Veterans Affairs Committee on May 1st, 2017

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

Good afternoon, everybody. I'd like to call the meeting to order.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), and the motion adopted on February 6, 2017, the committee begins its comparative study of services to veterans in other jurisdictions. This is our first meeting. We'll start with an hour. The first will be a 10-minute statement followed by questions and answers.

We will start with the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman, with Guy Parent, veterans ombudsman, and Sharon Squire, deputy veterans ombudsman, executive director.

Welcome again. The floor is yours.

[Guy Parent, Veterans Ombudsman, Office of the Veterans Ombudsman]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, and committee members. Thank you for inviting me to appear before you as you begin your study of services to veterans in allied nations.

I think it is important to look at what other countries are doing to support their veterans in order to keep up with best practices. However, I also think it is imperative to develop Canadian solutions to address Canadian challenges and problems.

As you begin your study, I want to put forward three elements that I believe are important factors as you weigh the testimony you are going to hear from different countries. They are context, complex design, and outcomes.

Understanding context is important when looking at services provided by other countries to their veterans. If a country has a national health care system or a high cost of living, both aspects can greatly affect why a service is or is not being provided, and the particular dollar value of that service.

Let me give you an example of what happens when context is overlooked. In June 2009, this committee published a report that compared veterans services offered by member countries of the Commonwealth and G8. In that report, some cautionary statements were made to remind the reader that direct comparisons are not always possible. However, a significant portion of the report was dedicated to comparing veterans lump sum payments between Canada, Australia, and the U.K.

Because of the way the report was laid out, veterans and the media focused on the fact that at that time a U.K. veteran could access up to $1 million and the Canadian veteran only $267,000. Without the context of the social and economic environment and health care considerations within which those benefits were provided, the focus on the actual dollar value did not provide the meaningful insight we needed to improve things here in Canada.

Last year when we examined compensation for pain and suffering as part of our “Fair Compensation to Veterans and their Survivors for Pain and Suffering” report, we researched the programs offered by other countries. We looked at what other Canadians with similar work-related injuries would receive, and what the Canadian courts actually award. When we looked at other countries, we found the types of programs tended to be similar. For example, most provided some form of compensation for pain and suffering, but often the way in which the programs were delivered, and the level of support and eligibility criteria varied widely.

Although it is useful to learn from others when developing new programs, we have found that it is difficult to draw direct comparisons because each country designs and administers its programs differently to meet its own national needs, imperatives and economic realities.

Context also extends to how the benefit is implemented. In the U.S., there are three GI bills that provide education to veterans based on years of service. In 2016, I visited the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and received the same briefing that had been provided to Veterans Affairs Canada while it was designing the present education and training benefit.

One of the things I learned was that the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs had not consulted its Department of Defense in the design of their GI bills, so there were issues of alignment between the departments. I also recognized that the Canadian Armed Forces has significantly longer training and shorter deployment cycles than the U.S. military, which could affect the outcome if a U.S. benefit was transferred to a Canadian context without consideration of an adaptation to those contextual differences.

On returning to Canada, I discussed these concerns with Veterans Affairs Canada. The good news is that the department engaged with the Canadian Armed Forces on the new education and training benefit, and structured the eligibility to take into account CAF training and deployment cycles, as well as supporting CAF retention initiatives.

While we are waiting for the final program details, understanding the context allowed Veterans Affairs Canada to create a Canadian solution to a Canadian problem.

The second point is complex design. We need to consider the design of our existing veterans benefits and support structures before we add another new benefit. What we have now is too complex to administer and to communicate effectively to veterans and their families. We need to simplify and streamline the system of benefits for veterans.

I have provided you with two diagrams to illustrate this point. The first diagram is not a process map, rather, it shows how all the CAF and veterans benefits integrate and how complex the system is. You can see the complexity. If I was to walk you through this diagram one benefit at a time, it would take the whole time allocated for this meeting. But if ever you or any of your staff need a detailed briefing on this particular diagram, I would be happy to provide it at your convenience.

As you know, budget 2017 announced a number of new benefits. What now needs to be done is to look at all the benefits from a strategic design perspective and determine whether or not everything is in place to provide veterans and their families with the supports they need, including easy access for eligible veterans. I have made a number of recommendations that would help, but above all, it is important that the overall design cover the basic elements that need to be in place to support all veterans.

The second diagram illustrates the key components of support to veterans. Not every veteran will access all of these components, but they should be available if needed. For example, if you are released with no medical issues or requirement for transitional support, only the areas in blue would apply. Benefits are wide-ranging and diverse, both in terms of their intent and design. They include financial benefits, such as military pension and support benefits. Others provide educational assistance or help in finding employment. They also include services and treatments that veterans require as a result of a medical condition related to their service. The challenge is how to simplify the current complex design, while ensuring we meet the needs of the veterans and their families.

Lastly, we have outcomes. When addressing veterans' issues, we need to identify the outcomes we are trying to achieve, and the benchmark we are going to use to measure success. In our 2016 “Fair Compensation for Veterans and their Survivors for Pain and Suffering” report, I recommended that the disability award maximum amount be aligned to that of the maximum amount awarded by the federal courts. The outcome that is being achieved is that veterans receive, as a minimum, no less than what other Canadians suffering a work-related injury would receive. The benchmark that is being used to measure success is that which is used by the Supreme Court of Canada.

