ARCHIVES
 

THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL FINANCE
UNREVISED EVIDENCE


OTTAWA, Wednesday, May 11, 2005
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, to which was referred Bill C-45, to provide services, assistance and compensation to or in respect of Canadian Forces members and veterans and to make amendments to certain acts, met this day at 6:15~p.m. to give consideration to the bill. 
Senator Donald H. Oliver (Chairman) in the chair.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, I would like to call this 26th meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance to order. I would remind you that this committee's field of interest is government spending, either directly through the estimates or indirectly through bills.
(French follows. The Chairman contg: Hier, le projet...) 

(après anglais)(Le président)
Hier, le projet de loi C-45 a été renvoyé à notre comité par le Sénat.
(The Chairman: This evening we will begin…)
(anglais suit)

(Following French. The Chairman contg after: ...par le Senat.)
This evening we will begin our examination of Bill C-45, the Canadian Forces members and veterans re-establishment and compensation Act pursuant to an order of reference of May 11, 2005. This bill seeks to provide modern day Canadian force veterans and members with a new veteran’s charter that will assist them in the transition from military service to civilian life. It offers veterans job placement assistance, rehabilitation services, health benefits and economic support.
It includes a provision for disability benefits and will provide families with financial awards in the event of service related death.
The bill received the support of all parties in the House of Commons and was accorded the most expeditious treatment possible. A single motion was passed under which the bill was “deemed read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole, deemed considered in Committee of the Whole, deemed reported without amendment, and deemed concurred in at report stage and deemed read a third time and passed.” As a result, the House of Commons did not actually send this bill to a committee for consideration.
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance as is the case with other Senate committees, prides itself on providing a careful examination of all proposed legislation that comes before it. We are anxious to ensure that Bill C-45 is dealt with speedily, but we are at the same time anxious to do our work properly and take appropriate steps to deal with any flaws that might be revealed in the course of our hearings. While all of the political parties are united in their support of the underlying principles, I would like to note that concerns have been raised from a number of fronts. We will hear from witnesses tonight to help us assess this bill and any issues arising from it.
To that end, I would like to begin with our first witness this evening Minister Albina Guarnieri. Minister Guarnieri has served in the House of Commons since 1988. In December 2004, she was sworn in as an associate Minister of National Defence and Minister of State for civil preparedness.
Welcome to the committee. We look forward to having your remarks and following those honourable senators will want to ask you some questions.
The Honourable Albina Guarnieri, P.C., M.P., Minister of Veterans Affairs Canada: Thank you very much. As the good chairman has indicated, I am getting very long in the tooth here. I am accompanied today by Ms. Verna Bruce, Associate Deputy Minister, Veterans Affairs Canada , Department of Foreign Affairs, Darrha Mogan and Ken Miller. Today, I am here to present an investment in future veterans to advance the prospects of a better life for people who have served their country to advance a new veterans’ charter.
I thank members of the committee, Veterans Affairs, for their work over the last several years and their input to the process over the past year.
In particular, I thank Senator Dallaire for lending his experience, his commitment and leadership to the veterans’ charter. He has certainly been a leader that his soldiers could trust with their lives, so his support means a great deal as veterans trust us with their future.
I thank Senator Day, who seconded my bill, and who has literally leapt over oceans for veterans and continues to be a veteran champion on veteran issues.
Yesterday was an historic day in the House of Commons and with unanimous support was given to Bill C-45, referred to as the new veterans’ charter. My sincere wish is that this chamber will see the benefits and join their colleagues in the House of Commons to move it forward.
Mr. Chairman, Bill C-45 is not an adjustment of current veterans’ benefits. It is an entirely new vehicle designed to deliver what the current system cannot. It is built on 50 years of seeing what works and what fails our veterans. It has been shaped by at least five years of study, if not more, and debate by academics, health professionals, veterans and Canadian Forces personnel, and it is driven by the need to do better for our veterans. 
At Veterans Affairs we have become very proud of the services we provide for our war veterans. The majority of our $2.8 billion is invested in what we call our mandate of care. We invest in pensions, health care, dental care, drug plans, and long-term care facilities and of course the Veterans Independence Program. Through the Veterans Independence Program, we deliver the VIP treatment our veterans deserve. We invest $200 million a year providing home care and VIP services to 90,000 veterans and their caregivers. It is an unqualified success story and a model for home care in Canada. For aging war veteran, particularly disabled war veterans, there is no doubt we are delivering for them the way they are delivering for us. The programs we are so proud of today were a product of a sharp focus on the specific needs of these veterans. Times have changed, however, and veterans need a new social contract with Canadians. They need a new support system that keeps pace with their needs. They need a living veterans’ charter.
It all started with the original veterans’ charter after the war. It was to deliver security and opportunity, and it delivered. However, over the years the charter aged with our veterans and programs to help veterans transition to civilian life were dismantled. This has left our new veterans with some help, but not the help they need entirely. We have seen the challenges and we have seen the light. We know that clinging to programs that were designed for veterans from a different world of 50 years ago will not deliver the opportunity, health and lifestyle our veterans deserve.
Moreover, the challenges facing our programs continue to grow and there are mounting reasons why we cannot permit ourselves to delay the changes of Bill C-45.
We are experiencing unprecedented increases in the number of Canadian Forces clients walking through our doors. In a three-year period between 2001 and 2004, RCF client population increased by an astounding 58 per cent. This trend is predicted to continue as DND releases approximately 4,000 CF members each year that adds to the 400,000 or so CF veterans already out there. A growing number of these veterans are applying for disability benefits. Once a disability is established for a veteran pensioner, the pension amount can increase in two ways: Either via a reassess of an existing condition or through an entitlement for a new condition. Between 1998 and 2003, one third of our CF clients applied for and received an increase in their disability pension payments as a result of reviewed or new assessments. That tells us that veterans are not getting healthier, and are forced to return to the department for increased support later and later in life.
The lack of early intervention, effective rehabilitation and job opportunities have left our veteran population without the tools to build a better life. We believe the result is poor health and the high rates of depression that we are currently seeing. The evidence that we could do better is glaring. Our review of veterans care needs of some years ago found that 83 per cent of our clients reported trouble with pain and more than half self-reported their health as fair or poor with fully 28 per cent suffering major depression.
The net result is that CF veterans have higher needs for health care and more long-term health problems than the general population. Health problems, however, are not the only issue here. Almost half of those medically releasing had attained less than a high school education prior to enlisting. That fact, when coupled with long-term disability, calls for determined action to deliver better employment prospects and higher incomes.
Indeed, low employment and income prospects are all too often the fate of many releasing CF members after giving up much of their youth and future career prospects in service to their nation. A monthly pension is no substitute for 30 years of lost opportunity. The average veteran is released to the civilian world in their mid 30s now. Our approach is to deliver opportunity rather than dependency. Our veterans can live better lives, realize their potential, and we have to do everything we can to deliver the tools for them to build their own opportunity. 
The challenges of veterans impact their families more than ever before. Since 1990, the Canadian Forces have participated in no less than 44 peacekeeping and peacemaking operations. Spouses and children are subject to frequent moves and separation. In an age of terrorism, and 24-hour news reporting, it is no wonder that today's military families can easily find themselves in a constant state of worry about their loved ones being in harm's way. It is no wonder these periods of adjustment and dislocation cause tremendous stress on human life. When the veteran does return, the process of reintegration truly becomes a family affair, where everyone is intimately affected by the process.
Mr. Chairman, as a government, we have made strides in addressing these issues on behalf of our CF members, and veterans. Veterans Affairs Canada and the Department of National Defence have been working in close collaboration to do so. However, we simply cannot deliver the change and the opportunity and the care that veterans deserve without the significant legislative changes that we are proposing. These are changes that are designed to withstand the test of time and we have taken the time to test the highest standard.
Bill C-45 is the result, of years of study and consultation among our stakeholder partners and experts in the field. It is modeled on the best practices of other countries who have already modernized their veterans’ services and benefits. We have seen their successes and learned from their experiences.
(French follows - Ms. Guarnieri — Nous avons compris) 

(après anglais)(Mme Guarnieri)
Nous avons compris que pour atteindre la réussite, l'investissement doit être prévu immédiatement lors de la sortie du service des combattants. Le moment est alors propice pour investir dans la réhabilitation, la formation, le placement à l'emploi et les sommes forfaitaires afin de leur permettre un nouveau départ.
(Ms. Guarnieri: Wellness is the key. Our rehabilitation program will…)
(anglais suit)

(Following French - Ms. Guarnieri — départ) 
Wellness is the key. Our rehabilitation program will encompass physical, vocational and psycho-social rehabilitation. It will position a new veteran to take advantage of the new opportunities we will deliver and the veterans' own potential to build opportunity. We continue a commitment to wellness by offering additional health benefits that will complement existing coverage provided by National Defence and provide eligible veterans who face service related barriers to integration, and their families with uninterrupted health coverage after their release. Such benefits include services comparable to federal government employees and their families.
(French follows - Ms. Guarnieri—Ils auront une sécurité... ) 

(après anglais)(Mme Guarnieri)
Ils auront une sécurité financière au cours de leur réhabilitation grâce à des nouveaux programmes de support économique et ce support se poursuivra si l'ancien combattant est dans l'impossibilité de travailler à pleine capacité.
(Ms. Guarnieri: The next step to opportunity is a new…)
(anglais suit)

(Following French - Ms. Guarnieri - capacite.).
The next step to opportunity is a new career, so we will provide a job placement service to assist all releasing Canadian Forces members, not just those who are medically released. We have modeled our approach after a program in the United Kingdom that achieved a phenomenal success rate. This is the most far-reaching aspect of the program because it eliminates disability as a gateway to veteran services. We know that getting that first civilian job is a critical challenge for all veterans and our new job placement program bridges that divide. 
For all new medically released veterans, no matter where they were injured, we are providing even more direct assistance. We are providing priority appointment without competition to any position in the public service for which they are qualified for a period of two years, starting on the day that they are ready to return to work. That means that a disabled veteran will get any available public service job that they are qualified to do.
From now on, when a medically released veteran approaches civilian life, he or she can expect comprehensive rehabilitation, health benefits, economic support, while getting well, a public service job if they are qualified, job placement support and job placement assistance in the private sector if they choose. That is far from all. We are providing a tax-free lump sum payment of up to $250,000 to compensate CF veterans for non-economic losses such as pain and suffering. These lump sum payments will help veterans kick-start new civilian lives. It will help them invest in a new home, a new business, or just a new start. For the more severely disabled veterans, economic loss support if they are not able to work. For these veterans, they would receive large lump sum payments and a monthly support payment.
Families are not left out of the equation here. Our new programs will also focus on the families of veterans. Wellness and job placement services will be available to spouses or common-law partners in cases where the veteran is deceased or disabled. Spouses of veterans who die of service related injuries are eligible for up to a $250,000 lump sum, economic loss payments, and retirement benefits as well.
Mr. Chairman, to make all these new programs work for every veteran, we are providing case managers who will take a personal interest in every CF veteran and navigate their route to success and the services and benefits they need. How do we know that all these programs will work? Well, we have modeled actual cases to make sure veterans will be better off. We have seen similar measures work in other jurisdictions, and we have consulted widely to ensure that we have all the essential ingredients to deliver.
Since the spring of last year, our modernization task force has undertaken extensive consultations with stakeholder groups, including the national veterans’ associations — which they are all here today, I understand, in full force. I understand many of them will be presenting. If you would like to read them into the record or perhaps I will leave that to you, Mr. Chair, to ask them to announce themselves — and the Department of National Defence officials. In addition, focus groups were held to gauge reactions to CF members, CF veterans and their families to the program proposals. These focus groups indicate that CF members and veterans want programs and services that are tailored to their needs, and the needs of their families. They also want programs that support wellness, independence and a successful transition to civilian life. That is exactly what the Veterans Charter delivers.
In coordination with the Department of National Defence, we have also held information sessions at six Canadian Forces locations, recently, providing highlights of the proposals and seeking feedback on the direction, as well as how they would like to receive information on the new suite of programs.
In addition, we have sought and received input from our opposition critics, and from members of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs. I should mention that Chief Hillier attended my press conference in a very supportive role. 
I believe that we have been the beneficiaries of a partnership of purpose that brought together CF members, civil servants, politicians, veterans, veterans organizations like the Royal Canadian Legion, the Anavets , the Canadian Association of Veterans in UN Peacekeeping , and others, all working together because this just had to get done and get done now.
We all agree that putting veterans first is a priority for everyone. 
(French follows - Ms. Guarnieri continues) 

(après anglais)(Mme Guarnieri)
J’aimerais remercier tous ceux qui nous sont venus en aide afin d’offrir à nos anciens combattants ce qu'ils méritent.
(Ms Guarnieri: Mr. Chairman, I believe that Bill C-45 delivers…)
(anglais suit)

