Proceedings of the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs
OTTAWA, Wednesday, June 2, 2010
The Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met this day at 12:08 p.m. to study the services and benefits provided to members of the Canadian Forces; to veterans; to members and former members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and their families (topic: implementation of the new veterans charter).
Senator Tommy Banks (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good afternoon. I call to order this meeting of the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs of the Standing Senate Committee on National Defence and Security, which is currently studying all aspects of the implementation of the new veterans charter.
To my left is our committee clerk, Kevin Pittman. To my right is our analyst from the Library of Parliament, Jean- Rodrigue Paré. To his right is Senator Pamela Wallin, chair of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, and to her right is the deputy chair of this committee, Senator Fabian Manning from Newfoundland.
We are joined today by two representatives of veterans. We have from the Canadian Association of Veterans in United Nations Peacekeeping, Ronald R. Griffis, the national president. He is clearly visible by the use of his blue beret-coloured coat. We also have a vet from the Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans in Canada, Lorne McCartney. He is the dominion secretary-treasurer.
We have been joined by the distinguished Senator Michael Meighen who was, for many years, the chair of this subcommittee and from whom we all learn a great deal.
Gentlemen, I think you have things to tell us before we regale you with questions and I would ask you to begin. Mr. McCartney, I think you would go first.
Lorne McCartney, Dominion Secretary-Treasurer, Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans in Canada: Thank you. Mr. Chair and members of the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs, it is an honour to be here to discuss veterans issues as they relate to the new veterans charter. I am here today representing our president, Gordon Marsh, and am speaking on behalf of the executive and members Canada's oldest veterans organization, the Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans in Canada, known as ANAVETS.
We were founded in Montreal in 1840 and Queen Victoria signed the charter for our first unit. At the present time, we have approximately 16,000 members across Canada, formed into 68 units under seven provincial commands.
Our association has been involved in all aspects of creating the new veterans charter and we continue to work at improving the many aspects of this complex document. As a veterans' organization, we believe our nation has an inherent obligation to provide the best possible care and support for those personnel and their families injured while on duty.
It has been three years since the introduction of the new veterans charter through an act of Parliament which, when it was agreed to by veterans' organizations, was done with the understanding and agreement by government that we would address the areas that needed fixing. We called these areas `gaps' between how the act read and what veterans need.
Since that time, we have completed a study by the new veterans charter working group, which specified these gaps, why they are a problem and what action was needed. The results of this study were available in June of last year but no action has been taken yet. The longer we do not address these gaps, the longer our veterans are not receiving the necessary support that they and their families require in adjusting to life with their injuries.
The current reason for procrastination is that, with the worldwide economic meltdown, funds are scarce, and the "spend money" philosophy being used to get our economy going does not include spending on support for veterans.
Our veterans were injured while doing what they were told to do by our government. It should be the responsibility of that same government to do what is right, and provide the support necessary to look after our veterans and their families after they have been injured.
Here is an example of the problem with the new veterans charter. Most Canadian Forces, CF, personnel who go to Afghanistan are at the lower end of the rank levels. This correlates to those who are being injured, as well. Should a third-year private get hurt, their income supplement will only guarantee that they would receive a taxable 75 per cent of their rate of pay at the time of their release. You have a severely injured person whose spouse will no doubt have to devote more time to helping and shuttling the spouse to wherever is necessary. This spouse will probably have to leave his or her job to do this and to look after their children and to raise a family on $35,000 a year, with no pay incentives and no promotions.
Add to this that the person will not receive a government pension or benefits, and that this pay stops when the person reaches the age of 65. How can our Canadian heroes save for the future, send his or her children to college or university, and have an enjoyable life? It is just not possible. Our government is letting them down. Senators, this is why we are here.
The Chair: Thank you Mr. McCartney. Colleagues, I hope you will agree that we hear from Mr. Griffis next and then proceed to questions.
We have been joined by Senator Percy E. Downe from Prince Edward Island, and Senator Dallaire who I think you probably know as General Dallaire.
Mr. Griffis, you have the floor.
Ronald R. Griffis, National President, Canadian Association of Veterans in United Nations Peacekeeping: Good afternoon, honourable senators, guests, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Ron Griffis and I am the national president of the Canadian Association of Veterans in United Nations Peacekeeping, which is Canada's pre-eminent peacekeeping veterans' organization.
We were founded in 1989 with the blessings from the world headquarters of the United Nations in New York City. We currently have chapters in every province in Canada, with our headquarters in Ottawa, Ontario. All of our members are veterans of peacekeeping duties, as sanctioned by Canada and the United Nations.
Our association works with Veterans Affairs Canada with the hoped-for results of making life better for `all' veterans. We are contributing members of the gerontological advisory council to Veterans Affairs Canada and are the authors of Keeping the Promise, published and submitted to the department in 2006. We are contributing members of the new veterans charter advisory group, having submitted our most recent report to Veterans Affairs Canada in October 2009. This differs slightly from my colleague's date in that there was a date of submission and an actual date of technical submission.
