Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Security and Defence
Issue No. 26 - Evidence - Meeting of May 7, 2018
OTTAWA, Monday, May 7, 2018
The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met this day at 1:06 p.m. to study the subject matter of those elements contained in Part 4 of Bill C-74, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measures; and in camera, for the consideration of a draft report on issues relating to creating a defined, professional and consistent system for veterans as they leave the Canadian Armed Forces.
Senator Gwen Boniface (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: Welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence. Before I begin, I will ask my colleagues to introduce themselves.
Senator McIntyre: Paul McIntyre, New Brunswick.
[Translation]
Senator Brazeau: Patrick Brazeau from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Richards: David Richards, New Brunswick.
Senator Griffin: Diane Griffin, Prince Edward Island.
Senator Oh: Victor Oh, Ontario.
The Chair: This afternoon, we will begin our consideration of the subject matter of Part 4 of Bill C-74, budget implementation act, 2018, No. 1, which deals with veterans’ pensions.
In our first session, we are pleased to welcome Ms. Faith McIntyre, Director General, Policy and Research Division, Strategic Policy and Commemoration, Veterans Affairs Canada, who will be joining us by video conference from Prince Edward Island.
Ms. McIntyre, we will hear your opening statement, after which we will have questions, and we welcome you.
Faith McIntyre, Director General, Policy and Research Division, Strategic Policy and Commemoration, Veterans Affairs Canada: Thank you very much. Good afternoon, Ms. Chair, deputy chairs and members of the committee.
As indicated, my name is Faith McIntyre, Director General, Policy and Research Division with Veterans Affairs Canada. I thank you very much for the invitation to appear before the committee. Today I’m here to speak to you about how the Government of Canada is improving the lives of veterans and their families through updates to the Veterans Well-being Act captured in Part 4 of the budget implementation act.
[Translation]
The changes we are announcing to the financial measures for veterans complement the existing financial measures and are intended to help veterans and their families transition to the next step in their lives, whether that involves studies, work or retirement. The research we conducted on veterans’ well-being and its role in preparing them to succeed in life after service is the main driving force behind these changes. Each veteran is different. That is why our programs are flexible and adapted to each veteran’s circumstances and service history in order to meet their unique needs and treat their disabling service-related injuries and illnesses. We need an integrated support system that offers benefits, programs and services.
The Government of Canada passed the Pension Act in 1919. The aim of the act was to recognize soldiers’ and veterans’ contribution to their country and to oversee the payment of benefits to those who were injured as a result of their service. The pension was paid as a combined benefit in compensation for suffering, pain and lost earnings. It did little to help veterans transition to life after service. Today, we know that many of those who returned home after experiencing the horrors of war had difficulty making that transition.
[English]
As we all know, the nature of conflicts changed, and the government had to reorient programming to the needs of modern-day Canadian Armed Forces veterans and their families.
Based on research and consultation, and in response to calls from veterans and stakeholders, in 2006 the government introduced the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act, otherwise known as the New Veterans Charter. Its overarching intentions were to help all veterans obtain well-being in terms of education, employment, finances and physical and mental health. This principle has stayed firm.
In Budget 2016 and Budget 2017 the government invested more than $6 billion into the services and benefits administered by Veteran Affairs Canada, which included an increase to the disability award to a maximum of $360,000, increasing the Earnings Loss Benefit from 75 per cent to 90 per cent and a new Education and Training Benefit. This renewed investment provided an opportunity for the department to make further improvements while structuring benefits and services to be in line with the well-being model.
In 2018 the New Veterans Charter was officially renamed the Veterans Well-being Act. The changes contained in Part 4 of the bill deliver on this government’s promise of a Pension for Life and response to concerns that military and veteran communities shared with us. It’s a combination of benefits that provide recognition, income support and stability to members and veterans who experience a service-related injury or illness, focusing on financial stability as one of the many domains essential to a veteran’s well-being.
The Pension for Life, which was announced in December 2017, includes three new benefits that will recognize and compensate veterans — a $3.6 billion investment over six years, all of which will come into force on April 1, 2019. These new benefits further complement our current suite of programs and services such as case management, mental health supports, caregiver recognition and rehabilitation, to name a few.
First, the Pain and Suffering Compensation is a new, non-taxable monthly benefit that recognizes pain and suffering experienced by a member or veteran that has been caused by a disability resulting from a service-related injury and/or illness. It replaces the lump sum Disability Award that was announced in 2006. It delivers a maximum of $1,150 per month for the life of the serving member or veteran, or it can be provided in a lump sum payment up to a maximum of approximately $360,000.
The amount of compensation is tied directly to the extent of disability. Members and veterans who previously received a disability award may benefit from an additional monthly amount. This monthly amount is paid to the member or veteran and is an amount paid over and above the Disability Award lump sum that they previously received. Those who are eligible for this payment will have the calculation automatically done, and their individualized amount will be payable for life. No reassessment of the veteran’s extent of disability is required.
Second, an Additional Pain and Suffering Compensation is a new non-taxable monthly benefit that provides additional recognition to veterans who are experiencing barriers to re-establishment in post-service life due to a severe and permanent impairment. Depending on the extent of the veteran’s impairment resulting from his or her service-related disability, the monthly amount would be $500, $1,000 or $1,500.
Third, the Income Replacement Benefit is a taxable monthly benefit designed to provide income support to veterans who are experiencing barriers to re-establishment due to a health problem resulting primarily from service. The benefit is available to veterans, survivors and orphans for life, should they need it.
The current financial benefits each have their own complex eligibility and compensation schemes. In an important effort to streamline and simplify processes, the Income Replacement Benefit consolidates six benefits into one simpler benefit. It is equal to 90 per cent of the greater of the veteran’s pre-release salary or a minimum amount. The minimum amount will be $48,600 in 2019, which is indicative of a middle-class income tax bracket. The amount would be less offsets, such as the Canadian Forces superannuation amount.
If a veteran cannot work due to a service-related injury or illness, they will receive this benefit for life. For veterans who are determined to have a diminished earnings capacity, the Income Replacement Benefit will include a recognition for lost career progression of 1 per cent per year in addition to the annual indexation of the benefit. This adjustment would continue to be applied to the pre-release salary until either the veteran is 60 years of age or they would have served 20 years in the military had they still been in the military.
Furthermore, veterans who wish to join the workforce may also earn up to $20,000 from employment sources before any reduction to their Income Replacement Benefit payment. The Income Replacement Benefit amount would reduce to 70 per cent before offsets after the veteran’s sixty-fifth birthday. The survivor or orphan may also receive the Income Replacement Benefit in the event of a veteran or member’s service-related death, at 70 per cent, which is an increase from the current 50 per cent.
Additionally, survivors of a non-service-related death of a veteran prior to age 65 would receive a lump sum payment equal to 24 months of what the veteran received. This is also an increase in current eligibility.
Veterans who are entitled to the Earnings Loss Benefit, the Career Impact Allowance supplement and the Retirement Income Security Benefit will not receive less under the Income Replacement Benefit before their individual offsets than they were receiving prior to this change. Additionally, veterans who are receiving the Career Impact Allowance will automatically be eligible for the additional pain and suffering amount protected at the same grade level.
Part 4 also amends the Pension Act to authorize the Minister of Veteran Affairs to waive, in certain cases, the requirement for an application for benefits under the act, which mirrors provisions already in place in the Veterans Well-being Act. Finally, it also makes consequential amendments to other acts.