(Following French - Ms. Guarnieri continues) 
Mr. Chairman, I believe that Bill C-45 delivers. It is a cash infusion of almost $1 billion into the lives of new veterans. It delivers cash, care and careers. It invests in opportunity rather than dependency. In Canada's Year of the Veteran, Canada is investing in years of potential and years of promise for every Canadian veteran.
I want to briefly address some issues that have been circulating over the last couple of days that may have reached some senators and need to be addressed.
First, I have heard the suggestion that the widow of a soldier who dies of wounds more than 30 days after an incident would not get a death benefit of $250,000. The truth is that the widow would get $250,000 regardless. If the death occurred within 30 days it would be a death benefit of $250,000. If the death occurred later, it would fall under our disability award program, and would still be a benefit of $250,000. There is absolutely no issue here. I am concerned that veterans hearing such misleading claims may misunderstand the package. 
Second, the issue of a widowed spouse not receiving a death benefit if the couple has been married less than a year has been raised. The same section in the legislation clearly spells out how the death benefit works. If you are married on Tuesday, and the service member is killed in a service related accident on Wednesday, the death benefit is paid in full. If you are married even an hour before the incident occurs resulting in death at any time thereafter, the benefit is paid. If you are cohabiting with a service member for one year and get married one minute before he or she dies in a hospital after a service-related accident, the death benefit is paid. The provisions here are similar to those that already exist in the War Veterans Allowance Act and within existing disability pensions legislation. They exist to protect vulnerable veterans and dependent children.
Third, the issue has been raised in relation to the 120-day cut-off for rehabilitation and vocational assistance. Here again it is important to understand the context. This is limited to persons who are medically released. The objective is to get these people into programs quickly. Hence, we want them to apply within four months. If they do not, they need only offer a reasonable reason why they failed to apply. Remember, this is a go-forward plan, so every medically released veteran will know they have to apply for rehabilitation and vocational assistance within four months, and we will provide them with the tools to do that.
There is always the safety net. They can always be heard even after that cut-off.
In reality, we want to capture these people quickly because we have seen that enormous benefits are accrued by getting them into a rehabilitation program quickly.
I have asked my officials who are here to answer any technical questions. They will be here for the balance of the evening. 
The Chairman: Thank you for that excellent overview. You have given a detailed account of what this 50-page bill is all about. 
We are the Finance Committee and we look at government spending and estimates. I think I heard you say that the amount of money that will come with this bill to do the things you have outlined is almost $1 billion. 
Ms. Guarnieri: That is over five years. It is a transition period. 
Mr. Daragh Morgan, Executive Director, Service and Program Modernization Task Force, Veterans Affairs Canada: It is just about $1 billion over six years. That is meant to finance all the new wellness programs and the disability award program. It is expected that, if these wellness programs produce the benefit both for the Canadian Forces member and in terms of wellness and less dependency on ongoing disability payments, it would pay for itself over a 15-to-20-year period.
That is the expectation of what we call the wellness dividend for the Canadian Forces member and family and the taxpayer.
Ms. Guarnieri: It is a wellness dividend. The new charter is about getting ahead of the future and front-loading our investment so that it can do the most good. For veterans who have 30 years left in their working lives, it makes good sense that we front load by investing in new careers and new opportunities. That is the philosophy behind that.
The Chairman: On two occasions in your opening remarks, Minister, you talked about how you have consulted widely. It takes a long time to prepare a bill of 50 pages such as this. What stakeholders did you consult and how long did it take to draw this bill?
Ms. Guarnieri: There are 800,000 veterans and service members, so you cannot consult all of them, but we have involved all the major veterans organizations, who have spent a great deal of time delving into the programs. We vetted the details carefully. We even held town hall meetings with some 800 service personnel to gauge reaction. The more that people understand the legislation, the more they agreed with it. We would be happy to provide you with a comprehensive list of everyone we consulted.
Keep in mind that this has been a work-in-progress. My officials have probably given more technical briefings than any other department. 
Senator Kinsella: Thank you, Minister. Yesterday, when the message was received from the House of Commons that the House of Commons had passed this bill, we gave it first reading and I was pleased to rise and move that we seek the consent of the Senate, which we did receive, to proceed with second reading immediately. My colleague Senator Dallaire and I had the opportunity to participate in debate of the bill at second reading. We then sent the bill here to the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance. 
As the chair of the committee has indicated, finances and how this will fit into the fiscal framework is always in the forefront of the minds of the members of this committee. Issues of machinery of government usually come to this Senate committee.
Is your department sufficiently well-organized to handle the workload that you are responsible for with the current programs, as well as these additional responsibilities? Many of us have received, and I am sure you have received, minister, complaints from veterans that they often have a difficult time accessing a real live person to talk to when they are seeking information on a program or having an application filled in, et cetera.
Are you organized? Is there a plan in place? Are you expanding the machinery? Can our veterans who will be eligible to apply for benefits under this package not find themselves waiting a long time at the end of a telephone line?
Ms. Guarnieri: Honourable senators, I think that objectives of service have concluded that this new package is far superior to what exists right now. We have taken care to ensure that no current veteran loses any benefits whatsoever so that they cannot say that they are being disadvantaged in any way.
Veteran Affairs Canada has in place some 48 client service teams across Canada that is ready to provide quality service to all its clients. For CF veterans leaving the military, for instance, I mentioned earlier case manager, each will be given a comprehensive transition interview as the first stage of our new case management system that will ensure that no veteran falls through the cracks. This has already begun.
This will take us back to the same position and enable us to provide the same level of re-establishment support as we did following the Second World War. Our records from the Second World War are impeccable. I am always amazed at how the department actually has kept these records. We can tell you exact who will receive their demobilization benefits.
Also, I mentioned earlier the issue of the job placement strategy. We would be looking to farm that out to the private sector. The United Kingdom has a company that boasts of a 95 per cent success rate in placement. Certainly, that is an enviable track record, if we can jump start these individuals into civilian life.
When I was associate Defence Minister and travelling across the country, I do not know whether it was simply because they knew I was the associate Defence Minister, but every cab I seemed to get into was a former CF military chap who told me his life history and why he was driving a cab. It was funny. I did not think I had that notoriety of being associate Defence Minister. However, the reality was that I heard too many tragic stories about how they did not feel they had the opportunities to expand their lifestyle and improve their lifestyle for their families.
I must confess, I tried this package on my driver who drives me around the Hill. He is a former military guy I stole from defence. He was so excited about this package and he said he wished he had had this when he left the military.
I always think that you go straight to the source. When they take the time to understand how comprehensive this package is, they get very excited. I did not mean to digress from your question here. I just get very excited about the package.
We are well equipped and prepared to launch this. This is not something that we have just designed at the 11th hour. Would any of my officials like to jump in?
Ms. Verna Bruce, Associate Deputy Minister, Veterans Affairs Canada: I would add a comment about your concern about people waiting on telephones for long periods of time. We have hugely increasing caseloads in Veteran Affairs Canada and we made a conscious decision to take most of our telephone calls into central sites so that our staff on the ground could spend time visiting veterans in their homes. We have an extremely efficient call centre. You will talk to a live person. There are no recordings. We can demonstrate that right now we are answering about 95 per cent of our calls within 40 seconds with a live person. A vast majority of those calls can be handled by the person who answers the phone. If they cannot, we have lots of technology to support them. They very quickly turn the call over to a district office to make sure that the right person gets back to the veteran.
Senator Kinsella: Thank you for that. I think it is terribly important that the machinery is able to deliver, and that all the rights that we, from a legislative point of view, might be able to establish are done. They do not mean very much if people cannot access them.
Ms. Guarnieri: Absolutely.
Senator Kinsella: I am pleased to hear the sensitivity at the administrative level and wish you good luck and encourage you to continue to look for cutting edge technology in that area.
I do not want to overtake my time. The chairman is very strict sometimes.
Ms. Guarnieri: He looks pretty lenient.
Senator Kinsella: We have been going through the bill very carefully. Thank you, minister, for anticipating some of those questions, because we have heard them as well.
Ms. Guarnieri: I was told that I was to save your time and that your time was quite precious.
Senator Kinsella: Let me turn to section 2 (5) on page five of the bill. I just would like to have an explication as to whether or not that is the section that would help to answer the concern that has been raised, at least I have heard, if a veteran commits suicide, the family is not eligible for benefits. Is it that section that deals with that? 
Ms. Guarnieri: That is the suicide issue.
Senator Kinsella: What does that mean? Is the concern valid or not?
Ms. Guarnieri: The act will not preclude the provision of benefits to those who harm themselves, where doing so is a manifestation of a service related condition. The intent of the provision is to avoid compensating those who would willingly or intentionally harm themselves in the absence of a causative disability in order to, for example, avoid service.
There is a provision where the minister can override these provisions where warranted. 
Senator Kinsella: Where is that provision?
Ms. Guarnieri: This charter has a lot of built in flexibility.
Senator Kinsella: Minister, where is the provision that gives the ministerial override in this bill? We are in committee, I am trying to be more technical.
Ms. Guarnieri: One of the reasons why we have built in the flexibility is because if you have rigid rules then you can also leave some people out that may require assistance.
Senator Kinsella: While they are looking for that, my other concern relates to section 18 of the bill. Section 18 of the bill is dealing with the whole area of earnings lost. In particular, how one is to determine imputed income. I will just continue on the section 18 question.
Am I correct then in my understanding that according to the bill the formula for calculating the amount of earnings lost benefit payable to a veteran includes their imputed income, and this term imputed income is referring to an estimate of the income that could, theoretically, be received if not income producing assets, such as real estate or precious metals were converted to cash. What is your rationale for using imputed income to determine earnings lost benefit?
Mr. Mogan: The rationale behind that is that there is a 75 per cent ceiling on the earnings lost, and protection of 75 per cent of the previous salary. All forms of taxable income, including income that could come from assets, would be assessed against that 75 per cent, and it would be standard, because it is a ceiling, not a minimum.
Senator Kinsella: The minister here has discretion as well. 
Mr. Mogan: The discretion there is intended to allow two things to happen: One, to not make the assumption that the department knows all things about the modern Canadian force veterans and the needs that will come in the next four or five years so we want flexibility. Plus, I think the undertaking that your predecessor, the new minister gave to veterans organizations is that they would have a lot of input into development of regulations that give feed to this bill over the next 4 or 5 months. 
To be more permissive in the sense of allowing more flexibility on the one hand, and on the other hand, to keep a commitment to veterans’ organizations that this consultation process that began two years ago can continue with regard to the regulations.
Senator Kinsella: The minister, with her clairvoyance, anticipated the issue around the 121 days, section 9, subsection 2. Can you tell us why 120 days and not 150 days? 
Mr. Morgan: The number was chosen because an existing rehabilitation program under the authority of the Chief of Defence Staff from the CISIP program has that 120 day limit. We do not want to create two standards here, but we realize that in applying 120 day limit arbitrarily for individuals, particularly with operational stress injuries has a certain absurdity to it given what we know. Whereas on the one had we want to adhere to it, on the other hand we want the minister to have the flexibility to allow that not to become an impediment to successful rehabilitation.
Senator Ringuette: As a ex daughter-in-law of a Second World War veteran that left Canada with the trade of carpenter and came back without a right arm and a dysfunctional right leg due to combat injuries, I am really impressed with what you are proposing. At that time, rehabilitating and placing veterans was not an easy task, especially if they came back with major disabilities. I see that within your bill, you have looked into this. I would like to flag a concern. I have read a lot of briefing material in regards to job placement assistance. I agree with the fact that provisions will be made for closed competition in the federal public service for veterans. There is also mention in there of two items. 
One is in regards to regional jobs that I certainly do not agree with for the Canadian population at large, and I certainly would not agree with in regards to the restrictive 50-kilometers barrier to employment opportunity for veterans. This is indicated as a restriction, and I certainly hope that within your discussion with the Public Service Commission that you will have that removed. If a Canadian from wherever, coast-to-coast-to-coast, is good enough to enlist and provide services to the Canadian population wherever location they come from in Canada, then they should be entitled to any public service job wherever it is in Canada. This is a real concern that I want to flag to ensure that you address in your discussion with the Public Service Commission. It also indicates on the same placement situation that the deputy head of the department will give priority status to veterans for certain jobs. The deputy head will decide. That is not right, because I do not think that your department will have all the contacts, the communications for all the veterans looking for different kinds of job placement with every department head of every government department. That is a concern of mine if we want to really give priority to veterans. Already the department heads have a hard time to identify jobs for minorities in our country. You can understand my concern.
Senator Oliver: Minister, did you want to respond to that? 
Ms. Guarnieri: You have raised a very valid point, but the provision here is really an improvement over what there is now. We are giving them the opportunity to advance into the civil service.
However, the issue and the concern that you raise can be addressed in the drafting of the regulations in conjunction with the Public Service Commission. This is something that you can flag for when we are about to finish the drafting of the regulations.
Senator Ringuette: I understand that the Public Service Commission will be coming forward with an amendment to the current Public Service Act, C-25, in order to address these concerns. 
Ms. Guarnieri: It is something we will watch carefully.
Senator Ringuette: I will be there to watch it. My last concern is in regards to private sector placement and the income to the veteran and the family. If the example that you stated of 95 per cent success rate in Great Britain, if that 95 per cent is based on job placement and is not related to the quality of the job — we do not want our veterans to be behind a McDonald's counter. We do not want our veterans because they receive a job placement to be working at minimum wage behind that McDonald's counter and lose whatever kind of medical benefits and so forth that he or she would be entitled to without that placement agency.
Senator Oliver: Minister, this is a critical question and I know a number of people want to have your answer on that.
Ms. Guarnieri: Our department, really when it comes to the veterans we have their best interests at heart. We are saying that if you serve your country, you should come out of the forces better off or at least the same as when you went in. When we look at the model in the U.K., it is exciting to see their success rate. Perhaps what we can do to advance, or at least a alleviate some of your concerns, is to provide some documentation as to the U.K. model.
I was in England and our deputy ministers had extensive discussions with the U.K. model, with the placement agency that does this. We want to emulate their success rate. You are quite right. We are not just going to shove them off to behind the counter at McDonald's. We want them to have viable jobs for themselves and improve the life of the families.
It is not really something that we are trying to pigeonhole these Canadian Forces personnel into accepting jobs which are career enders. What we are trying to do is accelerate a brighter future for these veterans and their families.
Senator Downe: I want to be clear, please correct me if I am wrong. My understanding is that only Canadian Forces members with a medical disability will be entitled to priority status in the federal public service.
Ms. Guarnieri: That is right.
Senator Downe: You indicated earlier some of the educational problems that some of the retiring problems have. Is there any training to help them qualify for jobs?
Ms. Guarnieri: Retraining is a key part of this program. We will ensure that nobody undergoes rehabilitation or retraining without some kind of support mechanism. Right now when they leave the forces, to be honest, within a period of two years, once that period expires, the Canadian Forces chaps are on their own. In this enhanced holistic approach that we are offering here, we assume permanent responsibility for these chaps that have served our country. We are not saying that once out of sight, out of mind. We are saying that we assume responsibility to assist them to an improved lifestyle. With an improved individual with a happy set of circumstances, it is going to be a much more productive, and viable country. We want to ensure that we enhance peoples' lifestyle. We are replacing dependency with opportunity. That is the key here.
Senator Downe: Chair, I think this is a good beginning, but I am at a loss as to why the government does not extend this to all members of the Canadian Forces who are retiring. These men and women are paid by the Government of Canada. They receive pensions from the Government of Canada. Many now are put in dangerous situations overseas. Why are they not entitled to priority placement for a federal government job when they return to Canada? 
Ms. Guarnieri: That is something we should explore down the road. This is what we would negotiate with the Public Service Commission at this point in time. I am open to that idea, to be quite frank. What we are presenting here is: What was negotiated, and what was acceptable at this point in time. My attitude is that this is a living charter. It is very malleable and open to improvements down the road. 
We talked earlier about ministerial latitude. One of the reasons for that is that we receive countless cases even now with our veterans where if they do not fit one program, we explore all other options because we always want to give the benefit of the doubt to the veteran and his needs. Certainly, your suggestion is something that I would like future committees to explore.
The Chairman: Thank you, Senator Downe. Honourable senators, we are almost out of time. I have our vice-chairman Senator Day who likes to go last. Before Senator Day, Senator Ferretti Barth had a brief question.
(French follows. Sen. Ferretti Barth: Bonsoir madame la ministre...)

