've told me and what I've heard — is that these veterans are all over 80 per cent incapacitated but they have not been designated because of the system. That's what I want to understand — why you would be designated incapacitated and I wouldn't be if I have the 80 per cent incapacity. Where is the problem? That's what I'm trying to get into, following Senator Nolin. I don't think we're getting an answer.
Is it because the adjudicator says that he is 80 per cent incapacitated but I'm not? Is that where the problem lies? And then if it is, do we have enough adjudicators to go back and ensure that those veterans who are incapacitated will be treated properly? That's what we want to know. Am I understanding this correctly?
Col. Guérin: The 80 per cent here is the one example. The graphs you have in front of you — it was an example. So the 80 per cent here was that corporal who was 80 per cent disabled.
But to be "totally and permanently incapacitated" is a decision made by the case manager at VAC. It doesn't matter what level of disability you have; you can be totally and permanently incapacitated with 40 per cent disability.
The disability level is not important here. It's whether you can actually engage in suitable gainful employment that is important. If you are unable to work or unable to have a salary that is at least 66 and two thirds of what you had in the Canadian Forces, you would be designated as "totally and permanently incapacitated."
It's complicated.
Senator Lang: It's complicated and, quite frankly, we're dealing with people's lives here, and we are all very concerned about it.
My concern is when I read this document I see there are 400-plus Canadians out there who are in question of whether, at the age of 65, they will not get benefits. You've said they've come here and then they just drop off.
Can you tell me how many of these Canadians will not have benefits because of this this coming Christmas? Are we talking 400 or 40? Where do you get the statistics, and have you identified these people? If you have not identified them, why not?
Col. Guérin: We don't have the actual age distribution of these 400 people. We know that they will be, over the next several years here, reaching age 65, but there are some here who have reached the age of 65. It is not 406 — it could be 50 — but it's not the full amount.
Senator Lang: What I don't understand is if there's one out there who is in this situation, how come he has not been able to identify himself or herself, or we haven't been able to identify them? Where is the problem for this individual who could be destitute because he turned 65 on December 19? Tell me why we haven't identified him.
Mr. Parent: Certainly, that's a hard question to answer. First, there are a lot of people who are too proud to come forward. Second, a lot people, as I said before, are not concerned until they turn 65. Some of them weren't aware of the problem but now they are because the responsibility of the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman is to make the department aware of deficiencies within the system, and we did. The report actually indicates that we have found people at risk, and now we need the department to move on finding those people at risk and ensuring that they are looked after when they turn 65.
We have provided options in our report. What can you do to help the people who will turn 65 and be destitute? We have provided some options and recommendations based on the expectations that when you retire from any job, 70 per cent of your salary is what you should aim for. The options that were provided to the department are actually different options to do just that — even introduce a new allowance, if they have to do so, to use some of the allowances that are now in place and make them permanent rather than 65. These suggestions are there right now, and it's the department's responsibility to do something about it.
I agree with Senator Nolin that it needs to be worked on. We're saying that this is the most important part of the report and people need to be tracked down and looked at. In fact, if the department had actually implemented the recommendations of our previous report on providing ID cards for regular forces and reservists when they retire, then they would easily be able to track them down now.
Gary Walbourne, Executive Director of Operations and Deputy Ombudsman, Office of the Veterans Ombudsman: Additionally, when we had our review, we went at it from a statistical point of view. We wanted to do the analysis of the actual people. The data we received and how we culled it down to the 406 came from the department. The first thing we did was strip out all personal information because we didn't need to know that at the time. We got our information from the departments. We had a data cube. We stripped out the personal information, and through a series of yes or no questions, we drilled down to the 406. The data does exist and it resides in the department.
Senator Lang: I want to follow up on that. You just said that the department has the names of these 406?
Mr. Walbourne: Yes, sir.
Senator Lang: So why are we saying we have to identify them? Don't they have a phone number?
The Chair: Forgive me; the chair would like to intervene. All the data the Veterans Ombudsman has comes directly from the department. The department has all these cases because they're the ones who took the decisions for that. What has the department done about this recommendation? We can, in particular, bring to the attention of the minister that we believe there might be some right now who are in a position of risk because they are approaching or are at age 65. I think that's a note that the committee could bring forward. That's a bit outside the mandate of Veterans Ombudsman. He has raised it and it is up to us to push it.
Senator Lang, I would like to pass on to other colleagues. We will try a second round, if you don't mind. You pulled a good one with your supplementary question, so we'll try to balance it out.
Senator Lang: I learned a lot from my colleagues, previously.
The Chair: Well done.
