Proceedings of the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs

Issue 1 - Evidence - Meeting of June 7, 2006

OTTAWA, Wednesday, June 7, 2006

The Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met this day at 12:11 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 ( Chairman ) in the chair.

[ English ]

The Chairman: Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to this meeting of the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs.

We expect one more member of our committee shortly, but in the meantime, perhaps I could introduce myself as chair of the committee. My name is Senator Meighen, a senator from Ontario. To my immediate right is Senator Atkins, also from Ontario, and who came to the Senate with more than 27 years' experience in the field of communications.

Senator Atkins is a former president of Camp Associates Advertising Limited and served as advisor to Premier Bill Davis of Ontario. He is a member of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence.

Today we have two welcome visitors, other senators. All senators are permitted to attend any committee meetings of the Senate. Today we are fortunate to have Senator Percy Downe from Prince Edward Island joining us. He was appointed to the Senate in 2003 and is currently a member of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, as well as the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration.

In addition, we are particularly privileged to have former general, Roméo Dallaire. Senator Dallaire is from Quebec. He respresents the Gaspésie and sits on the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights. We have now been joined by Senator Colin Kenny, also from Ontario, who is the chair of what we like to refer to as our parent committee, the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence.

Senator Kenny is also a member of Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, and the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources.

Colleagues, before we begin our formal meeting and hear from the witnesses who are present today from The Royal Canadian Legion, Senator Atkins will make a presentation to The Royal Canadian Legion.

We are privileged to have as witnesses today, Mary Ann Burdett, Dominion President of The Royal Canadian Legion, and Pierre Allard, the Service Bureau Director. Welcome to both of you and thank you for being with us.

Senator Atkins, I turn the meeting over to you for your presentation.

Senator Atkins: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do not know if you are aware of it, but in the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s, Post 120 was a large legion in New York and during the war my father was commander of The Royal Canadian Legion in New York. I will present to you his beret.

Mary Ann Burdett, Dominion President, The Royal Canadian Legion: This is an honour for the Legion to have such an item in its collection. It will be looked after well and with love. Thank you so very much.

The Chairman: Thank you, Senator Atkins. That presentation is wonderful and I am sure there will be a place to display the beret.

Ms. Burdett: It will have a place of honour in our new building, I am sure.

The Chairman: Let us get right to the business at hand. I understand the legion might make a presentation. We will then have ample time for questions.

Ms. Burdett: Honourable Chairman and members, it is an honour and a pleasure to be here today to represent The Royal Canadian Legion and to offer views on the New Veterans Charter. Before I deal with specifics, I want to address some fundamental principles.

Our Canadian Forces members and veterans are special Canadians. They have risked and will continue to risk their lives for the freedom that Canadians enjoy on a daily basis.

In recognizing their sacrifice, Canadians should realize that no death is more important than another, as long as that death or injury is linked to military service. Whether they served in the Second World War or in modern times, heroic Canadians are all veterans who should receive the benefits that they deserve.

Since the Korean War, more than 1,450 Canadian Forces personnel, soldiers, sailors, airmen and airwomen, regular force members and reservists have died for Canada. A large number have suffered injuries. The Canadian Forces has only recently started keeping accurate track of deaths in operations and training. This record is an essential requirement that will ensure that the 17 Canadian Forces members who recently died in Afghanistan and other Canadian military personnel will be suitably honoured in The Seventh Book of Remembrance . To help veterans and their families, the legion played an active role in framing the New Veterans Charter. We now need to monitor its implementation and see how it can be improved.

There have been suggestions that no consultation took place before the New Veterans Charter was introduced. This information could not be further from the truth. On the contrary, Veterans Affairs Canada undertook a comprehensive consultation process, going back to the Veterans Affairs Canada Canadian Forces Advisory Council, which was formed in July 2000. That is six years of consultation.

Prior to that, at its 2000 convention in Halifax, The Royal Canadian Legion delegates, representing approximately 450,000 people at that time across the country, adopted a resolution recommending that Veterans Affairs Canada adopt a needs-based disability program.

We met yesterday with Veterans Affairs officials and the six veterans groups, again to look at how to improve the Veterans Charter. We refer to it as a living document. It is not complete in itself. It is a wonderful first measure, but it will be ongoing and we look forward to tweaking it.

In the context of its mandate, the Veterans Affairs Canada Canadian Forces Advisory Council visited all Canadian Forces bases across the country and consulted with a large number of serving members, veterans and dependents. Following the tabling of 17 recommendations and six priorities by the council, VAC continued the consultation with the six veterans' organizations as the department was engaged in drafting Bill C-45.

In the latter stages of the drafting process, the legion recommended strongly that VAC conduct focus groups with Canadian Forces members. This was done. Subsequently, with the endorsement of all Canadian federal political parties, Bill C-45 became law on May 13, 2005.

Following the approval of Bill C-45, lengthy consultations took place as regulations and policies were drafted, with comprehensive and timely inputs through a multilateral consultative process. Seen from this perspective, it should come as no surprise that the New Veterans Charter was implemented in April 2006, with the promise by VAC that it was a living document and would be tweaked as required. For that reason the Legion posted a statement on its website on April 7, 2006, identifying areas that could be improved in the New Veterans Charter. Similarly, we have prepared a number of resolutions that will be introduced at our upcoming convention in Calgary.

