HANSARD
NOVA SCOTIA HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
STANDING COMMITTEE
ON
VETERANS AFFAIRS
Tuesday, May 19, 2026
Committee Room
Veterans Survivor Pension Benefits
Printed and Published by Nova Scotia Hansard Reporting Services
VETERANS AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
Melissa Sheehy-Richard (Chair)
Ryan Robicheau (Vice-Chair)
Chris Palmer
Nick Hilton
Damian Stoilov
Suzy Hansen
Paul Wozney
Hon. Iain Rankin
Hon. Derek Mombourquette
[Paul Wozney was replaced by Rod Wilson.]
In Attendance:
Philip Grassie
Legislative Counsel
Tamer Nusseibeh
Legislative Committee Clerk
WITNESSES
Armed Forces Pensioners and Annuitants Association of Canada
Dr. Joseph Blanchard, Chair
National Council of Veteran Associations
Derrill Henderson, Vice-Chair
Paul Baiden, Vice-Chair
HALIFAX, TUESDAY, MAY 19, 2026
STANDING COMMITTEE ON VETERANS AFFAIRS
1:00 P.M.
CHAIR
Melissa Sheehy-Richard
VICE-CHAIR
Ryan Robicheau
THE CHAIR: Order. I bring this Standing Committee for Veterans Affairs to order on this beautiful, glorious day. I don't know if anyone around here, I hope, had the opportunity to get out and enjoy some of that amazing weather that we had, and continue to have, which is a nice change.
I'm Melissa Sheehy-Richard. I'm the MLA for Hants West and Chair of this committee. Today we will hear presentations regarding the Veterans Survivor Pension Benefits. I remind everyone to please put their devices on silent. In case of emergency, we will use the Granville Street exit and make our way up to Grand Parade. I will now ask the committee members to introduce themselves for the record by stating their name and constituency. MLA Robicheau.
[The committee members introduced themselves.]
THE CHAIR: I would also like to note the presence of Legislative Counsel Philip Grassie to my left and Legislative Committee Clerk Tamer Nusseibeh to my right.
Today's topic is Veterans Survivor Pension Benefits. At this point, I would like to welcome all the witnesses. One is here in person and two - I see you online. It looks like it's quite a lovely day there as well, so hopefully it's not too much of a heatwave and it comes in at a slow temperature. I would ask at this point that the witnesses at first just introduce themselves and whom they're representing so that it's on the record, and then I will go back and invite you to give your opening remarks. We will begin with Mr. Henderson.
[The witnesses introduced themselves.]
THE CHAIR: It seems we get your weather either right before or right after. In our - I feel like saying studio - in our committee room, I have Dr. Blanchard.
[The witness introduced himself.]
THE CHAIR: At this point, I welcome Mr. Henderson to bring his opening remarks.
DERRILL HENDERSON: The National Council of Veteran Associations in Canada, or NCVA, was founded in 1932. It was established as an umbrella organization of veteran associations to ensure a strong, independent voice on issues significant to the veteran community. At the time, they were associated with The War Amps, then known as the Amputations Association of the Great War. We do not know exactly the number of member associations that were part of the opening council, but currently, the NCVA now represents 72 member organizations, and we remain a strong, independent voice on veterans' issues.
In 1943, NCVA received its letters patent and became acknowledged as a separate organization from The War Amps. Cliff Chadderton, a tireless advocate for veterans' rights, served as Chair from 1965 to 2009. At that time, there were about 60 member groups. When he left, Brian Forbes became Chair in 2010 and served in that role until his untimely death in 2024. He too became one of the most recognized individuals on veterans' benefits. Most of his proposals have been supported by the Legion and the ANAVETS. Bruce Henwood was elected chair in 2025. He is unable to attend this sitting because of previous commitments. Both Paul and I, who you have now met, have been vice-chair for several years. I trust this adequately introduces our organization.
THE CHAIR: Thank you. I will invite Dr. Blanchard.
DR. JOSEPH BLANCHARD: Good day. The Armed Forces Pensioners and Annuitants Association has been around since the 1990s, or sometimes longer - there is more information that can be found in our files. We advocate for veterans' benefits and programming. We work with the NCVA on different issues, and we continue to work together today with other veterans who give us a call about some of their challenges within the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Our articles were incorporated back in 2006, and in 2012 we revitalized the association. Today we continue to promote and advocate on behalf of veterans and their families on issues of importance, specifically some of the benefit programs that we will talk about today.
Our new vision will hopefully be approved soon enough, where we're going to expand our advocacy for the pensioners and will also grow the organization to support with different benefit programs.
THE CHAIR: I just wanted to at this point remind everybody to wait until I acknowledge you to speak. Your microphone will turn red. Legislative TV will do that for you. You don't need to press any buttons.
With the first round of questioning, we will have the NDP caucus for 20 minutes, followed by the Liberals for 10, and the PCs for 30. I would now turn it over to MLA Hansen to begin our first round of questions.
SUZY HANSEN: My question is for anyone who would like to answer. Veterans contribute to the Canadian Armed Forces superannuation fund throughout their entire career. One of the important benefits they get in return is a 50-percent survivors' pension for their spouse. Veterans deserve to know that their loved one will be taken care of if they pass away first, but the pension fund's “Marriage after 60” clause puts this in question.
Why can't individuals who marry a veteran over the age of 60 receive survivor benefits? Is there a good explanation for that?
THE CHAIR: Dr. Blanchard.
JOSEPH BLANCHARD: There have been challenges with the “Marriage after 60.” Specifically, there are two key items. Number one is that there was a lack of formalized communication to the veterans. A lot of them have not heard about this program even to today. They were unable to come into that piece. That's just the systemic communication barrier that's there. Marriage after 60 of the CFSA - and it applies also to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act - which denied pension benefits to their spouses who begin the relationship with a veteran after they turn 60.
There have been challenges in proving that they've been together. I have one case of a veteran - they've been together for 27 years and never, ever heard about the program. His common-law spouse has been never on the house, the bank accounts, or whatever in that time frame prior to 60. Now, after 60, it's become a concern. She is now on the taxes for the home and the bank accounts. It's insufficient. They will not recognize it. There are some challenges in gaining recognition, not only that they did not know about this but in going back they've been denied. Same story - you can't go retroactive.
SUZY HANSEN: No one else wanted to speak to that? Okay. I'll ask my next question.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Baiden.
PAUL BAIDEN: Just to add to what Joe has already said, the “Marriage after 60” thing has been beaten around now for well over 25 years, back and forth, all starting way back in the early 1900s. It actually manifested itself out of the American Revolution, where old veterans were marrying 40-year-olds. That's where it became called the “gold diggers clause.” Of course, if you're 70, or even 60, and you marry somebody 40, obviously the government is going to have to pay an awful lot of money on your demise to that spouse. That was where the gold diggers clause came into effect.
For years now, Liberal governments, Conservative governments, back and forth, have advocated that yes, we should do something about it, but to date, to no avail. Nine times out of 10, it comes down to the fact that the actuaries say that it would be too expensive to implement, because then the public service would also ask to be compensated accordingly, and military personnel tend to require - well, the age limit, up until just recently, for retirement for CAF and RCMP was age 60. For public service, it's even longer, so they tend to pay into their pension contributions for a longer period of time. For instance, in CAF and RCMP, a lot of members retire at age 50 to 55. Consequently, the actuaries feel that it would be too expensive to abolish the after-60 clause. I hope that gives you some insight.
SUZY HANSEN: From what I see, the clause appears to be an arbitrary measure with the sole purpose of limiting the federal government's financial liability. When you're in a loving relationship after the age of 60 - and as we know, it's always an amazing time to be with someone that you care about - chances are your spouse is going to be taking care of you in one way or another in an effort to save money. I'm just wondering: Is the federal government disregarding the significant contributions that spouses make to the lives of veterans whom we owe so much to? Your thoughts on that.
JOSEPH BLANCHARD: I would say yes. Disproportionately, of course, it affects women within the relationships. It has had its challenges. Yes, disproportionately it affects the spouse or female member.
