Thank you.

It will be seven minutes. I timed it earlier.

My name is Brian Robert McKenna. I'm a resident in the riding of Newton—North Delta in British Columbia. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today with regard to these matters.

The issues in front of us are serious ones. I'm honoured both to be here in this great building and perhaps to have a small role in making some progress on these issues. I'll take a couple of seconds to introduce myself and then I'll get going.

I'm a soon-to-be-retired warrant officer from the Royal Westminster Regiment in the army reserves. That retirement is not my choice; it's the military's choice. I come to you today as a representative of the B.C. Veterans Well-being Network.

I've experienced a number of the situations that this committee is tasked to review. My release from the Canadian Forces is due to my inability to meet the requirements of the universality of the service. I was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder in 2012, and also suffered some intestinal damage due to a bug I caught in Afghanistan. While I'll always have pride in my service, there's a large hole in my own self-worth as I struggle today with the realities of losing my connection to the organization I loved. I'm one of the folks you guys talk about. I'm coming to terms with the fact that the organization I risked my life for no longer has a position for me.

I have read the bill in question and I'm filled with a number of thoughts and emotions as I contemplate it's content.

I'm saddened that we are now fixing these problems in 2015 instead of years ago, but I am happy that these issues are finally in the public light. In the fairness of giving credit where credit is due, along with knowing how long it takes to produce in-depth policy, I'd like to give some credit both to the current administration at VAC and to the previous minister's staff, who I'm sure had a hand in these files.

I have to say, the changes being considered are positive steps. I'm optimistic, and more important than that, I am trusting that, through you people, real veterans will see some real improvements on these issues.

I'd like to bring your attention to a few thoughts I had upon reading the points being discussed.

Division 17 of part 3, as described in paragraph (b) of the legislative summary, refers to the transition process and enabling the Minister of Veterans Affairs to essentially engage sooner. I see value in that. The current situation of major engagement being initiated by the department upon release could be described as a football throw. We know in these cases which department is throwing and who is supposed to catch, but in football some passes are incomplete.

What we should strive towards is more of a football running play where the ball is secured in the receiving player's arms before the line is hit, enabling them to hit the line running. I ask the committee to consider that VAC should be the lead agency in the health care of the veteran as soon as the release message is in the hands of the soldier.

So much mental stress is due to the add-on factors that compound the problem originally faced. Ambiguity is a major stressor. In the current situation, the affected service member faces statements like, “may qualify” or “can apply for” and often, “can apply for later upon release.” Perhaps we could change some of those to, “will receive” or, “is entitled to,” before they leave the Canadian forces and move to the unknown.

I would further suggest that, upon receipt of the release message, the soldier's VAC case manager be assigned. At that point, not upon release, they could begin to apply for the full suite of Veterans Affairs benefits.

This would serve to alleviate conflict and draw cleans lines as to who is actually the lead care provider for the member as they transition, instead of the current scenario, which again, is the football pass.

A risk of having two organizations looking at the same case is the likelihood that at some point, in some cases, there may be confusion about who is actually in charge. Establishing a policy of engaging the case manager earlier, when release is known as opposed to when release is complete, has the potential to remove some of the variables in the transition process.

Lastly, I'd like to identify a concern with what is described in paragraph (c) of the legislative summary. My concern is with the surviving spouse in respect to the benefits mentioned.

Certainly I'm happy to see the needs and contributions of the spouse being considered. My concern is that these spousal benefits are tied to the income of the veteran. Both the earning loss benefit tied to 75% of the pre-release salary and the proposed continued financial benefit past age 65 are not received by a veteran who has other forms of income that go higher than the threshold described.

The concern is that when that veteran dies, since the veteran did not collect the benefit because of making too much money, the surviving spouse then does not receive the entitlement.

My suggestion to this committee is that you study and produce a mechanism that delivers the characteristics of the benefit to all those who would have qualified, regardless of whether or not, because of finances, they actually received it. That way we avoid making a second class of surviving spouse upon the death of the veteran.

I'll close my comments by reiterating one point. The symptoms and presentations of PTSD are tough to live with, in some cases completely crippling. Regardless of the effect and severity of mental health conditions, there is a constant: these conditions are worsened by a lack of clarity about what your next few years are going to look like. Facing a mental illness while staring at financial insecurity and potential job loss is the perfect storm to worsen the very conditions we are attempting to treat and alleviate.

Financial stability for veterans isn't just part of mental health, but in some cases it is their mental health. I can only encourage you to dig deep into these proposed revisions to try to flush out as many inconsistencies as possible, so that upon royal assent the detailed implementation of the act matches the intent.

Thank you.

Transcript

Discussions (0)