Proceedings of the Subcommittee on
Veterans Affairs
Issue No. 23 - Evidence - February 27, 2019
OTTAWA, Wednesday, February 27, 2019
The Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs met this day at 12:02 p.m. to carry out a 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 their families (topic: the repercussions of the recent changes in ministers at the head of the Department of Veterans Affairs).
Senator Jean-Guy Dagenais (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Before we begin with presentations, I will ask my colleagues to introduce themselves, starting on my right.
[English]
Senator Boniface: Senator Gwen Boniface from Ontario.
Senator Griffin: Diane Griffin, Prince Edward Island.
Senator Wallin: Pamela Wallin, Saskatchewan.
Senator McIntyre: Paul McIntyre, New Brunswick.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good afternoon to our guests. Today, we are hearing from Virginia Vaillancourt, National President of the Union of Veterans' Affairs Employees. We are also welcoming, from the Royal Canadian Legion, Thomas D. Irvine, Dominion President; Steven Clark, Director of Corporate Services; and Nujma Bond, Manager, Corporate Communications.
Today, we are continuing our 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 their families. We will discuss the repercussions of the recent changes in ministers at the head of the Department of Veterans Affairs. We will begin with the first presentation. Ms. Vaillancourt, are you ready? Thank you very much. We are listening.
[English]
Virginia Vaillancourt, National President, Union of Veterans’ Affairs Employees: Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the subcommittee today.
I have recently become the President of the Union of Veterans’ Affairs Employees, which is a component of the Public Service Alliance of Canada. UVAE represents over 2,800 employees with Veterans Affairs Canada and over 450 employees at Deer Lodge Centre.
Veterans Affairs programs and services, like the needs of veterans, are vast, complex and always evolving. Our members are subject-matter experts in VAC services and benefits. They must understand applicable legislation and the various regulations, policies and acts that are used to determine eligibility for those services and benefits. They must know how to deal with mental health issues, crisis intervention, difficult clients and suicide intervention and understand and use motivational interviewing techniques.
In addition to working directly with veterans, they liaise with Legion service officers, suppliers, providers, social workers, hospitals and specialized health care practitioners. Not only do our members care about our country’s veterans, our union does as well.
When a number of Veterans Affairs Canada offices were closed five years ago, UVAE and PSAC mounted a campaign to have them reopened. The Government of Canada has a social contract to ensure our veterans are provided with the care they require. We partnered with individual veterans and veterans’ groups to remind Canadians of our obligations to our veterans. We are pleased that our campaign played a part in having these offices reopened.
Today, I want to speak with you about how Veterans Affairs Canada seems to be regarded within the federal government.
I also want to speak about the recent media speculation about a potential merger of Veterans Affairs into the Department of National Defence and the impact it could have on our veterans. The most recent change in ministers responsible for Veterans Affairs has brought to public attention a concern that our members and our union has had for some time.
The current interim minister, the minister responsible for National Defence, is the sixth minister this department has had in five years. He is the eighth minister since 2010. No other federal department has seen this kind of turnover, and it sends a very negative message, the message that our veterans are not a priority to the government.
As a Canadian and as the national president representing the public service employees who provide exemplary client service to our veterans, I challenge this message the government is sending. Our veterans should be a priority.
This amount of turnover has created instability for our veterans and concerns for our members. The minister is supposed to be a spokesperson for our veterans’ concerns and ensure their department becomes a workplace of choice. Our members were encouraged by the visits that former Minister Wilson-Raybould had started to make. She met with employees in Charlottetown and visited the West, sending a positive message. However, as we all know, her tenure didn’t last long.
As ministers change, continuity is broken, and we fear that the concerns of veterans are never really heard. I believe it is important that the issues and concerns of our veterans be heard first-hand at the cabinet table. They need a minister who is able to remain in the portfolio to gain the necessary experience to be a strong representative for our veterans.
This brings me to our second concern, the idea that Veterans Affairs should be joined with the Department of National Defence. At first glance, this may seem like a logical move. However, we already have transition teams on many DND bases. Through enhanced transition services, VAC staff are assigned complex and non-complex members up to a year before their release date. VAC transition teams collaborate with the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence to provide support and services that focus on recovery, rehabilitation and reintegration. This collaboration provides for continuity of care once the member is released.
The strength of having Veterans Affairs co-located with the transition centres is that our members have the historical knowledge of VAC programs that allow them to provide context and information that is not otherwise easily obtained. We also act as a resource for our military partners for things related to Veterans Affairs, and of equal importance, community-based resources.
Because our focus goes beyond the still-serving members of the forces to the broader veteran community, we have access to information and community partnerships that are not always readily available to DND and Canadian Forces staff.
Many of our members have come to Veterans Affairs after working in the community, so we have an innate understanding of the workings of our local health authorities and providers as well as community connections that we can use to leverage support for members transitioning out of the forces.
