Proceedings of the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs
OTTAWA, Wednesday, November 17, 2010
The Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met this day at 12:01 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 Roméo Antonius Dallaire (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Welcome to this meeting of the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence. As part of our order of reference, we are continuing with our work on the review of the New Veterans' Charter, and more specifically the government's recent announcements and initiatives concerning veterans.
We are pleased to welcome you, Mr. Minister, and thank you for having been so kind as to appear before us this lunchtime.
You will probably be getting questions on that more specific topic. I am sure that you will receive excellent support from your deputy, Ms. Tining.
Mr. Minister, do you have any opening remarks before we get into our rounds of questions?
Hon. Jean-Pierre Blackburn P.C., M.P., Minister of Veterans Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture): Mr. Chair, I have indeed prepared a short opening statement.
Honourable Senators, it is a pleasure to see you again today. I hope you enjoyed the ceremony in the Senate on November 5 marking the beginning of Veterans' Week 2010.
I must say that, as my first Senate ceremony — and indeed my first Veterans' Week experience as Minister of Veterans Affairs — I was deeply moved and honoured by it all. I hope you were able to participate in some of the other Remembrance Day activities. Judging by the number of Canadians who attended various tributes, remembrance ceremonies, vigils and other activities from coast to coast between November 5 and 11, it was quite a success. An increasing number of people are marking Remembrance Day and the contribution of our veterans. That is probably because of what is happening in Afghanistan as well as in Quebec. I was pleased to note a new awareness on the part of Canadians.
Allow me to give you just a few numbers: there are more than 300,000 fans on our Facebook page; more than 45,000 views of the Veterans' Week Vignette and the New I am a Veteran video on our YouTube channel; more than 3,000 downloads of the We Remember iPhone application, which was launched this fall. The free app provides simple, accessible connections to VAC social media communities on Facebook and YouTube as well as a geo-targeted Event Map of commemorative events across the country. Approximately 4 million Veterans' Week print products were distributed to educators in the two months prior to Veterans' Week for youths in the classroom to engage Canada's youth in remembrance. There were also over 500 commemorative events posted to the calendar of events on the Veterans' Affairs website.
I think it is very safe to say that Canadians are very proud of and have a deep respect for our veterans. Some of you have been sitting on this committee for quite some time now. You are very familiar with the issues that face our veterans. You may have even met some of the individuals personally — having heard them as witnesses before you.
As it is this committee's mandate to investigate the care and service veterans receive at the hands of government, I am also very sure that you are well aware of the recent advancements being made on behalf of our Canadians heroes.
Since September we have announced a series of improvements for the care and support of our Canadians Forces personnel, our veterans and their families. This is important, honourables senators. We are moving ahead on two fronts: for veterans as well as for their families. Both must come together in terms of services.
We want to provide even greater access and support to our most severely injured soldiers and insure that injured and ill veterans have a monthly income that allows them to focus on their rehabilitation. To that end, this government has invested the sum of $2 billion. But that is $200 million over the next five years. The Minister of Finance arrives at a total amount of $2 billion overall.
These initiatives are all linked to the New Veterans Charter. I know you are familiar with the spirit of the charter and all it can do for our veterans. But any new program is perfectible. As with any new program, there are always things you learn along the way, and that is why we are taking these positive steps to refine some of the eligibility criteria.
We heard the details of this proposal when officials from the department, including Mr. Raymond Lalonde and Ms. Sandra Williamson, Charlotte Stewart and Charlotte Bastien, testified before the committee. They will have filled you in on the specifics — how changes to things like the Earnings Loss Benefit and the Permanent Impairment Allowance will offer financial stability to the most severely ill and injured.
In fact, honourable senators, I must tell you, and I will expand on this point later on, that the issue of the lump sum has been criticized. People felt they were unable to manage such an amount, which could reach a maximum of $276,000. Some people have mental health problems and others were unable to make the right decisions and wasted their money.
A poll indicated that 60 per cent were satisfied and 31 per cent were not. I almost took hold of that 69 per cent, thinking that 7 out of 10 were satisfied. But upon reflection, I found that there was a problem we needed to rectify because three out of ten individuals were dissatisfied, and that is a substantial number.
So, I had begun to think of ways to rectify the situation. I went to Afghanistan, approximately three weeks ago, and I took the opportunity to meet with forces personnel in a small group setting, when I could, and I told them what I intended to put forward. They told me to give them as many options as possible. That is what they said: they were pleased with what I had to offer, but they wanted as many options as possible. And you will see later on, in the bill we will be tabling this afternoon, that we are headed in that direction.
Supporting our veterans is a priority for this government. I was really struck by this when I met with our forces over there, wonderful young people, all proud to serve in the Canadian Forces. They are happy to serve in the Canadian Forces; they feel that they are playing an important role there.
I want to stress how proud they are to serve. Each time we met with them, on the various bases, General Natynczyk, my colleague, Minister Peter MacKay, and myself, all noted this pride.
General Natynczyk would ask them the following question at each meeting: I do not know where Canada will be invited to participate next year, where we will be. We may have another mission similar to this one or the one in Haiti. Regardless of where Canada will be called upon to serve, who amongst you will be ready to come? We were always surprised to see almost everyone raise their hand. They are passionate about their career.