[Translation]
By amending the Veterans Well-being Act and making related amendments to other acts, we anticipate that Canadian Armed Forces personnel and veterans dealing with a service-related injury or illness will be able to determine which type of benefit is the best fit for their personal and family situation. Furthermore, these amendments will provide financial security for life for veterans with health problems due to their service in the Canadian Armed Forces, as well as increased financial security for surviving spouses and dependent children. Lastly, the amended act will rationalize and simplify administrative and compensation measures.
[English]
Thank you again for the invitation to speak to you today. I very much appreciate the opportunity to provide additional information on the changes for veterans that are included in the budget implementation act. I look forward to the continued discussion through your questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Thank you very much, Ms. McIntyre. I am pleased to see you again. Can you explain the mechanism for evaluating eligibility for additional benefits? If you cannot answer right now, when will you be able to give us an answer?
Ms. McIntyre: Does your question relate to one of the three pain and suffering benefits, or all three?
Senator Dagenais: Let’s say all three.
Ms. McIntyre: Three new benefits will take effect on April 1, 2019: the Pain and Suffering Compensation, the Additional Pain and Suffering Compensation, and the Income Replacement Benefit. First, there is a transition period for those who are currently receiving these benefits. It will be done quickly and seamlessly. Those who apply starting on April 1, 2019, for a Pain and Suffering Compensation, for example, will have to wait approximately 16 weeks. Right now, however, we are unable to meet that deadline. We will work as quickly as possible within our service standards.
Senator Dagenais: How many veterans are eligible for the Severe Permanent Disability Benefit?
Ms. McIntyre: There are currently 70,000 veterans receiving a disability benefit. We will look at their cases to see whether they are eligible for additional benefits. It will be done automatically. By March 31, 2023, some 90,000 veterans will be receiving the Pain and Suffering Compensation. Does that answer your question?
Senator Dagenais: Yes, Ms. McIntyre. Your answer was very clear. Thank you very much.
[English]
Senator McIntyre: Thank you, Ms. McIntyre, for your presentation. With a name like the McIntyre, you can’t go wrong.
Ms. McIntyre, as I study the legislation and listen to your presentation, I understand that Part 4 of Bill C-74 amends two acts, the Pension Act and the Veterans Well-being Act. The amendments introduce new measures, such as the Income Replacement Benefit, the Pain and Suffering Compensation and the Additional Pain and Suffering Compensation. Basically, the new legislation is consolidating certain previous benefits into new benefits.
That said, my understanding is that some veteran groups have criticized this approach or this proposal of new benefits. For example, the group has argued that for veterans currently, in respect of the disability award, the retroactive assessment would potentially apply to produce a reduced monthly payment for life for such veterans. Is that the case?
Ms. McIntyre: Thank you very much for the question. First of all, correct, there are three new benefits coming into place, which you’ve named. The Income Replacement Benefit is taking six benefits and really bringing them into one. So we’ve got the Earnings Loss Benefit, the Extended Earnings Loss Benefit, the Retirement Income Security Benefit, the Supplementary Retirement Benefit, the Career Impact Allowance and the CIA supplement.
Indeed, it streamlines and consolidates. As I indicated, and as you would have seen in the act through your review, there are transitional provisions to ensure, in particular related to the Income Replacement Benefit, that no one currently in receipt of these benefits would receive less. If they are receiving the Earnings Loss Benefit, the retirement benefit and/or the supplement, they will have a protected amount on a go-forward basis. For those in receipt of the Career Impact Allowance, they would automatically move over to the Additional Pain and Suffering Compensation protected at the same grade level.
To your question, senator, in regard to the additional monthly amount, again you are indeed correct. Approximately, as I said to your colleague, about 70,000 individuals have already received a Disability Award from Veteran Affairs Canada.
What we would do for those individuals is we would look at their individual cases proactively, and it would all be done seamlessly to the veteran. We would compare three things. We would look at the amount they would already have received as a lump sum payment. For example, if they received the maximum amount from 2006 onwards, it would be approximately $360,000.
We would then look at what they would have received had the monthly amount been in place back to, let’s say in this situation I described, 2006. At 100 per cent, the 100 per cent amount is the $360,000. We would look at the difference of those two amounts, if applicable. In some cases there would not be an amount owing to the veteran. If there is a difference, if applicable, we would then apply a life annuity factor. A life annuity factor is a consistent actuarial application that is used in pensions and insurance companies.
Having said all of that, there is a nice scenario on our website that describes how the additional monthly payment would be calculated. In this case of 100 per cent disability, an individual could be eligible for an additional $880 per month for their lifetime.
Senator McIntyre: In your opinion, is there a significant disparity between financial compensation available under the Pension Act versus the New Veterans Charter and the measures included in the budget?
Ms. McIntyre: Thank you, again, very much for the question. I do recognize that this has been a consistent statement that we’ve received from our stakeholder organizations.
We have looked at many different scenarios to see what the impact is on a go-forward basis, because keep in mind, as I described, those currently in receipt of benefits would not receive less as of April 1, 2019.
When we look at the Pension Act, as noted in my opening remarks, the Pension Act was based very specifically on a financial scheme. It did not provide for rehabilitation, retraining, our new education benefit, caregiver recognition amounts, so solely money provided to veterans. That was the way it needed to be back then when those individuals were returning from the war.
I’ll share with you two scenarios. These are available on our website. They are illustrations; we didn’t choose individuals and map this to them. We wanted to provide illustrations as to how this could impact veterans.
We look at an individual at 100 per cent disability, a single 25-year-old veteran. In this case we’ll say she served five years and she has amputations and PTSD. What she would receive — and it’s a woman in the scenario that we have on our website — would be a lifetime total, under this new regime as of April 1, 2019, of $3.9 million after taxes. So she would be eligible for the full amount of the Pain and Suffering Compensation, Additional Pain and Suffering Compensation, Income Replacement Benefit for life, because she has barriers to re-establishment. Then, of course, she would also have case management, treatment benefits, rehabilitation and vocational assistance.
Compare that to the Pension Act. At the single rate, she would have been entitled to $3.6 million.
And I do recognize that the majority of our veterans are not at 100 per cent. Another scenario: If we look again at an individual, this time we’ll have a 20 per cent disability assessment. So a knee injury, let’s say, in this scenario, which is not severe. This individual would not have had a barrier to re-establishment. A 55-year-old retired after 20 years of service, but good physical and mental health. Under the go-forward in April 1, 2019, this individual would be entitled to a total value of approximately $73,000, non-taxable — which is about $220 per month — for life, as well as case management service, and rehabilitation, if needed, in the future, depending on his condition, if it worsens. However, he would also be eligible for the $80,000 Education and Training Benefit.
In comparison to the Pension Act, again, because the Pension Act was solely financial, it would have been more at the single rate of approximately $180,000 over this individual’s lifetime. That does not include the other benefits that I described, which would have been available to him under the New Veterans Charter.
Senator Brazeau: Thank you, Ms. McIntyre, for your presentation. Prior to the introduction of this bill, were veterans consulted, which would have led to some of these proposed changes?
Ms. McIntyre: Thank you very much for the question. I appreciate it, because certainly our stakeholders and veterans organizations are important to what we do. I will say that, yes, we did actively consult and engage. I’ll give you a few examples.
We do have six ministerial advisory groups. They are categorized by specific topics. They report directly to our minister. For example, there are advisory groups on policy, service excellence and mental health, to give you three examples.