The staff at the transition centres also assist veterans with applications for Veterans Affairs programs, including the rehabilitation program, disability awards and others. The case managers at the transition centres are also responsible for assisting with all serious injuries or deaths that occur as a result of service in the Canadian Forces. Veterans Affairs staff are also able to effectively liaise with other business units within the department, such as the Bureau of Pensions Advocates, the disability benefits unit, the health-related travel unit and the financial benefit unit to better support Canadian Forces members and their families.
We believe there needs to be a disconnect between DND and veterans. Veterans Affairs transition centre staff routinely meet with veterans and their families away from the base to provide them with support and information because many veterans are unable to come onto the bases due to mental health issues. Veterans Affairs is seen as a neutral entity and as separate and distinct from the Department of National Defence. That is something the veterans we talk with have endorsed.
It has been our members’ experience that the best transitions are those that involve multiple staff from a variety of areas, each bringing their own unique perspective to the situation. This allows for dialogue and problem-solving that builds on the knowledge and strength of all the individual participants who have the common goal of a smooth transition for the veteran.
We also fear that Veterans Affairs Canada would be lost within the much larger Department of National Defence and would receive even less attention than it does now. We strongly recommend against such a move.
Thank you for inviting me to meet with you to raise our members’ concerns.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation, Ms. Vaillancourt. Before I give the floor to Mr. Irvine, I want to acknowledge the presence of Senator Richards, who just joined us. Welcome, senator. Mr. Irvine, I assume you have a presentation. We are listening to you.
[English]
Thomas D. Irvine, Dominion President, Royal Canadian Legion: Good afternoon. My name is Thomas D. Irvine and I’m the Dominion President of the Royal Canadian Legion.
The Legion has close to 260,000 members; most of them are veterans and their family members. Our mission is to serve them, to serve our communities and to promote remembrance. We are very proud of what we do. For a bit of context, I will give you a glimpse: When our veterans need help in receiving benefits, we’re there to help them through all the stages at no cost. We help veterans off the street through our Leave the Streets Behind program. We organize and hold the nation’s largest Remembrance Day ceremony in Ottawa so that Canadians never forget our veterans’ sacrifices. In addition, we advocate strongly for the sorts of things needed to make life better for our veterans.
I’m very pleased to be here today to speak to you about an alarming situation; that is, the frequent change in leadership at Veterans Affairs Canada over the past decade. Within that time period, we’ve seen nine ministers — I repeat, nine ministers in 10 years. Let me name them for the record. Since 2009 we’ve seen Ministers Thompson, Blackburn, Blaney, Fantino, O’Toole, Hehr, O’Regan, Wilson-Raybould, and now Sajjan. We assume Minister Sajjan’s eventual replacement this year will mean 10 ministers in 10 years. That is a lot of turnover.
Let me emphasize that this problem is not specific to a particular government in power. Veterans issues need to remain bipartisan. They should never be seen as political issues. It appears the department is being treated as a revolving door with too many different leaders taking the reins for a short period of time. The position and department is not getting the attention and respect that it and veterans deserve. A minister is just getting a good handle on the file when they leave the post.
Veterans Affairs is a very complicated department and it takes a good amount of time for a new person to get up to speed and to start making important decisions that will have a long-term impact on veterans and their families. We’re concerned that no one is in the post long enough to start looking ahead and crafting a vision for the future. The result is a lack of leadership and oversight.
Within this void, important projects remain stalled and problems aren’t fixed quickly enough. For example, we just heard last week that the new Pension for Life program will affect the most-injured veterans in a negative financial way. That’s not supposed to happen. Who will sort this out and when?
We also need to see better synchronization between VAC and DND as set out in their mandate letters. Our veterans deserve a more streamlined and efficient transition process. Formulating that process becomes more difficult when leadership keeps changing. Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Irvine. Mr. Clark, Ms. Bond, do you have a presentation? No? So we will start our question period.
[English]
Senator McIntyre: Thank you for being here today and answering our questions. Thank you for your presentations.
There’s no question that there have been major effects regarding the frequent changes in ministers heading the Department of Veterans Affairs and I’m sure that these changes have had quite the impact, as you have rightfully pointed out, Ms. Vaillancourt. Obviously, the government should review the way it handles Veterans Affairs.
That said, my first question is directed to you. I understand that, at one point, you were planning on meeting Ms. Wilson-Raybould to discuss issues that affect both employees and veterans. Can you tell us about the issues you wanted to raise with the former minister?
Ms. Vaillancourt: One of the key points that I wanted to discuss with her was something I actually raised with the previous minister and it’s in regard to our Deer Lodge Centre in Winnipeg and the funding cuts that are happening there and the reduction in beds. That was one of the big pieces. I also wanted to talk to her in regard to the Pension for Life coming into effect April 1 and where she was on the oversight and how she had been brought up to speed.
