Proceedings of the Subcommittee on
Veterans Affairs
Issue 1 - Evidence - December 11, 2013
OTTAWA, Wednesday, December 11, 2013
The Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met this day at 12:06 p.m. to conduct a study on the services and benefits provided to members of the Canadian Forces; to veterans; to members and former members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and their families.
Senator Roméo Antonius Dallaire (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, welcome to this December 11 meeting of the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs. We have asked the ombudsman to appear before us again. We have a limited amount of time — until around 12:45 p.m. or 12:50 p.m. We did have numerous questions for him last week. We may not have discussed some aspects of the report sufficiently. After our questions for the witness, we will go in camera to discuss the business planned for the period following the holiday break.
Mr. Parent, once again, we want to welcome you and your team. You always bring colleagues with you, and we find that encouraging. I hope that your team will be able to follow the debate and give you advice as needed.
I want to begin by giving you a few moments to tell us about what you have done and what you hope to continue doing. After that, we will move on to questions from senators.
Guy Parent, Veterans Ombudsman, Office of the Veterans Ombudsman: Mr. Chair, members of the committee, thank you.
[English]
Thank you very much for the opportunity to provide a continuation of my presentation last week. We certainly like to be here and to be able to help the committee do its work toward fairness for veterans. It is important to maybe do a quick recap.
Our report that was recently released on the New Veterans Charter identified three areas of concern that we hope the government will deal with, the first one being the financial aspects of the New Veterans Charter. Some of the issues that I think are important are the Earnings Loss Benefit that reduces the salary of an individual as he faces transition — the age 65 benefit, when some of the allowances under the New Veterans Charter unfortunately cease, may lead some veterans into dire financial need; and the discrepancy between the base salary for reserve forces and the regular forces. Actually, there is a base to allow for a good transition.
The second aspect has to do with the vocational rehabilitation program. Fortunately, some changes have been made to that recently, but still a bit more needs to done on that aspect.
The third aspect, and the most important one, of course, is that families need to be looked after as well because they are part of the transition. If there is hope for the member and the family that they can see, if there are opportunities open to the future and not just lost opportunities of career, certainly it puts them in a much better situation to have an effective and successful transition. It might mitigate some of the circumstances that may have led to some of the tragic incidents we saw in the last few weeks.
Of course, to put all that into perspective, a lot of it has to do with people not knowing. The people not knowing is a difficult thing because people who suffer physical or psychological injuries have a hard time already with complex programs. In fact, when they're suffering from some kind of injury it is even worse.
Veterans Affairs Canada needs to do much better in their outreach, in making sure they are out in the community, not just in the newspaper and on websites. They need to be visible and to provide comprehensive information on their programs and benefits.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. We are ready for your questions.
The Chair: Thank you for the recap. The only comment I have before we go into the questions by colleagues is this: We also sit on the Defence Committee. If you remember, it was made quite clear to us in the past that the operational effectiveness of the Canadian Forces depends significantly on the families being there in a supportive role. Therefore you have established that as criteria for the military capabilities of our country, meaning the families being part of that military capability or effectiveness, yet the question is, once they become veterans or injured veterans, does that perspective actually translate directly to the continuum of what may have happened to the family while they were performing that duty?
That is just a backdrop to the fact that the new charter didn't go to that extent in regard to the families. I only wish to raise that with you.
As chair, I will limit myself to one question later, but we will start with the deputy chair and, after that, Senator Lang and Senator Nolin.
Senator Wells: Thank you very much.
Welcome again, Mr. Walbourne and Mr. Parent. Thank you for appearing again. I want to explore not just the lump sum payment but the regular payments that are afforded. As I look at your chart, Figure 1 on page 14, there is a matrix of the allowances that are available under the various programs.
Is any financial advice provided along with these payments, for instance, on investments for the future or particularly for the lump sum payment? I imagine a lot of times, when you have veterans in this position who have been in the Canadian Forces for some time, it's almost, perhaps, an artificial life. Things are provided, in general, unlike folks in civilian life. Is there a financial advisory service that would go along with those payments?
