Veterans Affairs Committee on May 6th, 2010

[Ken Miller]

There certainly is. Debbie may wish to add to this as well.

I think what's important to point out is that the legislation requires that when we provide either a disability pension or a disability award, the decision to do so be based on evidence. There's a scope of evidence or a range of evidence that we can accept and do accept, and it's not all singularly direct evidence like an injury report. There are other types of evidence that are very credible that we can and must look at and accept.

Often that is the problem. You're pointing out something that is real. Sometimes many years later it can be hard to find the evidentiary basis. Whenever we can, we certainly look for that and try to support the client, and make the decision. Yes, there certainly are many cases.

There is a situation in which we typically will see what we like to call the late onset or recurrence of a condition. This situation has particular applicability in the new Veterans Charter. It relates to the fact that the door remains open on rehabilitation, and by extension the door also remains open on the earnings loss benefit.

When somebody has had an injury--maybe it was a physical injury, an injured back, for instance--and has in the early years gone through rehabilitation and done quite well and carried on with life, and many years later, 15 or 20 years later, has had osteoarthritis set in and they can no longer do it, there's a very clear evidentiary trail that this was connected to service.

We can and do make those connections and re-entitle people. Now we're in the early days of the new Veterans Charter, so we haven't had that passage of time yet. It certainly provides for that. We are always seeing applications from our traditional older veterans today based on injuries or exposures they had, and those decisions are made as well.

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

I appreciate that on the medical side. I'm focusing more on the psychological side. There's no physical injury; it's a psychological injury, and now they're claiming something happened to them 30 years ago. They're feeling the effects of it now, and they're having difficulty trying to prove that through DVA.

My last question for you, sir, is whether you have had a chance to read the testimony of Major Bruce Henwood.

[Ken Miller]

Yes, I have.

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

As you know, he was quite critical of the department. You said--and it's true--the Veterans Charter is needs-based. I agree with that. The problem is--and I don't know whether it's communication from DVA or what--there are an awful lot of veterans who think the needs-based system is based on what's good for the department, not necessarily what's good for the veterans.

We know there are many veterans who get fine quality care from DVA at all levels, but there are just as many veterans who are equally frustrated with the delays, the bureaucracy they have to fight through, the forms they have to fill out, etc.

I would just say in conclusion that I know the department is filled with quality people, but somehow you have to be able to reverse that thinking process of veterans that even if they're turned down, the fact that DVA had their best interest at heart... And it's all based on this, because there is a perception out there that it's needs-based on what's best for the department, not what's best for the veteran.

This is what I've been hearing on the street.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Stoffer.

Do you want to respond to that to wrap up?

[Ken Miller]

I have a very brief comment, if I could, Mr. Chair.

I wouldn't agree on your closing point, Mr. Stoffer, but the point you make certainly has some validity to it; in some cases we do have more processes around certain things than optimally we ought to have. It is certainly something we strive to improve.

You may be aware that our department is working on something called “a concept of operations”--our colleague Mr. Hillier spoke recently to the Senate subcommittee about this--and it is about streamlining and simplifying and taking some of the nonsense, if you will, out of some of that process, wherever we can. There are certain legal requirements that we have to maintain. We are a department of government and we have to be accountable around our authorities. But where we can make it simpler, where we can streamline, where we can get rid of the sort of thing that doesn't add value, believe me, we want to do that.

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

Very good. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Miller.

Now I have Mr. Kerr, for seven minutes.

[Greg Kerr, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Welcome. It's a pleasure to have you here today.

I'm going to do some general stuff; my colleagues will ask some specifics.

As you know, we're doing part of the Veterans Charter review as a committee, and either fortunately or unfortunately, the witnesses we tend to hear from are rather critical. I know this is a complicated, frustrating process for everybody, but I want to get into the bigger picture stuff.

I'm absolutely convinced that if we could only put up some interesting wall charts to show what the success rates are, where the failures are, that overall a lot of this is working better than we're hearing. What we hear is where things aren't working, and it colours the picture a bit. I'm not trying to say the world is great; I'm simply saying we tend to hear a lot more about the negative than the positive. As an example, witnesses have said very clearly, “Life was so much better before the charter; if we were only back to the old pension system”...and so on.