They were all asked to provide to us — depending, again, on the lens that they have been applying — what would be best for veterans and their families moving into the future. They presented all their findings in October of 2016, I believe it was, at a veterans summit, in front of all their peers and colleagues. All that information was definitely taken into account, as well as one-on-one conversations we had with particular stakeholders over the several months leading up to the announcement and the memorandum to cabinet, which would have gone forward last fall.
Senator Brazeau: Now that we are aware of what the Government of Canada is proposing in terms of these changes, what would you say the feedback has been with respect to veterans vis-à-vis these proposed changes? Is there general support out there?
Ms. McIntyre: Thank you again for the question. I will indicate that my communications colleagues and I have been mining, if you will, the data and responses through social media, as an example. I understand that for the most part the responses we’re getting are neutral, which, in the field we’re in, we consider to be positive. As you know, we’re often faced with criticism.
Having that said, though, will it please everyone? Definitely not. As noted, the intent of this moving forward is that every individual veteran is different, and so we need to be there when they need us to be there, and we need to be there for those who need us. Certainly financial security is but one element. There are individuals, like the example I gave of the 20 per cent and the knee injury, where that person would be more than capable of working, whereas others would not be. So it’s really looking at it in that light.
Senator Oh: Thank you, Ms. McIntyre, for being here. My question to you is this: Why would veterans released for medical reasons unrelated to their service be excluded from the new Income Replacement Benefit that would take effect on April 1, 2019, based on the proposed changes?
Ms. McIntyre: Thank you very much. I appreciate that question. It’s very pertinent. The question is in relation to our Rehabilitation Services and Vocational Assistance Program.
Currently, we do have what we call a gateway for those medically releasing. Those medical releases, as you noted, sir, may be because of a non-service-related reason. As of April 1 of 2019, we will be closing that gateway. However, in essence, we will be ending rehabilitation, vocational assistance and income replacement benefits for those who medically release for non-service-related reasons. A five-year temporary gateway will be created, from April 2019 to April 2024, to allow non-service-related medically released veterans to receive medical or psychosocial rehabilitation from Veterans Affairs Canada. There will be a temporary gateway for those two services. Vocational rehabilitation and income support would be provided through Canadian Forces Long Term Disability.
In essence, of the four, two will continue to be through Veterans Affairs Canada for that five-year period. Two are currently being offered by the Canadian Forces Long Term Disability, and that’s where those individuals would go. During this temporary period of five years, we are working actively with our Canadian Armed Forces colleagues to ensure a seamless transition and to eventually be able to determine what will be best on a go-forward basis for this group of veterans.
I will also note, sir, that those currently in receipt of all of the benefits would continue to be in receipt after April 1, 2019.
Senator Oh: How many veterans released for medical reasons unrelated to their service currently receive the Earnings Loss Benefit? Do you have any idea?
Ms. McIntyre: Thank you for the question. Unfortunately, I do not know. We can certainly follow up. I understand that’s not a number that is necessarily readily available. When an individual medically releases, obviously they are now welcomed into our program. We will need to verify whether we can break down that number to determine those that are non-service versus those that are service. I’ll have to follow up on that.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you, Ms. McIntyre. My question builds on the question from Senator McIntyre, which I heard your answer to as being one of the protection of current recipients.
Casting forward, what are the calculations after this population of current recipients and after your transition period? Will the new scheme, overall, benefit at an equivalent or greater level than if the previous combination of funding had been continued? In other words, do we anticipate overall greater financial benefits in the future, after the transition stage, or not?
Ms. McIntyre: Thank you very much for the question. I’m glad that it’s understood how those transitioning would not be impacted. Certainly, on a go-forward basis, so as of April 1, 2019, we will be into a new scheme, still under the Veterans Well-being Act, where we are increasing financial security for those who need it.
Overall, this is a package of benefits, services and programs — a package that looks at the well-being of veterans and their families. If we look at it as a package, it definitely is not any less than what an individual would be receiving now.
For example, the Education and Training Benefit of up to $80,000 is something the government has added recently. The amount of the Income Replacement Benefit would not be changed. It’s still 90 per cent of pre-release earnings. The Additional Pain and Suffering Compensation is a non-taxable amount, so that too would have an increased amount.
Overall, to answer your question, in looking at the whole scheme of benefits, it certainly would be a package that would be more generous in the long run.
Senator McPhedran: If I may, I’m quite interested in your use of the term “neutral” in describing responses to the proposed scheme. How is that possible? How many advocacy groups were consulted? It just seems highly unusual that advocacy groups would be neutral.
Ms. McIntyre: Thank you very much for the question. When I used “neutral” as a term, it was in reference to the mining that our communications team does of social media, so through posts on Facebook and through tweets on Twitter. Overall, they look at the different comments and the different symbols that are used, and they are able to determine overall what the feedback is. In this case, for the most part, it has been neutral.
In terms of actually going out and asking stakeholder organizations what they think, we have not done that. We did engage advisory groups, as I noted to your colleague Senator Brazeau, and they have certainly provided feedback. Again, I think it is very individual.
Just to reinforce, I certainly think this is a solid package going forward, but again, every situation is different.
Senator McPhedran: One more quick question on that, please. The question is geared to those from whom you have heard, including your advisory process. How many within the advisory process very distinctly supported these changes?
Ms. McIntyre: Thank you very much. We did not specifically ask those questions. I think certainly we took all of the information forward, but we did not go out to every member of the advisory group to seek their feedback. I think that’s your question, senator.
Senator McPhedran: Yes.
Ms. McIntyre: We do know, however, through client satisfaction surveys currently what the thoughts are, but into the future, that will certainly be a piece that will be included in satisfaction surveys on a go-forward basis.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you.
Senator Griffin: I come from Prince Edward Island where we often have large families, or we certainly did in my day; I’m from a family of eight children. I notice that the number of family members is not being taken into account, comparing the current benefits with the former benefits. I am wondering what the logic is behind this. Would someone with no children get the same benefit as someone with a family of eight children?
Ms. McIntyre: Thank you very much, senator, for the question. I know specifically the Pension Act is what you’re referring to where we do have a single rate, a married rate and then a rate depending on dependents. I think we need to keep in mind that the Pension Act was solely a financial payment provided to veterans, again, depending on some of those criteria. There were also other amounts for exceptional incapacity, the Attendance Allowance and so forth.
The principle of the New Veterans Charter was different when it came into force. It was premised on the occasional rehabilitation, wanting to reintegrate an individual into transitioning out of the military, whatever that might mean for them. Aside from the direct payments — for example, the Pain and Suffering Compensation and Additional Pain and Suffering Compensation — it’s one rate, regardless of family situation.
There are, however, built into the New Veterans Charter, provisions for spouses, children, dependents and orphans, depending on the situation, for things such as vocational rehabilitation. If a veteran is not able to complete their vocational rehabilitation, a spouse may do so. That is much greater than what would have existed as that mere payment under the Pension Act.
We also have a Caregiver Recognition Benefit, which just came into place on April 1, 2018, $1,000 a month payable to a caregiver, which in most cases tends to be a spouse but could also be a child over the age of 18. That is an additional benefit as well. Career Transition Services is also available to spouses, and that’s a transition mechanism to help them.
Just to give you a few examples that it is broader than just the financial amount of money, and a lot of programs and services do include families.
Senator Griffin: Thank you. I have another question. It’s not really related, but I guess at the end of the day I’m looking to see if you’re aware of it. The service dog tax benefit seems to have been voided due to CRA not currently recognizing service dogs. I’m wondering if you’re familiar with that issue and what the understanding or rationale is with that.