Mr. Parent: There is if you receive a lump sum award. The lump sum award, if it is above a certain amount, provides monies to access financial counselling.
In fact, it is a good issue, too. When we discuss departments working together, there is such a program within the forces as SCAN, Secondary Career Assistance Network. That program is designed to prepare people for their retirement and the transition. Unfortunately, it is given too late in the career.
There is an area possibly in the area of transition, and certainly in financial counselling, that needs to be looked at jointly between Veterans Affairs and National Defence.
Senator Wells: Thank you very much.
The Chair: We were on a two-question format.
Senator Wells: No, that's fine; I will sit for the second round.
The Chair: Very good. I better set that up.
Senator Lang.
Senator Lang: To make it clear, I am allowed two questions; is that correct?
The Chair: You certainly are, sir.
Senator Lang: Thank you; and I'll be brief with my questions.
First, I once again welcome you here. This is a learning experience for me. I am new to the Veterans Committee and I'm looking forward to working with you and the members here.
I want to go back to our hearing of last week. The area that is of concern, which you touched on it in your opening remarks, is the veterans not receiving their Permanent Impairment Allowance last supplement. We had some questions on that.
I want to drill down a bit more on this. It is a concern for me and for everyone around this table if this Christmas there is one veteran who is caught in what would appear to be a bureaucratic difference of opinion in respect to the adjudication.
One of my questions relates to what Colonel Guérin said: "It is the adjudication of the benefit here that decides who gets it and who doesn't."
It's not the minister's office and it's not this committee. The allocation is there, the decision is basically made by the adjudicators. He goes on to say:
That's one of the things that we are looking at in more detail because we are only able to look at it at the surface here during the NVC review. We are looking at that one in greater detail.
He then goes on to say:
What also has to happen is that another benefit has to be created according to what we've come up with.
Obviously some effort and time have been put into this. First, could you explain this further? If you were in charge of the tribunal, what would you ask the tribunal to do differently from what they are already doing to ensure that those who should benefit from this are dealt with accordingly?
Second, can you tell us what this other benefit is?
Mr. Parent: Thank you. First, the tribunal, the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, is not involved in the PIA or the PIAS. It is a departmental decision. It has nothing to do with the Veterans Review and Appeal Board. It's an internal appeal process for those two allowances.
In fact, as recently as yesterday we sent a draft report to the department. We are working on a report that addresses the Permanent Incapacity Allowance and the Permanent Incapacity Allowance Supplement. That report is a review report with some observations and should be available in a few months. We are doing some work on that aspect.
The report also suggested some ways of bridging that gap when an individual reaches 65, where in fact those people may be at risk. Again I stress "may be at risk." We told the department about our methodology, how we arrived at those numbers and which people may be at risk, and that they need to determine whether they are in fact at risk or not. If they are, and as you said, even if there is only one, some mechanisms need to be in place to provide for that person to have, as we said, possibly 70 per cent of their pre-release income.
We've given different options that we can even cost for the department if they want, but we've given different options. We don't know which ones would actually be favourable to the department, but they are looking at that right now.
For example, one of them would be to introduce a brand new allowance that would determine, when a person reaches age 65, if they are not in receipt of 70 per cent of their pre-release income, there could be an allowance given to those individuals that would kick in at age 65 and would provide them 70 per cent of their pre-release income.
Another thing, as you have said already, since 53 per cent of the people who are totally and permanently incapacitated do not receive that allowance, if they did they would not be facing that situation at 65. Again, opening the accessibility to the PIA and PIAS would also mitigate the problem.
We have given options to the department and we are working with them now to try to come up with some solutions.
Senator Lang: I would like to turn our direction to the question of the reservists. You mentioned that as well.
You noted last week that there is an unfair calculation of income support for part-time reservists. Can you expand on that and tell us what is being done from your perspective at the ministerial level to resolve the problem? Are they trying to resolve the problem? What are they doing about it?