(après anglais)
Le sénateur Ferretti Barth: Bonsoir madame la ministre. Je suis très heureuse de voir ce projet de loi ici. On a toujours pensé que les vétérans de guerre, c'était les vétérans de la Première et de la Seconde Guerre mondiale. Mais il y a également eu beaucoup de vétérans lors des guerres modernes. Une partie de notre population était traitée comme des vieillards de la Première Guerre mondiale. Je travaille avec les personnes âgées. J'ai un club de l'âge d'or dans la région d’Ortona. Nous avons des vieillards qui ont 82, 85 ans qui ont fait la Seconde Guerre mondiale. Nous donnons tout ce que nous pouvons sur une base volontaire. Mais tous ces changements modernes me préoccupent un peu. 
Je proposerais que le conseil consultatif sur la Charte des anciens combattants du Canada soit mandaté afin d’examiner, tous les trois ou quatre mois, l'application de la loi sur les mesures de réinsertion des militaires et vétérans des Forces canadiennes afin d'assurer que les décisions prises reflètent l'esprit de la loi. On touche beaucoup de choses au plan social. 
Il faut qu'il y ait une supervision pour voir si la loi appliquée reflète vraiment l'esprit de votre proposition.
Mme Guarnieri: C'est une très bonne proposition. Peut-être tous les quatre mois, on pourrait faire un petit examen. On fait déjà des examens régulièrement, on fait des sondages pouvoir si on rencontre nos objectifs. Votre suggestion est excellente. Je vous remercie.
(Sen. Day: I support your desire…)
(anglais suit)