Ms. McIntyre: Thank you very much for the question. I am aware of the issue. I can say that here at Veterans Affairs Canada, we are currently doing research into the efficacy of service dogs. We have preliminary results and hope to have further results come this summer.
I am aware of the medical expenses tax credits that are amendments to the Income Tax Act for psychiatric service dogs, where expenses would be recognized in respect of an animal providing those types of services. I understand that they are coming into effect for the current tax year, but aside from that, I don’t know if they are having any particularities or challenges putting those into place.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: First, I would like to apologize for my tardiness. I was with a group of victims. I will try to make up for lost time.
My first question is for Ms. McIntyre. You mentioned a certain number of veterans who might benefit from the new packages. Do you have a percentage rather than a number? Numbers are always relative, while percentages give us a good idea of how many people might be eligible.
Ms. McIntyre: Thank you for your question. I will need several minutes to do the math in my head. If you will allow me to, I will get back to you with the percentage.
Senator Boisvenu: Of course.
I have another question along the same lines as the one asked by Senator McPhedran. Were veterans consulted about the new measures? We know that, in recent months, veterans have severely criticized the federal government. Many of them have made the headlines because of their court cases. Also, how happy are they about the new measures?
Ms. McIntyre: Thank you for your question. I would say that we consulted not only with the six departmental committees that deal with different topics, but also with key stakeholders.
Senator Boisvenu: I am talking about veterans, the people who will benefit from the service. I am not talking about administrators or politicians. Were the people who have been mired in the legal system for years trying to get respect for their rights consulted, and how happy are they with the program and the new measures?
Ms. McIntyre: Thank you for the clarification. I should have mentioned that the members of the departmental advisory committee are veterans. I do not want to say any more about the legal proceedings, but I can confirm that the committee members are veterans who have and will continue to have access to services, as well as family members.
As to how happy they may be, I think that that is a personal question for each individual. We have taken steps to address the criticisms and ensure financial stability for life with different options based on each person’s situation through monthly or lump-sum compensation. As to how happy veterans may be, you can ask the members of the veteran community.
Senator Boisvenu: The members of the committee you are referring to are appointed by the government, are they not?
Ms. McIntyre: They are chosen by the minister himself.
Senator Boisvenu: Are many of these members disabled veterans?
Ms. McIntyre: Yes.
Senator Boisvenu: What percentage of members have a permanent disability?
Ms. McIntyre: I can’t tell you off the top of my head, but we can certainly provide you with a list of members. The information is available on our website. I could check under the Access to Information Act and get back to you about the numbers. We can certainly provide the names of the committee members, because the information is on our public website.
Senator Boisvenu: If I understand correctly, veterans who live far from Ottawa, those who live in Western Canada, the Maritime provinces or other countries, were unable to participate in a consultation that would have allowed them to decide whether the program, which has been in place for several decades, meets their needs.
Ms. McIntyre: There are members on these departmental committees from Quebec, the Atlantic provinces and British Columbia. It depends what you mean by “direct consultation.” They were certainly consulted and involved —
Senator Boisvenu: But, if I understand correctly, there was no direct consultation other than of committee members. I am not trying to discredit them in any way but, the reality of the people who sit on these committees can often differ from that of others. I understand that veterans were not consulted.
You said that the program would be more generous in the long term. When a government or department mentions generosity in the long term, it frightens me, because it means that the program is less generous in the short term. How generous will the program be in the short, medium and long term? Not only over four or five years, but in the short term: how will veterans benefit from the program?
Ms. McIntyre: Thank you for your question. The program will be more generous. We need to look beyond the financial aspect to the services and benefits. We need to look at the entire program. Each veteran needs different things from Veterans Affairs Canada. The measures include educational assistance, the Additional Pain and Suffering Compensation and dental coverage, which was introduced in April. We will also make changes to the rehabilitation program for survivors. Those are some examples. It is important to look at the program as a whole and not only from a financial point of view.
Senator Boisvenu: Thank you very much.
[English]
Senator Richards: Thank you for coming here today, Ms. McIntyre. Full disclosure, I’m married to a McIntyre. Everything is always in flux. I’m just wondering how it is decided who gets what packages of compensation. Can these compensation packages change over time from individual to individual? How do you assess that? Is that an ongoing thing you have in the department? Is it a medical thing within the military that these are assessed? How does it go?
Ms. McIntyre: Thank you for the questions. There are three new benefits we propose to introduce on April 1 of 2019, two of which are focusing on pain and suffering. The Pain and Suffering Compensation and the Additional Pain and Suffering Compensation, those two amounts, are based on an extent of disability arising from a service-related disability, injury or illness. The maximum amount at 100 per cent is $360,000 or $1,150 per month.
On page 542 of the bill, you will see the table that has the percentages and the amounts, depending on your extent of disability. That is an amount that is paid. There will be no decrease to that amount ever. An individual could ask for a reassessment. Of course, there is a risk in asking for a reassessment on the Additional Pain and Suffering Compensation amount in that their grade level may go down. Traditionally, that is not something we proactively do. That is, if you will, consistent.
On the income replacement side, which is the 90 per cent of pre-release, there are certainly eligibility criteria. If an individual does not have a barrier to re-establishment — that is, they are able to go out and work in the workplace — then they would not be eligible for that amount. They may not be eligible for vocational rehabilitation. That, too, is assessed on an ongoing basis. It is very much tied to barriers to re-establishing in the workplace. I hope that answers your question.
Senator Richards: It does in part. My only concern was a person comes home from deployment from Mali, for instance, and they are fine for a year or two, or they seem to be fine. They are assessed based on being fine for a year or two. All of a sudden, however, they are not so fine. That would be treated with great seriousness, would it? They would be allowed to be reassessed on that? That’s what I wanted to know.
Ms. McIntyre: Yes. That’s very important. They can come back at any point in time because their situation may worsen, and so on. Thank you for clarifying that.
Senator Richards: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Final question, Senator Dagenais.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: If I understand you correctly, the files of current beneficiaries may be re-examined. It may happen that some veterans will see their benefits reduced rather than increased. How will you deal with this sort of situation? You can imagine the problems that a decrease in benefits could cause for families.
Ms. McIntyre: Thank you, senator. Current benefits will not be reassessed. Benefits will not decrease. There will be financial protection for loss of earnings. In the case of pain and suffering, depending on the beneficiary’s disability percentage, there could be an additional payment, but none of the benefits already paid out will be recovered. Those currently receiving the earnings loss benefit will not have their benefits reduced. Benefits will be protected in the future.
Senator Dagenais: Thank you very much, Ms. McIntyre.
[English]
The Chair: Ms. McIntyre, we want to thank you again for appearing. We appreciate you answering our questions.
In our second panel today, we are pleased to welcome Mr. Brian McKenna from Equitas Society. We will hear your opening statement, and then we will have some questions for you.
Brian McKenna, Director, Equitas Society: Thank you to the Senate for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Equitas Society. I’m Brian McKenna, a retired veteran and a member of the Equitas board. The inception of our society was to provide some means of comparable compensation or parity to the veterans wounded after the adoption of the NVC, the New Veterans Charter, and those that were administered under the Pension Act. With that statement on its own, it becomes self-evident that the Pension for Life isn’t close to being good enough. It isn’t parity. Even the minister himself was forthcoming enough to say that fairness and parity weren’t his goal.
I’m not going to spend too much time going point for point about a legislative document that was never designed to live up to that political obligation in the first place. I am going to present a few things that I think are the most glaring issues, and they are ones for which I believe there are possible legislative changes available.