Can you give us a comparison, in a general sense, of what we would be missing had the charter not started? I'm not looking for specific individual things as much as what the charter responded to that wasn't there before. We have to really get into that.

[Ken Miller]

There are a lot of important points there, and I touched on a couple of factors in my opening comments.

Perhaps it is easy at this point to look back and think that somehow it was better, but at the time we were designing the new Veterans Charter that was certainly not the case. A lot of work had gone into the up-front research. We had undertaken studies through things such as the review of the care needs of veterans, which led to an extremely comprehensive look at the existing programs through the Veterans Affairs and Canadian Forces advisory group. There were many experts involved--experts in disability management--who looked at it.

What we were seeing with the pension program at the time was that expenditures were going up. It wasn't that the expenditures were increasing that was so troublesome; it was that they were increasing without a corresponding increase in the outcomes that clients were having. In other words, the Government of Canada was spending the money through that program and clients were not succeeding. They were falling through the cracks. We were hearing that the pension program simply did not provide adequate support. It was not needs-based, so there was not a strong correlation between the needs the individual had and the level of support provided; it was provided irrespective of that.

We also recognized, as I mentioned earlier, that it was a gateway program. Historically it had taken up to two years in the past--we're much better than that now, I'm glad to report--to actually rule on disability pensions. While that was happening individuals had no availability for support from Veterans Affairs. Because it was the gateway, they had to have that eligibility before we could provide anything else. Well, we knew from a disability management point of view that the further out people are the more lost opportunity there is for people to actually recover.

In relation to that, I also want to point out that people were very much focused, understandably, on their disabilities. They were focused on that because they didn't have enough support, and the only way they could get more support out of the system was to demonstrate they were more disabled. What experts in disability management said was that they needed to focus on getting better, not on the disability and on how unwell they are.

So that is some of the backdrop that I think is very important to understand. I've stressed, and I'll stress again, that the approach is needs-based. It provides the right level of support at the point in time it is needed. But it provides support not just in a different way, but to a broader audience. One of the audiences that was a real gap group were the individuals who had been released some years ago and were still dealing with issues--or will deal with issues into the future--and there was no support for them. That was a very significant and major piece. There was inadequate support for the survivors. With the new death benefit plus the provision of the EL to survivors of CF veterans, that's a substantial piece of support.

There are many things, but I would point those few out to you.

[Greg Kerr, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

That's a segue to where I want to go next. I assume that you're saying... And we fully understand it's not the professional staff who have to look at the changes, it's the ministerial and political level that has to take it and move it on to the next step. That's partly why we're involved the way we are.

I'm going to take it as advice from you that moving back from the charter to days before would be a very aggressive direction in which to go. If that's the case, we know that there are a number of recommendations before government, before the minister and so on... And I think, and I'm saying this as an individual, probably if we're focusing on those particularly... I think there were 16 committee recommendations that were the top ones. If we were to focus on those, would you sense there would be quite an improvement in the issues and the problems we're facing today? I don't expect a political, governmental answer, but do you think from a system perspective that those recommendations would make quite a difference in the way things are going?

[Ken Miller]

Yes, I do. Those recommendations have been made by individuals who are very able to make recommendations. They're very complementary to observations that have been shared with the department from veterans and from veterans organizations. I certainly would recommend that the committee consider very seriously those sorts of recommendations that come to you.

I think it's important to point out that at the time five years ago when the new Veterans Charter was passed, it was well acknowledged that this was not a perfect solution; it was a very good foundation. It laid the groundwork for the basis of how we should approach the management of disability in the future.

So I would certainly encourage you to recognize, as I believe very firmly myself, that the foundation pieces are right, that they were based on the right ideas. They continue to be based on the right ideas, but we do recognize and we hear from advisory fora and from individual clients that while it serves the needs of many of our clients extremely well, there are some areas where it doesn't do quite as well.

[Greg Kerr, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Do I have a little more time?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

No, that's it, Mr. Kerr; I'm sorry.

Thank you, Mr. Miller.

That concludes our first round. I'll go to the second round, five minutes, with the Liberal Party.

Madam Crombie.

[Bonnie Crombie, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to continue on where Mr. Stoffer left off.