I see now that they chose to be in the military, that they are proud of that; however they did not choose to come back injured and it is in that respect that our responsibility is essential. If they come back injured then we have to make sure that the soldiers and their families will not have to worry about the financial repercussions of their injuries on this country.
In the New Veterans Charter we take that responsibility very seriously. We are in the process of writing, I would say, a second chapter to the New Veterans Charter, something that we had in fact promised. We heard the concerns of the veterans and their advocates. This bill is just the first step of many that demonstrate a real commitment on behalf of this government to support those who have served this country.
I am informing you today that, in collaboration with the Department of National Defence, the government is announcing transitional assistance measures for our veterans that will provide $52.5 million over five years. This provides transitional care for members of the Canadian Forces. What that means in practice is barrier-free transitional housing for injured soldiers undergoing treatment; the construction of new facilities for soldiers or spouses in rehabilitation; $100 per day for a spouse who leaves their job to care for the soldier; access to education for the spouse who may have to become the income earner if the veteran is too injured to go back to work, to give them the opportunity of pursuing a new more promising career.
We are also enhancing our case management support for veterans by adding 20 new case managers who will work specifically with veterans coming back in order to examine their files and ensure rapid progress.
Mr. Chair, these joint initiatives by our government represent tangible proof that significant improvements have been made to veterans' care. We have also announced new measures for veterans with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.
Would you like to move on to questions or shall I continue my remarks?
The Chair: You have given us several details and because we do have a limited amount of time, perhaps you could summarize and then senators will be able to ask you more specific questions.
Mr. Blackburn: In that case I would just give you a quick summary of what I was going to say.
You are aware that we have a new ombudsman, Mr. Guy Parent, who was appointed on November 11. He worked for seven years with the National Defence ombudsman and three years in the veterans' ombudsman office. He previously had a career in the military, and was a chief warrant officer, a fairly high rank. I think that Mr. Parent is truly the best person for this position. He stood out amongst the individuals we interviewed. Of course I did not attend those interviews but we are proud of his appointment.
Furthermore, you may ask me questions about this later but we are working closely on the issue of information privacy.
That is what I wanted to tell you today. We will be tabling our bill this afternoon. We are staying the course with respect to what we said we would do and we are doing it.
The Chair: Mr. Minister, thank you for your very interesting opening remarks. I would note that you have made some significant changes to the services that veterans receive, which has led to considerable debate. The internal management of the department and its philosophy have been the subject of considerable discussion as it relates to the two charters.
Before giving the floor to the various senators around the table, I would like to ask you the following question: Will the legislation that you are tabling this afternoon include all the points that have been announced over the past months?
Mr. Blackburn: It will include the earnings loss benefits, as well as what is called the permanent monthly allowance, and it will correct the discrepancies between the old and new charter. We know that previous injuries did not qualify for the permanent monthly allowance which meant that only 16 veterans — it is unbelievable — received that allowance over four and a half years. Under the new legislation, 3,500 veterans will qualify and will receive between $536 and $1,609 per month for life, as well as $1,000 per month for those who cannot go back to work because of the extent of their injuries. Of course we will make the necessary corrections for lump sum payments, with respect to options.
The Chair: We will talk about the obligation to go back to legislation to make these changes but that is another topic. Senator Wallin, you have the floor.
[English]
Senator Wallin: Thank you very much, and welcome, Mr. Minister. Congratulations. We are happy that the final details will be put forward in legislative terms. We have been waiting for that.
I wish to come back to the question of the new ombudsman. You have gone to a five-year term from a three-year term. We know that the relationship has been antagonistic at times. We discussed that the last time the former ombudsman was here talking about clarifying the role of the ombudsman.
Is the ombudsman to be the advocate? Is the ombudsman to come to you and put forward the case for veterans? How is the ombudsman to use staff and resources to communicate between the veterans and the department? Is there some change there?
[Translation]
Mr. Blackburn: Thank you for your excellent question.
In a department the ombudsman looks over everyone's shoulder. He looks at what they do, what their work is about, and what kind of decisions are being made. In terms of our veterans, the ombudsman listens to their complaints and examines how their case was treated. He also studies systemic issues, that is any problems that may repeat themselves in the system and for which corrections are necessary.
I think the role of the ombudsman is to enlighten the minister in his or her work in order to help them make the best possible decisions in the best interest of the department and our veterans.
I myself was Minister of National Revenue and that was the primary mandate of the ombudsman in the Department of Revenue, and I saw the same kind of problems in the cases of both ombudsmen. When an ombudsman enters into this system for the first time, nobody likes to have him look over their shoulder. Problems arise and that is not out of the ordinary.
The ombudsman has a job and responsibilities that are assigned to him by the government and he must carry out his mandate. Slowly he finds his footing, demands respect and asks for the information he needs to do his job well. There is frustration at first and the process gives the impression of slowing things down more than anything else. It is impossible for this to be otherwise.
Our ombudsman, Mr. Stogran, did a good job. He defended the veterans, expressed his points of view, but now it is time for someone else to take up the job, and Mr. Parent is already familiar with all of this because he was already working with Mr. Stogran. He is therefore in a position to go even further.
It can happen that the minister will ask our ombudsman to focus on a particular problem. I did it when I was working with the Department of Revenue.
[English]
Senator Wallin: Do you see this as a two-way street, in that you might very well go back to him and say, "Pursue this"?