I’m presenting ideas that I think you can effect by recommending amendments. I’m not here to mince words; these are not fixes. Were they to be fixes, I’d simply tell you to read the recommendation of the minister’s own policy advisory group which gave specific advice not to follow down this path of essentially dividing an insufficient and unfair amount over a number of years. And I would ask you to read the recommendation of what they did say to do that the minister’s own policy advisory committee gave, which was to combine the good aspects of the rehabilitation programming with the compensation strengths of the Pension Act.
The first and most glaring gap is one of the government’s most repeated lines on the veterans file — that families matter, that spouses matter, that children matter. The spousal amount added to the Pension Act for those that qualify, even those receiving the Pension Act in the year 2018, is $698. For those under the New Veterans Charter, it’s zero. Next year, under the Pension for Life, it’s zero. It does not exist.
For the first child of the injured veteran under the Pension Act, it’s $363. Under the New Veterans Charter, it’s zero, and that remains zero under the Pension for Life. The second child under the Pension Act was $265, again zero and again zero, with the NVC and the Pension for Life. Each additional child past that was an additional $209 and, of course, zero and zero again under the New Veterans Charter and the Pension for Life. The family benefits, the spousal amounts, and the amounts for additional children, for children in general, are not there.
To appear to change topics yet remain focused on what is still not changing with the Pension for Life, what happens if, today, someone has a serious slip and fall here in this place? If it was one of you, if it was a member of Parliament or a member of the security force or any other civil servant in this country, would they lose their pension that they paid into their entire career if they receive an injury benefit for a knee injury or a broken hip? Would you lose yours? Would an employee of Fisheries and Oceans lose their pension they had paid into from day one on the job by having it clawed back dollar for dollar? This is currently being done to all who receive the Earnings Loss Benefit from Veterans Affairs Canada, and that continues under the Pension for Life. Every cent paid into your pension, the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, is lost to you. Every dollar that I get now for the pension I paid into while I served in the military, since I received benefits under the Earnings Loss Benefit, is taken back. That continues on next year once these new policies are in effect.
We hear about the Pension Act of 1919 and why we aren’t going back to it. They’re using the date 1919 almost as an insult. We did many great things around 1919. Many great things about this nation predate that. There’s a reason the ministry doesn’t want to go back to the pension of 1919, and that is because for us, the veterans, it would be a better deal.
Today, with the physical ailments that veterans have, they’re still being sent to the provincial system. Those with mental ailments are still being downloaded onto the provincial system. Those with addiction problems are being sent back to the same treatment centres as always that don’t have a treatment plan for the source of the addiction problem, which, of course, is trauma. That’s not changing next year.
These are the supposed rehabilitation programs. The truth is there aren’t any real new rehabilitation programs coming out. There aren’t any that aren’t what happens for everyone else, which is to download to the provincial system. Yet we are told, under the New Veterans Charter, that for these new programs we were essentially going to have to pay; we’re going to lose our pensions for them.
If the government noticed in 2005 that we were missing rehabilitation programs, it should have built them and sent the bill to the Department of Finance. None of this is fixed by the current proposed legislation. Instead, it speaks of these non-existent new programs and facilities and then sends the veterans of the NVC the invoice, and they are doing it again. They’re doing it right here, right now.
Some veterans will get a small increase next year from the Pension for Life, and the bill is being sent to the most severely injured that we will incur as a nation after 2019 by making the Career Impact Allowance supplement disappear.
I want to be very clear about that. That’s what we were told. We were told we needed to fund these rehabilitation programs. Where are they? Because over the last decade the department has systematically removed itself from applying medicare. Ste. Anne’s was the last hospital to go away.
While it can suggest to you that it’s bringing in more health care, it has, piece by piece, walked itself away from health care and just handed them to the provincial health departments, yet we had to pay for that by surrendering pensions.
Before I finish, there’s some clarity to the conversation I wish to add. If nothing else improves, we can at least speak openly. The vast majority, almost 88 per cent, of veterans will not receive the benefits that are constantly mentioned by the department. You can read in the legislation that six benefits are combined into one for the ease of the veteran. They miss out telling you that most don’t qualify at all. They also like to make suggestions that you get it for life. In fact, the design of the program is that you don’t get it for life. Most don’t get it, period, and those who do only get it for the years they are participating in the actual vocational rehab program. That is not a lifelong benefit, yet the numbers being suggested, and even put in the documents sent to all the veterans, say that they do.
They mention that there is a new additional pain and suffering award. They miss out that this is the rebranded Career Impact Allowance from last year, which is the rebranded Permanent Impairment Allowance from the year before that, as I mentioned, drops the supplement level completely the next year.
The single biggest group of veterans under the New Veterans Charter are those who are moderately injured, those the department expects to be working every day and living with the pain. Some of these veterans will receive a small amount each month, and if there is some left over after dividing up the lump sum over their projected lifespan — because that is exactly what this bill does for veterans, it splits it up — then there will be a little payment coming to them. I want to be clear, though, we already had the option of taking the lump sum and dividing it. We didn’t need the department’s help with the math. What we needed was the pension they promised would be reinstated, and we trusted and we waited. This new document is not it.
As we’ve told your counterparts in the other house, we aren’t going away. And if we ever do succeed in achieving injury compensation that achieves parity, we’re going to need you, the legislators of this country, one last time. We’re going to need you to help make that change and enshrine it into law. It needs to be that way.
The government should do its duty to veterans out of honour, compassion and respect, but in my opinion it doesn’t. That will need to happen by the obligation of law, not some internal policy of the department that can change away from your watch, my watch, or the public’s eye. That’s not on the agenda today, however. Today what you can do is review and make recommendations for changes for the items we have on hand, not the ones that were promised. We’re looking at the bill that’s being presented.
If you could recommend a change that goes back to the house, it would be to reinstate the spousal amounts and the child amounts into the pension. That would be the single biggest thing that would affect the families, as they say, particularly in this budget that speaks of being the gender parity budget. Wouldn’t this be the time to actually reinstate the things that were taken away from the spouses?
I’ll end with that. If you could do one thing, it would be to recommend that that be reinstated. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. McKenna.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Thank you very much, Mr. McKenna, for your presentation. To begin with, does that mean that you were not consulted when the government made changes to the veterans’ benefits program?
[English]
Mr. McKenna: No, sir, we were consulted. The consultations were filed away. They were not heard. The exact things that were recommended to do were not done, and the exact path recommended not to walk down, we’re walking down. I am on one of those groups that is mentioned, sir. I’m on the Mental Health Advisory Group. We’ve met with the minister zero times.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: I must say I am a bit surprised. When I was a union president and I consulted the government, I expected the consultations and ensuing recommendations to be taken into account. I was surprised, but not that surprised, that you were ignored.
That being said, you say that some veterans will be referred to provincial programs rather than receive services from the federal program that the government is calling an “improved” program. Can you give us examples of cases today?
[English]
Mr. McKenna: Yes, sir. I’ll take one. One of the problems, as you can imagine with folks who are dealing with addiction issues, being one of the mental health concerns out there, we wind up with veterans waiting in line, just like any other Canadian. That’s essentially not our problem, although we would like to see something done about wait times, about getting people into critical care as quickly as possible.
The problem is this: If we get into a program where we’re sitting in a circle, much like this one, and there are two combat veterans in the room who have been shot at in a foreign country and blown up, wearing the Maple Leaf on their arm, and the rest of the people in the room are criminals who have been sentenced to that program, or anyone else from another walk of life who winds up in the room, what are the chances of those veterans bearing their soul and talking about their worst, deepest, darkest secrets to a room full of people they don’t know?