I also recommended that additional compensation, due to the uniqueness of military service, be provided for exceptional suffering. In addition, I have recommended using an income replacement model for ensuring financial security, so that a veteran is provided with what they could have received had they had a full military career. If the salary and pension provided by the Canadian Armed Forces is seen as fair compensation, then ensuring that a veteran with a diminished earning capacity as a result of a service-related injury is topped up to the benchmark is the right thing to do.

Clear outcomes are necessary to define the end state. We need to ask ourselves, “Are we fairly compensating veterans for pain and suffering? Are we replacing their income as if they had had a full military career? Are we paying for all out-of-pocket expenses related to their disability?”

What is next?

In conclusion, it may be useful to examine the measures taken by other countries to simplify the process, eliminate the obstacles to accessing programs, and effectively communicate with veterans and their families in order to improve our Canadian system.

However, as I cautioned earlier, while it is worthwhile to learn from others when developing new programs, it is difficult to draw direct comparisons because each country designs and administers their programs differently to meet their own national needs, imperatives, and economic realities. Above all, we need to stay focused on finding Canadian solutions for Canadian problems, and we always need to consider context, complex design, and outcomes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I stand ready for your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

Thank you.

We'll start with Mr. Brassard.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm not sure there's enough time in this parliamentary session to go through this kaleidoscope of a graph that you gave us—it's much simpler on the other side. I want to get right to it, and I want to focus on what you said in your conclusion about finding out how other countries are reducing the complexity, removing barriers, etc. That's what we're trying to do to simplify the process for veterans and their families.

Do you have examples or suggestions, Mr. Parent, on some of those best practices, or suggestions or ideas that we can use to make this process that much easier?

[Guy Parent]

Over the course of the last few years, we have made a few recommendations for reducing complexity. In fact, when you look at the diagram, it is not as difficult to understand.

I think what we're suggesting here is that when you interview people from different countries that you ask specifically the “how” and not the “what”. It is not necessarily how much money they get, but how they simplify their access to programs, how they ensure that benefits are paid where and when they are needed. It's those sorts of questions, as opposed to typical money matter sorts of things.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Right.

You also spoke about drawing direct comparisons—fair enough—to other countries because of their economic situation. For example, you mentioned Great Britain. With the initial report that was written in 2009, it's understandable that times have changed. Prices have gone up. House prices have gone up across the country, for example, and the cost of food and clothing.

What method or what model would be a standard practice to determine the proper compensation in this regard?

[Guy Parent]

I think the difficulty at this point is that there is no outcome that is set, so we don't actually know when we get there. In fact, our last few reports have indicated that in some cases veterans are getting more money than they would if they had stayed in the forces uninjured, but it's never at the right time or the right place.

There has never been any outcome that has been determined. How much do we want our veterans and their families to have as an income? Do we want them to reach the poverty line? Should it be the median line of income? That's never been determined. Until we have some kind of an outcome, as we have done for the lump sum award now with the Federal Court, it's very hard to determine.

That's why I'm saying that one thing that would be of value in interviewing allied countries would be to determine which ones have outcomes and how they arrived at them.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Okay, perfect.

In the 2016 report, “Fair Compensation to Veterans and their Survivors for Pain and Suffering”, first of all, I want to say that the appendix at the end about the relationship and the history of VAC services was pretty enlightening, not just to me but my staff as well. That was well done.

You outlined the provincial non-economic benefits offered across Canada. In the report, you indicate, for example, that British Columbia, the Northwest Territories, and Nunavut do not offer any non-economic benefits to veterans.

What is your opinion regarding this committee and how we might be better served if we studied and worked to ensure that equal non-economic benefits fall across all the provinces? Is that something we should be looking into?

[Guy Parent]

Certainly, it's a good question because we're already going to foreign lands to ask how they treat their veterans, but how do we treat our veterans in Canada and how integrated are the levels of government to work toward veterans' and families' wellness? That's something we have been pushing as well. There needs to be more of an integration of federal and provincial systems.

I would certainly in the future, maybe as part of this study, look at what different provinces are doing for their veterans. In most of the cases, the federal system complements whatever is available in terms of health care from the provinces and that sort of thing.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Going out on a limb here, and again back to provincial benefits for veterans, what would be your opinion on having the federal government be the sole provider of all economic and non-economic benefits to veterans? For example, could this eliminate red tape, paperwork, and reduce the adjudication process? What's your opinion on that?

[Guy Parent]

In fact, the government now provides all benefits, even the benefits that are provided under the insurance programs in the Canadian Armed Forces. The benefits provided for the Canadian Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs all come from the Government of Canada.

What we're saying is that if the source is the same, why is it so complex? Why is there duplication of effort? We have two or three vocational rehabilitation programs when one could be sourced and could be much more efficient than it is right now.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Parent.

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

Mr. Bratina.