We are members of various Veterans Affairs Canada client advisory committees located in large communities across Canada. We have attended and made presentations before this honourable subcommittee and before the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. Before I go any further, I have a request to make of this honourable subcommittee.
I appreciate it is now redundant but I would like it on the record. Please, before you wrap up hearings on the implementation of the new veterans charter, I respectfully request that every effort be made to have Major (Retired) Bruce Henwood appear before this subcommittee. Major (Retired) Henwood is the chairperson of SNAG, special needs advisory group. He was severely wounded in Croatia in 1995. I have included his bio on the last page of this submission.
I respectfully suggest that, after hearing Major (Retired) Henwood's presentation, you would then have had an opportunity to listen to someone who has experienced firsthand the trials and tribulations of a severely wounded soldier.
While participating in the new veterans charter advisory group, I was involved in recommendations and strategies involving families, one of the three categories of subcommittees. The other two categories involved financial security, and rehabilitation services and outcomes.
I have been involved with Canada's military since 1957 and it goes without question that families have always taken a back seat to the military and Veterans Affairs Canada. Families are one of the most, if not the most, important parts of veterans' services. There are approximately 16 recommendations in the most recent submission to Veterans Affairs Canada.
We are aware of the review of Veterans Affairs Canada, as conducted by Keith Coulter, and I understand his report was submitted on Monday. We are aware of the audit of Veterans Affairs Canada being conducted by Sheila Fraser. We are aware of the new veterans charter evaluation, Phase 1, as conducted by Veterans Affairs Canada. We are aware of the many recommendations as put forth by the many presenters to this honourable subcommittee.
It would indeed be an insult to veterans and their families, the Canadian public and to members of Parliament and this honourable subcommittee if all or some of these recommendations were ignored. The new veterans charter was to be a `living charter', with changes to be implemented as required. I respectfully suggest you are aware of the suggested changes, and respectfully request you make the recommendation to implement as many of the changes and improvements as possible.
On behalf of the Canadian Association of Veterans in United Nations Peacekeeping, I want to thank this honourable subcommittee for allowing our organization this opportunity to appear before you. Canada's peacekeepers — our hope for mankind.
The Chair: Thank you, gentlemen.
I and members here are very grateful for your presentations and for what you said. Before we go to questions, I want to say, Mr. McCartney, that I had the pleasure of being with Gordon Marsh, your president, in Holland recently. It was a great pleasure to meet him again; we had seen him before this subcommittee in the past.
As you have already indicated, Mr. Griffis, while under the distinguished chairmanship of Senator Meighen, we had a lot to do with Major (Retired) Henwood and we are looking forward to seeing him again on June 16. At the same time, Major Campbell will be appearing with him, so we will be hearing from two officers who have similar experiences.
Mr. McCartney, before we go to questions from other senators, you talked about an understanding that had been reached before; the new veterans charter, which has been described before us by two successive ministers as a living charter. You had an agreement that gaps, as you characterize them, would be filled. However, you know that, when you are negotiating between parties, neither side is happy until they have achieved all their ends, or stopped the achievement of their ends.
When introduction of the new veterans charter was imminent, what was the nature and form of the understanding or agreement that indicated the charter would be susceptible to future change? What was the nature of the undertaking? Was it a written paper or verbal statements?
Mr. McCartney: Nothing was written. In fact, it was hard to be specific about each individual item. A number of items were discussed. There was a small window of opportunity to get the new veterans charter approved. Once a decision is made, it is difficult to change.
They had to choose a point in time to freeze everything that was on the table. We knew, and ongoing discussions mentioned, things that should be done and reviewed. For example, we knew there were problems with the pension and SISIP insurance schemes. SISIP was preventing many payouts because it had limits. If you earned something here, they would take it back there. We knew this was happening. However, since it was a living charter, we decided to take care of the problems after it was approved; we had a feel for it and how issues were evolving. However, nothing was put on paper.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Wallin: I will follow up on Senator Banks' comments. Was your role in the creation of last June's document a parallel structure or in response to?
Mr. McCartney: The new veterans charter advisory group stemmed from the new veterans charter that was put in place.
Senator Wallin: Were you asked by government or a department?
Mr. McCartney: Yes. We had two or three meetings per year for a couple of years. The advisory group included experts from various fields, veterans groups and others. They always offered their expertise to anything under discussion.
Senator Wallin: You spell out the reality that sometimes you simply have a window of opportunity to get something done. There was a willingness to look at issues. We also have been looking at the new veterans charter for more than a year. Can you give us one or two specific examples of what could be done that would not create the upheaval of having to go back and reinvent the wheel?
Mr. McCartney: That is a difficult question. We also have been through this before with the house committee on this same topic.
It is difficult to put issues in an order to tackle them one at a time. The whole charter was put together as one grouping. Taking away one thing changes the whole spectrum. My example touches on a range of issues including pension and pay. You cannot disregard any aspect of it.
