Senate Committees
Back

OTTAWA, Wednesday, February 13, 2008

The Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met this day at 12 p.m. to study on the services and benefits provided to members of the Canadian Forces, veterans of war and peacekeeping missions and members of their families in recognition of their services to Canada.

Senator Michael A. Meighen (Chair) in the chair.

[English]

The Chair: I call the meeting to order. Welcome to the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence.

Today, we will hear from representatives of the Royal Canadian Legion which, as senators know, is a non-profit fraternal organization supported by membership dues with approximately 1,600 branches in Canada, the United States, Germany and the Netherlands. From the time of its formation in 1926, the Legion has focused its efforts on the fight to secure adequate pensions and other well-earned benefits for veterans and their dependants.

The Royal Canadian Legion last appeared before our subcommittee on June 6, 2006. Since then, the government has established the Veterans Ombudsman and published the Veterans Bill of Rights. We are here to gain an understanding of the Legion's views on the implementation of the New Veterans Charter.

I would like to introduce Jack Frost, Dominion President, and accompanying him is Retired Colonel Pierre Allard, Service Bureau Director.

My apologies for the weather having caused the cancellation of your last appearance, and specifically to Mr. Frost who had to drive two hours to be with us. I understand you have some remarks and, following them, I hope that you will agree to answer any questions the subcommittee may have.

Jack Frost, Dominion President, The Royal Canadian Legion: This presentation will be in two parts — Mr. Allard will present part and I will present the other part.

It is a pleasure to appear at your subcommittee once again to provide an update from a Legion perspective on the New Veterans Charter, NVC.

Some of our comments will deal with programs and policies that are germane to both the New Veterans Charter and the Pension Act. We will address those issues first and then conclude with our views on how the NVC could be improved.

First, we would like to reiterate our support for the NVC, which was introduced at an opportune time. We attribute this to the fact that all political parties came together in a non-partisan manner in their support of veterans. This approach has also resulted in the introduction of a Veterans Bill of Rights and the appointment of the first Veterans Ombudsman, Retired Colonel Patrick Strogan.

Though we would have preferred that the ombudsman be provided a legislated mandate with wide investigative powers, we are confident this goal can be achieved at a later point by bringing the various federal ombudsmen together under one umbrella. This would be an opportunity to introduce legislation that would provide more investigative powers and would result in the ombudsmen’s centralized office reporting directly to Parliament. This would also result in savings as overheads could be reduced. This model is in place in Australia.

Pierre Allard, Service Bureau Director, The Royal Canadian Legion: Other initiatives have been undertaken by Veterans Affairs Canada, VAC, which will definitely improve the benefits available to veterans. For example, Veterans Affairs Canada has released a new hearing loss policy. This recognizes that partial entitlement may be granted for a present-day hearing loss disability where the audiogram a veteran received upon his release from the military showed a lessening of hearing but fell short of establishing an actual disabling hearing loss. Previously, veterans needed to have a disabling hearing loss upon discharge to qualify for benefits.

An applicant may be granted full entitlement now if he or she has established a disabling hearing loss which equates to a decibel sum hearing loss of 100 decibels or greater at frequencies of 500, 1,000, 2,000 and 3,000 hertz in either ear, or 50 decibels or more in both ears at 4,000 hertz on the audiogram at the time of release. If no release audiogram is available, it may be at the time of the first post-release audiogram. He or she can also associate this disabling hear loss with noise and military service.

Veterans Affairs Canada and the Veterans Review and Appeal Board may now recognize partial entitlement for hearing loss, something we have been advocating for since 1995. Prior to this, only recognized full entitlement was recognized. Now, they can also grant partial entitlement under both the Pension Act and the New Veterans Charter if: the applicant had a release audiogram that indicated a loss of greater than 25 decibels in either ear at any frequency in the 500- to 8,000-hertz range; or if the applicant has a current audiogram that meets the current required standard of disabling hearing loss — that is, a 100-decibel sum hearing loss or greater at the 500-, 1,000-, 2,000- and 3,000-hertz frequencies in either ear, or a decibel loss of greater than the 4,000-hertz frequency in both ears.

The loss of decibels on the current audiogram at the same frequency must be confirmed to be the same or greater as on the release audiogram. Disabling hearing loss must be associated with noise and military service.

We wanted to read these technical definitions of a partial entitlement to ensure we gave publicity to these new criteria. This is the perfect forum in which to do so.

While the above explanation does simplify a complex process, all cases and circumstances may differ. We invite applicants to contact a Legion service officer for assistance with a Veterans Affairs Canada claim for an appeal to the tribunal, the Veterans Review and Appeal Board.

As you are aware, the Legion maintains a network of trained command service officers across the country who provide to all veterans representational services at no cost, at all levels of adjudication and appeal. We have a toll-free number across the country — 1-877-534-4666.

Looking at enhancements that would benefit all veterans, we are concerned that progress has been slow concerning the ongoing veterans’ health services review. While we have frail traditional veterans and spouses who are unable to qualify for the Veterans Independence Program, VIP, to stay in their homes — which would be a cost-saving measure for Veterans Affairs Canada — we also have modern veterans falling through the cracks. They may not be eligible for long-term care or for improved funeral or burial benefits similar to those provided to a Canadian Forces, CF, member.

We also have homeless veterans. VAC needs a program to assist homeless veterans. We are ready to explore with them the means to implement such a program through our Legion Housing Centre for Excellence.

In the specific context of the New Veterans Charter programs, we have provided you with program activity statistics as they were passed on to us from Veterans Affairs Canada. They are enclosed in your document.

Beyond these statistics, we would like to comment on specific programs. We also put into your documentation a charge that appears complex. However, it is the best pictorial I have seen on one page that describes all the New Veterans Charter programs and also describes the interrelationships that exist between the various programs.