(Following French. Ms. Guarnieri: …excellente. Je vous remercie.)
Senator Day: I support your desire to follow our schedule, and we have a good number of veterans' organizations here. I have also welcomed the suggestion by the minister and the staff that they will stay and if it turns out that some issues arise, we can call them back and resolve those issues.
Ms. Guarnieri: We are eager to provide any information or respond to any suggestions or concerns that you may have.
Senator Day: Thank you for that. Let me comment on a point made by my colleague, Senator Kinsella. He advised our witnesses that you are before what might seem a little peculiar to our people at national finance. The reason I understand is that national security and defence and the subcommittee that we have on Veterans Affairs would probably be the logical committee to study this, but they are travelling, and we have Senator Atkins and me who serve on that subcommittee. I have also spoken to the chair of the subcommittee and the chair of the committee, Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, Senator Kenny and Senator Meighen. They have taken time out of their travels as a committee on the road to discuss this bill. They informed me and asked me to inform the committee that they support it fully. I think that that should go on the record.
Ms. Guarnieri: Thank you. As I said earlier, we will provide technical briefings to everyone and anyone that asks for it, because we are eager. I know it is a lot to digest, but we are eager that everybody understands how the programs are meshed. We are excited about this new venture.
The Chairman: Thank you. Senator Day, I appreciate your comments. Minister, I thank you and your officials very much for an excellent presentation. You covered an awful lot of ground and you anticipated a lot of our questions.
Ms. Guarnieri: I cheated. I listened to your debate, and I thought it was very erudite and we wanted to expedite any of the issues and concerns you had. We will provide you any information we can to expedite matters.
The Chairman: Our next panel includes Mr. Cliff Chadderton, Chief Executive Office of the War Amps and is appearing this evening as Chairman of the National Council of Veterans Associations in Canada, NCVA. If you look in your papers, there are briefs from the next three presenters. Also representing the Royal Canadian Legion is Ms. Mary-Ann Burdett, who is the first woman to hold the office of Dominion President. She was elected to that office at the 40th Dominion Convention in London, Ontario in June 2004.
Mr. Kenneth Henderson is also joining the next panel. He is the Dominion President of the Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans in Canada. The purpose of the association is to unite fraternally persons who have served in Her Majesty's Armed Forces. 
Ms. Mary-Ann Burdett, President, Royal Canadian Legion: Honourable senators, as Dominion President of the Royal Canadian Legion with a membership of over 400,000 and as a modern-day veteran with service in the Royal Canadian Air Force, it is my pleasure to appear today as you consider Bill C-45, an act to provide services assistance and compensation to or in respect of Canadian Forces members and veterans and to make amendments to certain acts. 
Over time, a number of programs that were made available to traditional veterans, such as rehabilitation services, job placement or the very generous benefits provided under the Veterans Land Act, have progressively disappeared. This has left our modern veterans at a loss. There should be no doubt whatsoever that the Royal Canadian Legion fully supports this initiative. 
Since our Dominion convention in Halifax in 2000, we have been advocating for a comprehensive, integrated plan to develop a new veterans' charter that would provide services to veterans on a needs-based system rather than a program-based approach. Unfortunately the program-based approach that establishes the rights to benefits via a disability pension can result in delays.
Our modern veterans suffer from invisible scars that are not readily identifiable. These mental afflictions resulting from operational stress often necessitate rapid intervention for any chance of success in rehabilitating Canadian Forces members and veterans and mitigating the pain suffered by their loved ones. Bill C-45 offers an opportunity for rapid intervention through a single point of entry for services and case management approach. Bill C-45 provides rehabilitation services, health benefits, job placement assistance and ongoing financial support. It also offers compensation for pain and suffering through a lump sum payment, which in itself encourages a philosophy of wellness to ensure smooth transition into civilian life. 
Obviously, this does not mean that the Legion will abandon its advocacy role. We have been engaged in this role since 1926. Our continuing advocacy has seen numerous improvements in benefits for veterans and their dependents. We are also pursuing improved benefits for seniors such as a national seniors' independence program modeled on the successful Veterans Independence Program. 
The Legion will be there to watch the program, to ask for more where necessary, and to offer all assistance we can give to the department to carry out this program. This new bill is but a first step, albeit a huge one, for improving benefits for veterans and their families. The Legion will continue in the future to advocate for improvements as required and monitor what is happening.
We will also ensure that benefits provided to our traditional veterans are preserved in the future and will advocate for quality end-of-life care for these very deserving individuals. 
Mr. Chairman, we want this legislation. Our Canadian veterans need this legislation. Thank you.
Senator Oliver: Ms. Burdett, thank you for that excellent presentation. 
Mr. Cliff Chadderton, President, National Council of Veteran Associations: Mr. Chairman and senators, my experience in the rehabilitation of World War II veterans goes back many years. I am looking at a submission that we made in 1998 and it is interesting that almost everything we recommended at that time has been incorporated in this bill. 
I will speak briefly about two or three things. First I will speak to the lump sum. If a man loses a leg above the knee, a pension payment can be put into effect. This takes a lot of time and adjustment, but nothing has ever been done with regard to what we call the immediate shock. By that I mean: Don't worry about it. The government will look after you. Here is a payment of up to $250,000 or, in the case of the death of a Canadian Forces member; the widow can get up to $250,000. 
That is one of the great failings in the veterans' charter that I dealt with for so many years.
Second, Senator Downe mentioned something about placement. There is nothing wrong with putting a recently-discharged member from the Canadian Forces into a lower paying job until he gets his hands dirty and understands where he stands in civilian life. The forward-looking provision in this legislation makes up for that. He may start out with a job carrying groceries, working for McDonald's or what have you, but this forward-looking provision gets him working and into the civilian community. 
If his income is not the same as he was earning in the Armed Forces, perhaps by a long stretch, there is the make-up provision that applies for an extended period of time. This is such a far-reaching benefit that I can hardly believe a government would pass it, bearing in mind what we have asked for over many years. 
I will quickly refer you to this document, which we presented to the House of Commons committee and the Senate subcommittee in 1998. Most of these things were considered to be real problems then and we wondered whether they could ever be solved. They have been. I am so thrilled about this bill. I just cannot believe it. 
I speak for 51 organizations. We have a very good, well organized and well researched staff of people who know what happened to the World War II veteran. They know which requirements were not filled. 
Back in the discharge days of WWII veterans, we called it “reinstatement in civil employment.” The reason that worked — this is something minister that you will have to look at — the reason that worked was there was only prosecution under that legislation. How do I know? I ran it. Once we made the employer realize that we were very serious, that if he was stuffing paper boxes when he went in, now he is no longer just the guy to stuff paper boxes. You have to take into account the maturity that the services have given him, et cetera.
What really made it worse, and it is something that we have to look at very carefully, not just this committee, but all Canadians, what we have to look at is the job these people are doing. Who are they? What are they doing? If the public understands that this fellow is not a private soldier, he is not a guy you give a shovel to and tell him to dig a trench. He is not that at all. What he is today is an ambassador. He is expected to do many jobs we never had to do as service people in World War II. We have to make sure that if we are asking the civilian employer to take him on, to give him a chance, we have to paint a much different picture than most civilian employers will give.
I was down at Stelco three weeks ago, they are in receivership and they are having a problem trying to find placement for the people they want placed. I said to them, that is fine, but you are talking about people who are reaching 65 and they are on pension. What about a fellow who today is serving overseas as an ambassador, risking his life, absent from his family for God knows how long. It was amazing how quickly the present management of Stelco saw the point, right away. 
We looked at if a guy left and went off to Somalia or something like that, that was the end of it. That is not the end that is the start. That is what he decided to do for a few years. He could have been a reservist. Sometimes they kept him on a little bit of pay but he is going to come back to you and he will come back to you a much better man.
It was interesting how they saw that right away. I have one or two other points I want to make here.
The Chairman: We wanted hear from Mr. Henderson as well.
Mr. Chadderton: I was glad to hear it said that everything we fought for all through the years has been grandfathered. The traditional veteran is not losing one thing. Secondly, the definition of a veteran must be looked at. Peacekeeper is no good. I hate the term. They do not necessarily want to be called a veteran and get all the veterans' benefits but they want people to say, you are a veteran. That does not mean that you went over and dug ditches or latrines or something. That means you went over and did a real job of work for this country. We recognize peacekeeping veteran as someone as good as, if not better, than the guys I served with and I will make that statement publicly. I do not know if there is anything else I want to cover. Be very careful about the United Kingdom benefits. Do not forget that a job in the United Kingdom for a veteran who has been serving in the Suez or what not, sometimes it is a job and that is it. Be very careful. What we should look at in rehabilitation is get him working. If it is not at the level that he was earning while he was in the forces, then make it up because you can do that under the new act.
This is without a doubt the most forward-looking piece of legislation that I could have ever possibly imagined. I look around this table and I see some senators with whom I have worked over the years, and if the truth were told, I do not think we ever thought that we would have this kind of legislation. One other thing, forget all about what you call your special duty area. Why? What is the difference between the Manitoba flood and a guy who is serving over in Yugoslavia? If he is hurt, he is hurt. If he is in harm's way, he is in harm's way. Thank God we have done away with that entirely. Thank you, senators.
The Chairman: The third presenter in this panel is Mr. Kenneth Henderson. Honourable senators, he is the Dominion President of the Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans in Canada. You have the floor. We would like to hear your views and then open it to questions.
Mr. Ken Henderson, Dominion President, Army, Navy and Air Force veterans in Canada: Mr. Chairman, it is a great honour to represent the Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans in Canada. He we have 30,000 members. Although it was established in 1841, in the beautiful city of Montreal in the Province of Quebec, this is especially so in consideration of the importance and significance of the proposed Bill C-45 that you are presently reviewing. For the past five or so years, ANAVETS has been working closely with Veteran Affairs Canada and other veterans organizations to update the legislation regarding veterans. The great Veterans Charter was enacted shortly after the World War II and dealt with issues that were relevant to post-war circumstances.
Things have changed a lot over the intervening years and we have put through many amendments and changes to that legislation, as the circumstance and needs of veterans change. The most recent of these legislative changes were Bill C-50 that passed in the late 2003. However, legislation in place that gives the needed benefits and services to our war era veterans does not translate to the needs of the younger Canadian Forces veterans who have an average retirement age of 36. They face different problems and have different requirements than their predecessors. As a result, the application of those older rules to the present day circumstances result in many injustices in current day veterans.
A new veteran’s legislation was therefore required. The new Veterans Charter is focused on identifying needs, therefore rehabilitation services earlier, providing support in the form of training, job placement, and if the veteran is unable to work due to injury, providing training support for the spouse. The new legislation also provides for cash awards for pain and suffering, in addition to income support during the transitional phase to civilian employment.
The whole process is meant to get the veterans back on their feet and become productive members of society as soon as possible. I should add as well that this whole process was done with the direct involvement of all veterans’ organizations, through every step of the process. The process was open to any and all recommendations that were brought forward. 
In summary, the new Veterans Charter is a realistic solution to the many problems facing veterans in their reintegration into the workplace after duty to our country. The Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans in Canada are a hundred per cent behind the new legislation.
Thank you very much for asking me to present my views this evening.
The Chairman: Thank you very much for that presentation. Just to reiterate your last point, you said at the beginning that there are 30,000 members in your organization. You are here tonight not in your own right but on behalf of them? 
Mr. Henderson: On behalf of them.
The Chairman: Your comments are speaking for them?
Mr. Henderson: Yes, sir.
The Chairman: I thank the three of you very much. I do have a list of senators who want to put questions. 
Senator Kinsella: There are two areas I want to explore. The first one is, as I understand the bill that is before us, the Veterans Review and Appeal Board will continue to be the avenue of appeal for the provisions of this act. That is your understanding as well, correct? What is your experience and of your respective membership in dealing with the appeal boards? Is it very efficient? Do you get very many complaints about that process, or the model from your memberships in different organizations? Do you have a sense as to the quantity of appeals that they have before them annually, and does that number indicate weaknesses in the system? I am concerned that we have a very efficient delivery system so that these benefits are real.
Ms. Burdett: I would have to agree with you. It is most important that these services are deliverable. I have with me today the head of our service bureau from the Royal Canadian Legion who can give you facts and figures, or at least close estimates. I do not necessarily work with that on a daily basis, but he does. Overall, generally, we find the Veterans’ Review and Appeal Board, VRAB, as an efficient and effective board, and are happy to work with them. There is always going to be complaints, and concerns that things did not go as fast as someone might like them.
If the end result of any application is not favourable to the person that put it in, they are going to complain.
Overall, I would say we find them effective and efficient. Mr. Allard, do you have any idea what are the percentage of complaints or am I asking for something that is back in the office? 
Mr. Pierre Allard, Director, National Services, Royal Canadian Legion: My name is Pierre Allard. I am Director of the National Service Bureau of the Royal Canadian Legion. Therefore, we actually provide representation for veterans at the Veterans' Review and Appeal Board. It is important to understand that under the new charter of Bill C-45 the VRAB only plays a role in basically adjudicating or giving opinions for disability awards, not for the wellness program, not for the rehab been program. Their role is limited to the disability awards just like it is currently. VRAB has renewed itself over the years. The new chairman, Mr. Victor Marchand has been a breath of fresh air. They probably looked at 6,000 cases a year, and their favourable rate is approximately 50 per cent at the review level and 25 per cent at the appeal level.
Senator Kinsella: Thank you for that. With this bill, there are five new programs, and the VRAB will not be an appeal process.
Mr. Allard: Not an appeal process. However, I would understand that from a departmental perspective, there will be a built-in appeal process.
Senator Kinsella: Let me ask my second one. I assume that each of your organizations have members who do not live in Canada, and I draw your attention to section 33 of the bill that says the Canadian Forces income support benefit may be paid to a person only if the person resides in Canada. Do you have a view on that particular provision?
Mr. Allard: I would probably turn that over to the department.
Mr. Chadderton: I would add to be very careful, because once you open it up, the VIP, and a man decides he wants to live in New Mexico, you have got a real problem. I think that the department has been right all along to keep those kinds of benefits in Canada. If he wants to go to live in some other part of the world, that is fine, but you cannot follow him along. You cannot decide on housekeeping, snow removal, all sorts of things like that. There is a great danger any time any new legislation comes in. They say, “let us expand it.” Just a minute. I think we are doing just fine with the present VIP.
The Chairman: Senator Dallaire. Before Senator Dallaire puts his question, I want to say Senator Dallaire is one of our newest senators and in this is the first time he has attended this committee. Senator Dallaire, welcome. You now have the floor.
Senator Day: He is also the sponsor.
Senator Dallaire: Thank you, Senator Oliver and ladies and gentlemen. I just wanted to indicate that the nature of this bill is a nature of providing capabilities and flexibilities into the future, and as such, the minister has more room to manoeuvre in the interpretation of this bill than in the past charter. As my colleague has indicated a lot of the nuts and bolts in the resolution of some of these points will be brought forward in the regulation process that can take, we anticipate, up to maybe a year as we get the different ranges. Throughout that process, the department has agreed to maintain the same advisory board that brought about this whole exercise to continue to function, and to watch through this articulation of regulation.
Having been an ADM and writing policies and then all of a sudden see the end results sometimes in a regulation, you wonder whether the regulation was for that policy or for something else. Therefore, the follow through is absolutely crucial. I think that return to the committee on Veterans Affairs on a regular basis would be a very welcome process to all the veterans who will ultimately benefit from it.
I am supposed to ask a question, I gather. Do you agree?
The Chairman: Could I ask Mr. Chadderton or Ms. Burdette.
Mr. Henderson: I would like to add to that. I think it was also indicated by the Ministry of Veterans Affairs that they encourage us to be involved in the process. We are glad you agree with it. Thank you.
The Chairman: Are there any further senators who had questions of these witnesses? Senator Kinsella?
Senator Kinsella: Just, Senator Dallaire has raised the question of regulations. My reading of the bill is that in section 63, there is an explicit provision dealing with regulations, but the regulations for this bill would allow only respect the rules of evidence and evidentiary presumptions relating to applications for a disability award or a death benefit.
Are there other sections of the act that colleagues have seen regulatory authority being granted? Was Senator Dallaire referring to anything in particular?
Senator Dallaire: No, what I was to articulate, maybe the term regulation, in my apprenticeship here, is how this bill will be applied by the functionaries in providing the services. Essentially, what I speak of is everything from the contractual arrangements with whatever companies will be hired to help in rehabilitation or the institutions of rehabilitation, or whatever companies in helping in finding job placements and so on. There is a whole process that has to be cranked up to meet that, and so whether it will be regulations, instructions, directives, policy statements and so on, all that has yet to be produced as a result of this bill, and the follow through of that I think is worthy of attention.
The Chairman: I think Senator Kinsella has found the section. It is section 94 that is called Governor in council regulations that may make regulations respecting. That is the section, so it is here and they do have the authority.
Honourable senators, if there is no further senators who wanted to ask questions, I want to say to the three presenters, Mr. Chatterton, Ms. Burdett, and Mr. Henderson, thank you for our your contribution to this important contributions to this bill for Canada and Canadians. 
Honourable senators, we welcome next to the table Mr. Dave Monro, and Mr. Monro is the National President of the Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association, the CPVA. CPVA is national post-World War II veterans association committed to improving the quality of life of veterans, the injured, and their families. Also Colonel (Ret'd) Don Ethell, is the Honorary President of the Gulf War Veterans Association. Mr. Peter Neary, the third member of the next panel, is the Chair of the Canadian Forces Advisory Council of Veterans Affairs Canada.
I do not know if the three of you have had a chance to talk or if have flipped a coin. I want to remind you what our procedure here is, that we would ask you to make a brief statement of five minutes or so. Following that we will go around the table and honourable senators who have questions will have an opportunity to put their questions.
I see the light for Dr. Peter Neary. You have the floor and welcome to the three of you to our committee.
Mr. Peter Neary, Chair, Veterans Affairs Canada - Canadian Forces Advisory Council: Honourable senators, my connection is Bill C-45 is both professional and personal. On both sides my family has benefited from the veterans programs of Canada. I know these programs well, and I know what an important part they are of our Canadian social-safety net.
Because of their fundamental importance, I want these programs reformed and improved. That is what Bill C-45 will accomplish. I therefore look forward to it becoming the law of Canada. Bill C-45 will promote intergenerational fairness in our country and give practical meaning to the recognition of former members of the Canadian Forces as veterans.
As you will know, this recognition only dates from 2001, four years ago, when the government extended the status of veteran to all former members of the Canadian Forces who had achieved trained status and been honourably discharged. This recognition was long, long overdue. Bill C-45 is the logical and required next policy step.
I am by profession an historian with a special interest in the history of veterans benefits in Canada. Let me tell you something about that history. During and immediately after the Great War of 1914-18, Canada quickly constructed a program of veterans benefits. In 1918, the Department of Soldiers Civil Re-establishment was created and in 1919 the Pension Act was passed. During the Second World War Canada built upon this legacy to greatly expand the benefits available to those who served in uniform. The complex program of benefits thus devised was known as the Veterans Charter. The program that Bill C-45 will renew and refurbish.
To administer and coordinate the original Veterans Charter the Department of Veterans Affairs was created in 1944. It subsequently tracked the Second World War generation through their life course and by the 1980s the department was one of the country's leading centres of knowledge about gerentological matters. More recently, the department, known since 1984 as Veterans Affairs Canada, has increasingly turned its attention to the needs of former members of the Canadian Forces. In the 1990s, the Canadian Forces were downsized, but subjected to an operational speedup. The result was a crisis of care, ably documented by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Defence and Veterans Affairs, in its important 1998 report Moving Forward. This report led to the quality of life initiative in the Canadian Forces. It also pointed a way to Bill C-45, the product of long and searching processes of inquiry and consultation which have gone on ever since.
In 1996, Veterans Affairs Canada began a comprehensive review of veterans care needs. This found that “the Government of Canada's responsibility for Canadian Forces veterans and their families needed to be confirmed.” The response of Veteran Affairs Canada to this key finding involved a range of initiatives one of which was the appointment in July 2000 of the Veteran Affairs Canada, Canadian Forces Advisory Counsel, which I had the privilege of chairing. The purpose of the council was to offer advice within the mandate of Veteran Affairs Canada on policies, programs and services to meet the needs of the members and veterans of the Canadian Forces and their families.
From its inception the council was interdisciplinary and included academic researchers, practitioners, members nominated by stakeholder organizations, veterans organizations, appointees from various federal departments and organizations, and a member from the retired Canadian Forces community. The council began meeting twice a year, spring and fall, and began accumulating information and sharing experiences. To help matters along, the council sent a fact-finding group to visit Canadian Forces bases and talk to members. The report of this group which was qualitative rather than quantitative helped focus the work of the council and led to the conclusion at our October 2002 meeting that a public consultation paper was needed to assist Canadians in understanding the issues facing Veterans Affairs Canada in responding to the urgent needs of Canadian Forces veterans and their families.
This was a very big undertaking, but by March 2004 we had three documents ready: A discussion paper entitled Honouring Canada's Commitment, Opportunity with Security for Canadian Forces Veterans and Their Families in the 21st Century, and executive summary of the discussion paper, and a reference paper that surveys the history of veterans benefits in Canada. I came to the subcommittee of veterans benefits of the Senate and talked about those.
We called for a program for Canadian Forces veterans and their families that would honour 17 principles and processes. We also identified six matters that needed priority attention. Our blueprint was welcomed by the government, and Bill C-45 builds on our initiative and provides a comprehensive program in the tradition of the highly successful original Veterans Charter, but adapted to 21st century circumstances and the changing realities of Canadian family life.
I urge the adoption of this bill, which is the product of lengthy research and discussion. The legislation you are considering builds on substantial Canadian achievement and deserves your support.
The administration of Bill C-45 will also continue the Canadian tradition of partnership between the government and veterans organizations. No doubt, the legislation will be modified and improved on the basis of experience and need, and our veterans organizations, a bulwark of our democracy, will be there every step of the way, just as they have been in the making of Bill C-45. 
The important thing now is to pass the bill and launch the program, on which so much time and effort has been expended. The need is proven and the hour is now.
In a radio comment I gave earlier this week on Bill C-45 I ended with these words: “In 1944 a young Canadian serving overseas wrote that he wanted to come home to, and I quote, “An organized country instead of people worrying about paying too many pensions.” That expectation is equally valid today for those who serve Canada in uniform around the world. Bill C-45 will make us an organized country again and that will be greatly to our credit.”
Honourable senators, Bill C-45 is sound and sensible. It is the product of broad consultation, and is ready to go. I urge its immediate adoption. Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Dr. Neary for an excellent, concise and clear presentation. Mr. Monro?
Mr. Dave Munro, President, Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association: Thank you. I will be brief. I do not want to repeat what my fellow colleagues have said. I agree with everything that has been said today, I represent the Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association and we have been fully engaged with the six veterans associations, access to information as it becomes available, not only in groups, but collectively. The process has brought the six veterans associations closer together. We meet with VAC to ensure that the legislation will be the best that it can be for veterans and their families. Sure, we have concerns. These will be addressed in during the regulatory process. 
Following passage of Bill C-45, VAC is committed to keep us informed, consulted and to meet with us during the writing of the new regulations and the impact that it will have on our families and our serving people. 
When we met in Toronto in January and again in Ottawa in April, we agreed to stand together to support Bill C-45. Our concerns have been tabled with Veterans Affairs Canada and we are comfortable that these will be addressed. I agree with my fellow veterans that it is most important that Bill C-45 receive Royal Assent. Thank you for allowing me to make the presentation on behalf of the Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association. 
Col. (Ret.) Don Ethell, Honourary President, The Gulf War Veterans Association: Honourable senators, my card reads “colonel,” but more importantly the first 16 years of my 38-year career was spent in the ranks and I was commissioned in the ranks. I am proud to be retired as a colonel, but I must admit as a sergeant and a warrant officer dealing with the troops, that is where you are at the coal face, like my colleagues on the right. 
I had the pleasure of serving on 14 tours out of the country. There is a joke in the regiment that it was to keep me out of the country. I served as the director of peacekeeping operations. 
Mr. Chadderton made the point about peacekeeping. That term is now passé, because it is peace support operations, because it includes maintaining, restoring and peacekeeping operations, ever since we started what we call the peacekeeping epidemic or peace support operations in 1987. 
I have had the pleasure of representing my home organization which is the Canadian Association of Veterans of UN Peacekeeping — we have to get a shorter title — as the immediate past president. As our colleagues from the Gulf War Veterans, the president and the immediate past president cannot be here, I am their honorary president and I am representing their interests. Having not served in the Persian Gulf, I was in the area of the multinational force and watched the scuds come into Tel Aviv in part. I represent both those organizations. Directly, that amounts to about 2,500 people, which is not that many, but indirectly it is 150,000 people who have served on peace support operations, plus the that NATO people, including the 104 sabre pilots who were shot down or crashed during the Cold War. 
I have had the pleasure of working on the Canadian Forces Advisory Council with Veterans Affairs and served on two of committees as the chair for research and communications and then latterly, my first love, which was for the families. 
I mention that, honourable senators, because a number of us were tasked, with the consent of DND and VAC, 18 different bases, to meet with the junior ranks. We did not want any of the colonels, RSMs or anyone like that, with no names taken, to get their feelings on what the problems were, knowing that if DND did not fix it, VAC would have to pay for it. That was a very worthwhile venture. We had two teams to talk to the troops and another team talking to the families. 
To make a long story short, we came back and presented our paper with some of the problems in regard to gross overtasking, operational stress injuries, PTSD and secondary PTSD with some of the cases in regard to families and presented our paper to Dr. Neary and the rest of the council which was passed through for action by not only VAC, but also DND. That was an interesting and fascinating process and I continue to serve as a volunteer chairman for the DND and VAC advisory committee. 
Part and parcel of this process with Dr. Neary's council and with the Neary report was the modernization task force. We are talking about consultation. I have heard that term a number of times. We have had individual and group consultations with VAC from our associations for over five years at the start of CFAC and certainly with the modernization task force, when it was being formulated. We were all approached individually, briefed, questioned and provided answers, and collectively, as Mr. Munro has just mentioned and as Ms. Burdett has mentioned, where we were brought together and we agreed we would support this and rightfully so.
Turning to the subject of Bill C-45, up until March 2001, I was not a veteran. That was the day I became a veteran, along with all the other CF members. This is the most important piece of legislation for veterans in the last 50 years and would not have been possible without the sacrifice, as Mr. Chadderton and others have said, of the traditional veterans, those who fought in World War I, World War II and Korea. If anything, there will be a spillover effect. This is for the CF veterans. 
The wellness strategy that our colleagues from the VAC committee have come up with, disability awards, rehabilitation, job placement and so forth, goes back to disability awards. On a number of occasions, when we were talking to the troops in the field, we were talking about disability and how many people were on a disability pension. I will not mention names here, but it is evident that they like the money, but fix me. That is one of the aspects that VAC has built into it. Yes, they will get some monetary compensation for that disability, but they will also receive treatment. That is built into the program. 
Are there shortcomings in this proposed legislation? Nothing is perfect in this world. It is by agreement with the six organizations that we will go back to the drawing board. The consultation process will continue. Yes, we have some reservations about lump sum and so forth. However, what they have done with the envelope — and like Senator Dallaire and a number of us who have been involved in the envelope process with Treasury Board — you only have so much money. That is what they have tried to do and have done. 
I will finish at that point, Mr. Chairman. The CAV, UNP and the Gulf War vets fully support this motion. We commend the minister, the deputy minister and the staff for their dedication and loyalty to veterans. 
The Chairman: In your presentation, you spoke a number of times about the consultation and how you were consulted. The word “consultation” means many things, but did you give your views and were your views heard and were changes made in the draft as a result of those consultation or hearing of your views?
Mr. Ethell: I would like to think so. I am sure that we were heard. The consultation process, with individuals coming out and talking to the various heads of the organization, and we are getting feedback from our own organizations, was ongoing and collective. Certainly during the five years of Dr. Neary's council there was a diverse group of individuals was looking at the problem from an academic point of view, from the stakeholders' point of view, and different angles. There were some rather heated discussions with VAC in the background listening to this agreement and copious notes were taken. 
The Chairman: I am getting the impression that you were heard. 
Senator Kinsella: I wish to thank the witnesses for the clear and precise detailing of their assessment of the bill that is before us. 
Turning to clauses 80 and 81, where the bill talks about the sharing of personal information that is gathered by the government or requested by the minister, this personal information is measured or defined by section 3 of the Privacy Act, but then it can be shared with different groups as defined in the statute. 
Dr. Neary, have you looked at that section, and are you satisfied with that particular section? 
Mr. Neary: I have not looked specifically at that section. I have read the section obviously, but I do not have specific information about it. It is a good question, senator. 
The question is best directed to the officials who are here with the ministry this evening who would be able to give an exact answer to that.
I have had a good many dealings with Veterans Affairs Canada through my life, and very close dealings over the five years. Veterans Affairs Canada is an organization which highly values personal information and is very careful about personal information. At the same time, in my work as chair of the advisory council, I have found it to be a unit of government that is willing to share information that should be shared. 
Senator Oliver: For the benefit of those who are listening or watching, I would like to read the first bit of that section. It is section 81 of the Act. 
81. Personal information that has been collected or obtained by the Minister in the administration of this Act may be disclosed by the Minister
a) to any person or body, to the extent that the disclosure is necessary in order for the Minister to obtain from that person or body information that the Minister requires for the administration of this Act or any other enactment administered by the Minister;
It goes on, but that is the essence of that section. 
Senator Downe: Like the members of this panel and the previous panel, I agree that the bill has made tremendous progress in a number of areas. Do any of the panellists have a concern about the lump sum payment? Traditionally, the department has done monthly payments, as I understand it. I am sure we do not want to be paternalistic, but is there concern that someone suffering shock, post-traumatic stress syndrome or whatever, even with financial assistance and advice, still has the option as I understand it to spend this money as quickly as they want if that is what they decide. Do you have any concerns in that area?
Mr. Munro: I believe that VAC have said they would supply a case manager to administer it or look at it to begin with and give advice. That type of question I believe will continue from the veterans association. We all have concerns about it and that will be brought up in the consultation process. I am quite comfortable with that.
Senator Oliver: Colonel, you wanted to add something?
Mr. Ethell: It is important that we understand that there is not total agreement in regards to lump sum. I will be up front with that. Some of us have kept our powder dry and will look at that when this becomes law. I am sure there will be follow up discussions with regard to that. There are pros and cons of lump sum. Mr. Munro brought up the point that financial management will be offered to individuals. You can look at lump sum being paid to somebody who is 54, just about to retire from the service, versus somebody who is 24, and there are pros and cons either way. I do not speak for VAC, but I understand that that was within the envelope, and that is what they decided to go with, and we support that, recognizing that we will probably address that issue in future negotiations. Is that diplomatic enough?
Mr. Neary: The lump sum payment always must be considered in the context of the whole program. It is part of a whole program of reestablishment. That is an important key to understanding it. One must remember that this is a unit of government with outstanding case management skills. These will be applied on a systematic basis to the needs of former members of the Canadian forces.
Senator Downe: Are any of the panellists concerned that the lump sum payment is an effort by the department to contain the cost? If you look at Veterans Affairs budget over the last years, the cost for health care has risen dramatically. A lump sum payment may be a way of fixing the cost, but it may be for the benefit of the treasury but not necessarily for the benefit of the veteran.
