2022-2023 Legislative Program

Brian Forbes, Chairman, National Council of Veteran Associations in Canada

As we commemorate Remembrance Day in 2022, there continue to be significant concerns with respect to veterans legislation, regulation and policy, necessitating further action by the Government and Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) to rectify the ongoing inequity and injustice impacting disabled veterans and their families.

Based on recent exchanges with the Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lawrence MacAulay, and senior officials of the department, VAC unfortunately tends to underline the incremental progress that has been achieved on a number of issues, including the intolerable backlog/wait-time crisis and the insidious issue of military sexual trauma within the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF).

However, it must be recognized that, although the minister and the department continue to deliver statements of good intention, it is readily apparent that the machinery of government does indeed move extremely slowly in actually implementing needed overall legislative reform.

We are, of course, encouraged by the recent enactment of an immediate treatment benefit policy for veterans suffering mental health challenges, which has been a major breakthrough in accordance with the long-standing position of NCVA in this context. We will continue to pursue an extension of this treatment benefit policy so as to ensure that it applies to all disabled veterans in urgent need of treatment or health care.

Suffice to say that much more is required to fully respond to our ongoing NCVA legislative agenda, including the following major topics of concern:

1. A recognition that systemic change is essential to tackle the backlog/wait-time crisis, including the adoption of fast-tracking protocols and a form of automatic entitlement. As stipulated in the recent Auditor General's report and the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report of 2020, it is self-evident that increased temporary staffing and augmented digitization alone are not sufficient to resolve this ongoing problem. It is to be noted that the recent position paper we produced, entitled "Auditor General slams VAC for totally unacceptable backlog and wait-times for veterans' disability claims," contains the essential elements of our proposals to alleviate the backlog/wait-time debacle sooner than later.
2. Our fundamental proposition that veterans legislation should equate to a "one veteran – one standard" approach. We have strongly recommended that the best parts of the Pension Act and the New Veterans Charter should be utilized to produce a comprehensive pension and wellness model for all disabled veterans, regardless of where or when they were injured.
3. The marriage after 60 dispute and our demand that the so-called "gold digger's clause" be eliminated from the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act after many years of advocacy. It is noteworthy that the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs (ACVA) recently carried out an extensive study of this long-standing grievance, and we are expecting a strong set of recommendations from the committee when Parliament reconvenes this fall.
4. With reference to the extremely concerning issue of military sexual trauma within the CAF, we will continue to press the Government to fully implement without further delay the salient recommendations contained in the report of Madame Justice Louise Arbour. We remain concerned by the lack of a timeline to implement the 48 recommendations in the Arbour report and the delay in the appointment of an independent external monitor mandated to oversee the implementation of the recommendations.
5. Replacing the present Caregiver Recognition Benefit by revitalizing the traditional concept of Attendance Allowance as to eligibility criteria from the Pension Act, together with the DND Attendant Care Benefit as to the minimum amount payable to informal caregivers. This is to better recognize and more generously compensate caregivers for their significant effort and economic loss in supporting injured veterans. We will also seek the creation of a new family benefit for all veterans in receipt of Pain and Suffering compensation to parallel the Pension Act provisions in relation to spousal and child allowances, so as to recognize the impact of the veteran's disability on his or her family.
6. A reform of the Last Post Fund legislation necessitating a recognition of the fact that families of seriously disabled veterans should receive this funeral and burial grant as a matter of right.
7. The establishment of a Career Impact Allowance for life based on the future loss of income strategy employed for many years by the Canadian courts in lieu of the current VAC Income Replacement Benefit or the CAF SISIP income policy. The fundamental principle that should be followed by the department lies in the monetary evaluation as to what the disabled veteran would have earned in their military career if they had not been injured.
8. 
   A full revamp of the Diminished Earnings Capacity post-65 policy so as to establish a formula that does not reduce the amount of the income replacement from 90 per cent to 70 per cent (of 90 per cent) at age 65, with accompanying setoffs. It is quite clear that the financial requirements of a seriously disabled veteran in receipt of Diminished Earnings Capacity do not decrease at the age of 65, and the parallel to private pension plans – as often posited by VAC – is not an acceptable justification for this reduction.

We continue to work with the new Deputy Minister of Veterans Affairs, Paul Ledwell, and the recently restructured hierarchy of VAC in an ongoing crusade to produce greater reform for Canadian veterans and their families.

Based on recent meetings with senior officials of VAC, we are somewhat encouraged that the department is indicating an open door to further dialogue, which at least allows a further evaluation of these priority legislative concerns. Unfortunately, it is too often the case that the bureaucracy tends to default to a defensive position of upholding the status quo. Notwithstanding this fact, we remain committed to achieving further advances on our overall legislative agenda beyond the incremental progress that has been accomplished to date.

VAC must recognize that time is of the essence for Canadian veterans and their families who continue to wait for this fundamental legislative reform so as to allow them to better cope with their service-related disabilities and injuries.

Our NCVA Legislative Program 2022-23 sets out the essential components of our agenda as we address Parliament, Veterans Affairs Canada and the Department of National Defence.

The "Elephant in the Room" in VAC Remains

Veterans remain vitally interested in the positions to be adopted by the new Liberal government and the Opposition parties in this minority Parliament to remedy the long-standing injustice and inequity impacting Canada's disabled veterans and their families.

NCVA continues to take the position that there is much to do in improving veterans legislation so as to address the financial and wellness requirements of Canada's veterans' community. This is particularly so with respect to the Pension for Life (PFL) provisions originally announced in December 2017 and formally implemented on April 1, 2019.

It is self-evident that the greater majority of disabled veterans are not materially impacted by the PFL legislation in that the new benefits under these legislative and regulatory amendments have limited applicability – indeed, some seriously disabled veterans are actually worse off.

In our considered opinion, this PFL policy fails to satisfy the Prime Minister's initial commitment in 2015, in response to the Equitas lawsuit, to address the inadequacies and deficiencies in the New Veterans Charter and continues to ignore the "elephant in the room" that has overshadowed this entire discussion.

As stated in our many submissions to VAC and Parliament, the Government has not met veterans' expectations with regard to the fundamental mandated commitment to "re-establish lifelong pensions" under the Charter so as to ensure that a comparable level of financial security is provided to all disabled veterans and their families over their life course. This financial disparity between the Pension Act and New Veterans Charter/Veterans Well-being Act compensation was fully validated by the Parliamentary Budget Office's report issued on February 21, 2019, which clearly underlined this long-standing discrimination.

In this regard, it is essential to recognize that VAC has been substantially impacted by government budgetary constraints in implementing the PFL and related benefits, producing half-measures and inadequate benefit components to overall veterans legislation.

Notwithstanding the Prime Minister's protestations as to the ability of his Government to finance appropriate veterans' benefits and programs, one has to ask the fundamental question: What has happened to the millions of dollars saved by VAC with the passing of tens of thousands of traditional veterans and early peacekeepers over recent years?