Mr. Parent: In fact, our initial involvement in that aspect was that prior to the implementation of Bill C-55. The impact analysis of Bill C-55 clearly indicated that to be successful in a transition program a person has to have a base pay of at least $40,000. That was straightforward in the impact analysis.
Shortly after that they came up and said the Regular Force soldier will get $40,000. However, the reservists — fewer than 180 they contract — will get $27,000 or something. From that time on we started arguing that a leg is a leg, whether the soldier is a reservist or Regular Force. There is no difference there in the support to their families and successful transition and rehabilitation, so it should not exist. At that point in time, there was a bit of an argument. When we went to Veterans Affairs Canada, they said, "It's not our department." We went to National Defence, and they said, "It's not our domain; that has to do with Veterans Affairs." We went to Veterans Affairs Canada, and they told us that it was DND's responsibility. We were, a few months back, talking to Chief Military Personnel of DND. They are looking at the issues right now, but we haven't heard anything lately that would indicate that there is any movement forward. Certainly, it needs to be addressed.
Senator Lang: Thank you.
The Chair: Forgive the chair. Is it true that for Regular Force veterans who join the Public Service their pensions are transferable but that reservists' pensions are not transferable?
Mr. Parent: I can say yes to your first comment, Mr. Chair, but I'm not sure for reservists. I believe theirs are different. It's not a serviced pension; it's an annuity. So I really can't answer that question.
The Chair: Anyway, I have correspondence on that.
Mr. Parent: We can get the information and get it back to the committee.
The Chair: If you would. This philosophical framework of reserve and regular is quite damaging when we know that both of them bleed and have died on the battlefield as brothers and sisters. I think there is a real moral, ethical dimension to this aspect. Thank you for raising it with the departments.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: I would like to hear what you have to say about the noise we have been hearing regarding services provided by Veterans Affairs and the transfers being made at Service Canada. We are hearing that those services are lacking in quality. What is your assessment of this issue?
Mr. Parent: Once again, our organization is based on facts. So far, we have not had any complaints indicating that the quality of services has changed. What is important is that, for us, equity requires that the services not change — in quality or quantity — and that veterans and their families always have access to information. That is truly what we want going forward.
As I said last week, we currently have some mechanisms in place to identify problems, if we receive any complaints from regions where they are expected. Once again, the logic of closing offices was not always well presented by the department because, in reality, I do not think that people would question the logic if we had a Veterans Affairs team in a location where clients do not visit. What is important is that, if we replace it with another mechanism, we must ensure that the employees are properly trained and ready to provide services before the other services are eliminated.
Recently, I saw the minister's announcement that some members of Veterans Affairs would be at Service Canada offices for a period of time. I am not sure.
Senator Nolin: My second question is related to the first one. You identified over 400 veterans who are at a risk of losing their income when they reach the age of 65. We have discussed at length the issue of identifying those people. Chances are, those individuals will knock on Service Canada's door and use that service to make their presence known. How confident are you that the service points will have enough information to be able to identify those individuals?
The department in its wisdom may want to identify those veterans, but have any tools been implemented to help with that identification process?
As my colleague Senator Lang said, if there was only one case, it would be one case too many. So is everything being set up to ensure that those people will be identified and, once that is done, provided with assistance? I am asking because the point is not to identify them and then lose sight of them again. That is what we have been concerned about since we read your report. We are familiar with federal administration. We know how it can, at times, despite all the good will in the world, be careless because the act or the regulations do not provide for this or that, or they do not have the right to do something, or they are not given the authorization by the Treasury Board. We know about all those excuses, and we do not want that to happen. Everyone has good faith.
Do you feel that sensitivity does exist, even at Service Canada, to try to identify the famous veterans who are at a risk of losing their income at age 65, especially since they are disabled?
Mr. Parent: I think it is important for people's expectations to be in line with the Veterans Affairs transformation project. What I mean is that people should not expect case management services from Service Canada, but rather information services or help with filling out forms and those types of things. So case managers will still take care of their clients in that region, but they will be the ones travelling instead of the clients.
