Veterans Affairs Committee on June 10th, 2019

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

There's another issue that has come up: the earnings loss benefit being increased to 90% of the pre-release salary. Have you had feedback on the impact? Is this something that's working very well for veterans? Do you find their lives or their financial situations improving with this?

[Craig L. Dalton]

I've had no specific feedback from veterans, but certainly that was something that had been called for by veterans groups and advocates for quite some time.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Thank you.

There's also what's called the re-establishment and compensation regulations change. It talks about costs with post-secondary education. The goal of this was to make sure that all costs related to post-secondary education are paid. Are you receiving feedback on how well that is working and the impact that is having on veterans?

[Craig L. Dalton]

Again, I'm sorry, but I have no specific feedback. Perhaps when we're out meeting we should be looking for some of this, but people typically call us when they're unhappy. We do know that this is a change that our office had advocated for, so we were quite pleased to see it implemented.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Thank you.

Some mention was made of the pension for life. I just wanted to understand. You said under certain regimes there were certain veterans who, with a similar disability, might be treated differently. With which regimes are you comparing it?

[Craig L. Dalton]

If I could refer to the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report, it speaks to three regimes: the Pension Act regime, the Veterans Well-being Act regime up until March 31, 2019, and pension for life, post-April 1 of this year.

Our analysis to date—and this is why it makes it very complicated to have an informed discussion about this issue—has looked at 10 scenarios. We've conducted this analysis a number of times after changes were made to the Veterans Well-being Act to try to demonstrate what the impact of those changes would be, or would have been, to veterans. What our analysis has shown to date—and we just received it back from an actuary to confirm that we're doing things the right way—is that some veterans do better under pension for life, some veterans do better under the Veterans Well-being Act and some veterans do better under the Pension Act. Clearly, we have three regimes and different outcomes for individuals with similar needs under each of those regimes.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

I know we only have had it since April 1, but are there any indications of what changes might be advised to help correct those, or do we just need more time?

[Craig L. Dalton]

I think we need more time, but it's good to point out that we're talking about financial compensation here. Certainly, the Veterans Well-being Act and the pension for life are much broader than financial compensation. I think it's important to take that into account as well when we consider whether those three regimes are effective or not.

But no, we have not done any work specifically to look at what might be done to address the fact that we now have three regimes.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

What would you name specifically as the programs beyond the compensation? You said that there are things beyond financial compensation that are helpful.

Which programs do you refer to as being beneficial?

[Craig L. Dalton]

They are the broader focus on veteran well-being, things such as vocational rehabilitation and the changes that you noted in terms of pooling educational funds, the education and training benefit. There have been a number of changes that take the focus away from being purely on financial security—which is clearly of significant importance—to looking at broader well-being, taking into account that 75% or so of veterans who are medically released as a result of illness or injury have a disability of below 25%, so they are individuals who would be looking for that support to transition and find a new way forward post-service.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Did you hear from anyone stating that if they were partially disabled—say 25% disabled—they would still need a pension equivalent to full-time work? Was there any feedback saying that's what was needed?

[Craig L. Dalton]

We haven't received any feedback in that regard.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Okay, thank you.

Could you expand on the caregiver recognition program and the compensation with that? Have you heard anything as to the impact that's had on our veterans?

[Craig L. Dalton]

It's been highlighted as an area that needs to be looked at, primarily in terms of access. The question is whether it is accessible enough. If you do a raw look and compare the caregiver recognition benefit to the attendance allowance, which is a similar benefit that existed under the Pension Act, you'll see that on a rough order of magnitude—and I hesitate to use statistics—7% to 8% of veterans who were in receipt of a disability pension would have had access to attendance allowance. It's less than 1% for those who are pension award recipients.

There does certainly appear to be a discrepancy in access or eligibility between those two programs, and eligibility is the main thing that folks tell us they'd like us to look at.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

Thank you.

Ms. Blaney.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you so much, both of you, for being here, and thank you for the great work you're doing. I can't imagine it's easy.