In this context, in relation to the basic issue as to the "affordability" of veterans programs, the Government has failed to acknowledge the impact on the overall VAC budget of the fact that the greater majority of traditional disabled veterans have passed on over the past several years, resulting in significant savings in VAC's budgetary funding requirements. With the continuing loss of this significant cohort of the veteran population, VAC is no longer required to pay pensions, allowances, health-care benefits, treatment benefits, long-term care benefits, VIP et al for all of these disabled veterans.

In all fairness, it must be stated that, under the Harper Government's regime, the veterans' community was shoddily treated vis-à-vis budgetary expenditures for veterans' benefits and programs – numerous VAC district offices were closed, frontline staffing to assist veterans was dramatically reduced and budgetary constraints led to a lack of appropriate action to enact necessary reforms to veterans programs and entitlements. What remains to be seen is whether the new Conservative Leader, Pierre Poilievre, and the Conservative Party will now stand up and be counted during the next Parliament to reverse these years of neglect and injustice. In addition, it is of interest that the NDP and the PPC laid out strong campaign promises last year to address the need for a "one veteran – one standard" approach to veterans pension and wellness programs.

Given the results of the 2021 federal election campaign and the establishment of a minority government, in our judgment, a genuine opportunity still exists for a commitment to substantially improve the legislation so as to eliminate the blatant discrimination suffered by disabled veterans since the enactment of the New Veterans Charter in 2006.

In this context, it should be recognized that the Standing Committees of Parliament, including the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs and the Standing Committee on National Defence, are not totally controlled by the Government in the present minority scenario. It is not without significance that the majority of the members of such Standing Committees are represented by members of the Opposition parties who have greater input in relation to the agenda, the calling of witnesses and the substance of ultimate reports. In our experience, this form of minority government has led to a far better opportunity for significant legislative amendments in the veterans field as a consequence of the need for all parties to reach compromise solutions in addressing outstanding issues. This premise is supported by the significant reports that have been produced by the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs over the last several years that will hopefully lead to legislative reform on a number of outstanding concerns.

NCVA and veterans at large will be closely monitoring all federal leaders to determine which party is prepared to make a substantial commitment to addressing the shortfalls and inequities that continue to exist in veterans legislation. In this regard, it must be remembered that there are almost 700,000 veterans in Canada today and, when family, friends and supporters are considered, this number of potential voters is not without significance – particularly following an election year that has resulted in a minority government where, historically, a new election will in all probability ensue within the next 12 to 24 months.

If the "one veteran – one standard" philosophy advocated by VAC has any meaning, this glaring disparity between the Pension Act and the New Veterans Charter/Veterans Well-being Act benefits for disabled veterans requires that the new Liberal government and the Opposition parties seize the moment and satisfy the financial needs of Canadian veterans and their dependants. In so doing, Parliament would finally be recognizing that the long-standing social covenant between the Canadian people and the veterans' community demands nothing less.

The "Elephant in the Room" in VAC Remains Recommendations

A. Pension for Life

With specific reference to the provisions of the legislation that became effective April 1, 2019, the statutory and regulatory amendments ostensibly reflect the Government's attempt to create a form of "pension for life" (PFL) which includes the following three elements:

1. A disabled veteran has the option to receive the present lump sum disability award in the form of a new Pain and Suffering Compensation (PSC) benefit representing a payment in the maximum amount of $1,150 per month (in 2022, $1,216) for life. For those veterans in receipt of PSC, retroactive assessment would potentially apply to produce a reduced monthly payment for life for such veterans. In effect, VAC has simply converted the amount of the lump sum disability award into a form of a lifetime annuity as an option for those disabled veterans who are eligible.
2. A new Additional Pain and Suffering (APSC) benefit has essentially replaced the Career Impact Allowance (Permanent Impairment Allowance) under the New Veterans Charter, with similar grade levels and monthly payments that reflect a non-taxable non-economic benefit but is limited in its application to those veterans suffering a "permanent and severe impairment which is creating a barrier to re-establishment in life after service."
3. A new, consolidated Income Replacement Benefit (IRB), which is taxable, combines four pre-existing benefits (Earnings Loss Benefit, Extended Earnings Loss Benefit, Supplementary Retirement Benefit and Retirement Income Security Benefit) with a proviso that the IRB will be increased by one per cent every year until the veteran reaches what would have been 20 years of service or age 60. It is not without financial significance that the former Career Impact Allowance and Career Impact Allowance Supplement have been eliminated from the Income Replacement Benefit package as identified by the aforementioned Parliamentary Budget Office report in February 2019.

It is readily apparent that significant amendments to the New Veterans Charter/Veterans Well-being Act are required so as to address the proverbial "elephant in the room" in that the PFL legislation fails to satisfy the priority concerns of the veterans' community in relation to:

1. Resolving the significant disparity between the financial compensation paid to disabled veterans under the Pension Act (PA) and the New Veterans Charter/Veterans Well-being Act (NVC/VWA); and
2. Ensuring that no veteran under the NVC/VWA receives less compensation than the veteran under the PA with the same disability or incapacity in accordance with the "one veteran – one standard" principle.

It is totally unacceptable that we continue to have veterans' legislation in Canada that provides a significantly higher level of compensation to a veteran who is injured prior to 2006 (date of enactment of the New Veterans Charter) when compared to a veteran who is injured post-2006. If applied to the Afghanistan conflict, this discrimination results in veterans of the same war having totally different pension benefits.

During the course of discussions following Budget 2017 leading up to the minister's announcement, there was considerable concern in the veterans' community, which proved to be well founded, that the Government would simply establish an option wherein the lump sum payment (PSC) would be apportioned or reworked over the life of the veteran for the purposes of creating a lifelong pension. NCVA and other veteran stakeholders, together with the Ministerial Policy Advisory Group (MPAG), strongly criticized this proposition as being totally inadequate and not providing the lifetime financial security that was envisaged by the veterans' community.

It is fair to say that the reasonable expectation of veteran stakeholders was that some form of substantive benefit stream needed to be established that would address the financial disparity between the benefits received under the Pension Act and the NVC/VWA for all individually disabled veterans.

It has been NCVA's consistent recommendation to the minister and to the department that VAC should adopt the major conclusions of the MPAG Report formally presented to the Veterans Summit in Ottawa in October 2016 (and directly to the minister in January 2020) together with the recommendations contained in the NCVA Legislative Program. Both of these reports proposed that the combination of the best provisions of the Pension Act and the best provisions of the New Veterans Charter would produce a form of lifetime pension in a much more realistic manner in order to secure the financial security for those veterans who need this form of monetary support through their lifetime.

We would refer to NCVA op-ed papers published over the last two years and our analysis contained in the Financial Comparison section later in this report, which addresses in considerable detail the fundamental deficiencies and flaws contained in the VAC position and outlines a series of proposals as to what can be done to improve the PFL concept.

We strongly encourage the Government to seriously consider the implementation of the following major recommendation of the MPAG as a first step to addressing this problem of the "elephant in the room":

"[T]he enhancement of the Earnings Loss Benefit/Career Impact Allowance as a single stream of income for life, the addition of Exceptional Incapacity Allowance, Attendance Allowance and a new monthly family benefit for life in accordance with the Pension Act will ensure all veterans receive the care and support they deserve when they need it and through their lifetime."

