Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members.

Like many public announcements, these new programs seem to offer more financial support for the veterans community. Closer examination of each one can raise a host of potential problems.

The one question that this committee can ask VAC about any new financial policy is, how generous will VAC be? VAC has a reputation for being as stingy as Ebenezer Scrooge or Scrooge McDuck. As of 2014, only 227 clients had received 100% of the new Veterans Charter lump sum, out of 46,760 recipients. The CIB lump sum of $70,000 will be offered on a limited basis and, like the NVC lump sum, is based on a percentage calculated by assessing the severity of disabilities. Initial estimates suggest that hundreds rather than thousands will receive CIB.

The FCRB is expected to provide relief to approximately 350 spouses or caregivers by 2020. Why is this estimated number of caregivers so small? I would think that many primary caregivers would like to take a break, considering the fact that many of them did not expect to have to work for 24 hours a day, seven days a week, because of veterans' disabilities. In fact, the FCRB could reduce the number of divorces caused by caregiver burnout.

The RISB may benefit about 261 clients over the first five years of the program. In my opinion, the RISB also has a poorly justified limit. In addition, it will be 70% of pre-65 income. There are two concerns that I shall highlight. Why is there any decrease in a veteran's financial support because of a change in age? Is it assumed that veterans need less support after the age of 65? Based on the studies of VAC's own Gerontological Advisory Council, veterans are able to enjoy long life but only if they have good support.

In 2006, Greg Thompson, the incumbent minister, provided information on the veterans independence program for this very committee. He stated that 86,000 war service veterans did not receive VIP. He did not offer an explanation about why they did not receive support and added that providing them with VIP might never happen. He did acknowledge that that home care is better than institutional care, and the council also acknowledged that veterans were likely to live longer if they remained in their own homes.

VAC is also aware that most of the health care given to Canadians occurs when we are babies and then in the last months of our lives. This suggests to me that, rather than less money, veterans will need more money to maintain an independent lifestyle, which will likely include support during activities that elderly and disabled people find difficult or impossible.

It should also be noted that the age of 65 will stop being a benchmark by 2023 for old age security. Will VAC also raise the age of eligibility for the RISB? I think that using age as a factor contradicts the spirit of Canadian human rights. Pension Act benefits are awarded in recognition of the sacrifices made by veterans, as are other benefits provided by VAC. Decreasing these based on age is discrimination. Nobody improves with age, unlike wine.

In summary, these three programs are expected to benefit a very small number of the estimated 205,000 clients and their families. The RISB may also result in financial hardships at a time in life when clients may need to pay for more support. Why is VAC developing programs if only a few will benefit?

Thus, VAC seems to be advertising a lot but delivering only a little.

Thank you.

Transcript

Discussions (0)