Public Accounts Committee on Nov. 27th, 2014

[Michael Ferguson]

We also identified that there were obstacles in the way of veterans trying to access the disability program that caused the decision about whether they were going to be able to access those services to take too long.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

In terms of the department's goal of 16 weeks, which is constantly used as a benchmark, can you tell me what that first 16 weeks really means? What does that mean to a veteran who is applying?

[Michael Ferguson]

Their standard under the disability program is to process 80% of the applications from veterans within a 16-week time period. We found that they were actually processing about 75% within that timeframe.

In terms of what it represents for the veteran, that's from the point in time that the veteran has been able to actually complete the application form. What we're raising in the audit is that actually, for the veteran, the clock starts earlier than that, if you will, because the veteran has to go through the process of actually getting the application form to a completed state, and what we found was that on average, that was taking an additional 16 weeks, an additional four months, if you will. So it's four months for the veteran to complete the application, and then four months for the department to process the application.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Sorry, Mr. Allen, the time has expired.

We'll go now to Mr. Albas.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

I just want to thank you, Auditor General, and your staff for being here today. I appreciate the work you do for Canadians, particularly the challenge function, making sure the government's moneys are being invested properly. It think it's something we all agree with.

I come from a riding in British Columbia, Okanagan—Coquihalla. I'm going to be focusing my comments on chapter 1.

Many agree that Canada should be doing as much or more abroad to help people; many in my riding think we should be focusing at home. But I think all of them would agree that whatever money is spent should be thoroughly reviewed to make sure there is value for money, so I appreciate the opportunity.

One of my questions, and I have several from this particular file, is on the audit scope, 36 projects. I believe that's less than 20% of the average total budget. Why did you select these particular projects? To me, each one would be almost an individual, completely different set of circumstances, for example, whether it is a matching program, whether we're working with the international Red Cross and Red Crescent, where in the world it is, whether it's a dynamic...an earthquake, or a drought.

Why choose these 36? What were the criteria?

[Michael Ferguson]

I'll ask Ms. Loschiuk to give you the details, but as I understand it, those were essentially the projects that happened in the time period we were looking at.

I'll ask her to give you the details.

[Wendy Loschiuk, Assistant Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada]

Mr. Chair, in terms of the projects we looked at, we picked our timeframe for the audit and we went back to determine what had been funded out of the international humanitarian assistance envelope, and these were the broad areas that the government funded. These were the crises that happened, so to speak, at that time. Within each of these eight, there was a total of 36 different projects that were funded in order to address the various needs that these represented.

Each of them is different. We didn't pick them to try to get coverage of any particular kind of crisis. We accepted the crisis for what it was and we looked at how the government responded.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Thank you.

With DFATD relying on the UN or the international Red Cross and Red Crescent in a large variety of humanitarian areas, how do you feel that your audits are indicative of being able to present a proper snapshot? There are so many different challenges and so many different partners on the ground.

[Michael Ferguson]

I think it's clear that any particular crisis that can happen can present its own challenges, but that's part of what the department has to do: react to all different types of circumstances.

What we were looking at here were the eight crises that actually happened in that time period. The types of things we were looking at included whether the department assesses the capacity of the partners it uses, regardless of who those are, and whether it determines the funding on the basis of need. The types of things we were looking at in that particular audit were things that you would expect them to do in any case. Was it timely? Were they meeting their objectives? Those overarching things would be what you would expect them to do in any set of circumstances.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Thank you for that.

DFATD does not necessarily have staff beyond maybe some staff at a Canadian embassy, if there is one close by, to be able to give on-the-ground support. In the report, you indicated that DFATD has to properly and systematically assess the capabilities of its partners in order to ascertain that they have the capacity to complete the proposed aid project. Is that correct?

[Michael Ferguson]

Yes. Capacity was one of the four criteria, essentially, that we looked at. It was an area in which we found the department was doing a good job of making sure that any organizations it was using as partners to react to a humanitarian crisis did in fact have the capacity to provide the services where they were needed.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

I will just go to page 5, paragraph 1.16, where it states:

Therefore, in August 2013, the Department began requiring NGOs to submit institutional profiles to confirm that they met all 10 requirements....

Could you explain what the 10 requirements are, as well as what's known as the fiduciary risk evaluation tools, just so the people back home can see your recommendations and what the department has been doing to make sure these things are being properly assessed?

[Michael Ferguson]

Again, I will ask Ms. Loschiuk to give us the detail of that part of the report.

[Wendy Loschiuk]

Thank you.

The fiduciary risk evaluation tool is an initial tool to make sure that the partner that the department is going to be working with is stable and has a reliable history both financially and regarding delivery. As well, regarding the minimum requirements to be considered to be a partner, there are 10 criteria and they like to assess potential partners to make sure they can rely on them going forward. Those criteria are basically broken into three areas.

