Proceedings of the Subcommittee on
Veterans Affairs
Issue 12 - Evidence - June 1, 2015
OTTAWA, Monday, June 1, 2015
The Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met this day at 11:08 a.m. to study the subject matter of those elements contained in Division 17 of Part 3 of Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures.
Senator Joseph A. Day (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: I call this meeting of the Senate Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence to order.
Honourable senators, today is our second one-hour meeting dealing with Division 17 of Part 3 of Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures.
The Senate has referred to our parent committee, Security and Defence, two parts, Divisions 2 and 17. Division 17 has been referred to our Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs. At our first meeting, we dealt with the understanding of what was in the five different parts of Division 17 from the government's point of view. Now we want to hear about those who are potentially impacted by the legislation.
We're very pleased to welcome retired captain Perry Gray, who is Chief Editor of VeteranVoice.info; and, as an individual, Ms. Jenny Migneault, who will explain to us the impact of a veteran's being injured from the family point of view and the different programs that Veterans Affairs has or should have to help families.
We also hoped to have retired senator and retired general Roméo Dallaire as a witness. As honourable senators will know, he is a veteran who has suffered publicly with respect to his injury of post-traumatic stress. Unfortunately, he's not able to be with us today. He had sent his written remarks along with his assistant, but they have not been translated, so they won't be circulated until they are translated. Once they are, we will circulate them.
We have also received a presentation to our Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs in one of our official languages from Jerry Kovacs, and this as well will be translated and circulated to all honourable senators. We very much appreciate receiving this documentation as well.
I think what we'll do is begin in the order in which I introduced you, if that is acceptable. We'll start with Mr. Gray and then go to Ms. Migneault. Mr. Gray, you have the floor.
Perry Gray, Chief Editor, VeteranVoice.info: I thank the committee for the privilege to speak about the proposed new programs included in the government's budget. It is difficult to comment about these programs without knowing exactly what will be detailed in the legislation and the policy.
I can say I am disappointed that an omnibus bill is being used instead of the original bill. The reason given by Minister O'Toole for including the new programs in the budget was to ensure that the programs were not delayed by the opposition parties. Yet historically, opposition has been greater for budgets than for independent and more specific bills. To me, this seems to be a tactic to demonstrate that the opposition is either anti-veteran or anti-environment or other, opposing the various other segments tacked onto the core of this budget. This is an example of partisan politics at their worst.
There is also too much referencing of the government's economic action plan rather than the obligation owed to Canada's veterans. I am also disappointed with the programs, considering they are pale imitations of existing programs.
It is unclear whether recipients of the critical injury benefit will receive $70,000 or less than this amount and whether recipients who have already received the lump sum provided by the New Veterans Charter will also be eligible. What should be noted is the very limited numbers for both lump sums. Only 227 people of the 46,760 recipients received 100 per cent of their original lump sum, and as few as 100 will receive the new critical injury benefit.
The family caregiver relief benefit will pay up to $7,200 per year, which is about one third of the maximum amount provided by the Attendance Allowance of the older Pension Act and about 20 per cent of a similar DND program. Both are designed to compensate caregivers of veterans. Neither program is income replacement, which is what is really needed by family members who have sacrificed their own careers to care for veterans. VAC should be developing an earnings loss benefit for families instead.
The retirement income security benefit guarantees 70 per cent of the pre-65 income rather than ensuring a lifelong income like the disability award of the Pension Act. Based on VAC's own research supplemented by information from other sources, disabled veterans need more financial support rather than less, particularly post-65, when elderly Canadians in general need more assistance because of increasing health care requirements. Research indicates that the very young and the very old require the majority of our health care.
What is very disappointing is the fact that VAC estimates that fewer than 750 veterans will benefit from these three programs over the next five years. Senators, my question to you is why so few when there are more than 200,000 clients of Veterans Affairs and more than 700,000 veterans in Canada?
My answer is that VAC wants to minimize financial support. This is why most of the $1 billion in lapsed spending over the last 10 years was related to disability awards. To my knowledge, no minister has ever asked for a budget increase during the last 10 years, preferring to return money rather than spend money. Veterans Affairs has a reputation for being as tight-fisted as Ebenezer Scrooge.