Mr. Ethell: When we started this process, we were not concerned about cost. I say that from a counsel's point of view. I am taking words out of our chairman's mouth. Obviously at a certain point in time the department had to be involved with the costing of this thing, the financial envelope. I do not mean to cop out, but that question should be posed to Mr. Mogan or Mr. Miller.
Mr. Neary: We could also look back at the experience of World War II veterans who did have a comprehensive pension program and reestablishment benefits. That was an outstanding success. It put people back to work. It quickly produced probably the most successful generation of people in the history of this country. It produced a generation of Canadian professionals. It was a huge success. There were choices. There was a systemic approach, and that is what we are returning to in Canada. 
The Pension Act has been an obstacle in some ways for people getting the benefits they need. These benefits will now be provided.
Senator Oliver: After World War II, was there assistance for things like university education for those who wanted it?
Mr. Neary: Yes, there was. About 55,000 Canadians went to university at the end of World War II and a whole generation of Canadian professionals was quickly produced by that program. The fact that we had such a program was of huge benefit to the country. It was an investment in young people. This will also be an investment in young people, young Canadians who need to build careers.
Senator Atkins: It was called the Veterans Rehabilitation Act and was superb. We are calling this the new veterans charter. Does it wipe out all discrimination?
Mr. Neary: What do you mean by “discrimination,” senator?
Senator Atkins: The Aboriginals were discriminated against after the World War II and after the Korean war. Are you satisfied that now that is not a problem?
Mr. Neary: I am satisfied that this bill looks at Canada as it exists in the year 2005 with the fact that families are being included and there will be benefits transferable to family members. A large effort has been made in this legislation to make it a true reflection of what this country is today. I am very comfortable with that. 
Senator Ringuette: I am not under the impression, and I certainly would not want anyone to be under the impression, that this lump sum potential does not remove the fact of monthly income. It is not an either/or. It is a plus, plus, plus. I just wanted to make sure, because a question earlier seemed to indicate that that was a lump sum payment, thank you, good-bye.
Mr. Neary: No. 
Senator Ringuette: That is not the situation.
Mr. Ethell: You bring up an excellent point, and I forgot what it was. 
Senator Oliver: She was asking about the lump sum and whether it is lump sum and that is it, or is there a continuing payment? 
Mr. Ethell: I am sorry. It was something else. Another senior's moment.
Mr. Neary: The senator is quite right that we come back to the lump sum having to be understood in the context of a comprehensive program which looks at the whole future of the person. 
Senator Day: My questions have all been touched on. All of our witnesses have made their points very clearly. I am very pleased that there has been consultation throughout. We heard from some individuals that there was not the type of consultation that you described. You are satisfied that that will continue?
Mr. Munro: I am positive it will, because we have gone through this process. We know that a schedule will be issued in the next four months, assuming this bill passes, indicating where we will be meeting and what we will be doing. This process is not stopping. It is a living document and a living process. The great harmony that we have between the six associations will continue. They know that they have to continue this process. They promised it; we need it; and the Canadian Forces members and their families demand it. 
Senator Day: You made the point that during this consultation process there have been some compromises. Obviously this will not satisfy absolutely everything that everybody wants, but it is, in your view, a good compromise. You heard the minister say earlier that this is a living document that will continue to expand to meet the needs of the future veterans. 
Is that your understanding?
Mr. Ethell: Yes, sir.
Mr. Munro: With regard to the “modern veteran”, in 1956 I was on the Suez mission. Our leaders were all World War II and Korea chaps. As a matter of fact, our top leader , General Neil E.M.L. Burns, was a lieutenant in the First World War. I want to ensure that we have consultations on the regulations about hospital care for us younger veterans that are rapidly getting older. 
The Chairman: I wish to thank all of you for your excellent presentation. It has been enjoyable and most informative. 
Our final panel includes a witness appearing by way of video conference from Nanaimo, British Columbia. With us here in Ottawa is Captain (retired) Sean Bruyea and by video conference is Harold Leduc. Captain Bruyea will be accompanied at the table by Lieutenant Louise Richard, Navy. 
Captain Sean Bruyea, As an Individual: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Louis Richard and I are both Gulf War veterans. I would like to introduce my wife. She will not be speaking but is here to support me. Those with operational stress injuries often need support around. My wife is from Mexico, and we often spend time there because that helps my symptoms.
In their haste to be seen as pro-veteran in this Year of the Veteran, all political parties are falling over themselves to pass Bill C-45 at all stages. What strikes many veterans as odd, and even unbelievable is that in the rush to honour veterans, our political parties have forgotten that the core issue for which a veteran in all wars fought was responsible democracy. 
In our system, responsible democracy requires consideration of government bills by committees, input by witnesses and stakeholders, as well as the often mentioned sober second thought of the Senate. 
We all know that the government wants to be seen as honouring veterans, but that does not necessarily mean that their veterans' charter is free of errors. In fact, given that the veterans' contribution to society is defined in many ways as timeless, one must ask that after Veterans Affairs has been dragging their heels for more than 15 years why is there such a rush to force something through in only two days? We believe disabled veterans and the CF would rather have it right than have a flawed and unjust charter right now.
With the understanding that a new veterans' charter truly serves those that society says it so highly honours, disabled veterans deserve a well thought out program. For this reason, consultation and feedback are truly important. In the minister's press release she states: 
There is a strong consensus among political parties and veterans' organizations for progressive legislation to give practical meaning to long overdue service and program reforms for those who served in Canada's Armed Forces.
We could not agree more. There is indeed a strong consensus for the need to act. Nonetheless, as we understand, a select group of six veterans' organizations were provided with advance copies of the charter on a confidential basis and forbidden from sharing them with anyone, including their membership. Thus the so-called consensus of veterans' organizations could be based on the view of as few as six people who actually saw the draft of the charter. In fact, veterans' organizations and opposition political parties based their support on a four-page press release. However, Bill C-45, as the chairman correctly point out, is a 50-page piece of legislation. 
There is broad support for the principle of a veterans' charter. However, most MPs, senators and their staff have not had time to read Bill C-45 in its entirety. Therefore to say that there is a strong consensus among political parties and veterans' organizations for Bill C-45 would be more than a slight exaggeration. The truth is that there has been remarkably little consultation and actual feedback on the legislation and the government appears to be more interested in public perceptions than in lasting results.
Of concern is the nature of those consultations that were conducted. Many of these were with groups that represent principally veterans of World War II. While it is fitting and proper to include them, as this is the sixtieth anniversary of their greatest victories and greatest sacrifices, the needs of the World War II veteran, as many have pointed out, and the needs of a soldier who has served in more recent conflicts can be very different. 
Indeed, the veterans' charter will not apply to World War II veterans. They are covered by a host of other regulations and act. Some are still effective and others have been suspended, such as the War Veterans Allowance Act, the Veterans Land Act and the Pensioners Training Regulations. Since the new CF charter applies to future veterans, it would have made sense to focus on consultations with disabled veterans and serving members in the most recent conflicts, such as Yugoslavia, Rwanda and the Gulf War, in order to meet the emerging needs of veterans serving in today's, not yesterday's military. Most witnesses in favour of Bill C-45 do represent yesterday's military.
Unbelievably, no real consultation and feedback actually happened. That is right, in designing her charter the Minister of Veterans Affairs did not engage in meaningful consultation and feedback with disabled veterans of the recent conflicts, or serving members who are also disabled. This is a fatal flaw in the design of her charter. However, perhaps the biggest flaw is the actual legislation. Bill C-45 is different in spirit from the publicly released document to Parliament and the public. Consider the supportive language of the veterans' charter: 
If CF members are injured or become ill in the service of Canada, they deserve the best health care possible.
Canadians expect that CF veterans and their families will be appropriately compensated for the economic and non-economic impacts of disability arising out of their service.
These are examples of comforting, reassuring language; in fact the kind of language upon which the so-called strong consensus among political parties and veterans' organizations is based. However, the language of Bill C-45 is not quite as comforting. You might consider it as the fine print of an insurance contract, and like fine print it is full of limitations and restrictions. As the saying goes, the devil is in the details.
Clause 9.2, for example, lets the minister refuse to consider an application that is made more than 120 days after the veteran's release. For many veterans this could completely block coverage. For operational stress injuries such as PTSD, depression, symptoms often do not show up for five or even 10 years, and it takes six months or more to garner a firm diagnosis. A 120-day limit on filing a claim puts the disabled veteran in a difficult bind. First, he has to justify an exception to the 120-day filing limit, and then he has to prove that his injury is related to service. Many disabled veterans will give up. Instead of making things easier, Bill C-45 makes them harder.
Worthy of careful scrutiny is that access to all benefits, including those for the family, are tied to following a VAC prescribed vocational rehab program, even though the veteran could be so disabled as to be otherwise unemployable. A veteran must be assessed as “totally and permanently disabled” in order to opt out of the vocational rehab. When we presented this portion of the legislation to numerous medical doctors and practitioners, their unanimous response was that even unemployable disabled veterans would be unlikely to receive such a restrictive prognosis. Thus, disabled and otherwise unemployable veterans will likely be forced to work or risk losing even the most basic of income supplements under the legislation. We believe that Canadians will come to view the new legislation with the term CF workfare.
Bill C-45 creates different and distinct class of veterans; one for those who served in the Canadian military on or before April 1, 1947, a second for those who served in Korea, a third for those who served from World War II to present, and a fourth for those who are covered by new legislation.
Canadians are always told that veterans fought for democracy and there can be nothing more fundamental to democracy than equality. Creating multiple classes of people who were proud to serve in the Canadian Forces is not the type of equality that Canadians treasure and that Canadians have died for.
The legislation calls for a one-time lump sum payment of $250,000. Most disabled veterans will likely receive only a fraction of that amount. Nevertheless, one must question the wisdom of giving lump sum payments to sufferers of operational stress injuries, while many are in the depths of depression and crisis. Presently veterans enjoy a lifelong yet modest disability pension. The lump sum payment is equivalent to no more than seven to 10 years of disability pension. Most disabled veterans live for 20, 30 or even 40 years after release. Such appropriate compensation, as the minister terms it, appears to dodge responsibility for caring for the disabled veteran rather than accepting responsibility for what are lifelong disabilities. If people are not convinced about the lump sum, will then I suggest the Senate recommend that they make an amendment so that veterans can make a choice between lump sum and pension.
Finally, I would like to comment on what is not in the charter or in Bill C-45. For many years now veterans have been calling for dedicated hospital beds for incapacitated veterans. Various groups and parties are called for creation of an ombudsman for disabled veterans, similar to what CF members now enjoy. The outgoing ombudsman for the Department of National Defence, André Marin, agrees with this philosophy, arguing that it is curious that the healthy employable serving member has an ombudsman while injured soldiers and retired soldiers and disabled soldiers do not.
Curiously, a confidential Senate analysis, written by one of the very few Canadians who actually read Bill C-45 in its entirety, states: While the legislation will provide veterans with much needed job assistance, it does not provide them with an ombudsman.
One often forgotten factor in all this political wrestling is the Veterans Affairs employee who is already at the breaking point, managing a number of different programs and three different classes of veterans. One must wonder about their ability to deliver quality and timely service with the addition of again another class of veteran, six more programs and legislation which allows the department to intrude upon the veteran and his or her family in the most private of matters at all stages of rehabilitation, medical treatment, job placement and financial security.
How is this treating the disabled veteran with dignity and independence? 2005 is the Year of the Veteran, and we have correctly spent this last week honouring the sacrifice and victories of World War II veterans. For us and for Canadians, they are all heroes. I would also like to show that beside me and in the audience are disabled veterans and heroes of modern combat, from Rwanda, Yugoslavia and the Gulf War. These veterans and their families are heroes for more than their service and sacrifice. 
Our mere action of defending the interests of modern veterans in the past has resulted in threatening letters and phone calls from the Department of Veterans Affairs. This compounds a general unwillingness of disabled veterans to speak openly not only of their own problems but it often prevents whistle-blowing on systemic problems within the complex and difficult-to-reach department. The bullying atmosphere has silenced many if not the majority of disabled veterans. In fact, we understand that the entire publicity campaign around the forcing through of the veterans charter has seen bullying at all levels. Members of veterans' organizations and government who never read the legislation, or never had time to, bullied the opposition with threats of turning veterans against anyone who opposes the bill. We thought we left bullying behind in the school playgrounds of the past. We thought we had the right to free speech in Canada. That is why we were willing to sacrifice our lives.
In this, the year of the veteran, if Canadians are truly interested in promoting veterans' welfare, we must look beyond the publicity around the veterans charter. We have to actually read the underlying legislation while demanding the kind of changes that will recognize the dignity of all Canada's veterans regardless of when they served or whether they choose to belong to a veterans' organization or not. What is the rush to pass this bill so quickly? If there truly is widespread support from all Canadians and sympathy for the plight of the veteran, especially the disabled one, a bill would pass any time of year and under any government. Thank you. 
The Chairman: Thank you for an excellent, forceful, powerful, passionate expression on this bill. Before going to questions, we will hear from Harold Leduc. 
Mr. Harold Leduc, Immediate Past National President, Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association: Honourable senator, minister and staff and fellow veterans, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Honourable General Dallaire and members of the grassroots veterans community for insisting, and for the collective wisdom of the Senate for agreeing, on providing veterans with an opportunity to exercise their constitutional rights to a democratic legislative process, rights that, although we understand the reason why, may have been otherwise forsaken in haste to rush Bill C-45 to Royal Assent. Canadian Forces members, veterans and their families, serve and sacrifice in a continuum to preserve these rights for all Canadians. This is very important to all Canadians. I would also like to thank Minister Guarnieri for her initiatives like the Year of the Veteran, and the leadership and staff of Veteran Affairs Canada, whose tireless work and dedication on behalf of veterans is exceptional, whether at the front lines or in the back offices.
I would like to take a moment and talk a little bit about myself. I spent 22 years in airborne infantry. I served in Germany and in Cyprus. At the end of the 22 years, in 1992, I was told, “Thanks for your service. You are broken. We do not need you any more.” From that day forward, I tried to find why we are treated different from other veterans. In doing so, I was lucky to be part of the Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association because we found a voice and, as part of that voice and part of the representative of that organization, I was able to propose for the Veteran Affairs Canada 1-800 assistance line and another proposal planted a seed with the Canadian Forces advisory counsel. I have been extremely lucky. 
The speed with which this bill must be passed has placed everyone in a difficult position. It is a dilemma for all involved. We heard people talk about consultation. I have been involved in this process since 1992, have been a member of the Canadian Forces Advisory Council, and have sat with the modernization task force, and I can tell you that we have been consulted on the details of the programs, but we have not been consulted on the details of Bill C-45 until two days prior to it being tabled in the House of Commons. That is unfortunate, because I have been interested and I have been asking about the details since at least January, at the earliest time. 
A little story, if I may: Denis Gogan was a simple soldier like the rest of us. He took soldiering very seriously. In the late 1970s, he selflessly saved another soldier's life in a mountain warfare training accident. That soldier was slipping through a harness dangling 150 feet above a dry rocky creek bed. The harness had cut through his uniform, skin and into his muscles, damaging nerves, rendering his arms useless. Because of Denis's quick actions in a dangerous situation, fatal or severe consequence was avoided. Denis continued on a wonderful career in the Canadian Forces, serving on a number of overseas missions. I was recently made aware that Denis became troubled in the latter years of his career, most likely as a result of what he has experienced. Unfortunately, I was also a recently made aware that Denis took his own life a few years ago. The impact of Bill C-45 must, in as much as due diligence requires, go to great lengths to prevent the pain and suffering for all soldiers, like Denis, and their families. It is a small price to pay in thanks for their service. I was that soldier whose life Denis saved that day. I will be forever thankful.
How a country treats its veterans also has a direct impact on recruitment and retention of the Canadian Forces. I support Bill C-45 in principle because the concept of modernization of legislation and benefits for veterans is long overdue. I have been working with the Department of Veterans Affairs to advance the very principle since 1992, and I found that the best way to do that is working with them.
The document co-authored by the membership of the Canadian Forces Advisory Counsel, of which I am a member, is entitled Honouring Canada's Commitment, Opportunity for Security for Canadian Forces Veterans and Their Families in the 21st century. This implies, and it was our understanding, that the new veterans charter should build on the people and the Government of Canada's existing obligations to those who served. This obligation is enshrined in the construction of existing veterans' legislation that we are currently qualified for. This obligation will not cost any money to continue.
The impact of Bill C-45, once enacted, will change forever how Canada treats its veterans, potentially creating another class of veterans, as we heard. While the intent of Bill C-45 is to re-establish Canada's commitment, it in fact changes it — a change made without consultation with veterans or the people and Government of Canada, the major stakeholders in the existing social contract. Therefore, in whose interests is it to shift the recognized obligation, and who agreed to the shift?
Bill C-45 will forever change the concept of the Pension Act, when simple amendments could meet our needs. Just as a point here, the Pension Act was brought into effect in 1916 for the Royal Canadian Navy and the Canadian Expeditionary Force. It was brought in as a regulation. It was then enacted in 1919 as the Pension Act and that forms the basis of what we know today as the Pension Act.
As we have heard earlier, the proposed $250,000 for a disability award is subject to the fifth system, a fifth system we were seeking to try and remove. All three legs — there are five legs of the new legislation, but the three — the job placement, section two and the disability portion all lack the benefit of the doubt as in the existing legislation.
Canada was faced with its Veterans Charter rewrite once before. This was achieved by bringing into force the Veterans Benefits Regulation 1950 under authority of the Department of Veterans Affairs Act and the newly enacted Canadian Forces Act of 1950. The regulation brought under it the necessary funding, existing, new and amended statutes required to meet the veterans' needs. It also allowed for amendments as required. The Veterans Benefits Regulation was enacted as the Veterans Benefits Act in 1954 once it achieved satisfactory purpose, all the while preserving the people and Government of Canada's recognized obligations.
There is wisdom in following best practice. We have heard that the new Charter is based on best practice from the U.K. and other countries. However, what we do not know is what the impact of lump sum payments and their current programs are on aging veterans. Today there are over 400,000 Canadian Forces veterans in Canada, and surely we do not think that they are all of the age of 39 or 40. Many are seniors.
I provide the Veterans Benefits Regulation just to table another model that worked. I think what we are seeking to find is something that will actually work. From my point of view, we need to exercise caution. Providing a regulation before legislation will preserve the current all-party commitment of funding and programs in a timely manner, allow for amendment of regulations under existing legislation, modernize and harmonize existing programs and services to meet the needs of CF veterans, members and their families and continue the people and Government of Canada's existing regulation or recognized obligations to those who serve.
One of the regulations that has been brought up and put back was the pensioner's training regulation for which, if you were injured in a special duty area, the Department of Veterans Affairs could provide for up to a university degree tuition and subsistence allowance. That is trying to be achieved in the new bill without the university portion. Often, especially for an infantryman that has spent over 20 years at a supervisory level, that is the barrier to getting at least a job that is equal in stature.
Reading through the debate of yesterday, it is my opinion that a Veterans Affairs ombudsman is necessary, whether it is an expanded role of the current CF ombudsman or a stand-alone office. While veterans' organizations can argue that they act in this role, their role is really as a watchdog for their subscribed memberships. The scope of the office of the ombudsman is greater. This ombudsman has to be the right person as well.
At the risk of running on, I will conclude, because you also have a copy of recommendations, by asking this committee not to forestall the chosen legislative path of Bill C-45 but to make recommendation in the shortness of time to bring Bill C-45 into force as a regulation under authority of the National Defence Act and Department of Veterans Affairs Act, if possible, to allow the all-party Government of Canada to solidify their commitment to Canadian Forces members, veterans and their families during this session of Parliament. This approach will also allow us to collectively resolve the concerns in the nuts and bolts of Bill C-45, as well as to preserve the people and Government of Canada's recognized obligations to members, veterans and their families of the Canadian Forces in the fullness of time.
Thank you again for preserving our constitutional rights through these committee deliberations and thank you for this opportunity.
The Chairman: Thank you very much for that excellent presentation. I think that you can still hear us so please stay on the line because senators want to put some questions to you.
Mr. Leduc: Thank you.
The Chairman: I will start with the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Kinsella.
Senator Kinsella: Thank you, chair, and I want to thank both of our current witnesses for their testimony.
First, to Mr. Leduc, I heard you say that you support the principle of this bill, but you raised some important questions on the detail of the statute. I have been studying the bill because that is my job. I am trying to see whether there is anything there that would be so offensive that some kind of a social injustice would be caused by the provisions of this bill, and I am having difficulty in finding that.
However, I am also concerned because witnesses like yourself are raising some important questions. It seems to me that often in dealing with social legislation, it is programmatic by nature as opposed to being self-executory; that is to say that steps are taken progressively to give flesh and bones to a conceptual social right that one is thinking about.
With experience with this bill, should it become statute, areas that have been mentioned so far and in things that I have read, it seems to me it would not be very difficult for Parliament, should convincing evidence be brought forward, to modify the new law, unless I am missing something. That is my question to you, am I missing something here? I think the bill, in principle, is good and I cannot find anything in the detail of the statute that I can find to be dysfunctional. If there is anything, that experience with the new legislation, that could be corrected.
I had raised the question about section 2(5) I think it was, around the issue of benefits if suicide was involved. Do you have a comment on that? That is on page five of the bill. I do not know if you have a copy of the bill. Do you have that concern about a benefit not being available if a veteran commits suicide — the family is not eligible for benefits? 
Mr. Leduc: Thank you very much for the question. In the clause-by-clause definition, I believe they spell out that if there were psychiatric or operational stress injuries that caused a person to harm themselves or commit suicide, they would be covered.
However, the part I am concerned about is that changing from the military culture to civilian culture is not an easy task. We are different people after we have been joined the service. We just do not take off the uniform and switch into being a civilian again.
Normal transition takes about two years. Sometimes people just cannot get it, regardless of their help. The bill needs to be liberally adaptable. From my understanding, you will have to have some kind of medical need before you can even get job placement or other. However, there may be some that may not have a medical need, just may have a social or psychological need, some kind of need that is other than can be described. I do not think that part on suicide will cover that because people will go to any length, including self-medicating with drugs or alcohol, if they perceive themselves to be in a position where they cannot sort out their own issues.
Senator Kinsella: If I can turn to Capt. Bruyea on the text of your presentation tonight. You are talking about the four different classes of veterans, in your mind. You raise the concern is this going to lead to some form of discrimination between classes of Canadians. The principle that is enshrined in section 15 of our Charter is that everyone is equal before the law and has equal benefit of the law without discrimination. Where do you see inequality and unequal benefit between these four classes that you have defined for us?
Capt. Bruyea: That is fundamental to our concern about the legislation. Senator Atkins brought up the point about discrimination. The new group that will be discriminated against, in spite of the publicity to support them and in spite of the valiant efforts of Senator Dallaire, are operational stress injuries, post-traumatic stress disorder and depression. 
I will call this legislation the “wheelchair ramp clause.” Most Canadians do not need wheelchair access, but what I love about Canada is we put wheelchair access in. We try to do that in most public buildings, do we not? This legislation does not have a wheelchair ramp clause for operational stress injuries. We heard one member from the veterans’ organization speak about forcing veterans into jobs because it is good for them. That is the agenda we are most afraid of. 
You are being asked to sign a blank cheque and trust that changes will be made regularly. The truth is that for 50 years veterans organizations behind me as well as individual veterans have been banging their heads against the wall to make Veterans Affairs Canada not only change the Pension Act but administer the act according to the way it has been written. I am sure you are no strangers to complaints about VRAB, departmental reviews and benefit of the doubt. When you are asked to sign a blank cheque here, what evidence do we have that Veterans Affairs Canada will do right with it? 
To see the most recent history of the actions of Veterans Affairs Canada we need only look at the Auditor General's report of 1998 and 2000. I would ask you consider that while deliberating. Such things as benefit of the doubt, the departmental review clause, all of those were pointed out by the Auditor General seven years ago. They are still problems today. It did not require new legislation to fix those problems. It required sound management. Veterans Affairs Canada still did not do it. Why would we trust that writing a blank cheque today ensures they will do what they promised? 
To get back to the specifics about the wheelchair ramp clause, I honestly believe this legislation will work well if it is for the person with a bad knee, bad shoulder, a 20 per cent physical disability, someone that perhaps has a slight adjustment from a mild case of PTSD, but this bill does not serve complex multiple symptom cases and complex chronic PTSD. Thirty per cent of operational stress injury victims will not get better. They will die with their illness, and they will die disabled. This legislation discriminates against them because it forces them into rehabilitation programs. 
The oft word you have heard is “gateway,” the gateway to programs. The gateway for any new legislation should be the word “veteran.” Not vocational rehab program but veteran. War veterans allowance was for war veterans. The university training plans were for veterans. They did not have to be disabled. They did not have to answer to a piper. They did not have to keep proving and putting themselves through needless stress, which I can attest is often suicidal with the hoops we have to jump through at Veterans Affairs Canada. That is the social injustice.
The Chairman: Thank you for that answer. Before Senator Kinsella asks his next question, I want to remind you that the very questions you are raising now and the concerns you seem to be expressing now were raised today by Senator Ringuette in her second and third questions she put to Minister Guarnieri. When the minister was talking about the U.K. work model and how successful it is, Senator Ringuette had two very piercing questions to the minister on that. I do not want to quote exactly what the minister said, but her answer was that you should not have to worry about it because there will be no detriment to you if in fact a model like the English model is employed. What I would like to suggest you do is have a look at the transcript and the minister's response to the two questions put by Senator Ringuette that address the concerns you have just brought forward. Senator Ringuette, do you recall that?
Senator Ringuette: Yes, I do. I did not understand your answer quite on the same issue. I understand your answer. Looking at your presentation as it is easy to identify a physical disability but a mental traumatic disability is not easily identifiable and quantifiable, I can picture a situation where a veteran would have somehow both. You are saying both of you have both a physical and a mental disability, which would qualify you for the gateway to training, as you said. Depending on the kind of career path and training you are looking for, that can either add or remove the mental disability or stress you are experiencing. I am not sure it is directly related to the 95 per cent success rate of job placement in the U.K. That is one issue and view, but what I perceive from you is something much different. 
The Chairman: He calls it the wheelchair ramp clause, which is missing here.
Capt. Bruyea: Thank you, senator. I believe you articulated my response exactly, however convoluted. I have to emphasize this again; the 95 per cent success rate will not occur with operational stress injuries. That is from the organization of the international study of traumatic stress. Multiple international organizations have confirmed this. There is a 30 per cent barrier for operational stress injuries. If Veterans Affairs Canada wrote this legislation with the intention that people will go back to work, a 95 per cent success rate is great for the budget, great for the bottom line, but the reality is the social injustice that occurs in forcing those people past that 30 per cent barrier. We both know in dealing with the basics of life that suicidal options are very common.
The Chairman: Mr. Leduc, who is in British Columbia, would like to add as well.
Mr. Leduc: I tend to agree. I think the 95 per cent rate we are talking about of job placement is job placement, but what is the rate of job maintenance? In my own example I did a couple of things. It was because you have difficulty focusing. There are a number of issues that come with just normal transition. Even with physical disabilities you sometimes hide it; sometimes you do not.
I return to my statement. Is it 95 per cent job placement or is it job maintenance? We are talking about the life work of veterans. It is not good enough to say that they have a job. We have to look at the end of the day to see how many successfully maintained their job, or were able to change career paths because they later found that they could not cope with their chosen path.
Senator Ringuette: I agree with what you are saying. I truly believe that a 95 per cent success rate is not a realistic statistic with regard to job placement, quality of job, quality of income and the long-term career perspective. 
Mr. Bruyea, I have looked at the different gateways that are proposed. In all of them there is a measure of appeal and review. I see that as a first realistic attempt to solve issues with regard to how to be fair to our veterans. It is pretty good, but I agree that there are some gaps. It will be up to people like you and Mr. Leduc, and all the associations, to ensure that your voice is heard in the second phase of this blueprint, the regulations and the implementation of them. If your voice is not heard, you must ensure that your parliamentary representatives are aware that the second phase is not rolling out as we all hope it will. 
If a review is needed, you have this process available to you. You are not alone in this. As you said earlier, all veterans have fought for this. Parliamentarians are there to listen to you and ensure that there is fairness in the system. 
The Chair: Which we are doing tonight, Mr. Bruyea. 
Capt. Bruyea: I appreciate that, and I thank you for having us here. 
Despite the good work that the six veterans organizations have done in the past, there is still a silent majority of veterans that do not have a voice. 
The Chair: How many?
Capt. Bruyea: We just heard the number. I would like to point out that many disabled veterans have to follow the treatment code according to Veterans Affairs Canada. For instance, I must see a practitioner in town. I must go through the process and my therapist must submit reports every ten sessions. This debilitating, administrative hurdle that Veterans Affairs puts us under only exacerbates our problems. 
Some of us have not had the luxury of being sent to Matt Friedman in the United States to get the best care possible. Some of us have not had the luxury of being sent to the Mayo Clinic in the United States. I do not mean to be offensive, but there are veterans who do not have people to defend them. There are veterans who have been intimidated into silence because of the process. 
An ombudsman is one wheelchair clause that would provide defence of the most marginalized of society. I recommend that the Senate attach an ombudsman clause to this legislation that will ensure that the concerns of the most marginalized veterans are defended. That is what Canada is about, looking after those who cannot defend themselves. 
The Chair: Thank you for that, Sean. 
Senator Mitchell: As the son of a soldier who served in the Second World War and Korea and on the International Control Commission in Vietnam, I am acutely aware of the contribution of veterans, current soldiers and other military personnel to this country, and I am very empathetic and sympathetic to what you do. 
As an aside, in addition to all the contributions that veterans have made, this debate that has emerged and been advocated by people like you and other veterans has elevated the prominence of depression as a general ailment and given it a greater understanding by Canadians as a whole. That is another contributions that veterans have made, and I am sure that Canadians are very grateful for that.
On page 7 of your presentation, Mr. Bruyea, you make the point that the lump sum disability payment will replace what in the past has been a disability pension amount. You say it would be equivalent to seven to ten years. Do you know how much lump sum is replacing how much pension? 
Capt. Bruyea: As I understand it, a basic pension for a veteran at 100 per cent is approximately $2,000 for an individual. That is $24,000 a year for approximately 10 years. There are additional benefits for married personnel of approximately $500 a month, which brings it up to $30,000 a year. There is approximately $180 for the first child and $150 for the second. 
A veteran with a family is getting approximately $35,000 a year in disability pension to support his family. That would be equivalent to seven or eight years. 
Senator Mitchell: If you did receive a $250,000 lump sum payment and you could invest it at 5 per cent, you would make $12,500 a year, whereas in order to earn $35,000 you would need to get a 16 per cent return per year, without spending any of the principal, because once you do that it goes quite quickly. 
Capt. Bruyea: When I was released from the forces, I would have had a difficult time with being given that sort of lump sum. Even with financial management, with my operational stress injury I would have resented any control over my money.
Senator Mitchell: You do not have a choice in this case; you will just get the lump sum.
Senator Ringuette: We have made it clear quite a few times that this lump sum system is in addition to monthly income. You cannot say that $35,000 a year is equal to approximately seven years of income, because that is completely different from a monthly income for veterans. It is part of it, but it is not unique. It is not the sole source of income.
Capt. Bruyea: That is an excellent point. I want to emphasize that under the present program, the Service Income Security Insurance Plan, people are not required to enter vocational rehab to get 75 per cent earnings loss. There is no gateway other than just being disabled; there are no vocational rehabilitation hurdles there. As well, they receive the disability pension. There are many allowances that SISIP does not deduct from, such as attendance allowance and exceptional incapacity allowance. If given my choice, I would much prefer the present system to the future one. 
(2120 — French follows — Senator Ferretti Barth) 

