Veterans Affairs Committee on May 6th, 2010

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Sure.

[Ken Miller]

Yes, okay.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

This individual has a spinal cord injury. He's paralyzed from the waist down. He gets $200,000, and it says that the maximum is $250,000, depending on the extent of the disability. Frankly, I'm shocked that somebody who has a spinal cord injury, who is paralyzed from the waist down and can't walk, gets below the maximum. And this is being used as an example of how this is working.

I don't understand, as well, and other people have mentioned this, the comparison to personal injury damage awards. I was a trial lawyer for many years before becoming an MP, and I don't understand how $200,000 in any way compensates somebody who has a spinal cord injury and can't walk.

It then says, as if this is a wonderful thing that can occur, that he can get financial independence by purchasing an annuity. But let's look at this realistically. He's going to purchase an annuity for $200,000, which will give him, based on a mental calculation, only $10,000 to $15,000 per year of income. I would like to know how it can be justified that a person in a wheelchair, who can't walk, because of serving our country, gets less than the maximum and then will be entitled to an annuity of approximately $10,000 to $15,000 a year, which would taxable, I assume. Sorry, if it is an annuity, it shouldn't be taxable if he's structured it properly. But how is that right?

[Ken Miller]

The lump sum is not taxable, by the way, just to clarify that point.

The amount that's paid is based on the extent of the disability. That is a requirement in law. It's based on a quasi-statutory document called a “table of disabilities”. Maybe the person who wrote this scenario was trying to estimate on the conservative side or the low side what the amount of the award would be. But I'd actually be surprised that for a spinal cord injury, something of that severity, it would not be at 100%. But recognize that there is a range of assessment of disability. At this amount, it would be about 80%.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

I'm going to ask you to look into this and report back to the committee. You would be surprised, and so would I, and so would everybody else here, I'm sure, that a person who's paralyzed wouldn't get the maximum. I'd like you to address that to see whether that's what would happen and report back.

As well, it says that for the death benefit, a person gets $250,000 if “killed while in service; or injured while in service and dies within 30 days of the injury”. Why is it within 30 days? What happens if they're hooked up to a life support machine in a hospital because of their injuries? Is the family expected to pull the plug within 30 days to make sure they get the income? Why is it like that? I think that should be changed. I'd like your views on that.

[Ken Miller]

Sure. Thank you for the question.

What happens after 30 days is that the benefit paid to the survivor is not the death benefit. It is either the full amount or the residual amount of the disability award that would have been paid to the veteran. The reason it was structured that way is because beyond a point of 30 days, the veteran could well have applied for the disability award and may have received a portion. What will happen is that either the full amount or a residual amount of the disability award will be paid to the survivor.

For example, if perhaps there was an injury, and 20% or 30% was paid to the veteran, and then some time later the veteran died from that actual condition, the residual amount would be paid to the survivors.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

If they die on the thirty-first day, is it right that the family no longer gets this $250,000 amount? Don't you think this should be considered or reviewed, and that maybe there should be some sort of medical requirement to tie the death, after 30 days, specifically to the injury? That can be done in personal injury litigation. Why would you cut somebody off, cut the family off, which has lost its bread winner, because it's the thirty-first day? It's not logical to me.

[Ken Miller]

I wouldn't accept your characterization that they're cut off when in fact...

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

But they don't get the $250,000.

[Ken Miller]

The same amount of the benefit pays, except it's part of the disability award not part of the survivor benefit.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

So you are going to say that if somebody dies on the thirty-second day, they will, in essence, get this $250,000 on a practical basis in some other manner, guaranteed?

[Ken Miller]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Kania, I'm sorry, I allowed you to wrap up and go over the five minutes. And I apologize for the pronunciation of your name when I introduced you.

Madam Sgro.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Kerr indicated at the beginning of the meeting about our commitment to look at the whole issue of the disability, etc.. Are we going to be looking at that after we complete the review of the charter? Just given the fact of the information coming out and the interest to all of us, which one should be done first?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Well, I would have to ask Mr. Kerr for some information on that. I believe his request was outside of the charter and was a disability benefit that was ordered by DND.

[Greg Kerr, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Thank you, Ms. Sgro.

