Proceedings of the Subcommittee on
Veterans Affairs
Issue 10 - Evidence - March 11, 2015
OTTAWA, Wednesday, March 11, 2015
The Subcommitte on Veterans Affairs of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met this day, at 12:02 p.m., to continue its study of Bill C-27, An Act to amend the Public Service Employment Act (enhancing hiring opportunities for certain serving and former members of the Canadian Forces).
Senator Joseph A. Day (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, today, we are completing our study of Bill C-27, An Act to amend the Public Service Employment Act (enhancing hiring opportunities for certain serving and former members of the Canadian Forces).
[English]
We have with us today two members of the Royal Canadian Legion. We welcome Mr. Steven Clark, who is Director of Administration, and Carolyn Gasser, who is Service Officer with the Dominion Command Service Bureau.
We'll also be hearing from a representative of the Veterans Transition Network, Mr. Tim Laidler, Executive Director.
We will start with the submission from the Royal Canadian Legion, and then we'll go to Mr. Laidler.
Mr. Clark, you have the floor, sir.
Steven Clark, Director, Administration, Royal Canadian Legion: Mr. Chair, committee members, ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon. It is a great pleasure for the Royal Canadian Legion to appear in front of your committee once again. We thank you for that. On behalf of the Dominion President of the Royal Canadian Legion, Tom Eagles, we offer our support for your continuing advocacy on behalf of veterans of all ages and their families.
Thank you for inviting us to appear. As Senator Day had said, I'm Steven Clark, Acting Dominion Secretary and Director of Administration, and with me is Carolyn Gasser, Service Officer with the Dominion Command Service Bureau. The Legion has been assisting veterans and their families since 1926 through our legislative mandate in both the Pension Act and the New Veterans Charter.
In regard to the issue before the committee today, Bill C-27, An Act to amend the Public Service Employment Act, last October the Royal Canadian Legion informally expressed our agreement in principle with the intent of Bill C-27, providing priority hiring for Canadian Armed Forces members. It is a good initiative and one that should make a significant difference in the quality of life of Canadian Armed Forces members who are medically released for injuries related to their service by increasing access to hiring opportunities. However, we do have some concerns.
The first concern is the inclusion of RCMP members in this process. We would request that VAC, PSC and the RCMP review the process to include RCMP members.
The second concern is that we believe all medical releasing personnel should be treated the same way. There should be no differentiation of those attributed to military service as those medically released. However, the fact that Canadian Armed Forces members who are medically released for service-related injuries or illnesses will be raised to the highest level of statutory priority, ahead of other priorities, and persons released for other medical reasons that are non-service-related will be considered under regulatory-level staffing, shows a solid commitment by the government.
The proposed veterans hiring act is good news for medically releasing members and their families.
Carolyn Gasser, Service Officer, Dominion Command Service Bureau, Royal Canadian Legion: The draft legislation proposes that Veterans Affairs Canada adjudicate the service relationship of the injury or illness. Providing service relationship earlier in the process is a positive step in the right direction. However, one must keep in mind that determining service relationship of a medically released member is not the same as determining disability benefits for a specific chronic illness or injury.
This raises some questions: How will the decision on service relationship for a military release affect a request for disability benefits along the line? Will there be delays associated with the bureaucracy that is needed to administer the process to determine service relationship? When and how will the processes be communicated to ensure medically releasing Canadian Armed Forces members can benefit from priority hiring?
Our veterans have been injured while on service to our country and they deserve to be treated fairly with respect and in a timely manner, and they must trust the process. The implementation must be simple, transparent and communicated to our veterans and their families.
In conclusion, I re-emphasize to you that we believe that the veterans hiring act is a good bill that needs to be passed expeditiously in order to give ill and injured soldiers, sailors, airmen and airwomen better access to potential jobs in the public service.
While we are looking for other improvements to ensure the highest quality of lifelong care for injured veterans, these changes are a definite step in the right direction. They will definitely help in the transition process from the military to the civilian environment.