The legion posted a draft veterans' Bill of Rights on its website in early March 2006. We shared this document with Veterans Affairs Canada. We firmly believe that the Government of Canada should adopt a robust Bill of Rights for veterans to ensure that their special service to Canada is recognized and compensated. The Bill of Rights should not be formulated as service delivery goals. Any promise of exemplary service should flow from the Bill of Rights, not the reverse.

At our meeting yesterday, this subject was gone over in great detail. I feel that the organizations — the veterans' organizations and Veterans Affairs Canada — have come close to being very happy with the final draft on the Bill of Rights.

Veterans Affairs Canada has often made selective references to the Department of Veterans Affairs Act, especially section 4, which speaks to the care, treatment or re-establishment in civil life of veterans. It should also focus on section 5( g .l), which speaks to the provision of financial assistance toward the expenses of last sickness, funeral, burial and cremation for veterans in financial need. Unfortunately, modern-day veterans, for the most part, are not eligible for this program despite our advocacy on that matter — the recommendations of Veterans Affairs Canada Canadian Forces Advisory Council. Recently, the family of a deceased veteran had to secure a second mortgage on their house to meet these financial needs, and this situation is clearly unacceptable.

Veterans Affairs Canada indicated that they modelled their disability award — the lump sum payment — on the Australian model. The Australian model, however, provides a larger lump sum, albeit on a sliding scale according to age. The model also affords a choice to the veterans in that they can elect for either a lump sum or a monthly disability pension. The legion suggests strongly that VAC should offer such an option, at least to those with acute needs, while it should also increase the disability award lump sum by at least 25 per cent.

Modern-day veterans do not have access to long-term care facilities, other than in exceptional circumstances. We have been told that at the most, only three or four modern-day veterans have this right. As the need for priority access beds in the 17 larger contract facilities and St. Anne's Hospital diminishes with the decline of traditional veterans, it would be prudent to preserve the enhanced, specialized care facilities that have been set up by VAC, at a large cost. These facilities are needed to provide care for members and veterans suffering from mental health disabilities, such as operational stress injuries, early dementia or even Alzheimer's. Similarly, access to long-term care community facilities should be provided to modern Canadian Forces veterans on the basis of need.

Most of the concerns identified are also addressed in legion resolutions, which will be submitted for the approval of legion delegates at the upcoming biannual convention in Calgary. We have, I believe, copies of our convention booklet with us.

The Chairman: Did you perhaps skip a page?

Ms. Burdett: Did I? I am sorry. I was busy looking for that convention booklet. It will be made available. It is bright yellow and very obvious, so I was —

The Chairman: I think the missing page begins, ``There have been widespread discussions on the issue of an ombudsman.''

Ms. Burdett: That page is the one, indeed. I apologize. My pages stuck together.

There have been widespread discussions on the issue of an ombudsman. The legion remains convinced that an ombudsman has no role to play in the current legislated disability award/pension process, where access to representation is available at no cost through either the Bureau of Pensions Advocate or the Legion's service bureau, which provides free services, whether or not the veteran/dependent is a member of the legion, in seeking redress from the Veterans Review and Appeal Board. If VAC finds it necessary to appoint an ombudsman, he or she should be fully independent of the Canadian Forces ombudsman.

An ombudsman or an inspector general of care could play a role in dealing with systemic issues of long-term care, keeping in mind that we would wish to maintain our autonomy to pursue legion goals with respect to quality of care in these facilities. Our bottom line is: If there is to be an ombudsman, we want to be consulted in determining his or her mandate.

This item was also on our agenda yesterday and with more open discussions, such as we held yesterday, all the service organizations and Veterans Affairs Canada can come to a mutually satisfactory conclusion on the ombudsman issue. It is important that we know what kind of ombudsman we are looking at, the description of the position and the mandate before we can wholly support anything.

One concern that became apparent during the consultative processes leading to the New Veterans Charter was the inadequacy of mental health services for both veterans and their families. Veterans Affairs Canada and the Canadian Forces currently provide limited services to spouses in non-integrated clinics. At the very least, CF and VAC clinics should be fully integrated, and clinical care for families should be extended. In that context, VAC recently adopted a six-point mental strategy project. This project should be upgraded to program status to provide fully integrated clinical services and follow up for members, veterans and their families. We believe strongly that the needs of families, spouses and children must be integrated in the veterans care plan. We also feel that the mandate of Military Family Resource Centres, MFRCs, should be enhanced to meet the needs of not only serving members but also veterans and their families. MFRCs should receive joint funding from VAC and from the Canadian Forces. Most concerns previously identified are also addressed in legion resolutions, which will be submitted for the approval of legion delegates at our upcoming biannual convention in Calgary. Our convention booklet will be made available to the Senate veterans affairs subcommittee.