Veterans affairs is acting. They are bending over backwards to do the best they can with the resources they have. For example, it is necessary to look at the advisory group report that covered the entire charter. You can pick out various issues of concern to us. Which should be chosen first is difficult to say.
Senator Wallin: My question was not so much what is first, but what is doable without a huge change of the core document. For example, we have focused on the lump-sum payment. We heard a lot of conflicting testimony about the payment depending on the age of the recipient, et cetera. It is something that could be done without going back to reinvent the whole charter. We could choose either/or as opposed to only one option.
Mr. McCartney: We looked at that issue recently when the deputy minister was at a conference introducing the new minister. She asked us what could be done in that area.
I must step back to say that the lump-sum payment is confusing many people. The lump-sum payment is given for pain and suffering. It is not meant to be an adjunct to pay or reimbursement over a person's life. It is based on whatever particular injury someone has. In the extreme, the payment is about $260,000, but not everyone receives that.
For example, how can you give people who may have mental problems that much money? What will they do with it — drink or take drugs? Should we give the payment all at once? These are difficult questions. I think there are options. Canadian courts look at injury all the time and we could look at their judgements. I am sure the payments can be resolved whether paid as a lump sum or over a number of years, et cetera.
Senator Wallin: The answer to this question may be in your paperwork, but what kind of uptake do you have from younger soldiers or soon-to-be veterans in your organizations? The Royal Canadian Legion has the same issue. Do you find that people coming off the battlefield or from peacekeeping missions over the last decade turn to your organizations or are they going out solo?
Mr. McCartney: Our organization is not online with respect to our membership. We receive payments from the ground up through our commands. I feel that we do not have many new veterans joining the ranks. If you look at today's society, they are drawn by many things that make it difficult. The situation is not like it was after the First World War or Second World War. There are other ways now to come together. I think we have to wait until those veterans are a little older before they join our association.
Mr. Griffis: Once we discover that a veteran is seeking information, it is easy to bring that veteran in to the focus. Many are not aware of us, and we try to deal with this on the East Coast through communication. Reserve members, and even regular members, leave the forces lacking the specifics of what is available to them. Older veterans in their 60s and 70s are not aware of what took place when they retired at 55 years of age. You can meet these veterans on a regular basis to tell them what is available and they apply to VAC, but another problem starts with systemic delay.
Veterans affairs will say they try their best to advance the application. However, I have followed a case since April 2009. It is still before Veterans Affairs Canada in the appeals process. The process is slow and cumbersome. Veterans today grow tired of that. They are sick and tired of systemic delay. They want things done yesterday. We know that is not always possible, but improvements can be made in that vein without costing more money.
Senator Wallin: I appreciate those comments.
Senator Manning: Mr. McCartney commented earlier in relation to implementation of the new veterans charter. There seemed to be a process of follow-up meetings in place to discuss the charter and the gaps and concerns to which you alluded. Is it correct that those meetings are not taking place currently? There was a time when the meetings did occur but, for whatever reasons, you moved on from those. I am concerned about the communication between your organizations and veterans affairs in dealing with some of the gaps.
Mr. McCartney: The culmination was the advisory group report that came out last summer — technically, it was only out in November of the past year.
We are setting up a committee to follow on from what took place. Being a veterans' organization, we need to know what is going on — whether it is in challenge to what the current act is, or just the little things being done behind the scenes to improve veterans' access. There is nothing on the table now where we will meet in three weeks and discuss things, but we know it is coming.
Senator Manning: Are you in the process of organizing a committee, similar to the advisory group that was in place, to address the concerns that your organizations see?
Mr. McCartney: I hope so. The only guidelines we have been given is that, before, we had the SNAG and various other groups that fed into the new veterans charter advisory group; this one will comprise everyone. We are discussing now how many times we will be meeting throughout the year, which people will attend, et cetera.
Mr. Griffis: A program is in the planning stages as we sit here today, which is called the veterans affairs advisory committee. It will encompass the new veterans charter advisory group, the gerontological advisory group, the mental health advisory group and SNAG, the special needs advisory group.
Senator Manning: Will there be representation from veterans affairs as part of those meetings?
Mr. Griffis: They are the ones in charge of that, yes.
Senator Manning: They are organizing the groups into a cohesive unit to meet on a regular basis, right? I am concerned about how your concerns reach veterans affairs; this will be the avenue to do that — is that correct?
Mr. McCartney: It is a major avenue.
Senator Meighen: Will your organizations be on that?
Mr. Griffis: Yes. We will have the six veterans' organizations involved — our organization, ANAVETS, the Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association, the National Council of Veterans Association, the Royal Canadian Legion — there are six of us, I forgot the other name.
Senator Manning: I am happy to hear that because it is important that these lines of communication remain in place.