In specific terms, we would also suggest that the following steps would dramatically enhance the legislative provisions and amended regulations relevant to the present PFL proposition and go a long way to satisfying the "one veteran – one standard" approach ostensibly followed by VAC as a basic principle of administration:

1. Liberalize the eligibility criteria in the legislation and regulatory amendments for the new Additional Pain and Suffering Compensation benefit so that more disabled veterans actually qualify for this benefit – currently, only veterans suffering from a severe and permanent impairment will be eligible. It bears repeating that the greater majority of disabled veterans simply will not qualify for this new component of the proposed lifelong pension.

   It is noteworthy that the new regulations with respect to the Additional Pain and Suffering Compensation benefit largely replicate the eligibility prerequisites of the Permanent Impairment Allowance/Career Impact Allowance. These PIA/CIA provisions have produced restrictive and arbitrary results over the years since their inception and were further complicated with the formula established by VAC in 2017 in relation to the interpretation of the CIA grades through the employment of the "Diminished Earnings Capacity" test. Although the APSC has moved away from the evaluation of Diminished Earnings Capacity to an analysis of the extent to which a permanently impaired veteran is confronting barriers on his or her return to civilian society, the legislative test remains onerous and unavailable to a greater majority of disabled veterans.

   A more generous and readily understood approach is required in the amended regulations for the APSC benefit so as to generate a more inclusive class of disabled veterans. It has been the long-standing position of NCVA that the traditional PIA/CIA regulations and policy guideline requirements reflect a "blunt instrument" as opposed to a "precise tool" in evaluating the overall impact that an injury may have on a disabled veteran.

   In NCVA's 2018 Legislative Program, we argued that the veteran's disability award (PSC) initially granted should be a major determinant in evaluating CIA (APSC) qualifications. The ostensible new criteria employed by VAC as set out in the regulatory amendments for APSC qualification represent, in our judgment, a more restrictive approach when compared to the PSC evaluation.

   In effect, it is the position of NCVA that this employment of the Disability Award (PSC) percentage would produce a more straightforward and easily understood solution to this ongoing issue of APSC (CIA) eligibility. The following would reflect this form of evaluation criteria for APSC (CIA):

   Veteran Disability Award (PSC)	APSC (CIA) Grade
   78% or over	1
   48% – 78%	2

   Alternatively, the DA (PSC) percentage could be applied in a more precise manner by using the percentile against the maximum APSC (CIA) compensation available – for example, if a veteran is in receipt of a DA (PSC) of 65 per cent, the veteran would receive 65 per cent of the maximum APSC (CIA) allowance. For the purposes of potentially replacing the current Grade 3 assessment, it is our recommendation that the DA (PSC) percentile could be similarly applied; i.e., if a veteran is in receipt of a DA (PSC) of 25 per cent, the veteran would receive 25 per cent of the maximum APSC (CIA) allowance. Note that this quantification of career impact has been utilized under the Pension Act for almost 100 years in assessing the loss of earning capacity of a disabled veteran for lifetime pension purposes.

   The adoption of this type of approach would have the added advantage of enhancing the PFL so as to incorporate more disabled veterans and address the fundamental parity question in relation to Pension Act benefits.

   With reference to the regulatory amendments emanating from the new PFL provision, we would also express concern that the regulatory prerequisite for the APSC benefit with regard to the disability of amputation remains arbitrarily defined, both as to eligibility and designated grade level.

   

   It is to be noted that amputation at or above the knee or at or above the elbow is retained as a fundamental requirement for qualification in relation to a single-limb amputee; however, our years of experience with The War Amputations of Canada make clear that the loss of a limb at any level represents a "severe and permanent impairment" for the veteran amputee. The current arbitrary distinction is not justified and should be amended.

2. Create a new family benefit to parallel the Pension Act provision in relation to spousal and child allowances to recognize the impact of the veteran's disability on his or her family.

3. Incorporate the special allowances under the Pension Act, i.e., Exceptional Incapacity Allowance and Attendance Allowance, into the New Veterans Charter/Veterans Well-being Act to help address the financial disparity between the two statutory regimes.

   In over 40 years of working with The War Amps of Canada, we have literally handled hundreds of special allowance claims and were specifically involved in the formulation of the Exceptional Incapacity Allowance and Attendance Allowance guidelines and grade profiles from the outset. We would indicate that these two special allowances, EIA and AA, represent an integral portion of the compensation available to war amputees and other seriously disabled veterans governed by the Pension Act.

   It is of further interest in our judgment that the grade levels for these allowances tend to increase over the life of the veterans as the "ravages of age" are confronted – indeed, non-pensioned conditions such as the onset of a heart, cancer or diabetic condition, for example, are part and parcel of the EIA/AA adjudication uniquely carried out under the Pension Act policies in this context.

   As a sidebar, it is interesting that VAC refers to the new Caregiver Recognition Benefit of $1,000 a month as an indication of the Government's attempt to address the needs of families of disabled veterans. What continues to mystify the veterans' community is why the Government has chosen to "reinvent the wheel" in this area when addressing this need for attendance/caregiving under the New Veterans Charter/Veterans Well-being Act. For many decades, the Attendance Allowance (with its five grade levels) has been an effective vehicle in this regard, providing a substantially higher level of compensation and more generous eligibility criteria to satisfy this requirement. In this context, it is noteworthy that the spouses or families of seriously disabled veterans often have to give up significant employment opportunities to fulfil the caregiving needs of the disabled veteran – $1,000 a month is simply not sufficient recognition of this income loss. VAC should return to the AA provision and pay such benefit to the caregiver directly if so desired.

   We would strongly suggest that VAC pursue the incorporation of the EIA/AA special allowances into the New Veterans Charter/Veterans Well-being Act with appropriate legislative/regulatory amendments so as to address these deficiencies in the PFL.

4. Establish a newly-structured Career Impact Allowance that would reflect the following standard of compensation: "What would the veteran have earned in his or her military career had the veteran not been injured?" This form of progressive income model, which has been recommended by the MPAG and the Veterans Ombudsman's Office, would be unique to the NVC/VWA, and would bolster the potential lifetime compensation of a disabled veteran as to his or her projected lost career earnings as opposed to the nominal one per cent increase provided in the proposed legislation.

As a general observation in relation to the new legislation and the regulatory amendments with regard to the evaluation of the calculation surrounding the new Income Replacement Benefit, we would suggest the following concerns are material:

• With reference to the one per cent per year increase in the IRB, it is to be noted that this percentile augmentation ostensibly decreases in financial impact with the higher number of years of military service experienced by the disabled veteran and disappears completely for those veterans who have served for over 20 years prior to suffering their injury or disability.

  As underlined by the PBO's report, it is also significant that, with the elimination of the Career Impact Allowance supplements ($12,000 per year allowance), new veteran applicants post-April 1, 2019, will potentially be at a disadvantage due to the impact of this mathematical calculation, as for many veterans the one per cent increase in the IRB will not make up for the loss of the CIA(S).