We know veterans previously raised concerns to previous ministers and we are unsure if those concerns have ever actually been passed along to the new ministers every time there is a shuffle that happens there.
Senator McIntyre: Obviously, the turnover in ministers at Veterans Affairs has affected the families of the veterans. Is information flowing properly from the office of the Minister of Veterans Affairs to departmental employees? Do the employees have the information they need to do their job in a timely manner, notwithstanding the turnover?
Ms. Vaillancourt: Presently, with Pension for Life, there are still some questions being raised by staff. They are in the midst of being trained on it. Training is happening into March. In regard to other communications out of the minister’s office, there hasn’t been a great deal. I know in talking with someone in the department there haven’t been meetings with the interim minister at that level as of yet. That’s of concern because, when we have an interim minister, we need to make sure that Veterans Affairs Canada and the concerns of the veterans are actually being addressed and are not off to the side of a desk while the minister is holding a larger portfolio.
Senator McIntyre: Mr. Irvine, I understand that the Legion is hoping that the Department of Veterans Affairs and National Defence can join together in one department. What would be the benefits of merging these two departments?
Mr. Irvine: The Legion just brought that forward last week, the idea of merging two departments, to get the discussion going. As I am here today, we’re talking to our veterans across the country and we are polling them to see whether or not they like the idea. I can tell you right now that the majority of them are against the idea.
The Royal Canadian Legion is bringing this forward to create the interest and to spark conversation. Veterans’ issues have not been at the forefront lately and we want to bring all veterans’ issues to the forefront. The revolving-door ministry is our way of getting attention and we’re here today. If we did not make that statement last week, we would not be on the news; we would not be here today. The whole idea of the comment was to get the conversation going.
I do have comments on the merging. As I said, we looked at it as an idea to spark discussion in the veteran community and within the highest levels of government and that is happening.
I can tell you that since we have heard this strongly from parts of our membership. They worry their needs are getting lost if DND remains part of their post-service care. Some of them report bad experiences with DND and want to leave that department behind when they leave the forces.
We want the Canadian government to create a way to provide more efficiency, better continuity of care, more holistic care, using a cradle-to-grave philosophy, taking care of our soldiers from the beginning right to their transition out of the forces.
All this said, our immediate focus is now to fix the problems within both DND and VAC as separate entities that need to work together better.
[Translation]
The Chair: Mr. Irvine, you have drawn my attention. As you said, over a 25-year period, there have been 17 different Ministers of Veterans Affairs Canada. We currently have an acting minister who may be replaced by an eighteenth minister. That department is a real a revolving door.
Do you feel that the department is, in a way, a stopgap and, following Minister Wilson-Raybould’s resignation after she was visibly displeased with that new assignment, that it is not important in the eyes of the Prime Minister.
[English]
Mr. Irvine: The Legion is very concerned about the revolving door. We feel that, yes, the way the public and the government see the Veterans Affairs portfolio or file as a minor role, and the Legion is very disturbed about this. The revolving-door issue is the main concern, because they just start learning the file and then they move on. It’s a complicated issue.
We’re also very insulted, as an organization of veterans, that the government of today, yesterday and maybe tomorrow treats this as not a very important portfolio. As far as we’re concerned, the veterans of Canada should be one of the top priorities. It’s not a minor role. It’s an important role. Someone even said to me the other day, “If it was not for veterans of this country, you wouldn’t have some of your other ministries.”
That is our opinion on the revolving door, sir.
[Translation]
The Chair: In terms of operations, will those continual changes impact the effectiveness of mechanisms to meet veterans’ needs? Those changes surely affect the response time. In concrete terms, according to you and your colleagues, what initiatives are not coming to fruition because of those frequent changes? Can you give us examples?
[English]
Mr. Irvine: I can. We’re still waiting for national or Canadian government standards on psychiatric service dogs, which we were promised last year. We don’t have a national strategy on homeless veterans. We’re still seeing long wait-lists for the handling of claims, with no end in sight.
Our veterans still don’t understand the new Pension for Life changes. When will they get clarity there? How much longer until someone new gets up to speed? Is it still on track for April 1? These are some of our concerns, sir.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much.
[English]
Senator Richards: Thank you for your service and for being here. Senator Dagenais asked my question, but that’s all right. I’m glad it was asked.
I had a brief message from a retired major that I know, after the change in the Veterans Affairs portfolio. He said, “They don’t care for us and they never really have.”
That’s really shows that people look upon this as a kind of demotion. There’s a great turnover and nothing gets done.
Veterans Ombudsman Craig Dalton said the Minister of Veteran Affairs amends the New Veterans Charter to permit a single Canadian Armed Forces member with no dependent children to designate a family member to apply and receive the death benefit.
That sounds pretty logical to me, but it hasn’t been done yet as of 2018, and a high degree of turnover looks like it may not be done. Is that the case with almost everything going on in the department now?