We have had representation here before and witnesses that have been before us in the past have brought forward a concern that Mr. McCartney raised in his remarks in regard to the rank level of a soldier when he or she is injured.
We had a young gentleman here a couple of weeks ago who was 22 years old, and injured when he was nineteen- and-a-half. There may be opportunities for him within the Canadian Forces, but there may come a time when there is not. One of the concerns raised was the opportunity for him to be promoted and move up in the ranks.
What ideas or suggestions have you or your groups brought forward to deal with that? How do you move that person along financially over the next number of years when the person may not be physically capable of moving along in the ranks?
Mr. McCartney: Our position, which was brought out in the new veterans charter advisory group report, is we believe you have to look at this individual and say this is someone who took a certain path in life, but taking that path should not go against his ability to progress and move forward.
We asked what the average non-commissioned officer or private would move up to. Some might make chief warrant officer and some might only make sergeant, so we will take an amount in there and say this is the average — or maybe even less than average — progression an individual would make.
It is the same for officers. Yes, some make general, but maybe take major or light colonel as the average and get appropriate compensation. This is the backdrop. The solider might get another job and he will never earn less than he would have if you take these examples of a natural progression that an individual would have.
The other aspects we are looking at — and this is why I used that example — is while you are in the military, you are contributing to a pension. What happens at 65 and then there is nothing? At $35,000 a year, raising a family, you cannot put aside for a pension. We should be treating this individual as if he had a protracted career in the military, not as if he was the best of the best but as a regular one where people feel he accomplished something and he is not begging in the streets.
Senator Manning: I agree that we need to find a way to address that gap for sure.
On veterans' families, we have heard representation here that the effect of the injury to soldiers and their families is earth-shattering. When a soldier goes into battle, the family goes into battle, in my view.
Can you touch on a couple of issues you have seen come forth from families that would be in line with something that could be addressed through the veterans charter? I am wondering about family issues. What would be a couple of the prevailing ones? I realize income is a major part of that, but what are some other issues that we need to be looking at?
Mr. Griffis: If a soldier comes back injured and he or she requires constant care, a spouse is there. Spouses do not receive anything for what they do.
When soldiers who have been severely injured, for instance, want to take a shower, they need their spouse available to assist them. They cannot play with their children anymore. They cannot play football; they cannot play street hockey. There are so many things, and the spouse has to be there.
The spouse having to be there and not receiving anything for their work is hard on the families. It is hard emotionally, physically and financially. If the spouses want to advance themselves in their employment, they cannot do it. They have to stay home. They cannot take an advanced position in their possible employment. There are so many things against the family.
Then, when the family approaches Veterans Affairs Canada, in the past they have run into difficulties with respect to therapy. I am aware of a person who was injured in 1995. He now has teenage sons and the sons require therapy because of the father's injuries. It is a very difficult situation. It is an everlasting difficulty that has to be addressed.
Senator Manning: My last question relates to the awareness by veterans of what services are available. Some of the soldiers who have been here have told us that, like everything else, it is need; once the required need for them to know about the services became obvious, they educated themselves on what was available.
From a veterans affairs point of view, do you see any gap in making sure that even before soldiers are injured, they have an awareness of what services and monetary assistance are available?
How much effort is put into ensuring that people on the battlefield are aware of what is available for them if, God forbid, they were injured?
Mr. Griffis: When a member of the military leaves, a transition interview takes place but one sometimes wonders whether it is all that it could be. We are concerned about that. We are aware that Veterans Affairs Canada is setting up offices on bases so that could be addressed. In my dealings with veterans who retired some time back, we discuss things and I assist them in filling out the various required forms. I have found that veterans affairs usually comes through, although it takes a lot of time.
The Chair: Does "comes through" mean "response satisfactory?"
Mr. Griffis: It does not happen quickly but, if someone is entitled to and needs certain benefits, whether it is the veterans independence program, or pension or medical assistance, veterans affairs comes through with flying colours in most cases.
The Chair: That is good to hear.
Senator Meighen, in respect of the question I asked Mr. McCartney about undertakings that this is a living charter susceptible to change, I take you back to May 2005 when you were the chair of the subcommittee on veterans affairs. Minister Guarnieri appeared before the committee and discussed what was then a possible new veterans charter.
Jean-Rodrigue Paré, Researcher, Library of Parliament: His appearance was before the Senate Finance Committee.
Senator Meighen: I was in Holland at the time celebrating the sixtieth anniversary.
The Chair: I retract my question.
Mr. Paré: Senator Dallaire was chair of the Senate Finance Committee at the time.
Senator Dallaire: I squired the charter through the Senate. We had one session of the finance committee when the minister indicated that they would establish an advisory board, and that they would come back in six months to tell us about the advancement of the program. We did not hear anything until April 2006, when it was being implemented but under another government. I do not know what happened because we were cut off completely at the time.
The promise of an advisory board was made because the whole philosophy permeated was that the document gave power to the minister to change things as the charter evolved in the future.
