Proceedings of the Subcommittee on
Veterans Affairs
Issue No. 2 - Evidence - February 24, 2016
OTTAWA, Wednesday, February 24, 2016
The Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met this day at 12:04, in order to continue its study on the services and benefits provided to members of the Canadian Forces, to veterans, to members and former members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and to their families.
Senator Jean-Guy Dagenais (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Good afternoon. I am Senator Jean-Guy Dagenais, deputy chair of the committee. I am stepping in for Senator Day as committee chair today.
I am pleased to welcome you to the meeting. I would ask the senators to kindly introduce themselves, beginning with the senator to my right.
[English]
Senator Mitchell: I'm Grant Mitchell from Alberta.
Senator Runciman: Bob Runciman, Ontario.
Senator Wallin: Pamela Wallin, Saskatchewan.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Today, we are continuing our study of the services and benefits provided to members of the Canadian Forces, to veterans who served with honour in the Canadian Forces, to members and former members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the organizations that preceded it, and to their families.
This morning, we will be hearing from Guy Parent, Veterans Ombudsman, who is joined by Sharon Squire, Deputy Veterans Ombudsman and Executive Director of Operations, both from the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman.
Mr. Parent, you may kindly go ahead with your presentation, after which we will have questions and answers. Thank you, Mr. Parent.
Guy Parent, Veterans Ombudsman, Office of the Veterans Ombudsman: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am delighted to appear before you today.
I will give you an overview of the work of the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman, as well as the challenges that my team and I face. I will also provide our assessment of upcoming issues.
[English]
We are approaching the one hundredth anniversary of the Pension Act, Canada's first major legislation for veterans, passed by Parliament in 1919. In the almost 100 years since, although successive governments have tried earnestly to improve veterans' benefits and programs, some gaps still remain. I respect all of the efforts of past parliamentarians, public servants, veterans' organizations and advocates who have worked hard at closing these gaps and, of course, I recognize the work that this Senate committee has done in the past to better the treatment of our veterans and their families.
First I would like to share the role of my office. There are almost 700,000 veterans in Canada and more than 100,000 still-serving members of the Canadian Armed Forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who will one day join their ranks. Whether or not they receive benefits and services from Veterans Affairs Canada, I consider all of them and their families to be stakeholders and potential clients of the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman.
As an arm's length organization, the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman acts as an independent and impartial voice for all those served by Veterans Affairs Canada. As such, we provide direct services to a widely dispersed client base to ensure that the needs of Canada's veterans and their families are considered in accordance with the Veterans Bill of Rights.
In addition, my role as a special adviser to the Minister of Veterans Affairs offers many opportunities to present directly to the minister matters of importance to the veterans' community. The office often acts as a catalyst to shape and inform national debate on veterans' issues. We are well-positioned for that role because we continually engage with veterans and their families across Canada through one-on-one conversations, town halls, our website, and of course, social media.
[Translation]
In our work, we follow the standards of practice of the International Ombudsman Association and the Forum of Canadian Ombudsman.
[English]
We are an evidence-based organization, and we judge fairness of any veterans' benefits and programs based on its adequacy, sufficiency and accessibility.
We have dedicated front-line staff who help individual veterans navigate through the complexity of Veterans Affairs Canada's benefits and programs. We also identify gaps in programs, benefits and services for veterans and their families, and we enable informed debate on systemic issues by publishing first the facts in a review, followed by reports with recommendations.
The OVO, as the office is commonly called, played an important role from 2012 to 2014 in opening up the New Veterans Charter to a full review before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. In fact, it was our 2013 Review, Report and Actuarial Analysis on the New Veterans Charter — endorsed by all major veterans' organizations, advocates and stakeholders — that was the catalyst for the government's decision to open up the whole charter for review.
I am proud that our evidence-based research helped create an informed debate that led to substantive recommendations endorsed unanimously by all members of ACVA. But much remains to be done, despite the best efforts of all engaged in veterans' issues.
