Veterans Affairs Committee on March 7th, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

On clause 13, Mr. Lamoureux.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Chair, I do believe this is the spot where I can maybe ask Mr. Butler the question in regard to the lump sums.

Can you indicate if in fact there was any consultation done in this area, in particular with the Legion across Canada or other senior groups, as to what their take on the issuing of a lump sum would have been?

[Bernard Butler]

I assume, Mr. Lamoureux, you're referring to the time of the new Veterans Charter adoption and implementation in 2006.

There certainly were broad-based discussions and consultations that occurred at that time, which basically led to the development and the adoption of the new Veterans Charter. Stakeholder groups, Legions, and so on all would have participated in those discussions at the time.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

I actually would be referring specifically to this legislation, in the sense that, given the significance of it, no doubt there would have been a decision in terms of putting in this particular clause, the ability to have choice.

Would there have been a consensus or feedback from our Canadian Legion in regard to that specifically as a stakeholder?

[Bernard Butler]

There certainly were discussions with vets' organizations, and as may be sort of indicative of the discussion here even today, some agree with it and some disagree with it. So I wouldn't purport to suggest to you that there would be a consensus on it in terms of this as a solution. I think that, as was noted earlier, if you take the lump sum and you look at where the concerns have been, one of the biggest concerns that has been articulated around the lump-sum award goes to this issue of the risk of its being mismanaged.

Bill C-55 is an effort to try to ensure that there is flexibility in the payment modality, if you will, to give individuals who may be at risk some option in terms of how they will manage it. This was basically a compromise in terms of trying to address the very different interests that have been expressed on this issue.

As we noted earlier, it's a very complex issue because it goes to the fundamental basis of issues related to freedom of choice, to responsibility to manage one's own resources, and so on. The department is moving this, and the minister is supporting this as being a solution, as a good approach to assist individuals manage their lump-sum awards.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Finally, you had made reference to a 30% factor in terms of people who have received lump sums where there are issues of compensation not being adequate. Can you elaborate on what you meant by that 30%?

[Bernard Butler]

The 31% we referred to would be those who had some concerns in terms of the amount they received, or it may have been concerns around what that meant to them in terms of how they were using the funds.

The majority of ones polled said no, they've used it wisely, they like the way it's being done, and they'd like options. As with anything, you had a smaller group who said they think it would be better if they had more flexibility in how they would manage those funds. That's what the 31% was.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Stoffer, Mr. Kerr, and then Ms. Sgro.

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

Our parliamentary library indicated to us that of the claims received on the permanent impairment allowance, only 20 severely injured veterans have accepted it since 2006. Just out of curiosity, how many veterans do you estimate, ballpark figure, Bill C-55 should actually help?

[Bernard Butler]

That is precisely, Mr. Stoffer, one of the drivers for the bill. It was not an intended consequence, but the way it was structured, it was limiting access.

With Bill C-55, our forecasts are that over the next five years there should be an additional 3,500 veterans gaining access to this particular benefit.

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

It's estimated at 3,500, yet in five years only 20 have done it. You obviously anticipate a fairly large increase.

[Bernard Butler]

We do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Kerr, then Ms. Sgro.

[Greg Kerr, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

I would like to come back to the clause, Mr. Chair.

I think Kevin's asking a good question. We should remind ourselves as a committee that the overwhelming issue we ran into in looking at the charter review, the most pushed item, was to give an option in the lump-sum payment. I think we all agreed that it's extremely difficult to ever find the right answer because of the right to choose versus the protection of those who can't. What we've also tried to do, though, is engage families in the discussion part, which enhances the discussion. It doesn't leave it solely to the member. Again, that's a difficult one. But I think it's fair to say that this brings in the options the member then has to make a decision. Before there was no option; it was automatically a lump sum.

So that was what was intended. And we do realize--and I think we've all said--that this review has to continue, the whole review. Once this is done.... In another year we should look at it and see how it's doing and all that sort of thing. But this was the consensus that was reached after, I would suggest, probably hundreds of interventions by veterans and veteran organizations, including some within this committee last year. That's how it came about that way.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Ms. Sgro, and then Ms. Duncan.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Butler, under clause 13, proposed subsection section 52.1(2) says,

(2) The Minister shall, in the prescribed manner, inform the member or veteran of their right to make an election under subsection (1).