• The post-65 benefits of the IRB (the former Retirement Income Security Benefit) are substantially impacted by a multitude of financial offsets that reduce the net amount of this benefit to the disabled veteran. Such financial offsets encompass any other income received by the veteran including CPP, OAS, Canadian Forces Superannuation Act (CFSA) benefits et al. In reviewing the VAC pension model used in the public statements emanating from the department and the examples employed in the 2018 budget papers, it would appear that VAC has not factored in these offset elements in the overall analysis.

We would strongly suggest that the department consider the impact of these factors relative to the new Income Replacement Benefit so as to ensure this one per cent increase has substantive and meaningful impact for disabled veterans who require such income replacement for life. In addition, we would submit that VAC should ultimately adopt the above-mentioned progressive income model for a newly structured form of CIA in accord with the approach utilized by the Canadian courts as to "future loss of income."

In summary, it is fundamental to understand that it was truly the expectation of the disabled veteran community that the "re-establishment" of a PFL option would not just attempt to address the concerns of the small minority of disabled veterans but would include a recognition of all disabled veterans who require financial security in coping with their levels of incapacity.

As a final observation, VAC consistently talks of the significance that the Government attaches to the wellness, rehabilitation and education programs under the NVC/VWA. As we have stated on a number of occasions, we commend VAC for its efforts to improve these important policies. NCVA recognizes the value and importance of wellness and rehabilitation programs; however, we take the position that financial security remains a fundamental necessity to the successful implementation of any wellness or rehabilitation strategy. It is readily apparent that this is not a choice between wellness and financial compensation as advanced by the minister and the Prime Minister, but a combined requirement to any optimal re-establishment approach to medically released veterans.

Ideally, we would like to believe that VAC, working together with relevant Ministerial Advisory Groups and other veteran stakeholders, could create a comprehensive program model that would essentially treat all veterans with parallel disabilities in the same manner as to the application of benefits and wellness policies.

In our judgment, the adoption of this innovative policy objective would have the added advantage of signaling to the veterans' community that VAC is prepared to take progressive steps to tackle legislative reform beyond the current PFL provision so as to address this fundamental core issue of concern to Canada's veterans.

The "Elephant in the Room" in VAC Remains Recommendations

B. Financial Comparison: Pension Act and New Veterans Charter/Veterans Well-being Act

As a fundamental tenet of our current Legislative Program, NCVA will continue to pursue the substantive recommendations delineated in this report with the Minister of Veterans Affairs and senior VAC officials to address the discrimination and inequity (the "elephant in the room") that exists with respect to the financial compensation available to disabled veterans and their families under the traditional Pension Act (PA) and the New Veterans Charter/Veterans Well-being Act (NVC/VWA).

Let us now actually compare the present pension benefit regimes and then take a look at what VAC legislation would provide to veterans and their families if the aforementioned NCVA proposals were adopted by the Government.

For 100 per cent pensioners (at maximum rate of compensation):

Pension Act (2022)

New Veterans Charter/Veterans Well-being Act (2022)

New Veterans Charter/Veterans Well-being Act (2022) (in the event NCVA proposals are adopted)

It is of even greater significance to recognize the impact of the Pension for Life policy that became effective on April 1, 2019, on those disabled veterans who might be considered moderately disabled as the disparity in financial compensation between the statutory regimes is even more dramatic.

Let us take the illustration of a veteran with a 35 per cent disability assessment:

• Assume the veteran has a mental or physical injury that is deemed not to be a "severe and permanent impairment" – the expected eligibility reality for the greater majority of disabled veterans under the NVC/VWA.
• The veteran enters the income replacement/rehabilitation program with SISIP LTD as the first responder or the IRB/rehabilitation program with VAC.
• Ultimately, the veteran finds employment in the public or private sector attaining an income of at least 66.66 per cent of his or her former military wage.

It is important to be cognizant of the fact that, once such a veteran earns 66.66 per cent of his or her pre-release military income, the veteran is no longer eligible for the SISIP LTD or the VAC IRB and, due to the fact that the veteran's disability does not equate to a "severe and permanent impairment," the veteran does not qualify for the new Additional Pain and Suffering Compensation benefit.

Therefore, the comparability evaluation for 35 per cent pensioners would be as follows under the alternative pension schemes:

Pension Act (2022)

New Veterans Charter/Veterans Well-being Act (2022)

We would underline that this analysis demonstrates the extremely significant financial disparity that results for this type of moderately disabled veteran. It is also essential to recognize that over 80 per cent of disabled veterans under the NVC/VWA will fall into this category of compensation. Unfortunately, the perpetuation of the inequitable treatment of these two distinct classes of veteran pensioner is self-evident and remains unacceptable to the overall veterans' community.

Finally, let us consider the impact on this analysis in the event the NCVA proposals were to be implemented as part and parcel of an improved NVC/VWA:

New Veterans Charter/Veterans Well-being Act (2022) (in the event NCVA proposals are adopted)

In summary, this combination of augmented benefits proposed by NCVA would go a long way to removing the discrimination that currently exists between the PA and the NVC/VWA and would represent a substantial advancement in the reform of veterans legislation, concluding in a "one veteran – one standard" approach for Canada's disabled veteran population.

In addition, should VAC implement NCVA's recommendations (as supported by the OVO and MPAG) with respect to a newly structured CIA, the IRB would be substantially enhanced by incorporating this progressive future loss of income standard as to "What would the veteran have earned in his or her military career had the veteran not been injured?"

It is noteworthy that the current IRB essentially provides 90 per cent of the former military wage of the veteran, together with a limited one per cent increment dependent on the veteran's years of service, resulting in an inadequate recognition of the real loss of income experienced by the disabled veteran as a consequence of his or her shortened military career.

The new conceptual philosophy of this future loss of income approach parallels the longstanding jurisprudence found in the Canadian courts in this context and is far more reflective of the actual financial diminishment suffered by the disabled veteran (and his or her family). This would represent a major step forward for VAC in establishing a more equitable compensation/pension/wellness model.

As a final observation, it is noteworthy that the Prime Minister, various ministers of the department and senior governmental officials of VAC, in their public pronouncements from time to time, have emphasized that additional benefits and services are uniquely available under the NVC/VWA with respect to income replacement, rehabilitation and wellness programs.

NCVA fully recognizes the value and importance of these programs, and we commend VAC for its efforts to improve the department's wellness and educational policies. However, it should be noted that a number of programs dealing with essentially parallel income replacement and rehabilitation policies already exist under the PA regime by means of services and benefits administered by the Department of National Defence (DND) through their SISIP LTD insurance policy and Vocational Rehabilitation (VOC-REHAB) Programs.

The one unique element of NVC/VWA with respect to income replacement that is comparably beneficial for a very small number of seriously disabled veterans is triggered where such a disabled veteran is designated as having qualified for "Diminished Earnings Capacity" status (which requires that a veteran is unemployable for life as a consequence of his or her pensioned disabilities).