The question is: Did the document authorize such power? We have heard testimony that perhaps it did not do that, and that someone fiddled with the books when they wrote the document.
The Chair: We have heard testimony that advisory committees were created.
Senator Meighen: Senator Manning asked one of my questions. I am seeking clarification. I am not trying in any way to put words in your mouth but I want to understand where you are coming from and your bottom-line assessment of the new veterans charter. You have given me an indication.
I will begin with Mr. McCartney's comment that this question of the lump-sum payment does not replace anything. That has been stressed to us. Rather, it is in addition to other existing programs and is in place to compensate for pain and suffering.
I do not understand why a lump-sum payment cannot be paid over a period of time and still be considered a lump- sum payment. If it is in the amount of $100,000, could it be paid in increments of $10,000 per year for 10 years, with no interest, let us assume? A recipient could simply indicate how he or she wants it paid out. I do not know but perhaps having such a box to tick would solve all the problems. If I were 22 years old and wanted to have a Porsche, I might opt for the lump-sum payment because my judgment at that age might not necessarily be wise.
Are you suggesting that perhaps you could look at having a box to tick to indicate the desired form of payment?
Mr. McCartney: Yes, we discussed a number of things at that meeting. Perhaps for some people there could be a review. As well, the input of the spouse is important because she might know the husband a little better. They deal with this sort of payout in civil law all the time. I am sure we can look at that and come up with an arrangement that works for everyone.
Senator Meighen: Without putting words in your mouth and keeping in mind General Dallaire's comments, I understood you to say that the new veterans charter has the construct to be good for most. Your complaints centre on gaps that have been identified but not filled, in your view. To a certain extent, although there is nothing new in this, I suspect, you think that things could be done a little more quickly? Is that about it? I did not hear you suggest that we should get rid of the new charter and go back to the old system. I heard you say: Let us work with the new charter that looks good and let us fill some gaps and move it more quickly.
Mr. McCartney: That is exactly right, senator. For example, one of the bugbearers is SISIP, the insurance plan. If you were to do away with that, there would be repercussions to pensions. These things require some sort of act to differentiate or allocate who would do what and when. We never thought about these things when we were reviewing the new veterans charter but it came up later. It could be very complex and time-consuming to change some of the things that we thought we could change easily.
Senator Meighen: Am I right in my impression that you gentlemen are here representing, in your words, older veterans, if that is not a pejorative connotation. Do we have people as competent as you speaking for the new veterans? Is there a new veterans association being formed? Do we need one?
Mr. McCartney: We are level-headed people. When I look at veterans, I do not see old and new but I see people with concerns. I feel that we are well equipped to look after their interests. The more they bring to us, of course, the more influence we can have and the more direction we can take. The fact that we do not have a veterans organization that began three or five years ago, is not a handicap to improving the veterans' situation in general.
Senator Meighen: Do you think the needs of newer veterans are different? For example, a veteran of the Second World War, let alone Korea, might be in greater need of VIP, veterans independence program, services because his family might not be able to help. I am treading on dangerous ground but perhaps the more recent veterans, given the advances in medical science and greater accuracy in recognition of the problems, are more in need of psychiatric counselling and treatment for stress disorder?
Mr. Griffis: I am under the impression that the newer veteran requires a greater degree of understanding. The older veterans, who came back from World War II, for example, were given certain benefits, such as education, land and things of that nature.
Getting back to the families, most veterans are married and there is a great degree of involvement with respect to families nowadays. They do not have a land grant. They do not have an interest-free loan, as Mr. McCartney mentioned with respect to the lump-sum payment. We are basically in agreement with what you have said, in that we feel they should be given options and there should be a collective discussion about that, not necessarily one person saying, "I want my $150,000." As you have indicated, the lump-sum payment could be over a period of years.
They need options available, bearing in mind that the veterans returning are not necessarily all in one particular location. They could be in Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia or Petawawa and some could be retiring near a military base.
Senator Meighen: Is that new?
Mr. Griffis: I think it is. For instance, we have a veteran in Prince Edward Island who goes to Camp Gagetown for treatment. That is quite a distance to travel. I imagine that, in days gone by, there would have been a military or associated hospital in Prince Edward Island to look after that, bearing in mind we only have one military hospital left, although we have about 3,936 beds available across Canada. The Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue hospital is in the works to transfer that hospital to the Province of Quebec.
There must be a greater degree of understanding. Give them more; they deserve more. That is the way it should be.
Senator Meighen: I think my colleagues will talk about Prince Edward Island — I am sure Senator Downe will — and I know that reserves are close to Senator Dallaire's heart. I think the reserves pose a particular problem. Given the fact they make up such a large part of our army now, at least in Afghanistan, it may be something that I would like to hear your views on in due course.
Senator Dallaire: I would like to go over the advisory groups. There is the Westmoreland advisory group, which was created October 16, 2001, and they produced a report that was released in November. Don Ethell and Joe Sharpe used to run an advisory group as well. What was that called?