[Translation]
Mr. Blackburn: In my opinion, it is a given that the minister would meet with the veterans' ombudsman on a regular basis in order to be brought up to date on specific issues and concerns. These kinds of meetings could even help me.
While we are in politics we are in the service of our citizens. We have to be efficient and attempt to make changes that are in the best interests of Canadians and, in this case, the veterans.
The ombudsman is not a legislator. He is not elected and he does not make laws. It is the politician who is accountable to the public. The ombudsmen, for their part, can help us make the right decisions that are in the best interest of our veterans.
[English]
Senator Wallin: We are pursuing this because we had these conversations. I for one was puzzled why it was so difficult to have this communication.
To clarify, do you want the ombudsman to take up a specific case, or are you looking for trends, and you wish that the ombudsman would deal with issues in a larger frame?
[Translation]
Mr. Blackburn: The ombudsman has all the necessary latitude within his mandate. He chooses the issues he will focus on. He does not have to ask for permission from the minister to do so. He is independent within his mandate and has full authority in that area. It may happen that the minister will ask him to look at a specific issue that is in everyone's interest. However, that type of request is rather exceptional.
[English]
Senator Wallin: I would like a final point on this. We have heard a lot about the benefit of the doubt going to the veteran. Is that a new or a clearer mandate for both the ombudsman and the department as well?
[Translation]
Mr. Blackburn: There is not always agreement on the meaning of the expression "benefit of the doubt".
Let us take for example three doctors who examine a veteran and state that he is suffering from a specific disease, and three other doctors disagree. The veteran will have the benefit of the doubt. However, when five doctors disagree when a veteran would like the diagnosis to be positive, we are no longer talking about benefit of the doubt. Benefit of the doubt applies when there is disagreement on the diagnosis. In that case, the benefit of the doubt will be given to the veteran, who will then receive the appropriate benefit.
The Chair: My question is along the same lines, with respect to the ombudsman. Given the experience you just spoke about, is it your intention to review the ombudsman's mandate, and more specifically the procedure followed in this case, so that he will be able to directly speak with the department officials without having to go through those administrative steps?
Mr. Blackburn: I have not received any complaints that would have indicated to me that we need to change the ombudsman's mandate. Mr. Stogran would have liked to have certain legislative powers, however that is not how our parliamentary system works. We have to follow the rules. Our ombudsman's mandate is similar to that of the ombudsman in the other departments.
Perhaps the deputy minister would like to expand on that.
Suzanne Tining, Deputy Minister, Veterans Affairs Canada: The ombudsman has very broad access to department staff. The ombudsman and his office staff have access to all the client data bases of Veterans Affairs Canada. The ombudsman also has access to the individuals who have the information he needs.
When the ombudsman's office was established, the possibility was raised, theoretically, that the ombudsman would have one point of entry into the department in order for us to fully understand his needs. Over time that concept was quickly dropped because the disadvantages of a sole entry point were generally acknowledged, given the backlog. Therefore full access to the ombudsman was provided for so that he could find the information he needed in the organization. That situation has not changed.
The Chair: This access will be extremely useful to him and will allow him to fulfil his responsibilities.
[English]
Chief Warrant Officer Parent was also head of the SAR techs, the search and rescue technicians. Therefore, he has a lot of operational experience; he has proven himself. I find that to be a very positive decision.
Senator Marshall: I was also interested in discussing the role of the ombudsman. Now that there is a new ombudsman, what happens to the recommendations of the previous ombudsman, especially since there was a rocky relationship between the ombudsman and the department?
The former ombudsman was critical of the department and the bureaucracy. Therefore, I am interested in hearing your views as to whether that is a problem that can be addressed and how you would go about addressing that problem, because the bureaucracy is quite large. It would be like trying to move an elephant. I would be interested in any comments you might have on that.
[Translation]
Mr. Blackburn: For example, if I went to your house, I could make a bunch of recommendations and you would see the extent to which we could adapt your home. At a certain point, you have to look the situation squarely in the face and see what practical measures can be taken to ensure that our veterans are treated fairly, as they deserve to be, and you have to make progress in fixing the existing problems.
Mr. Stogran identified the problems I drew your attention to. I have also been made aware of the situation by veterans' organizations, including the Canadian Legion and NAVETS. At their annual congress, these organizations made several recommendations for us. At that point, we decided to act. I went before cabinet and received the support of the Prime Minister. I am the only minister to get $2 billion in a context of budget cuts.
We had spoken to our veterans about a living charter which we intended to improve. And, indeed, we found some flaws. We therefore decided to set priorities, as you do on a daily basis, to ensure that modern veterans, those who were injured in Afghanistan, may receive the appropriate treatment. We decided to take that approach. However, despite the tabling of the bill this afternoon, our work is not yet done. We still have to make public the tribunal's decisions, which will be done on the Internet. As well, we also have to address the issue of funeral costs.
Take, for example, a member of the military who has been living with his spouse for nine months. This member leaves for Afghanistan and dies five months later. His spouse will not have received benefits for 14 months, because during the time when her spouse was in Afghanistan, he was not considered to be living with her. We have to fix this problem which, in my opinion, is an aberration. If it was up to me alone, that issue would already have been addressed. However, this is not the case.
We are beginning a process, and yesterday morning, we were working on fixing what needs to be fixed, without waiting for the 30 other departments to fix their own problems. If we had to wait for everyone, nothing would ever get done. So we will fix the problems which need to be addressed to help the members of our armed forces.
