Veterans Affairs Committee on March 16th, 2010

[Brenda MacCormack]

They would, yes. They would be considered a Canadian Forces veteran.

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

You said here in the third paragraph that the corporal--the serious one--gets SISIP long-term earnings until 65. What happens after 65?

[Brenda MacCormack]

At age 65, they would have the access to the supplementary retirement benefit, which is 2%. They would continue to receive the permanent impairment allowance for life. That doesn't end at age 65. At that point, they would have access to other government programs, and if they were in a low-income situation, there is a Canadian Forces income support program that guarantees a basic standard of living.

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

Is it fair to say, though, that in most cases they would end up losing money when they turn 65?

[Brenda MacCormack]

At age 65, they would have a continued stream into the future.

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

The money that they're getting at age 64 would not be the same as at age 65?

[Brenda MacCormack]

You were correct. They would not continue to receive the earnings loss benefit.

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

Is it fair to say that in most cases that money would be less?

[Brenda MacCormack]

They would have access to other government programs.

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

I realize that, but we're talking right now. We're dealing with these people all the time. Age 65 is when they need the money the most. They shouldn't be receiving less than what they got at age 64. Our records and our evidence consistently shows that when they turn 65, they lose money. That's wrong. That's one of the flaws that we have in the new Veterans Charter. I just wanted to let you know that.

The other one that we have is.... The Veterans Charter is unquestionably a vast improvement from what was there before. There is no question that there are holes and gaps, and between this committee and other groups, we are looking at the holes. I'm glad to see that the department is doing it as well.

One of the biggest problems, though, is if you're a reservist and you've served six years and you're out, and then ten years later you decide that your back is really sore and you should make a claim. But if you cannot prove that there's medical evidence on your file showing that your back was injured while you were in service, it's very difficult to access this because the benefit of the doubt is extremely difficult to prove. This is one of the biggest challenges that we're having.

A lot of them don't like to be called sick-bay rangers, and they'll “suck it up buttercup“ and move on. Yet, a year or two or three later.... Maybe their post-tramautic stress will kick in later. As you know, it can happen years later. But if they can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that indeed this happened because of their service.... And this is where they get frustrated, because all of a sudden their word is being questioned, the benefit of the doubt is not being applied.

So I'd like your suggestion of what I should tell them when reservists or people of that nature leave the military—not on medical grounds, but just leave—and then a few years later they try to make an application for it and are turned down repeatedly because they can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that their current concern had something to do with their military service. What advice can you give me to tell them?

[Bernard Butler]

On two fronts, I think what you're referring to, Mr. Stoffer, is certainly the issue around eligibility for a disability award. In that context, the benefit of the doubt is in fact enshrined in the legislation. Favourable rates for these awards at the moment I believe are in the 70% range. More are certainly acknowledged than not.

In terms of advice to give to the member, it's the very same advice we give them all the time. We say that it helps a great deal if you can ensure that an injury is documented. If it's not documented, it's not the end of the story by any means. But it's a matter of simply trying to put together some evidence to show that in fact there was a service-related injury and that injury has caused a disability.

I appreciate the frustration you're referring to from some clients and members because for whatever reason that evidence may simply not be there. But the benefit of the doubt is real and applied, and there is certainly always recourse, either through departmental reviews or on to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board. That would be my advice, that it's never a situation where an individual should give up or not pursue a claim.

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

Well, Mr. Butler, I just wanted to let you know, in conclusion, that I have sent I don't how many files on to DVA over the years, and I have yet to see the benefit of the doubt applied on any case that I have sent in. I have asked for it, and I have yet to see it done on things I have sent forward.

[Brenda MacCormack]

If I could, I'll just put one other comment on the record in terms of the scenario you raised, Mr. Stoffer. The beauty of these new programs, or particularly the programs under the new Veterans Charter and the rehabilitation program in particular, is that the eligibility test to access rehabilitation is a very--I don't want to say light test--generous test. We have a very high favourable rate, so these people can access rehabilitation services. They can access medical, psycho-social, vocational rehabilitation, and the associated monthly earnings loss stream that comes with that, to assist them to get back on their feet.

So we're not just in a scenario where we only have the disability pension to help people. Under the new Veterans Charter, we have a significant number of new tools.

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

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

We'll now move on to Mr. Kerr for seven minutes.

[Greg Kerr, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Thank you very much.

Welcome to Ms. MacCormack and Mr. Butler.

I want to get into part of the transition DND and Veterans Affairs activities. That's where it seems to need a lot of additional work.

I want to start with the point Mr. André mentioned about the lump sum. I think it's fair to say we're all picking up more information on that as being problematic. Family members will say that due to their condition, age, or whatever, perhaps they didn't fully understand the implications of receiving a large cheque at one time.

I guess my comment and question would be fairly similar. Are you noticing any additional impact or inquiry in that way? If so, what kind of additional advice or caution will be looked at in that regard? That's my first question.