Mr. Griffis: I believe it was the Canadian Forces liaison committee.
Senator Dallaire: Were they advising the Canadian Forces but not veterans affairs?
Mr. Griffis: The report was going to Veterans Affairs.
Senator Dallaire: Now you are saying that, as veterans affairs goes through a complete review of the charter in three phases that will end by December 2010, they are deciding to create a new advisory group? They are crashing the others down and putting them all together into one?
Mr. Griffis: Yes.
Senator Dallaire: Was there an argument for that? There was a strong argument against doing that because there were worries that geriatric problems were significantly different than worries about people who are focused on the old veterans charter. There are people who are 22 years of age with the new veterans charter, which has a completely different philosophy. What was the reason for wanting to crash those committees together?
Mr. McCartney: It was not our idea. We figured we should have an oversight into what is going on and ensure nothing is hidden, so we have been partaking in a number of situations. In fact, if I go back a little, you were talking about General Sharpe and Don Ethell; they were also part of the new veterans charter advisory group, and they formed two of the three subcommittees within that group, as well as what he is saying.
Senator Dallaire: This is something that I find very disconcerting. At a time when we do not even have the results of the review yet, they are already crashing the advisory system that brought about the reforms since 1997.
When the charter came through in 2005 and 2006, we know that the veterans' associations felt they had not been given a chance to look at the legislation enough at that time. It was then put into implementation in 2005-06, and again there was little consultation outside of how they would implement that charter. Then it came out, and we have what we have.
Do you feel that the way the charter is written, and your sense of what it is supposed to represent, is a document that actually has that flexibility to respond to these significant changes of philosophy that the charter has called for in regard to taking care of families, in particular? Something like — I will be specific — where there is an injured veteran who cannot be retrained, the spouse must take care of him, but the system is such that, if the injured veteran cannot be retrained, then we retrain the spouse; if the spouse must be there to help the injured person, how do you retrain the spouse? Do you feel there is a Catch-22 in some of the ways the policies have been implemented?
Mr. Griffis: I believe part of the answer is that, when we put that suggestion to Veterans Affairs Canada and we suggested a change, the change can be made if it does not include an alteration in the financial situation or the legislation of the department. They would have to change the legislation so they can redirect the finances.
Senator Dallaire: Okay.
Mr. Griffis: To change the legislation is a rather large step.
Senator Dallaire: I come back exactly to that. When you submitted your comments, had you been told by them that to do this change or that change, you would have to get different funding and go to the legislation? Did they respond in that way?
Mr. Griffis: To my knowledge at this time, the answer is yes.
Senator Dallaire: Right, which is a fundamental premise that has been worked against in the concept of the charter. The charter was created and was built up, until the legislative guys became involved, to be a document that gave power to the minister. Therefore, it was not like the old veterans charter of 1943, where the minister could not do anything unless he went back for legislation every time.
This charter was created so that the minister could adapt to the significant changes of the new veterans and their demands in a new era without having to go back to legislation or to the Treasury Board. You are saying, and we have had testimony proving that, in fact, how it ultimately ended up is that the charter would need to be significantly adjusted in legislation in order to meet some of these requirements. Is that correct?
Mr. McCartney: That is correct, and that was never brought out during the discussions.
Senator Dallaire: You are absolutely right.
Senator Meighen: For my purposes, Senator Dallaire, are you saying that under the charter there is no limit on the minister's authority to spend money?
Senator Dallaire: No. In the philosophy of the new charter, we are creating a whole new way of how to handle the veterans. Remember, it is not a dependency process. It is how to reintegrate them into society, so it needed a whole different philosophical framework for Veterans Affairs Canada on how to look at the veteran and the family. That meant that the minister needed to have more flexibility in what types of programs he needed in order to do that type of work because it was not clear exactly how to implement these different new components of not having a dependency through the VIP program but a whole slew of support. The charter was to be written so that the minister had an envelope and within it could move.
For example, with respect to the $250,000 scenario, if the minister wanted to change it, he would have significant flexibility of doing so. Now, he has to go back to legislation if we want to pay a pension, for example.
The Chair: I am told by Mr. Paré that, in fact, the exception to having to go back to change anything is that 75 per cent threshold for the earnings-loss benefit can be accessed and increased by an order-in-council.
That does not obviate Treasury Board. Treasury Board has to approve everything, but an order-in-council, which would be at the behest of the minister, can change that 75 per cent, according to the existing regime.
Senator Dallaire: As well as at the rank level. I mean, 75 per cent of a private's pay is certainly not very high, and that was never in the philosophy of what the advisory board submitted to veterans affairs to include in the charter.
The Chair: To finish that thought, everything else except that move from 75 per cent needs to be changed by legislation or regulation, one or the other.
Senator Dallaire: Regulation is fine. That is inside, but we wanted to avoid going back to legislation.