There is so much to do. There is the entire matter of the Privacy Act. The Privacy Commissioner made four recommendations, which we are going ahead with. We will also make public a plan of action and make sure that the department implements it.
If I may, I would like to share another point of view. I put myself in the shoes of the 4,200 employees of this department, who are going through a serious crisis. Every day in the media, the department is being targeted and criticized from all sides. Nobody likes to be in this kind of situation, and it is not pleasant for the department either.
I began my mandate at the moment when the crisis became public. It is as if we were in a submarine, and we are fixing the pipe which has just broken, but while we are repairing it, others all around, which are old and deficient, are also breaking down. These are all old pipes. We are addressing the issues on a priority basis, we want to keep the submarine operational, and we want to protect the crew. Perhaps this comparison is not ideal, but for the staff, I believe that with the tabling of this bill, our veterans will begin to see that we are serious and that we really want to help them. I have the impression that we will make it through this unusual storm.
[English]
Senator Plett: Thank you, Mr. minister, for appearing here today. I would add my voice to commending you, our government and our Prime Minister on the initiatives that you have taken. Our government has shown how supportive we are of our men and women in uniform. I, for one, appreciate this. Going back to when our Prime Minister first came into power by starting off with giving our men and women in uniform the right coloured uniforms to wear and giving them the tools to go and fight, I think we have done many wonderful things for them and indeed are continuing to do so, so thank you very much, Mr. minister, for that.
We had a group here a week or two ago. I asked them a question and will ask you the same question. I did not get a clear answer, and I am not sure that I will get one today because it is probably a very difficult thing to determine.
We have spoken so much about how the majority of the payments are given to the most seriously injured veterans and what we are doing here with the lump sum payment, the $1,000 a month for the rest of their lives, so on and so forth. The term constantly being used is "catastrophic injury."
Who determines what a catastrophic injury is? How is that determined? If I came back from Afghanistan injured, I may determine that I have a catastrophic injury when someone else might not. Where is that determined? That would be my first question. I have a few more that are related.
[Translation]
Mr. Blackburn: The department has what is referred to as a chart which, somewhat like an insurance policy, indicates the permanent monthly allowance that is to be paid out for a certain type of injury. Moreover, over the past few weeks, I even checked the charter that we currently have. Is it amendable? Can we change things from A to B or from B to C?
I have been told that the minister reportedly has the authority to analyze this chart. I have started to give some thought to it, however I had to postpone this new analysis because of other priorities. There is, nevertheless, a chart and I am hoping that the deputy minister will be able to provide you with further information. For example, an eye injury is given one thing, it is something else for a leg injury, et cetera.
[English]
Ms. Tining: I agree with the minister and would add that the first piece is to have a medical diagnostic. We do not make that diagnostic in the department. I am not sure "diagnostic" is the right term in English, but we have medical professionals who provide to us what the illness or the injury is. Based on that, we have these entitlement guidelines that have a series of different illnesses and injuries, and that equates to a percentage of disability, and that percentage of disability then becomes the monthly payment or the disability award amount.
Senator Plett: What is the lump sum payment, $250,000?
Ms. Tining: It is $276,000.
Senator Plett: Thank you. What would a veteran have to have experienced — the loss of an arm, a leg, three fingers? What would be catastrophic?
Ms. Tining: I would propose that we send the document to you.
Senator Plett: I would appreciate that.
Ms. Tining: However, I would also add that many of our veterans who are receiving disability awards would have multiple injuries. You could have an injury for, let us say, a finger, whatever it is. You could have a 30 per cent plus a 20 per cent plus a 15 per cent, and the accumulation of all these injuries will result in an overall percentage that will equate to an amount of money. As the minister said, we have these entitlement guidelines, and that is what our adjudicators use to render their decision. By seeing that, it would give you a better sense of what tools we give our employees to make the determination based on the medical diagnosis that they get.
Senator Plett: I would appreciate some form of a chart. Just thinking back to last week when we were back in our provinces and ridings, I had numerous members of the legislature as they were travelling around ask me for information on what they could pass on to veterans. I had rough ideas, if you will, so if we could get something that we could explain to people, explain what the benefits of a seriously injured person are, what the criteria are, I would appreciate that. Thank you very much.
I will skip my second question in light of your sending us some information.
Minister, there has been much discussion back and forth about possibly returning to a pension-based system for injured veterans. I do not particularly support this. Countries of Australia and New Zealand have made comments that Canada's treatment of veterans under the New Veterans Charter is a benchmark for the world. Could you possibly tell this committee and some of my honourable colleagues opposite what the benefits would look like for someone injured in Afghanistan had they been under the old system versus the new?
[Translation]
Mr. Blackburn: First of all we have to define the philosophy that underpins the New Veterans Charter, that all parliamentarians unanimously agreed to in the House of Commons, and which was agreed to by the seven organizations that represent veterans.
The main emphasis of the program is that modern-day veterans are not 85 years of age. They are 20, 25, 30 years old. The goal is to ensure that these young people, who return injured, are able to receive rehabilitation so that they can reintegrate civilian life, in a new job that is adapted to their reality.