SUZY HANSEN: In 2022, the National Association of Federal Retirees published some of the testimonials that they received about the impact of the “marriage after 60” clause. They heard from Ardith, who gave up her private health care coverage to consolidate with her partner, a veteran whom she married after she was 60. She said: “I had no idea his coverage ended . . . I can't tell you the number of people I called at Veterans Affairs, and they couldn't believe it either.”
[1:15 p.m.]
I'm curious to know - just based on your folks' experience - how common is this? Is the federal government doing a good job communicating this clause - as we heard earlier, it wasn't - to the veterans and their spouses? Are veterans and their spouses being left in the dark? How could they do things differently?
JOSEPH BLANCHARD: Yes. Of course, the communication piece is the key element - or this communication failure. It's been legislated since 1992-94. The survivor benefit, as I indicated, was never taught to anybody. Yes, I do remember several members giving up private insurance to accommodate the new spouse, a veteran, his pension plan or her pension plan. Even today, I spoke last week, and there's still a lack of communication on any type of veteran programming or veteran rules or regulations that need to get out. I spoke to the Veterans department on that.
PAUL BAIDEN: What we're talking about here is the Optional Survivor Benefit package - I believe that's what Joe was referring to - which actually came into being in 1992 and into force in 1994. Out of all of that, 95 members opted for this VAC program, and basically, because there weren't sufficient numbers, and it was going to be too costly for the average veteran - you give up 30 percent, 40 percent, or 50 percent of your pension to pay for this almost - it's like an insurance plan to cover your spouse on your demise. Then if your spouse passes away before you do - the person you were trying to cover - your money doesn't go back to you and to your pension. It goes back to VAC and you have lost that money. Consequently, that's why only 95 members ever opted for that particular Optional Survivor Benefit.
THE CHAIR: MLA Wilson.
ROD WILSON: I'm somewhat of a data geek. I'm curious about if the hypothesis that it would cost too much - my question, then is: Have there been any analyses or projections about what the actual would cost? How many people - “marriage above 60” - there are? My first question is: Any projections?
“Costing too much,” to me, speaks to a contrast to something else. Costs too much compared to what?
One is more of a data question, then the other is a bit of a hypothetical question, but have there been any projections as to what the cost would be? How many people would be eligible for “marriage after 60” in the Canadian Armed Forces? When we say “costs too much,” what's that benchmarked against?
THE CHAIR: Mr. Baiden.
PAUL BAIDEN: In June 2022, NDP's Rachel Blaney did a cost factoring on it. In 2023-24 dollars, she estimated it would cost $62 million for the government to pay for 4,490 survivor relationships after 60, and 90 percent of them were women over the age of 70. That'll give you some insight.
But the actuaries - there is documentation that it would cost considerably more for the current members of the Canadian Armed Forces to pay to cover the costs of those who have already retired if it were implemented. That hasn't been proven, to my knowledge, but that was the contention.
I hope that answers your question.
THE CHAIR: Dr. Blanchard, did you have anything you would like to add?
JOSEPH BLANCHARD: No, I'd agree with exactly what Paul mentioned. I mean, I have some of the factual data that has been gathered. Paul's is the 2023-24 - it's more updated. But we're talking - in today's numbers, there are over 3,954 affected CAF survivors since that 2023 data, and some of the numbers - which is one thing we haven't spoken about, which is the Veterans Survivors Fund that came into play in 2019, which has not been utilized, and the framework within that today has not been resolved. There has been no attempt, or there has been no resolution, to be able to distribute that funding.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Baiden.
PAUL BAIDEN: That was the Veterans Survivors Fund from 2019. In 2020, the government proposed $150 million over five years. Since 2023-24, none of that money has been spent for those veterans' survivors who fell below the cracks and weren't able to sustain themselves sufficiently.
Yet there was a company hired in British Columbia to do a survey on how many people would be involved. They were paid a considerable amount of money - I won't suggest how much, but considerable - and they interviewed six people. The consensus when they came back with - I think it might have been a maximum 40-page document - and gave it to the government, and as was said by Joe, nothing has been done with that money. In fact, to the best of our knowledge, it's been put back into VAC's coffers and never utilized. I hope that answers your question.
SUZY HANSEN: You filled in the gaps. I was trying to figure out where these things were, what was happening, and how this process was working. I think about it in practical terms. When we think about the data that was just given about the amount that it would cost, that's less than 2 percent a year when we think about how that would impact folks. What would this difference, even this slight increase of funding, make in the lives of veterans? We're hearing about how it would definitely affect how their lives would be.
When I think about the ages and where they are in the stages of their lives, for those who are veterans in our country, for those who have served, we need to be more appreciative, especially in their senior years, because they have worked so hard to fight for our freedom. I think the price of that is very small, considering what they've given for us. I feel like when you talked about the Veterans Survivors Fund - do you have a sense of why the lack of progress on this front came to an abrupt stop? Do you think that there was a reason why they didn't move forward with continuing to implement that particular fund?
THE CHAIR: Dr. Blanchard.
JOSEPH BLANCHARD: I think, as Paul has clearly indicated, it's more of a funding issue of how much - the potential costs are of that funding. I think one of the main killers of this is that.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Henderson.
DERRILL HENDERSON: You mentioned as well, I think there's a great fear of the unknown as far as the government is concerned. When you consider in 1990, when this came into being, the average men lived 74 years, according to Census Canada. In 2025, for example, we're up to 83 years old. There are going to be a lot more people possibly exercising the right to claim this benefit. Although, as the member said earlier, it certainly is something that we should be dealing with immediately, because it's just going to become a bigger headache for the powers that be.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Baiden.
PAUL BAIDEN: I think Derrill answered it sufficiently.
THE CHAIR: MLA Hansen.
SUZY HANSEN: I'm curious to wonder: Would the best way forward be to scrap the “marriage after 60” clause altogether? I know that's been in the discussion in previous years. Was it 2015, 2019? Whenever that time was, it's been a while - to scrap it through multiple governments in play. I'm just wondering: Would it be beneficial to just completely scrap the clause altogether?
THE CHAIR: Mr. Baiden, did you want to take a stab at that?
PAUL BAIDEN: Well, it takes an act of Parliament to revoke that particular clause. As I mentioned earlier, the NDP's Rachel Blaney brought that forward, received the first reading in the House and in the Senate, and then the government prorogued. Consequently, that bill would have to be brought forward again by a Member of Parliament. To date, no one has been willing to do so. Hopefully that answers your question.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Henderson.
PAUL BAIDEN: You're muted there.
DERRILL HENDERSON: I know. I'm back on. Your answer threw me for a second there. I pass. I've lost my train of thought. Sorry.
THE CHAIR: Dr. Blanchard.
JOSEPH BLANCHARD: I have two comments. One is yes, to get rid of it totally. I think going back and understanding the miscommunication or non-communication, coupled with the recognition of those who fit within - we have a case where they got married and moved in together a week after the individual turned 60. I think that recognition of who would be covered under the benefit and the administration piece would just be incredible. I don't think it's logical. I think that would be one of the things that we would ask for, and what we've been asking for is to get rid of it completely.
THE CHAIR: Before I turn it back to MLA Hansen, did you just put your hand signal up again, Mr. Henderson? Did you remember your thought?
DERRILL HENDERSON: I remembered what I was going to say. One of the things that our association has been considering - the fact that the Act's changes get turned down all the time - is perhaps we should consider making a motion to raise the Act from “marriage after 60” to, say, marriage after 80. That, we feel, would accommodate at least 80 percent of the individuals that we know. It may be more acceptable to the government. That's all.
THE CHAIR: MLA Hansen.
SUZY HANSEN: With the “marriage after 60” clause, it really does feel like veterans are being punished for finding love at 60 or more, which in our view isn't right. I know that I'm grateful that you gave the suggestions on how we could help advocate on what that might look like. My thought is: What can we do as a provincial committee to help advocate to push the federal government to allow all spouses of veterans to receive survivor benefits? I appreciate the fact that changing the age, scrapping the clause in itself - if there's anything that we could do, we're open to hearing what that might look like, so we may be able to present it in a way to our colleagues and our counterparts.