To put it in simple terms, other than the disability award, which compensates for pain, the entry gate for all the New Veterans Charter programs is really the rehabilitation program. It has a number of components.

Unfortunately, there is another rehabilitation program sponsored through the Service Income Security Insurance Plan, SISIP. The SISIP rehabilitation program is for vocational purposes. In other words, it is for trying to find someone a new job. The rehabilitation program offered by Veterans Affairs Canada is more all encompassing. We would like to see a streamlining of rehabilitation so it is under one umbrella.

Canadian Forces members are released either voluntarily or via a medical release. Both processes can lead to Canadian Forces SISIP and VAC benefits. On this chart, the various providers of benefits are labelled in a different colour. Dark blue is for Canadian Forces, grey is for Veterans Affairs and SISIP is purple. This chart was actually drawn up and prepared by the Canadian Forces liaison officer in Charlottetown. This officer has been working on trying to simplify a representation of what the programs really mean and their relationship to one another. Believe it or not, this does simplify the process for a service provider.

Those benefits are often interrelated. Suffice to say, when dealing with New Veterans Charter programs, we are really talking about five programs: rehabilitation, health benefits, job placement, disability award and financial benefits. There are four elements of financial benefits: economic loss, income support, supplementary retirement benefits and the permanent impairment allowance.

Mr. Frost: There is a primary gateway for most NVC programs, namely the rehabilitation program. To simplify what is a rather complex matrix, which is enclosed, more often than not the rehabilitation gateway leads to the financial benefits. Unfortunately, the CF SISIP and Veterans Affairs Canada are responsible for delivering rehabilitation. This results in coordination challenges for both service providers. Thus, the first improvement would be to eliminate SISIP long-term disability rehabilitation and incorporate it into a single VAC/NVC program.

While speaking of SISIP, we are also very concerned that the Veterans Affairs Canada disability pension benefits continue to be offset by the so-called "SISIP clawback" from the amount paid out by SISIP Limited. This has been corrected for New Veterans Charter recipients, but disability pensioners continue to be treated unfairly. As you can visualize in the matrix, veterans with service-related rehabilitation needs can be deemed eligible for the rehabilitation program at any time after release.

While on rehab, he or she would also be eligible for earnings loss compensation, which would guarantee 75 per cent of his or her gross pre-release salary. However, this gross pre-release salary, depending on when the veteran was released, may not be sufficient to meet current financial needs. A simple solution would be to adjust earnings loss, EL, to reflect salary adjustments and normal rank advancement that would normally accrue over one's career based on an actuarial projection. This is the common methodology used in civilian courts. We also believe that, in determining the EL basic rank, the rank of private should be raised to corporal.

Another problem is related to the disability award, DA. It is clear it is to compensate for pain and suffering. The DA rates are amended yearly for consumer price index, CPI, and other adjustments. However, a veteran who receives a disability award does not get any further adjustment. Veterans should be eligible for this annual increment as pain and suffering do not disappear.

For example, a veteran who would have received a 100-per-cent disability award of $250,000 in 2006 would have been eligible for a supplement of $5,729.25 in 2007 and $5,105.59 in 2008. The supplementary retirement benefit, SRB, which is paid as a lump sum at age 65 based on 2 per cent on all potential earnings loss benefits that could accrue to an applicant, is meant to make up for lost opportunity to contribute to a retirement fund.

However, this SRB is paid as a taxable lump sum. We have been advocating for a methodology that would transform this lump sum into a pension income. We are also concerned that not enough information is provided to inform veterans that, if they are employed and do not qualify for earnings loss benefits, they should still apply to gain the most benefits possible from the SRB.

Finally, even though families, spouses and children may be eligible for mental health support, one of the gateways for these services assumes the veteran has applied for mental health care on his or her own volition. As this is not always the case, the only venue open to these spouses and children is the VAC assistance line, which can open up some limited services, albeit on a rather restricted basis.

We also feel that more can, and should, be done to fully integrate the VAC operational stress injury clinics and the CF operational trauma and stress support centres, OTSSC. For example, both clinics do not even have a standard intake assessment tool.

Notwithstanding the above comments, which are meant to be constructive, we believe that the New Veterans Charter is providing a good mix of programs that are attempting to meet the needs of veterans. Our recommendations for improvement are meant to enhance these programs. We also realize other programs are available to CF members which, if subscribed to, can make a big difference for their surviving dependants — such as SISIP term insurance, which is an optional benefit.

We are also aware that, very often, serving CF members do not pay sufficient attention to the designation of their primary survivors and beneficiaries, which often result in problematic assignment of benefits to survivors. The bottom line is that there should be a more proactive approach to ensuring all CF members and veterans are fully informed of benefits and programs that can improve their quality of life, or that of their survivors.

That completes our presentation. We will gladly take questions.

The Chair: Thank you. I neglected to introduce to you the senators present today. Perhaps I will do so now, and senators can take this opportunity to let the clerk know if they would like to ask questions.

Let me start with the deputy chair of the committee, Senator Day, who is from New Brunswick, where he had a very successful career as a private practice lawyer. He has served in the Senate of Canada since October 2001, and currently chairs the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, and is deputy chair of this committee, as I mentioned.

Senator Banks was called to the Senate in April 2000. He is known to many Canadians as an accomplished and versatile musician and entertainer. Senator Banks is the chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment, and Natural Resources and is also a member of our subcommittee.

Senator Downe is from Charlottetown. He was appointed to the Senate in June 2003. Although not generally an official member of our committee, we welcome his presence because he takes a great interest in our work. Today he is sitting as an official replacement for Senator Kenny. He is a member of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, the Internal Economy Committee and the executive committee of the Canada-NATO Parliamentary Association.