VeteranVoice.info would like to discuss these issues further after the election, when details of legislation pertaining to the new programs have been drafted. Then we can present more detailed thoughts on the future of Veterans Affairs. Thank you for this opportunity.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Gray. Now I will go to Ms. Migneault.
Jenny Migneault, as an individual: Mr. Chair, if you would allow me, I would ask the committee to permit me to have a little more time, and I will explain to you why. As a caregiver, I feel like I'm not often heard. I believe you can ask me all the questions in the world, but if you don't understand a little more about my own perspective as a spouse and a caregiver, maybe my answers won't seem relevant to you.
I lost my marriage. I am lost, sir. I need the senators to give me a chance today because I am the result of 14 years of living with someone with post-traumatic stress disorder, and you must understand that I have worked very hard in the past year to make myself understood, sir, but I don't have much time. I'm always limited by the number of minutes, so I would ask this committee to please allow me enough time to hear me today.
The Chair: Ms. Migneault, this is not like the House of Commons in that I'm giving you only a few short minutes. I haven't set any limit on your time, but we do have a limited amount of time for this overall committee. So if you could focus your comments in relation to the legislation, the things that you see in the legislation that could be improved and the things that are left out, that's what we would like to hear about because we as a committee are required to vote on this fairly soon. You're here to help us.
Ms. Migneault: Respectfully, Mr. Chair, your legislation has to understand my parallel world.
The Chair: Yes.
Ms. Migneault: And I understand your concerns, sir. Respectfully, you want to talk about the legislation, so very briefly I will tell you, without even reading my notes, sir, that this system is actually abandoning my husband and is not only forgetting about me but is abandoning me as well. Sir, you must understand that this country sent my husband into war zones, and I didn't take that decision, but it seems to me like my love for a wounded warrior is like a blank cheque to this country. I would like to explain to you why.
I feel that the impacts and the fact that I am collateral damage to suffering are absolutely real, but the legislation doesn't recognize me at all. When you have a husband that for 11 years slept with a crowbar suspended at the headboard and me as a spouse, you know what? At the beginning I asked why the crowbar was suspended at the headboard. Do you know what it's like to sleep in a bed with a crowbar? With time, I didn't see the crowbar. I saw it enough to put it away when we had visitors, but my husband never forgot to put it back. The crowbar stayed there for 11 years, until my 15-year-old son admitted to me that he was sleeping with a huge hammer in his bedroom because he was afraid of a home invasion. This, sir, is an example of collateral damage.
Another example of collateral damage is the fact that I cannot work. This country needs to realize that my husband requires that I stay home for many reasons and for parameters and limitations that this country does not understand either, if you ask me.
I'll give you an example. How long do you think I was able to keep a job, to manage in the civilian world and what was expected of me in terms of presence, having a smile on your face and being effective and productive, coming back home, being told by a case manager that since I was there my husband did not require more services? "Ms. Migneault, you can do the cleaning." Of course I could do the cleaning. I had four children, a house and an impacted husband. What measures are actually in place to help me first just keep a job? Because right now, Mr. Chair, I'm homeless.
Do you understand that my service to our country not only as a spouse but as a caregiver has a huge price? My dignity, would you like to talk about it? Just take for granted that I have no more income today as we speak. You want me to take my résumé, what is the value of me going to an employer and saying I was caregiver to a military member with PTSD for eight years? I would have more credibility if I said to people that I was a stay-at-home mom, because my husband's PTSD is not understood.
I'd like to share with you the fact that it's not understood by everybody from Veterans Affairs, and I will share with you why. You see, I heard Mr. Doiron on May 12 express to this committee that employment was very good for mental health and everybody would agree on that. If you are doing good between this, would you see me now, impacted like I am? Would you all say, "Jenny, go to work tomorrow?" Would you? No, because you are seeing a little bit of the devastation.