THE CHAIR: Unfortunately, this round has come to an end, so just put a pin in that. I'm sure MLA Hansen will circle back. I will now turn it over to the Liberal caucus with MLA Mombourquette.
HON. DEREK MOMBOURQUETTE: I'm going to jump right into it with our 10 minutes. My first question is around the many bureaucratic and accessibility barriers that we hear from veterans who are trying to make health care disability claims. The barriers have led to repeated calls on the federal government and Veterans Affairs Canada to fundamentally change their compensation systems to drastically reduce backlogs and wait times.
My first question is: Since the federal Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs released their 2020 report on the backlog of disability claims at Veterans Affairs Canada, has there been any improvement?
THE CHAIR: Dr. Blanchard.
JOSEPH BLANCHARD: I would say, from my view, yes, there have been improvements. Is there an opportunity to reduce the current backload? They've been hiring new case managers. They're almost back up to a complement of what they had prior to previous elections. Yes, there is an opportunity to increase the ability to go through those claims. One of them could be - which was talked about years ago - making sure that when everybody got out of the military, they had all their pensionable claims in place.
It doesn't cover everything, because as we know, as you age, things start to break and those later-on claims are - but for now, people getting out of the military, there was a bridge between Canadian Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Canada. That now has started to bridge, I'll say, in a better light for me. I do see a lot of people starting to get their claims.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Baiden.
PAUL BAIDEN: One of the biggest downfalls was that people who had a very similar injury would submit a claim, and instead of opting for Veterans Affairs to say, “He meets all the requirements,” and unless they can prove later that the individual lied, they should be granted the disability pension based on their submission, which would help clear out a whole lot of backlog. You wouldn't be re-adjudicating something that's already been proven that VAC will indeed pay for. NCVA put that proposal forward several years ago. Some of that's been done. Brian was a very strong advocator on that, so yes, we did make some inroads.
Currently, it's my understanding that Veterans Affairs is going to be using AI to be able to more rapidly screen through disability claims. That may indeed prove to be beneficial.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Henderson.
DERRILL HENDERSON: The NCVA currently has eight recommendations in from our program for this year to Veterans Affairs on the backlog problem. Basically, these are more procedural than anything, as far as changing Acts or anything like that goes. As Paul said, they have made some changes to improve, but there are additional things that are available and could easily be done. In the first application, they could automatically, as Paul said, pass it if they have a previous case, and then after that, if the individual is told “We're doing this on spec and once we have all the information, it may be withdrawn,” then at least the individual knows somebody is paying attention to what he wants.
[1:30 p.m.]
THE CHAIR: MLA Mombourquette.
DEREK MOMBOURQUETTE: Similar to that, I'm curious about Nova Scotia itself. Have backlogs for veterans living in the province - how does it compare with the rest of the country in Nova Scotia when it comes to backlogs? Would you have that information?
THE CHAIR: I'm seeing Mr. Henderson shake his head no. Maybe Mr. Baiden.
PAUL BAIDEN: I would suggest to you that Nova Scotia, because of the navy and the army and air force presence - Greenwood, Shearwater, Halifax - you have a lot more people retiring and leaving the forces in Nova Scotia than you would have here necessarily in Ontario. The same situation would be the Calgary or Edmonton area or on the west coast in Victoria or Esquimalt. So it would be very difficult to come up with an actual percentage, per se, on whether or not Nova Scotians were being more shortchanged than others.
THE CHAIR: Dr. Blanchard, did you have anything to add?
JOSEPH BLANCHARD: I would just agree with Paul. There are some new statistics out with Statistics Canada that really provide across age groups across the country of where veterans are living, in which areas and that, which is really helpful in understanding populations in certain areas and that. But I've never drilled right down to specifically Nova Scotia.
DEREK MOMBOURQUETTE: I appreciate the conversation back and forth with the witnesses. I don't think people realize how much of a military - well, we do, but how big the military history is here in this province. Our offices are dealing with new residents coming in every day who have served in some capacity. We help to try to navigate them to find the support.
Again, to you, Dr. Blanchard or the presenters, have you seen a big increase in the people applying for benefits across the province in last five to ten years?
THE CHAIR: Dr. Blanchard.
JOSEPH BLANCHARD: From my meeting with veterans right from Sydney, Greenwood, Shearwater, and Halifax, I do. A lot of my friends and those veterans who I support through my organization - is that there has been an increase. There is also actually an increase of veterans wanting to move back east here to Nova Scotia. I'm one of those who is included with that. I'll be moving home hopefully this summer to come back.
But yes, I do hear that from veterans I speak with in the province, and even those outside of the province.
THE CHAIR: Did either of you online want to add any additional comments to that? MLA Mombourquette.
DEREK MOMBOURQUETTE: My next question is around the AFP-AAC's website has a graphic outlining the potential future for the organization, including a three-year plan. Dr. Blanchard, would you like to talk about the three-year plan and what the organization is going to be focusing on in the near future?
JOSEPH BLANCHARD: As the Chair of the Armed Forces Pensioners Association, we've been in a challenge over the last few years. One of our key members and retired colonel Chuck McCabe passed away. Chuck was the heart and soul, pretty well, of the organization. We took a step back and we put our membership drive on pause.
Today, there are challenging views as to where the association should go. My proposal to our members is to follow a three-year business plan that was provided to us by a doctoral student, Dr. Bruce Requa. Dr. Requa provided a recommendation of what we could do over the next three years to expand our mandate for pensioners in Canada.
There are over 343,000 veterans who are in Canada. What we would like to do - one of the elements is this communication piece, establish better communication with the veteran communities. Number two is with this map, to build upon our advocacy, which will include more into other pensions that are being received - medical pensions, such as IRB, a lifetime pension that they had come out with a few years ago. After that is to increase the benefits that veterans would enjoy. We have Canada Trust. We have the house and auto policy rebate that they give us up to - I think it's a 10- to 15-percent rebate. We have other organizations that want to do that. We're looking at trying to increase those benefits so we really have a national association.
THE CHAIR: Order. My apologies. I'm trying not to be rude, but the time for the Liberal caucus has ceased. I will turn it over to MLA Stoilov to begin questioning for the PC caucus with 30 minutes.
DAMIAN STOILOV: I just want to begin by saying that this is really near and dear to my heart. I've spoken early on in my tenure as MLA to a number of constituents who are survivors. The stories that I've heard are a bit unsettling. I personally made calls to many Members of Parliament to try to solicit some support in terms of passing legislation for the over-60 scenario. I'm a bit miffed at the reluctance to do so. I find it just shocking that many Members of Parliament just don't seem to have the time or the commitment to this.
I'll start by asking one question: When you take the over-60 and any other survivor benefits, how do we stack up versus other countries? Has anyone done any research? This is a question for anybody. Has anybody researched how Canada measures up with the G7 countries? Are we out to lunch, out in left field? Are we in the game? Do we know that answer? If anybody can help with that, that'd be great.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Baiden.
PAUL BAIDEN: Actually, we don't do that bad on some issues, but cancer issues, a lot of those things, it took years for people to be able to recognize the burn pits and the cancer, asbestos from our naval vessels and aircraft and our hangar squadrons. A lot of that has taken years just to bring it to light. For that matter, England is just recognizing the exhaust fumes from Sea King helicopters, but reluctantly, to compensate those who worked in the back of the aircraft.
The Americans have been two steps forward, one step back, I guess is the best way to put it. They make good policy, and Canada, in a lot of times, actually leans on those policies to lobby VAC to make changes in our own Canadian policies. But on the overall, we're probably middle of the road, maybe slightly above some of the other G7 countries. Overall, we still have a lot of work to be done, I guess is the simplest way to put it.
THE CHAIR: Dr. Blanchard, did you want to add anything?
JOSEPH BLANCHARD: I would agree. I've been doing a lot of research during my studies on veteran programming across the world. We do, in my view, a lot better in some cases. Execution-wise is where the big piece comes in. Down in the United States we have to look at just one, which affected my father and our family back in the 1960s, when they did the Agent Orange. That took years and years to resolve, and they finally came to resolve, and you had an application period, and nobody knew about the application period. My father and his four brothers, none of them ever received any compensation, although they were part of those tests and trials.