[Translation]

Lieutenant General and Senator Roméo Dallaire had a distinguished career in the Canadian Forces. Senator Dallaire hails from Quebec and was appointed to the Senate in 2005.

He is also a member of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights and of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples.

[English]

There is the list of senators present today, and the first questioner will be Senator Downe.

Senator Downe: I am taking advantage of my new status as a member of the committee to jump in early. In your presentation, there were two significant changes from the prepared text we have in front of us. I want to clarify if they were intentional or not.

On page three, midway down the page, it says in our text that Veterans Affairs Canada and the Veterans Review and Appeal Board "will" now recognize. In your presentation, you said "may."

My second question is on page 9, the last paragraph of your presentation. It reads, "We believe that NVC is providing a good mix of programs which are meeting the needs of veterans." In your verbal presentation, you said "are attempting to meet." If the latter is correct, what areas, in your opinion, are they not meeting now?

Mr. Allard: I will take the first question. On page three, it is possibly semantics in that we were trying to describe the rather technical criteria for meeting the new partial entitlement guidelines that have been set out by Veterans Affairs. I have been trying to get confirmation from Veterans Affairs for what I would call my synopsis of the new policy. It took a while to get that. When we did get it, they were favouring the circumstantial aspect of this policy, which is fair. That is why I used the term "may."

Senator Downe: The difference between the terms "will" and "may" is that the department has to do it when you say "will; " with "may," it has more discretion.

Mr. Allard: "Will", if all the terms below are met, is what I meant to say. They captured that thought in the "may." You can use whichever one you want interchangeably. I am taking it from the approach of a service provider who is representing a client. When I wrote "will," I would like to assume that they will if I meet these criteria.

Mr. Frost: To finish the second part of the question, it was intentional that I said "attempting." As with the Pension Act, it came into effect in 1933 but we enhanced it over the years to what it is today. It is the same with the New Veterans Charter. Even though it meets the basic needs, it still has a way to go to be enhanced to further increase benefits to serving members today.

Senator Downe: I am curious about the benefits and assistance you provide to veterans. Are those services available to members of the reserves?

Mr. Frost: Yes, we are talking about representation of claim for pension purposes.

Mr. Allard: Reserves, RCMP and dependants.

Senator Downe: I have been contacted by a number of veterans about the limited compensation package for Agent Orange. Has the Legion taken any position on that package that the government has awarded?

Mr. Frost: That award is based on similar awards, on lump sum payments that were given, such as the Hong Kong veterans' awards, merchant marines and navy. It would be hard to make that award for Agent Orange greater than what had been given previously.

Senator Downe: The concern I am hearing, and you may not be hearing it directly, is from veterans who were led to believe that the compensation package would cover an extended period for people who were at Canadian Forces base Gagetown. At the end of the day, the government restricted the period to two years and paid a lump sum of $20,000 to some people living around the base, as well as people who may have been affected at the base.

The complaints I am getting are from veterans who allege that their current health problems are because they were at the base when chemicals were being sprayed, but they fall outside this two-year period. They are looking for compensation to be included in the overall benefit. You obviously have not studied that in any detail yet.

Mr. Frost: We have resolutions.

Mr. Allard: There are probably two parts to the answer. I certainly go along with the fact that the cash settlement is in line with what was given to other groups. Having said that, one of our concerns is that, notwithstanding that one is eligible for a cash settlement for being on the ground in that time frame, there are also Veterans Affairs Canada disability benefits available to these people who may be affected by long-term disability.

Our greater concern is that in the context of the cash settlement, all you have to prove is that you were there. For the disability benefits, the test is more stringent. You have to be able to prove that you were directly exposed, that you handled these chemicals or may have been in contact with them and then the department will consider whether you are eligible for disability benefits.

We feel the same criteria given for the cash compensation should be invoked for disability benefits. That is one area where we are hearing complaints.

Senator Downe: Thank you.

Senator Banks: I appreciate your having supplied us with a simplified chart. I have three short questions and one long one. Page 10 of your presentation is about the SISIP term insurance, which is an optional benefit. Is that guaranteed to be available to veterans regardless of their situation and condition? Can a veteran obtain that term insurance as a matter of their right?

Mr. Frost: A member of the Canadian Forces has the option to subscribe to SISIP at any time. It is not automatic.

Senator Banks: It is subscribed to before discharge, obviously.

Mr. Allard: It has to be subscribed to while serving. If a subscriber has an accident, whether related to military service, the person will obtain these benefits. Much education is provided to CF members about subscribing to SISIP term insurance. They can have up to $400,000 with no military clause and with associated benefits. However, members must subscribe to the plan.

The Chair: Did you say that it does not have to be military related? If I am crossing the street at the base and am run over by a car, et cetera, I will be covered.

Mr. Allard: It is term insurance. Not only that, if you are on your roof to repair the antenna and you fall off and lose both legs as a result of your injuries, this would not be linked to military service. Instead, there is an accidental dismemberment package associated with the term insurance that has no link to military service. There are additional advantages to subscribing.

Senator Banks: It is kind of normal in that there are no exclusions.

Mr. Allard: There are no exclusions but many young members of the Canadian Forces might not think they have a need to subscribe.

Senator Banks: We all think we are indestructible when we are young.

Page eight is about a reduction in the settlement to which veterans might be eligible. Why is the amount being reduced? You might have explained that but I missed it. It states: " . . . would have been eligible for a settlement of $5,729. 25 in 2007; and $5,105.59 in 2008."

Mr. Frost: It is based on the cost-of-living index.

Inflation is different.

Senator Banks: It ratchets back.

Mr. Allard: Yes and no. We are using the maximum disability award, which is $250,000. I would suggest that award is not the norm because lesser amounts are awarded most likely. You would get that award in 2006, whatever it might be for, but if you were to apply in 2007, it would be $5,700 greater than what you would have received in 2006. We are saying that the supplement calculated yearly should be provided to the applicants who have been eligible year after year after year. It does not go away.