In these circumstances, such a veteran will receive additional funds post-65 for life that are not available under the Pension Act/SISIP LTD program where such income replacement ends at age 65. This is most significant where the veteran has been medically released relatively early in his or her career.

It is noteworthy in this scenario that less than six per cent of all disabled veterans qualify for the Diminished Earnings Capacity. Thus, 94 per cent of veterans are not eligible for this post-65 benefit under the NVC/VWA.

It is not without significance in this evaluation that, at the time of the enactment of the New Veterans Charter in 2006, VAC committed to eliminating SISIP LTD and VOC-REHAB programs and creating a new universal gold standard in regard to income replacement and wellness policies that would be applicable to all disabled veterans in Canada. The reality is that the SISIP LTD and VOC-REHAB insurance policy has been and continues today to be "the first responder" for the greater majority of disabled veterans who have been medically released from the Canadian Armed Forces in relation to both the PA and the NVC/VWA.

As a fundamental conclusion to our position, we would like to think that the Government could be convinced that, rather than choosing one statutory regime over the other, a combination of the best parts of the PA and the best parts of the NVC/VWA would provide a better compensation/wellness model for all disabled veterans in Canada.

Marriage After Sixty

The National Council of Veteran Associations in Canada (NCVA) and our 68 member organizations have made submissions to the Government for over 25 years with respect to our concerns vis-à-vis Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) retirees and the infamous "marriage after 60" clawback provision. This continues to be a very important issue within the NCVA Legislative Program, in view of the fact that more and more CAF retirees (including many NCVA members) are living longer and marrying for a second time.

As it currently stands, CAF retirees contribute to the Canadian Forces Superannuation account throughout their entire career and one of the important benefits is a 50 per cent Survivor's Benefit, save and except in those cases where the CAF retiree marries after age 60. In order to provide their new spouses any form of "Survivor's Benefit," veterans over 60 must exercise the statutory option to reduce their own Canadian Forces Superannuation in a commensurate manner.

The resulting impact on the financial well-being of veterans over the age of 60 and their new spouses is often quite distressing, as the married couple in question is frequently faced with a difficult decision that in many cases can lead to economic hardship. Furthermore, should the veteran opt for providing a Survivor's Benefit for his or her new spouse, the immediate financial circumstances of the couple may be detrimentally affected as a consequence of the loss of current income. Moreover, utilizing this financial strategy in a situation where the new spouse predeceases the veteran, the funds contributed to the Survivor's Benefit are lost as they are not returned to the veteran but instead recouped by the Government.

Veterans and their new spouses should not be asked to confront this incredible conundrum. Without a crystal ball, the new couple has no way of knowing how their future lives will unfold and what the impact of their financial determination will be on each of them.

This archaic "gold digger's clause," in our respectful submission, should have no place in Canadian veterans legislation. It is of interest historically that, over 100 years ago when Canada's Militia Pension Act was passed in 1901, it contained a section now referred to as the "gold digger clause" that authorized the Government to exercise a discretion to deny benefits to widows deemed "unworthy." As a result, a widow of that period could not receive survivor benefits if she was more than 20 years younger than her husband or if he had married her after the age of 60. This antiquated legislation was apparently drafted this way to protect the military from "death-bed marriages," which were of known concern in the United States in relation to younger women marrying veterans of the 1865 Civil War for their pensions!

As a matter of advocacy background, over the last two decades both Conservative and Liberal governments have made unfulfilled promises and commitments to NCVA and various veteran stakeholders to expunge this punitive measure from the CFSA. Ministers of National Defence and Veterans Affairs of various political stripes have declared their intent to amend the legislation only to be overruled by the financial hierarchy of government.

In addition, a number of Private Member's Bills/Petitions to Parliament have been initiated to rectify this unacceptable situation with no success, notwithstanding the grave discrimination that remains in the statute.

It is noteworthy that the Liberal 2015 election platform specifically indicated that it was the intention to "…eliminate the marriage after 60 clawback clause so that surviving spouses of veterans receive appropriate pension and health benefits." Indeed, several Mandate Letters directed by the current Prime Minister to various ministers of National Defence and ministers of Veterans Affairs/associate ministers of National Defence have been issued with no legislative action achieved in this context.

Furthermore, the 2019 federal budget contained a rather nebulous provision that was ostensibly proposed to address this long-standing concern.

The 2019 budget provided:

"To better support veterans who married over the age of 60 and their spouses, Budget 2019 announces a new Veterans Survivors Fund committing $150 million over five years starting in 2019-20 to VAC. With these funds, the Government will work with the community to identify impacted survivors, process their claims and ensure survivors have the financial support they need. The Government will announce additional details on this measure in the coming months."

Following this budget announcement, NCVA made continued enquiries with Veterans Affairs Canada, which resulted in the rather shocking conclusion that no one in the department was aware of the substance of any legislative provision that actually would apply to this new policy. Our further communication recently with ministerial officials has been to little avail, save and except that we were advised that a new policy was under consideration and further research was being carried out. The mystery remains as to why the Government did not simply eliminate the marriage after 60 clawback disqualifying provision in the CFSA as opposed to proposing a brand-new policy with little or no substantive detail.

In conclusion, NCVA submits that it is incumbent upon the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs (ACVA), which is currently studying this particular legislation, to require the Government to remove this inequitable and unjust legislative provision from the CFSA so as to ensure that veterans over 60 who marry are able to enjoy their remaining years with appropriate financial security. After many years of tortuous advocacy, they deserve nothing less.

Marriage over sixty Recommendations

Veterans Legislation and Policies

A. Career Impact Allowance

Notwithstanding the fact that VAC has converted the former Career Impact Allowance (CIA) provision into the Additional Pain and Suffering Compensation benefit, as delineated earlier in our report, it remains the position of NCVA, in concert with the Policy Advisory Group, that the department should revisit the concept of CIA and address the future loss of income suffered by a disabled veteran on the basis of the following fundamental question – "What would the disabled veteran have earned in his or her projected military career if the veteran had not been injured?"

It will be recalled that it is the position of the Policy Advisory Group, as endorsed by the long-standing view of NCVA, that, once this benchmark for CIA is established, a newly structured benefit be developed as delineated in various reports emanating from the OVO over recent years and as proposed by the New Veterans Charter Advisory Group in 2009. The evaluation of the Veterans Ombudsman demonstrates the relative predictability of the elevation of a CAF member through his or her military career in recognizing the specific ranks the member would have achieved had the member not been injured.

It is also of considerable import that the Canadian civil courts over the last number of decades have evaluated the plight of severely injured plaintiffs by consistently applying the concept of future loss of income in assessing monetary damages. In a similar fashion to the proposals emanating from our Policy Advisory Group on Career Impact Allowance, the courts consider the probable career earnings of an injured plaintiff from the perspective of future loss of income or, alternatively, future loss of earnings capacity as part and parcel of the damage award granted to plaintiffs in the Canadian judicial system.