In addition, we are looking at the following issues. The legion feels that the determination of earning loss benefits should include military allowances that are being paid for various special services. Under the New Veterans Charter earning loss is determined under a formula of monthly imputed income, which is the greater of the veteran's monthly salary at the time of release and the monthly military salary for a senior private. In reality, the lower end of this scale is unrealistic. Not only does it not include military allowance but it also fails to recognize that one does not stay at the rank of private for a great length of time and that private's wages are grossly inadequate to sustain a family. Veterans are also eligible for a supplementary retirement benefit, SRB, that is designated to compensate for lower pension contributions if unable to engage in suitable, gainful employment. This benefit is equal to 2 per cent of total economic loss benefit payable to eligible veterans and survivors. The taxable status of the SRB is not well understood. However, the legion would like to see the current legislation amended to allow the transfer of at least a portion of the SRB into a registered retirement savings plan to be deemed income to generate an income stream that would not be taxable. In addition to concerns related to the New Veterans Charter, the legion is also aware that Canadian Forces members face additional burdens when planning their retirement. One such issue concerns the clawback of the Canada Pension Plan. Under current rules, benefits under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, CFSA, are subjected to an abatement of the CPP when the recipients reach age 65, even though they have paid into both the CFSA and the CPP while serving and, in come cases, into the CPP while employed in the public or private sectors after their military service. Another area where redress is paramount is the determination of current CFSA benefits for survivors. Currently, CFSA benefits provide only 50 per cent of the members' CFSA pension benefits based on a formula conceived in different economic times. It is at this time when survivors face the greatest challenges. The legion suggests strongly that survivor benefits be increased to at least 66 per cent. We appreciate the opportunity to appear before the subcommittee to share our views on the New Veterans Charter. Throughout our 80 years of service, the legion has taken seriously the importance of our advocacy role in protecting veterans' rights. As we transition from the old charter to the new, the legion wants to ensure that those rights are identified and understood by all Canadians and, more fundamentally, that they are fully addressed by the government and Veterans Affairs Canada. We also want to ensure that the rights of traditional veterans are not curtailed. Protecting those rights is more than a goal; it is a sacred trust, and we will remember them.

The Chairman: As is our practice, I will give first questions to the regular members of the committee and then pass over to our guest.

Senator Atkins: You referred to modern-day veterans. Please define ''modern-day veteran'' for us.

Ms. Burdette: It has become usual for us to use the word ``veteran'' and immediately the image of someone from the Second World War, the First World War, the Korean War or the Gulf War would come to mind. When we use the term, we refer to people who have been in peace-making actions since that time and, in particular, our people retiring from the military at the present time.

Senator Atkins: I understand your concern about the ombudsman. I know there is a military ombudsman but certainly you do not want that person to represent the legion. Can you expand on the view of the legion in respect of the ombudsman?

Ms. Burdette: ``Ombudsman'' is another misunderstood word. It is difficult to understand what a person means when he or she says ``ombudsman.'' I might have a completely different concept than you would, sir, on what that word entails. I believe this is where we are coming from when we say we will not support fully anything until we know what we are supporting. The mandate of the ombudsman will define the ombudsman. Our concerns lie in what that mandate will be. There was a time when we looked at the ombudsman as someone who would be another level of bureaucracy that could even delay pension activities if they became involved in pension awards.

With time, with society's change and with our younger military people who are accustomed to dealing with an ombudsman when needed, The Royal Canadian Legion has progressed and has begun to look at its policy in this respect. Although we never said that we were opposed to an overseer for long-term health care, you will never hear us say that we are opposed to an ombudsman. We merely want to know what that ombudsman's mandate will be, how it will fit into the scheme of things and how it will provide a better service for our veterans.

Senator Atkins: Do you see yourself as an ombudsman?

Ms. Burdette: I would never use that word for the legion, but there is no doubt that the legion has represented, and represented very well, all veterans, whether or not they were legion members, when they were redressing decisions that had come down in regard to their pensions and disability awards.

Senator Atkins : You spoke of private wages being grossly inadequate to sustain a family. What amount would you categorize as qualifying?

Ms. Burdette: I am not an expert on military wages. I wonder if my colleague can be more specific than I.

Pierre Allard, Service Bureau Director, The Royal Canadian Legion: That comment is made in respect to the private. When serving, the private is probably serving in operations, or in theatre, and receiving some military allowances to complement his or her salary. Unfortunately, under the New Veterans Charter, the earning loss does not include these military allowances.

I want to go back to Senator Kenny's earlier comments on life events, and what happens to people as they progressed through their military career. If, all of a sudden, a private suffers an injury, does the private have these military allowances to survive? If the private has an income loss allowance that guarantees 75 per cent of his or her basic salary, and has children, I do not think that amount is sufficient to maintain a certain standard of living. It is in that context that we make that comment.

If you couple military allowances with a private's salary, that is more logical.

Senator Atkins: This question is not related to the Charter. I am curious to know what effort the legion makes to recruit members of the military who retire from active service.

What kind of cooperation do you receive from the military to ensure that the legion continues to be a viable and critical force representing veterans?

Ms. Burdette: I will address the first part of your question. We have, over the years, had teams go onto the bases where retirement seminars were held, and we would have representatives there to inform the members of what we could do for them.