Benefits are still too complex after decades of layering regulations and policies one on top of the other, without regard for how this might affect other benefits. The complexity is often Byzantine in nature. Service delivery needs to become more veteran-centric with a one-stop-shopping approach. Also, to foster transparency and openness, VAC processes and reasons for decisions for veterans' benefit applications need to be much better communicated to veterans. This will promote positive citizen engagement.
Everyone involved in veterans' issues knows these challenges yet the question remains: How do we close the gaps? How do we define what a gap is? Do we continue with the same mindset that has failed for almost a century to meet the needs of our veterans or do we embark on something new, like focusing on outcomes for veterans?
Veterans Affairs Canada does not measure the outcome or report the effect that programs have on veterans. In fact, we discovered while conducting research on the origins of veterans' benefits that from 1920 to today, none that we looked had a written statement about its intended outcome for veterans. The OVO has always focused first on outcomes for veterans, and it would appear that our new government is outcome-oriented also. Let us seize the opportunity and clearly define the outcomes that we want to achieve to close the gaps for veterans and their families. Without knowing the outcome, we cannot determine what size the gap is.
Let me take this a step further. Did you know that we do not have a benchmark defined for what a fair level of financial compensation is for income replacement or pain and suffering for veterans? I ask you then: How can we measure whether our efforts are being effective if we do not have an agreed-upon comparison point? In addition, when we run a detailed analysis of income replacement for veterans the evidence shows that not only are the outcomes inconsistent and sometimes unfair, but also that, on many occasions, there is sometimes no policy rationale for creating those outcomes.
[Translation]
So, I believe that it is time for a new approach focused on outcomes for veterans, not program activities or results. Otherwise, we will continue to disadvantage many of our veterans and their families, as we have done for almost 100 years.
[English]
We need to improve today by fixing some immediate problems with the NVC; but more importantly we need to shape tomorrow by doing a comprehensive analysis of the interdependency of all benefits. In both instances, we need to look at the impact that changing one benefit outcome has in relation to all veterans' benefits across the entire population. With the advantage of our new lens of focusing on outcomes for veterans first, we also need to ensure that the whole-of-government effect is considered when supporting our veterans and their families.
Specifically, to improve today for the most vulnerable veterans, we need to increase the earnings loss benefit to 90 per cent and fix how permanent impairment allowance grades are determined. It is important that we provide compensation to family members forced to give up their careers to take care of our injured veterans and to make family access to mental health services easier for family members.
To shape tomorrow, we need to define and achieve the desired outcome for veterans for lifetime financial security and compensation for pain and suffering. We need to have more direct engagement with veterans and their families to find out their needs and whether they are being met. Also, we need to move to one simple application for veterans' benefits administered proactively by VAC instead of the onus being on the veteran to figure out what they might be eligible for. The burden should be on the department to offer to veterans all the benefits and services available to them. Finally, we need to work to ensure seamless and successful transition from military to civilian life for veterans and their families.
These priorities mirror the goals contained in the mandate letter of the Minister of Veterans Affairs. The opportunity is before us not only to finally close the gaps on veterans' benefits and programs but also to actually get it right for the first time. Let this be the generation that defines a better future for veterans and their families.
[Translation]
Let's do better today as we shape tomorrow.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Mr. Parent, for your presentation. Ms. Squire, would you like to add anything? We'll now move on to questions.
[English]
Senator Mitchell: Thank you for your presentation and your diligent and continued work, Mr. Parent. It does have an impact; there is no question.
I was quite startled by your comment that it's up to veterans to take the initiative to figure out what is available to them. Is there not a package that they're given or an exit review or seminar that they're given when they retire from the forces or from the RCMP? Is there a differential between that process, if it exists, and what the RCMP receive?
