Veterans Affairs Committee on Nov. 30th, 2023

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Thank you both very much.

I think that throughout this study we've been hearing a lot about people feeling invisible or being judged instead of being believed. Throughout the movements around mental health and around people feeling looked after physically, mentally, spiritually, or whatever, being connected with a peer, and an appropriately chosen peer, can make it very much easier. I think a lot of what we're hearing is that people didn't even know what they were entitled to in that bridging. Would both of you comment on it?

It sounded on Tuesday that there ought to be an exit interview. However, I think what I'm hearing from you is there also should be an intake interview, a bridge between what somebody experienced and why sometimes they were leaving. It's also, then, a warm hand-off to the intake person, who could make sure that everybody gets everything they need. As Ms. Stewart said, I think it's not just whether you get your lawn cut or what people's perception is of what they're entitled to; I'd like to know whether you can see that there could be, in the recommendations, anything along those lines in terms of awareness.

Then I would also like to hear from Ms. Stewart. You did mention in your opening remarks that you think there are situations in which VAC's legal interpretation has negatively affected women vets. Would you comment on those things?

[Vivienne Stewart]

I'll go first on this one. Thank you.

Our council raised the whole idea of exit interviews back in 2014 in the report that we produced on the crisis in leadership in the RCMP. To my knowledge, and obviously given Nina's testimony just now, those don't exist yet. It seems to be such an important thing for the force, especially given the changes it says it is making, according to the chief human resources officer, which are being implemented supposedly as a result of Mr. Justice Bastarache's report.

I think exit interviews and an intake interview, or the hand-off, as you suggest, would probably be good. From my perspective, the exit interview should include information on VAC, its services and the benefits that are available. If there hasn't already been that education, that would be the time to provide that information to our retiring or leaving members.

I'll just jump quickly to the second part of your question on the problems that we've looked at in VAC's legal interpretations. This is primarily to do with the Merlo Davidson class action.

The first thing we looked at involved the case of Krista Carle, who was a member who put in a claim in Merlo Davidson, but before her claim was actually dealt with, she committed suicide, sadly.

The assessor at the time took the position that because she was not alive when her claim was coming up to be dealt with, they closed her file. That was part of how the settlement dealt with that.

Our council sent a letter to the minister of public safety at the time, Bill Blair, saying that this can't be. She got her claim. How is it that now they're denying her family the benefits they're entitled to and would receive under other legislation that the country has?

At the end of the day, that decision was formally reversed by way of a court order in the Federal Court.

When the Merlo Davidson settlement was approved by the court, the court retained jurisdiction over the settlement for its implementation, its interpretation and its enforcement, so from my perspective, that's also still a possibility here. As far as I know, it's still open to the court to deal with issues that arise out of the settlement agreement.

The second point comes down to the reductions in disability pensions that have been made by VAC, which we call the clawbacks, under section 25 of the Pension Act. On that one, we have also put our views forth and said that clearly an error was made in the drafting of the settlement agreement. The clause that deals with the ability of the government to reduce settlement awards is ambiguous.

I could go into that in great detail from a legal perspective. I'll just say that this is an issue that has not yet been resolved, despite the representations of the deputy minister, who was here before you last March as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you so much, Ms. Stewart.

Ms. Usherwood, I saw that you're a little bit anxious to take part in the conversation.

I can give you a minute to answer that if you want, please.

[Sgt Nina Charlene Usherwood]

In the military, there is an exit interview to do with your medical health if you are being medically released. I believe they were going to do that for all releases as well, but I'm not aware of that.

From the time I first put my application in to Veterans Affairs until someone actually, finally, did an interview with me on my current health, it was a year and a half, and that was not done by Veterans Affairs. It was actually done by PCVRS, the new company that's been hired to do that. I can't remember what exactly it stands for. To be honest, the communication with them since then has been relatively non-existent.

The interview on the application to Veterans Affairs should happen because, as Vivienne said, we don't know what we're entitled to. I still, to this day, do not know what a long-term disability is and what a disability is, as far as VAC is concerned.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you very much.

I now turn to Mr. Desilets, who has the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Ms. Stewart, I'm going to continue in the same vein. My question is related to the compensation claim that was made in the Merlo Davidson case.

What impact could this settlement agreement have, exactly?

[Vivienne Stewart]

Thank you for your question. I'll try to answer it in French, at least in part, if you'll allow me.

I have a copy of the settlement agreement. Article 8.02 of the agreement contains two points. The first specifies that the funds veterans will receive will not be reduced by the minister or the government. The second specifies that nothing in the settlement—

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Don't feel obliged to speak in French, Ms. Stewart. I'm very grateful that you want to do so, that said, but please be comfortable

[Vivienne Stewart]

All right.