I guess what I was saying is the charter view won't cover the issues that we heard from some of the witnesses that the disability pension is being treated as income, and why tax it--the tax-back issue. I thought it was incumbent on us to take that issue, to roll it together and present it in a way that we can get a proper review done. I don't think we can get it done under the context of the review of the charter itself.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

No, it's not under the charter legislation. So we'd be driving our analyst crazy again, on another point.

[Greg Kerr, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

We don't want to do that.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

He hasn't lost all his hair yet, so I thought he was doing quite well.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

I'm looking after that for him.

Mr. McColeman, for five minutes.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for coming here today.

I want to try to go down a couple of avenues. It's my understanding that my colleague across the floor, who I'm good friends with, through another committee--and I have travelled across the country with him looking into penitentiaries---brought up this brochure example. It's interesting that he would bring that up, because we've done an in-depth analysis, and he targets that one thing, and I'm not so sure that you've done the in-depth analysis. But are there not, on top of the individual who's paralyzed, a lot of other programs? If they are not employed, they get 75% of their wages, and if they are unemployable, that continues on, on top of the lump-sum payment. I think it was characterized that there was this lump-sum payment they had to live off for the rest of their lives, and I don't think that was very clear.

Secondly, there's all the other suite of services that help that individual become rehabilitated, get back into the workforce, which is the ultimate goal of the program. It is done not on a category basis, for everybody who is paralyzed; rather; it's done on that individual's situation. They might have one child, they may have six children--who knows? It's based on an individual analysis, and that's where I appreciate what you said in your opening statements, because it was clear that the cornerstone of the program is to offer a comprehensive set of programs that allow that individual to integrate back into as much normality of life as they can. It's based on that.

I've listened very closely to all the testimony that's come here. You've taken it on the nose big time from a lot of people at this committee--you probably know that, because you read a lot of the testimony--who advocate, quite frankly, to close down Charlottetown completely, it doesn't work.

I want to ask something relative to that. I think there are some issues. I'm not saying they don't exist. There are probably a lot of issues that have to be worked on. Nothing is perfect. But to characterize that our veterans are not being treated with respect and dignity... We went to Charlottetown and we viewed the operations and met the people there and met veterans who work in that operation. There is respect and dignity, I believe, from what I saw. Of course, they are showing MPs the best side possible that day, I'm sure. We've also had testimony to say that your front-line people are fantastic and treat us with great respect and dignity. There are some structural things we perhaps need to look at in revising this charter.

The spectrum of information that we've been getting--and I am leading to a question here, Mr. Chair--is broad and wide and diverse. It's healthy to have that discussion, but the insinuation that you are less than professional on that scale of respect and dignity... I don't think you should walk away from this committee today, from my point of view, with that observation.

I would like to lead back into that argument that we've heard, that for some reason there's such dysfunction because the operations are in Charlottetown and not in Ottawa. What are your views on that issue?

[Ken Miller]

The relocation to Charlottetown dates back to about 1984, when the full department actually made the move. It's a model that has worked very well over the years, in fact. Those of us who work there are required to travel to Ottawa more often, but it is a model that works. Today it is increasingly easy to do with video conferencing and the like.

Where we are located in relation to supporting our regional operations and in relation to supporting our district offices, and more importantly in relation to the work that we do to support our veterans in this country, I think is really not relevant. It happens very effectively in Charlottetown. My personal view is that we have a tremendously dedicated and talented team there to carry out work on behalf of veterans. I can tell you from my daily work experience, that's what happens every day in that office. I don't feel at all disadvantaged or less able to serve the needs of veterans because of the geographic location of our head office.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Miller and Mr. McColeman. That was a record preamble; there wasn't much I could do about it.

Mr. Stoffer, go ahead for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would agree with my colleague. I haven't met one DVA person yet in all the years I've been a member of Parliament who doesn't treat the veterans with respect and dignity.

The problem is the system: “You're 85 years old, now go apply for a benefit”, and they have to fill out the forms and appeal, and get a legal counsel and appeal, and go to VRAB and appeal. It's mind-boggling for people who have never done it. At my age, I could fight the system and maybe be successful or not if I had a personal issue. But for those who are disabled, those suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, and those who are elderly, it is quite a challenge to even attempt it. We know that many of them try for the first time, maybe are denied, and just say, “well, that's it”, and give up. That is most unfortunate. It's not you; it's the levels they have to get through. You had indicated earlier, sir, that within the mandate you have, to streamline that process and get rid of, as you said, the nonsense, would be greatly appreciated. I'm sure many veterans would appreciate that.