Do you really believe that a serving member who served for 12, 15 or 30 years, because it is a reality also, after 30 years they are pushed and invited to go back to work? In my civilian world, ladies and gentlemen, once you were a teacher for 35 years for the province no one pushes you in the butt to go back to work except in the military.
Let me tell you something. When an ombudsman of veterans affairs is telling me, "Jenny, don't worry too much, only 6,000 a year leave. Among them, approximately 1,000 have a diagnosis of PTSD." My question to you as a vet's spouse is in 10 years how many of them will have a diagnosis? It is a culture of silence. They cannot accept it; they cannot share. They cannot deal. They will tell the case manager, the entire world, that they are doing okay.
I, as a spouse, as the woman who sees his anger, I can tell you how much my husband is devastated. Yet in my case, ladies and gentlemen, it took me six years — listen to me, six years — before I met my husband's psychiatrist, the same person who would prescribe my husband a new medication every six weeks. Now would you really like to share with me the horror story of the medication that I have been through alone? No. You don't want to hear it.
Maybe you want to hear in your legislation that I'm not recognized, that I'm not supported as much as I could be. I am in a curative way when I'm drowning. When I'm not drowning, zero. I must call for help. Well, calling for help when you live with somebody who wants to deny everything, when you live with somebody who has PTSD, who cannot tolerate uncoordinated crowds or the sirens in the city, we end up living in a nice little cottage far away from the neighbours, which is very good for the quality of life of our wounded.
Where do we end up? If you want to start from here, I can close my statement right here and answer your questions.
The Chair: Could you tell us how long your husband served in the Armed Forces?
Ms. Migneault: My husband served 20 years. He retired just a few months before being promoted to warrant officer because he was ashamed. You see, he ended his career with 17 months, consecutive 17 months and 80, where this ended my husband. He was ashamed so he retired, even though his medical files already indicated that he was into a major depression. Back then Mr. Dallaire didn't come out, so PTSD was not truly talked about, but he was already wounded. My husband was left alone in a civilian world. And something I understood from my husband is that everybody is an enemy. Do you understand? So he was left alone, surrounded by enemies.
How do you go from military to a civilian? You were trained to answer a certain way. You are trained to act, react and think in a way that is not always appropriate in a civilian world. The only points of reference they are truly left with are the family members. If the brothers in arms are really important before they leave and they are very present, they are important after, of course; they do make the difference. But the real, solid foundation must come from the fortress itself, from our parallel world.
The Chair: Could you tell us when he began to receive treatment for what you described? When he left after 20 years of having a depression, when did he first, after he left, start having treatment for that?
Ms. Migneault: He retired in 1998, and he tried to keep jobs as much as he could. So my husband went into 15 jobs in three or four years. Finally, because a serving member brother back then told him to get help, because my husband said he had problems with his back. At that point he couldn't realize and acknowledge that he had psychological challenges. So it was in 2007 that my husband was diagnosed and received the first treatments for PTSD at Ste. Anne's in Montreal.
The Chair: This committee has visited the Ste. Anne's centre, and General Roméo Dallaire, who used to chair this subcommittee, has told us about the good work being done there.
You indicated it was six years after that that you had an opportunity to talk to your husband's psychiatrist.
Ms. Migneault: I had to insist, sir, because in my life I have to insist to everybody to share what I know, to share the reality, the truth, the fact that we need some help. So you have to knock on doors. Either you are a military wife or a vet's spouse, or an RCMP wife also, if you ask me.
The Chair: Yes. I'm trying to set the stage. At this time you were still married with four children and a husband who was later diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder.
Ms. Migneault: And I had a full-time job.
The Chair: You were trying to hold down a full-time job.
Ms. Migneault: And obviously, sir, I am a failure. I failed my husband; I am failing my country because I was told many times that, imagine, I was a hero myself. Failure, failure, failure, that's what I am.
The Chair: I wouldn't say that. And I don't think we're agreeing with you on that, but I want your comments with respect to the family caregiver relief provisions in this legislation. It's $7,238 per year. Could you comment on that?