Senator Banks: Thank you for explaining that. Page four mentions modern veterans who fall through the cracks and who might not be eligible for long-term care. Why is that?

Mr. Allard: Currently, modern-day forces veterans are not eligible for long-term care except in unique circumstances that relate it to a disability. This is different from all other classes of Canadian veterans. For example, long-term care might be available to traditional World War II and Korean War veterans as a right, but there is no such right for the modern veteran.

They might gain that right through the ongoing veterans’ health services review, which would try to do away with all the current complex eligibility criteria and make it simple, such that any class of veteran who has a need for long-term care and has served his or her country should receive that care. We hope this will come out of the veterans’ health services review but it seems to be dragging on and not moving forward as fast as we would like to see.

Senator Banks: When did that change?

Mr. Allard: It has not changed yet.

Senator Banks: You said that World War II and Korean War veterans have a right to long-term care. That is no longer the case. When did that change?

Mr. Allard: Unfortunately, any of these benefits were available as a result of the current legislation and the evolution of the legislation, regulations and policies under Veterans Affairs. As Veterans Affairs dealt with these different classes of veterans, they amended their policies and regulations. They have not done so for the modern veteran.

Senator Dallaire: Under the New Veterans Charter.

Senator Banks: Most Canadians would be disappointed to learn that.

Mr. Allard: Yes.

Senator Banks: I had assumed otherwise. We are pursuing matters related to air force veterans who, after World War II, were seconded from the RCAF, Royal Canadian Air Force, to private schools as trainers of pilots and navigators under the British Commonwealth Training Plan. At the end of that plan, they rejoined the RCAF and were discharged but did not accumulate service time during the secondment and so they were declared ineligible for benefits. I am sure you are familiar with these stories. Many of these people are getting on in years, and some of them were merely days short of the required service time for eligibility.

Has the Legion taken a position and made representations to DND, Department of National Defence, in an effort to effect a change in the definition of "service" so that those few people remaining might qualify for benefits?

Mr. Allard: The responsibility lies was both DND and Veterans Affairs Canada.

Senator Banks: We have heard from Veterans Affairs that they are obliged to deal with veterans as defined by DND.

Mr. Allard: This goes back to these categories of veterans. For example, we have Canada-only veterans, and their requirement was to have 365 days of service. I believe you are alluding to people who may have been about 10 days short of that requirement.

Senator Banks: That is right.

Mr. Allard: Canada-service veterans also do not have access to long-term care under the criteria currently in place. The solution is for Veterans Affairs to move forward in a timely fashion with their veterans’ health services review and to invoke the necessary reforms so that access is based on need and not on artificial criteria.

We are strongly in favour of changing the criteria so that it is needs based. However, we are worried that Veterans Affairs is not moving fast enough.

Senator Banks: Is it your view that Veterans Affairs can fix the problem?

Mr. Allard: Yes, if they move to a needs-based program, they can resolve the issue of Canadian Forces modern veterans gaining access to long-term care on a needs-based approach.

The Chair: The veterans’ health services review is an internal departmental review.

Mr. Allard: That is correct.

The Chair: When did it start and did anyone say when they expect it to finish?

Mr. Allard: It was started in 2004, I believe, from reports we have seen from the department. In 2006, the Gerontological Advisory Council, sponsored by the department, released a discussion paper called Keeping The Promise. In that paper, they said we need to change the system that is based on complex criteria, which make no sense and are indefensible, and move to a needs-based approach. There was a tool promoted in Keeping the Promise which was imported from Quebec. It is already in place in Quebec and is called "la mesure d'autonomie fonctionnelle". It is a functional measure of autonomy that can be given to individuals to determine their needs and then move them to these various benefits. Keeping the Promise was given some visibility in November of 2006 and we are waiting for action on the part of the department to put it in place.

It meets the needs of not only modern veterans but also traditional veterans. For example, we still have some instances where a frail veteran who is 85 years old could benefit from having the Veterans Independence Program so he can stay in his home. Under the current eligibility criteria, he must have a disability. He has to go to the department to prove he is disabled and then he might get VIP. It seems to be a simple cost-saving measure to say, "Give him VIP and let him stay in his home. Maybe he will not need the disability award or pension, depending on his criteria." It is the same with pre-1981 spouses. We have this promise that was made to them that they would have access to VIP benefits. Here is a measure that would give them that benefit, through this veterans’ health services review and a new system that would be put in place based on need. We support that.

The Chair: We will be welcoming the minister on the February 27. Perhaps members on the subcommittee may ask him some questions.

Senator Dallaire: I have a few questions about the Legion and then some specifics about your clients.

In the 1990s, the Legion was squiring about 15 per cent of the request for disability pensions through the process with Veterans Affairs. Are you still at that same level? Are you doing more or less now than at that time?

Mr. Allard: We were probably at 10 per cent at our highest. We are still in that ballpark.

Senator Dallaire: In 1993, I was told it was 15 per cent. There are still about 10 per cent going through you to do it?

Mr. Allard: Yes, 8 per cent to 10 per cent.

Senator Dallaire: That is how I did it when I went through.

Do you wit on the new advisory board on veterans?

Mr. Allard: Yes.

Senator Dallaire: Have you met yet?

Mr. Frost: Yes.

Mr. Allard: We met twice.

Senator Dallaire: Is the advisory board advising the deputy minister or the assistant deputy minister?

Mr. Frost: It reports to the deputy minister.

Senator Dallaire: Has it mandated itself to review the initial establishment of rules and regulations of the new charter and to gain access to the satisfaction of the clientele to the New Veterans Charter? Have you gone that far yet?