I have a couple of questions for you on the earnings loss benefit. If you're a lieutenant in the navy and you're medically released for something serious, you get 75% of your income at the salary you're earning at that time. But if you're a lieutenant in the navy, and say you served 11 years, there's a high probability that you were going up the ladder. You could have been a commander, a lieutenant commander, or even an admiral. You could even have been the Chief of Defence Staff, maybe. The problem is that 75% stays at the level you earned when you left. There's no allowance for the possibility that you might have made more of an income as you progressed down the road. I know that's not been taken into consideration, but that's one of the recommendations that we have received from various people. I'm just wondering if you could comment on that, if indeed you have heard that, and what you would think about that.

The second thing of course is that we had the old Pension Act system, and we have the new Veterans Charter. Now you've had that for almost four years. I think that's enough time to make a financial analysis of the benefits and the amount paid out under the new Veterans Charter compared to those under the old Pension Act. Has your department had an opportunity to compare the two in that regard in the overall dollar sense?

I have one last question for you, and this is about something outside the charter. Mr. Ferguson—Brian Ferguson's a great guy—has just announced that they're doing a survey involving 1,200 of the over 217,000 DVA clients. They're asking the 1,200 clients, “What do you think of DVA's services? Have they been done appropriately? What do you think of the staff?”, etc. It's a good thing to do. The problem is they're not asking people who are not clients of DVA, of whom there are twice as many as there are clients. They're not being asked their opinion of DVA. What do they think about being denied a pension plan? What do they think of taking months and months and months to get through the system? Mr. Ferguson had indicated to some people who asked him that they can't get hold of those people. My advice is, if you get a chance to speak to Mr. Ferguson, you can put it on the website. There are six major veterans organizations in the country representing 90% of the veterans. Ask them. It can be done through newspaper ads, through television, or whatever.

Every single veteran and/or their spouse should have the opportunity to comment on what they perceive are the services of DVA. Then I think you'll get a true reflection of where you may need some slight improvements or something. If you're talking only to people who get a benefit, obviously if I'm 85 years old, get VIP and get treated well, I love you guys. But if I'm 85 years old and was denied VIP and couldn't get the service, I'm not going to be very happy. If you want a careful analysis of how you're doing, I think you should ask both people to see what they think. If you're speaking to him, and he could do that, that would be great.

Thank you.

[Ken Miller]

I noted three questions. Thank you, Mr. Stoffer.

Maybe I'll start at the bottom and work up. I'll ask Anne-Marie to talk to you a little about outreach as well.

I accept the points you made. Obviously it's very important to have the views of not just veterans who are clients, but veterans who are not clients. There are various outreach strategies that Anne-Marie can speak to, but I'll leave that to her.

On the comparison between the disability pension and the disability award, one can make scenarios for ever and ever. There are many scenarios I could present to you that show very positive outcomes, and many of them are based on actual case examples where we've realized those outcomes. I could also present to you scenarios where, at least from the financial perspective, over the long term someone would appear to be better off under the old program, and we acknowledge that.

You had testimony before that in some measure the new Veterans Charter is a recalibration of how money is used. It follows the philosophy that those with greater need should get greater support. So are there areas where someone might get less money? If it's the money you're focused on, absolutely, and I'd be happy to share those scenarios with you.

Next week our colleagues are coming with scenarios, and I encourage you to take the opportunity to ask them to walk you through them, because I think scenarios can be a very good way of getting some useful information.

You made the point on career progression. You're quite right that the earnings loss program does not factor that in, as I acknowledged earlier. In some measure the permanent impairment allowance does, although somewhat indirectly. It makes certain assumptions, it assumes there will be some impacts, and it provides a level of money based on sort of functional levels the individual may have.

I'd like to share with you--and certain of our advisory forums have shared this sort of information with us--that there are models out there one can look at and compare, where career progression is a factor. Now it's not within our authority, so there is an implication to that. But those models do exist. We know, for example, that the Canadian Forces can tell you what an average career progression would be. Everybody is not going to be the CDS, but typically if people start at a certain level and they're in it for a career, they will rise to a certain level. So there is information available that you can consider if you wish. But my point is that it is not within the authority we have today.