Ms. Migneault: Yes, of course. Maybe you should ask my husband, because this money is for the care of my husband. It's my husband who will say I can have care for me. The question will sound a little silly, but are you telling me that I could use this $7,000 to go for a week in Jamaica? I don't think so.
The Chair: My understanding is that it is to compensate —
Ms. Migneault: The veteran.
The Chair: No. To compensate you, as the caregiver, for the time that you might otherwise have gainful employment, time that you might have to give up.
Ms. Migneault: As I explained at the house committee last Wednesday, this measure, first of all, is a pure example of how a system does not understand my limitations, because I live with someone with PTSD who won't allow a stranger in our house, first; who won't allow me to leave for so long without having extraordinary anxiety, panic attacks, whatever you want. I have a husband who psychologically requires me to be there. If you want to treat the caregiver fatigue, you must treat it as a family.
Now you are asking me to say to my husband, "Honey, you are a burden for me. I'm tired of you. I cannot deal with your anxiety anymore. I don't feel like hearing you saying that you feel like you are being filmed through the webcam of our camera."
You're asking me and you are asking my husband to actually feel good about this? Is this supposed to improve the quality of life? What will be the price for me to leave? I've been through this just last week. You know what? I had a war at home because after 48 hours, although I talk to my husband eight times a week, you know what? When I got into the house, I was not expressive enough about the fact that I missed him. Do you want to know what time I went to bed that night?
That measure, sir, with all due respect — first of all, I don't have any money myself to buy myself a bus ticket. Please. I mean, this is for my husband, okay? This is good for any caregiver. Where is my power in this regard? Because once again you are putting me in a situation where my husband has all the power, which is fine. I understand that he is a veteran, and I'm not asking to take anything that belongs to the veteran. I am asking this country to recognize me for who I am and to be an individual, just to have my dignity.
The Chair: If the $7,200 came to you as a caregiver, would that be helpful?
Ms. Migneault: It would change a lot. It would give me a little power. It would give me a little dignity. This is what it's all about. A caregiver relief benefit — as much as you can send me away two or three days a week, do you really think that the situation will get better? Do I have tools to deal with my wounded husband? No.
Like I said, it's a quarter of a measure, because that quarter is the fact that you are recognizing that a caregiver has fatigue. Are you truly recognizing the impacts on me, his wife — not only his caregiver? When you hire a caregiver, they leave at five o'clock. I don't, sir. I have not had a break in 13 years.
The Chair: I'm going to go to the deputy chair of the committee, Senator Stewart Olsen. She is a New Brunswick senator.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Thank you for coming. I appreciate your sharing with us.
I think what I'm hearing — and I know it probably is straying from the bill itself in this, but I think it's important that we look at the effect on wives and families as perhaps a separate issue, and I think that you almost get PTSD in situations like this.
What worries me is that when families can no longer cope in the situations, they are left, as Ms. Migneault is, without support, and I think we have to look at that in our study that we're doing. Perhaps not this, but I think we should, in our PTSD study, look at the effects on families.
I thank you very much, Senator Day, for asking the people to come who are representative of families, who actually are families, because I think that while the bill itself involves steps, it's really important to hear exactly what is going on.
Ms. Migneault: Can I add something?
Senator Stewart Olsen: You sure can.
Ms. Migneault: Don't forget; I understand that I'm talking about the spousal representation, sort of, but there is something, please, that you need to realize. We are connected to everything.
For instance, do you want to talk about the RAB, the pertinence or not about that board of appeal? People don't realize just the fact that this department, sort of, exists. Nobody in this country understands the impacts of just waiting for an answer, or just the anger of a veteran when he knows that he was wounded during his service and then he's treated like a liar and he's being told, "You know what? Mr. Rainville, you had five barotraumas in your ears during your service, and you worked 3,000 hours in a C-130 Hercules, the noisiest little birds you can have."
Yet not once but twice — and then we are waiting for the third time — Veterans Affairs is telling my husband, "Dear Mr. Rainville, thank you very much for your service, but, you see, the fact that you have a hearing loss right now, we cannot see the correlation with your service. You can always appeal the decision. By the way, Mr. Rainville, in 2007 we recognized your tinnitus related to your service, but not the hearing loss."