We have advertised in various military publications to inform them about the legion. Word of mouth has always been one of the best ways, and we have attempted, through the Chief of Defence Staff, and I feel that it has worked very well, to have closer contacts with the military.

His invitation to another member of our sub-executive and myself to join them on a trip to Afghanistan to meet personally with the troops, to live with them for the time we were there, and to have the opportunity to talk to them was, I am sure, very good for The Royal Canadian Legion, and it did no harm to the troops.

If I may digress, a corporal said to me, ``Ma'am, you are the President of the Legion?'' I replied that I was. He said, ``You came over to visit, and they are throwing rockets at you, and you put your life on the line to say that you care about us, that you support us, and that the Canadian people are worried about their troops?'' I answered, ``That is right.'' He replied, ``Ma'am, you must have one very good organization. When I return home, I will make my grandpa very happy, because I am going to join.''

Mr. Allard: We probably take a low-key approach, but obviously, we provide a lot of support to the Canadian military, inviting them to see us in a pro-active, favourable role, if you want.

We support Canadian Forces show tours that travel to Afghanistan. In addition to Ms. Burdett being invited to this special event, for example, we usually have an elected official who accompanies the CF show tour for which we are the major sponsor. We support Canadian Forces competition. Perhaps this is less visible for Canadian Forces members, but we also support a lot of cadet organizations across the country, so we try to put our money where our mouth is, if you will.

We are visible at all seminars where Canadian Forces members are preparing to retire. Again, our message is low key. We tell them that we are not there to sell memberships. We are there to tell them, however, that we are available to represent them with disability pension or the disability award process at no cost, whether or not they are a member of the legion.

Senator Atkins: In terms of the membership of the legion, is it declining, or is it holding? What is the pattern?

Ms. Burdette: The membership has declined over the years. There was a time when we had over 650,000 members, and now, we have over 400,000 members.

The rate of decline is not really amazing. When you speak to other service clubs, you will find the same problem. Membership is declining. It is a sign of the times. People are not volunteering as readily as they were 20, 30 or 40 years ago.

Yes, there has certainly been a decline. We would never deny that. However, it is our hope that it will level out, and that, with further association with the military, it may even rise a certain amount again. Certainly, there is no such thought that it will ever decline to the point where there will not be a Royal Canadian Legion.

Senator Atkins: I am sure that is the case.

Senator Kenny: I have two areas that I want to focus on, and, like Senator Atkins, they involve the ombudsman. Can you give the committee a description of what you would like the ombudsman's role to be?

In other words, what is your job description for ombudsman? You said you do not want to endorse something until you know what it will be. If you describe what you would like it to be, it may, in fact, turn out to be more like that than not.

Ms. Burdette: Thank you for that question. It gives me the opportunity to explain a bit about how we work things like this.

While the timing is wonderful whenever it can happen, if it had happened a little later, I could have been much more specific. We meet with our Dominion Executive Council prior to the convention on June 23 and 24.

At that time, we hope to present them with a number of possible roles for an ombudsman. They will determine whether to change, add or detract from those lists. Nothing at the legion is decided at the top. It comes from the grassroots: from the membership and their elected officials.

Two weeks down the road, I would have been able to answer that question much better, but you will forgive me if I do not want to tell anybody outside of the executive until they have heard the proposals and have been able to provide their input.

Mr. Allard: The issue of an ombudsman has been on the table for a long time. It may not be well known, but in 1966, a minority report was published at the same time as the Wood report recommendations came out. In this report, they talked about an ombudsman, so the issue goes back a long time.

Various models can be considered. One is a legislated model that enshrines duties, mandates and reporting responsibilities of an ombudsman. Another model is to have responsibilities assigned by the minister, similar to what happens with the Canadian Forces ombudsman.

We believe that there should be a stand-alone ombudsman for Veterans Affairs just as there is a separate standing committee and a separate department for veterans affairs. We like to give a certain priority to that individual.

Our current policy is clear. We support an ombudsman/inspector general for long-term care issues. We were surprised to find out that there is an ombudsman at St. Anne's Hospital but that there are none in the 17 major contract facilities. This situation should be investigated. That ombudsman is in line with our policy and, as Ms. Burdette has said, we are developing options in consultation with other veterans' organizations, and they will be submitted to our executive in Calgary. Until then, unfortunately, we cannot let the cat out of the bag.

Senator Kenny: I certainly do not want to disrupt your internal organizational procedures but, from where I sit, and I suspect from where you sit too, it looks like a terrific opportunity to shape an office that could be of great benefit to veterans.

I cannot imagine a minister or a department not taking the legion's views into account when this matter goes forward. It seems like an opportunity to get an extra resource and to have something that will work in a complementary fashion to the legion. If I was looking for a descriptor for the legion, I would say ``advocate'' rather than ``ombudsman.'' I see the Legion playing that role. An ombudsman working in conjunction with an advocate makes a powerful team.

I will not try to define what the ombudsman should be, but I encourage you to in the way you proposed. If you can embrace that role and press it with the minister, he may come forward with something that you find satisfactory.

