Veterans Affairs Committee on May 6th, 2010

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

You are going to send me information about the time it takes to process files, aren't you? That is what I am trying to understand. Of 20,000 claims, you accept 75%. But there is a delay between a claim being submitted and being approved. Sometimes, there is disagreement on the percentage of a person's disability. The fact that a file is being processed does not mean that it is automatically approved. It is all very well to open the file, but it takes time for it to be approved. I would just like to know how much time is needed to approve a file. If a claim is submitted in 2007 and only approved in 2009, that is a long time.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Vincent.

His time has expired, but go ahead, please respond to the question.

[Debbie Gallant]

Just to clarify, you were asking initially about the favourable rate for first applications. In 2009-2010 the favourable rate was 73%.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you.

Mr. Kania, five minutes.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Through you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank my friend Mr. McColeman for his kind words. I have often given him the ultimate compliment that I can to a Conservative MP, which is to say he's really a Liberal. But I will tell you that over here, Mr. McColeman, we don't normally filibuster through our questions.

Going back to what Mr. McColeman mentioned, the disability award... Just so we're clear, I fully understand that there are other mechanisms to support a veteran who needs it. My concern was that we should be erring on the side of generosity to a veteran who has sustained a severe injury. When I read this example for the disability award of somebody with such a severe injury getting under the maximum, I was concerned. So you are going to look into that and report back whether that would be an actual example that would take place. I would hope that you would report back that somebody who had a spinal cord injury and was paralyzed would get the maximum.

In terms of the death benefit, you did mention that if somebody died on the 32nd day, there would be the same level of support because they would receive that money elsewhere within the overall system. But I'd like to get specific details from you with respect to that analysis. When you look at the death benefit of $250,000, it's tax-free, so they can take that and invest it. They don't have to buy an annuity, but they could buy an annuity. And if they did buy an annuity, they would then receive tax-free payments of roughly $15,000 a year from an insurance company, because all payments from insurance companies are tax-free.

Could you please provide exact details--whether you can do it now or write it up and table it another time--of how, if a veteran died on the 32nd day, their family would receive the equivalent of approximately $25,000 or $30,000 per year for life from this system, or otherwise how they would take that money and invest it for longevity? I'm not on this committee, so I can't give you the exact details. I am concerned by your answer, which was that somehow this would be replaced automatically through other mechanisms. I'd like to know if that's accurate. Just let us know how they would receive approximately $25,000 or $30,000 per year for life or how they would receive approximately $15,000 per year tax-free for life if they are a couple of days late under this system. Because if not, I think the system needs to be changed.

[Ken Miller]

Thank you for the question.

Just to clarify, whether it is the death benefit or the residual amount of the disability award, both payments are under the same program, the disability award program. The amount is the same for both, just to be clear. If it pays as a death benefit, it's $276,000. If it pays as a disability award to a survivor, it is $276,000. The amount is the same. It is not taxable under either scheme. The death benefit is intended for immediate death as a result of service. As you know, that was defined in the authority as a 30-day period.

The difference between the two is that the death benefit pays irrespective of any amounts that may have been paid to the veteran. Beyond the 30-day period, the same amount pays, and the family has the same opportunity to invest it. If they wish to invest it where they can receive an annuity, the same situation applies. The difference is that if the veteran had survived long enough to actually receive part of the disability award before death, the full amount doesn't pay. The residual amount pays. That's the difference between the two benefits.

In terms of the total amount that can go to the family at the time of death, it starts at the same amount, $276,000.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Given the factors I indicated, such as how much would be required for an annuity and the $15,000 in tax-free cash and all that, you're guaranteeing that if somebody dies any time after the 30-day period, they're still going to hold, whether they receive this death benefit or not, the exact same amount of money or compensation because of the overall system. Is that what you're guaranteeing?

[Ken Miller]

What I'm saying to you is that the total amount is the same. So if the veteran, before the 30 days, received an amount through a disability award, that amount, plus whatever amount it pays to the survivor, is the same as what the death benefit would be.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Okay.

On page 15 of this charter, they talk about the permanent impairment allowance and how very few receive it. It's difficult to get, and so on. Essentially, except for severe psychosis, it's all physical. My concern is that a lot of persons, in particular those coming back from Afghanistan, may not have a severe physical impairment but may have something that is either emotional or psychological that is so difficult for them that they can't work.

There are a number of veterans, for example, who essentially live in a Calgary shelter, because they either can't work or won't work. I think a lot of that is probably due to how they've come back mentally. My concern is that I see only one phraseology here for anything other than physical. I would like to know, especially when it's difficult, that veterans who have some emotional or psychological problems are going to be getting this. If it's too restrictive, I'd like it to be loosened so that they get the help.

I know that we don't have any time now, but maybe you can consider that and even table something for the committee, please.

[Anne-Marie Pellerin]

What was listed in the deck, for example, was that there are some other severe mental health impairments that are covered under the permanent impairment allowance legislation.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you very much.

Further to a question from one of the members, could you communicate to your colleagues that if they're going to be bringing several scenarios next week, could they e-mail them over in both official languages? Send them directly to the members of the committee so that they have some time to see them beforehand. Because of the complexity, they can question better if they have them beforehand.

Is that what you wanted, Mr. Vincent?

I'd like to thank you very much for your good work for veterans.

I'll confirm with the members that next week we have on May 11, provided the witnesses are available, Madame Méthot and Monsieur Leduc.

The meeting is adjourned.