Mr. Clark: On behalf of our president, Tom Eagles, and our 300,000 members, I would be remiss if I did not seek about our disappointment, however, that the federal government did not address the urgent financial shortcomings of the New Veterans Charter in the government's latest response to the ACVA report. We will continue to press on the issues still requiring immediate resolution, including the earnings loss benefit, which must be improved to provide 100 per cent of pre-release income, continue for life, and include increases for projected career earnings for a Canadian Armed Forces member.
Also, the maximum disability award must be increased and be consistent with what is provided to injured civilian workers who receive general damages in law court.
Finally, the third main priority: The current inequity with regard to the earnings loss benefit for class A and class B reservists for service-attributed injuries must cease immediately.
The Royal Canadian Legion will hold the torch high and continue to advocate for those much-needed improvements to the financial compensation for our injured veterans and their families. The government needs to give the men and women who have been injured in the service of our country hope — the hope for a better tomorrow and a brighter future.
The Chair: Thank you, each of you, for your submission. I point out to honourable senators that we have the folder with some background material from the Royal Canadian Legion that amplifies the points that have been made here, and we thank you for doing that. It's helpful for us in our review.
Mr. Laidler.
Tim Laidler, Executive Director, Veterans Transition Network: Thank you very much for having me here today to present. I'll start by giving an introduction of the organization that I'm involved with, and some of the key players that helped make this organization a success, before making a few recommendations on the bill in front of you.
The Veterans Transition Network is an organization that was started at the University of British Columbia in 1997 by Dr. Marvin Westwood and Dr. David Kuhl. They came together and realized there was a need amongst the veteran community at the time to bring veterans together in a group setting and help them to tell their stories about things they experienced overseas in places like Croatia and others from previous conflicts. It allowed the veterans to ideally transition and integrate part of their stories, and it helped with some of the problems associated with post-traumatic stress disorder.
I came across the program when I came back from Afghanistan, having served in the Canadian Forces. I took the program at UBC and then went on to work for Marv Westwood at UBC to get my master's degree in counselling psychology and start the non-profit Veterans Transition Network. We now deliver the program across the country. Dr. Timothy Black came on as our clinical director from the University of Victoria and helped us to train clinicians across the country. With much-needed support from the government and other stakeholders, we have been able to deliver this program to over almost 500 veterans to date.
Our success came from working with partners like Dr. Alice Aitken, Director, Canadian Institute for Military & Veteran Health Research, CIMVHR. We collect research to make sure that the program is effective, and we present every year at the conference they hold. Moreover, other stakeholders came to the table to help, such as Wounded Warriors Canada, True Patriot Love and, most importantly, The Royal Canadian Legion.
In 1997, the BC/Yukon Command of the Royal Canadian Legion brought us the initial funding for this program. In 2012, the Royal Canadian Legion Dominion Command advocated for our program here in Ottawa and came up with $500,000. The government also came up with funding, which is ongoing and has allowed us to deliver this program right across the country. Without the Legion's advocacy and the support of these other players, we never would have been able to get the organization to the place it is at. It's given me today a unique perspective, having grown the program in different provinces, running it and spending 10 days with veterans who are in crisis and in troubling transitions to hear what their needs are. I offer that perspective today.
After reading the Bill C-27, I was impressed by the eligibility criteria. I understand that it will encompass both reserve and regular force units, members who have been in for at least three years. That's something that I think is very important.
I would like to highlight one thing from the reserve perspective. I joined the Canadian Forces as a reservist while I was going to school. When I came back from Afghanistan, my transition started almost immediately. It wasn't when I was releasing from the forces. I came back from Afghanistan and was on full-time pay under a class C contract for about three weeks after my tour. Then I was back into my civilian life. I worked hard while overseas to make sure I got into my classes at UBC so I continued my degree as soon as I came home. It contributed a lot to my successful transition.