Mr. Allard: We are embracing it; we just have to explore the models. One element of an ombudsman's mandate could be to for him or her to have an advisory council, and we would want to sit on such an advisory council. It is also evident that the ombudsman mandate would be linked with the veterans' Bill of Rights, which we are also in the process of developing. It is logical and we embrace it. We just need a bit of time to understand what model we will favour.

Senator Kenny: When you arrive at a conclusion, this committee would be interested in knowing which model you like.

The Chairman: Would that not come to light subsequent to your convention in Calgary, if you propose a resolution there, as I understood you to say?

Ms. Burdette: Resolutions will be proposed there to the New Veterans Charter, although not necessarily on the subject of an ombudsman. However, representatives from across the country will meet there and it will be discussed. Each command will have some input.

I must assure you that Veterans Affairs Canada is indeed expecting us to provide them with our suggestions on what we want for an ombudsman and how we see it progressing. The other service organizations will do the same and we will meet again with them on this very subject. However, prior to that they are looking for input from all the service organizations on what we see as the mandate, and we will prepare that for them as quickly as possible.

Senator Kenny: It is my understanding that the legion is advocating that survivors' benefits be increased to 66 per cent from 50 per cent. I wonder why you are shooting so low.

Ms. Burdette: Sixty-six per cent is fairly standard in other plans that we have looked at.

Senator Kenny: When one partner is lost, most common expenses carry on. They clearly are not cut in half, as everyone knows. They probably only decrease by 25 per cent. You still have to pay rent and pay for a car. Many expenses pertain regardless of whether there are one or two people.

That is why I wonder why you came up with 66 per cent. My instincts tell me that 75 per cent is a better number.

Ms. Burdette: I like your number better, senator.

Senator Kenny: If you build a case on that number, could we see a copy of it? Perhaps we could build on that.

Ms. Burdette: Thank you. We will make a note.

Senator Kenny: It think it is possible to build a case easily that 50 per cent does not cut it, and that 66 per cent is probably also pretty tight.

The Chairman: I gather you are in agreement with Senator Kenny to let us have, at your discretion, any material you would like us to consider.

Ms. Burdette: We could try to put something of that nature together. It will take some effort. We have to be careful with privacy issues, as I am sure you are well aware. Currently, with the convention upcoming, the staff and elected officers are under a lot of pressure, but we will try to accommodate you.

The Chairman: Thank you. The summer or fall would be fine. This committee is sympathetic to the legion and all veterans. If we can be of assistance in advocating some of your positions, if we agree with them, we will be happy to do so.

Senator Dallaire: Thank you for you succinct and clear presentation. It is a pleasure to receive it and to be able to comment on it.

When I was still serving in the military and looking at the possibility of getting a veteran's pension, I used the legion as my advocate in to see how the system worked. I believe that the legion handles about 15 per cent of all requests to VAC. It performed magnificently. I have not heard about unsatisfactory results from anyone who has used the legion as an advocate. Your track record is strong.

The problem is that you do not sell your product well. I had to learn for myself that the Legion provides that service of reviewing decisions of the board and providing legal support.

My first point is a question concerning the ombudsman's side of the house. A member of the Canadian Forces who is still serving can become a member of the legion. Veterans Affairs Canada provides pensions and, more and more, takes care of those schemes. VAC is integrating its efforts on bases with people still serving in the Canadian Forces. However, you strongly argue that you do not want the ombudsman to be the same person as the Canadian Forces ombudsman, who is involved in a number of these subjects already.

We are trying to maintain a continuum, or a bridge, between those serving and those leaving. Would it not be more favourable to have an ombudsman who covers both sides? In that way there would be a continuation of the dossier. Perhaps you fear that the workload would be too great, and that you would have to go to a separate ombudsman. If there is an ombudsman, what is your role in this?

When I looked at this matter a long time ago I wondered why the legion was not recognized for its history and track record so that it could take on a modified ombudsman role, thus giving itself a mandate into the future.

Ms. Burdett: You are correct. We do see it as a large role that would be overwhelming. We also see it as a different type of ombudsman, a sort of final recourse for military people. We are not sure that is where this ombudsman would fit.

If we have an ombudsman for veterans, we would like to see the position as one of strength whereby Veterans Affairs Canada would have their own ombudsman and their own mandate, whatever that turns out to be.

The legion, like other veterans' organizations, is certainly able to communicate and to act with Veterans Affairs Canada in a co-operative manner. We act more easily with the department than we can with the military, which is something we are working on. However, at the present time, we feel that the job would be too big for one person. As well, we would like to see this particular office be mandated exclusively to Veterans Affairs Canada.

Mr. Allard: You are asking interesting questions on a very philosophical level. I will go back to what I said previously. We feel that veterans have specific needs, which is why there is a department. That is why there is now a full status standing committee on veterans affairs in Parliament. We feel that, possibly, the status of a veteran would be brought down if the veteran was subsumed under a Canadian Forces ombudsman.

Having said that, at the end of the day, we may end up with an office of the ombudsman for all departments. The government may choose from many options for whatever reasons in the fullness of time.

I would also like to suggest that we are flexible.