Mr. Irvine: For the things that I have stated, yes. I don’t know for sure, but I would imagine that a lot of things are not being done or not finalized because of the revolving door. That’s an opinion, not a fact.
Senator Richards: It’s an opinion held by many of our former service members, right?
Mr. Irvine: Correct.
Senator Boniface: Thank you all for being here and for your service to our country.
First of all, in terms of the comments, I appreciate that, as Mr. Irvine said, this is not a partisan issue, because there is a pattern here of successive governments who have used this as what I think was quoted as being a more junior portfolio.
I’m wondering, and perhaps, Ms. Vaillancourt, you can answer this, does this also apply to deputy ministers? What has the changeover been for deputy ministers?
Ms. Vaillancourt: I know in the last five years we’ve had the same deputy minister. Prior to that, as an employee of Veterans Affairs previously, I never paid attention to our deputy minister changes because that’s not where my direction came from.
Senator Boniface: I understand that. I was curious.
Ms. Vaillancourt: There is more stability in the deputy minister line. I know that if there was that much of a changeover in the deputy minister, that would be directly felt by the employees as well.
Senator Boniface: Mr. Irvine, in terms of your perspective on whether Veterans Affairs would be considered to go with National Defence, it would seem to me that it would be a convoluted combination because, really, one is service to members and the other one is mission-focused. Would you agree with that?
Mr. Irvine: Correct. I’ve talked to several veterans, and the line that keeps getting repeated is if they join the two ministries together, then the veterans would lose out. In their opinion, the way it would work would be mission first, veterans second.
Senator Boniface: Thank you.
Senator Griffin: Thank you, panel, for being here today. You’ve already addressed some of the issues that I had concerns about, and other senators have asked the brilliant questions that I had in that regard, but I want to make a few comments before I ask a couple of questions.
Seventeen Ministers of Veterans Affairs since the days of the Chrétien government. Do you know there have been only six Ministers of Finance in all that time? I was amazed, with the resignation of the recent minister, how often the word “demotion” was used. It’s like saying a “failed political candidate” because somebody ran for office once, and they are tagged with the word “failed” ever after kind of thing.
This obviously would have had some impact on the moral at the headquarters in Charlottetown. I’m from Prince Edward Island, and I’m very concerned about what’s going on, not only with Veterans Affairs but with the staff at the headquarters. We have talked about what the issues are with Veterans Affairs, and there was a brief alluding to staff at the headquarters.
I’d like to know, what is the morale like due to these issues and other issues, such as maybe not enough resources or whatever? Can you give me a comment on that please?
Ms. Vaillancourt: Resource-wise, the department, in our opinion, is still under-resourced to be able to provide the quality of service that the veterans deserve, and to be able to, as Mr. Irvine spoke to, get to the backlog of files waiting to be done. It comes down to a lack of resources in that aspect.
In regard to morale, there is a concern from the staff in terms of how our department, the department that takes care of our veterans — veterans who left their families and went to serve our country to fight for what we have today — how we can be seen as a department by this government as not a priority. That morale stings, because a bunch of our employees came to Veterans Affairs specifically to be able to give back to veterans.
Senator Griffin: Thank you. I’ll ask another question, and then I’ll ask to be put on second round, if you don’t mind.
The Veterans Ombudsman, who is presently Craig Dalton from Prince Edward Island — I know his father well — issues report cards. I’m sure you’ve all seen the report cards regarding what action has been taken on his recommendations to the department. There are multiple instances requesting ministerial action that have not been implemented. One example, for instance, is that the Minister of Veterans Affairs amend the New Veterans Charter to permit a single Canadian Armed Forces member with no dependent children to designate a family member to apply and receive the death benefit. As of 2017-18, as referenced by Mr. Irvine, this has not been actioned.
Does the high degree of turnover prevent the minister from following the advice of the Veterans Ombudsman? Do you have any comments on that?
Ms. Vaillancourt: Yes, the instability in the Minister of Veterans Affairs has had a huge impact for veterans, specifically with regard to recommendations that have been made by the ombudsman. The implementation of those seem to get put to the side. That was our concern. We feel that because of the high turnover of the ministers, there’s not a stability and continuity there to ensure that concerns that have been raised in the past are actually being followed through and implemented.
Senator Griffin: So it keeps falling off the edge of the table.
Ms. Vaillancourt: Absolutely.
Senator Griffin: Or the desk, in that case. Thank you. I’ll come back later.
Senator Wallin: Thank you for being here today. Following up on Senator Boniface’s comment, we’re all thankful for Walt Natynczyk, who has been there for five years and knows whereof he speaks.
I want to hear from both of you on the question that’s been raised about putting the Minister of Defence in charge, albeit on an interim basis, as being a conflict of interest in terms of the idea that his focus must and should be on recruitment, mission and ops, and therefore, the notion of people leaving the service for whatever reason would not be a priority that a Minister of Defence might look well upon.