That being said, many of my colleagues and many reservists we help today are still in limbo. They finished their tour, are in the process of medical release, in a joint personnel support unit perhaps and looking for their next career move, yet they're not being paid full time by the military. They only get paid when they show up for their weekly training sessions. I wanted to ask if there's any possibility for this eligibility to start sooner in the process rather than waiting until after medical release. Starting the process further upstream while the military is still in contact with them at one of these JPSUs would be a great advantage in particular to the reserve units.
Moreover, I know the Canadian Forces are doing a number of great things, including the program for the Road to Mental Readiness, R2MR. This program tracks Canadian Forces throughout their careers and finds opportunities to flag issues around mental health. If this program could be implemented somehow, if somebody knows they're on track for medical release, then perhaps they could start the application process sooner. That's in regular forces units. We found with the program that when people have the security and peace of mind from knowing they'll have something to do when they release, it helps with all the other symptoms and issues that pose barriers to transition.
Those are my points.
The Chair: There may well be some questions to expand on this. We heard from the two ombudsmen, one from Veterans Affairs and one from National Defence. They were of the view that the provision in this proposed legislation that requires the termination of the cause for release — attribution, I guess, is the term they use. Who should make that determination for these soldiers? Should it be done by Veterans Affairs or should it be done by National Defence? They were of the view that National Defence should do it and as soon as possible. Both of you have mentioned as soon as possible. I understand your point about determining whether the person is eligible for benefits as one test and determining the cause of release as another test.
Have you a point of view in relation to which department should make the determination as to why the individual is to be released? Was it service related or not service related? Could you tell us what your position is on that?
Mr. Clark: Absolutely. I know the bill specifies that the determination will be made by the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Veterans Affairs does have particular expertise in reviewing those situations, so they are well positioned now to make that determination. It is a very good point that you and Tim raised: It has to be done quickly so that the individual member is not disadvantaged in any way.
That being said, noting that Veterans Affairs does have a current expertise, Carolyn I believe you can expand on the issue that the ombudsmen were referring to.
Ms. Gasser: Yes. What the ombudsmen seem to be referring to is that earlier in the process when a member is going to be medically released, they're informed by paper message about six months before they're releasing. At that point, it is reviewed by the Director of Medical Policy at DND. We feel that would be an ideal time to determine whether it was caused by service or not. It gives six months for a member to get on the priority list to have an opportunity earlier to know what they're going to be doing as soon as they get out of the military.
The Chair: You're supporting the position taken by the ombudsmen.
Ms. Gasser: As long as it's expedited, yes.
The Chair: That was the point they were making as well.
Senator Stewart Olsen is a New Brunswick senator and deputy chair of the committee. She will be the first questioner.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Thank you for the work you do for our veterans and for your dedication. I work a lot with the Legion and I'm always so impressed. You've put your case clearly, and I'm grateful for that.
Ms. Gasser, you had a list of things that you would like to see more follow-up on when you gave your statement. That list was very instructive. Would you mind expanding on it and sending it to the committee in written form, please, as well as more on expediting the medical release? Those are key.
Mr. Laidler, in the casework we do, the main problem is that it just doesn't happen with the degree of quickness that our veterans need to have stability. I'm optimistic that the changes proposed in the bill, with Veterans Affairs coming in earlier and working more closely with Defence, will expedite what's happening with our veterans because it's all for the good of the veterans that we're here.
I'd be grateful if you could send all of that to us because I'd like to follow them up.
Ms. Gasser: Absolutely, we can put that together for you.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Your points on transition and the reservists are also well taken. I'm impressed with our witnesses and I just wanted to tell them that. I thank all of you for the information you shared with us because it's a great help as we move forward.
The Chair: Are there any comments you'd like to make in relation to Senator Stewart Olsen's points?
Mr. Clark: Yes.
With regard to receiving information about the other issues, that type of request is very encouraging because the Legion, as you know, advocates on behalf of veterans on a number of issues. Knowing that you are interested and we can have that opportunity or avenue to share this information with you is a positive thing. So thank you very much for that welcome for input.