As a veteran, I know it is already difficult to get veterans to talk to other veterans, but they do because they seek that commonality. They seek the comradeship. When I look a guy in the eye whom I’ve never served with for 30 or 40 years but we have something in common, we’ve done basic training together and worn the Maple Leaf, we can get somewhere.
When you put a kid who is coming out of Iraq or a couple of years down the road from Mali, for me, Afghanistan and Bosnia, and put him in a room with people he doesn’t know, in fact, in a room with people who work against the Crown sometimes, because a lot of people are sentenced to these programs, the chance of that veteran opening up is zero, in my opinion. Put him in a program where people actually understand his background, understand violent trauma, understand deploying and agreeing to do these harsh, dangerous things on behalf of your country, and we might get somewhere. That doesn’t exist. We recommend those very things to the government. They don’t exist. We wait in the same line as everyone else for the same program as everyone else. The Veterans Affairs’ portion is they write the cheque. That’s what happens.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: At the risk of comparing apples and oranges, are you saying that it’s like the weather, that there is nothing you can do, that, in your case, that is what happens and that, despite the consultations and recommendations, everything you said was ignored?
[English]
Mr. McKenna: That’s exactly the point. That’s the easiest way of putting it, sir. We are being consulted. The consultations are just not being listened to. I’m sure I’m not foolish about it. I don’t expect the minister to let Brian McKenna tell him how to run his department, so he’s not going to take our recommendations and make that into pure government policy. But when people come before you and tell you that the document they’ve produced to you is the result of consulting veterans, that, sir, is not really true. Yes, we were in a room and we were asked questions, but if they’re completely filed in the garbage, that’s not really consulting veterans, at least not the consultation to which we were looking forward.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Thank you very much, Mr. McKenna.
[English]
Senator McIntyre: Thank you, Mr. McKenna, for your fine presentation. My understanding is that a class action suit was filed against the federal government by your group, Equitas. How is the class action suit progressing?
Mr. McKenna: One thing you learn as a soldier is to stay in your lane. There’s a reason we went out and got lawyers who know how to do lawyer things. I tend to stay away from that, but I’ll tell you where we are.
We have filed a petition for leave to the Supreme Court, and we find ourselves in an interesting predicament. Essentially, what is being suggested to us by the government lawyers is that there is no agreement between the nation of Canada and its soldiers about how they are to be treated. It’s essentially a gentleman’s agreement, which worked until people stopped acting like gentlemen.
So is there or is there not a law out there that defines how Canada has an agreement to look after its soldiers, or is it the day-to-day whim of Parliament? Is it an internal policy decision within the Department of Veterans Affairs? In the grand scheme of things, we as a country need to find that out. Equitas is going to be the spearhead of that.
We are quite active, but we know that even if we get what we want out of any level of court in this country, we’re still back in Ottawa because the case will then still come to the government to remedy, to find a legislative solution. So one way or the other, while the court system does what it does, we have to engage government. And we have been engaging government.
Our society, for example, looked at this particular bill. I believe the announcement was around the first week of December. I tabled questions and we sent them in to the department through the newly elected member of Parliament out in White Rock in February. We keep asking questions about consultations. I asked them all the questions you’re asking me and that you asked the guest beforehand. A month ago, they said they hadn’t even got the questions yet, and strict silence since then.
That’s how consultations are being done. We’re either put in a room and told you’re going to be listened to and it’s filed away, or individual groups get together, try and engage the government and then get the silent treatment. So that’s essentially where we’re at. One way or the other, the Equitas court case is going to move towards the Supreme Court, but at the Supreme Court’s pace. We have to keep engaging at this level.
Senator McIntyre: My understanding is that the main argument put forward by the Equitas group is that the federal government has a sacred obligation to care for the country’s wounded soldiers and that this duty was breached when the New Veterans Charter was adopted in 2006. Am I correct in saying that?
Mr. McKenna: That is the genesis of the problem, yes. Put it this way: When I joined the Canadian Forces, I had to sign an agreement. And I don’t know of too many other agreements out there that hold the force of law, particularly ones with the government, that can be changed without having to at least re-obtain my signature to the changes.
That’s one of the things that we’re also very aware of. But yes, you’re right; that’s why we exist. The injury compensation is nowhere near close, and it’s still not anywhere near close. You’re still being presented this cobbled together picture of everyone getting 100 per cent of every benefit that’s out there. I’m telling you that most people don’t get half of the benefits that are out there. The benefits that are out there are designed to be temporary and revocable in nature.
And in my opinion, they actually encourage people to remain sick. If you have to keep qualifying to keep receiving a benefit, you have to keep achieving that category. In other words, that holds you back from progression. That’s one of the things where, as veterans, we’re looking at our fellow veterans and asking, “How can we get this guy to move forward?” Maybe if he didn’t have an 11-year battle with VAC, he could move forward better.
Senator McIntyre: The words “sacred obligation” are very important because they seem to be popping up, back and forth in the documents that we’ve been reading, and parliamentarians have been using those words as well.
All government has to keep its word on the sacred obligation to wounded soldiers.
Mr. McKenna: Yes. It depends which way this thing gets worded. Some might call it a fiduciary duty. Some might call it a sacred obligation. At the end of the day, I did what you asked me to. As a soldier, I did what you asked me to, and I expect that back. Whatever the proper terminology for that is, let’s have it. But that’s where we need to get to, sir. We need to get that relationship between the government and its service personnel written in stone because the old way of its being just accepted is obviously not good enough.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you, Mr. McKenna, for joining us today and for a succinct and helpful presentation.
I’m going to ask a multi-part question related to a major message that you’re bringing to us, which is the impact on a day-to-day basis on military families.
I want you to know that my team and I are working on proposing an amendment, but I’m hoping you can help with some of the focus because I really don’t see the obvious place in the bill before us to address the disappearance of the spousal and child benefits that you have been talking about.
Thus far, we’re looking at clause 165, but I’m virtually positive it’s in relation to rehabilitation service under section 9 of the former act. I don’t think that’s what you’re trying to tell us today. Could you point out where you believe the best place would be to look at for drafting an amendment for consideration by this committee?
The second part of my question is still on this theme of the impact on military families. You were very careful not to say that the previous witness and you differ so substantially that some people might think someone is not telling the truth. I appreciate that you’ve been careful not to say that. From what you heard — and I’m going to go back to my question to the previous witness — when I asked Ms. McIntyre to explain how findings could be neutral on such an issue, I found her answer a little confusing, other than the monitoring of social media. I heard you very clearly that consultations, the feedback that came from you and other advocacy organizations is not present, is not reflected in what we have before us.
My question coming out of that is this: Do you think the minister knows? Do you think the minister knows about this gap that we’ve witnessed here today?
Mr. McKenna: I’m going to work backwards. I’m going to start where you left off. Yes, I think the minister knows and I think you just saw the proof of it. Because the proof of it is that you asked a very specific question, and you’re given the talking point. The talking point is prepared. The talking point is that we will bring up what happened to the spousal and child amounts that used to be under the Pension Act, and the talking point is that they will talk about other things that have the word “family” in it and redirect you. And that just happened.
So I hope that answers that point because there’s no neutrality out there in the veterans community. There is whether a veterans group is particularly affected by this or not. For example, very good friends of mine are dealing with a strong medical issue from the Persian Gulf veterans society. The Pension Act isn’t really front and foremost in their minds because they served 25 to 30 years ago in that conflict, so their biggest concern is something about, say, mefloquine toxicity. So if you ask them what they think about changes to the Pension Act, it’s not really their issue. If you ask the people from my generation that are directly affected by this, it’s almost a resounding “no.”