It is of interest that, in the context of VAC, the department has a distinct advantage over the courts, as the judicial system only has "one bite at the apple" at the time of the court hearing or settlement. VAC, on the other hand, is able to monitor the income position of a disabled veteran throughout his or her life to determine the differential between the benchmark established by the CIA concept and the actual income received by the veteran. Query: why should an injured Canadian veteran receive less than an injured plaintiff with reference to "future loss of income"? We have, in effect, paralleled the Disability Award under the NVC/VWA with general damage awards in the Canadian courts – why not replicate the philosophy of the future loss of income concept as well?

A. Career Impact Allowance Recommendation

B. Veterans Education and Training Benefit

It was the considered opinion of former Deputy Minister Walt Natynczyk that this program represented a landmark proposal that substantially enhances the Education and Training Benefit for all eligible veterans. The deputy minister suggested at the time of the formal announcement that it was based on the United States G.I. Bill in relation to extending educational benefits beyond disabled veterans so as to include all released veterans who qualify under this new program.

The benefit is available for ten years going forward following the release of the veteran and is retroactive to April 1, 2006. Unfortunately, veterans released from the CAF prior to 2006 do not qualify for this benefit, which, in our judgment, reflects a rather arbitrary cut-off date and conceivably is a Government decision founded on budgetary constraints.

This program was initiated on April 1, 2018, for all veterans honourably released on or after April 1, 2006 – veterans with six years of eligible service will be entitled to up to $40,000 of benefits, while veterans with twelve years of eligible service will be entitled to up to $80,000 of benefits. The minister/Deputy minister emphasized that the benefit would provide more money for veterans to go to college, university or technical school after they complete their service.

There is little question that this newly expanded educational benefit is potentially beneficial to a much larger segment of the veterans' community. One caveat is that the "devil is often in the details" and questions of eligibility criteria have to be examined closely. In addition, it is necessary to continually evaluate whether the rather restrictive policy in the past regarding educational programs for disabled veterans has been addressed and if more liberal access in general will be achieved by this initiative.

It is also important to understand that a released veteran wishing to take advantage of the educational benefit often needs to be covered through some form of income replacement program to address the potential diminishment in income received for the maximum four-year period, i.e., the SISIP LTD program or the VAC IRB program should accompany this educational benefit, particularly for disabled veterans who might qualify though this REHAB/Education Program.

For those veterans who find education is not their solution, the department has indicated that there would be further monies available under this program for career development courses in the neighbourhood of $5,000 per veteran.

A. Career Impact Allowance Recommendation

C. Partial Disabilities

In early 2018, VAC created a new policy with reference to partial entitlement flowing from veterans legislation, i.e., disabilities arising in part out of military service or consequential disabilities arising in part from a primary disability.

The VAC policy amendment established a principle that any partial entitlement award would either be granted at four-fifths or five-fifths. In the past, fractional entitlements in this context were granted in fifths – one-fifth, two-fifths, three-fifths et al. The backgrounder information given to the MPAG from VAC indicated that these fractional entitlements were often appealed one-fifth at a time, clogging up the entire VAC adjudicative system. It was felt that it would be prudent to simply eliminate the one-fifth, two-fifths and three-fifths entitlements and grant a four-fifths for any partial entitlement award.

This is clearly a beneficial policy insofar as a substantive increase in pension to be received by a veteran, but we felt it was important to raise a number of questions following the introduction of this amendment that still remain of concern as to the administration of this policy amendment:

1. Will these fractional entitlements be granted retroactively to all veterans who have received a one-fifth, two-fifths or three-fifths entitlement in the past? It was established by VAC that this will not be done automatically but will only be triggered by individual veterans initiating a review of their files by the department in order to achieve a potential increase in their fractional entitlement. NCVA strongly recommends that VAC grant automatic entitlement to those veterans currently in receipt of consequential or partial entitlement rulings at one-fifth/two-fifths/three-fifths to a four-fifths level of assessment. This will also alleviate the significant backlog of the numerous appeals with respect to fractional awards that are currently in the VAC adjudicative system.
2. Will there eventually be any limitation period as to how far back this form of increased fractional entitlement will be granted, given the magnitude of appeals that have been generated by this new policy?
3. Will the standard of assessment be more stringent when it is recognized that the partial entitlement award will be granted at a minimum of four-fifths? In the past, one-fifth awards were occasionally granted on the basis of giving the veteran applicant the benefit of the doubt – will this relative generosity be altered in the new policy guideline adjudication?

C. Partial Disabilities Recommendation

D. SISIP LTD/VOC-REHAB Programs

NCVA continues to have a fundamental concern as to whether SISIP LTD for service-related disabilities should be continued at all or whether it should be eliminated due to the multiple standards that exist not only with the SISIP LTD program but also the SISIP VOC-REHAB program.

One of the priority recommendations of NCVA, the MPAG, the New Veterans Charter Advisory Group, numerous veteran consultation groups, the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs and the OVO for many years has been to suggest that the insurance culture needs to be removed from the compensation made available to veterans and their families. The compensation of veterans and their dependants should not be a function of the insurance industry whose mandate, in many situations, is to minimize exposure of the insurer's policy when applied to injured or disabled individuals.

As a matter of background, a fundamental commitment made by the Government at the time of the enactment of the New Veterans Charter was the recognition that the SISIP LTD program should be eliminated and fully replaced by a liberalized income replacement loss benefit administered by VAC. The constraints placed on the New Veterans Charter/Veterans Well-being Act (NVC/VWA) by the restrictive provisions of the SISIP LTD program and the SISIP VOC-REHAB program are felt in the present context and should be removed as soon as possible. This government commitment made by the minister and deputy minister of the day was part and parcel of the understanding between the veteran stakeholder community and VAC in consideration of the immediate passage of the Charter by Parliament in 2006.

It is to be noted that the "wellness program" strongly advocated by VAC and, more particularly, by former Deputy Minister Walt Natynczyk, is clearly impacted by the fact that the greater majority of medically released CAF members fall under the administration of the SISIP VOC-REHAB program. In effect, VAC does not have the capacity to control and operate this portion of the VOC-REHAB program and is left with little accountability as to the impact that the SISIP program will have on veterans in regard to this essential element of the NVC/VWA.

With reference to the question of service- and non-service-related disabilities, it has been the experience of the veterans' community that this entire question of whether a member of the Canadian Armed Forces is to be considered "on duty" for the purposes of pensionability either under the Pension Act or the NVC/VWA has been a long-standing grievance. The regulations in this area would be far clearer and more equitable if the Government/department agreed to adopt the "insurance principle" in this context so that all members of the military would be considered "on duty" at all times and thus eligible for various financial benefits such as the PSC and Income Replacement programs once they put on a uniform. This would clear up the potential interpretive issues that are raised in the regulations to the NVC/VWA and would address the confusion and ambiguity that often results when individual hypothetical cases reflect "grey areas" or areas of dispute. The resultant effect of this recognition would also further the objective of eliminating the SISIP LTD program even for non-service-related disabilities which, of course, was its original and exclusive mandate in the 1970s when it was first created.