Senator Stewart Olsen: If it goes to the clerk of the committee, then all of us on the committee can receive that. I think that would be very helpful.
Mr. Clark: Absolutely. We do have some information that's included in the package, called "Veterans Matter," but we can certainly expound on that.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Thank you so much.
The Chair: Mr. Laidler, any comment?
Mr. Laidler: I agree with everything that's being said. The overlap between Veterans Affairs and DND is essential. I definitely agree that if DND can make the first assessment, if things are attributable to service, during the release process and the disclosure that happens they can make a baseline decision and then Veterans Affairs is equipped to deal with the appeal process after that.
The Chair: You know the process a lot better than we do, so maybe you could help us here. If a soldier is injured, typically he or she would stay in the Armed Forces for a couple of years before release.
Mr. Laidler: Correct.
The Chair: Is there any reason why, during that two-year period, Veterans Affairs or National Defence couldn't make a determination as to attribution of the injury, whether it was service related or not?
Mr. Laidler: Quite often that does happen. A number of my colleagues are still in the Canadian Forces and have put forward claims to Veterans Affairs while still being in and have had them accepted and are receiving the payments and the benefits from them. We find that the personnel who are going through a medical release process tend to be case managed, are monitored quite closely and do get quite a bit of support, but not in all cases.
The ones we deal with in our network tend to be people who have started to see the symptoms of post-traumatic stress. They have said, "The military is just too much for me," and they've quit. They haven't gone through a medical release process, haven't asked for help and have shown up five years, ten years down the road. The symptoms have worsened and they've coming back and they're starting to go through Veterans Affairs. That's where they're saying, "Well, send us all the paperwork; we need to see where your injury came from." They are then saying, "I didn't see a counsellor," or "I didn't go get an assessment while I was in the military." Now they're trying to meet a doctor and remember things that happened five or ten years before.
I believe that's where a lot of the breakdown happens. It's a big part of the reason that in our organization we've made sure to partner with third parties and get funding not only from the government, who will pay for any client of Veterans Affairs, but we also have a pot of money from the Legion, True Patriot Love and Wounded Warriors. If someone is going through the process of appealing and trying to figure out whether it's attributable or not, we can put them through out program with the community funding so they get at least some support at the beginning and then hopefully they'll get the government support later.
The Chair: It's in our interest, all of us who support the Armed Forces and veterans, especially for an injured soldier who is going through other traumatic psychological issues, to try to make this as seamless as possible. I think that's your objective as well.
Mr. Laidler: Yes.
The Chair: That's why we have these questions: Who should be making the determination, first of all, about attribution of injury; and second, what programs will be available for that injured warrior? They're the issues we've been struggling with here from the witnesses' point of view.
Senator Mitchell: I may have missed this but, Mr. Clark, I think you were making the point that one of the issues is trying to make the maximum award of damages for a military veteran comparable or equal to those that somebody would get from a private-sector insurance program. Could you verify that? Could you tell us what kind of differences we are talking about? Could you give an example of somebody who loses an arm in industry versus losing an arm in the military?
Mr. Clark: That's exactly the point. We want the award, if I can say that, given to a military member that's leaving to be the same as a civilian that's awarded through courts. Quite often courts are more generous in what is actually given to the individual. Where there is an upper limit for any military member that would receive such injuries, there may not be that specific limit for a civilian.
With regard to a specific example, I cannot provide that. However, Carolyn, from the service bureau point of view, having worked with specific veterans who may have gone through the process, may have further information.
Ms. Gasser: Yes. We do hear several complaints about the amount they receive because it has changed their life so much. The maximum I believe right now is just over $300,000, and that is only attributable if somebody is deceased from their conditions. That's what their spouse would receive.
It's difficult to say. I'm not sure what is out there in civilian courts right now. I can't attest to that, but it is significantly lower with Veterans Affairs.
As Tim was alluding to with PTSD and other mental health conditions, often they may get about 50 per cent of that $300,000. At that time too, that's a lump-sum award. Thank goodness Tim's organization is actually there to help with some of the treatment.