You want to know a good thing? Three years after my husband was pensioned for tinnitus, he received hearing aids from Veterans Affairs. No traces of those hearing aids for years; no traces right now at Veterans Affairs in this file. He has been asking for years. I too have been calling Veterans Affairs Canada to say, "My husband needs a masking device because his tinnitus is a direct trigger for his PTSD."
The psychologist, the psychiatrist, Ste. Anne's called the case manager; I called the case manager; he called the case manager, in order just to ask Veterans Affairs to take care of my husband's tinnitus. Guess what? He's still denied his pension for hearing loss. They still can't prove — imagine — that five barotraumas — that's not enough. So, "No, Mr. Rainville."
We received a negative answer in July 2014. We had that letter that indicates his case will be treated in — take a look at this — winter 2016 the process of appeal will begin.
Everybody in this country thinks, of course, that this is unacceptable, to wait so long. You know it's unacceptable, and it should be considered even more unacceptable. I'll tell you why: Because nobody understands what PTSD is. You don't understand that these men saw injustice. They cannot tolerate injustice. PTSD makes them focus. Why do you think they hate Veterans Affairs so much? Because Veterans Affairs becomes their focus. I can tell you that, as a wife, I saw my husband. I saw the impact of waiting. Time is such a silent killer. You have no idea how unacceptable it is to treat our veterans as if they were criminals and liars looking for a green machine.
Let me tell you something from my experience of what I saw from the people I know. Once people have their own quality of life, you know what, they are happy and they forget about Veterans Affairs. RAB, for example, is a good way to keep them in their anger. Everybody forgets that when my husband is angry, you know what, I pay for it. He doesn't sleep. He doesn't eat. His whole day is on Veterans Affairs, on Facebook and on Internet. Did you ever see what it's like for a man who hates the government — when you have PTSD and you have to wait and wait and wait; and you have case managers who talk to you, pointing at you like this; when you have people at Veterans Affairs that hang up the phone on you? In fact, I have some taped conversations on my cellphone, if you want to hear some. Do you want to know how they are treated? I'll make you listen to it. You will see that these poor people, the people at Veterans Affairs Canada — and my heart goes to them — don't have an easy job. It seems obvious to me that either they are overloaded or they don't have the education they should have to deal with this because you must create a relationship of trust between the wounded one and the family members as well. I don't trust those people any more than my husband does.
The Chair: To clarify the record, when you talk about appeal, that's the Veterans Review and Appeal Board?
Ms. Migneault: Yes; I'm sorry.
The Chair: That's fine. We make certain assumptions here, but there are people watching and reading our transcripts, and it's important to tie those together.
Senator Mitchell is next to intervene.
Senator Mitchell: Thanks to both of you. I want to underline what the chair said, Ms. Migneault. You are absolutely not a failure. You're clearly suffering what your husband has suffered. It's very clear that one of the implications of that is that people begin to doubt themselves. You have tremendous strength. Don't doubt yourself.
My first question would be to Mr. Gray, and that is with reference to the article in today's Hill Times by Sean Bruyea where he mentioned, with respect to the family caregiver relieve benefit, that by 2020 only 351 family members, out of the anticipated 6,000 totally impaired and disabled veterans, will qualify for that program.
Are you aware of that figure? Why would it be so low? Is it how the hurdle is set too high?
Mr. Gray: Yes, I am aware of that figure. When you look at the three programs I discussed, the total number is 750 people that will benefit. In specifics, 351 families like Ms. Migneault's may benefit from this program. But, again, why so few? There are 200,000 clients of Veterans Affairs; almost 35 per cent of all Veterans Affairs clients are family members, either spouses or dependent children. We have to recognize the families. To say, "Well, we're only going to take 350 of the worst," is one thing, but they have not provided us with their scale of who is the worst. If, as has been already discussed today, people are in denial about how severe their disabilities are, then that figure of a few thousand is not truly representative of the whole problem.