Based on this premise, we asked ourselves how we could consider all of these aspects to ensure that the veteran receives an adequate income and continues to live a full life. First of all, if the veteran follows a rehabilitation plan, he or she will receive 75 per cent of his or her salary. So a veteran who takes part in a five-year rehabilitation program will receive 75 per cent of his or her salary for five years.
We are going to remedy this 75 per cent rate in the bill presented to you this afternoon. If you were what we refer to as a private, you would have received the salary of $24,600, or thereabout, and we are going to increase it so that the minimum amount you will be receiving is $40,000. That is, at a minimum, $16,000 more. High-ranking officers would still receive 75 per cent of their salaries, and this amount would be much higher. So we are providing, first of all, that everyone will receive $40,000.
Secondly, if the soldier is very seriously injured and cannot be rehabilitated, cannot go back to the labour force, this individual will receive 75 per cent, namely $40,000, until reaching the age of 65. At age 65, more or less as is the case for all of us, the regular system comes into play.
If the injured soldier is participating in a rehabilitation program, it is usually because there has been an injury; a lost arm, PTSD or something else. At this point, depending on the seriousness of the injury, the veteran will receive a permanent monthly allowance varying from $536 to $1,609 per month, for the duration of his or her life — it does not stop at age 65 — plus the $1,000 amount that will be added as provided for in the bill or the regulations, one or the other, to ensure that these people receive this amount. That is $40,000 plus what I have just described.
Thirdly, we add the lump sum payment to that, namely the disability allowance that can be up to $276,000. The three payments are together, plus the health care and adaptations that may be required at home. There are all kinds of other benefits, but they are more difficult to quantify in financial terms.
Nevertheless, people have this perception, as do our veterans and military members, that we simply give them an amount of money and say see you around. That is not true. In addition to everything that I have just mentioned, they receive $250,000 from the Department of National Defence for serious physical injuries. So there is the $250,000 from National Defence, $276,000 from our department, depending on the extent of the injury, plus the monthly benefit, plus the salary amount.
Under the former pension act, the average was $499 per month. That is what people receive, on average. At one point I was told it was $599 per month, and then I was given the $499 figure; let us say it is somewhere between the two.
[English]
Senator Plett: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister. I will look forward to receiving some of that documentation.
The Chair: If I may, minister, we did indicate something from another ministry here, just for clarification: The Henwood legislation — relating to Bruce Henwood, a major who lost both legs — brought in the fact that if you are physically injured, you will then get up to $250,000. However, if you are even 100 per cent disabled by post-traumatic stress disorder or other means, you do not have access to it. It was for physical injury only and still has limitations to it. It was a great step forward because there was nothing before that, but it has not covered the whole spectrum yet.
[Translation]
Thank you, Mr. Minister, for having raised this issue; you are the first to have done so.
Mr. Blackburn: That is correct. As far as we are concerned, the $276,000 payment that we provide is for physical or physiological injury.
The Chair: That is true, in your case.
[English]
Senator Downe: Mr. Minister, there have been media reports that the New Veterans Charter will save the government up to $40 million. Could you address that concern?
[Translation]
Mr. Blackburn: It would appear that the previous government wanted to amend the charter in order to create this new charter and save $40 million. I have no evidence that this was the desire and I do not really believe, Senator, that parliamentarians would have wanted to hurt our veterans deliberately. That would surprise me a great deal. I think that we are too civic minded to do that. Moreover, these measures have cost us, I believe, an additional $740 million over the past four budgets, plus the $200 million that will be added over five years, and there are other measures, such as the increased amounts for funeral costs. There are also other expenditures that are forthcoming, but these matters have not yet been presented to cabinet. We will see what happens, but these are issues that we are currently working on.
[English]
Senator Downe: Does the deputy have any comment on the release of those documents? Is she aware of them?
Ms. Tining: No.
Senator Downe: There is a concern in the veterans community that the recent announcements over the last few weeks will be like the number of announcements made over the last four years: They simply will not be implemented. How can you address this skepticism of veterans about these recent announcements?
[Translation]
Mr. Blackburn: In order for the bill not to be implemented, tomorrow morning we would have to prorogue parliament or call an election before the bill has been passed by the House of Commons and the Senate. The bill that we are presenting does not cover everything, that is clear, but I cannot believe that we would wilfully delay passage of the bill simply because we wanted some other additional item included. Let us start with the first step, let us show that the government is serious about veterans, let us show that we really do care for them and want to help them; the other steps will come later on. This afternoon we will take the first step by tabling this bill. I am even hoping that this can be adopted before Christmas. If that happens, we will then obtain royal assent and then we will have the regulations which would, if my calculations are correct, take us to July.
Furthermore, we may be able to get a little bit more done in December and in January I am going to visit the military bases to talk to our military members and their families about what is in the new charter and to inform them about all of the changes that we are in the process of making. People are not aware of these changes. They think that they receive the lump sum payment and that is all. It appears that soldiers sent to Afghanistan do receive information, but they are not necessarily focusing on the idea that they may die or come back missing two legs. It is almost as though they have wiped all of this information out of their minds so that, when they come back, they do not know what is going to happen.