We hear lots of complaints.
The Chair: I don't mean to interrupt you, but could we clarify the record? The $300,000 was a figure that we heard about for some time at $250,000. It's now been increased to $300,000.
Ms. Gasser: Yes.
The Chair: That's for deceased or total disability as well?
Ms. Gasser: Yes, that's correct. Every year it increases slightly.
The Chair: Yes, but you don't have to be deceased?
Ms. Gasser: No, totally disabled.
The Chair: Total disability.
Ms. Gasser: Yes.
The Chair: Who makes that assessment?
Ms. Gasser: Veterans Affairs and the doctors who would assess the veteran.
Mr. Clark: If I might follow up, Senator Mitchell, I will get you specific information so you will have that for comparison purposes.
Senator Mitchell: I appreciate that.
When you say you're working to equalize, what steps are you taking? Do you have a position paper? Are you lobbying the government? Is it something you see as an amendment to this legislation? Is it a policy or regulatory initiative?
Mr. Clark: It is a position paper that we have that we continually advocate. It's not something we would have or see as included in this particular act, but it is something that we have stated on a few occasions. We have as well recently issued a paper called "Veterans Matter." You have a copy of it in your portfolio. It summarizes the main points that the Royal Canadian Legion has been advocating — there's nothing new in this paper — for the last number of months that we would like to see that would assist and improve the benefits for ill and injured veterans.
Something that we do on every occasion that we can is make sure that we are continuing to advocate to government to make sure that the position is known so that perhaps we may see some progress.
Senator Mitchell: The RCMP members run into some of the same problems, sometimes for the same reasons, action; sometimes for the same reasons, harassment; sometimes for different reasons. Do you represent them? Have you made comparisons between the benefits they get and the benefits that the military get?
Mr. Clark: We work closely with the RCMP. Carolyn can expound on this if I omit something.
Something we had recently done at our dominion convention in Edmonton this past year was expand our definition of a veteran: regular members of the RCMP; police officers on special duty operation or in special duty areas are now, in the eyes of the legion, considered to be a veteran.
Now what does that do? That basically means those individuals are now eligible to receive funding through the poppy funds. Previously it would have had to be a military Canadian Armed Forces member who received that funding, but we can now assist members of the RCMP and police officers in those particular situations.
We have worked closely with the RCMP veterans association. They applauded this inclusion and we're very happy to do so. In fact, we have represented RCMP members in the past and even more so now in the future.
Ms. Gasser: I have many veterans I'm assisting from the RCMP currently. We attended a mental health awareness event at their headquarters last year and many have been coming forward to us.
The difference between the RCMP and regular force or reserve force military members is that the RCMP is still under the Pension Act for their disability pensions, which is the monthly amount. Canadian Forces, for anybody after 2006, it's the New Veterans Charter.
It's a lump-sum award, so there is some disparity. We do hear complaints about what one gets and what one doesn't all the time. An RCMP member may complain because they want that lump sum. They want to be able to do something with it. A Canadian Forces member sometimes, when they're young, says, "That pension would be nice because I'd receive it for 40, 50 years." I don't think there is going to be one thing that fits all. There are differences.
The Chair: The Pension Act versus the New Veterans Charter. Your recommendation that the RCMP should be included is in relation to the priority hiring in the public service.
Ms. Gasser: Yes.
The Chair: You believe the RCMP should be included in this legislation.
Ms. Gasser: Yes, absolutely.
Mr. Clark: Absolutely, but we didn't know if it could be included in this legislation or if it would have to be something done separately or after the fact. We suspected the latter would be the case.
The Chair: I suspect you're right, but it's good that you made the point.
Mr. Clark: We wanted to make the point.
The Chair: I wanted to make sure that you weren't going so far as to say that the RCMP should no longer be under the Pension Act.
Ms. Gasser: No.
The Chair: You're not.
Ms. Gasser: No, not at all.