So my question is on that question of conflict of interest rather than problems because it’s another new guy. Ms. Vaillancourt, do you want to start?
Ms. Vaillancourt: Sure. I do see that there is the potential of a conflict of interest. Presently, he’s been the interim minister for a couple of weeks now, and there hasn’t been any communications that have come out. His focus does seem to be, from our point of view, on the mission ops versus actually taking care of the veterans. So there is a conflict of interest, in our opinion.
Senator Wallin: Mr. Irvine?
Mr. Irvine: We have not discussed this subject matter at all, but I personally believe so, yes.
Senator Wallin: On the question of the merger issue, certainly we’ve had earlier ombudsmen on both sides raise the issue of merging when it comes to the question of transition — not department-wide, but just at that point when you’re handing off from one level of service to veteran status that you would almost have an HR component separate from VAC and DND that would say, “Okay, here’s a human being, and we’re taking them from one level of activity to a different level of activity.”
Do you have a view on whether that’s an area to focus on rather than a merger, department size?
Ms. Vaillancourt: There has been an increase in the enhanced transition services at Veterans Affairs. There are Integrated Personnel Support Centres on many bases across Canada. The staff at the IPSCs work very closely with the Canadian Armed Forces and DND to ensure that the benefits and services that veterans need, up to a year prior to them releasing from the military, are actually being put in place. That collaboration is already there and is already happening. We can always use more staff, which will actually assist in providing services a lot faster, but unfortunately, the dollars are not there to allow for the staffing opportunities.
Senator Wallin: Any views, Mr. Clark or Mr. Irvine?
Mr. Irvine: I have a couple of things on transition. When it comes to veterans of today, VAC is focused on rehabilitation. DND is associated on SISIP, the Service Income Security Insurance Plan, and there’s not enough coordination between the two.
Allow me to give you a couple of prime examples of the current backlog during the veterans transition process. The first is the sharing of service health records among departments. There are Privacy Act concerns, which make things very challenging. The second is case management. We need veterans to have one case manager from service to retirement. It’s much easier on them and the system.
Senator Wallin: Exactly. On the very technical question of case management, Ms. Vaillancourt, is there progress on that in the “newly cooperative sense but still not there” in terms of that transition piece?
Ms. Vaillancourt: There are always ways to make things much smoother and better for the veterans. Veterans Affairs has come out with guided support. They will be the veteran service agents who will be doing light case management but for medium, complex to low-risk clients. They will be more or less case managing them, but the department is not calling it case management; it’s called guided support.
The department is looking at alternate ways to make sure that case management stream and the continuity is there, straight through.
Senator Wallin: I have many questions on the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s report, but we’ll do that next.
[Translation]
The Chair: Senator Wallin, I will add you to the list for the second round.
[English]
Senator McIntyre: As I understand, Ms. Wilson-Raybould resigned from cabinet and as Minister of Veterans Affairs on February 12 this year — a little over two weeks ago. Since that day, the Minister of National Defence has served as acting Minister of Veterans Affairs. As you have stated, he is the fourth minister to head the department under the current government.
What contact, if any, has the acting Minister of Veterans Affairs initiated with you, whether it’s the Royal Canadian Legion or the Union of Veterans’ Affairs Employees?
Ms. Vaillancourt: We have had absolutely no contact or outreach from the interim minister at this point.
Senator McIntyre: Or from anyone in his department?
Ms. Vaillancourt: We have had no request for communications or meetings from them.
Senator McIntyre: Not even a phone call?
Ms. Vaillancourt: Not even a phone call, a letter or an email to say “hello.” That is disappointing, because we feel it is an opportunity to be able to have us voice some of the concerns we’ve heard from the staff and veterans.
With the interim minister being there and not having that contact, it goes down to what we were saying before: We feel that veterans’ issues are just being pushed to the side, and that they’re not a priority to the government.
Senator McIntyre: Mr. Irvine?
Mr. Irvine: When Minister Wilson-Raybould took over, I heard from her by telephone in two days. I have yet to hear from anybody since the new acting minister took over.
Senator McIntyre: To the best of your knowledge, has the acting Minister of Veterans Affairs or anyone in his department initiated contacts with the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman or the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Veteran’s Association?
Mr. Irvine: No idea.
Senator McIntyre: Ms. Vaillancourt?
Ms. Vaillancourt: I’m unaware of any contact made.
[Translation]
The Chair: Before I give the floor to Senator Griffin, I will allow myself a quick topical question. If we look at the most recent ministers to have held the position, do you feel they had all the flexibility they needed to make the necessary decisions, or did they need to get approval from the Prime Minister’s Office?
[English]
Ms. Vaillancourt: That’s a loaded one.
[Translation]
The Chair: Please feel free to comment. You are among friends here.
[English]
Mr. Irvine: And the TV camera.
[Translation]
The Chair: Only friends are watching us on television.
