Veterans Affairs Committee on May 6th, 2010

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Many of my colleagues today have touched on the lump-sum benefit for pain and suffering. Within the mandate of the lump-sum benefit, is there any opportunity to change the way it's delivered or paid out? Can it be paid out over ten years or five years?

[Ken Miller]

It can't be done within the existing authority. It is defined in law.

You're probably aware that our minister in earlier testimony indicated—and I believe it was to this committee—that he would be very happy to hear your observations or suggestions around that, and he would be prepared to entertain that. But we are talking about an authority issue, so that has certain implications.

From a theoretical model point of view one could talk about different ways in which payments could be made. Some witnesses have spoken to you--and they've been in various reports we've received--about such ideas as structured settlements, where payments could be made over a period of time, etc. So the committee may wish to entertain things like that, but I just want to stress that the authority for the lump-sum payment as it's presently structured is in law.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Okay.

To follow up on that point—and pardon me if I've misunderstood any of our witnesses-—it seemed to me that a number of witnesses might have been confused about how it worked. They seemed to feel that they would receive a lump sum from Veterans Affairs, and that would be it. I'm sure if you read the testimony you saw that in more than one example. We know that isn't the case.

Where is the disconnect with some of the people who are doing good, hard work lobbying on behalf of veterans, but somehow missing the point there? Is it part of a communication issue at Veterans Affairs? Where is this issue coming from?

[Ken Miller]

It is an issue. We recognize that. I think you are right to point out that communications could be part of that. My colleague Anne-Marie may wish to speak to that in more detail. We have certainly undertaken many efforts to try to clarify that communication, but there continues to be a lot of focus on the disability award specifically, and it tends to be viewed in the light of being a one-time payment and then that is it: you spend it, it's gone, and the support is over. In fact, the opposite of that is the truth, and the opposite of that is what the design of what the new Veterans Charter was all about. It was designed to be there, built on a philosophy of the support being available to you when you need it.

The notion around the one-time lump sum and the payment up front was, to the extent that it is possible, that it allows a veteran to accept that the injury has been recognized. That recognition has been provided. There has been some level of compensation provided. You can't undo it. If they have lost their legs, you can't put them back, and there is no amount of money that is going to really compensate them for that loss, but that is the intent of that program. It's an entitlement-based provision of money. Everything else in the new Veterans Charter is needs-based, and that support is there, and it's there indefinitely.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

I have one final quick question and suggestion. I would strongly encourage Veterans Affairs to begin to communicate that from coast to coast, because, from the testimony I have heard, I think there is a major disconnect.

My last question is whether you could just elaborate on whether you have any metrics or targets set for the delivery of some of the new services, because certainly from what we have heard today, you feel as though the suite of programs is at least acceptable and could be improved upon, but maybe need to be delivered in a more rapid manner. Are there any targets that we could see coming out of this year?

[Anne-Marie Pellerin]

If we talk about the treatment benefit program as one example, this past fiscal year we took all of the processing out of the department, and it is with our contractor, Medavie Blue Cross at the moment. So it was part of what was originally in the contract, but it enables the contractor to process those claims much more quickly than we were able to do within the department.

Just this week we have delegated decision-making authority, with the proper financial instruments, that previously had centred or rested with head office for certain categories of benefits, so that the case managers at the front line can make those decisions and make them much more rapidly. So the client winds up getting the benefit in a much more timely fashion than has been the case previously.

[Ken Miller]

That's a really important point, and I would like to reinforce that a bit. In a needs-based approach, having the decision made as close to the client as possible is really critical, because they are the people who know the client, know the issues, are familiar with the medical reports, and so on. We're very much in a transitional phase of moving to that. You can't do it overnight, but we are making very good progress there. Our ADM responsible for client services and commemoration, Mr. Hillier, has spoken about his concept of operations. One of the key features is, over time, to adjust where we have people located in relation to where the service demand and need are. With the increasing number of Canadian Forces clients and at the same time a declining number of traditional veterans clients, we really have to balance where we have those points of service, to increasingly have them at places where there are CF veterans, such as on bases. So that is something that is happening on a long-term basis.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Miller and Mr. Lobb.

We now move on to Mr. Vincent for five minutes.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Let me be more specific. Mr. Kerr raised a very pertinent question, but I do not think he got an answer. Let me give you a real case. A person is injured and loses, say, both legs. That gets him a disability award of 100%. If that person had been injured before 2004, that is, before the New Veterans Charter came into effect, he would have received $5,400 per month. Under the new charter, the person receives a lump sum of $265,000, plus a pension of between $1,100 and $1,200 per month. Is that more or less how the old charter compares to the new one?

[Ken Miller]

Such an individual with a double leg amputation would unquestionably be assessed at 100% disability under both the old approach and the new approach. Under the former disability pension it would result in a monthly pension payment of approximately $2,500 a month for a single rate. Additional amounts would be paid if that person were married or had dependants. They would also very likely qualify for attendants allowance and exceptional incapacity allowance.

Under the new Veterans Charter the individual would receive a lump-sum amount of $276,000. The amount of EL received would vary depending on the income they had at the time of release. As I mentioned earlier, it would be 75% of their income. They would also unquestionably qualify for the permanent impairment allowance I mentioned. A double leg amputation--I stand to be corrected--would pay at the higher grade level of approximately $1,600 plus other supports, medical supports, and so on. That's basically your comparability.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Okay. If we stay with the same example, this master corporal received $5,400 under the old charter, but under the new one, he would get $1,600 per month, which is a difference of $3,800 per month. That is a big difference, even if you add in the lump sum payment of $267,000 or so. If you spread it out over 35 years—the person has 35 years before his pension if he is 30 years old—that is not a lot. We are a long way from a reasonable standard of living.