Why do we not sell our salad better, as an option to represent veterans? It is not necessarily an easy task in the context of some of the processes that are in place and some that are changing at Veterans Affairs Canada.

For example, a transition interview for a veteran is a challenge in itself because the full-time staff at the transition interview are normally from Veterans Affairs Canada and the Canadian Forces. We have to move into these transition centres with our service officers. It is not always simple to do that, nor is it simple to establish a visible presence on a regular basis.

Much of the intake for people seeking benefits from Veterans Affairs Canada takes place through the National Contact Centre Network, NCCN. We have approached the NCCN. I have briefed NCCN staff. We have an understanding with Veterans Affairs Canada that as calls come in, obviously, the option of seeking an advocate or a representative from The Royal Canadian Legion is given to the appellants, to the people who call. The same thing happens if they apply online. That window pops up.

We cannot control what telephone operators or analysts do on a daily basis. It is a challenge.

[ Translation ]

Senator Dallaire: I thought the ombudsman comprised both National Defence and Veterans Affairs Departments to allow for this integration, for continuity and for enhanced trust.

M. Allard: Traditionally, we have developed much trust when working with Veterans Affairs Canada. We negotiated memorandums with them. This took time. We can access their CSDN, or Client Service Delivery Network, and we have established a level of trust with Veterans Affairs Canada. It was often more challenging to deal with Canadian Forces.

Senator Dallaire: My second point is regarding your product, which have a strong past. I mean, if it were hardly up to 50 per cent efficiency, but it is very strong. It is no small business. I think that in envisioning its future, role, participation and viability regarding Canadian Forces members, Canadian Royal Legion should be more dynamic, and we should encourage you to do so considering your past.

[ English ]

Essentially, the bill of rights is a social contract between the Canadian people and veterans. That social contract is in a vacuum in this nation. Historically, it was a given. However, as this nation becomes more litigating and wants everything on paper, it is high time that this social contract, or bill of rights, becomes a reality, a backdrop to legislation. Legislators can refer to it as they look at the benefits and needs of both members of the military and veterans. I applaud that bill of rights and encourage it. I hope we look upon it favourably.

I wish now to turn to the family support centre option of co-funding. When I returned from Africa after the war, my mother-in-law stated that she would have never survived World War II if she had to go through what my wife and family went through. My father-in-law commanded a regiment in World War II. They had very little information. The information they received was censured and the whole nation was at war.

Today, our families live the missions with us. They do not have the deprivations or the smells, but they have so much of it because the media is so prevalent. They live by changing channels on television, waiting to hear a report that we have been killed, shot, and so on. The families now live the missions with the members. Families are not a protected entity.

The whole principle of this charter was to incorporate the families into the exercise. The family resource centres, which celebrate their fifteenth anniversary this year, have matured enormously. They play a predominant role on the bases.

I totally agree; the charter takes care of members and ex-members, but it is not identified as taking care of veterans. That mandate should be brought forward and funding should be made available. Often the individual goes off, comes back, retires from the forces or is released, and so on. The individual lives in the area but falls under a whole different set of circumstances, yet the family resource centre probably still has the file.

I think that innovative idea would be of enormous benefit and would reduce the number of casualties, in the same way that families must have equal access with the service member and the veteran to preferred treatment. Particularly on the mental health side, one can do as much as one wants with the veteran, but if the family is cut off, it does not help at all and money is wasted.

Long-term beds should be kept. This issue went through the financial exercise of provincial recommendations and the department trying to get rid of them. Maybe you can give me a bit of background. Tied to that is that you do not mention short-term beds, that is to say, having beds available. St. Anne's Hospital has only five. VAC has opened up five other mental health centres, but they have no beds attached to them. In some cases, the veterans must stay for a week or two. Can you address that issue?

Mr. Allard: On the issue of long-term care, VAC has basically turned over to provincial authorities their 17 major facilities, but those 17 facilities, in which the priority access beds are located, still receive financial support from Veterans Affairs Canada. They have full control on the intake in those 17 facilities, which is why we should have an ombudsman not only in St. Anne's Hospital but in the 17 long-term-care facilities where priority access beds are located.

They also have other contract beds in community facilities, some of which are given the status of priority access beds, to house some of the veterans that have that privilege, if you will. They probably have 4,000 priority access beds and 6,000 beds in community facilities. The bottom line is, however, that the modern-day veteran does not have access, under current regulations, to long-term care, which is why we say that in the 17 major facilities some specialized wards have been put in place at great cost to Veterans Affairs Canada.

As we go through the transition of the traditional veteran aging, reaching age 81 or 82, and the requirements for these beds diminishing, we are concerned that the department will simply close down the major facilities and throw away the investment they have made in these specialized wards. We say that the department should keep those facilities.

The other issue you talked about is the beds that are provided as an intervention for people who have operational stress injury. You are correct; there are only four or six beds at St. Anne's Hospital. We have a resolution that suggests strongly that there should be intervention beds to help stabilize someone who suffers from operational stress, not only in St. Anne's Hospital but in the western and eastern region. Failing that, we should look at sending veterans or Canadian Forces members who need that intervention care to facilities in the U.S.