On that piece we're consistent with other countries, we're leading on a couple of other things that I'm working with today, but that's on my personal side, not within the Armed Forces Pensioners and Annuitants Association of Canada. We do have a comparative, and there's a lot more out there that we could be doing on other issues, including Afghanistan stuff.
DAMIAN STOILOV: The next question is for Mr. Henderson and Mr. Baiden. Can you tell us about your advocacy work and how you engage with the VAC and federal partners. From your point of view, what key policy changes would you like to see, and the federal government undertake to offer better support, not only for veteran survivors in Nova Scotia, but across the country? What should we be doing better, in your view?
THE CHAIR: Mr. Henderson, you're muted. Mr. Henderson.
DERRILL HENDERSON: Sorry about that. One of the proponents of the NCVA is that we call “One Veteran - One Standard.” Older veterans fall under the Pension Act whereas the newer veterans fall under the New Veterans Charter. Both of these have benefits that outrank the other, so we would like them to take the best benefits out of both of them and combine them into one solid thing.
Also, you get individuals debating back and forth on what one gets and what the other person gets for the same reason, and it's just not fair. That's one thing that should be taken on right away, certainly that comes to mind right away.
PAUL BAIDEN: I look at benefits to support families, veteran caregivers. For years we have people coming back from Afghanistan, or all of our more recent campaigns, and they come back with PTSD or other mental disorders and consequently, the wives and the children suffer every bit as much as the individual himself.
Many years ago, when Seamus O'Regan was the Minister of Veterans Affairs, I had two nurses sitting beside me - Walter Natynczyk was the deputy minister at the time - and I ended up with a nosebleed, and the nurses came to my attention. We had a long conversation thereafter, where they explained to me how they had to give up a well-paying job in nursing because they couldn't leave their husband or their spouse at home alone without the fear that they might do something to either burn down the house or kill themselves. Suicides within the military were getting to be quite large at the time. But Walter came to my aid and suggested that he could put a tourniquet on it for me, so what can I say?
But that one is just insufficient. The amount paid to the caregivers hasn't been improved since 2006 when we went to the New Veterans Charter, and then the Veterans Well-being Act. That is definitely something that could require consideration. As Derrill said, the “One Veteran - One Standard,” my back compensation is under the Pension Act, and my hearing loss is under the New Veterans Charter/Veterans Well-being Act.
So there are two different policies for the same veteran. Derrill didn't suggest to you, but I will, that if you were disabled in Afghanistan prior to 2006, you were entitled to get your compensation under the Pension Act. After the New Veterans Charter, you could have the same injury but not be entitled to the same amount of compensation. That's why we are advocating for the “One Veteran - One Standard” and combining the best benefits of both of those to make things more equal for all veterans.
[1:45 p.m.]
THE CHAIR: Mr. Henderson, I see you'd like to add a little bit more to the conversation.
DERRILL HENDERSON: The question was: How do we interact with the powers that be? I can say that both Paul and I have interacted with Veterans Affairs Canada so frequently over the years that we get invited to their birthday parties. We have a lot of discussion. I want to say right here, the staff at Veterans Affairs Canada are very good, hard-working people. Unfortunately, their suggestions get cut off as frequently as ours do.
One of the ways in which we do have more of a direct line is every minister has advisory committees and is given separate things. For example, I sit on one on Families Well-being and on communications. On the Families Well-being one, I know that at the end of our year, we put together a series of recommendations and submitted it to the minister. Unfortunately, at the present time, this has only recently been submitted, so I cannot put a track on it to find out how it's working through government, but we do speak with them.
Paul meets very regularly with one of his MPs. I must admit I meet less frequently with mine, but we do have good interchange, and we also partner with the Legion - Nova Scotia/Nunavut Command - on joint issues that we can push through as well. That's how we go about the communication with getting things done. The side about talking with veterans is a completely different thing of course. It's far more receptive. I hope that fills in some of the question.
THE CHAIR: Dr. Blanchard.
JOSEPH BLANCHARD: I'm good with that, very good with that.
THE CHAIR: I will turn it back over to MLA Stoilov.
DAMIAN STOILOV: The last question here for Mr. Henderson and/or Mr. Baiden, on the reforms and changes in your view needed for the Veterans Independence Program, to better support survivors, any thoughts on that that you feel might be helpful?
THE CHAIR: Mr. Henderson.
DERRILL HENDERSON: I can say that our program for the 2025-26 timeframe, we have made 31 recommendations to the powers that be. Many of these are simply procedural changes, which, especially the backlog problem, most of this could be resolved just by procedural changes.
Some can be amended. For example, if you want to increase a money value, you can go through an Order in Council, but there are others that really will need a new or modified Act. Those really take a lot of time to get done.
PAUL BAIDEN: I'm a recipient of the Veterans Independence Program, and on the overall, I think, again, as Derrill said, the members of VAC staff and those who run those programs do a pretty decent job. I get a phone call or a letter on the average every one to two years asking if the support that I'm being given is sufficient. To date, they've been very good at meeting my requirements.
THE CHAIR: MLA Hilton.
NICK HILTON: My first question is to Dr. Blanchard. It's again more about the overall system. What major gaps do you see in the survivors benefit system, perhaps in terms of service delivery or policy that the committee might not be aware of?
THE CHAIR: Dr. Blanchard.
JOSEPH BLANCHARD: I don't think there are any additional gaps that I can identify at this time. The communication piece is that number one that has to happen. Number two is to make sure that the Veterans Survivors Fund is dealt with immediately, and that we can get rid of that. That was one of the recommendations that I would call on the Government of Nova Scotia to support us with, is that.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Henderson, Mr. Baiden, did you want to add anything to that? It was directed to Dr. Blanchard, but I didn't want to leave . . .
PAUL BAIDEN: Nothing from me.
NICK HILTON: My next question is to both of you: How frequently do survivors contact your organizations for assistance in understanding or appealing benefit decisions?
THE CHAIR: Mr. Baiden.
PAUL BAIDEN: I can address some of that. As Derrill mentioned earlier, we work with ANAVETS - that's the Army, Navy, & Air Force Veterans in Canada association - and we also attend annually the Veterans Consultation Assembly with the Royal Canadian Legion Dominion Command. We always send a letter to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and the Prime Minister, outlining our current problems. To date, we get a letter back, but it's usually in the state of a form letter written by a staff member not necessarily - I guess we have to wonder if it even gets to the individual that we really want to take attention to the issue. I think I went around the question. Like Derrill, I'm getting old and I forgot the actual original question.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Henderson.
DERRILL HENDERSON: Just following up on the consultation assembly that Paul just mentioned. We try to talk around the table and narrow it down to three problems that are collectively the most raised with our groups that are around the table. We know that if you ask for 16, nothing is going to get done at all, but if you cut it down, then perhaps some action will be taken. That's just limiting it.
As far as the number of people who contact us, quite honestly, in the past year or so, it has not been that much, as far as - we probably get maybe two or three a month, and that would be about the size of it. It's decreased a lot, and hopefully, it's because we've been having some success on getting and resolving the issues.
PAUL BAIDEN: Now I remember what I was going to say. The Legion, as people are aware of, through all branches, is in a position to actually get more requests because it's something they deal with in particular - getting all of the facts and stuff from people who attend the Legion and other disabled veterans. You don't even have to be a veteran to go through the Legion for compensation. Well, you don't have to be a Legion member. They will advocate on your behalf. They tend to get the bulk of people requesting assistance to fill out the necessary forms, especially for the older, who are not quite as computer literate as some of the younger children these days. The Legion has been at the forefront of that particular entity.
THE CHAIR: Dr. Blanchard.
JOSEPH BLANCHARD: I would agree. For us at the pensioners association, probably about three to five a month of inquiries. I get more from a Legion member who is my brother Tim. He's been with the Legion for over 40 years. Whenever he's looking for assistance on the policy side of the business or rules and regulations, he gives me a call. Probably there, another three to five a month is what we deal with. I've probably got about four ongoing problems at this time with the pensioners association.