It should also be pointed out that when an injured soldier comes back from Afghanistan, he or she will be provided with care; then he or she is with the army for two years, paid by the army, not by us. The soldier receives full salary for a two- year period — 24 months and that can be extended to three years. We take over six months before the end of this period. I talked about three years, but it may be even longer in the army. As far as we are concerned, we deal with the service pertaining to the injury allowance, the service pertaining to the $276,000 lump sum payment. At the start, however, the veteran does not come under our jurisdiction but rather that of the army; the soldier receives his or her full salary from the army. That is not known. People say, "We are not getting anything from Veterans Affairs;" that is true, they are still in the army. They are being paid their full salary.
[English]
Senator Downe: I assume, in addition to the new commitments you made, you are also working on the commitments made over the last four years, like the expansion to the Veterans Independence Program that was promised and never implemented, like the expansion of the funding for burial, which you told Canadians in March of this year you were working on. It is now November, and we are still waiting for news on that. I understand that has been delayed but is in the works. There is also the issue of priority hiring in the federal public service and the unspent funds in the Agent Orange compensation package. What happened to the millions of dollars that were not distributed?
[Translation]
Mr. Blackburn: I would like to go back to the matter of the funeral costs. You said that I had talked about that in March and that this matter has yet to be resolved. You are right. This brief was even drawn to my attention approximately a month ago, and I am the one who said that this was not the time to talk about this matter, when our severely injured veterans were coming back from Afghanistan. First of all we have to think about what we are in the process of doing. It seems to me that standing up publicly and stating "I am pleased to announce that, for your funeral costs, you will be receiving so much more," that is really not what I wanted to see happen.
We are focusing on other priorities but at the same time we are trying to uncomplicate the issue of funeral costs because you can say that, at Veterans Affairs Canada, everything is always super complicated.
With respect to the use of Agent Orange, we are trying to estimate the number of people who will be receiving $20,000 to compensate for the impact that the use of Agent Orange has had on their health. The government had come up with a budget estimate and the costs proved to be less high than forecast, but the money will remain in the consolidated revenue fund.
We reviewed the files and decided to extend the deadline by a year and a half to enable people to have more time to submit their application. But you have to draw the line somewhere and you have to make decisions. I believe that we have done all that we can to give people adequate time to submit their application. A few weeks before the deadline, we sent out a press release in the media to advise people that their application had to be submitted prior to September 17.
[English]
Senator Downe: The money did not stay with the department; as you indicated, it has gone back to the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
For some time now, the Royal Canadian Legion and other veterans groups have been asking for funding for the burial to be increased dramatically. When will that be announced?
[Translation]
Mr. Blackburn: I have to appear before cabinet first since this is a measure that involves spending. There is however political will in the government to increase the budget to adapt it better to today's reality when it comes to funeral costs.
We are working on that right now. I prefer not to give you dates because if I look at the last month and a half, the dates change often.
Senator Pépin: While you were explaining how the amounts were allocated, I was wondering why you were not going to explain it in detail. You say that you are going to do a tour to provide explanations. You also mentioned that there would be an amount allocated for spouses or partners because they need it.
My question about the ombudsman has already been answered, but I have another one. I was surprised to read in the papers that the Pembroke hospital will be running out of funds to provide psychological care to the military in Petawawa. Given that the disappearance of these services is now known, do you not think that this is a very bad signal to the military and veterans who will increasingly need such care? Perhaps these services will not be available at all, and not just in that place.
Mr. Blackburn: Here is my understanding of this matter. First of all, this issue does not come under Veterans Affairs Canada. Secondly, it seems that these are services provided by the province. Perhaps the deputy minister could provide you with more details.
Ms. Tining: I can give you a little bit of information. The Canadian Forces, which are responsible for providing health care for members of the armed forces, have considerably increased their mental health capacity in the past few months. They added four mental health professionals at the base. They added two psychiatrists at the base and that was because of the needs expressed in Pembroke for quite a long time now. They built the capacity on the base to provide these services, the same type of services that used to be available at the hospital.
When we read this in the paper in the past few days, we contacted our colleagues at National Defence precisely to see whether there was further action that needed to be taken. I think that the minister and his colleague are committed to defining what the needs are and to adjusting the level of service to those needs.
Senator Pépin: So then, if we want to provide services to respond to these needs, it seems that more and more of our troops are suffering from psychological problems when they come back to Canada. If our military come back and are psychologically injured, is it your department that will ensure that psychological services are offered in several hospitals?
Ms. Tining: We have a network of 15 clinics across the country, including 10 that are operated by Veterans Affairs Canada and five operated by National Defence. These are clinics that treat post-operational injuries. Some of these clinics are on military bases, but others are external because we know that when it comes to mental health, there is a stigma associated with this that means that for many people it is preferable to go outside the base to receive treatment.
In the past few months, we signed seven agreements with provincial health care organizations in the communities to enable those who suffer from post-traumatic stress or a related syndrome to get access to residential care. Because we know that in such cases, people prefer not to leave their communities in order to have their own family network and health care services nearby.
Now we have 15 clinics. Seven agreements have just been signed with health care organizations in various communities to broaden our coverage to the national level.
Senator Pépin: They are getting younger, but often they come back with more severe illnesses. Thank you.
The Chair: I would like to thank you, Honourable Minister and Madam Deputy Minister, for having let me visit Charlottetown where I held meetings that were fruitful at every level.
I would like to raise a few specific points, with your permission. You have a modernization process in the ministry to try to get a grip on long-standing bureaucratic problems, not only with the new charter, but also with the old one. You conducted a review.