Senator Dallaire: I think that the VAC policy, unless you know something different, is trying to get out of the bed work. The department creates these clinics for operational stress, but it does not create temporary beds, which is illogical, because they are part of the treatment. The impression is that the VAC is trying to close down the long-term facilities. Do you have that impression also?

Mr. Allard: I will give VAC the benefit of the doubt, but we have made it clear that we know there will not be as large a requirement as there is today. If you have invested all this money in these specialized wards, why shut them down? The second part is that the need is better met in community facilities for people who have normal level-of-care requirements, so some community facility beds should also remain accessible to modern-day veterans.

Senator Dallaire: I think the argument for the lump-sum option is interesting. Much of the argument for the lump sum was that the money that might be saved, versus the monthly payments option, would be put into new programs such as job opportunities and things like that, enabling people to become more self-reliant. I do not think that is necessarily a fair way. I think that pursuing the option of lump sum and maybe increasing it is a fine argument.

I do not understand about people being buried, getting no benefits and all stuff. These issues are beyond me.

Mr. Allard: The modern-day veterans have restricted access to funeral and burial assistance from the Last Post Fund.

Senator Dallaire: From the Last Post Fund?

Mr. Allard: The Last Post Fund: not only the legion, but also the Last Post Fund, advocate increased eligibility for modern-day veterans to access the Last Post Fund for funeral and burial. This change was recommended by the Veterans Affairs Canada Canadian Forces Advisory Council. Unfortunately, it has not been implemented.

Senator Dallaire: Thank you very much.

[ Translation ]

The Chairman: Thank you, senator. I know you must go to the Senate. Needless to say this committee benefits from your direct experience in the Canadian Forces.

[ English ]

Senator Downe: Tell me about the Last Post Fund. It provides assistance for veterans on limited income. Why does it not apply to current veterans, what you call modern-day veterans?

Mr. Allard: The regulations have been drafted to provide benefits only for people who are on the income-loss program. Only a small number of people are eligible for that, and we think that is wrong.

Senator Downe: In your presentation today, you referenced section 5 of the Veterans Affairs Act. Why is that section not invoked for these veterans who do not have assistance?

Mr. Allard: That is what we are asking, senator.

Senator Downe: Have you received any answer?

Mr. Allard: Not yet.

Senator Downe: My second question, Mr. Chairman, pertains to the lump-sum payment that you referred to in your presentation on the next page, the Australian example versus what the Canadian government did.

I was concerned at the time of the New Veterans Charter that the lump-sum payment would, at the end of the day, cost the Department of Veterans Affairs less money; in other words, there would be less benefit for the veterans.

Have you done any analysis, or are you aware of any analysis that has been done? Is a lump-sum payment, as opposed to a monthly disability payment, a savings for the department?

Mr. Allard: From my understanding, it has no impact on cash flow over ten years; the cash requirements or outlays in the first five years are then decreased in the next five years. Over the life of the program, there should be zero cost.

Having said that, I think that the Australian model of looking at life events — as Senator Kenny asked about last week — is more flexible. In that context, you might want to ask the VAC officials to come back and describe the Australian model. However, it is difficult to compare apples and oranges. There are aspects of the Australian model that I may not be comfortable with. This lump sum is reduced actuarially over the age of the people that receive the benefits. Even though the sum might be larger at the beginning, it decreases with age.

When you look at the option for the monthly payment versus the lump sum, it is actually the actuarial projection of that lump sum. The monthly payments are much smaller over the age of a recipient. It is difficult to compare both.

Our bottom line is that in the Australian model the lump sum recognizes that you might have children. If you have children, you get a larger lump sum. Looking at life events, going back to the private who has children compared with the private who does not have children, obviously the requirements are different. That difference is recognized in the Australian model.

The other issue is that this lump sum of $250,000 has been the maximum lump sum paid out probably for the last 20 years. If I remember well, under the Service Income Security Insurance Plan, SISIP, $250,000 is the maximum lump sum that you can get. That maximum has been there for a while. Maybe it is time we look at it. That is why we suggest an increase to the lump sum, failing the more flexible approach described in the Australian model. I think you should explore the Australian model a little more with VAC officials.

Senator Atkins: On the monthly payment, is there a grandfather clause or can it continue forever?

Mr. Allard: Currently, Canadian veterans who are considered modern-day veterans who have been receiving a monthly disability pension will continue to receive that monthly disability pension.

Senator Downe: Has the legion taken a position on, or are you concerned about, the Veterans Review and Appeal Board? Over the last two years there have been very few appointments, if any. I understand they are understaffed. This situation would slow the system down. Have you made representation to the minister either to reappoint former members whose terms have expired — because the training period for that board is long, and the job is complex and difficult — or to find new qualified members as soon as possible so we do not have a backlog in the system?

Ms. Burdett: We have encouraged them to reinforce their troops, so to speak, at every opportunity. A direct approach has not been made to the minister at this time. However, it is our understanding that they are trying hard to increase their members on that committee and to take care of whatever backlog there might be. For the amount of people they have working, they do exceptionally well at timeliness, but they are definitely in need of more people. We have been given to understand that they are trying hard to fill that void.