The only thing other than “no” that you hear is, “Well, we’ll see when it rolls out.” To be honest, I don’t know what the individual numbers are for me or for any of the other veterans out there, down to the cent, what they’re going to get because it hasn’t rolled out yet.
The last time we waited to see a policy roll out before we opened our mouths about it, we had the New Veterans Charter that was stagnant for almost a decade. So as veterans, we’ve decided that we’re not going to just sit and wait before we start asking our questions of government. We are asking them, we are telling them directly that we know this is a bad bill. They are saying “thanks” and then they hop on the plane and go to the next town hall and hear the exact same thing, such as in Edmonton. I’m sure you all saw that one on the news. They hear the exact same thing in Halifax, and then come back to us all and say, “Well, it’s a mixed message out there.” No, it isn’t.
So in the first part you asked about the child and the spousal side. There used to be a benefit during the time of the Pension Act called the Attendance Allowance. That completely disappeared. In 2015, it somewhat resurfaced under the previous administration but at a significantly less amount, the top of it being in the $7,000 range, a respite benefit, if you can call it that.
Last year’s legislation, the fruits of which were brought forward on April 1 of this year, has changed that $7,000 to $12,000. That is the Family Caregiver Benefit you hear of today. When you ask the question about the spousal and child amounts of the Pension Act that disappeared, they are still disappeared and will remain disappeared under this legislation, and they answer you with that completely different benefit, which is not the question that you asked.
So they provide you the answer of what replaced the Attendance Allowance. The question you asked was what happened to the spousal and child benefits. The answer to that is zero.
Senator McPhedran: That’s not the question I asked, with all due respect.
Mr. McKenna: Fair enough.
Senator McPhedran: I asked for your assistance in addressing the bill before us and a potential amendment because that’s how you started your presentation, in saying to us if there is one thing we’re asking you to do, it is this.
So I’m asking you for more information and more guidance on that, not so much the background information. Where in this bill before us do you see the need to make changes to have the outcome that you began your presentation with?
Mr. McKenna: You are asking at what point in the bill do you find something that is not there? Because my presentation to you is I have read through it, and this is a portion of a previous legislation that no longer exists. It’s not there. It’s designed to not be there. So why I answered as I did, in reference to the previous presenter, the more you keep asking the government where this thing is, the more they keep funnelling us to a different question altogether. These spousal benefits and child benefits have been gone to new veterans since 2006. People still collect them who are under the old system, but they are not here. They are not anywhere in that legislation.
Senator McPhedran: Okay. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: First, I would like to thank you, Mr. McKenna, for your service to our country. I would also like to thank all of the veterans who are listening today. It is our duty to make sure that this bill is as fair as possible to you.
You said that we would have to go back to the 1919 act. Obviously, it is difficult to turn the clock back a hundred years. I believe that the act must be modernized with a view to bringing justice to people who gave of themselves, both mentally and physically, to protect our freedom. You are the people who contributed the most and who paid the highest price.
Ms. McIntyre said earlier that the advisory committee was made up of members representing the opinions of veterans, and that they are the ones who contributed the most to the bill.
Did you consult anyone about the appointment of the committee members? Do these people truly represent the general opinion of veterans across Canada, despite the fact that they work in Ottawa?
[English]
Mr. McKenna: First on the committees, again, I’m on the mental health committee. The comments I read to you today, before I formed them, I bounced them off a good friend of mine, Mark Campbell, who is on the policy committee. The policy committee was exactly the one that was essentially consulted for policy in what we see in front of you today. Some of these comments, of course, I stand true to them, but they come from him. We talk about this routinely. He is also one of the plaintiffs in the Equitas court case, and we find ourselves on a lot of the different committees.
I don’t share the concern of who was named to the committee from the veteran point of view. What I can tell you, though, is that there are more people on the committees than just veterans. Particularly in the mental health one, the vast majority of people in there are not veterans; they are current service providers to the government. That is a reality that is hard to struggle with.
We find on our committee for mental health, if I stand entirely sure of this, I believe there are three of us who served in Afghanistan, there are a couple of gentlemen there who served in previous conflicts, and there are a lot of doctors hand-picked by the government, actually ones who currently provide service to the government. It’s not necessarily a veterans committee.
But if the makeup of the committee were somehow voted on by veterans coast to coast, if that was somehow able to be done, it still holds only the value that the person reading the document thinks it holds. So we can provide all kinds of advice that people want, but if it is not being followed, it is just another empty meeting happening in the capital that then gets shelved.
I have to be blunt. Even the questions I’m being asked today — and I certainly appreciate the opportunity to speak to you all — are the same ones that the previous committees asked. They’re the same ones that the house committee asked. We have been asked all this before. So it’s not really a failure of getting the message forward to government; it’s just hearing it out.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Are your requests concerning amendments to the bill strictly limited to pensions for spouses and children, or are there other amendments you would like to see?
[English]
Mr. McKenna: For me, coming to you just as Brian McKenna, I think number one is the spousal and child benefits. I also think a significant problem is clawing back the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act from the various benefits that are still enacted today and being proposed in front of you to be enacted April 1 of next year. Those would be the first two places I would start.
That being said, that means starting to look at it as changing the bill that you have in front of you. I still think, as most veterans across this country do, this isn’t the thing that was promised to veterans. That being said, out of what is in front of you, those would be the biggest changes I would recommend.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I think that everyone has seen the video of the veteran addressing Prime Minister Trudeau in Edmonton. He made a statement that many Canadians found disturbing. He said that, when he enlisted in the Canadian Armed Forces, he did not expect to have to fight his own government to get justice. Does he speak for all of Canada’s veterans? What is your opinion as a veteran of the fact that the government is spending millions of dollars to fight your legitimate claims?
[English]
Mr. McKenna: Yes, I agree with that gentleman. I heard him speak, and I believe he does represent the vast majority, almost a unanimous opinion across this country of how veterans feel they are treated.
I tell you, it’s not just seeing the money being spent to fight us in court; it’s watching the ease with which other dollars get spent, particularly around the world. Watching hundreds of millions get signed on a trip to a foreign country, and then looking at the struggle that we’re going through. Even when we were serving, there was no shortage of cash when it came to fighting the war in Afghanistan. There were ways. There were Treasury Board rules that made it work, and there was the drive behind making it work. We could change the procurement process when the government wanted to.
That’s a lot of what we see too, senator. It’s not just the money spent against us in court to fight; it’s the ease with which the dollars seem to fall out of our pockets when we’re travelling around the world, when there are photo ops around the world, and yet watching friends of mine getting turned down for hundreds of dollars of benefits.
For example, I recently got turned down for a benefit. I looked at the form, and it asked me questions such as whether I could feed myself. It didn’t ask me anything about who actually makes the meals. It didn’t ask me about whether my wife quit her job to help, or what I have to do. It was around the same time I was watching a foreign trip where the money just seemed to spring out of the Canadian wallet. That’s the one that really, for me personally, gets to me.
Senator Brazeau: Like my colleague, I would like to thank you for your service. I think it’s our duty as parliamentarians to recognize and acknowledge the work that veterans and current members of the forces are doing for our great country, so thank you for that.
Obviously, you’re an outspoken and blunt person, and I kind of like that. So I would like to ask your opinion as to why the spousal amounts are being taken away.