[Bernard Butler]

We are certainly sensitive to it as an issue. We've had preliminary contact with a number of veterans who received significant amounts of $125,000 or more. The initial feedback we're getting from those contacts is that the majority of these clients or members do seek out financial advice. They have managed the amounts quite appropriately in their particular circumstances, although we are very sensitive to the fact that the issue is recurring in the public forums out there.

A number of considerations are possible. From our perspective it's important to keep in mind that a few of the underlying principles of the award are self-determination and self-choice. They are basically fundamental democratic values that we as Canadians respect.

From a practical point of view, our strategy at the moment is to try to better understand where these cases may be where the funds are not being used as appropriately, from a community perspective, as they might be, and then try to ensure that we can work with those individuals to more effectively manage their resources.

So we're sensitive to it, and there are a number of strategies, but the basic philosophy to date has been to respect the autonomy of the individual and then try to work with the individual to support them in seeking ways to appropriately manage the funds they receive.

[Greg Kerr, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

I appreciate that, because I know if it were reversed and done differently you'd get more complaints than you get now. I think advice, reaching out, and so on are probably what they're looking for.

The transition is something I hear about quite a bit. I think we have to remind ourselves that this is a department that deals with all kinds of people with challenges, problems, and physical- and stress-related issues, so it's an ongoing process of trying to serve people. Are you ever going to totally reach the perfect mark? I doubt it, but the effort has to continue, and I think we are all trying to share that.

On the transition, a lot is going on, but I'd like you to take a moment or two. In my mind the new pressure will be from the new vets. There's no question there are all kinds of new things coming forward. A lot of it seems to be when they're picked up at the earliest stage, which is when they're still in DND.

There's more to be done between the two departments. How do you see that progressing? I know a lot has been done in clinics and other things, but how do you see that progressing so that the early intervention continues to grow as an important service?

[Bernard Butler]

You're quite right in pointing out that we have done a lot of work in that regard. The integrated personnel support centres are a good example of that. There are 19 locations where we take back case managers and locate them with the Canadian Forces case managers. The idea is to ensure that as issues arise there's an exchange of information and both teams are engaged.

There is the question of how early in that process Veterans Affairs Canada can engage because of fundamental jurisdictional issues. We have the authority right at the moment to deal with veterans, but our authority is less rigorous in terms of intervention early in the process. We have certainly had ongoing consultations with the Canadian Forces looking at how we can go about getting into that process earlier and working directly with the veterans to make things happen.

So early intervention in the process, from an authority point of view, is something we certainly feel we need to look at.

Brenda.

[Brenda MacCormack]

Just to reiterate the value of the integrated personal support centres, everyone--all different representatives from different organizations--is working on behalf of the member at that time, where it's a seamless kind of integrated care.

There are lots of communications that enable that kind of early planning to facilitate us to have a plan in place at the time the member releases. We do transition interviews for every member and in fact did close to 5,000 over the last year. There are a lot more opportunities through these integrated personal support centres to work with our team members and to convey the information to the members so that they understand the programs that are available to them.

[Greg Kerr, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Just to follow on what Mr. Stoffer raised, one of the reasons I think it's so important is that you'll talk to a lot of vets, and it's a matter of what records are available. I realize that's more of a DND issue, but I think it's an intervention that this department could continue making. If the person leaves, they should have a complete set of their records. They should be advised strongly that those may be necessary in 10, 15, 20 years--not at the moment, but later on. Certainly before they actually leave the military, that is important. It's a strong role that this department can play in advising, through DND, that they get that advice early.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Kerr.

Now on to Madam Crombie for five minutes.

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

Thank you to our guests for appearing today.

I'm new to this committee, so I wonder if you could help me understand a couple of things. First, what are the advantages, as I've noted in the report, of moving towards a needs-based approach to economic benefits, rather than an insurance industry model?

[Brenda MacCormack]

There's lots of evidence in multiple jurisdictions about modern disability management and how we can achieve optimal outcomes in terms of when people have disabilities, and achieving optimal outcomes and functioning at various levels. Being actively engaged with the injured member at the outset is pretty important. The early intervention that Mr. Kerr spoke about is important, and so is the fact that we need to tailor interventions to the individual. Everyone's different, everyone operates in a different family unit, in a different social construct, so what might be a challenge for one may not be a challenge for another. That's very heavily based in evidence in terms of that needs-based approach and not a one-size-fits-all kind of model.

Then there's the continued kind of intervention, knowing that the supports are there into the future if people need to come back.

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

Terrific. I just noticed that the new Veterans Charter is quite generous in the programs that are available and the awards that are given. I think committee members had asked about the costs of the program, but I'd like to follow up. You mentioned $740 million. Was that an implementation cost? What do we see as the cost of the new Veterans Charter on an annual basis?