Senator Downe: That board is important because of the work they do, but the training period for the board members is long. We need a combination of experience and new members on it. I draw that issue to the attention of the chair and the committee.

The Chairman: For my own clarification, in your presentation you pointed out that the Australian disability award model provides for a larger lump sum payment, albeit on a sliding scale, and the choice for the veteran to elect monthly disability payment or a lump sum. What is the situation in Canada and what is your position on it? In Canada, is there an ability to opt for one or the other?

Mr. Allard: There is no such option in the Canadian New Veterans Charter currently. Presently, I think some people may have special needs. Certainly you cannot enforce a choice of either the lump sum or the monthly pension, but maybe we should somehow recognize that these people with special needs should have a choice.

We have to be careful about the Australian model, because, as I said, it is scaled down by age. If you look at their monthly pension, it is only an actuarial component of the lump sum. The monthly payment is much smaller than our monthly payments under the current system, while their lump sum is larger. Their lump sum recognizes that if you have children, we will give you more; if you are a widow or a widow with children we will give you more. That is why I refer to the VAC's one-size-fits-all approach that we have adopted, while the Australian model might be more flexible.

The Chairman: I think I understand that in principle. Whether or not it is tailored to particular situations, what rationale is given for not saying: You can choose X dollars lump sum or Y dollars per month?

Mr. Allard: What was the overriding reason for taking that route?

The Chairman: Why is that choice not given?

Mr. Allard: To be fair, the overriding design that was built into the New Veterans Charter is to promote wellness. If you promote wellness, you might encourage people to be happy with not undergoing any type of rehabilitation and continuing to receive a monthly stipend from the government. Having said that, we still say some unique people may never be rehabilitated, so maybe there should be more flexibility in the system.

Ms. Burdett: Once again, in that light, we fall back on the fact that all of us knew that this charter was not perfect. There were times when things had to be put into it: these numbers or these exactitudes. The charter is a living document. As you can see from our presentation today, we favour the option. We also favour a larger lump sum and we will continue to work towards that.

Mr. Allard: We are also concerned about the supplementary retirement benefit, post age 65. Under the new system, we are not sure that sufficient means are provided to a surviving spouse or to a spouse to maintain their standard of living. Post age 65, the supplementary retirement benefit, taxable or not taxable, is not that clear. I think it should be made clearer in some type of a life-event projection. If there is a possibility to invest that supplementary retirement to produce a non-taxable income stream for surviving widows, I think that would help.

Senator Atkins: The lump sum is defined as ``up to $250,000.'' How do they determine that?

Mr. Allard: It is basically a determination on the basis of classes of disability, if you will, so that if you are 100 per cent disabled, you receive 100 per cent; if you are at 75 per cent, you receive 75 per cent.

Senator Atkins: In your observations, has the determination been fair?

Mr. Allard: In my observation, that assessment by category of disability is fair. Maybe the lump sum is not large enough, though.

The Chairman: We have to close shortly, but I wish to ask one other question. You have both made it clear that you see the New Veterans Charter as living, breathing, developing and changing with the times and needs. However, I think all of us acknowledge that there are people — I have certainly received mail in this vein — who feel they have not been consulted adequately on the New Veterans Charter, whether initially or in the elaboration of the regulations.

Do you have any light to throw on that subject and suggestion as to why some people feel this way? Does it have any justification, in your view?

Ms. Burdett: I think we did the best job possible to try to get out to the people affected by the charter in any way, shape, or form, or who had an active working interest in it. There are times, of course, when you are on a limited time frame and you do not have the time to contact absolutely everyone you would like to for input. Sometimes people feel that they did not have sufficient consultation because their personal views were not integrated into it. Consultation was done on a democratic basis with the service organizations and the forces, and the best that you could come up with for the most people on a democratic basis. We tried hard, and I am sure Veterans Affairs Canada did.

Possibly some people feel, because their personal view is not there, that they were not sufficiently consulted. I guess it would be absolutely impossible to go to, and you would never get a consensus of opinion if you went to, every Canadian and asked their opinion on it. We would wait a lot of years for that charter.

The Chairman: Does the legion have any position on the extension of benefits of the Veterans Independence Program, VIP, to surviving spouses of former members of the Canadian Forces who died prior to 1981?

Ms. Burdett: The legion is always in favour of absolutely anything they can get to advance the cause of our veterans and their families.

The Chairman: Help me. Do you think it is a large constituency?

Ms. Burdett: Apparently, it is not a huge one. There are some left, a couple of thousand, maybe. That is a wild estimate, but in the scheme of things, not a huge amount of people. Nevertheless, people out there may be very much in need.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mr. Allard: In that context, one thing we espouse is that the eligibility matrix for VIP is too complex. There should be a way to make it simpler, for example, eligibility based on need. Maybe that would be one way to skin that cat.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. I think our time has passed and I have to adjourn the meeting. I thank you and The Royal Canadian Legion for your presentations. We have enjoyed it and have learned a lot from it. We look forward to the next time.

The committee adjourned.