Mr. McKenna: They cost money. I think they knew they were bringing in something else that had the same heading, so it would be easy to do the bait and switch.
I don’t think the government thinks it’s fooling veterans when it plays tricks with benefits, sir. What I think they are trying to do is make the uneducated opinion go away. I think they want the people that don’t know the file to think it’s fixed. That’s what I think is happening here. They are not pulling the wool over our eyes. We know what benefits used to exist and what is not there. I think they are hoping that they can just tap into an apathy out there, that most people will look at the file and say, “Okay, they did something for families,” and move on. That’s what I think it is.
Senator Brazeau: Thank you for that. We have some things in common with respect to what you’re talking about. Going to war, there is plenty of money to go around; however, when we talk about veterans, it seems to be a constant struggle. I see the same lens with respect to spending with Aboriginal communities and peoples across this country, but we’re not here to talk about that.
My next question is this: Regardless of political stripe or colour or government in power, do you think governments are playing politics on the backs of veterans in this country?
Mr. McKenna: I think this department, more than any other, is one where the bureaucrats have taken over and they run it. I do understand and appreciate, as someone who has served 19 years in the forces, why experience in a department needs to come to bear when there is a new minister who has walked in a couple of weeks ago. You need the people that know the file. The problem is that they run the file, and that is what I think you’re dealing with.
A case in point: The current minister has just finished telling us, on his coast-to-coast tour, that he needs to change the tone and culture in the department. However, his current deputy told us two years ago that they changed it. When the current minister shows up and says there is a problem in this culture, but the stakeholders meeting a couple of years ago was told, “We’ve changed the culture,” the only thing I can do to try to figure that one out is to go on Facebook, get on the phone, talk to my friends, and say, “Hey, what is going on?”
We are still getting what we have always gotten. We still have words like “benefit of the doubt,” yet artillerymen are getting turned down for hearing claims. We hear words like “We have changed the culture,” but the paratroopers are still facing the fight they have to do for their broken ankle.
It’s funny; I had a chiropractic appointment the other day, and my doctor found himself on the news based on me a couple of years ago. We had a chuckle about it.
I’m still not in a state of resolution for one of my claims from 2014, where the department screwed up which doctor was which. We’re talking about a clerical error that could have been sorted out easily. For my own case, 2014 — and here we are in 2018 — I still have a bureaucratic mess where they can’t look at and correct a simple mistake like that.
So I don’t think it’s actually at the ministerial level, and I don’t think changing the government solves this. Where I think the legislators need to get active is they need to get their nose in that department. Part of it is that being in Charlottetown, it’s harder to get into. That’s really what has gone on here, sir. The bureaucracy has taken over.
Senator Brazeau: Well, maybe a little bit of free advice to you and perhaps some of your colleagues: There are several vacancies in the Senate right now, and I think the Prime Minister has a heck of a good opportunity to name some veterans to the Senate of Canada. It’s very much needed. I hope you agree with that.
Mr. McKenna: I would like to see it.
Senator McPhedran: I’m continuing on with my theme of the impact on military families. Our clerk has just confirmed that the document that members of the committee have that is entitled “Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence,” which is to guide us through clause by clause, in Part 4, we have essentially a Q and A section. To the question, “Why is the government proposing these changes now,” the second point made is “for one easy-to-understand monthly benefit that provides short- and long-term income support for themselves,” meaning veterans, “and their families.”
For the next question, “What does the proposed pension for life contain?,” the first paragraph in the answer, the very last part of it, talks about how this is a choice about a form of compensation that works best for them and their families. This section was introduced as a work-in-progress between Veterans Affairs Canada and veteran stakeholders.
Then the next paragraph starts with “We listened to what veterans have been telling us they want.”
So we clearly have a massive gap between those whom you represent and the messages you’re bringing to us today, and the message, the information, that is being given to this committee by the department.
I want to turn to a question about the impact on military families, but I want to hone it a little bit. This is a difficult question. It is a question about, in your opinion — from both experience and the expertise you have developed in looking at the impact of the legislation — what would your prediction be — and I appreciate that it’s speculative — on the changes that you are criticizing and the potential of domestic violence, which we know is a very significant issue in our entire society? We happen, though, to be looking at a particular group within our society and the impact on families as a result of what some service people have experienced. I am wondering whether you see any connection or have a concern around the potential impact here.
Mr. McKenna: In terms of the first part of that, I would say the documentation you have in front of you certainly does refer to the veterans and their families. If you look at my own family, when the Manila envelope shows up from Veterans Affairs, it’s normally bad news. The first implication of what my family has to deal with is that my spouse handles all that. I hate opening those things.
In terms of the effect on her, she does, we’ll say, at least 70 or 80 per cent of all the stuff inside the house. So that limits her ability to hold a job. Even if we take away the stress, the trauma, the nightmares, the cold sweats — that side of it — and just look at how the family is supposed to balance itself out and get stuff done, I see the words in there just like you see them, but I don’t see any change in there. I would ask this to the government this: If the phrase “and their families” holds some weight, then what is the difference in the benefit package to someone that has a family? How can those two statements be congruent? How can it matter and yet have no separate representation for it in compensation?
In terms of abuse, I bring no expertise to the table on that one. What I can tell you is our community has a lot of divorce. The abuse that we see is normally self-harm. There is already family stress from multiple postings and things like that, but I tell you, as men — because a lot of veterans are men — when we feel our ability to do our traditional job of providing for our family has come under threat, we are not the best version of ourselves. We’re not.
I would suggest to you that that’s where a lot of the addiction problems come from. I certainly know that when guys come home from a tour, their head is rattled from the tour sometimes. Sometimes it’s great. Sometimes they just go back to work like there was no problem, but sometimes they are beat up. Then they come home to a posting and maybe they come home to their stuff thrown out on the lawn because there is a divorce they are about to learn about. There are a lot of things that pile on.
I’m not an expert in any of those fields. Where I see it, I see self-harm more than harm. That’s what I have noticed.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you.
Senator McIntyre: Mr. McKenna, I echo the remarks made by my colleagues. Thank you for the years of service you have made to this country.
Basically, the new legislation is consolidating certain previous benefits into new benefits, and as you have indicated, veteran groups have criticized this approach.
Should the government go back to the drawing board on all or some of the current veteran programs, or are there good points in the program that your groups would favour?
Mr. McKenna: There are some good things in the current programming, and I don’t think it does us any favours to pretend that they aren’t there.
For example, I think one of the worst things we have been doing to people, particularly young kids with a mental health problem and perhaps physical injuries, is to hand them a boatload of money, even if it’s insufficient money or a lump sum that we tell you is not what they would have gotten over their lifetime; with a lump sum of any sort handed to someone going through mental crisis, are we surprised that addiction problems came up when that happened?
That was my reaction and the reaction of the veteran community coast to coast; what did we think was going to happen? So yes, having options to parse that over someone’s lifetime is probably a good thing.
We have seen some benefits. There is an education benefit. Although we are starting to see the details of it are more restrictive than I had hoped, I have to tell you, I think it’s a good thing. I won’t sit here and tell you everything happening to veterans is bad.
In terms of what the supposed intent of this legislation was, it’s not there. The gaps are so glaring that they are either intentional or ill-advised.
The Chair: Mr. McKenna, I join the rest of the senators by thanking you for your service and for your straightforward presentation today. We’re very grateful for your presence on this particular bill. Again, thank you very much.
Mr. McKenna: Thank you for the opportunity, madam.
(The committee continued in camera.)