Senator Day: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and let me thank as well the ombudsman for the fine work he has done in this report. I must confess that I haven't had a chance to study it to the detail I would like, but I get the sense that maybe we're starting to move from these little boxes that we've had in the past. You talk about compensating for pain and suffering, economic loss and keeping the soldier, the vet, at a reasonable amount. We all recognize that there should be some compensation for pain and suffering and that if someone has been injured, then he or she should have some compensation to keep them at roughly the same strata they were in previously.
When I pick up the brief note you've given me, I start thinking about all these different things. This is just on page 1, which says "Increased Minimum Salary for Earnings Loss Benefits." We've then got categories called Earning Loss Benefits, Permanent Impairment Allowance, Exceptional Incapacity Allowance and disability awards of various types. No wonder we need a whole team of people to analyze what category to put each of these in.
There was a fellow by the name of Robert Stanfield who, many years ago, said simplify this. A guaranteed annual income is really what we should be looking at, plus some compensation for pain and suffering. Why all these different categories? Have you done any thinking about getting out of the box and talking about simplifying all of this?
Mr. Parent: We certainly would like to see that. I must agree with you that it's very complicated. I think a lot has to do with the fact that there are two schemes out there and there are still some remnants of old ones. There is also the fact that right now there is a big difference between the earnings lost allocation, which is there to provide income while people are transitioning and training for a new vocation, which in fact is not a permanent one. It could be extended and could be until age 65, but it disappears at 65. The other one is for permanently incapacitated people.
Yes, it is confusing out there. Most of the veterans, especially older veterans, have a hard time understanding what is going on — someone suffering from non-visible injuries as well. It is very complicated. If we had a chance to look at the business process itself and look at how things are administered generally, certainly we'd be the first one to say let's get out of the boxes. We also found out that some people within the department are not aware of what goes on in other silos. That needs to be looked at.
Senator Day: We can assume that some soon-to-retire veterans, who are going to be advised through one of the various places on base, might not be fully informed about all the options either, or how they fit into the various options, because not everybody will be fully aware of all the different programs.
Ombudsman, I was surprised when I heard you comment that your view is that we need to accept the fact that veterans are supported under two different benefit schemes and that we are not going to rewrite the past. Well, we're not rewriting the past. For those in the older scheme that's great, but I don't think we have to accept that we're always going to be running with these two different programs. I think we should be working toward simplifying the whole thing. I hope that you're working in that direction as well.
Mr. Parent: You are quite right, senator. What we're looking at right now is that in the future it should not be a "New Veterans Charter." It should be a charter for veterans. I think that led to a lot of the confusion — namely, was it a new charter for old veterans or a new charter for new veterans? What we need is one charter for all veterans.
Senator Day: Precisely.
Mr. Parent: My term is not long enough to allow me to delve into the merging of the legislation. However, if I was here long enough, I probably would because, in the end, we need one piece of legislation and one charter and everybody administering under the same act.
Senator Day: I think if you started talking that way, even though we may not get there and we may not be here when we ultimately arrive at that, someone has to talk about it and make sense out of this. I think you would get good support from this committee.
Let me just finish because this is a tight time slot that we have. We're voting on Bill C-4, which has in it many different things. It's an omnibus budget implementation bill. One of the items in there is the reduction in the number of individuals who are on the Veterans Review and Appeal Board.
Now 29 people is what is allowed now; they've been operating at 22 for the last little while. The compromise seems to be that they are going to 25, which is in the legislation. We have had veterans waiting for over a year for their cases to be heard — many of them dying before their cases are heard.
Why are we ever agreeing, and why aren't we hearing more from you about why we are agreeing to reduce the number? Why haven't we been screaming that instead of 22 it should have been 29, so where they are supposed to be? And then we wouldn't have veterans dying before they've had their cases heard.
Mr. Parent: A good question. In fact, I had the opportunity to answer that very specific question to the committee, the Senate committee before. In fact, Mr. Chair was present at the time. I think what's important is wherever you set the numbers, these have to be filled all the time; they need to be functional people. Right now, 25 — and I'm sure they heard from Mr. Larlee as well. I didn't see the transcript of his testimony, but I think that's his opinion as well — that, yes, I'm okay with 25, but fill them.
Right now what's happening is that as people are disappearing and reaching the end of their tenure, it takes five or six months before they're replaced. So they're at 25, but they operate at 22. My comment was then make sure the PCO, that the process of replacing people is such that when one leaves there's another one in place that is functional, and that's the problem right now. If they are going to have it at 25, they need 25 people completely functional all the time, and that's the important part of it.
