Veterans Affairs Committee on May 13th, 2010

[Jane Hicks]

In terms of the number of case-managed clients per case manager, at one stage it was a high number, as you have mentioned. There's been quite a bit of work in the last year or two to enhance the capacity. We've determined that an acceptable case load for this type of client is 40 to 60 clients per case manager, especially those with complex needs. There's work underway right now, and we've achieved it in a number of instances, whereby case managers only have that. We've reallocated work within offices or within regions so that case managers have much lower client bases.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Just so I'm very clear on what you've just said to me, you're telling me, then, that at one time it could have been as many as 600 to 800 cases for one case manager?

[Jane Hicks]

When we say that, we're speaking of all clients. That does not necessarily mean case-managed clients. We would have clients who, for example, would require no services. They might be getting a disability pension but would have no contact with the department other than that; they were fully functional. There would be some who would be survivors or widows. So it was the whole client base.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Just to interrupt, as a business description, I would call these active and inactive files.

[Jane Hicks]

Absolutely.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

So you're lumping inactive files with active files.

[Jane Hicks]

It was everything together.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

I guess the point, and I want some verification of it, is that this was an area that obviously needed some attention, and the department has given attention to reducing the case loads.

[Jane Hicks]

Absolutely.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Good.

Another area that has been brought up is the red tape area, the area of the forms you have brought today. I've previewed some of these. I know there has to be some degree of red tape and, I suppose, qualification documents and information provided, and they seem pretty straightforward to me. Then again, we've been hearing from certain people that this is an onerous task to ask some of these veterans to do. If they came to you with, let's say, this application for disability benefits form—I think it's about six pages—and said, “I'm really not able to get that completed”, would you offer them assistance to get it completed?

[Jane Hicks]

Absolutely. They have a choice of the types of assistance they would receive. They can call us, and a pension officer can assist them and walk them through the process. They could go to an office anywhere in the country and could visit with a pension officer or pension assistant who would assist them in completing that form. The Royal Canadian Legion also has legion service officers who provide assistance and prepare pension applications with members.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

At one point in time, some indications were given and some expressions voiced at this committee that certain veterans, when approaching Veterans Affairs, are not treated with respect and dignity. That's a pretty scathing comment, in my mind. It's been testified here; it's on the record.

This is directly opposite to what I experienced when I was at Veterans Affairs in Charlottetown. I was amazed at the amount of care and technique and strategy there was to give the veterans all the respect and dignity they deserved, as well as the benefit of the doubt in any matters that concerned borderline questions about whether there was a disability or not. In comparison with other models that I suppose are similar, I would say it erred on the side of generosity, and, as I said, granted respect and dignity.

What's your reaction to that comment having been made?

[Jane Hicks]

I'm disappointed, because as a former director of a district office, certainly if there are examples of that, we would deal with them very quickly, because we do bend over backwards to assist veterans. We recognize that veterans who come to us need our assistance. Some of them have very complex and very challenging issues, and we do what we can to assist them. Sometimes we have veterans who are very ill, who are very angry, and it's very difficult to work with them, so I can understand how some may have an impression such as that. But, again, we try to work with them and their providers and what not to ensure that they're getting the benefits and services they need.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Madam Hicks.

Thank you, Mr. McColeman.

It is now over to Mr. André for five minutes.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Good morning, everyone.

My question will deal with three different things. I will put them to you, and then you can answer. I will be quick because I do not have much time.

On one hand, you have a good assessment table for evaluating the needs of veterans, but the process has some grey areas. As you know full well, certain cases are contested. Some cases are contentious. Take, for example, someone who, 10 years after leaving the Canadian Forces, notices some back pain. He may not necessarily have undergone a medical evaluation while he was in the Canadian Forces. As you know, cases like that are typical. After some ten years, the person comes back and says that their back pain stems from something they did while on a Canadian Navy ship. That kind of case is contentious.

I would like to know the percentage of those cases. We are aware of certain cases in which the person has been fighting a long time for a disability pension. Now, they have to go up against the entire system to get a disability pension. Those are specific cases. What can be done to settle those cases. How do you assess them?

On the other hand, I want to talk about the lump sum payment and financial advice. As you know, prior to 2006, there used to be the monthly pension payable for life. The new charter sets out lump sum payments and a disability pension of 75%, which is a different amount. I am not sure whether you can give me a ballpark figure, but let's take the example of a 25-year-old who receives a payment of $260,000 and invests it according to the financial advice he gets. You know that there have been some serious complaints: in some cases, 22- and 23-year-olds had spent all their money after two or three years. I have a 21-year-old son, and I do not think I would hand over a large chuck of money to him at his age—let us be clear.

In cases where young people seek financial advice, how do you assess those amounts? With an estimated amount of $260,000, which is the maximum, how do you determine the specific income until the age of 65, for example? Also, would the person not have received a larger amount before 2006, as opposed to the lump sump assessment? I would like to hear your thoughts on that.

Furthermore, last week, we heard from an individual who had suffered from post-traumatic stress. What struck me—and I used to do case work—was the lack of support for natural caregivers, such as his spouse, as well as the lack of information. Obviously, it requires a certain level of confidentiality, an agreement, because the case is ongoing. That being said, there can still be an agreement with the client to at least provide more support to the natural caregiver, in other words, the wife living with the person suffering from post-traumatic stress.

I was also struck by some of the things she said: she had not had much contact with the Department of Veterans Affairs regarding the situation, she had not received much information and she felt as if she had been left out in the cold. And she had discovered that her husband was a bit different because of his mental health problem.

I would like you to answer those three questions, please.

[Brenda MacCormack]

I'll start, and I'll invite my colleagues, and hopefully I'll hit on some of the points that you're raising.

In terms of the first question, on individuals who leave the services, who perhaps didn't have an issue and didn't perhaps have medical evidence on the record, what we can do in terms of dealing with those cases now is we can absolutely offer them rehabilitation services. That's one piece that was not there before, where somebody left and they didn't have problems at the time—they perhaps didn't medically release. If that person comes forward now with a back condition, they will be eligible for the rehabilitation program. The eligibility gateway is quite generous in terms of recognizing types of conditions like back conditions that are occurring. We will immediately admit them into the rehabilitation program.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Is it automatic?

[Brenda MacCormack]

If they have a need and it's related to service.... In the case of backs, we know that in mental health conditions those kinds of musculoskeletal conditions will receive rehabilitation because we recognize that link with service. So we can right away begin to treat them, provide them with whatever they need in terms of medical treatment, whatever they might need in terms of social supports or tools to help them deal with their issue. Perhaps they're having a lot of pain; they need to have pain management skills.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

It can be an amount for disability, for example.

[Brenda MacCormack]

Pardon?

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

It can be an amount for disability.

[Brenda MacCormack]

What I'm talking about first is the rehabilitation program.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Excuse me, Madam MacCormack.

Mr. André, we're already at six minutes.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

The questions are kind of stacked, so I'm allowing the witnesses to finish. If we kick them along, we'll be okay.