Veterans Affairs Committee on Dec. 11th, 2006

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

I'm finished.

I'm through.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Okay. I'm sure the researchers noted all of that.

Now on to Mr. Stoffer for five minutes.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Gentlemen, I thank you very much for your appearance.

I have a few questions here. I've heard these statistics before that 84% are satisfied with the service they receive, and 96% in the long-term facilities are satisfied. You're right, I don't think any other government department can claim this, especially the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. If anybody needs an ombudsman, it's them.

I'm just thinking out loud. With such high approval ratings of service coming from DVA, why do we need a bill of rights and an ombudsman?

[Brian Ferguson]

If you look at the literature on well-performing organizations, it really is those organizations that are continually looking for ways to improve their services, even in the face of good results, that maintain their leadership position. So I would argue that in this case we want to be absolutely certain that we don't slip back. We're not perfect, so there's still lots to do in terms of making future improvements. The bill of rights and the ombudsman offer good additional mechanisms that help carry us forward to make further improvements.

We've been trying very hard within our own abilities to move those markers. We've done a lot. We've reached that 84%; we've reached the 96%. I think we've all agreed that within the context of service to veterans, we want to strive to get as close as we can to perfection.

So from my perspective, in terms of the ADM responsible for the service delivery, we see the bill of rights and the ombudsman as a very good complement to our efforts to date.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Now, these surveys are done with the people who are clients of DVA. Is that correct?

[Brian Ferguson]

That's correct.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

As you know, we don't often get people calling us up saying great things about government. What we get is an awful lot of people who are dissatisfied.

Have you done any surveys on people who have applied for a hearing loss pension and are turned down, who have SISIP deductions turned down, who are looking for a wheelchair and are turned down, or who apply for VIP and are turned down? I mean, I can go on all day on the various turndowns. There are an awful lot of people who would love to access DVA services, and for a variety of reasons the VRAB and other areas say no.

Certainly this isn't a slight against the people, for example, who I represent in Nova Scotia. We have a gentleman down there, Paul Brown, and his staff, who I think do an outstanding job on behalf of the government in terms of delivery of DVA services. But there are many people who are not getting the services that they believe they are entitled to. Do you do surveys of them?

[Brian Ferguson]

Well, they're included within the surveys that I've mentioned.

What we do, Mr. Stoffer, is when we get survey results, we look at the areas of weakness. We've been developing now for the past couple of rounds of these surveys a service improvement plan, where the survey results are discussed throughout the organization with the delivery areas across the country. People come up with their ideas for making changes to try to improve our level of service. So we have a very active, ongoing process of self-improvement, if you like, based on those findings that come out.

The survey itself is quite a rich treasure trove of data, because it's professionally developed. It's an independent company that does it. It isn't my organization that runs it; it's run at the corporate level. So we actually follow up and we use the survey results that we find there. That's why I think it's important to note that we have a process that really tries its best within the laws of Canada.

One of our responsibilities is obviously to ensure that we follow the legislation and regulations as prescribed by Parliament and other authorities. When we see areas that we think should be changed, we put our voice in front of them. We make those observations. And committees such as yours that have made major changes over the years have been a most valuable source of input.

I don't know if that answers your question.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

No, not really.

I find it rather challenging, and I certainly don't want to deny your statistics that 8.4 people out of 10 who contact DVA are completely satisfied. It's not what I get in my office. I'm not denying those statistics, but if you're including everyone who has a problem with DVA.... Because I could send you a few hundred files that we have of people who are completely dissatisfied with you. There are very few who would say they are. Now, I'm not getting the people calling me up saying great things. I'm just getting the people who have complaints, and there are an awful lot of them.

So I would think that if you included everyone who was cut off or denied a hearing because there were no medical records...in the forties, a guy standing next to a gunner who lost his hearing, and he's turned down; a woman trying to go for VIP services, but buddy didn't apply because he was too stubborn and too proud; or SISIP. I can give you a list of names of people, and I just can't see those people, 8.4 of them, saying that they're satisfied. They're not, because they're telling me differently.

[Brian Ferguson]

We have about 230,000 clients, so when 84% say they're satisfied, there are still 16% who aren't. When you multiply that by the number of clients, you get a number that wouldn't probably be out of line with your observations. In other words, we have people who still raise complaints; there are people who write in.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

On a point of order, could I have clarification, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

No, you're already a minute over time.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

No, no, he—

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

No, end of story.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Okay, I'll ask later.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Yes.

Mrs. Hinton, for seven minutes, please.

[Betty Hinton, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Gee, he's kind of mean today, isn't he?

Thank you very much for appearing.

There were a number of questions running through my mind, one of which was about it taking 24 weeks to get an answer, but you fairly well outlined the reason for the 24 weeks. I admit that's a grand improvement over what you said were the statistics before, but I still think it's a fairly lengthy amount of time.