Mr. Parent: To answer your question, which is a very good one, communication from Veterans Affairs Canada has always been one of the issues of concern that we've had in the office, as we have stated for many years. For the transition right now, of course, between military and civilian status, we're doing a review at Veterans Affairs Canada. Communication surfaced as being not adequate. Right now, people are guided only through the programs that they may either apply for or where there's an obvious need. We're saying that there needs to be a more holistic approach. When a veteran comes out of the forces, released because of injuries attributable to service, it should be automatic that the onus is on the department to say, "Here are the benefits you could be entitled to,'' but that's not happening right now and that is the big problem.
Senator Mitchell: You're looking at it and that's great.
You also mentioned in your presentation it's important that we provide compensation to family members forced to give up their careers to care for injured veterans and to make access to mental health services easier for family members. There is some access for family of members of the military, I think. Could you confirm that? Could you compare that to the access for families of injured RCMP — PTSD or OSI victims?
Mr. Parent: On the Veterans Affairs Canada side, there is access to programs on the website, for instance, that allow people to learn about coping with PTSD and handling the life that they live with their spouses and so on. Unfortunately, access to OSI clinics is not available. It might be available for the treatment of the individual suffering from PTSD but not in his own right. So we're advocating for that sort of thing as well.
There is a brand new program on the website of Veterans Affairs Canada that apparently will give some caregiver assistance in terms of how to cope with that. This is a brand new program that we haven't had a chance to assess yet. A lot of work has yet to be done on accessing their rights. One of the issues we're concerned with is that a lot of the benefits available to families and spouses are available only through the veterans and not directly to the individual — to the families or the spouses.
Sharon Squire, Deputy Veterans Ombudsman and Executive Director of Operations, Office of the Veterans Ombudsman: There is a 1-800 number but there's no access, for example, to a psychologist or payment for that. It's just the 1-800 number that the family can access.
Senator Wallin: Somehow it seems to all of us who keep looking at this issue that it's much more than just a communications issue. When you talk about injuries attributable to service, who decides that? That seems to be where the issue lies. Is this something that happened before? Is this their personality? Is this directly related? The larger question, which is kind of part two of this, is: Who resists doing this? The whole nature of VAC is supposed to be to service the veteran, yet we find seemingly a resistance to do it. Why is that? Is the department worried about costly precedent? Are ministers worried about blowback? Does VAC have too complicated a bureaucracy? Where is the stumbling block?
Mr. Parent: I would say that the first stumbling block is probably culture, and all of these things are improving as we speak. Understanding the impact of service on people has a lot to do with it — whether you have served yourself or what experience you've had related to it. The attribution of service is done by adjudicators in Charlottetown, and, again, the liberal interpretation that is allowed by the legislation is certainly not considered at full value. I think a lot of times we see that the principles of liberal interpretation were not used to their full advantage.
When people come in and apply for benefits, they have to, first of all, have proof of service and a diagnosed injury and a link between that injury and service.
In the American system, for example, they have a presumptive judgment, in other words, that service in the military or the RCMP does affect wellness and has an impact, psychologically and physically, on the serving members. So they assume that from the start, and it's a lot easier, then, for adjudicators to look at maybe a series of injuries and attribute them to service.
It's a matter of culture. It's a matter of liberal interpretation. But, again, if we look at the statistics over the last four or five years, things have improved a fair amount, but there is still work to be done.
Senator Wallin: As to that linkage that you're talking about, or diagnosis officially, in areas that we know are very difficult to (a) diagnose and (b) diagnose in a timely way, how do we move that one forward?
Mr. Parent: One of the difficulties there is that, very often, the diagnostic and the somewhat medical relation to service is done by a family physician, by a treating physician, after the person has retired from the forces, and, again, a lot of these people do not understand the military service.
Another, I guess, unfortunate aspect of that is that the information required by the department is very exhaustive, and some physicians have a hard time. We even hear sometimes that some caregivers don't really want to serve Veterans Affairs' clients because it's too complex to fill out forms and try to arrive at a proper diagnosis. That is another aspect of it. We need to work on that aspect of it to maybe educate some of the general physicians in general on what the impacts of service are.