[Bob Bratina, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

I'm fascinated by the differences among countries. In my city of Hamilton, we have a large Polish community and the Polish combatants regularly honour old soldiers and so on. Poland's army is twice the size of Canada's. They have a population that is a bit bigger, not by much, but they have an army that is twice the size. In view of its geographical location, I would assume that the sense of defending the country would be more important to the Polish people.

In your surveys, did you reflect on that particular country? It seems to me that they're a remarkably proud and active military country, and certainly, if you have all those soldiers, you have a lot of veterans. I guess the point I'm getting at, Mr. Parent, is whether the way the country treats its veterans relates to the pride the country takes in the service that those veterans provided.

[Guy Parent]

That's a very good point. I hope it is. I hope that the Government of Canada reflects, by the quality and the quantity of their programs and benefits, the debt they owe to veterans and their families who sacrifice their lives to serve the country.

Of course, we've always limited the comparative studies to the allied countries—Australia, the U.K., England—but it doesn't mean that other countries in the world might not have some very good programs. I know that there is a conference for the military ombudsmen of the world taking place in the U.K. in September. These things might be opportunities for members of the committee to have a look at some of those countries.

[Bob Bratina, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

I'd be curious about that one. For instance, in Hamilton, we have Haida, the great Canadian fighting ship. Poland has Blyskawica, which was a destroyer. Their navy actually mans that ship even as a museum piece, which reflects their connection to the military. I'm curious to see, as an example, how Polish veterans' entitlements would compare to ours.

You also stated that there were issues such as alignment between departments, and said, “I...recognized that the Canadian Armed Forces has significantly longer training and shorter deployment cycles than the U.S. military, which could affect the outcome” for benefits. Could you expand on that? I'm trying to understand what you're getting at. Longer training and shorter deployment, how does that fit in?

[Guy Parent]

The impact of the mission, I think, is something that we've always cited as being a national security issue. When you plan for a mission, obviously the amount of time that individuals are going to spend on the mission is very important. In Canada, normally, six months is the usual rotation time. In the States, it's up to a year, and sometimes a year and a half. Over and above that, before people go on deployment, they have a training period that they have to undertake. In fact, a six-month deployment might end up as a year and a half away from home.

What we're saying here is that in the context of actually planning for benefits and administering benefits we need to make sure that it's within the parameters that this country operates in, which in our case is a short deployment and short training period. This is quite different from the United States, for instance.

[Bob Bratina, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Do you have any comments on the recent budget announcements with regard to veterans? In my own newsletter, for instance, I pointed out the $1,000 a month for caregivers. It's such a broad piece with all these millions of dollars, but sometimes it's useful to home in on a specific thing to put it in context. I thought that particular one resonated very well with our public. Do you have any comments on what you saw in terms of the veterans in the budget?

[Guy Parent]

We've already indicated in some of our messages on the website that we're pleased with the fact that it's moving forward and more needs are being met as far as veterans and their families are concerned. Certainly, in the context of families, we have been advocating for a long time to have full remuneration for somebody who takes care of an injured military person, the same as for a caregiver who gets paid to come in. With this, we're short of that now, but as I say, at least it's a step in the right direction.

The one thing about this one benefit you're talking about that's significant is that it's one of the first benefits that is accessible to spouses in their own right. It's not the veteran who gets the money, but the person who is taking care of the veteran. That's one of the big steps forward in these recommendations that we've made over the years.

[Bob Bratina, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

Ms. Ramsey.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Thank you so much for your presentation.

I'm sitting in for another member who couldn't be here, but I'm really thrilled to be talking about what happens with veterans in other countries. I'm sure you were contacted by veterans who have heard of different treatments in other countries and want to know whether or not they can get those treatments in Canada. My question is about those specific treatments. Have you come across specific treatments and therapies that have worked in other countries and that may benefit Canadian veterans?

[Guy Parent]

We have never pursued any real medical care review or research for any of our reports. In fact it's something we expect to do in the near future—looking at the medical treatment, the medical care, the continuum of care and expenses—but we haven't to date done any of that type of research.

I think it's important to realize that here in Canada, now that we have the Canadian Institute for Military and Veteran Health Research, we are accumulating data that will help us to design programs and therapies. We will use these data to look at how veterans in other countries are treated so that we can have a Canadian solution with our own research. I think it was very good for Canada to come up with this institute of research.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

How adaptable is Veterans Affairs? Is Veterans Affairs able to adapt when actual families and veterans contact you saying they've heard about a particular treatment or a different therapy available in another country? If not, then how long does it take for them to adopt these types of strategies?

[Guy Parent]

It's a good question. It takes a long time obviously, because before they introduce any new therapy or treatment, research has to be done and there have to be results. We all know that when you talk about a treatment related to illness, as opposed to an injury, it takes a long time to get the data.

Adaptable? I would say that we get 6,000 contacts a year at the office and a lot of them have to do with particular treatment situations, for example, limitations of treatment. There's an imposed restriction on the amount of treatment set by Veterans Affairs Canada, but in cases where we have a special circumstance, we can deal with the department. Very often, in most circumstances, if there is a valid requirement the department will actually increase the number of treatments beyond the legislated limitations.