Senator White: Thanks to all of you for being here. I apologize; I introduced myself to the other two and didn't see you there, Tim.
We had a discussion around what would happen when it came to benefits, but that is appealable. So there is an option as well, regardless of what the first decision is. Seldom is it the last decision is what I understand.
The second question surrounds your referencing court cases because that changes by province. In British Columbia and Western Canada, much greater amounts and sums are being found in some of these claims, compared to Eastern Canada, as an example, except when you look workers' compensation or the equivalent by province. They are much more closely aligned to each other.
Have you done a comparison to what the survivor benefit would be in direct comparison to provincial workers' compensation instead of the court cases?
Ms. Gasser: I myself have not conducted that study.
Senator White: From my perspective, it might actually have greater relevance.
Secondly, we did have a Supreme Court decision as a result of a decision from Yellowknife that actually ended up walking its way, for a decade, through Alberta in relation to a claim put forward from a civil perspective in relation to the Giant Mine investigation. That's why I know about it. The Supreme Court of Canada deemed that workers' compensation had to be the decision maker, so it didn't give an option from a legal perspective. I only point that out — and I'll pose a question at the end, maybe a do-you-agree kind of thing — because the last thing I would like to see is us lose what we have and take a chance on the courts finding out later that we couldn't actually do both. I take it from your nodding head that you understand.
Ms. Gasser: We will look into it.
Senator White: It would be a good comparison for us, to me, more relevant than court cases.
Mr. Laidler: If I could respond on the conversation about compensation, we spend a lot of team in our program educating the military coming in, the veterans coming in, about what they're actually eligible for. They've heard a lot in the media about lump-sum payment versus pension, and the vast majority come in thinking that they're only eligible for a lump-sum payment if they've been injured. We've let them know that there is the earnings loss benefit. They will get 75 per cent of their pay as a monthly payment if they're unable to work due to their injury. That can last for a couple of years until they're back into the workforce, or it can last right up to age 65. With the latest announcement, now they are eligible to get some of that money again until they are past 65.
I would also let everyone know that there is also the PIA, the permanent impairment allowance. It ranges from $500 to $1,700. That's also paid out monthly. There is the permanent impairment allowance supplement. That's another monthly payment that goes on top, and then there are a bunch of other programs like ours. There is money for school and training.
Comparing it to the civil courts, they usually pay it all at one time for the total loss of earnings over a lifetime. When you're comparing that just to the lump-sum payment, the courts often are much bigger, but when you put in the rest of the programs, that is where I think we need to have that included in the conversation.
If I can advocate for one thing, it's to push that out there to the veteran community to realize that they can get monthly payments, and if they just step forward and ask for help, there is something available. More could always be done, but we spend so much time trying to educate.
Senator Stewart Olsen: This is just further to your point, Mr. Laidler. The Legion magazine that comes out is very helpful in listing the benefits that veterans may access, and I found that a good resource for me as well. If you can think of some way to get it to all veterans, that would be fantastic.
The Chair: Good suggestion. We're all working on the same team, just from different points of view.
Senator White: I won't say I'm absolutely convinced, but I also believe that the monthly payments are non-taxable, as are the lump-sum payments.
Mr. Laidler: The lump-sum payment is not taxable, as I understand it, and then the monthly payments are taxable.
Senator White: But the monthly payments made in relation to disability are not.
Mr. Laidler: If they take the lump-sum payment as a monthly payment, they're not, but the ELB, the earning loss benefit —
Senator White: I see; okay. So if they take the lump sum, it's non-taxable. If they spread that out, it's non-taxable, but the ELB, which is the —
Mr. Laidler: Earning loss benefit.
Senator White: — is taxable.
Mr. Laidler: Yes. As well, the permanent impairment allowance, that $500 to $1,700 a month, is also taxable.
Senator White: If I may, Mr. Chair, just to understand, the total amount of money is much different when you figure out that it would have been in a 39 per cent tax bracket as well, I guess, which we often don't take into account. From a court perspective, there are also court costs, legal fees, typically 25 to 40 per cent of the total amount that's allocated.