NICK HILTON: You mentioned, Mr. Henderson, that the three recommendations - you try to give three. Do you know what the most recent three were? What are the three hottest topics that you guys are after? I know we've kind of mentioned them, but it'd be nice to hear them in a row, if you know.
DERRILL HENDERSON: I'm going to refer to Paul on this, because he's the guy who has all the notes.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Baiden.
PAUL BAIDEN: One in particular was what we advocated or stated earlier: the “One Veteran - One Standard.” Also, on the issues on cancer in the military that Dr. Blanchard also spoke about.
Just to add a little bit more clarity on the Veterans Consultation Assembly, we always have one of the senior members of Parliament - like, for instance, Rebecca Patterson, who is a senator and retired admiral, has attended many times. We have the ombud there to give an update on what is happening with the ombud. We get people from industry who are working to find ways to better look after people with PTSD at those meetings.
There are normally at least 20 veterans organizations represented at those meetings. The letter that goes to the Prime Minister is a consensus of opinion by those 20 veterans organizations. They sign off on it. Retired Admiral Murray is the honourable chair and the current president of the Legion who sends that letter on, as I said, to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, and the Minister of National Defence, and sometimes even further - carbon copies, of course.
I hope that answers that question.
NICK HILTON: Thank you for that and thank you for the conversation. My original question was around survivors benefits. Just following up on that - if someone was in my office and they asked what benefits were available, could you just quickly describe what I should share with them? What's available to them?
THE CHAIR: Dr. Blanchard.
JOSEPH BLANCHARD: It all depends on how many years' service, what age they are and if they've been married. For those who are currently serving, I always advocate that they have all the benefits they can from VAC that they can apply for today, have it on file so that day one, when they become a civilian, they'll be able to expedite their files. The benefits of those survivors today, one of the key elements for me is the ETB, or Education and Training Benefit, which is a significant opportunity for those out of the military who want to pursue education and training.
Other elements of the survivor benefit-type elements would be to ensure that they understand the support that they will get from the Legion if they need to go into a hospital or into a long-term care facility, what priorities, et cetera, are on that side. Then, of course, other benefits for either hearing or knees and backs. We still have ongoing conversations about some of the drugs that were used years ago, such as mefloquine. I've got a lot of people asking me about what I do if I was a recipient of mefloquine in different theatres.
Those, as they come up, I can explain what type of benefit they would like to talk about. A lot of times, as Paul had indicated, the Legion is the lead on that. They understand exactly what benefits. Today, we help veteran families that call us and say, “I want to enter my father into a long-term care facility. How do I do that? Is the Perley available?” Those types of opportunities to discuss benefits are there.
[2:00 p.m.]
THE CHAIR: MLA Palmer.
CHRIS PALMER: I'd like to thank all of you for your service, starting out, number one. Thank you so much for what you do in your service in the military and for what you're doing for our veterans. A lot of people may not know that Nova Scotia is one of the only provinces in Canada that actually has a Minister responsible for Military Relations. I'm very pleased to be able to work with Minister Adams in that portfolio, and I'm very honoured to sit on this committee since I was elected in 2021. It's never lost on me the impact that organizations have working with our veterans. I'm also fortunate to represent CFB Greenwood in my constituency. With a large percentage of veterans in Nova Scotia per capita, I represent an area of the province that has probably a greater percentage of veterans inside the province. I'm very appreciative of all the work that you're doing, for sure.
One of the difficulties in coming and asking questions an hour into a meeting is that a lot of the questions have already been answered by you today. I'll start with a couple of questions here. We're talking about some of the challenges that you're facing, your advocacy work, and the efforts made thus far. Could you talk about emerging pressures that you might see that are having the biggest impact - some of the policies that we're trying to advocate for and some of those recommendations that you're putting forward? Can you talk about the pressures there and the impact that could have if those continue to not be fulfilled? Could anyone take a stab at that?
THE CHAIR: Dr. Blanchard.
JOSEPH BLANCHARD: I'll take a stab at it in the beginning, and then I'm sure Paul and Derrill are quite conversant with that also. For myself, the mounting pressures are if we look statistically at the number of people releasing from the military yearly - which ranges from 5,000 to 8,000 people - you can imagine that the taxation upon Veterans Affairs Canada services will increase. I do not see any increase in staffing to accept those levels.
So yes, I see an increasing pressure of staffing levels within Veterans Affairs Canada to deal with, I'll call it the aging population. Paul will probably hit me when I get back for saying that. As you age, we tend to have a light switch that turns on, and then it's my knee, and now it's my back, I've got headaches. I see that pressure of an inability to support the new veteran population that's getting out.
THE CHAIR: I saw both hands up online, so I'll start - I think Mr. Henderson beat you to it, Mr. Baiden, so we'll start with Mr. Henderson.
DERRILL HENDERSON: Our biggest pressure, I think, is on the veteran who suffered a disability. Not so much him, but the family unit, because first of all, everybody has a computer. They go online and they see certain medicines and/or practices that are being used elsewhere supposedly with some success, and they want to know why they can't have it. Unless Veterans Affairs Canada has the ability to have it listed, then there's this great delay that raises the dissatisfaction even more.
Certainly, as just mentioned, the injured person talks and 10 people listen, whereas an ordinary veteran who is not disabled will probably only have one or two. Certainly that's got to affect the enrolment of new members into the Armed Forces. Also, the big thing is the family unit. We are not taking care of the family unit properly at all. Some of the amounts that they are given are far below the standard that a person in a public life would receive, and yet the veterans' amounts are capped far more. To me those are the two biggest pressures that I face from individuals.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Baiden.
PAUL BAIDEN: Well, Derrill said an awful lot there so there's not much more to cover. Except that we did a groundbreaking ceremony for the Afghan memorial next to the Canadian War Museum a week or so ago. Derrill and I attend all these so we get an opportunity to talk to the politicians that attend those functions. One of the individuals that I met was a man named James Hawkes. He's a senior advisor in the office of Corey Tochor - maybe some of you guys know. He advised me that he's working with the University of Saskatchewan on a new drug that they hope will replace some of the old ones that Dr. Blanchard would know better the name of them than I would. He's very hopeful that this drug will replace what's now being utilized for those with PTSD and anxiety problems.
I haven't been able to contact him or I haven't had time to recently, but to shed a little more light on the problem with getting compensation, before this meeting today I spent an hour on the phone, first with VAC and then with Medavie Blue Cross, because I've had both my hips replaced and my right leg now is a quarter of an inch shorter than my left. That was done in 2016. So my record is there.
I am being compensated for open back surgery and for my problems with having my hips replaced, all attributed to my military career - thousands of hours in the air bouncing around out of Greenwood for our Greenwood friend and off Bonaventure for our Shearwater friend - and DDHs. So all of that, for them to say that my doctor's prescription wasn't detailed enough for me to be able to get compression socks paid for, even though they just covered my orthotics to adjust for my shortage in one leg.
It's an uphill battle, and I'm fairly good on the computer, so you can imagine what it's like for those who aren't. Trying to navigate through the VAC, all of the different things that they have in their disability section that you can advocate for.
THE CHAIR: Order. The time has elapsed for the PC caucus, so we will begin our second round of questioning of the witnesses with eight minutes, beginning with MLA Wilson.
ROD WILSON: You have already spoken somewhat to the question I have, but I would like to just maybe see if we can quantify it. Over the last year I've been involved with a Legion - a local Legion supporting it. One of the things that strikes me at the Legion, to your point about request, the Legion is constantly fundraising to support veterans with things like groceries and paying their utilities.
Also, I've met several veterans under the age of 60 - actually, under the age of 50 - who are homeless, either at Metro Turning Point or at some of the encampments. They weren't necessarily suffering from significant mental health disabilities; they just didn't have enough money to pay rent in Halifax. That suggests to me that we have a certain number of veterans living in poverty.
Can you tell me how many veterans there are in Nova Scotia or in Canada - how many, you would suggest, who are living below the poverty level, or their funds are just not allowing them to pay for groceries, pay rent and so they find themselves dependent on Legions or camping? A big question.
THE CHAIR: I'll let Dr. Blanchard begin.