[English]
Ms. Vaillancourt: It would be hard to actually confirm or negate on whether or not those decisions are being made. I do think that a lot of stuff does have to and did have to run through the Prime Minister’s Office, so I don’t think there’s that unilateral oversight or control that a minister would normally have in a department.
Mr. Irvine: No, I personally have not seen it. I haven’t heard about it. I’ve been at the executive level for the last 15 years and I have not heard a story of the Prime Minister’s Office interfering with any ministry that I’m aware of, and I’ve met several of the past Ministers of Veterans Affairs, and I’m quite comfortable with the authority they have.
Senator Griffin: My questions won’t be as loaded, maybe.
We’re hearing there needs to be an update in legislation and therefore a policy framework to reflect the 21st century. Are Veterans Affairs employees experiencing red tape barriers that limit their abilities to assist veterans? Is it easier for an allied veteran to receive services than a modern veteran, who may have served in Afghanistan, due to how the legislation is currently written?
Ms. Vaillancourt: There are concerns about the red tape. The department states that they are working to try to reduce or eliminate a bunch of the red tape. They’ve gone out to employees to ask how they can potentially make the process a lot easier and not have so much red tape in that.
With regard to if it’s easier for an allied veteran or a modern day veteran to receive services or benefits, the legislation is so intricate and there are so many pieces to the puzzle that everything that veteran did within the service must be looked at because they could fall into a multitude of different areas of other services or benefits that they may be eligible for. I wouldn’t be able to specifically state whether it’s easier for an allied veteran versus a modern-day veteran to obtain services.
Senator Griffin: Thank you. Has the frequent turnover at the top impacted the services for the RCMP members? How much red tape is occurring for them or being done to them?
Ms. Vaillancourt: I actually haven’t heard of any concerns that have been raised through the RCMP at this point. They’re not eligible for the New Veterans Charter. The RCMP declined to sign on to the New Veterans Charter. The RCMP are eligible for the pensions, the attendance allowance and the exceptional incapacity allowance, but I haven’t heard any concerns raised through the RCMP as of yet.
Senator Griffin: What has been the impact on service care delivery for veterans and employees in Veterans Affairs hospitals or provincially run hospitals? Have veterans had to resort to legal action to receive the services to which they are entitled?
Ms. Vaillancourt: That’s part and parcel of a campaign I’m dealing with in regard to Deer Lodge Centre because we have huge concerns with how the services are being — not delivered by the staff — but delivered through the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority and the Government of Manitoba.
With regard to legal actions, as some may be aware, Ste. Anne’s Hospital transferred to the province in 2016. Since that time, we have seen and heard a decline in the care and services that the veterans were receiving in that hospital. We’ve heard of concerns of the working conditions for the employees who transferred from Ste. Anne’s under Veterans Affairs to the provincial government.
Presently, there is a veteran who has started a class action suit at Ste. Anne’s Hospital with the Quebec government. The Quebec courts have permitted an expedited trial for him, given the average age of veterans at Ste. Anne’s Hospital. It is something that we’re monitoring. I have been in touch with the lawyer previously regarding that aspect of things, so it is something that we are watching because it’s not what was agreed to in the transfer agreement between the federal government and the Province of Quebec.
Senator Griffin: Okay, thank you. One final point, maybe. Yesterday, Senator Percy Downe, also from Prince Edward Island, spoke to an inquiry that he’s initiating in the Senate. It’s No. 58. He’s calling the attention of the Senate to the regrettable failure of the Senate on occasion to perform its important duty of providing careful review of legislation. He’s talking about the haste that was done when Bill C-45 was passed in 2005. It has resulted in what was noted in the recent report by the Parliamentary Budget Officer regarding the cost differential among three regimes of veterans’ benefits. This, of course, happened when the New Veterans Charter replaced the Pension Act.
You’re probably already aware of it, but if you’re not, you may want to take a look at that document. It’s available publicly, and I have an extra copy or two here. What Senator Downe is trying to do is get us in the Senate to exercise our sober second thought in a more sober and concentrated way when dealing with veterans, for instance, and also rather than simply standing and repeating platitudes in the days before Remembrance Day every year, let us work to remember them in our actions rather than empty words. I’m 100 per cent in agreement with my colleague on that. That doesn’t require a comment. I’m just making a statement, but if you want to comment, that’s fine too.
Mr. Irvine: I’d like to get a copy of that, please.
Senator Griffin: Okay.
Senator Wallin: I don’t know how many times we’ve seen headlines like the ones last week that the Liberal plan offers less to many vets, says the budget watchdog. This is the report of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. So he has looked at everything that has gone on since the imposition of the New Veterans Charter and has concluded I think what we all know, but it’s really troubling when you see it, that today’s benefits for veterans are less generous than they used to be — so to your point, Senator Griffin.
But more troubling than that is that they are less beneficial and less generous to the most severely injured of our veterans. He goes on to point out that this is going to continue to be an issue because the cost of righting that system would be some $40 billion as opposed to the cost right now, which is about $22 billion.
