Veterans Affairs Committee on Oct. 25th, 2011

[Keith Hillier]

No.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Can you confirm the numbers that were reported in our local media?

[Keith Hillier]

No, I cannot, but maybe I can provide some explanation. I think there are three things that are getting somewhat mixed up, if I can call it that, and I'd like to break it down into three pieces.

Number one, there's the discussion we have been having about the $200 million. That has nothing to do with the personnel in the department. As I mentioned, no veterans will lose a penny. Veterans' services and benefits will be provided. However, as I noted in my opening remarks, the department has a new reality, which is that we're in two worlds. My youngest client is 20 years old and I have clients who are over 100. The reality is that the needs and the expectations of the 20-year-old client and those of the 100-year-old are very different because they're at different places in their lives.

In order to move forward and to continue to provide services to our war era and Korean veterans, and also recognizing that in some cases our services are not as fast as they should be—the wait times are too long and some of our business processes are too long—we had a choice. We had the choice of muddling along or we could actually take this on, and we decided to take it on. So over the next five years, there will be a transformation of Veterans Affairs based on the principles that I outlined. We will reduce wait times. We will reduce the complexity. We will work with DND. We will work to enhance the new Veterans Charter and, in fact, we will be reflective of the demographics.

What we're going through is a significant process of business re-engineering. We are fundamentally going to re-engineer our disability award process. And let me be very clear that this is not about reductions or taking any benefits or services from veterans. It's about how we do business, and we're doing business in a very paper-intensive world. That simply does not allow us to be as fast and as nimble as we should be. So that's why in August of this year we started digital imaging of service medical health records at Matane, Quebec. That is why we are re-engineering. That is why we are looking at greater collaboration with the Department of National Defence, so that at the end of the day, it will be a smaller department—but a department that will provide better services to veterans, faster services to veterans, and particularly as they relate to our modern-day veterans. When I go out and talk with veterans and veterans' associations, many of them tell me that we need to step up our game on the website. They appreciate being able to call, but, actually, they would like to be able to transact most of their own business....

That's why we've done these things. And we're just getting started with things such as the direct deposit for claims by some of our benefits. So yes, it will be smaller. The estimate that has been put forward—and I want to stress that it's an estimate, because until you actually do the business of re-engineering, which we've started.... Indeed, we've started the re-engineering for disability benefits, for treatment benefits, and the veterans' independence program. But it's all about providing better service to veterans. In some cases, where we have people who are involved in photocopying paper, moving paper, filing paper, using paper, we are going to move to a much more digital world, and that's going to mean fewer jobs in the department.

Overall, in the department's base, there are upwards of 500 positions that could be reduced over five years via the use of technology throughout the department—and, to some extent, due to the declining numbers....

The reality is that what we've been doing, for example, is adding additional staff in places like Val Cartier, Petawawa, and Edmonton, because there is significant growing need in those places. In some other cities, we have not been adding staff because of the lower demand there. They don't have a high concentration of Canadian Forces veterans, and so we're actually taking those resources and moving to areas of higher need.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Thank you very much, Mr. Hillier. I didn't think any members would complain if you gave a fulsome answer, and so I let you go on because you did provide a lot of very useful detail just then.

Now to Mr. Storseth for five minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Hillier. I think this is a good opportunity to sit down with you and the department to discuss some of the speculation of the past couple of weeks. I think it's very important as members of the veterans affairs committee.... I know I have several thousand veterans in my riding who were quite concerned about the media reports that were coming out over the last couple of weeks and, quite frankly, the speculation that they were actually not going to get the full services and benefits they were deserving of—as early as next month.

I have a question for you. If an individual stated that the Government of Canada was directly cutting $226 million in compensation and financial support for ex-soldiers, would that be an accurate statement?

[Keith Hillier]

We are not cutting, as I—

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

So if an individual made that statement, it would not be an accurate one.

Thank you very much. I think it's very important to clear that up. It is important for veterans to know that. I honestly think it's shameful that somebody, or any party, would be using these types of direct fear-mongering tactics to confuse and scare veterans.

Let's be clear. I see these veterans. I have two military bases in my riding. Some of those veterans are 20 or 21 years old and are simply focusing on getting their lives back together, rehabilitating, and moving into civilian life after putting their life on the line for us. And to hear this from somebody in a perceived position of power is very troubling. So I'm glad to hear that it's not true.

The other general demographic of the veterans in my riding who would be hearing these speculations is that of an 85 or 86-year-old elderly gentleman who depends on these benefits and does not have six to eight months' bankroll in the bank. And if his benefits are going to get cut, he is very fearful of that. So I'm glad to hear that those statements are simply not true.

I just want to clarify the following. You were talking about a 42% decrease over the next five years, and a 24% increase from the current number of CF members?

[Keith Hillier]

That's correct.

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

So then if you had fewer clients... If I as a businessman had fewer clients, I would have to budget less money for those clients.

Is that a fair assessment of what's happening, to simplify it for those people who would be listening outside?

[Keith Hillier]

That is correct.

And, again, I stress that these are forecasts that can be adjusted, if in fact the need proves to be greater than the forecast.

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

Because they're statutory payments.

[Keith Hillier]

They are quasi-statutory. That's correct.

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

Then if for some reason, we had an extra thousand veterans who needed benefits that you hadn't forecast, they would still get their benefits?

[Keith Hillier]

Most definitely.

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

I think that's very important. I thank you for clarifying that.