Senator Day: I will just finish on this: I don't know why the argument shouldn't have just been to fill the 29 slots we're entitled to have so we can deal with this backlog of a year or two years, as opposed to accepting a compromise saying, "Oh, my god, if we agree to go down 25 then maybe you'll fill it at 25."
It's a compromise that has no analysis, no study done to determine that that is the optimum number. It's a compromise because you say, "Maybe if we agree to this then you will fill those slots."
Mr. Parent: I'm not sure what the answer of the chair of the board was, but I would expect that he would be in a much better position to explain the rhetoric of why he would accept 25.
Senator Day: I think we will all be watching that.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Day. This chair has been trying to get the chair of that board in front of us, and he seems not to have come forward. That's certainly a name, remembering that it's not just taking six months to fill the position; they need four to six months of training before they can even be functional.
Thank you for that point, Senator Day and Mr. Parent.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Mr. Parent, thank you so much for your work that you've done and helping me understand all of this.
I've worked with a lot of veterans and a lot of associations in New Brunswick. What I'm beginning to see, and I hear in different areas people saying, "Well, there's this much money, we've done this, we've done that, we've done this," more than any other government has. But my deep feeling is that something is inherently wrong. Whether it's the delivery or something else, I think that we're putting a band-aid on different areas and not hiving down to perhaps the deeper solution.
One of the things I'm wondering if you could comment on is whether there is an overriding mentality in the department that perhaps comes from years ago — 50 or 60 years ago — that our veterans, we fought our wars, whatever, and we're just here until they die, and then winding down, winding down all the time the services we provide.
I see that in a lot of things. I see that in veterans hospitals, in veterans areas that seemingly without any thought about the veterans who served as peacekeepers, who didn't see fighting action but who were injured on the job from knee injuries, back injuries, et cetera, who will need our support coming now, they're coming into this now. I see Bosnia and Afghanistan. In fact, we're not winding down, we're almost ramping up. I'm not sure the department has kept pace with the change in the realities of today. Could you comment on that for me, please?
Mr. Parent: Certainly there is a difficulty in dealing with different generations and different generations of veterans. I know that a few years back, when the department started to talk about reduction and transformation, their argument was based on the fact that it was a diminishing population of war veterans. In fact, we actually didn't have the same perspective. I can add that to this point there are people from the Second World War and Korea that are now just coming forward and asking for benefits.
Sometimes what's happening is that by focusing on one generation you kind of forget about the rest of them. I think lately we've heard some comments in the Maritimes specifically about the fact that they are closing offices, but there are now applications online and the website and all that. That's fine, but you cannot forget that some older veterans do not work that way. They need telephone access and face-to-face contact. This is one of the things that are important.
One thing in Veterans Affairs Canada — and I've been saying it for three years and I'll keep saying it — is the communications aspect. You can't overemphasize the fact that you need to speak the language of the people you serve. You need to talk to every generation of your client, if you wish. That's an important aspect of it. But you can't concentrate on one thing and forget that there are other people out there who need to be looked after as well.
It's a department that is transforming and reducing; there are certainly a lot of changes in the department, that sort of thing. That's creating a lot of angst, I imagine. The closure is another aspect of it in the Maritimes as well. All of these need to come into play and need to be considered.
Senator Stewart Olsen: I understand the closures. I'm not certain that's as bad a thing as some people feel. I like the idea that now in Service Canada there will be a veterans' representative. At least that's what I'm hearing, and that's closer to a lot of people than trying to get to P.E.I. or Halifax. I don't mind that at all.
But what I think we have to really begin to look at it, and I've heard this from many veterans, is that a veteran is a veteran, whether you saw active service or whether you didn't and served, but you did your service.
Also, we have to look at some of these benefits we're providing. For instance, I think it must only be in the Armed Forces or in our veterans that you have to work for 10 years before you get a pension. You pay into it. As MPs you work six. So I'm not sure why that 10-year cap is there.
I see a lot of things that we need to address, and I know you can't do them all. I take Senator Day's point that it is extremely confusing, and I think a big part of it is simplifying and trying to get something that works for everyone. I see that's where you're going, and I would support that.
The Chair: If I may, I would recommend — and I believe my staff has attempted to get to members of the committee — the 2004 Neary report that dissected many of the points you've raised here, Senator Stewart Olsen, and was to be the basis of the New Veterans Charter but ended up not being that, for whatever internal reason there. You're percipient to realize you've got a department that was thinking it was closing but in fact has ramped up to the extent that you now have more new-generation veterans in the province of Quebec than older ones. Thank you for raising that point in front of the veterans.
We'll do a second round as we have a few minutes.