(après anglais)
Le sénateur Ferretti Barth: Ce projet de loi constitue un point de départ. Finalement, le gouvernement a tenu compte des besoins des vétérans et a mis sur pied ce projet de loi en consultant beaucoup d’organismes, d’institutions de vétérans. L’esprit de ce projet de loi est de rencontrer les nouveaux besoins, les besoins des nouveaux vétérans et non pas des anciens et d’apporter des modifications, des améliorations. D’après ce que j'ai compris de la présentation du ministre, tous les articles de la loi sont là pour être observés pendant l'application et peut-être modifiés et améliorés plus tard. Cela n'enlève rien à l'esprit de cette loi. Cette loi permet d'arriver à compléter la gamme des besoins de tous les vétérans, même les vôtres. Ce projet de loi est-il un bon point de départ? Est-ce quelque chose à venir? On peut toujours faire des changements. Une fois la loi appliquée, il y a des articles qui ne correspondent pas réellement aux besoins des vétérans. On pourra toujours l’amender et la corriger. Est-ce qu’en principe vous êtes d'accord avec ce projet de loi ou si cela ne vaut rien? Vous allez pénaliser beaucoup de vétérans qui attendent depuis plusieurs années un tel projet de loi?
(Capt Bruyea: Thank you I do not want to be sitting here and just being someone…)(anglais suit)