Again, $7,200 is not income replacement. It may give you a couple days of relief, but, as we've seen, if the veteran doesn't want you to be away from them, how do you get the relief? How do you bring someone in to replace you if they say "No, you have to be with me 100 per cent of the time?" The numbers that will benefit for this program are insignificant. The amount of money that has been bandied about is insignificant. You would have to be dealing with a much larger global issue before you say, "We will slap the Band-Aid on yet another problem."
Senator Mitchell: There is a great deal of evidence that people who deal with people who have PTSD, namely, professionals and family members, get PTSD themselves. I remember Senator Dallaire saying, as I began a great deal of work on PTSD in the RCMP, guard yourself because you will be dealing with people with really terrifying stories and it can become extremely grinding.
There are the family support centres that have been set up, sort of quasi-independent centres. The government tells us there is mental health support, and so on, but your experience is different. You could not get to the see psychiatrist or your husband's psychiatrist. Is there family support, psychiatric and counselling support in this process?
Ms. Migneault: I will take a little detour here. One of the challenges I had is that I never realized I was a vet spouse. You must understand that I married a veteran. I never saw my husband in a uniform. So when I met him, I married an ex-military man who was looking good. Everybody loved him. He was ex-military, so he had to do the transition and everything. I never realized that I was a vet spouse until I went back to school in social work a year and a half ago. It's when I wanted to do an internship at the MFRC — I already had an interest there — that my husband said, "You know you're a vet spouse. They might listen to you." We had been married for 12 years. I must recognize myself as a vet spouse or as a caregiver.
Senator Mitchell: Thank you. Something has come out of this discussion this morning which strikes me as interesting, Mr. Chair and colleagues. Let's say that the PTSD damage to a veteran breaks up the family. Now what happens? The family has suffered, has maybe acquired PTSD, certainly has stresses and strains financial and otherwise, but do they have any access once they are divorced or separated from the actual veteran? Do they have access?
Ms. Migneault: The first person I'm concerned with when the family is breaking up is the wounded one. My husband is the first one. For me, it seems like I'll be calling his case manager, and chances are, just like people I know, case managers won't even call me back because I am now separated and everything is directed to the serving member or the veteran. I am nothing.
Senator Mitchell: Even the caregiver financial amount, were it significant enough to offset income loss, would be lost if you were not there to be the caregiver. You don't get a pension? No. Okay.
Senator Stewart Olsen is making the point that it is important we look at that. It is directly related to the bill but is something we would have to add on to the government's policy.
I'm interested also in the question of the critical injury benefit of $70,000, which we were told in the previous meeting with the officials could go to a PTSD person, but often that develops over time. This is an emergency amount of money that goes to somebody who has been traumatically and probably physically injured and instantaneously needs support.
At the same time, there is only about a $40,000 average lump-sum payment for pain and suffering for people with PTSD. Is that $40,000 still available 10 or 20 years out if PTSD develops as a result of service? Is there anything commensurate with the $70,000 that is immediate and emergent for people who develop PTSD later on that you are aware of?
Mr. Gray: I really can't answer those questions, senator, because I don't know enough about the CIB. I've looked at the briefing notes that were provided by the department, but I wasn't sure whether it was a supplement or a complement to the existing lump sum.
As to your question about PTSD, once you've been assigned as a client, either you get the lump sum or you don't. To my knowledge, it's rare that 20 years from now you will suddenly get the lump sum. It's usually something that is part and parcel of the original assessment of your disability.
I'd like to know more about how the CIB is going to be assessed and given to people. I have one quote from the department that says it's based on a sliding scale and is not a lump sum of $70,000, so that's very confusing.
The Chair: Mr. Gray, you commented on the three different programs that are in this bill. I made mention at the beginning that there are five different elements to this bill that we're asked to look at. One is a repurposing, a fuller description of the purpose of Veterans Affairs and the social contract between the Armed Forces and the public. The other is a transition allowing Veterans Affairs to talk to retiring or Armed Forces personnel for a year before they in fact leave. Can you make any comment with respect to the transition or the purpose aspects of the bill?