I want to come back to the veterans with my last question. The new veterans, let us say the post-Cold War veterans — the Gulf War, Somalia — we have never done anything for them. They do not seem to be gravitating to the legion very much, and the reservists seem to be even more abandoned than the regular force people because they are often away from bases to support them. I was left with the impression that many of them were joining, if I can use this, the newer generation veterans' associations, the peacekeepers veterans associations; is that not correct?
Mr. Griffis: To the best of my knowledge now, that is correct.
Senator Dallaire: Mr. McCartney, is your organization actually recruiting them to join your organization?
Mr. McCartney: In some areas we are and some not. We have encouraged them. We put a challenge down. Most local areas have an armoury or militia unit, and we have challenged their people to go and meet with the people and let them know they are there and willing to help them, and ask whether there is anything they need while their spouses are away. Hopefully, by doing that, it will garner some support for our organizations as well. How effective is that? Half our units are actually gaining membership. Because we are not online specifically, I do not know whether older veterans are joining or the new veterans are joining. We certainly have newer veterans; it is just not in proportion to what you would think.
Senator Wallin: I feel we have to clarify this because somehow we are left with the impression that this is a law unlike any other law in the land and, in any piece of legislation that requires spending, there is a certain amount of discretion. You can move things between envelopes, but you cannot just holus-bolus say, "I know we passed this budget in 2010 but now we are going to have a different budget." I want to come back to you two gentlemen and have you respond to that issue, which is was there some fundamental misunderstanding or do you feel that the new veterans charter was misrepresented to you in some fundamental way?
Mr. Griffis: I do not think it was misrepresented to that extent, but in my brief there are the 16 recommendations from our advisory group. One recommendation is to reward, if that is the proper word, the spouse with financial remuneration for what he or she is doing. That requires a change in legislation, I understand. That is something new, and of course we will have tremendous —
Senator Wallin: You were not under the impression that could magically happen without debate and discussion?
Mr. McCartney: There was probably a little naïveté there, but we went through and saw the actual legal definitions and what was being done, but going through the process can be overwhelming. It is a large book and there are many things you have to sort through. All the papers are: this goes in here and this goes in there. It is very difficult to see the whole picture. It failed me at times. Therefore, yes, I guess we did not understand the total complexity and, if we wanted to change things, what we would still have to do. We did not know that.
Mr. Griffis: A very simple example is the definition of "spouse." The military has one definition, VAC has another.
Senator Wallin: For example?
Mr. Griffis: Families nowadays can involve same-sex couples, children from another marriage, common-law relationships. Things of that nature come forward.
Senator Dallaire: It is significant to indicate that you do not have to go back to legislation to get an increase of budget. If, in meeting the current legislation, you need more money because it is deemed that it has more of a demand, you simply go back to the centre and fight for a bigger budget. The whole concept of the charter was that, by including the families throughout, it was not clear to what extent the families could be supported, what the needs would be, as in the example you just raised. It was perceived that we would find these types of problems and then respond to them within the context of the family because it is a charter of the veteran and the family.
I see more and more that, every time you want to do these modifications, instead of it being internal directives that are changed where they would have to get more budget, because that is the definition now of what the family is, they have to go to legislation. We were creating the charter to avoid exactly that.
Senator Wallin: Those kinds of changes would apply anywhere if the definitions have changed of things like "family."
Senator Dallaire: Not within.
The Chair: I do not want to get technical, but we must remember that, when we come down to discussing this question when we get to the end of this process, it is one thing to deal with recommendations that can be dealt with under a piece of legislation which contemplates changes in it, like the 75 per cent on the one hand, and on the other hand things like Mr. Griffis has referred to. He has the impression that, if we were to invoke the spousal concept that he is talking about, that would require a change in the legislation. It is quite a different thing.
I remind us that we are here to ask questions of the witnesses.
Senator Dallaire: Do you feel that Veterans Affairs Canada, as they are functioning and applying the new veterans charter, and you have the experience of both in each of your organizations, has shifted gears and really understands the concept behind that charter, and that they are fully versant of all the different angles in which to inform and disseminate that information to members and to explain it properly to them?
Mr. McCartney: First, I think you mentioned it before in fact, but it had to do with getting information out. I receive a pension. It is very difficult to get stuff out to everyone out there. In fact, there is only one reason to do it and that is either, first, you are receiving a veteran's pension which means you are already into the system with case workers with Veterans Affairs Canada; or, second, you are just receiving a pension but what happens if you have a problem, let us say a psychological problem later? How will you find out where to call and check for these symptoms and that sort of thing? We said to the military, "Let us get something into the military package paid so that people will be aware of who to call if they have problems with themselves or their spouse."
Whether it is getting out there, I have never received anything in my pension cheque that states who to call. There are many people out there, I would think, who do not have a clue where to go, although they may know veterans affairs is around.
The Chair: Mr. Griffis do you want to answer that question?
Mr. Griffis: I agree with Mr. McCartney completely.