So far, as I was telling you, we have not received any complaints from Veterans Affairs' clients, but we have some mechanisms in place. What is important for identifying people — the 400-plus individuals we have identified as being potentially at risk — is that we have passed on our methods to the department, so that it can use the same process to identify them.
There are a number of possibilities. We can contact case managers. If we really want to first identify individuals who are the most at risk financially — but also health-wise — we can ask case managers whether they have any clients who will be turning 65. We can ask them whether they will be in distress or not. So there are several mechanisms, aside from trying to identify those individuals and calling them.
I want to come back to another opportunity. A few months ago, we also presented a report where we asked that departments develop an identity card system for our veterans in order to enable the transition from one department to another, from one identity to another, and not from an identity to nothing. So if all those individuals had an identity card registering them with the Veterans Affairs system, whether they are injured or not — as there are always some cases where individuals develop symptoms later on — when they come out of reserve or regular armed forces, they would all be registered with Veterans Affairs. That way, two obstacles to access to benefits would be eliminated.
Senator Nolin: That is a good idea.
[English]
Senator Downe: I am concerned about the perception of the effectiveness of your office if you haven't received any complaints. I am from Charlottetown, and there have been letters in the newspapers and veterans on TV and in radio interviews complaining about this policy.
Is your office located next to the national headquarters in Charlottetown?
Mr. Parent: Yes it is.
Senator Downe: So you have heard those things and read those clippings as well. Those people for some reason went to the media rather than going to your office. Is that because the knowledge of what your office does is not widely known in the veterans community?
Mr. Parent: When I say we are a factual and evidence-based organization, we know that there will be an impact. Everybody knows there will be an impact. Obviously, for anybody who is a client of a service delivery organization, when there are closures, there will be some negative aspects of it.
What we need to find out is whether there will in fact be a reduction in the quality of service. I think only one of those offices is now closed; the others are just going through the process. Yes, we hear a lot of negative comments, people saying, "Oh my goodness, it is going to be this and that." We realize that, yes, there is an impact. Yes, there will be some negativity, but does it actually affect the service that's being given to those veterans?
In all of our reports, in fact, we do identify that we look at fairness from three aspects. The adequacy of the programs, first of all — do they meet the need of the veterans? Second, is there a sufficiency of resources, both monetary and personal? Finally, is there enough money to fund those programs?
Here we are looking at the accessibility part, which is certainly one of the biggest aspects of fairness, and we're concerned with it. So we are positioned to actually find out if there is any degradation of services. That is important.
Senator Downe: I understand you are restricted to two questions. When I used to be on this committee, we could go on and on, which I think is a good thing.
I'd like to follow up on Senator Lang's question on reserves. You indicated that you were being bounced from various departments — DND and Veterans — about who was responsible. And now you're back at DND. They have claimed responsibility for the issue about reserves that Senator Lang raised?
Mr. Parent: I wouldn't say that they were as clear as admitting responsibility, but they certainly are looking into the matter, which indicates to me that they have some degree of responsibility.
Senator Downe: And they didn't give you a time frame for looking into it?
Mr. Parent: No. I should say, though, that it's only been a year or so that there's been movement forward on the reservists side finally. In fact, the dismemberment insurance finally agreed that the leg of reservists was worth the same the leg of regular forces. That's at least movement forward here, and hopefully that will carry through and eventually we'll get this issue resolved, as well.
Senator Wells: As I look through that list that I mentioned in the first round — the disability award; the earnings loss benefit; the attendance allowance; a number of other supplements, benefits and supports; and a further war vets allowance — when I look to the question of options to address the insufficiency of financial support after age 65, which you reported on in your report, I noticed there are some set-aside options — increasing the amount of supplementary retirement benefit and continued extended Earnings Loss Benefit. Can you tell me why you are recommending the implementation of a new monthly supplementary retirement increment benefit?
And the essence of my question is this: We've got a lot of things being built — established already — and a recommendation to build another piece on. When does it make sense just to reset the whole thing?
So the first part of the question is: Can you explain why you recommended the implementation of a new monthly supplementary retirement increment benefit?