We had a number of witnesses, elderly vets, who were very frustrated with the level of services they received from the Department of Veterans Affairs that were less than optimal. Often they were frustrated that they weren't in French, and they were struggling along. In fact they called them business decisions that had been made rather than compassionate decisions--not on an individualized basis. As a result, many decisions are overturned or reversed, but the time is spent and people are frustrated.

I ask you if we can't find a way to treat our veterans with more respect and dignity.

[Anne-Marie Pellerin]

You're talking specifically about older veterans? For most of the older veterans, they would obviously come into the department or be connected with the department through the pension program. We strive, through both our 33 district offices and our contact centre, to provide information and support to them as needed. There's considerable case management and follow-up with individual veterans.

We talked a little earlier about some of the red tape, the bureaucracy in terms of processing, whether it's pension applications or treatment benefit types of claims that do come in. There's considerable work being done in the department, through this concept of operations that Ken referenced earlier, to strip out as much of that bureaucracy so that we can get the work done, the decisions made, and communicated to the clients as effectively and quickly as possible--

[Bonnie Crombie, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Okay, thank you.

I think this is an opportunity for improvement, perhaps, so maybe you can review the testimony that had been made and take it very seriously.

I'd just like to move on as well. We also had a presentation by the charter advisory group. Are you familiar with the new Veterans Charter advisory group? They comment in their report that the disability award given to veterans to compensate for non-economic losses is significantly lower than the amount awarded by the Canadian courts for personal injury claims. So why would it be that the disability award would be lower than the amount awarded by the courts for similar injuries?

[Ken Miller]

There are a variety of reasons. At the time when the design work was being done we obviously looked at a number of models and asked what the right amount was. One could debate what the right amount is.

I can tell you what some of the comparables were. We looked at workers' compensation boards, and the amounts where they are applicable tend to be significantly lower. We did look at the courts for the awards that are made there, and at the time--I would stand to be corrected--if memory serves, I believe it was around $276,000, so a bit above the $250,000 where we started. I think the current rate is around $326,000. Again I would stand to be corrected on that.

So we're a bit below where the courts stand. We are exactly where some other federal government programs were, including SISIP, which paid out $250,000 at the time.

So it was simply decided that was a middle-of-the-road, acceptable, and appropriate amount.

[Bonnie Crombie, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Thank you.

Have you released any financial evaluations comparing the advantages of the new charter with what the Pension Act provided? My concern is that the newer vets won't be as well taken care of as the older ones who received the Pension Act benefits. I'm concerned that you've established two tiers of veterans and benefits--the older and the newer.

[Ken Miller]

We have not released any financial comparisons at this point, but as I mentioned to the chair, there is a formal evaluation happening within the department right now. Phase one of that evaluation has already been published and is public. Phases two and three will be out later this year. I think the final one will be in December, and it will look at some financial comparisons.

Making financial comparisons can be a bit of a misleading thing to do. There has certainly been a tendency to follow the dollars and look at how much one might have received under the old Pension Act compared to the new approach. Comparing total amounts over a lifetime really doesn't prove very much, except that the new approach is different from the old approach.

[Bonnie Crombie, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

We've heard a lot of frustration with the new approach, and I would ask that you table with the committee the findings of the report when it's finalized.

[Ken Miller]

Yes.

I think it is very important to make those financial comparisons based on the period of time over which the person has the need. In other words, if the need is for a three-year period while they're in rehabilitation, look at how well supported they are over that period of need. Comparing how much money they get over a lifetime simply demonstrates that the new program is different from the old. Of course it is; it was designed to be different. So what you're comparing is important.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Miller.

Thank you, Madam Crombie.

Mr. Miller, germane to this question, you said that you're in the first phase and it's public, and then there'll be phase two and phase three. Will your report actually focus on when the moneys were paid out? You talked about the very critical analysis of how close the money follows the need, so will there be a comparison of that?

[Ken Miller]

My understanding is that the evaluation will look at it in terms of total money. That is a question and a criticism that has been raised by many, so it's fair to present that information and make it available. But the other point of comparison will be related to specific timeframes. That's my expectation.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Okay, that's great.

Now we'll go to Mr. Lobb for five minutes.