Mr. Allard: I do not think we have gone so far as to look at satisfaction. We are certainly meeting and discussing problematic issues. Some of the issues we have identified in this presentation are close to what is being discussed in committee. There are some issues we have not covered that deal with families. You remember when the New Veterans Charter was developed and came into being, there was a certain — I call it a contract, it is probably the wrong term — approach that would guarantee benefits to families.

Senator Dallaire: That was in it.

Mr. Allard: Yes, it was. I am not sure how that is playing out. We find out, as I alluded to here, that there are some areas where we should see some improvement. That committee is looking at that.

Senator Dallaire: This is for the chair. At an appropriate time, it would be good to have the chair of that advisory committee come here to give us a feel for where they sit on this.

It was the advisory committee group, under Dr. Peter Neary, that launched a lot of the reforms in the first place. This one is new and would be interesting to see.

Who is chairing that committee?

Mr. Frost: I forget.

Mr. Allard: Her first name is Muriel.

Senator Dallaire: Next, I want to talk about the new-generation veterans and the Legion centres across the country. We have a grave concern about the urban areas and the reservists who are far from the bases and services. With the mess life having been reduced significantly even in the armies across the country, let alone on military bases, what specific actions have you taken to bring that new generation of veteran into the fold of the Legion where they will find the camaraderie and support that the old-generation veterans counted on so much when they were young?

Mr. Frost: You have hit on a point of great concern to us — namely, membership. We would like to see our membership percentages raised with military backgrounds. With changing lifestyles, the serving members today, be they regular force or reservist, are not beating our doors down to belong to us. They have different priorities than they had in the 1950s and 1960s. There is more for families to do. We see dual-income families now. They are running from eight o'clock in the morning until eight o'clock at night. They are just stopping to catch their breath occasionally to meet their spouse. That is a problem.

We do go to the bases and the armouries to tell them who we are and what we can do. We invite them to come and visit, but I would not say we are overly successful at this point in time.

Mr. Allard: One of the things we need to spread the word about is some of the advocacy we do on behalf of the Canadian Armed Forces members. Perhaps they are not aware of what we do. For example, we were advocating for pension income splitting for seniors. A lot of the military spouses may not have employment and may not be able to have a job because of their spouse's military career. I ensure that pension income splitting for seniors, when you only have one wage earner, is a dramatic improvement on the taxes you pay.

Senator Dallaire: Absolutely.

Mr. Allard: We were part of the council advocating for that. We are advocating for larger pensions for superannuation benefits for spouses. Currently, if you are a spouse of a Canadian Armed Forces member, your superannuation will be 50 per cent of your spouse's salary. We do not think that is enough. The industry standard is probably 70 per cent; we are saying 66 per cent. Through our advocacy, we are trying to establish the fact that they are worthy of support.

We have also approached the Canadian Armed Forces to do a mail-out with the things they send out related to pensions. We are looking at giving a one-year membership to Canadian Forces’ members when they retire. We are active and are trying to promote ourselves. We also do not want to go too far, though. We are not cheap.

Senator Dallaire: Let me give you an example. A major reform was that Veterans Affairs Canada now has offices on the bases. In certain areas, they have not even established offices in major area headquarters, and so on.

I would like to use the example of a funeral. The local Legion representative is there; they have a good system set up for that. We have new-generation veterans coming back from overseas. My regiment has 18 guys coming back in the navy. The Canadian Armed Forces have now decided they will keep these guys for three years if they are injured. As long as they feel they are getting reasonable employment value, they are still in the fold, and it is not contrary to their good health to stay in, they will keep them for three years.

We discovered that when they go to hospitals to get care, they are often treated the same as anybody else. They sit there like anybody else; they have been injured in Afghanistan. Recently, we realized we are abandoning them to the general population. There is much to be said about the local Legions knowing about the injured troops in their area coming back, and getting information to the hospitals, as the regiment should, that this person did not just smash himself up on a motorcycle; he is a veteran from Afghanistan. There should be more proactive action directly with the injured party and the regiments in the field, how they are handling the return of the troops and so on, and with their families. That is where there is an enormous link. There is the interpretation of the charter. As well, you are a family outfit. The Legion branches have all kinds of family activities. Look at the legionnaires and all your sports activities.

The older veterans are where they are, and many civilians and associates came in and many have been given, I think, too much authority in their membership. It may be time to bring in a new gang. I am wondering if at the dominion level you will create a whole new methodology of looking at returning troops. It is no more doughnuts at the dock with the Sally Ann. It is more complex. We are losing people from suicide because they are too far from the regiment and nobody is picking it up. When you look around, you realize there is still a Legion branch or a post office.

You have a responsibility to proactively go out and get them in an innovative way and not wait too long for them to come in or wait for DND to sell your product. The more you take care of the injured men, women and their families and are closer to the militia regiment, the more you will regain that. They need it. They need the camaraderie that the Legion used to provide.

It is a comment from me, if I may. You could fill an enormous vacuum and get much information out that could help both Veterans Affairs and DND.

Mr. Allard: You raise an interesting point in the context of your previous question about how much representation we still do, and I alluded to about 8 per cent to 10 per cent. If you look at this matrix here, you will see that the CF and Veterans Affairs Canada are represented, but the Legion is not represented in these processes. There are transition offices in place that are manned by Canadian Forces and VAC. There are some casualty protocols in place that inform Canadian Forces and VAC, but do not inform the Legion service officer. The operational stress injuries, OSI, program is in place. There are a multitude of programs and providers there but they have developed certain business processes which, if we are not careful as a Legion service provider, will exclude us from something that is our legislated mandate. It is legislated in the Pension Act in the New Veterans Charter that we can provide representational services, but if the business process drives us out, then I do not think Veterans Affairs is meeting the intent of the legislation. This is something of which we are aware and will make a presentation on.