Gary Walbourne, Executive Director Operations and Deputy Ombudsman, Office of the Veterans Ombudsman: There are two pieces to that. The first piece we looked at was those who are at most risk financially. That is where we get to talk about the Permanent Impairment Allowance and the supplement. The question comes to us: Why is accessibility so restrictive? I think if we can start to look at the mechanisms that are in place — that's PIA and the supplement — both of those — that takes those who are most financially at risk off the table.
There will be another group, through no fault of their own — through their injury — who will find themselves at retirement who are not at a level of the men — we figure the level should be around 70 per cent of pre-release salary. So there will be those who will come in close to that or below that, to a certain amount, and we feel that it is just right and just to give them the same forwarded opportunities as any other Canadians in that they would have an opportunity to live in their retirement at a pre-release salary of 70 per cent. So that's the thought behind it.
It's not only maybe bringing in a new program, but if we take this supplementary retirement benefit and enhance it — we do not have to rebuild this — but I think you can look at the programs that are in place. I think the mechanisms are inside the charter to make this happen.
Senator Wells: So we have the required flexibility within the guidelines and rules?
Mr. Walbourne: Not the current guidelines and rules, but I think the mechanisms are there. I think we'd have to look at the policies and procedures wrapped around those and how accessibility is offered and when people get access to them.
But the mechanisms we feel may be in place already today, and maybe we don't have to invent a new benefit.
Senator Wells: Okay. That's good. May I ask another? This goes to the second part of my second, longer question.
When did the individual — I'll call them entitlements, wanting a different word — but when does that become so cumbersome that it starts to tip and we should consider something more comprehensive, with the required flexibility?
Mr. Parent: I believe that we're almost at that point now. In fact, if you look at the complexity of the administration of benefits in general in Veterans Affairs Canada, you start from the First World War, and then the Second World War and Korea. And there were programs and benefits that were implemented to meet the needs of those people. Other programs were introduced later, you know, under the Pension Act. And then we come up with the New Veterans Charter in 2006.
Really, if you look at an individual within the department trying to administer the processes within, it's very complicated. And I think it's probably about time that Veterans Affairs Canada look at new business processes, and maybe a charter for all veterans and maybe legislation for all veterans.
Certainly our discussions with the department and the minister have often led to that kind of a discussion, and we'll pursue that in the future.
Mr. Walbourne: If I may, you have to understand that veterans who are injured or ill because of the work and their service to Canada have different needs. There is sometimes a need for different kinds and levels of programs inside of any legislation to help those. Some will have a short-term need that may only be 8, 10, 12 or 14 months. Others will have a lifetime need. I guess that introduces some of the complexity.
The Chair: Also, there's legacy to the three programs they're managing now. When the idea of the new charter came in, that was not pursued to try to bring them together. It was a grave concern by the older veterans that what they were getting might be affected by the new one.
But it is most worthy of a another look, because the complexity of it is quite mind boggling. Thank you for raising that.
Senator Wells: The overarching thought I had when I was reading the report is that there are a lot of things stacked on a lot of things, and that in itself is troublesome.
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Lang: I want to follow up on this line of questioning, and I'm hoping we can get an undertaking from your office. I look at this page here, and it's in very small print, and it talks about all the programs that are available for veterans. There are 37 under the New Veterans Charter — I've counted these up. There are 17 between financial support and rehabilitation for injured veterans, mental health services for non-injured veterans, and support for families; and then, if we go even further, we have another 29 programs called "other Government of Canada benefits." This has to be, to some degree, a bureaucrat's dream but a veteran's nightmare.
I would like to have an undertaking for us to maybe meet with you at another time to see what you could come up with in respect to looking at combining what Senator Wells talks about in these programs. I would submit to you that we're probably spending as much on the bureaucracy, perhaps, as we are on the veterans. I would sooner have the money go to the veterans, if possible. Could we have that undertaking?
Mr. Parent: Certainly. You didn't put a cost on frustration, but besides all of that, there's also a cost on frustration. And I'm sure that in my three years in this office, I've met some veterans who have given up and just said, "No, it's too complicated. I'm not going to be subjected to that."