There is, if I have time, Mr. Chair, just one more question I'd like to talk about, because you did mention the 20 case managers across the country. I noticed that page 16 of the RPP outlined some of the department's key priorities, which include reducing complexity, providing veterans with easier and faster access to health benefits, and enhancing case management.

I was wondering if you could talk a little bit about how the department is moving forward in achieving some of these goals.

[Keith Hillier]

I'll start with case management and my colleague, James, might want to talk about some of the policy work that is going on.

Case management is at the heart of our business in many ways. I want to stress that not all of the clients or veterans at Veterans Affairs are case managed; many people receive a monthly amount from us and are not case managed. Those who are case managed are the one in most need. These generally are people who are in rehabilitation. They and their family need that extra help to help them adapt to a world they may have been out of for some time. Of course, in the Canadian Forces, things such as medical...everything is taken care of, and then you are no longer wearing a uniform.

In terms of case management a couple of things we have done are very important. We've said that a case manager will have only 40 cases on average. Sometimes it is reported that people have thousands of cases; that is simply not true. As of last month, we were running an average of 33 cases per case manager, so we are well within our target.

This has to do with the streamlining I referred to, where we are giving greater delegation of authority to the case managers in the field. Under the old system, the old business processes, some cases had to be referred to a region, to headquarters, etc. That is not the case any longer. We have minimized the number of cases that would have to be referred up the line, as it were. They may be very difficult, very complex, so what that means to the veteran is that he or she can get the needed services and benefits much more quickly.

Also, to ensure that we have the right mix, if I can call it this, so that people are getting the right degree of attention, we're introducing what we call an intensity tool. For example, not all veterans in rehab have the same degree of challenge, if I might put it this way. To make sure we have sufficient resources, a sufficient number of case managers, we have developed an intensity tool, which we are rolling out. For example, to put it in practical terms, if you and I are both case managers in the same district and you have 40 cases that are at level 10 intensity and I have 40 cases at level 1 intensity, then our degree of challenge every day is not quite the same. We are trying to equip the case managers with the tools, the professional development training, they need because they are at the heart or focal point of helping our most seriously injured veterans to readapt and move forward with their lives in civilian society.

James.

[James Gilbert]

If I may have a couple minutes, Mr. Chair.

Our policy framework or policies are overly complex right now. They look like legal documents, and we want them to be clear, we want them to speak for themselves, so that the brave men and women who have these benefits can understand the policies and the directives before them.

Mr. Casey mentioned Guy Parent, the ombudsman. We are having an exciting partnership project with the office of the ombudsman. They had an idea of how we can make the benefits more veteran-focused. If you are a veteran you are looking at your benefits, your services. You can go to a simple tool that will show that. They have developed a benefits navigator, which we took a bit further. This would be a tool for departmental staff to use when facing a veteran and the veteran has questions. It can show them where the veteran served, what type of veteran the person is, what programs they are interested in. And then we have the legislation, the regulation, the policy, and all the directives in one place to streamline the process, to get the information out to the veteran more openly more transparently, and to aid Mr. Hillier's side of the house on service delivery, so those veterans can get the services faster and in a more open and transparent fashion.

That is a project that we have that we are calling policy renewal, which is simplifying the policies to make them more user-friendly, as opposed to someone needing a law degree to understand them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Thank you very much.

We'll now go to Ms. Mathyssen.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

And thank you, Mr. Hillier and Mr. Gilbert, for being here, because this is very important to all of us and it's not a matter of fear mongering. It's a matter of needing to have the answers to the questions that are out there, because there are many questions. I have a lot of veterans in my community and, quite frankly, they are very upset and need and want clear answers, not spin.

What was the total DVA budget in 2005?

[Keith Hillier]

We'll just get the number, but in 2005 I think it was around $3.1 billion to $3.2 billion. It was roughly in that order of magnitude.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Okay.

So by 2007 it was about the same, at $3.2 billion, and in 2011 it was about $3.5 billion. You've indicated that was an increase of $700 million and 90% of that was for disability payments, I understand, and some of those payments were lump sum ones.

Does that mean it wasn't a permanent increase, that in essence once you remove those lump sum payments, the budget remains essentially the same?

[Keith Hillier]

No, what you would have to look at when you look at the amount of money that's been injected into Veterans Affairs is the cumulative amount. We do our budget on a yearly basis. In fact, given that the budget went up, may we say, by $300 million per year for five years, that is actually cumulatively about $1.5 billion. I just want to make sure we understand each other, that the budget goes up each year.

Some of the driving factors behind the budget increase, certainly, were the new Veterans Charter, the amounts going for disability awards and what have you, and also the amount for Agent Orange. That money is not built into our base, so some of these things come and go over the period of time.

I might make a clarification on the 90%. The 90% of our budget is actually for services and benefits to veterans. It's not just for the disability pensions or the disability awards. It includes our health services and our long-term care. In fact, less than 10% is actually for the operations of the department. We're very highly leveraged in terms of what we pay out to veterans.

[James Gilbert]

If I may just give you the specific number for 2005, it was $2.853 billion.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Okay, thank you.

Treasury Board has asked every department for a reduction of between 5% and 10%. You say that the needs are escalating. Does that mean that DVA will be exempt from that 5% to 10% reduction?

[James Gilbert]

There's a departmental deficit reduction action plan exercise that all government departments are going through. All government departments are looking at their policies, programs, and efficiencies, to come up with proposals of 5% and 10%. Veterans Affairs is going through that exercise like every other department. There have been no decisions made on that. At Veterans Affairs, we're really looking at internal efficiencies, cutting red tape, and moving forward like that.