(2120 following French — Sen. Ferretti Barth: …projet de loi?)
Capt. Bruyea: Thank you very much for your question. I do not want to be sitting here as a naysayer who wants to attack Veterans Affairs. Many veterans have been through the ringer at Veterans Affairs. We have been through the process of jumping hurdles. The Pension Act is a much more benevolently written act in terms of clearly explaining what benefits are allowed to what veterans. Even then, Veterans Affairs has a difficult time administering it. My point is why are we rushing something through that is so important? I agree with everyone here, it is extremely important. It is also so important that it is worthy of each and every one of your attention to try to garner input from those that it affects most, the disabled modern veteran and the serving CF veterans. 
I recommend that the problem areas be taken out to the bases and that the operational stress injury support centre be consulted for feedback on the legislation itself. They were given briefings but only after everything was written. I recommend that the Senate take the time to treat this with the importance it deserves by having Canadians at large provide feedback. Point in case is that Louise and I are at a breaking point just to show up here tonight. I have been in tears most of the day. My wife is here, and it is because she is here and I am able to talk to you. The majority of operational stress injuries, these people cannot rush through a committee agenda that forces us to show up in one day's time and explain to you why this is wrong for us. Your healthy agenda is addressing the needs of disabled veterans. Should you not have a wheelchair ramp for those disabled veterans and have a agenda that respects their limitations to give you feedback?
Senator Oliver: When the minister was here, the minister said she would table with us some documentation on the consultation process she had. The minister also said she will later table with us some details on the U.K. experience that she referred to so that we can understand that better. In keeping her word, the minister has left with us today a document regarding consultations. I would like to read one of the paragraphs on the consultation process with respect to emotional psychological injuries.
“Extensive consultations occurred throughout the research and development phases with continuous input from veterans stakeholder groups during the final design stages which resulted in broad-based support. For three years, VAC worked closely with the VAC Canadian Forces Advisory Council, CFAC, which had representation from a number of federal government departments including DND” — and here is the key — “as well as experts in mental health, chronic pain, psychological and family services, and rehabilitation. As well VAC has worked very closely with DND who is on record as being fully supportive of this initiative. Veterans organizations have had the opportunity to provide input through CFAC as well the as well as the formal design consultations.” That is one paragraph from the consultation paper that we will be circulating to members of the committee. I wanted you to know about those words with mental health, chronic pain and psychological services family rehabilitation.
Capt. Bruyea: I would like to emphasize what Mr. Leduc said, honourable chair, that even the members of the council were not shown the legislation until two days before it was released publicly. That was only two weeks ago. It took me at least a week to go through it, and I know that Mr. Leduc has said it took him a week to go through that legislation. I am just wondering how long it will take the majority of disabled veterans that this legislation serves, to go through the legislation and find concerns. Why rush it? 
The Chairman: Mr. Leduc would like to add a comment to this too. As you know, government bills, there are questions of parliamentary privilege that can be attached if government bills are released to the public before they go to Parliament. There are some legal and strategic and parliamentary reasons why the actual document is not released. Mr. Leduc, please.
Mr. Leduc: I agree with that. I understand that principle, honourable chair. I know that while we are going through the consultation process as a representative of the organizations while we are looking at the program part with the modernization task force, we were asked not to bring the details to our members. In essence, there was a lot of consultation before, but that was leading up to. When we started looking at the program design, the task force were doing their consultation. They were asking us to keep them close to our chest. I understand the point about cabinet confidentiality, however we should have been able to put two and two together having been that close to the process. 
Frankly, some of the details of Bill C-45 came as a bit of a surprise. I will say as I said before, I support it in principle. It is a starting point. I just urge caution. 
Senator Dallaire: I wish to excuse myself to Mr. Bruyea for my reaction as he was speaking, which was inappropriate and not gentlemanly on my part. However, I realize he is finding it exceptionally difficult to even come here and do the process. I wanted to indicate it is also exceptionally difficult to sit here and listen to this process having been through it from its inception in 1997. I have made a statement and I feel that I am not in capacity to ask a question so I will defer.
Senator Day: Mr. Chairman, I was pleased to hear Mr. Leduc say that he found an opportunity for input through the Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association and then through the advisory council, but I had not heard from Capt. Bruyea whether he had found any avenues to express his concerns other than coming here this evening. Are you represented, or do you participate in the Royal Canadian Legion or any of the other military or ex-military organizations?
Capt. Bruyea: I have post-traumatic stress disorder. I do not deal well with organizations or the politics of it all. I really just want to be able to focus on getting better. To fight a political battle to get a point made in an organization so that maybe they might be able to fight a political battle to get it here is far too draining for me.
We have tried as individuals to get input. We started as early as 1997, at least, meeting with ministers, garnering more support more members, 1997, Minister Eggleton, Mr. Duhamel, Mr. Pagtakhan. These are systemic problems we have pointed out to the department. They are not the best written things, but there are valid concerns in here, at least one or two, I would hope, out of a couple of hundred pages.
The response from the department has been absolutely obstinate, not embracing, not saying, “Yes, we will open a forum and a vehicle for veterans like you.” We have recommended that. Why not have a customer response cell? Department stores have it. They want to see how they can improve services. How many Members of Parliament receive how many complaints about dealing with Veterans Affairs? Who coordinates the systemic problems? Who coordinates the systemic problems that Veterans Affairs deals with? There is no organization within Veterans Affairs that has coordinated input such as this.
Senator Day: Have you dealt with your Member of Parliament with respect to some of your concerns?
Ms. Richard: We have dealt with all levels of government, sir, starting from myself, 1994 till today. I mean, we are the voice of the silent. We do not officially belong to any organization because, as was explained, yes, they have their agenda, they follow their suit, they will listen to their members and that is fine, but the process is tedious and it is long. We have enough to deal with our own illnesses and Veterans Affairs to get our own care and needs met.
I do not think there is a week that I do not deal with a member of Parliament or I call one on behalf of a veteran that is not able to express themselves well, either because they are very heavily medicated or sedated because of post-traumatic stress disorder or they are on a bridge trying to jump off of it or their families are too distraught to handle this disabled veteran.
I am a registered nurse. Many veterans are misdiagnosed, or not diagnosed at all when they are serving with the Canadian Armed Forces. Upon release, that remains a problem. They fall through the cracks. I mean, perfect programs and policies are fine, and I commend them, but many are not able to reach out.
Senator Day: Have you seen in this legislation and heard the minister speak earlier this evening about each retired armed forces person having a case manager who will help them through this maze that you are talking about? Are you supportive of that concept?
Ms. Richard: Absolutely. I look at it a bit like a platoon commander, and that is what I am looking at Veteran Affairs as. A platoon commander has so many people under them, and they manage an amount of personnel or what have you. That is wonderful. We have worked for years now with ministers and different levels of government, and a lot of what has been brought forward tonight or was expressed or was in various documents has been adopted, and we are very pleased for that. Many changes have happened in the last years. We have mentioned the 1-800 number. Just the fact we have a diagnosis for post-traumatic stress disorder is a huge thing. Our older veterans unfortunately did not have such a diagnosis, and they never got the appropriate treatment. They dealt with their illnesses the best they could. The Legion was there for them, and that is wonderful.
In the here and now today, we are aware of these things. We are looking at different avenues to get either immediate treatment or soon to be treatment and a process to help us get better as soon as possible to move on with our lives.
Senator Day: Are you aware of the work that the Senate Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs has done on this whole area of occupational stress injuries and post-traumatic stress disorder? We have visited the hospital in Toronto, and we visited the Centre Saint-Anne and Dr. Paquette's group. We have had full briefings. We have urged the government and Veteran Affairs to move on certain of those issues. We feel we have made good progress. Are you aware of all that work that has been going on, and do you feel you have you an opportunity to bring your concerns in this manner? Would you be attending before a Senate committee if it were not for the fact that there is this piece of legislation?
Ms. Richard: We have tried in the past. This has escalated the process. Yes, we are aware of what has happened on a national level, but if you just look at Saint-Anne de Belleview, for instance, there are only four beds reserved for the critical sufferers such as post-traumatic stress disorder.
Senator Day: There are many day people who come in.
Ms. Richard: I agree, but there again, Quebec is a huge province. Ontario is a huge province. Yes, we are working towards change and getting these things into place, but.
Senator Day: You heard the comment earlier. We are urging you to participate. We are not trying to make everyone lawyers by reviewing this piece of legislation, but the application of the general principles of the legislation comes in the development of the regulations. You have heard the commitment here this evening from the minister, and you have heard the commitment from the various organizations that will be participating in helping to develop the actual application, how this principle or these principles will be applied. Are you agreeable to participating in that second phase? 
Ms. Richard: I am fully agreeable to participate in the second phase as long as it is an ongoing, non-closed commitment.
Senator Day: You have heard that commitment 
Ms. Richard: Yes, I have.
Senator Day: Is it the same for you, Mr. Leduc? 
Mr. Leduc: I am still involved. I was involved from the very beginning.
Senator Day: You will stay involved?
Mr. Leduc: It is not easy to keep me quiet.
Senator Day: Thank you.
Capt. Bruyea: Thank you very much. I would like to respect all the work of Senator Dallaire and everyone who has been involved since the beginning. This word has gotten out in only a week to 400 veterans who are outraged about some of the details of the legislation, but what has upset veterans most is probably the fact that they were not made aware of the process from the very beginning. We personally wrote a letter to the minister before the legislation started. We requested in person to the minister to be part of the task force in any way possible. We requested to meet with the task force last July. They responded they would take a written submission. Well, you can imagine, given the fact that none of our written submissions were ever dealt with, how enthusiastic we were about putting more stress and work into a written submission that was going to be ignored.
We have briefed the CFVAC advisory council. We requested to come back. They did not invite us back. Maybe some of the organizations are offended by our presence, and we are sorry about that, but we really want to emphasize that there is no mechanism in the VAC consultation process to reach out, and it could have been as simple as a year ago saying in The Salute, which is the newspaper all disabled veterans receive, “What would you like to see in a new charter?” They could have provided an email address and a mailing address. They could have taken 10 per cent of the letters. Maybe there would not have been that many letters.
The point is that those mechanisms were ignored in the consultation process, so it was still limited to a select group of six organizations. 
I recommend that the Senate consider, before passing this legislation, putting in a mechanism that will garner the input of the systemic problems that exist within Veteran Affairs Canada and allow the minister and the department to administer whatever new programs are put in place in a meaningful way. 
Senator Kinsella: I think our witnesses have provided very valuable testimony this evening which will help this committee and, particularly, our Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs.
I envisage this bill as part of a journey. This is the first step and there are many more steps to be taken. We cannot ignore the issues that Capt. Bruyea and Capt. Leduc have raised, which have been raised by others. 
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology is doing a very in-depth study of the quality of a Royal Commission. It is a continuation of its study on health with the focus on mental health. That committee has received much testimony directly on the questions that have been raised here.
We have been studying this bill in detail, and I cannot find anything in the detail of it that would be an impediment to us adopting it. However, in so doing, I do not think any members of this committee see this as the end of the exercise. My colleagues who serve on the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs have wanted to make some steps forward, and this is a good step. 
Mr. Chairman, we have had the opportunity to examine the bill in detail, and we have been helped by the testimony of these witnesses. As per our conversation of the last few moments, I see this as an ongoing journey and a very important second phase. 
Senator Day: Speaking on behalf of Senator Atkins and myself, as well as the other members of our committee, the Senate Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs is committed to follow up with all of the information we have received tonight, and we will certainly follow up with the minister on a regular basis to ensure that veterans are being properly attended to. The minister is very cooperative in appearing before our committee whenever we ask her. We invite you to continue to follow the activities of the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs. 
I cannot say it any more clearly than Senator Kinsella has just done. I know that it has not been easy for you to participate in this process, but it has been very helpful for us. We thank you for that.
The Chairman: On behalf of the committee, I wish to thank you all very much. We have deeply appreciated your input. It has broadened our understanding of this important legislation.
Honourable senators, this concludes the witnesses that we set out to hear this evening. The committee notice, as amended, indicates that our study of Bill C-45 is completed, unless there are other witnesses to come before the committee now.
I do not see any.
Senator Day: Mr. Chairman, as indicated by the minister at the beginning of this session, the departmental officials have remained here. If any senator has any question arising from any of the other testimony that we heard, they are here to answer. If there are no questions, I propose that we proceed to clause-by-clause examination of the bill.
The Chairman: Is it agreed, honourable senators, to proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-45, an act to provide services, assistance and compensation to or in respect of Canadian Forces members and veterans and to make amendments to certain acts? 
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 1, short title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed. 
The Chairman: Honourable senators, shall clauses 2 to 35 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, shall clauses 36 to 117 carry? 
Hon. Senators: Agreed. 
The Chairman: Shall schedule 1 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed. 
The Chairman: Shall schedule 2 carry? 
Hon. Senators: Agreed. 
The Chairman: Shall schedule 3 carry? 
Hon. Senators: Agreed. 
The Chairman: Shall clause 1 short title carry? 
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall the title carry? 
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall the bill carry? 
Hon. Senators: Agree.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, shall I report the bill without amendments to the Senate? 
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Senator Atkins: Is there an opportunity to make a comment?
The Chairman: Yes, right now.
Senator Atkins: It has been a very interesting evening and one I think all of us have taken quite seriously about the comments that have been made. I think it is important also to say to the people of Veteran Affairs Canada that in our experience as members of the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs, our dealings with them have been really outstanding. 
I would like to believe that every department of government was as good as Veteran Affairs Canada. While Veteran Affairs Canada is not perfect, but the experience I have noted is, first, they are user-friendly, and they are under extreme pressures in certain circumstances. I think that the work that they have done deserves our gratitude and appreciation.
The Chairman: Senator Atkins, I think that is an excellent comment. It is certainly on the record and it is something that the clerk will take before our steering committee and a letter will likely go forward encompassing your views.
Honourable senators, is there anything further to come before the meeting tonight at this time?
Senator Day: We all agree fully with the words of Senator Atkins.
Senator Downe: I just have a brief comment as well. We all agree with what Senator Atkins has said, and it is not because Veteran Affairs is located in Charlottetown. That may be a factor.
The Chairman: Say Atlantic Canada, not Charlottetown.
Senator Downe: I wanted, as well, to congratulate the clerk and all of those in Senate who on very short notice were able to put this together very quickly with a list of witnesses on all sides of the issue. I know they worked long hours on it, and again it is another indication of the Senate doing some of the work that is not done in the House of Commons.
(French follows, Sen. Ferretti Barth: Serait-ce possible de mentionner) 
(après anglais)
Le sénateur Ferretti Barth: Serait-ce possible de mentionner à la ministre qu'effectivement la loi est adoptée, mais que quelques sénateurs, comme moi, aimerions qu'elle montre davantage d'ouverture pour des situations comme celles que le jeune homme nous a expliqués, afin de voir s'il n'y aurait pas une future application de la loi qui répondrait aux besoins de ces vétérans qui se sentent visés.
(The Chair: I thought Senator Day indicated that we do...)
(anglais suit) 