Of course, if Veterans Affairs had less complex forms to fill out, that would be good, and they are working in that direction now. But, again, that needs to be addressed.
Senator Wallin: I have another question, but you can come back to me.
Senator Runciman: I may cover some well-trodden ground because I'm not a regular member of the committee, but you talked about presumptive legislation, which applies in other areas. I know the Ontario government — and I haven't looked at the details — passed legislation this week dealing with PTSD first responders, and I'm not sure if that's simply dealing with early detection and access to treatment or if you've had an opportunity to look at it. It would be helpful, at some point, to look at that or other jurisdictions in Canada, how they're approaching this issue and how that matches up against what's happening with respect to veterans. I don't know if you have any comments on that at the moment.
Mr. Parent: We're very interested in that legislation because it does, as you say, kind of parallel the American approach of presumptive judgment for military service.
Again, I think it's these kinds of new approaches that will probably widen the interpretation of the adjudicators to say, "Obviously, it is being recognized now that this type of service has an impact on people,'' and maybe change some of the culture of that aspect of it, but we're very interested in how far that legislation is going to go. Would it evolve from just a presumptive judgment approach to access to special care and that sort of thing?
Senator Runciman: I noticed in the documents I had that, looking at the Veterans Review and Appeal Board and recommendations, you have indicated that it's going to be a priority for you to look at their retroactivity from date of application.
I'm wondering, for VRAB, how does that relationship with your office and the board work, and what kind of feedback have you been getting from them with respect to their failure to follow through on that recommendation? How do you push back in situations like that? What's the usual approach?
Mr. Parent: The relationship with the Veterans Review and Appeal Board is very good. It was, I would say, a little dicey when we first produced the report because we have no jurisdiction over the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, other than process. So, if administrative justice is in question, then we could accept complaints against the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, but we can't question the decision. When we did produce the report a few years back, there was a little bit of thin ice to walk on for a while, but they, in fact, appreciated that we did a report that brought the evidence forward because, a lot of times, there are media communications that don't always put forward the evidence but kind of go on the sensational side. So we were able to do an evidence-based report to put the true facts on the table. Subsequently, we did have a follow-up report and found out that most of the recommendations were actually introduced.
The one recommendation that has to do with retroactivity was somewhat misunderstood even by the minister's office at the time. What we were aiming and hoping for was that, under the old Pension Act, when you applied for benefits, from the time that you applied for benefits until you actually received them or the decision, you were reimbursed for the medical treatments that you received in the meantime. Under the New Veterans Charter, because the date of decision is the effective date, this benefit was not there, so there was no reimbursement. So that was our recommendation. And we are working right now with the minister's office and with the department to rectify that.
Senator Runciman: What does that involve? It doesn't involve legislation, just policy tweaking?
Mr. Parent: No, it's regulations.
In a way, if I may, the reason for them to use that date as an effective date was the fact that, if it did take a year or so, it's an indexed benefit, so the lump sum award actually grows. So it would have been unfair to them to look retroactively.
What was interpreted as retroactive for money, in fact, was not. It was retroactive for treatments received while the application was in.
Senator Runciman: I think you said that there are 700,000 veterans in Canada.
Mr. Parent: Yes, 700,000.
Senator Runciman: You also talked about town hall meetings. I'm just wondering, of those 700,000 veterans, how many of them do you reach out to? I know you talk about town halls. I assume you visit Legions. I can't recall you visiting the area I live in, which is Leeds Grenville, but you may have been there. How big is your travel budget? How often do you do this sort of thing in terms of reaching out, making veterans and communities at large aware of your presence and the kind of services you provide?