Senator Wells: I would like to explore and drill down a bit into some of the family support programs and recommendations. Can you discuss in general? In some of my thinking I think, okay, well, you have someone in the Canadian Forces in whatever branch, and then I don't know what is typical, but perhaps there is a spouse who works as well. Is the suggestion that if there is a permanent disability that spouse would not work and then Veterans Affairs would provide compensation for that? Could you just tell me a little bit about vocational training and some of the things around the further supports, outside of the specific injury-related support?
Mr. Parent: We identified there were quite a few concerns about the support given to families under the New Veterans Charter and looking at the fact that within the military in last few years they've gone out of their way to make the family part of the military life with the Military Family Resource Centres that are available at most of the bases. They've done great work in helping the families go through different types of transition like postings and adaptation to new bases. The families have come to rely on that. When you get out of the forces, it doesn't exist anymore.
We are suggesting that there needs to be a transition for the family as well. Maybe those programs in partnership between DND and Veterans Affairs Canada should be extended for the first or second year of the veteran's retirement or transition. Another aspect that we talk about is the fact that because we have young people now who are retiring, they may not have access to the dental care plan, as we have under people who have superannuation. But because they don't have that, they don't have access. Maybe that should be looked at because it is a low-cost, shared program. That would certainly help families through their transition.
Another one, as I mentioned before, is that if your spouse is injured to the point where you have to sacrifice your own career to look after that spouse, caregiver recognition should be that you are entitled to some benefits to compensate for your loss as well. That doesn't exist right now. We were successful years back in getting the department to accept a broadening of the caregiver definition in relation to the Agent Orange ex gratia payments. Some work has been done on that aspect.
Another one is that there is eligibility criteria restriction of one year because what the New Veterans Charter does that the previous act did not is give the opportunity for a spouse to undergo vocational rehabilitation training instead of the injured member. In this case, if there is the death of a member, the spouse, the survivor, must access that within a year. It's a stupid restriction really because God knows that in the first year after your spouse is deceased and if you have small children, you're too busy to think about rehabilitation and changing vocations. These criteria are imposed and should not be there. It is not a matter of cost; it is a matter of being logical.
These are the recommendations we are making because as I said before, the family transitions with the veteran. We don't leave the families behind.
Another aspect that they face is access to medical care for their family and for the military member who was looked after through medical care provided by the forces. But if you leave the base and you go somewhere in a different community, you have to go to the bottom of the list. These are the things we identified that need to be looked after.
Senator Wells: Of course, in retirement when you do leave the base, a lot of the supports that you built up — not necessarily the written supports you speak of — disappear.
The Chair: The chair would like to indicate one thing. This new charter was to take into account that the families now live the missions with the troops because of the media and so on, which is totally different from the history of families because of communications, et cetera. So it was to incorporate significant support to families and the end result is there is next to nothing in it for the families, which is creating double income problems that disappear and so on. Your point is most pertinent. Thank you.
Senator Lang: There are two areas I would like to touch on. The 406 Canadians out there that have been identified, they have a list, they have a name in the department as you've told us. Can we as a committee get an undertaking that your office will ask for the names of those individuals who are about to turn 65 so they can be contacted and dealt with fairly? That's number one. Second, could you maybe make a general observation on our programs that we provide in Canada compared to say the United Kingdom. I think you have done some studies or comparisons. I think Canadians would like to know how we compare to other countries in how we provide for our veterans in a general sense. Do you have comments on that?
Col. Guérin: We looked superficially at comparisons. Doing comparisons with other countries can be dangerous because every country is different. The way they operate is different. The standards of living are different, so in comparing to the U.K., U.S. or Australia, you have to be careful how you do that. The solution we need has to be a made-in-Canada solution. Comparing to the U.K. providing $1 million and we don't, their programs are different. There is a little value in making a comparison but you don't want to take that too far.
Mr. Walbourne: As for the information held by the department, there is no need for us to have access to those names. We don't need to know them. Our job is to hold the department accountable for the services they deliver. Your request would be best directed to the department. They do hold this information and have the ability to get ahold of these people.
The Chair: If the committee is willing, I can write to the minister directly and query him to find out if there are such cases and to take action. And that would be secretarially most important within my terms of reference, if that's okay.
My final point is that Australia has a much smaller force than we have and yet they are spending twice the amount of money we are in veterans' benefits right now. There is something to be done in a more generic way on comparisons that are worthy of being pursued. The Neary report did touch on that, too.
[Translation]
Thank you, Mr. Parent. We appreciate your report very much and we hope that action will be taken. We will have an opportunity to invite officials from the department — and perhaps the minister as well — so that we can how they are dealing with your recommendations.
[English]
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for being here. I will now close the session.
(The subcommittee adjourned.)