What I really wanted to ask you...and I'm sorry, this might be a little bit difficult for you. We also touched a little bit on individual clients and how they're handled. One of your points in your presentation is that at the heart of the CCSA approach is a case plan that is built by highly trained staff, with the full involvement of both the client and the client's family. Could you please walk me through a make-believe scenario—and I'm sure you have all sorts of data at your fingertips—where Sergeant John Smith has been seriously wounded, he has now come to you, and his family is devastated by what's happened to him. What's the process? What do you do from step one through to completion, where he has something that's geared entirely to him and his family? How does it work?

[Brian Ferguson]

I'll deal with step one and then ask Mr. Miller to carry on with the remaining steps.

Step one in that case, if he's been seriously injured, is that we would get a casualty report as part of the DND process. DND would have a case manager assigned, and we would also assign a case manager.

While the individual was within DND, they would make their best possible effort to redeploy the individual within the military. That would be within their ability to do so within their fit for service policy. We know they work very hard at that.

Now, if you take your example, Ms. Hinton, and go to the next step, which is when we become responsible, that's when DND decides there has to be a medical release. When they decide there has to be a medical release, we will get the information from the case manager within DND, and we will do a transition interview. In that transition interview with our staff, the individual will be asked various questions about their health, their needs, and their employment prospects--the whole gamut of questions that will influence development of the case plan.

At this point I'll ask Ken to carry on with the steps in the process.

[Ken Miller]

Sure, absolutely.

As I think Mr. Ferguson is suggesting to you, the process is not one size fits all. It really depends a great deal on the severity of the injury the individual is dealing with.

Certainly while they continue to be in uniform, they're primarily the responsibility of DND. Once they're out of uniform, they are primarily ours. However, when it becomes apparent that we're dealing with a serious injury, as Mr. Ferguson says, we do receive a notification. If it is quite a serious situation, then our case manager begins interacting with the case manager on the DND side. At some point there would be a decision within DND that this individual would likely be medically released. At that point they become our primary responsibility.

To carry on, the transition interview is the point in the process where all the various needs and issues are identified. That can happen before or after release. It really depends on the circumstances.

In the situation of a serious injury, the norm would be that it would happen before release, as a preparatory step, so that in fact our professionals within Veterans Affairs are ready to start providing the help. In other words, we really don't want a gap between the benefits to the injured veteran from DND and those that continue with Veterans Affairs after release.

They would develop a relationship with a primary counsellor in our district office, closest to where they live. Their needs would be assessed. If they are a candidate for rehabilitation, as most individuals with a serious injury would be, then they would commence those benefits immediately. Those decisions happen very quickly. I forget the exact number, but in a period of about four weeks from the time we first see an application—and with serious injuries, much faster—we can have those benefits in place.

Keep in mind, too, that under the new Veterans Charter, we don't have to have an entitlement to a disability award or a disability pension in order to start those benefits. They become quite immediately available.

While somebody is in that program, they are eligible for the earnings loss, which is 75% of their pre-release salary. Those benefits would start flowing to the veteran at that point.

A normal track would be that over a period of time—typically over a course of two years, although there is no fixed time limit on it—a person would rehabilitate. First they would stabilize medically, then they would deal with psycho-social issues, and then they would gain vocational rehabilitation—interventions they need to reintegrate. That assumes they're capable of reintegration. If they aren't, and they're permanently disabled, a decision has to be made by the rehabilitation professionals that they've helped them along as far as they're likely to go. At that point, then, they would become eligible for the ongoing long-term earnings loss that continues to age 65, and any other health benefits or supported benefits available to them.

There are very different scenarios, depending on the severity. For the most serious, we try to get in there as soon as we can and make the benefits available as soon as we can.

[Betty Hinton, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Thank you. That's fairly thorough.

How do you see the bill of rights supporting a veteran who is injured? I heard you say they have to go through the casualty report and then DND tries to redeploy them. I'm assuming you're talking about something like desk work or something that's not active service.

Having gone all this route, how do you see the bill of rights ensuring that this discharged veteran is getting everything he needs? What do you think has to be in the bill of rights to make certain that no one falls through the cracks?

[Brian Ferguson]

I'll take a crack, and Ken can add any comments he wishes.

I think the bill of rights would want to ensure that the expectation or outcomes from this process were well understood by the potential recipients of the service; so there would be a guarantee of some sort in the bill of rights that the services we're offering here would be exemplary, and that if those didn't meet a standard of exemplary service, there would be recourse available for that particular individual. I think it would fall into the general class of service standards that we've already developed, in my view, in our At Your Service brochure.

I think a bill of rights would really be an important complement to elevate the service understanding and to communicate it in the widest possible manner. As we've indicated in the past, we've introduced Salute! magazine to try to get better communications out across the country. This could very much add to that and improve the overall framework of communications.

[Betty Hinton, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

He hasn't cut me off yet, so I'll do this really quickly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

I was going to allow him to finish what he was going to say, but your time is up, Ms. Hinton.

Now over to Mr. Valley, for five minutes.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Thank you very much.

I'm not sure what you did to him before I got here, but he seems to be particularly testy today, so I'd better move on.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!