The second sentence in that article basically says that nothing in the settlement agreement will prevent the minister from making the reductions they're allowed to make under that act. From my perspective, what we are looking at is a very important clause or article in the settlement agreement that is inconsistent. First it says, “No, we won't.” Then it says, “Yes, we might.”

We have raised that point. The council has raised that issue in connection with section 25 and the reductions that have been made to some of the veterans who put in for disability pensions for PTSD, but the reaction we have is that this is the interpretation of section 25 that has been given, so there's nothing in the settlement agreement that says they can't do this.

That may be, but if that is the case, then our council would hope that one of the things this committee will do is push for an amendment to the Pension Act to make specific exclusions, and I'll give you some specific wording on that. Basically it would clarify that settlement awards for any kind of harm or injury resulting from inappropriate sexualized conduct of any kind—sexual assault, intimidation, bullying and aggression—are specifically excluded from the clawback provisions of the Pension Act. If that seems too broad, then we can make it specific to Merlo Davidson.

Another option, if I may quickly jump in, that has just arisen to my knowledge in the last day or so is related to the Krista Carle affair, which I mentioned earlier in my testimony. That change to the understanding and approach of the assessor to the date when claims were filed and could be assessed, as affecting a veteran's entitlement, was changed by consent of all the parties, by court order. The agreement itself was amended to clarify what the cut-off date would be, and it went out too. If somebody was alive before the opt-out date, their claim would be assessed and their successors would receive that money.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Ms. Stewart. If you have more information like that settlement, you can send that to the clerk, and we'll take that into consideration.

I'd like to invite Ms. Rachel Blaney to take the floor for two and a half minutes, please.

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

Thank you so much.

Ms. Stewart, I want to come back to you. Thank you so much for giving us that information. I know the Merlo Davidson class action was brought forward by so many brave women who were trying to obtain justice. Tragically, what we saw, of course, was that VAC's clawbacks not only defeated the purpose of that action and the objectives of the settlements; they also revictimized women.

Not only, in my opinion, did it revictimize; I think it also silenced other women who may otherwise have come forward. The whole point of these actions, I think, is to stop the behaviour, so I want to know your thoughts on whether this also blocked women from coming forward.

Second, you talked about the committee having a strong recommendation moving forward on this. Do you think a recommendation saying that the legislation should be changed to acknowledge...?

I actually don't think your definition is too broad. I think that any time a person is in the workplace and is violently attacked as a result of being in that workplace, especially in this context, we need to honour that.

Did it block other women from coming forward? Are we now missing a bunch of women who could have come forward? Is the legislation the smartest way for us to go forward as a committee in our recommendation?

[Vivienne Stewart]

On the first about whether it blocked women, yes, it did. It did. People talk, so if somebody has a bad experience, other women, other members, are going to hear about that and hear about it fairly quickly.

It's our information that one-third of claimants were not accepted under Merlo Davidson, and even those whose claims were accepted did not get assessed at the level they expected. Presumably they went in expecting to have their claims accepted at a higher level. They didn't get that.

Then there were other women that we know of who were affected and who could not even face putting a claim in, so yes, in our council's view, whatever numbers the RCMP or VAC have for claimants in the class action, they likely fall far short of those who were actually affected or suffered some kind of abuse during their service.

We also have anecdotal evidence of people who did go through the lengthy process of putting in a claim. They were shattered all over again, and in some cases suffered new PTSD that they hadn't even had before. As you said, there was retraumatizing all around.

The class action should not even have been necessary. The RCMP had known about these problems for years, but they did nothing. Certainly, for the women who were brave enough to come forward, I'm sure it was their expectation, as it was our expectation, that it would change things, that there would be behaviour correction. Money was not going to make them whole again.

Just briefly—

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you.

Maybe you'll to have a chance to come back.

I'll invite MP Blake Richards for five minutes, please.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Thank you.

I have some questions for each of you. A lot of them are about ground that you've covered a bit in either your opening statements or maybe in responses to other questions, but I think there's more room for you to go down the road on these things.

I'll start with you, Ms. Stewart. You've probably heard—it's quite a common saying amongst veterans—the triple-D policy of “Deny. Delay. Die.” You touched on this a little in your opening statement, I would say, because you talked about VAC processes not being clear enough and there being too many gatekeepers. I know you had a chance to respond to a question about this a bit earlier, so that, in my mind, speaks to the “delay” part of it.

I want to give you an opportunity to expand a little further on the “deny” part of it, because in your opening statement you also referred to Veterans Affairs Canada as Canada's meanest insurance agency. I'd never heard it put quite that way before, but I've certainly heard the sentiment from many veterans over the years. I want to give you an opportunity to elaborate on that. When you talk about VAC as being Canada's meanest insurance agency, explain to us what you're referring to there.