JOSEPH BLANCHARD: I have some key statistics on that in Canada. The average extra income needed per year for a veteran is $671 just to meet a minimum standard. Currently below that income measure, there are about 850 who are classified as below the measure, who require additional funding.
This is continuous. There have been issues over the years where our benefits start costing us more and we have a reduction in the amount of money that we're receiving on our pensions. I am a pensioner and I have this challenge myself. We're reducing the amount of return from a pension. We do get that economic increase in January, but it's substantially less than what the market is currently asking for. A lot of veterans I know of are also now falling below that level and looking at the challenge of: “What do I eat? When do I eat?” - and go from there.
ROD WILSON: Just for clarity, that's $600 per month. They're falling $600 a month short on average - probably some more than others.
Perfect. Thank you.
THE CHAIR: MLA Hansen.
SUZY HANSEN: Thank you, Chair. Oh, Mr. Baiden would like to respond.
THE CHAIR: Apologies. Mr. Baiden, did you want to add to that?
PAUL BAIDEN: Just a couple of points. During COVID-19, I raised $14,000 for a new initiative here in Ottawa called Veterans' House Canada. That's 40 veterans off the street who now have a place where they can actually receive mail and camaraderie, and it's a very beautiful establishment. That's one issue that happened.
Soldier On and a few other programs that are fundraisers - the Order of St. George, which both Derrill and I are members of - we raise funds annually to help veterans get off the street as well.
There are things happening, but a lot of it is happening by volunteers outside of the federal government to help make those ends meet that Dr. Blanchard was referring to. Without those other groups to help pick up the slack, we would probably lose a lot more through the cracks.
THE CHAIR: Dr. Blanchard.
JOSEPH BLANCHARD: If I could add to that also - thank you, Paul. A couple of years ago, Veterans Affairs had something called a well-being fund, where they used to distribute some funding to local organizations that support veteran causes and veterans in those communities. Here in Windsor, Nova Scotia, there's a farm - I won't use names, but there's a farm that was recently on the news. They would build these hampers that they would deliver to Greenwood, that they would deliver to Halifax and Shearwater to distribute among the veteran community or those within these communities.
That funding dried up. For two years, a lot of these organizations that Paul has indicated now do not have funding, and they're not supporting those veterans. So yes, they keep going down into a hole where they don't have any support, but there are organizations that are picking up the slack to try to help with that, such as Paul was indicating with St. George.
SUZY HANSEN: We recently saw some provincial budget decisions that caused significant stress to seniors in our province. There were proposed cuts to caregivers, a personal-use allowance, and age-friendly community programming. I'm just wondering, are the witnesses here today concerned that governments aren't taking the needs of our vets and our seniors seriously? I'm just wondering - we've heard from you all that organizations are picking up the slack. Legions are doing amazing work. We have a ton of folks who are willing to give and to help, but what could we be doing provincially to help offset that additional volunteer work, whether it be budget funding or helping with organizations? Are there any thoughts that we could be doing more?
[2:15 p.m.]
THE CHAIR: Dr. Blanchard, do you have anything?
JOSEPH BLANCHARD: I would probably defer to Paul and Derrill. As I've indicated before, I think the opportunity to support local initiatives - whether it be up in the Greenwood area or here in Halifax and Dartmouth - organizations that really give back to the community, such as a new organization called The Veteran's Lodge. A friend of mine, Anne, is running that organization. It's a non-clinical support. They need funding to get started so that they can help with this. It becomes an area or a place where veterans can go and receive support, whether that's extra help with groceries or funding. Those organizations need that support. That could be a part of a strategy for the Nova Scotia government to contribute to, understanding that this well-being fund is no longer there at this time.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Baiden.
PAUL BAIDEN: I talk a lot, don't I? One thing that some people are perhaps overlooking is that a lot of these veterans' organizations under NCVA, the Legion, ANAVETS, the Order of St. George, and that - the members of those organizations are all up in years, 60-plus for most of them. Nobody is volunteering to come along and take up the torch, so to speak. So I don't envy the veterans of the future or, for that matter, anyone who's living on the street, if the governments don't take on the initiative to spend more money and help them get off the streets, be it for drug programs or whatever else is causing them to not be able to afford to find accommodations. It's essential that governments of all levels wake up and smell the roses, as they say, that this is just going to get worse as time goes on.
THE CHAIR: The NDP time has elapsed. We'll move to the Liberal caucus with MLA Rankin.
HON. IAIN RANKIN: I really appreciate you being here to present to the committee on the support for our veterans. Many important questions were asked about a bunch of different things. I don't often get a chance to talk about something that I've been involved in in the United States and here, and that's the prevalence of PFOS, better known as forever chemicals that our firefighters and military servicepeople are disproportionately exposed to. What I did notice in the NCVA's program that they brought forward, it talks a lot about the case-by-case nature that a lot of the veterans with cancer conditions are facing, in terms of trying to demonstrate proof.
I think it's an important advocacy for the organization. Dr. Blanchard, I'd just love to hear your feedback on how that advocacy's going to try to have more presumptive conditions basically implemented to ensure that we have the burden of proof removed from veterans.
I know this is a big issue broadly, but when we see, relative to Nova Scotia, 14 Wing Greenwood, which my colleague referenced, and CFB Halifax, these are known depositives of these chemicals that spread and have impacted water many kilometres away, municipal systems, and absolutely has had an impact on generations of military servicepeople. What are the organization's thoughts on how we can try to get presumptive coverage for all those servicepeople who have cancer and not having to prove it on a case-by-case basis?
THE CHAIR: Dr. Blanchard.
JOSEPH BLANCHARD: Having been part of this opportunity about 30 years ago - I was a hospital administrator. As the budget office component that I managed at that time, one of them was exactly this. Who do we give compensation to? That was a piece of it. I think one of the impediments is that we tend to talk and study more than we do implementing programs. They have a tool within the Canadian Armed Forces, that you can fill out. It's called a CF 98. It's an injury form. I filled out one for our unit soldiers in Afghanistan for the work that we were doing over there and the exposure to different chemicals. That's a tool.
Even though I have that registered on my military medical documentation, it still became a concern that I was applying for a benefit that I was not entitled to. I'm just going, “We were exposed to these chemicals overseas; it should be a no-brainer.” The tools that we have - and I hate to say - whether it's a tactic or saying no the first time and we continue fighting for five, six, seven years to be recognized, it comes back to, here is something that they've told us to use, but it does not gain the recognition it should prior to leaving the military.
Any opportunities, as Mr. Baiden had indicated, working in the aircraft and the back of the aircraft - and I've been in those aircraft, and the fumes that we've lived through. Whether it be mefloquine that was provided to soldiers in Somalia or friends who worked in Africa for five years who were on mefloquine - which was an experimental drug - if we're going to administer these types of solutions, that we recognize right up front that there's no fighting about this later on. Before I get out of the military, anything and everything that happened to me, known and unknown, is taken - the unknowns are very difficult, because as you get older, dragging around a 130-, 140-pound rucksack on your back doesn't affect you until you're 60.
We know that, and it's been proven over the years. Being able to say that a soldier should be taken care of on day one when they get out with the appropriate pensions and that would be great.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Baiden or Mr. Henderson, did you have anything to add to that response? Mr. Baiden.
PAUL BAIDEN: Presumptions: I think this is what our colleague was talking about - not Joe but the individual who posed the question. Veterans with cancer - that came out of our legislative program. There are four recommendations there that I think, without me reading them all, it would behoove everyone to have a look at them. Basically, what we're advocating is that if the military individual has been in an area where it's known - definitely recorded - that these toxins exist, they shouldn't have to try to prove that they may have encountered their cancer there. It should be a given, as was Agent Orange that Joe mentioned earlier.
Also, this adds to the backlog, by the way, because now they have to prove that they were there and that's where their cancer came from. So just give them the decency of saying, “Yes, you were there; in all likelihood, that's where your cancer came from,” and get on with it. Compensate them before they die. Just my opinion.