And the frustration sometimes for us, who are providing an oversight — sometimes the title of the allowance — as I mentioned I think last year, if you see that there is a category of "totally and permanently incapacitated" people and there is an allowance that is for permanently incapacity allowance, you would think the two would match, but they don't.
Senator Lang: If I could, it just seems strange to me that you haven't already started that kind of review, in view of what you've just said, in order to bring something forward that this committee and the House of Commons committee could review. Because I couldn't agree more: I look at this and I don't even understand half of it.
Mr. Walbourne: To add to that complexity, that's just part of it. When you look inside the department there are 18 to 21 different definitions of "veteran." You take that complexity, overlay it on this, and it starts getting complicated. We have started some work along those lines and looked at those various definitions of "veteran." We would love to get together with the committee and have a further conversation.
The Chair: Because you've sort of given out a writ to the ombudsman, I want to check with you on your terms of reference. Some ombudsmen must get acknowledgement from the minister on what they're studying. Are you totally independent from the minister on subjects you can study and work on?
Mr. Parent: We carry on investigations, but it's mainly in the delivery of services. I think there are ways of working with the minister's office, but we can look at that in the future, especially with the support of this committee.
The Chair: That's sort of a here and there answer. Let me put it this way: The gauntlet has been laid down from us to you and hopefully through you to the minister.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: Since we are talking about reservists, as you know, some of us have been involved with militia regiments in various ways. Last Saturday, I was with my regiment. Other members know that we have a veterans affairs committee. The complaint that comes up the most often is the amount of time — especially for retired reservists — it takes for the department to calculate their pensions.
In one of the cases, the individual retired almost 30 months ago, and paperwork is going back and forth between the department — I even have a hard time identifying the department — and the veteran in question.
Do you also have the same type of situations with reservists? I am focusing specially on reservists because that is who we deal with. We often feel that they are between a rock and a hard place, as their pension is not calculated in the same way. We understand that these are citizen-soldiers, so the parameters are different to begin with. Are you hearing the same types of concerns from those people? But first thing is first, do they come to see you?
Mr. Parent: Not necessarily because this comes under the jurisdiction of the military ombudsman and not of the veterans ombudsman. Of course, we hear about this — I hear about it because I am a veteran, as well. We hear about cases where it takes an eternity to calculate reservists' pensions. I think this has also become a problem for the regular forces now that it is taking even longer for the pension to be administered.
For us at Veterans Affairs, when it comes to access to benefits, there is no difference in terms of the time the process takes. Currently, we are working with the department to try to reduce the time frames involved in benefits applications and decision making.
Senator Nolin: Why do veteran reservists come under the department if you have no jurisdiction over those people? Is that a matter of pension?
Mr. Parent: That is in the Superannuation Act. It is not something that comes under my jurisdiction.
The Chair: It should be clarified that some pensions depend on National Defence, but there are also pensions and benefits for veterans, and I am not sure whether your question was about benefits and pensions from Veterans Affairs Canada.
Senator Nolin: No, I was asking about pensions from National Defence. But a 30-month time frame is not normal, especially given that those people will be retiring.
The Chair: This question has to do with the ombudsman of National Defence. Thank you, Senator Nolin.
[English]
Senator Downe: Senator Lang did a very good job of identifying the complexity of the bureaucracy in the department. We're all aware of that and we hear it on a regular basis, but I think we have to take responsibility as parliamentarians as well because we set the framework. We want extensive accountability. The department has to file this form and that form for when the Auditor General and others come in to investigate the department.
The New Veterans Charter that we're talking about today was rushed through Parliament. We all know the parliamentary leaders of the day, coming back from a ceremony in Europe, all had a chat on the plane, the Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the third party. They rushed it through Parliament; I think it went through in one minute in the House of Commons and then it came to the Senate and we insisted on one meeting. That's all we could arrange because everybody has the best of intentions. We wanted to improve services and benefits for veterans. We had one committee meeting in the Senate and a couple of speeches in the chamber. The whole thing was done in about four hours. We've been trying to untangle the mess ever since.