[English]
The New Veterans Charter Evaluation was a year-long study. We have been able to find the report on Phase II, although it was not on the front page of Veterans Affairs Canada's website. The two phases of the evaluation process could change significantly the capability of your ministry to provide support, cut through the red tape, et cetera, including improving communications well beyond Salute!, which seems to be limited.
When do you anticipate sharing the results of both phases of the evaluation with the committee?
[Translation]
Mr. Blackburn: As for evaluating the New Veterans Charter, in fact, the department is evaluating all that. We even decided not to wait for the end, but to begin to make changes because in any case, changes will have to be made. We will certainly receive other relevant information that will guide us in our future decisions.
With regard to the changes that need to be applied to our department, we know that the Coulter report was commissioned by the government about a year and a half ago, and I have a copy of this report.
We are studying the way in which we will proceed in bringing about the changes in our department, given that our veterans are passing away at the current rate of 1,700 per month, and that the new veterans of the modern era have different needs; they are much more computerized and the applications arrive more quickly. We must modernize our system so that our officials, our first-line interveners, can have more power to make decisions so that they can work more quickly.
Earlier, someone asked what I wanted to correct, and a point that I forgot to mention has to do with the backlogs that we are trying to reduce by one-third by next April, so as to speed things up. But once again, it will take a long period of time. If we are capable of bringing about these changes to our computerized system, to enable our first-line deciders to act more quickly, then we might get closer to where our military people are. Our military people are near military bases, this is a reality that was different just after the Second World War.
In this context, all this is being planned and a memorandum should be received by the cabinet during the month of December. This is what we have planned and we will see how parliamentarians will react.
The Chair: The results of this modernization and the evaluations are already functioning. But is this restructuring as a whole is dealt with in the memorandum to cabinet, because there are maybe reductions or movements of personnel, or changes in leadership?
Mr. Blackburn: Notwithstanding what you say, we followed the rules when, after the report, we went to cabinet to describe to orientation we wanted to adopt. We must weigh our actions carefully to avoid any mistakes. But the objective is to better serve our veterans and to serve them more quickly.
The Chair: Your clients will be the ones who will be the most interested in this renewal, because most of the internal complaints come from there.
I hope that your visits will include the family centres on the bases, as they are the crucial hub for information exchange, not only for those who serve veterans but especially for those who are in the reserve.
This brings me to another point: the charter is very demanding because it is a structured charter with regulations. It requires returning to the legislation.
When you make this evaluation, will the nature of the charter give you more authority or more independence so that you can respond without necessarily having to resort to legislation, with all its frightening risks and delays?
Do you think that you can use this opportunity provided by the renewal of the charter to focus it on the policy for which it was created in 2004, so as to give yourselves some authority?
Mr. Blackburn: There is nothing that I would like better.
The Chair: I am trying to sell you the idea.
[English]
In the Canadian Forces and the Department of National Defence, in employing soldiers, the universal service problem makes it that at one point the soldiers have to be released. They then fall under your auspices, and this transition has been improving massively.
However, there is also a demand by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that DND, like every other ministry, including the Canadian Forces, employ people who have physical or mental deficiencies. Would you be looking at establishing positions within DND so that they can stay and serve without falling under your responsibility for veterans by meeting the Charter requirement?
[Translation]
Mr. Blackburn: I imagine that in the Department of National Defence, they also look to see whether someone should leave. But generally, these people must be functional and capable of passing the physical exam in order to stay with National Defence.
However, can these things change ultimately? I do not know if they have any intentions in this regard. At the same time, let me tell you that both our departments must work together.
Let us take the following example: As I said, at the outset, they have two years in the army. If they follow a physical rehabilitation program at the outset, they are not with us, they are still in the army. This gets rather complicated, perhaps they should be more with us right from the outset, because in any case, later on, they will remain with us. These discussions are ongoing. Will we be able to get something done? We have a common interest.
The Chair: Thank you for your answer.
[English]
Senator Plett: I have more of a comment than a question here. We have heard, and it was already suggested earlier from the ombudsman, and further we have heard some even here today in our discussions, a fair bit of cynicism, criticism, and skepticism about what will happen. I am reminded of when I have disciplined or told my boys, "Don't do that again; you did it again, and you did it last time," and they say, "Let's not dwell on the past. Let's move ahead. So I made a mistake."
I understand the cynicism here. We had 13 years of uninterrupted broken promises a few years back, so I can understand why people are skeptical of promises that government is making. I think our government has moved in the right direction and is continuing to do so.
Mr. Minister, my comment is this: When you have presented your bill, first, I hope that all sides of Parliament will quickly support this, and consequently in the Senate the same thing will happen, in order that we get good legislation out there for our veterans who so deserve it.
Then I would further encourage you, Mr. Minister, to shout it from the rooftops. Let us make sure we communicate our message. Let us make sure the veterans understand what we are trying to do for them. A lot of communication is lacking. People out there do not know. As I suggested in my questions earlier, I did not know last week many of the things that were happening because they are not clear enough to us. I encourage you, Mr. minister, to have your department ensure that we communicate our positive message clearly. You are bringing forward great legislation; I applaud you for that. Let us make sure that every veteran in this country and every Canadian understands what you and this government are trying to do for them.
Thank you for what you have done.
Mr. Blackburn: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Plett, for that.