JOSEPH BLANCHARD: I'd just add to the end of that piece. Globally, in all the other militaries, especially Commonwealth militaries, these are all known. Why do we put ourselves through a 20-year study to deny certain benefits and that when other militaries that we operate with in other theatres of war have already approved those? I think that's another thing that we could use to get over those pressures.
THE CHAIR: MLA Rankin, with just over a minute.
IAIN RANKIN: I'm in agreement. I think there are specific cancers that can be looked at, like kidney cancers. There's even Parkinson's and a lot of known cases, and there are a lot of lawsuits that are occurring, particularly in the United States, where people lived around areas where PFOS were made.
We know where it is. We know what it does to people. I just wanted to make sure that I had an opportunity to ask you guys. I appreciate your work on that file.
THE CHAIR: We'll turn it over to the Progressive Conservative caucus with 16 minutes, beginning with MLA Palmer.
CHRIS PALMER: Before I ask my next question, we had a conversation around funding and trying to fill gaps that unfortunately maybe the federal government creates through their decreased funding for programs and stuff. A lot of you may or may not know that our government, with the work done through Addictions and Mental Health and that type of thing, has been able to fund projects like the Veteran Farm Project; Landing Strong - you might be familiar with Landing Strong; Rally Point Retreat in Shelburne, doing a lot of great work down there - Bob Grundy and his group down there, obviously through our Legion Capital Assistance Program that continues to be funded.
Our government really does want to try to step up in areas when we can to fill those gaps whenever possible. It's just important that maybe everyone here understands that with the military relations, we want to put a lens on everything around every department with a military lens and a veterans lens. Those things are very, very important to us for sure.
In preparation for this meeting, I had a chance to have a conversation with one of my constituents. She asked me not to mention her name, so I won't. She has appeared before the federal Veterans Affairs Committee as well. To my colleague's point, it's amazing the struggles that continue to happen for our survivors and our widows and widowers.
A question I would have is, for those working at VAC and in your work and your advocacy with VAC, can you talk about some of the training that people working with VAC would have in dealing with widows and survivors and families - their professional training and that type of thing? Anybody able to answer that?
THE CHAIR: Dr. Blanchard.
JOSEPH BLANCHARD: From my perspective and understanding, I understand that it's about up to two years for case managers to be - I won't say qualified, but able to deal with an array of different issues for veterans. I know that it does happen. I've talked with case managers about some of the processes they go through. A lot of, I'll say, good case managers are ex-military who have accepted to go in. They have a complete understanding of what the military life is, because they've been there and done that. But I understand it's up to a couple of years that it takes for them to become, I'll say, very, very competent in what they do.
There are a lot of people, as Paul indicated earlier, doing great work. I've never had an issue with a case manager on my personal stuff with Veterans Affairs. I talk to a lot of people who have had issues in getting a case manager to understand what their issues are from their perspective.
I think the education piece is coming along. Is it to where it needs to be? I can't judge that, because I don't understand their training program.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Baiden or Mr. Henderson, do you have anything further you would like to add? Mr. Baiden.
PAUL BAIDEN: With the training program, as you're aware, when the Conservative government decided to close a lot of the satellite offices and other things and cut the VAC staff about 10 years or so ago, we lost a lot of very, very good experienced individuals. It's taking considerable time to replace those individuals.
[2:30 p.m.]
In the interim, we've had, over the years, more women joining the Canadian Armed Forces. Women's injuries are considerably different, in a lot of cases, than males'. To date, most of the files or things that are being looked at, if a woman applies, they don't have any background experience to look at the woman's case and say, “Oh, well, yes, her body's different than a male, and so consequently she has different injuries and disabilities than a male would in the military.” That is still an ongoing work in progress that is going to take probably another couple of years to get all of the facts from the doctors and everybody else.
In fact, Senator Rebecca Patterson and I spoke about that very thing. A retired commander - or commodore, I should say - she also spoke about it - Andrea Siew, who probably most of you know, or some of you will. She's been advocating on behalf of women for years, including on sexual misconduct.
There's still a lot of work to be done. The unfortunate part is that every time we get some of these individuals trained up to be really proficient in what they do, they go on to a different job where there's more money. Just saying.
CHRIS PALMER: My last question is: Can you comment on how important it is for early outreach and communication from VAC immediately following the death of a veteran for survivors after the death of a service member? Could you talk about how that's important - that early outreach and communication?
My follow-up to that is: Do you connect individually with survivors - your advocacy groups? I'll leave that with you.
THE CHAIR: Any hands up online? We'll start with Dr. Blanchard, and then we'll look online.
JOSEPH BLANCHARD: On both questions, I think it's very important, from a Veterans Affairs perspective, that engaging with the members immediately is beneficial. I have a lot of friends who call and say, “Hey, somebody passed away,” and I reach out because I've been there and I understand kind of the processes and that.
I don't think there's a mechanism in Veterans Affairs that identifies when a member has died and somebody will call that family right away. I don't think that ever happens. It's typically through people and within the Legion piece.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Henderson.
DERRILL HENDERSON: Yes, especially the widows of those killed in action have a very, very tight group. They maintain an awareness, it seems to me, of any cases where a veteran has died, and they contact the family immediately. These people - unfortunately, because of what they had to live through - will actually hand-hold the new family through the type of stuff that they require to make sure that they are getting what they need, and/or making sure that their needs are well known to VAC.
Unfortunately, it's not done by VAC, and it's not necessarily done by NCVA unless we hear immediately of a situation. But that group is very strong. They come and sit in on the advisory groups and make suggestions that, for the most part, VAC has picked up and acted on.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Baiden.
PAUL BAIDEN: I spent eight years as the member-support individual for the Naval Association of Canada. During that time, I produced an aide-mémoire so if your husband or your wife passed away, it had all of the appropriate members to call for VAC to get off public service health, to get your pension changed over - it was all there. The widow or widower could follow that. But to the best of my knowledge, VAC and the public service don't reach out. They wait for the individual to actually contact them.
It's pretty essential that you do that, because otherwise you end up paying money back to the government because you've received an overpayment in pension funds. It's important that everybody knows that. I'm sure that Veterans Affairs has got an awful lot on their plate, and probably the public service health care as well, and all these places. That aide-mémoire that I drafted helped a lot of people - especially when you're dealing with the death of a loved one. There's a lot going on, the funeral and so on. It's just something that could be utilized.
CHRIS PALMER: Thank you all again. I appreciate you being here today. It's been a great conversation. I'll pass it over to my colleague.
THE CHAIR: MLA Robicheau with six minutes.
RYAN ROBICHEAU: In my constituency, we have a large population of - it's an elderly population, I'd say. We have a lot of people coming into our office looking for help with online applications and services. Have digital systems and online applications improved access for survivors, or have they created new barriers for older veterans, spouses, and widows? That's open to anyone who would like to answer.
THE CHAIR: Dr. Blanchard.
JOSEPH BLANCHARD: I'd say from experience, we still have approximately 20 percent of our membership that is computer illiterate. They have no access to computers, they don't know how to use computers, and frankly, they don't want to go near them. My father is one of them. I do believe that the online systems today, for those who can utilize Veterans Affairs programming, build their My VAC account. You can go on and you can submit all your forms online. Any forms that require doctors, you can download them, provide them to your doctor, they'll fill them out and send them in. They can also fill them out electronically. I do believe the electronic side is there. I still believe 20, maybe even 30 percent don't utilize it because they don't know how.
Paul had mentioned the closure of the Veterans Affairs facilities, or VAC facilities. My father used to go in Sydney, and he used to get everything he needed through a representative there. The last time he went in there about five or six years ago to get something done, they said, “There's a computer; do it yourself.” Of course, it never got done. I was able, because VAC allows me the opportunity to create an account with my father, and talking with them online and understanding who we are, I'm able to do that for my father. Not a lot of people understand that or know about that. I'd say it's at least an 80-20 - 20 no, and 80 percent of the newer people and veterans even into their 60s, we know how to use technology and leverage that ability.
THE CHAIR: Did either of you want to add anything? MLA Robicheau.