[Vivienne Stewart]

I cannot take credit for that. That was Christine Wood, who spoke to you on April 17. Those were her words.

I've gone back and listened to and watched a lot of the sessions that have taken place for this women's study. Clearly the sense that I have, the impression that's left with me—and I'm sure with the rest of the RCMP Veteran Women’s Council—is that it does behave more like an insurance company than like the resource it was intended to be. That intention, I think, is reflected in the Pension Act in the preamble and right at the beginning.

What is the purpose and the object of the Pension Act? If your people are treating the claimants, who are the veterans, as, it seems, only bumps along the way and protecting the government's money to the detriment of a veteran, then that's pretty bad insurance behaviour. As a former lawyer practising complex civil litigation, some of which involved insurance claims, I would have been shocked if an insurer had come across to one of my clients and acted in that way. An insurer in private industry, if this were to go to court, would be faced with a claim of acting in bad faith.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

When you hear it put that way, it's pretty shocking, isn't it? I'll give you an opportunity to elaborate on what it should look like.

I've often heard the idea that VAC does operate a bit more like an insurance company, trying to find a way to deny claims. I think the obvious counter to that, the expectation, would be to see VAC act more as a service provider that's there to provide services that veterans are entitled to and that they deserve.

Could you perhaps elaborate a bit on what you think it should look like? What should the process look like for a veteran, rather than being up against a tough, mean insurance agency?

[Vivienne Stewart]

That's obviously a very big question.

I guess it really comes down to.... Again, yes, they're a service provider. They're not paying out insurance claims.

At the intake, having people who can assist.... Certainly for RCMP and other veterans, I have to give a shout-out to the Royal Canadian Legion, which has service officers all across Canada and does help veterans, free of charge, to put their claims together, to make sure they have everything they need and to actually get them through the process.

When you look at it as a service provider for people who are veterans, why should veterans need somebody to help them go through it? The process should be streamlined. It should be simple. It should be easy for people who aren't lawyers and who haven't been through it before to understand.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

That was where my next question was going. I've often said that to some of the folks who do this work at the Legion. I've said that to them: “Thank you for being there for our veterans, but it's too bad that you even need to be there to do this work.”

It shouldn't be necessary for a veteran to need help to navigate that process. The process should be simple enough that a veteran can get through it quickly and easily. Would you agree? Is that the ultimate goal that we should be seeking when we talk about the services that Veterans Affairs provides: to provide service in a timely and efficient manner to veterans so that they don't have to engage others as they try to navigate the process?

[Vivienne Stewart]

The short answer to that is yes, yes, yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you.

Members, I think Ms. Usherwood would like to react to that for a few seconds, no?

[Sgt Nina Charlene Usherwood]

Yes, actually. The whole “deny, deny and then die ” is definitely a sense that everybody in the military has. I know personally that in my own case and in another case I was involved in helping to get approved, they did agree, and when it went before the pensions advocates review board, it was approved. Meanwhile, VAC was just outright denying, for the same reason. They understand a shotgun wound, a knife cut and stuff like that, but they don't work well with mental injuries.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you very much.

Now we're going to go to MP Sean Casey for five minutes, please.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Stewart, I want to come back to the exchange that you had with Mr. Desilets and Ms. Blaney with respect to the Pension Act and the clawbacks.

As you were talking, I pulled up the Pension Act, and I think you were talking about paragraph 25(a).

Reading the room, I think there's an appetite here for making a recommendation to amend the legislation. If you could send along the wording that you mentioned, that would be helpful, or if there's a brief that it resides in, it would be nice to have that.

My sense of what I heard from you is that the amendment would look something like including the words that you had with respect to harm or injury, and then you said that if that was too broad, perhaps to exclude the claimants under the class action litigation. My suggestion would be to do both—to use the broad wording, and then say, “including but not limited to participants in the Merlo Davidson litigation”. If there are other class action litigants you think should be caught, I'd be interested to know about it, as I think the committee would, either in response to this question or by way of a follow-up brief. That would be quite helpful to us.

Feel free to react to that.

[Vivienne Stewart]

Yes, I have submitted a supplementary brief that does include the wording that I read out to you earlier, and I can certainly add to that anything else, because it's my understanding that there seem to be other class actions out there as well.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Okay. Thank you.

I want to come to your experience with the RCMP Veteran Women's Council. Your colleague Jane Hall appeared before committee earlier this week, and one of the things she talked about and you touched upon is that there's work to do in terms of increasing the level of awareness among RCMP vets of what is available through Veterans Affairs.

I just want to give you a minute to maybe lay out for us what your suggestions would be to increase that awareness.