It must be said that these payments are made if the person's claim is accepted. The problem of getting the claim accepted still remains. Generally speaking, what proportion of these claims is accepted? How many of them do you contest? How long can it take for a person's file to make the rounds of the system before it is acknowledged that he was injured? I can offer you the Nicolas Magnan case as an example; he has now been waiting for 28 months after being injured and his case is still not resolved. He is still appealing it.

It is all very well to have a doctor telling someone that his two ankles are no longer working, that they will never work again and that they are going to remain rigid. But the file takes three or four years to make the rounds of the system before the injury is acknowledged. What does the person live on in the meantime? Why is it so difficult to get these claims approved?

You said earlier that it was because of government legislation. But it is not the government that processes claims from veterans, it is the officials from this department.

[Ken Miller]

If the situation is such that there is a service-related injury and the evidence required to demonstrate the connection to service is there, it simply should not take that long. And I concede your point that if it does, then we have to do better about making sure that is not the case.

I would point out that where either a disability award or a disability pension is concerned, it is an evidentiary-based process and there has to be evidence. While we may try to simplify and streamline, it does take a certain amount of time.

It was an important design consideration of the new Veterans Charter that we recognized that the disability compensation part of the process took time. Recognizing that, we didn't want to see delays in the onset of rehabilitation and treatment for the client, or for that matter, economic support while they were going through rehabilitation.

This is critically important to the question you raise. When somebody in that situation has an application before the department for a disability award, while it is being processed it is still possible for them to access the support they need under the rehabilitation program and receive the earnings loss benefit. It was designed that way deliberately. It was designed with a softer threshold of evidence. It's a fairly strong threshold of evidence for a disability award because it is evidentiary-based.

For the rehabilitation program, it's more a question of probability. Is it reasonable that the injury the person is presenting with came out of service? If the answer is yes, then the response is that they're eligible. That is demonstrated quite strongly if you look at our approval rates for rehab today. Approximately 96% are approved for rehab and accepted into the program, and that treatment is started instantly. So that's really what's important here.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you very much.

Now we're on to Mr. Mayes for five minutes.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here. I really do appreciate the challenges you have in your jobs. To try to put a value on compensation for those who have served is very difficult. Just to determine, for instance, the potential earnings of a veteran, and what kind of compensation a veteran should have for a personal injury, is really difficult, because there are a lot of variables there.

I'm not really a big fan of your term “financial compensation”, because that is almost as though you're measuring it, and you can't do that. There are too many variables. I like “financial settlement”, because it's actually an agreement between the client and the Government of Canada to say they're settling on this amount because they feel it is reasonable compensation for those injuries.

It's also about financial care. It's a dual approach. It's financial care and a financial settlement. I think there are two different issues here. I really like the department's needs-based approach. You're going to work with the veteran over a long period of time. I guess the issue really is what is reasonable as far as that settlement goes and then as far as the care goes. You mentioned the need to measure that care and that settlement so they don't deter the veteran from trying to seek other employment or from being able to rehabilitate both physically and mentally to adjust to their challenges.

Do you feel there has ever been a time when the department has taken the position that there was only so much money to go around, so a veteran would just have to accept a particular settlement, and that the settlements would have to be kept down? Or have you felt that as a department you've dealt with this fairly and that there has never been any pressure from the minister or the government to say there's a limit to the money? There is a limit to the money, we know, but have you ever felt that has been a challenge?

[Ken Miller]

I think that's an important point, because the statute is a statutory guarantee, and the funding for it is through quasi-statutory allotments the government provides. Of course, the department has budgets, but we are required by law to provide for the benefits the clients are eligible for as assessed under that statute. So there is no limitation applied to us. When a veteran is eligible, we have to use the appropriate approaches, of course, with government to secure the appropriate level of funding. But we are absolutely not limited when there is a statutory guarantee to provide those benefits. This is one of the real values of the program.

I should point out to you that there have been a lot of comments about the notion of cost-saving, and it is a theoretical notion at best, because the statute says that regardless of how many veterans there are or how seriously they may be injured in the future, they have that statutory guarantee that the support will be there into the future.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

I really do appreciate the answer, because you're absolutely correct that there have been some questions and suggestions about the department trying to save money and cutting back on veterans' benefits and the ability to meet those needs of veterans. Quite frankly, I'm a little offended by those types of questions, because I really do believe you are concerned for veterans, and you're representing the Government of Canada, the people of this nation, who are really thankful that we do have those men and women who serve our country and protect our freedom.

So I just wanted to make clear that it's not a situation in which the department has a mandate to administer a department under a budget and make sure that they meet that budget. I think that's an important message that the veterans and the public need to hear.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Mayes.

We'll now move on to Mr. Kania, for five minutes.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Miller, do you have this book?

[Ken Miller]

I'm familiar with it.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Do you have a copy?

[Ken Miller]

I do not have one with me.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

If I give you one, will you look at page four, please?

There's an example, a case scenario, the second one. This deals with a person by the name of Antonio. Have you read this before?

[Ken Miller]

I did some time ago. I'm not immediately familiar with it, but yes.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

We can go through it. It talks about an Antonio, who joined the forces right out of high school. He suffered a service-related spinal cord injury, which paralyzed him from the waist down. It talks about what happens to him.

I'll give you an opportunity to look through this before I ask you my questions. I will point out, though, that obviously, in this particular book, it's showing this as a positive example of how this is apparently working. Otherwise, they wouldn't put in this example, I would assume.

Have you gone through it?

[Ken Miller]

No, just give me a moment, please.