June 28, 2016
Pearson Boardroom, International Development Research Centre (IDRC),
8th floor, 150 Kent Street, Ottawa, Ontario
Policy Advisory Group Members
- Michel Houle, Veterans UN-NATO Canada
- Michael Blais, Canadian Veterans Advocacy
- Major (Retired) Mark Campbell
- Brian Forbes, National Council of Veteran Associations in Canada – co-chair
- Brigadier-General Michael Jorgensen, Canadian Armed Forces
- Master Warrant Officer (Retired) William MacDonald
- Luc O’Bomsawin, Aboriginal Veterans Autochtones
- Brigadier General (Retired) Joe Sharpe
- Commodore (Retired) Andrea Siew – co-chair
- Ray McInnis, on behalf of Brad White, Royal Canadian Legion
- Bernard Butler, Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategy Policy and Commemoration Branch – Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) co-chair
Regrets
- Brad White, Royal Canadian Legion
Observer
- Sharon Squire, Deputy Ombudsman, Office of the Veterans Ombudsman
Presenters
- Susan Baglole, National Manager, Rehabilitation, Career Transition Service & Income Support, Service Delivery Branch, VAC
- Ian Walsh, Senior Operations Analyst, Service Delivery Branch, VAC
- Charles Cue, Senior Policy Advisory, Office of the Veterans Ombudsman
Record of discussion
Parliamentary Secretary Karen McCrimmon opened the meeting, and thanked the members for their hard work, noting that Veterans are looking to the Department for answers and guidance as it moves forward in addressing the mandate commitments.
The Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) co-chair Bernard Butler added that the group is tackling some complex issues, and reminded them that they are there to formulate good, clear advice. Ultimately, it is the Government that will make the decisions. The co-chairs added that it is important that the Group encourage the Department to “think outside of the box.” A sound communication strategy will be critical.
Three presentations were delivered throughout the morning:
1. Budget 2016 – Earnings Loss Benefit
Briefing on the Earnings Loss Benefit (ELB) was delivered by VAC’s National Manager, Rehabilitation, Career Transition Service and Income Support. Participants raised the following:
- Concern that Veterans must be eligible for the rehabilitation program in order to be eligible for an increase of ELB to 90%.
- Disparity amongst Veterans under the Service Income Security Insurance Plan Long-Term Disability (SISIP-LTD) program and those eligible for ELB.
- Equality between all Veterans is the fundamental value against which any new measure should be assessed.
- The disparity should be identified as a gap between the SISIP-LTD and the New Veterans Charter (NVC), and the group should address it, along with the issue of complexity.
- The VAC co-chair acknowledged that the decision is problematic, but there is no intention to create a disparity. The problem is a structural one: the two programs run in parallel; VAC and the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) are working to resolve the matter, ideally, to create a single program, accountability and framework.
The Group asked for a detailed briefing on the draft operational policy on the Career Impact Allowance (CIA) so they could provide comment and recommendations early in the process. The VAC co-chair agreed, noting it is important to develop an efficient and effective mechanism.
General comments in relation to Budget 2016 updates:
- VAC is currently looking at how to measure the loss of earnings capacity through operational policy; it is not in the legislation or regulations.
- The change to the Career Impact Assessment (CIA) will come into effect April 1, 2017. To calculate the loss of career progression, VAC is currently looking at number of years served, years left to serve and the Veteran’s ability to find work and earn an income. The Department is open to hearing what the Group recommends for functional capacity assessment and loss of career progression calculation.
- Participants also pointed out the link between CIA as they have envisioned it and the monthly lifelong pension. Participants suggested that the question of CIA could be deferred if it could be a part of a discussion on lifelong pensions.
- CIA should not include “pain and suffering”. These should remain separate.
2. Benefits Review and Update on the Income Support and Rehabilitation Programs Review
The VAC co-chair verbally updated the Group on the Financial Benefits Review, and on the Income Support and Rehabilitation Programs Review. The former focused on policy gaps and problems, as well as initial thinking on models, the latter on current options and approaches under consideration. He advised that the Policy Advisory Group input is sought and necessary.
- The VAC co-chair reminded the Group of the importance of focusing on the wellbeing of Veterans, as presented at the May 2016 Stakeholder Summit, and that the Department is moving forward with a holistic approach.
- Some members noted that if the Department wishes to create incentive to work, it must stop penalizing Veterans who do work. The “all or nothing” approach provides no incentive.
- Participants highlighted the need for simplicity in the transition to a new benefit framework.
3. Non-Economic Compensation Report
The Office of the Veterans Ombudsman (OVO) presented preliminary outcomes on its non-economic loss report. They reviewed the fairness of compensation under the NVC for the non-economic effects of illness, injury or death under the New Veterans Charter. The OVO will share its report when published. The OVO also presented its early thinking on income replacement outcomes and a possible benchmark.
The Group spent the afternoon in an in camera working session.
Next meeting
The next meeting will be held at the end of August and the following outstanding agenda items can be discussed:
- Discussion of operational policy – VAC
- Family care-giver benefit research – OVO
- Actuarial analysis of draft financial compensation benefits – OVO
- Review draft Policy Advisory Group recommendations – discussion in camera