(Following French, Sen. Ferretti Barth - qui se sentent visés?)
The Chairman: I thought Senator Day indicated we do have a subcommittee that deals with that very thing, and Senator Day indicated that they will be looking into these issues in their future meetings. Senator Atkins and Senator Day, who were here tonight, serve on that committee that deals with the affairs of veterans.
Senator Ferretti Barth: Like Senator Downe, I think this is so short a time. You cannot go inside of the bill for people like me. They went to the war. I never went, I never did military service. For me, it is very hard to understand something like this with my sensibility. 
(French follows, Sen. Ferretti Barth - Autrement, c'est vraiment)

(après anglais)(Sen. Ferreti Barth)
Autrement, c'est vraiment difficile de porter un jugement précis, honnête et transparent. Le témoignage du dernier témoin m'a touchée. Je pense qu'il y a d'autres personnes comme lui et c'est vrai que la loi ne fait rien pour cette catégorie de gens. Je ne me sens pas confortable dans cette situation.
(The Chair: Senator Kinsella also said before he left...)
(anglais suit) 

(Following French, Sen. Ferretti Barth - dans cette situation)
The Chairman: Senator Kinsella also said before he left that he sees this as a journey and this was the first step in the journey. As a result of a lot of the evidence we heard from British Columbia and from Capt. Bruyea tonight, this is now part of our record and it is something that can be picked up by the committee that is designed to study these issues, the committee that Senator Day, Senator Atkins and Senator Kinsella serve on on a regular basis.
Senator Day, did you want to add to that?
(French follows, Sen. Day: Je comprends que c'était)

(après anglais)
Le sénateur Day: Je comprends que c'était un peu difficile pour les membres de ce comité d'étudier ce projet de loi. Il aurait normalement dû être étudié par un autre comité, mais du fait que ce comité voyage, cela a été renvoyé ici. Mais je vous remercie sincèrement parce que c'était un projet de loi très important. Nous avons bien étudié et nous avons bien réussi.
(The Chair: Honourable senators, our next meeting is ...)
(anglais suit)

(Following French, Sen. Day - avons bien réussi)
The Chairman: Honourable senators, our next meeting is on Tuesday, the 17th, and we will review a draft report done on the officers of Parliament and on the issues of foundations. If there is no further business, this meeting is now adjourned. Thank you for your help and assistance tonight.
The committee adjourned.

To subscribe to VeteranVOICE.info send an email to webmaster@veteranvoice.info

Disclaimer and Non-Endorsement for VeteranVoice.info: Please click here!.