You are perfectly right in what you are saying because currently we go to long-term care facilities. That is where we have social visitation. That is where we make sure that veterans are looked after and are getting quality care. We need to go to the hospitals. How do we get informed that there are people in the hospitals? Perhaps we have to talk to the Canadian Forces. We have to talk to Veterans Affairs and find our niche in casualty protocol in place with MOU, memoranda of understanding, agreements, that exclude us to this day.

[Translation]

Senator Dallaire: The Legion is ideally placed to take on this job, because of the high number of injured living in rural areas. You have a presence in the community and it is a matter of adopting a new philosophy or approach, a new way of seeing the new generation veterans. Because fundamentally, all of these men and women feel isolated.

You can help alleviate their feelings of isolation. You can educate militia units to do a better job. I would be happy to speak to the Royal Canadian Legion to see if you could be given this mandate.

The Royal Canadian Legion needs funding to renew its mandate. I believe members are the ones who pay for that, not the government. You want a new mandate, but who is going to pay for that?

[English]

Senator Dallaire: Concerning how they are going about it, it is a matter of realigning the business dimension in regard to the demands of this era with the new-generation veterans and what they can do. It is within the spectrum of what they feel they should be doing. Unless you leap into the new-generation veterans, particularly the injured, rural and militia ones, first, the Forces will never be able to catch them up because of so many procedures, and second, we will lose them.

There are several cases I can bring to your attention in the Province of Quebec of suicides directly related to militiamen and the sense of abandonment. There are Legions. We are going to bury them, but we are not there when they are alive. Getting into that process is a worthy challenge. Put a committee on that. They have the cash to do it if they want to.

[Translation]

The money is still there.

[English]

With the $250,000 lump sum that they get, when we argued the charter, we argued that it be non-taxable, just like the disability pension is now. It is non-taxable. That got smoked by. You give one of them $200,000 plus the salary they have had, plus the foreign allowance they got because they were in theatre of operations, and with the tax burden on that they are getting ripped off 100 miles an hour. There must be, in my estimation, a way to deal with that lump sum.

Mr. Allard: It is non-taxable.

Senator Dallaire: You said earlier that it was taxable.

Mr. Allard: No, the disability award is not.

Senator Dallaire: The lump sum is not taxable.

Mr. Frost: No.

Mr. Allard: The supplementary retirement benefit paid at age 65 has some tax, but not the disability.

Senator Dallaire: I do not want to get into that one.

Senator Downe: Concerning the lump sum payment, I have raised publicly from the get-go that I am suspicious that the department and government agreed to it because over time it is a saving for them. You have alluded on page eight that, if they received it a year later because of the cost of living, they would have received more. The flip side, of course, is the government would have had to pay more. This is an area we have to keep a close eye on over time.

The second concern I have is that we have mostly avoided in Canada veterans on the street begging because they received a yearly payment. I am concerned that in some cases a lump sum may be burnt through for a host of reasons and then we have no fallback. These are the two areas we will have to keep an eye on.

It is not the role of the department to save money; its role is to serve veterans and to help the Legion and others keep an eye on that.

Mr. Allard: That is why we are advocating for a payment of the cost of indexing on the disability award year by year. We are also saying the economic loss is the measure that will compensate in the same fashion that the disability pension would, and it can be paid up to the age of 65. However, the formula to calculate that 75-per-cent income loss needs to be amended, which we are also saying.

Senator Dallaire: You cannot isolate that from the fact that the new process aims to make the person viable as a citizen. We are looking for jobs and we are retraining. If it does not work for one, the spouse gets the retraining, and that is for life. That never existed before. There is a trade-off.

Mr. Allard: We bought off on the trade-off on the basis that this was a living charter and we could bring improvements, and these are some we are bringing forward.

To be fair, the feedback we are getting about the disability award and the package of rehabilitation — which can be transferred to spouses and includes income loss and other benefits — is good. Some are not happy, but the majority of people are happy with this package.

Senator Downe: I agree because it is early years. My concern is 10 years out.

Mr. Allard: We keep improving it.

Senator Dallaire: If you remember from last week, the charter is written giving the minister exactly that room to manoeuvre down the road, unless the department creates rules to stymie it.

Mr. Frost: You are probably aware that the Royal Canadian Legion at the top headquarters spent about $100,000 last year on direct support of the military in the field, specifically in Afghanistan. I would not say we are not doing anything. We are there 100 per cent with our support. There may be some areas where we are somewhat lax in getting out and taking the serving member or the militiaman by the hand, but we are there.

Senator Dallaire: I hope that I have never spoken pejoratively in saying you are not there. I just think that you have a whole new generation of veterans with a whole new demand. There is an enormous human vacuum of communications that the Legion can provide, used to provide, and should go after to possibly save lives and families by being available through programs you already use within your membership.

We lost nearly 15 years of apprenticeship in trying to figure out how to take care of psychological injuries, which are much more prevalent than physical injuries. Do you have a position about Ste. Anne’s Hospital becoming not just a centre of excellence with a couple of people there telling us they are that, but actually being a place of research, development, teaching, education and of permanent availability to a reasonable level, 15 or 20 beds, as a full-fledged institute involved in PTSD, post-traumatic stress disorder? Have you taken a position on that?

Mr. Frost: Mr. Allard, you sit on the advisory council there. In fact, you go to Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue.

Mr. Allard: I go there regularly. Allow me a bit of history to illustrate what we do for the Canadian Forces member.

I attended the second national symposium on operational stress injuries in Montreal. I think you were there, senator.

Senator Dallaire: I spoke there.

Mr. Allard: You spoke at the dinner. I made a point of telling all the VAC officials that this is really not the second operational stress injuries symposium; it is the third. The first symposium was organized by the Legion in Charlottetown in 1996 where we advocated strongly to eventually have operational stress injuries recognized as a disability condition. This is an example of what we do on behalf of Canadian Forces’ members and veterans.

