Veterans Affairs Committee on April 29th, 2009

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I don't think I'm going to use my full five minutes, but I do have a couple of questions.

We're talking about reviewing the charter. The charter has been in place for three years and it is a living document. Could I get a little history on the charter, as somebody who is new to it? How long was your department in the planning process of putting the charter in place? How much time and work went into getting the charter ready?

[Darragh Mogan]

That's a fair question.

In terms of getting the evidence base for the conversion, as it were, from an entitlement to a needs-based or a wellness approach, we started the first studies in 1999. We did a study of the needs of Canadian Forces veterans themselves, and we asked them what their requirements were, and it was no surprise. We also began to look at what was happening with the anecdotal evidence and the increase in our pension claims and what the outcomes were for these individuals.

It became quite apparent when we started talking to the experts—and we had what was called a Canadian Forces Advisory Council, whose members were academics and practitioners. When we put the scenarios and the research we had gathered to them, they said, “Listen, you're inadvertently encouraging illness here with your sole response from a pension program. You don't mean to, and the veterans themselves don't mean to do that, but the only way you can create an income stream is to have more pension, so you get reassessed and get higher and higher rates, and what's happening is you're not investing early enough and you're not investing in wellness with a rehabilitation program.”

That's a summary version of where we went. That took about four and a half years of research to get the case to put to government. And all parties agreed with the evidence and all parties agreed with the response, which is very heartening for us. But there was quite a lead-up, in terms of research, in terms of getting the evidentiary base that justified the change and justified a rather large investment of almost $1 billion over five years in the front end.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Okay. So from 1999, five years of research and development, to 2005-2006, and then now this is where we are today. Okay.

Here's the second question. I'm looking at your chart on page 19, and I have just a couple of questions about the number of disability awards and applications.

The numbers we're seeing here are from three years of applications. Is that correct?

[Brenda MacCormack]

That's correct.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Okay.

And the 60% favourability, is that on the applications received?

[Brenda MacCormack]

That is on the applications where we have rendered decisions, so that would be on the 20,712, for example, on the disability awards.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Okay. So the pending, the 7,000 or just under, the 6,500, where decisions haven't been made, they're in the process of being—

[Brenda MacCormack]

They're in the process. They may have been withdrawn, but most of them would still be in some stage of process.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

How long would an individual be waiting for a decision?

[Brenda MacCormack]

It varies, depending on the nature of the claim. But we do have service standards, and for a disability claim the service standard is 24 weeks from the time of the application until completion of the decision.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Okay.

On the favourability rate of the application—the 40% of the applications that get turned down—do you have any statistics on those 40%? Are a number of them similar applications that are from similar veterans or veterans who are looking for a similar type of disability? Is there a chunk of those that are being turned down for a particular reason? I'm looking for just a little bit of in-depth to that 40%.

[Brenda MacCormack]

There are probably a number of reasons why they might be turned down. I think it's fair to say there are certain conditions that are more likely to be accepted than others, because we know there's more prevalence of those types of illnesses or disabilities coming out of the military context. The adjudication process itself is a quasi-judicial process, so I think it's fair to say it requires some due diligence. There is requirement to obtain the evidence and look at the evidence and make sure we're giving good service to those who are applying to the program.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Looking at the ones that are turned down, is there a chunk of them being turned down for a specific reason? Is there a glaring number there that are being rejected because they don't fit X, Y, or Z?

[Darragh Mogan]

Well, it could very well be this. There has to be a causal relationship to military service, so if that causal relationship can't be established from medical records and military service, it's more difficult to get an approval than if it were clear that you fell off a tank and broke your arm. So the 60% rate may not sound high, but it's higher than for most workers compensation and higher than for most of our colleagues in the U.S. and the U.K., because we have the benefit-of-the-doubt principle, which in law is the most generous principle you can have. The other is balance of probabilities, where you have to have more probabilities for yes than no.

So in terms of analyzing individual ones that have been turned down, it's principally the absence of associative evidence that it was related to military service. And it has to be.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Would it be possible to send to the committee some statistics on that 40%?

[Darragh Mogan]

Yes. We'll try to get you some information through the chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Perhaps you could break it down into the different categories.

Thank you, Mr. Mogan, and thank you, Mr. Andrews.

We need to move on to some committee business, but first I have a couple of questions myself.

Am I correct that you said 24 weeks was the service standard for a decision on an application?

[A witness]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Is that standard going to be reviewed in and of itself?

[Darragh Mogan]

Yes. We'd certainly like to shorten that from what it is, but it's down from 10 or 11 years ago, when it was 18 months. We had a very burdensome process, in my view, that we changed.

It's constantly under evaluation to ensure that when the medical evidence is clear, you have a report from a physician, you have an incident in the military, and you have the individual presenting, they should be dealt with very quickly. There are some obvious disabilities that are going to be related to military service--musculoskeletal and others--that shouldn't have the same level of attention and therefore take the same amount of time as others.

So that process is being undergone in our program management group.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Mogan, is this 24 weeks strictly for pension? It's not for other services, is it?

[Darragh Mogan]

No. The new Veterans Charter programs are meant to respond very quickly. You don't have to have a pension in your hand to get them. Early intervention is key, so we're looking at shortening those turnaround times. We haven't quite gotten there yet, but they're to be quite a bit shorter than 24 weeks.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

That's good to know about the differentiation, and about the diminishment of the time as well.

This will be just a simple question. It has to do with page 4 of your colour power-point presentation. I notice that on the projection side of the chart, there's a darkening of the lines. Is that simply the colour copier that went awry, or does that darkening of the lines mean anything?

[Darragh Mogan]

No, there's not a secret code there, Mr. Chair. We just ran out of ink.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Okay. I just thought maybe that was the probability of error or something like that.