Veterans Affairs Canada's website is undergoing maintenance. If you are experiencing any issues, please contact us. We apologize for the inconvenience this may cause.

Record of Discussion - 14 October 2020

Wednesday, October 14, 2020
MS Teams
13:00 – 15:30 (EDT)

Policy Advisory Group Members

  • Brian Forbes, National Council of Veteran Associations in Canada (Co-chair)
  • Commodore (Retired) Andrea Siew (Co-Chair)
  • Ray McInnis, Royal Canadian Legion
  • Major (Retired) Mark Campbell

Regrets (PAG)

  • Rear Admiral Luc Cassivi, Canadian Armed Forces
  • Keith McAllister, Veterans UN-NATO Canada
  • Brigadier General (Retired) Joe Sharpe
  • Master Warrant Officer (Retired) William MacDonald

Minister’s Office

  • Andrea Waselnuk, Policy Advisor, Stakeholders and Events

Veterans Affairs Canada Officials

  • Rick Christopher, Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy and Commemoration (VAC Co-chair)
  • Karen Rose, Senior Analyst, Stakeholder Engagement and Outreach
  • Crystal Garrett-Baird, Director General, Policy and Research Division, Strategic Policy and Commemoration
  • Amy Meunier, Director General, Centralized Operations Division, Service Delivery

Observer

  • Sharon Squire, Deputy Ombudsman, Office of the Veterans Ombudsman

Overview

The meeting was held via MS Teams. The VAC and member co-chairs opened the meeting by providing introductory remarks. It was the first meeting of the Policy Advisory Group attended by the new Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy and Commemoration as co-chair.

The VAC co-chair addressed the Department’s pandemic response and efforts of the Government of Canada and Departmental to support Canadians and Veterans during this time. He provided an update on the Department’s priorities, including outreach to vulnerable Veterans, as well as efforts underway to address the backlog.

The member co-chairs raised concerns that a formal response to their recommendations had yet to occur.

Review of Recommendations

The member co-chairs provided additional context on their recommendations and the letter sent in January, 2020 that provided an updated overview of the recommendations and priorities that were shared at the 2016 National Stakeholder Summit.

They indicated that their recommendations were based on the employment of the best parts of the Pension Act philosophy and the best parts of the Veterans Well-being Act to produce one Compensation Wellness Model for all veterans with parallel disabilities.

The discussion included member comments on:

  • The need to harmonize the benefits and bring Veterans under one umbrella;
  • Changes needed to enable more Veterans to qualify for Additional Pain and Suffering Compensation;
  • The importance of financial wellness and security for all injured Veterans are key in the wellness model used by the Department;
  • The need to incorporate the Family Benefits and Special Allowances (Exceptional Incapacity Allowance/Attendance Allowance) from the Pension Act;
  • The need for a progressive income model to ensure fair compensation, which is aligned with the Parliamentary Budget Office report (February 2019). This would ensure fair compensation employing the fundamental philosophy as to what the veteran would have received in his or her military career had the veteran not been injured. This philosophy would be in accord with the Canadian Courts and the earlier paper by the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman on the concept of “Future Loss of Income”. It is to be noted that the 2019 Parliamentary Budget Officer Report addressed the fact that the elimination of the Career Impact Allowance Supplement negatively impacted Seriously Disabled Veterans in the comparison between the New Veterans’ Charter and the Veterans’ Wellbeing Act.

The VAC co-chair shared that the goal is for VAC programs to be understood, and easier to access and deliver. The Office of the Veterans Ombudsman indicated that it would like to move towards a harmonized approach for financial benefits.

Several members expressed frustration and concern over the lack of substantive response to the Advisory Groups’ recommendations. The need for clear direction, a statement of what is achievable in the near term and long term and what is not achievable is requested.

Other Items

The Director General, Centralized Operations Division provided an update on the backlog, wait times and innovations to improve wait times. Some members noted that the wait time tool should provide additional clarity and detail on the progression of claims. Work is currently underway to provide more clarity and transparency to Veterans with regards to the status of their claims.

The Director General, Centralized Operations Division also addressed the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Agent Orange cases returned to the Department. It was noted that making decisions on disability benefits claims related to Agent Orange and other unregistered US military herbicides is being completed in October, 2020. It is anticipated that the bulk of the claims will be adjudicated within a few weeks. (Note: at the time of posting, all decisions were made and communicated to the Veteran/applicant with the exception of four that were being worked on.)

The Director General, Policy and Research Division provided updates on a number of recommendations referenced by the PAG, including; improving the accessibility and sufficiency of the Caregiver Recognition Benefit (CRB), Long Term Care (LTC) eligibility, as well as information related to the change in the partial entitlement policy in 2018.

She noted that at this time VAC is focused on the recommendations from the CRB evaluation recently completed by Audit and Evaluation. With respect to LTC, the financial support that Veterans Affairs provides for Veterans who need long-term care is governed by the Veterans Health Care Regulations. Veteran eligibility for long-term care depends on a number of factors including service type and whether the need for long-term care is related to a disability from military service. It is important to consider that VAC also provides other supports to assist Veterans at home, including the Veterans Independence Program.

The change to the partial entitlement policy was made in 2018 to allow VAC to use discretion, interpret legislation and make every reasonable assumption in favour of the applicant, resulting in faster disability application processing.

In response to the update, members noted:

  • 2018 partial entitlement policy change was not well communicated, and that VAC should be identifying cases where Veterans could benefit from the 2018 policy change instead of putting the onus on Veterans to submit a Departmental Review or a review to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board.
  • It was recommended that the Department automatically grant entitlement to those veterans currently receiving 1/5th, 2/5th or 3/5th and elevate such claims to 4/5th to more equitably address this retro-active concern. This would considerably alleviate the backlog of these partial entitlement claims, particularly given the fact that the Veterans’ Review and Appeal Board is currently approving nearly all appeals from partial entitlement rejections by the Department.
  • The Office of the Veterans Ombudsman is completing a micro investigation of the Caregiver Recognition Benefit (CRB).
  • Complex eligibility criteria for access to long term care and the Veterans Independence Program is an issue for the Care and Support Advisory Group.
  • The Department has a lot to offer to support Veterans in their homes.

The VAC co-chair indicated that he would like to focus on items that this group can influence and where advice and/or recommendations are required to move forward. The member co-chairs indicated that a response to their recommendations is the most important consideration at this time.

The Veteran co-chairs stated that the Advisory Group would expect a formal and substantive response from the Minister on the status on their recommendations by December, 2020. (Note – this was followed up with an email to the VAC co-chair.)

A status update on work plan items to be informed by the Minister’s response to the recommendations will be done secretarially.

The meeting was adjourned.