One thing we can point to in our role as parliamentarians is that the government passed a change in the Veterans Independence Program. Before, veterans had to submit receipts in the department and wait and wait and wait for reimbursement. This is for groundskeeping, shovelling snow and so on, for people who are qualified. Now they get the money up front and they submit the receipts afterward. That's the type of change parliamentarians should be thinking about to untangle this mess that we're into with the bureaucracy. That's a role we can play to direct the department.
My question after that preamble — and I'm asking for only one — is follow up on Senator Wells' original comment about the financial adviser and assistance available to the recipient of the lump sum payment. I understand that's over and above the lump sum payment. It's not part of the funds, but the last time we checked we had a very small percentage — I recall 5 per cent, it may have been higher — of veterans seeking that advice.
Do you know what that figure is? Is it any higher? Is there promotion? When they sit down to discuss this lump sum payment, is that highlighted? It seems to me that it should be pushed a little more.
Mr. Walbourne: We recently looked at those numbers, and I don't think they're much above 10 per cent. It's optional. The veteran has the option to take the advice or not. How it is promoted and the value it brings is probably not done as well as it should be.
Senator Downe: That is an area we should promote as well. We all need advice in everything we do.
The Chair: The chair asks, before we go in camera, to ask one question. The question is the following: When an individual is injured they will have access, during the period of time where they're going through rehabilitation and so on, to 75 per cent of their previous salary upon release.
Now, an individual who is on workers' compensation, who works in the civilian world, has a choice of whether they go into an unsecure area or not. If something is too dangerous, they or their union says, "No, you don't do it," and they simply don't do the job. The soldier doesn't have that option. They sign up and go into dangerous positions because that's part of their mandate.
How then can we equate a workers' compensation figure like 75 per cent — which apparently exists outside of insurance policies — to those who are without the option of working in a secure environment, operationally committed, and say that we can reduce their salary? Once you're injured, you lose money. You don't get more money when you're injured, you actually lose money. Is there some logic that I lost in how that was brought about?
Mr. Parent: No. In fact, we don't compare the two in that aspect. Our recommendation is it that it should be 90 per cent. The Earnings Loss Benefit should be raised to 90 per cent. Ninety per cent is no changes in net income. In other words, whenever you face the transition ahead of you, the first thing you see when you're facing a move, a change of career and a whole bunch of obstacles is a drop in salary. Ninety per cent will give the individual net income. It won't change. So that's what we're looking for. It's not a matter of comparing with the Workers' Compensation Board. It's being fair to the individual who needs to go through those two or three years of transition, who should not see a financial burden.
The Chair: That's why we don't see the logic behind it. It brought me to the Legion, which is mandated by law to assist veterans. Are they under your purview to see whether or not they're pushing the envelope and becoming that centre of support, centre of excellence in all those little towns where you have militia units and so on, to be that new body to assist them?
Mr. Parent: Whenever I do outreach, I certainly do it through the Royal Canadian Legion because they have the facilities, especially since talking about the closures of some offices. Maybe then the Legion can take a leading role in providing the visible link between the client and people who look after programs.
I also recommend and talk to the Legion national command to look at the Legion as, in fact, something like a family resource centre.
Again, it's another aspect of veterans' support where the family is not really involved and should be. I think the Legion needs to move in that direction, and not just the Legion but all veterans' representative groups should look at the veteran and his family as an entity, not just the veterans themselves.
The Chair: Thank you for that. The Legion being mandated may be a place we might want to look at.
Thank you very much, Mr. Parent.
Colleagues, you've seen gentlemen here wearing medals. There are veterans here, and one with a service dog, which is a new dimension.
We know that veterans watch this program, if I can use that term, on CPAC at three o'clock in the morning, because they're awake, as some of us are, but to have veterans as witnesses here on the ground with us is, I think, a reinforcement of our work. We appreciate that. Thank you for coming in. And don't hesitate to wear your medals. Well done.
Having said that, I'm going to have to throw you out because we're now going to go in camera.
(The subcommittee continued in camera.)