The Chair: I think all of these factors make life pretty complicated for a wounded soldier who is trying to think about the rest of his life and how he is going to adjust.
The minister, I believe, has made the announcement that he is going to try to consolidate these various types of awards and payments so that there won't be this challenge about which category you fit into, like the earnings loss, et cetera. You named two or three of them here, and good for you to know those.
Senator Mitchell: I'm interested in testing your skill in this way a little bit more. If I get non-taxable lump sum of $300,000 today, I can certainly see why some might say, "So I'm not tempted to fritter it away, I would like to take it out over a period of time, but, if I take it out over 30 years, the dollar paid to me 30 years from now is worth a lot less than the dollar that would've been paid to me today, given present value and the potential to earn something." Does the veteran who chooses to get paid that non-taxable lump sum get the benefit of earning interest on that lump sum over time?
Mr. Laidler: You're at the upper limit of my knowledge. I think there is an index.
Senator Mitchell: I'm at the upper limit of my knowledge, too. In fact, I'm way past it.
Mr. Laidler: I do believe that there was talk of indexing for the latest benefit announced, the after-65 payments. There was discussion about it, and I can't recall if it was decided or not.
Senator Mitchell: It would be worth knowing. We should try to find that out.
The Chair: I'm informed by the Library of Parliament that there is a formula that applies to this.
Mr. Laidler: My understanding is that the vast majority of veterans take the lump-sum payment.
The Chair: Ninety-eight per cent is the figure that has been provided by the Library of Parliament, just for the record. That's very close to the vast majority.
Senator White: There was a reference to the RCMP officers. Emails I get are typically RCMP officers asking why they can't be a part of something they're not part of. Have they done any research on RCMP members who wanted to access lump-sum payments?
The Chair: This would be Veterans Affairs, I suppose?
Senator White: Do you know of any information about the percentage of RCMP members who have approached about accessing "lump sum" over "monthly"?
Mr. Clark: I'm not aware.
Ms. Gasser: I'm not aware of any either. Most of them that I have personally dealt with are happy with the Pension Act, the monthly payments.
The Chair: That's our understanding. That's why I asked that question earlier about the benefits that might be available in terms of payments and programs. Many Armed Forces personnel have wished that they were still under the Pension Act. That's what we are discussing but not what we will be deciding here. Bill C-27 deals with priority hiring within the public service, and your recommendation is that the RCMP should be included in that priority hiring.
Mr. Clark: Yes.
The Chair: Have you done any thinking about the issue of preference hiring for open competitions where the survivor is isn't entitled to that preference for hiring if the spouse who was in the Armed Forces has died? The rule hasn't been changed in relation to definition of survivor for that particular purpose. If it is a Second World War veteran, that would mean that this preference is being made available to an 85-year-old survivor of a veteran. It would be easy to change that definition, but it hasn't been changed. Have you focused on that issue?
Mr. Clark: The Legion has not, no.
The Chair: Mr. Laidler, did you focus on that one?
Mr. Laidler: I did not but that seems to be common sense to change that to make it eligible for the more relevant population. Most of the veterans coming through our organization now started in later years and now they're in their twenties and thirties, and it would be more applicable for their spouses to have that sort of option.
Senator Mitchell: That's what I thought.
The Chair: Thank you. Good answer. That may be an opportune time to adjourn this meeting.
On behalf of our committee, I would like to thank the Royal Canadian Legion, Mr. Clark and Ms. Gasser, for being here, and Mr. Laidler, and thank you for the work that you're doing on behalf of veterans. We assure that you that we're working in tandem with you, and hopefully this legislation will, if and when passed, improve the situation for veterans. There will be other challenges, as has been pointed out by Mr. Clark, and we'll be here to work with you to continue to improve the situation with respect to veterans.
Honourable senators, I would ask you to stay for an in camera meeting following this adjournment.
(The committee adjourned.)