There are four that fall under institutional stability. That means they are legally incorporated. They can address the requirements of Canada's anti-terrorism legislation. They are registered as a non-profit, etc. The other areas are financial criteria that they have to meet. They have audited financial statements. They can present those to DFATD, and they have demonstrated that they can manage at least $500,000 worth of aid at any one time.

Then in the last part, there are some criteria under humanitarian assistance. There they want them to demonstrate that they've operated in this field for five years, that they've done good conduct, that they understand the countries, that they understand Canada's ODA, and that they can operate and deliver according to the objectives we have for our humanitarian aid.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Your time has expired, way expired, but I wanted to allow a fulsome answer.

Moving along, Mr. Giguère, you now have the floor, sir.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank the Auditor General and his team for coming to present their report.

I would like to go back to paragraph 3.26. I see a problem here, because once the application has been completed, the Department of Veterans Affairs allows itself 16 weeks to examine the application and another 6 weeks to send out the card.

So that means 22 weeks to say “yes” and to send out the “yes” or “no”. Administratively speaking, that seems extremely long, because the application has been completed. I am ready to accept that the government—if we think about Canada Post—is not particularly efficient, but generally, Canada Post is still able to deliver a letter by mail within a week.

So it seems to me that 22 weeks to provide an answer to someone whose application is complete is a little too long. What do you think?

[Michael Ferguson]

Well, the standard is 16 weeks to provide a yes or no. Then of course there is the additional six weeks after, which you noted, in order to get the health card. The other thing we noted was that it takes the veteran an additional 16 weeks just to complete the application form. When you look at it from the point of the veteran, it is 16 weeks to complete an application form and then another 16 weeks to get an answer. Then the veterans have to find a health service provider to give them the service they are looking for.

Again, that is under the disability benefit program. When you look at the rehabilitation program, the access is much quicker, but there are fewer people in that program and it's looking at different types of needs.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

From a purely administrative perspective, these people give themselves 16 weeks to respond to applications. Perhaps that service needs a few vitamins? The application is complete: someone reads it and makes a decision, and then those people give themselves 16 weeks. Once they have decided on a response, be it positive or negative, they have six weeks to send out that response.

Are those delays not clearly unreasonable?

[Michael Ferguson]

I think we have quite clearly said that, in the disability benefit program, we feel it's just taking too long to get to those answers. In the report we've tried to outline some of the obstacles that the veterans face as they're trying to go through this process. For example, the application process is complex, hard for them to understand and be able to complete. It can still take up to four months to get information from National Defence or the Canadian Armed Forces about the medical records of that veteran while they were serving.

A number of obstacles still exist in this process that cause it to take more than eight months for 20% of the veterans. I think we have quite clearly said we feel that's too long.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

My second question is on the appeal procedures.

As you clearly indicated, the vast majority of people who appeal a negative decision receive a positive reply. That it what it says in paragraph 3.45 or 3.46. The problem is that sometimes when these decisions are overturned new elements are added to the file. So if you will, the file is completed following the decision.

For some work-related organizations, including the Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail, a file is not closed. Before a negative response is issued and the matter is appealed, the person who processed the file re-evaluates it. That avoids an administrative appeal procedure and the need to plead one's case before a higher authority.

Would it not be better for Veterans Affairs Canada to keep the files open, for the processing officer to review his decision himself to avoid an appeal, and to avoid making the administrative process even more cumbersome?

[Michael Ferguson]

I think what we have identified here overall is that Veterans Affairs needs to look at the whole process from beginning to end, including how it makes a decision about an application. The appeals process should also be part of what they review.

Fundamentally though, one of the things we've identified here is the fact that in a fairly significant number of cases where a veteran's application has been denied, that is overturned and the veteran does get access to the benefits. We feel there's an opportunity for the department to try to analyze what they are getting in that appeal process that is causing them to reverse their original denial, and is that something they could cover off in the original process so it doesn't get to a denial and then have to go through an appeal process.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Sorry, time has expired. That's good. I just caught that.

Mr. Woodworth, you now have the floor, sir.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

As always, my thanks to the Auditor General and his staff who are here today for their good work in analyzing and finding the gaps in our existing government service.

I want to add a special thanks too. I know the Auditor General will recall that from time to time I've offered suggestions about the media releases that accompany the reports of the Auditor General. I thought the media release that accompanies this report was excellent. I wouldn't have anything to add. I was very pleased to see it.

I will address all my questions to chapter 3, which is the chapter entitled “Mental Health Services for Veterans”. As always, I'll begin with the scope of the audit, which I found on page 23, which I understand to be “timely access to services and benefits for veterans with mental illness”. Am I reading that correctly?

[Michael Ferguson]

The scope—I'm just getting to the final part of it—was looking, yes, at timely access for veterans to mental health services.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Very good.

The place where I'd like to start is in relation to paragraph 3.20, which indicates that the rehabilitation program is one of two gateways through which veterans can access Veterans Affairs Canada mental health care support. I just want to make sure that I'm correctly understanding that you found that the rehabilitation program does allow veterans to access specialized mental health services.

Is that correct?