RYAN ROBICHEAU: Recently in Clare, we celebrated the grand opening of the Clare Veterans Centre. It used to be the Legion. It came to fruition by collaborating with all three levels of government. We got money from the feds, the Province, and the municipality. It would only have happened with all the collaboration of all the governments. Do you think the different levels of government could better collaborate when it comes to policy decisions? That's open to anybody.
THE CHAIR: I believe they're thinking on it. Dr. Blanchard, I'll let you begin.
JOSEPH BLANCHARD: I would say yes. I think this one of those issues that goes right across all party lines. Nova Scotia is a lot more advanced than any of the other provinces I've been to and understood what's going on within their groups. I know while Premier Kinew's government has David Pankratz - and he'll kill me because I just probably buggered up his name, they're now coming online. He is the military envoy - I think here in Nova Scotia, the collaboration between lines has to be without any other goal than as my friends here have stated, it's one veteran with one goal.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Henderson or Mr. Baiden, would you like to add to that, either of you? Mr. Henderson.
DERRILL HENDERSON: Certainly. All collaboration between the various levels can only help things to go on, especially in the areas of communication. This is something that, no matter how much we preach and how many lessons are supposedly available online, people don't understand it. We have to have a way of the individual knowing exactly what is available for him or her when the need arises. Because when the need arises, their mindset is not in a position where they're going to be able to do research. It is a major problem. I don't have any suggestions as to how it could be improved, but it's something that we really have to look at.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Baiden.
PAUL BAIDEN: NCVA put forth a recommendation years ago that cut out the red tape. Because there's a lot of duplication. When you get an older veteran, as Dr. Blanchard has suggested, to try and fill it all out, they get halfway through, they get lost and say “Oh I can't do that.” Unless they get a family member who is computer literate or go to the Legion for support or one of the other support groups, they tend to just let it go.
Back in the day, not that long ago, there was a policy, or we used to refer to it as “deny, deny, hope you die”. In other words, you submit once, it gets denied. You submit the second one, it gets denied. Now you have to go to an adjudicatory level, and if you have the patience to go that far, sometimes or in most cases you will be compensated. But those first two steps are the ones that people get frustrated with and if you're dealing with PTSD or other emotional disabilities, that's when people resort to things that aren't nice, like suicide. It's important that they make those forms as simple as possible. Cut out the red tape.
THE CHAIR: Thank you for those remarks. We have ended the time officially for questioning. I would offer to all three of you if you want to give some closing remarks or stress anything that you would like the committee to keep fresh in their minds, I would welcome you to do at that point. I will start with Dr. Blanchard and then Mr. Henderson and Mr. Baiden. Dr. Blanchard.
JOSEPH BLANCHARD: I appreciate, first, allowing me the opportunity to come and meet with the committee and talk about veteran associations, veteran benefits, and programming. Finally I think, there are opportunities, and I have an actual document I'll send you, on what we could be doing to bridge gaps, use common terminology, which is a big problem, especially on the benefits side. Thank you very much for the opportunity to come to Nova Scotia and speak with you.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Henderson.
DERRILL HENDERSON: I thank you for the opportunity for presenting our ongoing problems. At times it's very frustrating for us, who are healthy and are trying to do something. But when you see the individual family that really is in need, it's discouraging at times. We just have to keep on going and hopefully common sense will prevail at some level and things will get done. Some things have been done, as I said before. Veterans Affairs do quite a bit. In fact, many of their application forms have been drastically reduced, especially when General (Retired) Walt Natynczyk was the deputy minister. He had several of them really significantly cut down. But again, as Joe said, if you don't use the computer, it's not going to help anything at all. We'll just keep on keeping on. Thank you.
[2:45 p.m.]
THE CHAIR: Mr. Baiden.
PAUL BAIDEN: I'll echo the remarks of my two predecessors. It's been an honour and a privilege to be able to hopefully shed some light on the concerns that you have obviously all been dealing with and hope to find some rectification for.
Without naming names, I can tell you that Dr. Blanchard - my good friend Joe; we go back many, many years - we've been working on a particular case that has kept me up at nights and busy for months now, trying to sort out a situation for one of our lady friends who got married four months after her husband turned 60. Because of that, and even though they cohabited for five years prior and spent 30 years married to each other, she is not entitled to his pension. That's the “gold-digger's problem” we referred to. It's kept me awake, like I said, at nights, trying to find some resolve for her.
Again, thank you for allowing us to participate. Let's hope that we find some solutions to the problems in the near future.
THE CHAIR: Thank you very much for taking time out of your day to join us at the committee and allow us to ask some questions of you. You're both very knowledgeable. I do appreciate these conversations. I believe it's a privilege to have a province with the only provincial sitting legislative Standing Committee for Veterans Affairs, and for the work that you do to make sure - I should be looking at Dr. Blanchard as well - the work that all of you do to help others. It's quite remarkable.
Thank you again for coming. I hope you can enjoy the rest of this beautiful day.
We will take a few minutes' recess - a quick two-minute recess to pack up Dr. Blanchard and let you click off. Thanks again.
[2:47 p.m. The committee recessed.]
[2:48 p.m. The committee reconvened.]
THE CHAIR: Order. I call the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs back to order.
At this point in the meeting, we have to go over a little bit of committee business, but I understand MLA Hansen has a motion she would like to make.
SUZY HANSEN: Just based on what we heard today about the recommendations and talking about communication gaps and how we can help provincially, we can all agree that our veterans deserve to be taken care of and treated better. We should step up in areas when we can.
That being said, I'd like to move a motion that says:
Whereas veterans deserve to know that their spouse will be taken care of if they pass away first and the “marriage After 60 clause” in the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act is arbitrarily taking this certainty away from too many;
Therefore be it resolved that this committee collectively write a letter to the federal Minister of Veterans Affairs urging her to eliminate the “marriage After 60 clause” from the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act to ensure that all veterans and their loved ones are treated equally.
THE CHAIR: Is there any discussion on the motion of MLA Hansen?
MLA Palmer.
CHRIS PALMER: Obviously, it's a very important topic. The request to submit a letter - you just read it out. It's the first time I've heard it. I don't think it's too offside, but is it possible that we can see the motion? We could maybe take a recess?
THE CHAIR: We'll take a two-minute recess.
[2:50 p.m. The committee recessed.]
[2:51 p.m. The committee reconvened.]
THE CHAIR: Order. I call the committee back to order.
MLA Palmer.
CHRIS PALMER: Thank you. I appreciate my colleague for allowing us to see the motion. We have a practice - we like to know ahead of time.
I think based on what we heard today, this is definitely a non-partisan and a collaborative way we can move forward. Our side of the table would be willing to accept this motion.
THE CHAIR: All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.
The motion is carried.
We had another piece of correspondence that came to us, as you probably received from the clerk. It's from representatives of the Canadian Institute of Military and Veteran Health Research. They had another request to appear before our committee to discuss their organization on any day between the 18th and the 21st. I do believe that the 20th does fall on a Veterans Affairs day, but as you know, our agenda has been set. They have also invited us, just to refresh everybody's memory, to attend their conference.
My suggestion was - the clerk and I discussed this in our briefing - perhaps he does acknowledge receipt of the letter, but he'll go back again and explain that as a committee - if it's in the agreement of the committee - when we have our next agenda-setting, we will discuss it at further length then, if they are a witness that any of us would like to bring. Hopefully, some of us can schedule that we can go up to one of their sessions.
If that's okay with everybody, those are my thoughts, where they've asked a second time to be a little more explanatory - if that's the proper word - to say why we have that response. We're good? Okay.
Also, Mr. Steven Harris, the Senior Assistant Deputy Minister of Service Delivery for Veterans Affairs Canada, has responded to a request for information from a prior meeting - the January 21, 2026 meeting. Is there any discussion around that piece of correspondence from the committee?
Seeing none, the next committee - which I believe is our last committee before the summer break from meeting - is June 16, 2026. The topic is Skills Bridge Initiative. The witnesses will include the Department of Labour, Skills and Immigration; Helmets to Hardhats; the Mainland Nova Scotia Building Trades Council; and the Nova Scotia Construction Sector Council.
If there are no other items, we are finished, and I will say that this meeting is adjourned.
[The committee adjourned at 2:54 p.m.]