Senator Downe: I would like to follow up on the question originally asked by Senator Meighen. I am wondering about the younger veterans. You do not really need a legion hall anymore because you can communicate through email; you can set up Facebook pages. Have your associations entered into that in a large degree?
Mr. Griffis: Yes. In that vein, there is conversation now between our association, the Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association and the Gulf War Veterans Association of Canada to amalgamate. We hope to do it within a year. There is that type of communication, and email plays a huge part in that.
I will give you an example. The other day, VIA Rail came out with information about free travel for veterans starting July 1. Within a matter of minutes — I will say minutes — it was right across Canada. We sent it right across Canada. Then we have a fan-out system, and once it got to Calgary, from there it went all over Alberta, et cetera. The Internet has really provided us with a great deal.
Now we are in communication very quickly. If someone writes me a letter and I have the time, I can respond right away with, hopefully, the best information available. That is the communication.
Senator Downe: That might be an opportunity for more engagement rather than less. People do not have to travel to a hall for a meeting. They can do it instantaneously, in many cases, and you can include everyone. Those who do not respond to the email could still be reading them and be informed, where before they might not want to or could not afford to attend a meeting.
Mr. McCartney: A case in point is we also include the RCMP now and we share our information with them, because they are basically a client of VAC.
Senator Downe: Do you have enough funding for interactive communications? Is that an area you may need assistance in?
Mr. Griffis: We would love assistance in that. The answer to your question is we do not have any funding whatsoever other than from internal sources.
Senator Downe: I was on your website and I noticed, in your February 11 message on the United Nations peacekeepers, that you talked about the advisory report that was submitted. As of January 2010, you had not received a written response. Have you received a written response since then?
Mr. Griffis: No. We received a verbal response in November of 2009 from Deputy Minister Tining. We have not received a written response.
The Deputy Chair: When do you anticipate that? Has the department given an indication of when you can expect that?
Mr. Griffis: No.
Senator Downe: I noticed in your advisory committee report on page 14 you talk about the rehabilitation uptake, and there is very little uptake from surviving family members and spouses. There were only 23 family members and 20 spouses. I am most concerned with the earlier testimony about veterans scattered across the country, that 99 per cent of the uptake was clients who live in urban areas. That leads one to conclude that the services are simply not available to those outside urban areas. Is that the correct conclusion?
Mr. Griffis: I would agree with that, yes.
The Chair: I have a specific question having to do with spouses and families. We heard the suggestion that when an injured soldier is leaving, she or he is given, depending on the percentage, the lump sum that everyone has been talking about. We asked if a spouse is present when that is happening. First, we asked if a spouse is allowed to be present. The answer was yes. The second question of VAC people was, if a spouse is often present, and the answer was, "No, very seldom." That led to the third question: Can we compel a situation in which the spouse is present?
One assumes that the likelihood of profligate expenditure — such as buying the Porsche that Senator Meighen referred to — or taking the other options would be mitigated in a degree if one's spouse were sitting at the table hearing this information and learning what is going on.
Do you have a specific discussion or comment on the fact that spouses are not automatically present when the exit conference is taking place?
Mr. McCartney: My only comment would be there are many rules in Canada and the individual who got hurt or maimed or whatever is the one receiving the money. Though we probably would all love to consider the family, and the husband and wife might sit around and discuss these issues, I am sure, as shown, that very seldom happens. It is regrettable, and I am sure veterans affairs — and all of us — would hope for that, but I do not think there is any ability to compel that sort of thing. That is my guess.
Mr. Griffis: As per recommendation 1.1 in the report of the new veterans charter advisory group, there needs to be a change in culture with respect to that. I think veterans affairs should reach out and ask the spouse whether they would like to be present.
I should not say this, but I will: The days of the guy being the boss are over. I think we have to go from that.
The Chair: Are there not privacy issues with respect to that?
Mr. Griffis: There are, but I think they can be handled nicely. There are always privacy issues with respect to it, but they can be handled very quietly with diplomacy.
Senator Meighen: Gentlemen, if I am a member of either organization, can I go online and ask a question about a problem I am having with Veterans Affairs Canada or what I am eligible for, that sort of thing?
Mr. McCartney: Yes. Within our organization, many of our units have people who are trained in that particular discipline. We call them service officers. More than that, if people have questions, they do come to us, whether they go through their command or they come directly. We put them on to whoever would satisfy what they are looking for.
Senator Downe: To follow up on that, I think the senator was wondering if you can do it all online or do you have to go to a location or phone someone? Can you do it electronically?
Mr. Griffis: Yes. We answer questions frequently.
The Chair: Thank you, gentlemen. We are very grateful for your having been here today and we regret the shortness of time, but we are constrained by that. You can take, I hope, some comfort from the fact that this is a fairly longitudinal study we are doing, and your testimony before us has been very helpful to us in determining the direction that will take.
Thank you very much for that, on behalf of all members of the committee.
(The committee adjourned.) |