We strongly feel that Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue should become a centre of excellence for operational stress. Of the long-term care facilities, the primary-access bed facilities that are in place, which are declining in number, some with specialized wings looking after people with mental health problems, we would like to see that vocation continued and improved in those facilities so we do not lose the money that was invested there.

Senator Dallaire: Much of the reform that happened in VAC in the 1990s was brought about because we had a general officer in VAC, Brigadier-General Pierre Boutet, who happened to be our ex-Judge Advocate General.

Do you believe that having a general officer in VAC would provide more clout in moving some of the reforms, changes, sensitivities and relationships with outside agencies like the Legion?

Or a chief warrant officer.

Senator Dallaire: Nothing against colonels, but bringing in a general officer drastically changes the nature of the beast.

Mr. Frost: It would change the nature of the beast, but it would not matter who you put in there. It would probably change the nature of the beast, whether positive or negative.

For example, let us say that two of the advocates have heard your case. It is a well-known fact that you might be better off getting someone who did not have a military background because, traditionally and statistically, they award more favourably than those with a military background. I would hesitate to say whether you would be better off or not.

Senator Dallaire: I am talking about being seconded as a director-general. I am talking about staffing.

Mr. Allard: The reality is that in the time the general was in Charlottetown representing the department, there were not the same types of forums that are in place today where the ADM, assistant deputy minister, of veterans services and the chief of military personnel meet on a regular basis in committee. This is taking place now every three months or so, if not more often. Both VAC and the Canadian Forces have moved forward to integrate their approach in how they provide services.

Senator Downe: I want to comment briefly on this. I do not want to take anything away from the general, as my colleague mentioned, but my understanding at the time was that Veterans Affairs was consulting widely with a host of veterans associations, including the Legion, and hearing from many of the veterans. Many of the resolutions were a result of the impact that those hearings had as opposed to any one individual.

What I heard at Veterans Affairs was that there was a clear distinction. People coming before the Veterans Review and Appeal Board were concerned about the senior ranks not having as much support for privates and corporals, and so on, as some of the non-military people in the department. That was part of the division. We have to be careful.

The Veterans Review and Appeal Board, in my opinion, is more like a jury of the general public. If you are charged with a crime, you appear before 12 citizens off the street. The veterans should have the same benefit, as opposed to some ranking order within the military. I see you nodding, so you must be agreeing with me.

Senator Dallaire: My last point is with respect to the 100th anniversary of Vimy in 2017 and the 150th anniversary of Canada. Do you have a long-range plan in terms of how to commemorate Vimy in 2017? If you do not have a plan, I would be glad to give you mine.

Mr. Frost: At this point, we do not have a long-range plan.

Senator Dallaire: We want to plan more long range than we did with the millennium and the Unknown Soldier. I know you were working on it. It got dropped and we picked it up. We might want to talk about how to commemorate and repatriate Vimy at the 100th to Canada and not just have it over there.

The Chair: It is never too early to ask that question. Before we get into it, we will give Senator Day the opportunity to ask questions.

We appreciate the work that the Royal Canadian Legion is doing on an ongoing basis. You know that I support your work.

I will start by first thanking you for this and then by echoing Senator Banks' comments on that. If this is as simple as you can show it, we have a problem here. You point out the difficulty with respect to rehabilitation being offered through two different programs. These things have to be sorted out. Maybe it is part of the problem of bringing in a new major program and not wanting to stop all the other stuff. We have to continue working on the integration.

You talked about this veterans' health services review. It sounds to me that it is all an internal Veterans Affairs Canada issue, and they may be consulting on the outside, but you are not participating as a member of the review board.

Mr. Frost: We do. We sit on the gerontological council.

Mr. Allard: We sit on the Gerontological Advisory Council. We have participated in preparing the report called Keeping the Promise, which was put out in December 2006.

Is the veterans’ health services review separate from that?

Mr. Allard: The veterans’ health services review is the response to Keeping the Promise. Having said that, their process started in 2004.

You are satisfied that, even though there are outstanding problems of duplication, you have ways of bringing this to the attention of the decision makers such that they will get attended to?

Mr. Frost: On the veterans’ health review, the gerontology committee made their recommendations and gave their report. Veterans Affairs now internally has prepared a plan of where they want to go, to which we have been privy to having some input. We know what the recommendations are, and we support them.

We hope that within a couple of weeks there will not be a holdup, as once the budget goes through, the funding will be there to support that review. However, one can never be sure.

As far as how it affects the modern-day veteran, it is needs based, not based on a fixed point in time or on a fixed injury. It is a more humane way of treating the whole rehabilitation and care process.

That would include readjustment to society outside of military life. If you are not able to work in a position that will give you a similar income, then is there a supplement to keep you at a station in life that you should have been able to be at?

Mr. Allard: Veterans’ health services are looking at three programs that are totally separate from the New Veterans Charter program: treatment, long-term care and the Veterans Independence Program. The modern veteran does not have access to long-term care unless he meets very specific and difficult criteria. We see long-term care as being a benefit that should accrue to Canadian Forces’ veterans in the fullness of time.

The Veterans Independence Program also has some qualifiers. As the Canadian Forces’ veterans age and want to stay in their homes because they do not want to go to long-term care, they should also be looked at based on needs, not on these eligibility criteria based on where you served and what you have done.

Let us talk about the Veterans Independence Program. There are so many programs floating around in my head. There must be a way to simplify this, but we will not do that today.

Regarding the VIP, we get a lot of calls on that as senators and members of this committee, including the spouses and the promise that was made. We keep reminding people of the promise that was made before the last election, and we hope it will ultimately come about.