Senator Downe: Following up on that, my colleague from Manitoba raises a good question about the speed of the passage of the bill. As you know, the criticism of the original veterans' charter was that it was passed very fast. There was an agreement among the party leaders and there was no debate in the House of Commons. The then Minister of Veterans Affairs moved the motion and that was it. It came to the Senate. This committee did not even review it because the first committee meeting was the Finance Committee of the Senate, where the bill went for one meeting for a review. Then there occurred a short discussion in the Senate, and it was passed for the very reasons my colleague outlined: No one wants to hold up good legislation. The argument, though, is that in hindsight, a review, indeed a sober second thought, would have been helpful to amend some of the problems.
What is your view on the speed at which this legislation should pass?
[Translation]
Mr. Blackburn: On the one hand, we are faced with a fait accompli: this charter had some flaws, and our presence in Afghanistan made us aware of them.
So long as people did not come back with injuries, this was not part of our daily reality. Now, we have to live with it. Today, we have to deal with the most urgent cases, which means that we must make sure that if someone gets injured, who then follows a long-term rehabilitation program, and if he was a good wage earner, he can receive a reasonable amount of help to have a decent standard of living with his family on $40,000.
For those who are more seriously injured, the minimum that they will receive, including the injuries, with the $1,600 lump sum, will be $58,000. This is the minimum amount receivable, plus the lump sum payment. These are three good measures.
If you say that instead of $276,000, why should we not give $476,000? Who will say no to this? Nobody will. Everyone will say yes, but we must respect the amounts in view of the entire picture. There are three measures and all three are being implemented at the same time. There is not just one measure.
This is the reason why we adopted this orientation and we are keeping our ears open. Our associates are very alert. They follow us in our work, and they watch us as we go. They represent their veterans as well as the new veterans.
If you watched the ceremonies on November 11, you must have noticed that we still do not see any young veterans in parades. They are not present yet. Perhaps this is because they are in fact injured or that they are going through some personal phase of growth in their lives that does not impel them to take part in such demonstrations. When I go to the legionnaires' conventions, they are not present there either.
They are represented by these associations, but at the same time, they are not yet physically present in veterans' organizations.
The Chair: Thank you. For the past 16 years, I have considered myself as belonging to a new generation of veterans, and I still have not taken part in a convention. Perhaps we are not yet able to withstand the intensity of the moment.
With regard to the rehabilitation and reinsertion program, which is a fundamental part of the charter's new philosophy, to what extent does this program reach the objectives that you have set, by how much do the results attain the anticipated levels? In certain places, it seems to exist in an embryonic state. The people know nothing about the military environment, they do not know where they are coming from, nor do they understand the equivalencies. There are many issues being raised about this, specifically with regard to the spouse who already has a job and who has to support the injured spouse. Have any other alternatives been envisaged while studying this program?
Ms. Tining: With regard to the first part of your question, the rehabilitation program has been functioning for the past four and a half years, since the beginning of the new charter. Consequently, the results of the evaluation that we are currently doing show that we do not have a great number of cases. Less than 4,000 persons accessed this rehabilitation program during the past four years.
We realize that the people who are in the program are more severely ill than we had anticipated, mainly because they were injured several years ago. Let us take into account the fact that in the old system, all that veterans could receive was a monthly pension and coverage for medication. There was no such thing as a true rehabilitation program in the old system. These people often realize that they are not functioning as well as they should be only five or ten years later on. However, now that there is an accessible rehabilitation program, they take part in it.
This is not what we had anticipated, but we realize that the people who are coming in are more and more severely ill because they have been injured for a longer period of time. The basic principle of rehabilitation is that the more quickly you intervene after an incident or an accident, the better are the chances of success. The result is that people who follow rehabilitation programs are more severely ill and thus they remain with the program for a longer period of time. In reality, as the minister said, those who are currently serving in Afghanistan and get injured are not yet a part of our rehabilitation program because they still belong to the Canadian Forces and they still receive their health care from the forces. The results of the analysis of the evaluation are not conclusive.
With regard to your second question about access, when a member of the Canadian Forces or a veteran is unable to return to the labour market and the spouse is offered what the veteran would have received, once again, there is a limited number of stakeholders, and we are looking at this closely to see whether this really does meet their needs perfectly.
This work is currently ongoing. We do the analysis and we follow it very closely to make sure that the programs and services we are offering meet the needs of our veterans and of their families.
The Chair: This is a very relevant answer. I would like to remind you that this was a basic part of the new charter, aimed at independence and not dependence as the principal element for promoting the culture of the new charter. This theme was introduced in 2006 and it applies to all qualified veterans since 1991. This is why there are still some who are in that situation.
[English]
Senator Wallin: I want to follow up on that to ensure that I understand correctly. When I travelled to bases to talk to injured soldiers, they told me that they wanted to stay within their units, if possible, as parts of the forces. They are reluctant to move if they can transfer their skills, even if it is to an office job, and remain part of the military family. It is often not their choice to exit and become veterans. There is paperwork that must be done, but you can understand their reluctance to fall under your auspices. They are giving up their livelihood and their family reluctantly.
The Chair: Yes, even with the 75 per cent.
Senator Wallin: Yes.
[Translation]
The Chair: Very well. Mr. Minister, do you have a final comment to make?
Mr. Blackburn: Thank you. As always, I appreciated our meeting. I wish everyone a good afternoon.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister. And now the meeting is adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.) |