Then it goes on to say,

(3) If the member or veteran fails to make the election, the amount of the disability award is to be paid as a lump sum.

You talk about the fact that these men or women went to war and did all these great, brave things for us, and they're smart people, so how could they come home and then not have the capacity to make the right decision when it comes to whether or not they will receive a lump-sum payment. But if the person coming back is emotionally unstable as a result of his experience--and we know that from some of the other awards--they've squandered the money at the time because they emotionally weren't as stable as they might have been at a later date. You're offering flexibility here, when you clearly see an individual who is not well, is there any way of delaying making that decision and instead starting with an enhanced monthly payment and kind of delaying that whole lump sum? Because a year from that particular time the person may be much more stable and able to make a more competent decision. Within all of this, is there flexibility there for some extra hand-holding, you might call it?

[Keith Hillier]

There's certainly no flexibility in the bill, but I just want to clarify that when the men and women who have served come back, they're not left to themselves. Many of them stay in the Canadian Forces and have the benefit of caseworkers in the Canadian Forces. For those who are medically released and do not apply to Veterans Affairs, there is a transition interview. An interview is done, and that is offered to everybody who is leaving. Up to 90% of those who are medically released actually take advantage of a transition interview at which in fact they have an opportunity to talk about options with Veterans Affairs folks, but also we do a bit of an assessment as to whether they may have some unmet health needs.

Also, before they actually make the application for the award, we provide what we would refer to as pension offices across the country. So we have people who work with them. Also, some of the veterans organizations, most notably the Royal Canadian Legion, have service officers who work with the veterans and their families.

For those who are seriously injured, in addition to that, we actually have case managers. As has been announced previously, we have reduced the ratio of cases to our case managers for a target of 40 cases so that the veteran isn't out there all by himself or herself. In addition to the family counselling they may get or the family support, they have the support of multiple interventions from our department, from the Canadian Forces. And as my colleague had noted, when it gets down to the financial matters, we do pay an amount toward financial counselling. So they're not out there all by themselves having to wrestle with this decision.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Butler, be very short, please.

[Bernard Butler]

One additional point that is quite important is that under the legislation, under the new Veterans Charter, these lump-sum awards are payable at such time as the condition has stabilized. There is actually a provision in the act that if you had an unstable mental health condition, you could delay payment. But you're not going to see that all that frequently, because it gets into, I guess, fundamental questions about mental capacity and so on, which are very serious legal issues in terms of individual rights.

I thought you should know that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Stoffer, would you be short, please.

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

I'll only take a second here, Mr. Chairman.

Of the 3,500 people who they estimated...those changes are not in fact in the legislation. They're in the regulations. We haven't heard yet if the regulations are going to change to match that, because right here it reads:

Veterans Affairs estimates that, between April 2006 and December 2009, 203 severely disabled clients may have been “excluded from the PIA and EIA....” [....] The decision to grant the PIA is still based on the definition of the “permanent and severe impairment” set out in the regulations....

It's not in the legislation; it's in the regulations. So the first question is are the regulations going to change to match the 3,500 to be included, or the estimated amount? And I will just give you a heads-up. Of the 269 veterans who are deemed to be suffering from a total and permanent incapacitation between April 2006 and March 2009, three received the permanent impairment allowance--just three. So legislation is great, but it needs to match the regulations.

So my question, Mr. Butler, is are the--

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

A point of order, Mr. Chair.

While Mr. Stoffer may have a legitimate question, it's not a question that I believe is within the realm of department officials to be answering, to speculate on whether or not regulations can be changed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Okay, I'm going to let the government official determine whether he can answer that question or not. That's their prerogative.

Go ahead, sir.

[Bernard Butler]

I guess my quick response to it would be, Mr. Stoffer, that the challenge that we had was not in the regulations around permanent impairment allowance, it was around what we are referring to as a “crosswalk”. It was the relationship between the old act and the new act. It had to do with limiting what disabilities could be considered for permanent impairment allowances that flow from the old act. And the way the legislation had been structured, it imposed an unintended barrier. What Bill C-55 will do is eliminate the barrier so that in fact disabilities for which entitlement is held under the old Pension Act can be included for purposes of entertaining applications for permanent impairment allowance. So that's where the key distinction is in Bill C-55.

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

And will that amount be taxable?