Mr. Gray: Yes, I can, senator. I spoke to the Commons committee on the transition program earlier this year, and yes, it's good, because we basically have indicated that there has to be a better collaboration between National Defence and Veterans Affairs when it comes to the transition process. In my opinion, based on the new definition of a veteran, which is anyone who is qualified beyond recruit training, a VA file should be started on that person. The same applies to the RCMP. Then you know that this is a potential client of yours when either a medical situation causes the person to become a disability case or when they retire after completing their full length of service. So yes, that handover has to be much better, because too much information is, as the expression goes, falling through the cracks. If you know that there are approximately 5,000 people leaving the military every year and a certain number of people leaving the RCMP every year, these are all potential clients, and you have to make sure that you've identified them as your next group long before they become the next group. Unfortunately, one of the problems is that under the New Veterans Charter, a veteran only has a two-year window in which to apply for things, but as Ms. Migneault pointed out, sometimes those problems may not be identified until five, six or seven years down the road. Even the deputy minister of Veterans Affairs said that more than 50 per cent of all veterans realize they have a problem after the two-year window has closed.
The Chair: We are learning in our separate policy study in relation to post-traumatic stress and operational stress injury that often this type of injury doesn't manifest itself for several years down the line. The information we're gathering confirms what you've told us. Will this provision in this bill be helpful or be a step in the right direction, and I'm talking about the transition provision, in allowing Veterans Affairs to get involved in a would-be veteran?
Mr. Gray: Yes, it would, but it has to be done better than what is happening now or has happened in the past. Cutting the department significantly, which is what happened, is not enough. The minister said they are going to hire 100 new case managers, but we haven't seen one hired yet. People have been looking on government websites saying, "Okay, where are these jobs? As a veteran, can I apply for one? What do I need to apply for a case management position? What do I need to apply for any job in Veterans Affairs?"
We have to bear in mind that the 100 jobs that they are going to fill eventually don't replace the ones that were let go in the past. Despite the statistics presented by Veterans Affairs, the total number of clients that Veterans Affairs services is not decreasing significantly. In fact, if you look at recent statistics, there is going to be an increase because, of the 5,000 people that are released just from the military every year, up to 1,200 may have a significant disability, but all those 5,000 who leave the military are entitled under the New Veterans Charter to become clients of Veterans Affairs. So yes, the war service veterans, unfortunately, because of their lifespan, will leave us very shortly, but the increase in new veterans will surpass that number. In 2010, the department estimated a drop of 5,500 people per year, but since that time, over those five years, the drop hasn't been close to 5,500 a year. So instead of looking for 100 new people to employ in the department, you need to reemploy all of those hundreds who were let go, and possibly increase the number of people. In order to do that, you have to not only significantly increase the operating budget of the department but you also have to increase the disability budget of the department, and that doesn't appear to be happening.
Senator White: I apologize. I have two other meetings between 12 and 1. I'm wondering how much time we're going to require to go through the report.
The Chair: I can tell you very shortly.
Are there any questions that arise from any of the questions that I've asked, colleagues? Seeing none, and I have no other senators on my list, I'd like, on behalf of the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, to thank you, Ms. Migneault, for coming and sharing what I know is a very sensitive and emotional issue. We felt that emotion. It's very important for us to hear the life experiences that you have had. We are working separate from this legislation on a study with respect to families and veterans in relation to post-traumatic stress disorder, and a lot of what you said today can be helpful in that regard. Thank you very much for being here.
Ms. Migneault: I would like to thank you. I hope that I will get to meet the Minister of Veterans Affairs who will maybe agree to listen to what I have to say. Thank you so much for listening to me. My objective was to touch the heart of the men and woman behind your political suits as senators. Please, give us a voice. We can tell you a lot, not only about us but about this country's heroes, too.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Retired Captain Gray, thank you very much, sir, and thank you for the work you are doing in VeteranVoice in bringing forward issues and keeping the debate going. I think we all know that this file is not going away. It is growing, and there are still lots of things that need to be done.
This committee is suspended, and we will thank our witnesses.
(The committee continued in camera.)