One of the things my office is hearing a lot from veterans is that they're being told to expect wait times and that those wait times are going to get worse. We know the government has raised its investment. I'm just wondering if you have any idea what the breakdown is here.

[Craig L. Dalton]

We conducted some work, an analysis, into wait times late last summer because it was the number one complaint we did receive, and it's still the number one complaint. That report and work resulted in a number of recommendations to Veterans Affairs, particularly in relation to francophone veterans and women veterans and the fact that their wait times appeared to be longer. It's clearly an issue and clearly it's not acceptable for anybody, let alone veterans.

We hear two things. The first thing we hear from veterans is not necessarily about the amount of time they wait, but that they would like to be given a clear answer when they apply as to how long it will take for their case to be adjudicated. I met with a veteran last week who's been waiting 18 months, and his file has been at the same level for over a year, with no real information being provided. There's a frustration component.

From my perspective, I think the most important thing—and our office has stressed this for a while—is treatment. While the file is being adjudicated and there's a delay for whatever reason, some veterans will be able to access treatment, while others won't, for a variety of reasons. It could financial. There could be a number of reasons. We'd like to see veterans having access to treatment as soon as possible. Perhaps we need to look at providing treatment from the date of application and not placing that burden of adjudication and how long it takes on the backs of the veterans. Put it on the back of the system and allow the veterans to access treatment as soon as they apply.

In terms of the approval rates, if you look at mental health diagnosis as an example, or PTSD, you'll see that first-time applications are approved at a rate of about 96%, and then those that might not be approved, that go to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, are approved at some 40% on the first time through, and then 22% on the second. You could ask why we don't just approve 100% right away, and then look at perhaps an audit function at the other end.

There may be some risk in finding a way to allow veterans to access treatment right away, but I think the risk of having them wait far outweighs that.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you.

You also talked about providing mental health treatment benefits to family members in their own right, and you've mentioned a couple of times children specifically. As a member who represents a more rural and remote community, I hear from veterans that sometimes accessing services for themselves and their families is even more difficult because of where they're located. I'm just wondering if you could speak to what needs to change so that we can see these families getting the support they need.

[Craig L. Dalton]

In terms of family support generally, I think it's about understanding what their needs are and understanding what's currently provided and where the gaps are. We still have to do that work, but anecdotally, having met with and discussed this with veterans, I would say that it does appear that there are children in particular who are suffering as a result of the lack of access to treatment.

The rural and remote piece is a further complication of that, if you will. It is on the list—and thank you for raising it—of things we do want to look at. I'm not sure when, specifically, we're going to be able to get there, but it is something that we intend to look at. Again, we will speak with veterans who live in those environments and scenarios to understand what their challenges are and to understand where we can make recommendations to address them.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Another thing you mentioned here, for childless CAF members, was designating a family member for the death benefit. I see that this is something that is important, but no progress has been made. I'm just wondering if we know what the barrier to this is. It seems commonsensical to me that there be a process for that. Not every human being in the world chooses to have a child and we can't leave those folks out. I'm just wondering if you could speak to that.

[Craig L. Dalton]

That benefit was designed to acknowledge the loss of care and companionship, which could be provided and received or given through a relationship with a parent, for example, especially in the sandwich generation in which many people find themselves today. We do believe that should be addressed.

I'm not sure if we have received a specific response from VAC as to why that hasn't been addressed. I would note that this is the third year we've produced this report card. As we have gone through it this year, it has been clear that, going forward, we need to clearly identify whether or not the recommendation has been accepted, and if so, what the timeline for implementation might be. We'll strive to do that going forward.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Another point that was talked about was applying once for all benefits. I see there's been some partial implementation of that. I'm just wondering if you could speak to what's slowing it down. Is there a clear understanding? I see some progress, but we're not all the way there yet. What's the gap?

[Craig L. Dalton]

I'm going to ask Sharon if she has anything to add, and if not, I won't put her on the spot.

[Sharon Squire]

VAC has improved a lot of its processes, including items on the My VAC Account, so that they don't have to replicate some of their tombstone data and things such as that. I think, au fur et à mesure, they're gradually starting to do that but it's just not available for everything yet.