D. SISIP LTD/VOC-REHAB Programs Recommendation

E. Partners in Canadian Veterans Rehabilitation Services Program

In a major new development, Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) is updating how medical, psycho-social and vocational rehabilitation services are delivered to veterans and their families beginning in November 2022.

Presently, these services are delivered under two national contracts:

• Medical and psycho-social rehabilitation services are provided by the Federal Health Claims Processing Service (FHCPS) with Medavie Blue Cross (MBC).
• Vocational services are provided by the Canadian Veterans Vocational Rehabilitation Services (CVVRS).

These two contracts are set to expire in December 2022 and will be replaced by one national contract awarded to Partners in Canadian Veterans Rehabilitation Services (PCVRS). It is important to note that the existing eligibility and guiding policies are not changing.

Under the old contract, vocational rehabilitation services were provided by CVVRS. Previously, CVVRS services were delivered by a joint venture provided by WCG International Consultants Ltd. and March of Dimes. Under the new contract, PCVRS vocational rehabilitation services will be delivered by a joint venture provided by the same WCG International Consultants Ltd. and Lifemark Health Group. Both these organizations have extensive experience in the field and a national network of service providers.

It has been confirmed that MBC will continue to authorize and reimburse treatment benefits under the FHCPS contract for VAC, CAF and RCMP members. Veterans who are in a rehab program and receiving medical and/or psycho-social services by MBC providers will have their files migrated to PCVRS. PCVRS will review the files to ensure that the services are indeed a rehab service and, if needed, they will work with the current provider to ensure the best continuity of care for the veteran.

The PCVRS will be responsible for the assessment, co-ordination and administration of all medical, psycho-social and vocational rehabilitation services in collaboration with VAC case managers and existing health professionals.

The intent is to relieve VAC case managers of having to spend an inordinate amount of time in administrating case-managed veterans' needs. Under the new PCVRS program, instead of the case manager doing the detailed administration of co-ordinating services to be delivered, the case manager can now assign this to PCVRS. PCVRS will conduct all the requisite work and report to the case manager periodically on how the services are being delivered. This will free up the case manager to work more closely with veterans on specific needs and determine if the veterans are meeting their rehabilitation outcomes and have a better transition to life after service.

The new PCVRS contract will be responsible for the payment of all medical, psycho-social and vocational services, and reimbursement of associated travel, approved under the rehab plan. Participants will be able to access, review and submit their claims through a new Participant Portal. Training and support to each participant on the Participant Portal will be provided as part of the migration process and for all new rehabilitation participants.

For services not approved under a rehab plan, MBC will continue to process the eligible treatment benefits payments and health-related travel (HRT) reimbursements.

For veterans who complete their rehab program and have entitlement for continuing treatment benefits, MBC will assume/resume processing the payment of the eligible treatment benefit and HRT reimbursement.

It is the intention of the department that having one contract will ensure consistent, standardized and timely nation-wide rehabilitation assessments and services. VAC is aiming to have a seamless implementation of the new PCVRS contract for both employees and veterans.

In summary, the "devil will be in the details," and it will be only after a period of time that we will be able to determine if this new PCVRS program is successful in providing better service to our veterans and their families.

E. Partners in Canadian Veterans Rehabilitation Services Program Recommendation

We would express our appreciation to Major (Ret'd) Bruce Henwood, senior consultant to The War Amputations of Canada (a member organization of NCVA), for his outstanding contribution to this important new development within Veterans Affairs Canada.

F. Post-65 Benefits

It is to be noted that the legislative amendments emanating from Budget 2018 (which consolidate a number of income replacement provisions into one benefit, the Income Replacement Benefit) unfortunately still retain the inadequacies of the Retirement Income Security Benefit, which was enacted earlier by the former Conservative government in its attempt to address the post-65 financial security for seriously disabled veterans and their families. As aforementioned, the post-65 benefit provides a limited number of disabled veterans (less than six per cent) with 70 per cent of 90 per cent of the IRB, should the veteran be deemed as suffering a "diminished earnings capacity" as defined under the regulatory provisions of the new Act, less certain potentially significant deductions prescribed by these policy provisions.

In our view, to apply a 70 per cent formula to the post-65 period for a permanently incapacitated veteran based on a public/private sector pension model is not appropriate when it is recognized that the plight of such a seriously disabled veteran post-65 remains unchanged and his or her financial costs continue to be essentially the same.

During the course of initial discussions surrounding the enactment of these post-65 provisions, strong arguments were made by NCVA and various veteran stakeholder groups that the full Earnings Loss Benefit/Income Replacement Benefit (ELB/CIA) should be continued for life, particularly given the fact that the principal recipients of this post-65 "pension" will be totally incapacitated veterans.

It is interesting to note that the MPAG recommendations address this specific issue by establishing that a single stream of ELB/CIA payments should be continued for life, as is the case for similar Pension Act benefits, and that the diminishment found in the RISB or post-65 benefit be eliminated – as it is self-evident that these provisions are far too complex and impact negatively on many seriously disabled veterans and, particularly, surviving spouses.

In addition, the Policy Advisory Group financial compensation model provided that, in the event ELB/CIA is indeed continued for life without deduction, surviving spouses should be entitled to 70 per cent of this amount which would equate to the proposed levels of the new CFSA survivor benefit committed to under an earlier minister's mandate letter. Although the resultant net effect will not provide as much financial support as the MPAG is recommending, we would confirm that the department has at least implemented a parallel provision in this context providing a survivor benefit of 70 per cent for the new consolidated IRB post-65 benefit under the legislation flowing from the new PFL.

F. Post-65 Benefits Recommendation

VIP for Life for Surviving Spouses

It remains a priority issue of NCVA to underline the need to expand the eligibility of VIP to include, at a minimum, those surviving spouses of seriously disabled veterans whose veteran spouses did not apply for VIP prior to their death. Our position continues to be that in many cases the veteran was unable or reluctant to apply for VIP in the years prior to his or her passing. It is our strong argument that a presumption could be established that, in the event the seriously disabled veteran had applied or was able to apply for VIP, he or she would have received the benefit given his or her significant incapacity. It is submitted that the department would have great difficulty in refuting the logic of our argument, and we remain hopeful that this particular presumption will be of great value to our surviving spouses in achieving VIP benefits.

As a matter of historic development, it will be recalled that the federal budget of 2008 partially expanded the current regulations for the continuation of VIP for life for surviving spouses, provided the surviving spouse is either in receipt of the Guaranteed Income Supplement or has entitlement to the Disability Tax Credit under the Income Tax Act. It remains our position that this partial expansion is far too restrictive and that the required criteria should be replaced by a form of automatic entitlement with respect to surviving spouses of seriously disabled veterans.

VIP for Life for Surviving Spouses Recommendations

Appendix: 2021 Election Platforms

During the course of the 2021 federal election campaign, political issues impacting veterans generally focused on:

1. The collapse of the Afghanistan government and the anger of Canadian Afghan veterans as to the ineffectiveness of the Canadian government's efforts to ensure that Afghan citizens who acted as interpreters and supporters of Canadian troops were adequately protected and extracted to safety; and
2. The ongoing crisis in the military leadership and the plight of veteran survivors of military sexual trauma who were negatively impacted by the dysfunctional military culture.