My understanding is that in order for a veteran to be a part of the VIP, he or she must be receiving some type of disability pension. That has not changed. Is that correct?

Mr. Allard: They could be on war veterans’ allowance, which is basically income support because his income is too low. That would be a gateway to VIP. The problem is that there are a number of gateways. I cannot describe them all, but there are a number of them.

You point out the one with hearing, and I find that interesting. I hear the story back home regularly in New Brunswick that across Canada, veterans who have not been on any type of disability pension are applying for a disability pension in order to get the VIP, and Veterans Affairs is trying to be accommodating by giving them a pension based on their new-found disability, which then qualifies them for VIP. What kind of economics is that? Can you confirm that is happening?

Mr. Frost: Yes.

Mr. Allard: Yes.

I learn those stories and shake my head.

Mr. Frost: The staff sometimes go out of their way with a veteran to find some form of disability that they can attribute to his service.

Having said that, I am sure they all do not do that, but they have a good cadre of people in the field.

The Chair: You said it earlier: old age is not a disability.

Mr. Allard: Frailty on its own is not a disability. We would like to see VIP for frailty.

The Chair: It might keep them out of expensive facilities and in their own home. They would be happier and it would cost the taxpayer less.

Mr. Allard: We have a multitude of people over the age of 85 allotted VIP and having to go the disability route.

There is also the surviving spouse of a veteran who was not on VIP. Together they were able to do those things, and suddenly there is only one of them left. It happens to be the spouse of the veteran and she is not entitled to get any help.

Mr. Frost: You have probably spoken to Veterans Affairs; hopefully, within a two-month period this inequity will be resolved.

I hope so. We have been talking about it for some time.

Mr. Allard: There is an added benefit to the Canadian Forces’ veteran who will also see wider access to something like long-term care.

Tell me about the structure of the Service Income Security Insurance Plan, often referred to as SISIP. Is that a government- or membership-funded program?

Mr. Allard: It is basically an insurance provider. I cannot go into the details.

Is it a mutual insurance, or does the government put money in there?

Senator Dallaire: It extends to Great-West Life.

Mr. Allard: It depends on which program you are looking at. If you are looking at SISIP LTD, which is long-term disability, the government pays 85 per cent of the premium while the member pays 15 per cent. If you are looking at SISIP term insurance then obviously, if I want term insurance through SISIP, I will pay the premium.

Some of the veterans we have heard from told us that they were encouraged to and had to go out and pay into types of plans on their own.

Mr. Allard: SISIP LTD is almost an obligation.

Does every member have to pay out of his or her own salary?

Mr. Allard: It does not make sense because SISIP provides rehabilitation. You have a legislative statutory program of rehabilitation provided by Veterans Affairs Canada, so why are you continuing SISIP LTD for two years while VAC will extend to three years and be much more comprehensive than the SISIP LTD, which is only providing you vocational rehab. It does not make sense. SISIP term insurance makes sense because it has many added benefits.

I have three questions, and I am told we are running out of time.

First, I would like you to comment on the Canadian hospital care for veterans. We heard six months ago that the veterans' hospitals in the United States were seriously lacking and were not up to the same standard as hospitals for non-veterans.

Second, I would like you to comment on your relationship with the new Veterans Ombudsman. Are you in competition with this ombudsman, or can you find a way to work together? You commented that you feel he should have wider investigative powers. I would like you to expand on that.

Third, in terms of the services you are providing, when Senator Dallaire was making his comments about a role you could play particularly with respect to returning reservists, I could not agree more. However, from living in a sparsely populated area, and in some communities there is nothing but a Legion and a post office, I know the pressures on those local branches financially to maintain the building and the activities they are doing. What kind of money comes into the Royal Canadian Legion from Veterans Affairs or the government in order to provide the services you are actually providing now?

Mr. Allard: None.

You are doing all of this based on the funds you raise through your membership?

Mr. Allard: That is correct.

And there are more and more demands put on you to do more things, and you could do much more.

Mr. Frost: We could. You have probably hit on a good point, because the face of the Legion has changed. The foundation is still there. We have 1,520 branches today, or in that ballpark. Within 15 years, unless there is some dramatic change, at the rate we are going there will be significantly fewer branches. In Toronto, for example, there are 36 branches. I visualize in 15 years there will be half of that. There will be some amalgamations. They will sell their properties. There will still be a Legion, but there will not be as many branches across the country.

I wish I could say I could see membership going up, but when I looked at the statistics two days ago, it is still on the decline. We are now less than 400,000 members; we are around 388,000. Hopefully, we can stabilize around 350,000. That is our goal. We are struggling as well.

I am aware of that. It is important to get that on the record.

I would love to follow through with some of these other points, but I am afraid we have run out of time. The chairman is sending me signals. I look forward to our continued dialogue, and I am looking forward to visiting your new offices and headquarters.

Mr. Frost: Mr. Allard took wrote questions down. I am sure we can email the answers to you. They are fairly straightforward.

Thank you.

The Chair: That would be very helpful. Thank you, Senator Day, for your understanding. We will all get in trouble if we sit past 1:30 p.m.

I urge you to stay in touch with this subcommittee. As you know, we are very interested in what you are doing. If we can be of assistance, we would be glad to do so whether it is on the matters discussed today, which are complex and important enough to keep us all busy, or other matters such as commemorative activities and the Last Post Fund and perhaps the whole question of adequate support for a proper burial, which has not been solved yet. Let us know about any issues you are wrestling with that you think we could provide valuable input on. We have access to some resources, both intellectual and people who have served in the Canadian Forces, such as our esteemed colleague, Senator Dallaire. We will be glad to volunteer his assistance. Senator Dallaire knows what forced volunteerism is all about.

Senator Dallaire: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Before I get into more trouble, I will declare this meeting terminated.

The committee adjourned.