Mr. Parent: We have a yearly plan for outreach, and I think, in the last five years, we have covered most of Canada. We concentrate, of course, on where the highest population of veterans is. We are going to Kingston and Trenton in the next few weeks, but, again, looking at the events of the year, we plan for the year. Our outreach involves a public forum. It involves a meeting with the mayors of the area to promote the healthy veteran. It involves meeting with the RCMP local detachment. It involves visiting long-term care facilities in the area and often, if possible, if there is one in the area, sitting down with the Veterans Affairs Canada office and talking to the staff about the issues that they see.
On average, we would see probably about 3 or 400 veterans a year through that medium. Obviously, we have a connection with all major veterans' organizations, and we receive, on average, 6,000 calls a year at the office. So we are in contact with quite a few veterans over the course of the year.
I did say that there are 700,000 veterans and 100,000 serving members; but, in fact, the number of client-based people, those affected by Veterans Affairs Canada or drawing benefits, is roughly 200,000 right now.
Ms. Squire: We have an extensive social media approach to link with younger veterans and other folks. We have a lot of activity on our Facebook and Twitter accounts and we have a YouTube account as well.
Senator Runciman: When you mention younger veterans, I think of Afghanistan primarily. I don't know if you get any feedback on this. I am a member of a Legion in Brockville. You hear across Canada that the younger veterans are not joining the Legions. I am not sure what the mind-set is as I haven't talked to younger veterans as I'm talking primarily to older veterans in the Legion. In your experience, have you found some kind of rationale for why that's happening? For so many decades these Legions have supported the cause of veterans and a lot of them are in jeopardy today.
Mr. Parent: Thank you for the very good comment and question.
In fact, I think it has to do with evolving needs. The needs of our modern-day veterans are quite different from the needs of the older generation of veterans of World War II and Korea.
I can tell you that when I first started in this business and we went into Legions, we saw a rift between the two — generation gaps were evident. It has changed recently through outreach in the last year or so. We were at one town hall meeting where one of the older veterans got up and said, "I want to apologize for the way we have been behaving because we didn't recognize that you had as hard a time as we had. It was easier for us with a front line of identifiable enemy. We appreciate what you have gone through, and we appreciate it.'' A little "rapprochement'' in that aspect.
I've often said to Legion command people, "Your Legion branches should look like a family resource centre on the base.'' I don't know if members of the committee have had a chance to go to a family resource centre, but everything is there to meet the needs of the families and the veterans, the military included. It's a matter of evolving. Of course, it's frustrating for many young veterans that there a lot of members of the Legion who have never served. To them, it's not a group of peers. There are people who have an interest in the military but may not necessarily have served.
Senator Wallin: I'll just comment on the Legion. As a member of my local Legion in a small town, I am the service officer. When you go for the briefings on this, they actually tell you to send the veterans' cases through head office. It's hard, especially in a smaller town.
I want to come back to something you highlighted: There is no benchmark for a fair level of financial compensation or income replacement. I know that varies depending on the disability, the injury and all of that, but is there no reference point in the system — like even the base salary of a member of the Armed Forces? We can determine what Syrian refugees need for a day or a week. We have welfare rates that vary across the country. Is there no reference point?
Mr. Parent: Some programs have a reference point — the base pay, for instance, under the earnings loss benefit. A big gain for our office and the House of Commons committee is the fact that we have parity with the reservists getting the base salary.
The outcome for the program is there, but the general outcome for the wellness of the veterans and their families is not there. The best example right now is the lump sum award. We recommended that it be kept at least at the level that is standard for civilian courts. We are engaged in a review on the pain and suffering payments to complement the New Veterans Charter review that we did before.
In this instance, it says nowhere that the outcome for pain and suffering should be an amount comparable to what the civilian population gets. It doesn't say that anywhere. Arbitrarily, $286,000 came up at the start; but there was no outcome defined for the whole impact on the veteran and his family. That's what we're after. We should work down from outcomes to the legislation. It seems that it's a matter of having so much money, putting it into what the legislation allows and then trying to superimpose on benefits; whereas we should be working backwards on an outcome base.