It is to be noted, however, that each federal party laid out in their individual campaign programs specific commitments that they would ostensibly adopt and implement if elected.

We have highlighted in this section of our report the specific proposals that are of greatest significance to NCVA.

It will be a continuing priority to ensure that these election campaign promises are not just political puffery or window dressing but are actually pursued and implemented to meet the pressing needs of Canada's veterans and their families.

Liberal Platform: "Honouring Our Veterans"

(from https://liberal.ca/our-platform/)

A re-elected Liberal government will:

With respect to ending Veteran homelessness:

• Move forward on our plan to launch a pilot program next year that will provide rent supplements and wrap-around supports to homeless Veterans, so that they can get the housing and services they need.
• Introduce a Veterans stream to the Rapid Housing Initiative which will see new affordable housing become available for Veterans.

With regard to reducing benefit wait times for Veterans:

• Continue our work to reduce wait times and ensure Veterans and their families receive decisions on their applications in a timely manner.
• Invest the necessary resources to accomplish this, such as hiring more case workers and adjudicators, continuing to enhance disability benefit processing and by enhancing innovative digital solutions.
• Invest $140 million to ensure that Veterans do not have to wait for their benefits to get high quality mental health care.

In relation to Veterans' employment strategy:

• Launch Canada's first National Veteran Employment Strategy, with a goal of ensuring that every Veteran can find meaningful work after releasing from the Canadian Armed Forces. A part of this strategy will include improving qualification recognition so that certifications earned while in service can be used in civilian life.

In relation to commemoration:

• Support Commemorate Canada and ensure this program recognizes modern Veterans as well as women, Indigenous, racialized, and LGBT2Q Veterans from all conflicts.
• Ensure that we recognize the valuable contributions of Canadian Armed Forces Veterans who have served our country in domestic operations such as wildfires, ice storms, and floods.

In relation to military sexual trauma:

• Implement the recommendations of the Independent External Comprehensive Review led by Justice Arbour to address sexual harassment and misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces, including instituting external oversight and independence over the processes of reporting, investigating, and adjudicating complaints, outside of the chain of command.
• Modernize the military justice system and ensure survivors are treated with respect and have the full range of options and services available in the civilian system, including implementing recommendations from the Third Independent Review of the National Defence Act led by Justice Fish.
• Expand resources available to survivors through the Sexual Misconduct Response Centre and make these services available to all members of the defence team, including DND employees, veterans, and members of military families.
• Co-design and fully fund a permanent peer-to-peer support program for CAF members who have experienced military sexual trauma and make it accessible to all members of the defence team.

Conservative Platform: "Standing Up for Our Veterans"

(from https://www.conservative.ca, page 101)

Canada's Conservatives will:

• End the "mess" of two benefit systems – Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) and Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) – that do not work together and replace them with one streamlined system of benefits from enlistment through service and retirement.
• Empower military doctors, who know the demands of service and the impact of injuries, to determine a service-related injury for all CAF and VAC purposes.
  • No longer will one medical evaluation deny someone the ability to serve, and a separate assessment then deny them benefits.
• Ensure a smooth transition for any CAF members who have to be medically released, including retaining them in the CAF until all the benefits and services from the CAF, VAC, and Service Income Security Insurance Plan have been confirmed and put in place.
• Implement the Lifelong Disability Benefit for moderately to severely injured veterans.
• Ensure that military families, especially spouses, are provided with sufficient support.
• Cover the cost of PTSD service dogs for veterans and creating training standards for them.
• Empower frontline VAC employees to adjudicate claims.
• Ensure that the investigation of sexual misconduct is done by investigators outside the chain of command. It is unacceptable that allegations against a superior need to be reported to someone who reports to that person and may share information with them.
• End harassment and discrimination and making the CAF a better workplace.
• Ensure a respectful and professional workforce free from sexual misconduct and discrimination.
• Call a public inquiry into harassment and discrimination in the Canadian Armed Forces and make immediate changes such as removing commanders' access to their subordinates' medical files.

NDP Platform: "Honouring our veterans"

(from https://www.ndp.ca/commitments)

A New Democrat government will honour the special bond of mutual obligation between Canadians and veterans, and deliver the services that veterans need and deserve. As part of this process, we will work with veterans to design a system that provides fair benefits to all veterans, including equal access to lifetime pensions.

Veterans shouldn't have to wait weeks or even months or years to receive the services they need. We'll get rid of backlogs and step up high-quality, personalized service delivery by actually providing one caseworker for every twenty-five veterans, hiring more disability adjudicators to clear the backlog, putting in place automatic approvals for the most common injuries, and improving services that are delivered by phone and online.

To ease the transition from service for veterans, we'll give Canadian Forces members access to care and support before the transition, and make sure that their benefits are in place before they are released from service.

New Democrats will help support veterans and their families by expanding the caregiver allowance to more people. We'll work with partners in community services and the veterans community to end veteran homelessness for good – because one veteran on the streets is one too many.

New Democrats will make the Veterans Ombudsman fully independent so they can report transparently and directly to Canadians.

A New Democrat government will make mental health support for members and their families a priority. No member or veteran of the Canadian Forces should ever feel that they are all alone in dealing with the impact of their experiences or in transitioning to civilian life. They – and their families – need to know that their country and their government has their back, during their service and for the rest of their lives.

We are also committed to putting an end to sexual harassment and assault in the military. The Liberals have talked about the issue for six years but have failed to make needed changes, while survivors of sexual misconduct continue to suffer from a culture of silence and impunity that extends right to the top of the chain of command. We will immediately implement the recommendations of the Deschamps Report, including establishing independent oversight and accountability for sexual harassment and assault in the military.

People's Party of Canada Platform: "Veterans: Standing Behind the Men and Women Who Sacrificed for Our Country"

(from https://www.peoplespartyofcanada.ca/veterans)

A People's Party government will:

• Recognize and respect the unique sacrifices of those who serve and have served in Canada's Armed Forces.
• Enshrine in legislation the country's obligations to our veterans in a Military Covenant between the government and those who serve in the Armed Forces.
• Reinstate the fair disability pension as previously provided for by the Pension Act. The pension will apply retroactively to 2006 and lump sum payments received since then will be treated as advance payments.
• Instigate a line-by-line review of the New Veterans Charter (including the Enhanced New Veterans Charter Act of 2011), to determine which policies and programs should be retained, simplify the system and make it easier to navigate.
• Reemphasize the legislative guarantee of the "Benefit of doubt" standard under the Pension Act.

In Conclusion

From NCVA's perspective, it is important to evaluate the various recommendations as to where common ground may exist for establishing appropriate resolutions amongst the parties to begin to address veterans' concerns.

In our work with Parliamentary committees, these political commitments provide valuable ammunition in compelling individual members to live up to the stated intentions of their respective parties.

It must be recognized once again that the chance of a new election in the foreseeable future remains very high, given our current minority government, and the performance of individual parties will be closely monitored by NCVA and the veterans' community.