So when you look at it in those terms, then governments act to do generally what costs them less. Can I have your views on his report and on what you think the comparison of those numbers actually mean? Do you think the government is going to deliver on this promise, given the proximity to elections and deficits?
Steven Clark, Director of Corporate Services, Royal Canadian Legion: Thank you very much, senator. Absolutely, we expect that the government will deliver on that promise, but the form that it’s going to take may not be what certain veterans are expecting.
We know from the Parliamentary Budget Office report that approximately 3 to 5 per cent of veterans will be worse off under Pension for Life than they are currently. It is something that veterans have been pushing for for quite some time since the New Veterans Charter, now the new Well-being Act, has come into force, but we know it’s not going to advantage every veteran.
That’s something the Legion will continue to push for, to make sure that no veteran is disadvantaged. There’s still work to be done. It’s progress. There potentially will be Pension for Life. We’re anticipating that that will still come into play. We’re hoping the revolving door of ministers will not result in decision paralysis within Veterans Affairs, that decisions will continue to be made to support veterans. We’ll wait to see what happens April 1. We have no indication there will be any delay. We anticipate it will come into force. We’ll see what the actual implementation looks like come that date.
Senator Wallin: If that implementation goes ahead, as you want it to and anticipate it will, do you think the issue of the severely injured will be dealt with?
Mr. Clark: I can’t speak with certainty, but I fear it will not be dealt with prior to the implementation, and it will still be something that has to be advocated for towards the department. It’s not a situation that any veteran should be put into, to get a program that disadvantages you. That’s something that the Legion will continue to push towards, but I anticipate that, yes, there will be those who will see less.
Senator Wallin: Ms. Vaillancourt, do you want to comment on that?
Ms. Vaillancourt: Well, I don’t have many comments on that because I have a meeting after this where I’m getting a briefing on where things are at with the PFL. I agree that there are some disadvantages there, and it is something we’re watching.
Some of the employees who work at Veterans Affairs Canada are veterans as well, and some of them do have service-related injuries. It is something that we are cognizant of and are watching. Once I have my meeting this afternoon, we will be going back to ensure that the implementation is happening.
We haven’t heard of any delays in the implementation of PFL with the turnover of ministers as of yet. Even this week our staff has been out obtaining training, and they’re getting more training next week on the PFL and its implementation.
Senator Wallin: There have been court cases on this for the last 10 years. Is it your understanding that the most severely disabled have been getting less than they would have been entitled to under the old system?
Ms. Vaillancourt: I think so, yes.
Senator Wallin: Thank you.
Senator Richards: This is a local question. It’s a particular question because I remember the Legion when I was a kid and the officers’ mess.
Does the upkeep of a local Legion come from dues from local membership, or is there money from Veterans Affairs allotted to the local Legions? If so, how much? If not, why not, for the membership to keep going and be viable?
Mr. Irvine: The Royal Canadian Legion is membership-driven. All the dues we collect from across the country run the organization. We do not accept any money from government or from anyone outside of the grant process for repairs and that.
Senator Richards: No money from Veterans Affairs, sir?
Mr. Irvine: No, sir.
Senator Richards: That’s the way you wish to have it?
Mr. Irvine: Absolutely. That way nobody can hold us by saying, “We are giving you money, but we want you to do this.” We are completely independent.
Senator Richards: Fair enough.
Senator McIntyre: Can I have your thoughts on the issue of wait estimates? My understanding is that Veterans Affairs is aiming for realistic wait estimates; in other words, it’s looking to extend the amount of time that officials have to respond to veterans seeking various benefits and support for their service-related injuries.
How do we solve this problem? Is it more resources, for example, Ms. Vaillancourt?
Ms. Vaillancourt: It is absolutely the need for more resources. Right now, there are backlogs, and it becomes a political issue that the wait times are too extreme for some of our veterans, especially when they’re facing end-of-life situations.
What ends up happening with wait times, staff are asked to do overtime, or they’re directed to do overtime to help clear up that backlog. If we had more staff in place in those sections that do make the decisions and render decisions on applications, I don’t think the wait times need to be extended. The veterans shouldn’t be waiting for their services and benefits.
Senator McIntyre: So one solution is investing more resources?
Ms. Vaillancourt: Investing more resources, yes. Veterans Affairs, as you know, took a huge hit and cuts to our resources a number of years ago. We’re still not back to where we need to be to meet that service aspect.
Senator McIntyre: Ms. Bond, any comments on the questions raised by the senators?
Nujma Bond, Manager, Corporate Communications, Royal Canadian Legion: Yes. I was going to say, in fact, on the question of how to improve things, one thing that would be an immediate solution is an increase in the number of adjudicators. That I know through our conversations with our veteran services department colleagues who are dealing with this backlog in their own way.