Senator Wallin: Is there any progress on that?
Mr. Parent: Certainly, the deputy minister agrees to that philosophy at least. But the culture needs to change and I think it's in motion.
Senator Wallin: I know these are impossible questions to ask, but if you could wave your magic wand and do one thing tomorrow morning, and I know you have a list of 100, what would make the most significant difference if there were a change at VAC or the ministry or wherever? What is the one thing that would really help?
Mr. Parent: I would say first, a review of and an increase in the benefits for the most seriously injured people. Right now, the permanent impairment allowance is an issue. A lot of organizations over the years, including ACVA, have identified problems with accessibility for the most seriously injured. There are also some problems in assessing the right levels. Certainly, that needs to be addressed as soon as possible.
The second one, I would say, would be to eliminate the problems of transition so we could make everything else easy down the road.
Senator Wallin: What do you mean by that?
Mr. Parent: A successful transition to civilian life includes good communications, good rehabilitation and the basic standards of wellness, such as a roof over your head, food on the table, financial security for life and a meaningful life. If these things could be achieved through transition, a lot of other things would go away.
Of course, we are doing a joint review, and I want to recognize the military ombudsman, Gary Walbourne, of the transition to address the concerns.
Senator Wallin: It has to come from both sides.
Mr. Parent: Yes. We found in the preliminary findings that DND needs to reach out and VAC needs to reach in. There needs to be some governance and communication basically.
Senator Wallin: You've been at this for a long time. Are you optimistic that you're making any serious progress on that larger issue of transition in a real way?
Mr. Parent: We're moving forward. In fact, some of our findings to date have been passed on to Veterans 2020, the project within Veterans Affairs Canada to assist with the future and transition. There are some synergies. People are working in parallel, and anything we find that could be useful to them is passed on.
At least it's not a silo approach in that aspect of transition. We're working towards a common goal and objective.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Mr. Parent, you mentioned the transition and return to civilian life. Having been a police officer for 39 years, I can tell you that the day you dread most is the day you retire, the day you have to turn in your uniform and your badge. Your badge is very important to your identity, as a police officer, and it usually hits you hard when you retire. I went through it, myself. You feel alone as you face life as a civilian.
Is there any transition support to help veterans find work? Having a roof over their head, a few bucks in their pocket and food on the table is all well and good, but sitting around the house and not working is hard. The devil makes work for idle hands, after all.
The Canadian Corps of Commissionaires hires veterans, if I'm not mistaken. I heard an ad encouraging people, RCMP officers and members of the military, specifically, to apply to the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires. Is that support there? Are they offered jobs?
Many of my former co-workers who are now retired don't have to worry about money, food or housing, but I can tell you that a year into retirement, it is taking a toll on them, not to mention their families.
Mr. Parent: A number of opportunities are currently available. You mentioned the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires. There is also the new legislation that gives injured members of the military and RCMP officers access to employment in the federal public service. So that's another possibility. A number of civilian companies also hire. Jobs are available through the Helmets to Hardhats program. What's more, significant efforts are made to ensure the transfer of military expertise and knowledge to the civilian arena, so that people really appreciate what veterans and retired police officers have to offer.
What is clearly missing in the approach is the coordination element. Numerous opportunities are available, but no organization is designated to provide information or coordinate efforts. That's one of the transition aspects we are looking at in our process review. This involves third parties, so it's important to identify the other agencies offering jobs or financial opportunities, to make recommendations, and to have a point of contact to help injured veterans, police officers and Canadian Forces members at least understand what is available to them.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you kindly, Mr. Parent. Would you like to add anything, Ms. Squire?
Ms. Squire: No.
The Deputy Chair: If no one has any further questions, I would like to thank our witnesses for being here today. The meeting is adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)