Another real problem is in the area of communication. We hear quite often from veterans who are not understanding the changes to programs that are happening. How will Pension for Life affect them? They don’t get it. If we can advocate for more clarity in terms of Pension for Life when it comes into effect on April 1, how it will affect that veteran in plain, simple terms that they can understand, this is something that we’re hearing a lot, and we have been hearing a lot.
Back to one of the things that our president, Mr. Irvine, talked about: We are really advocating for the cradle-to-grave philosophy, so intake to retirement. How are we looking after our veterans? Are we doing it well? Whatever format that takes, it needs to happen. We’re hearing time and again that it’s not happening in the way we should be honouring our veterans.
Mr. Irvine: I don’t have all the statistics on the wait times, but I have heard horror stories over the years about them. I can tell you that my service officers right across the country are overbooked. They’re doing an awful lot of work. They get paid for that, in some cases, but a lot of our branch service officers don’t get paid. A lot of it is voluntary.
In Ottawa our service bureau is doing dozens of cases on a weekly basis. This has increased over the last two to three years tremendously. I can only imagine what’s happening in Charlottetown. If our workload has increased 50 per cent, 100 per cent in the last two years, so has the VAC’s.
Mr. Clark: I would agree. The important thing is, as mentioned before, what we have to focus on within the Department of Veterans Affairs is assisting those veterans who need the help and benefits. If what that takes is additional resources to the front-line people who have that interaction with those veterans to make sure that their pension and benefit requests are processed, that’s what we need to do.
There are other important things that the department is involved with as well, but what the department needs to do is focus on their primary task and that is looking after veterans.
Senator Griffin: We’re asking you a lot of questions today, but it’s because we’re concerned. We’re not trying to put anyone on the spot. You’ve made some great recommendations. I’ll just quickly summarize some of my main points. I may have missed some, but others will have caught them.
The recommendation is to invest more resources in the department, especially front-line people; increase the number of adjudicators; have better communication so veterans understand the programs that are available to them; and cradle-to-grave or intake-to-retirement care. Those are some of the highlights.
Is there anything else you would like to see either this committee recommend or anyone, for that matter, to the Government of Canada in regard to veterans?
Mr. Irvine: I do. I was going to do a summary, but it fits right in. Some of the Legion’s top concerns for today: streamlining of DND and VAC; the continual changeover program system-wise; better transition process for veterans; national service dog guidelines; wait times for claims; homelessness strategy; research into items that directly affect veterans, i.e., cannabis research; and better support for families and their caregivers.
Senator Griffin: You’re going faster than I can write them. I’m depending on the blues from the meeting to have all of that. Thank you very much.
Senator Wallin: I would like to come back to that issue briefly of wait times, and thank you. I am a volunteer service officer for Branch 62 in Wadena. I can hear the complaints from the local vets who don’t use computers, whose family is far away, but I can’t take their concern directly to VAC. First, I have to go to the provincial service officer, and then can you describe for us briefly the process there? What’s the lag time there if you’re bringing up a vet’s case on their behalf?
Mr. Clark: Sometimes it depends on the particular veteran. Some veterans could be red-circled because of the particular situation they’re in, so they get processed more quickly. I don’t want to negate any condition, but if it’s a claim such as hearing loss or tinnitus, it doesn’t require the extent of medical involvement that other claims may have, so perhaps those claims could be moved through quicker.
We are finding that those claims that are quite involved, that do have the investigation that’s needed, the medical conditions that do exist, the serious conditions, that are taking quite some time, so, yes as a volunteer branch service officer — and thank you very much for that, you are working the front line and assisting the veterans in your community — you work with your provincial command who liaises with Veterans Affairs. The provincial command service officers do have the ability to go into the client service delivery network, so they are able to access those individual files and see the progress that is happening on individual files. But, unfortunately, it still does rely upon the processing that is happening within Veterans Affairs.
Senator Wallin: Ms. Vaillancourt, what happens? Do you treat a request that comes from a provincial command service officer any differently than a veteran picking up the phone and calling P.E.I.?
Ms. Vaillancourt: I’m not sure if it’s treated differently. When I was in the office and working closely with the Legion, we didn’t necessarily treat them differently.
It was based on the needs of the veteran. If the veteran had cancer and needed to make that claim quickly, we were able to get that through the red-circling process that is in place, but it wasn’t that if it came from the Legion it got higher priority than a veteran phoning. It is based on the needs.
Senator Wallin: And do you feel that relationship works?
Ms. Vaillancourt: I think that the relationship, when I was there and I haven’t heard of any concerns from across the country in regard to working relationships between Legion and VAC staff, so I think that it is still a good working relationship there.
Senator Wallin: Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: As we are in an election year, regardless of what government will be elected, you can hope that you will have a Minister of Veterans Affairs who will listen to you, at least for the next four years.
I want to thank our guests and our senators. I will adjourn the subcommittee’s meeting on that note. Thank you very much.