Veterans Affairs Committee on March 8th, 2016

[Guy Parent]

I'm not sure the role of case managers would change. I think what would be happening is that we would become conscious, then, of how one benefit affects another. A lot of times right now, not necessarily case managers but people who administer benefits sometimes work in silos and don't know that a benefit affects another. That's what we're talking about here.

For instance, we have a permanent impairment allowance that provides benefits for life, yet we have introduced a benefit for financial security after 65. If the PIA, for instance, was easier to access and was applied to more people, then they're people who wouldn't need those benefits for life. What we're saying is, look at the outcome and work from there. Obviously, the administration of those benefits would change, but not necessarily the management of cases.

What's happening right now is that a veteran has no idea what he's entitled to, but he can go to the Veterans Affairs Canada website and to the benefits navigator or browser, and he'll find out what he could be entitled to. What we're saying is that you shouldn't have to go to the website. When you leave the forces you should be able to know what you're entitled to. You may not need it now, but this is what you're entitled to whenever your need arises. It should be automatic.

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

Thank you.

Ms. Mathyssen.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I do have some more questions.

I want to pick up from the previous questioning in terms of the global envelope. The envelope has been increased to $75,800 from a much lesser amount. I guess that originally it was $20,000. On the surface that sounds very generous and quite significant, but that amount of money also includes travel costs, accommodation, child care, and other expenses. We know that affordable housing is at a premium in this country. We have 10-year waiting lists for affordable housing. Also, we don't have any national child care.

With this in mind, I'm wondering about the $75,800. It would seem to me that it is not sufficient. I wonder if you've heard from veterans who've had to abandon training or leave post-secondary education, because that amount of money simply wasn't sufficient. Are there concerns coming from the veterans community?

[Guy Parent]

That's a good point. It goes right back to what we've been saying all along. Have we determined what outcome we want to achieve for people who are going into the vocational rehabilitation program? If it is a full university education, for instance, we need to say that and have a benchmark that allows them to do that.

The one thing that is important is that there's an envelope ceiling of so much money, but there's a lot of flexibility within the program to actually use it as needed. Some people may not need child care. Some may not need accommodation. At least the flexibility is there now that there is a ceiling sum and at least it's easier to administer.

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

I was thinking in terms of younger veterans with families, and I know it's very difficult.

I also wanted to go back to the disability award. Now it's set at about $310,000. However, in 2012, the Supreme Court said, in regard to damages in civil cases, that the maximum amount should be somewhere in the range of $342,000.

There was a recommendation that the disability award match that of civil cases, but that hasn't been implemented. I wonder about your sense in regard to why it hasn't been implemented. Is it simply a matter of cost?

Secondly, the impact on younger veterans.... I'm thinking of—

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

Ms. Mathyssen, sorry. We're going to run out of time for the second part of the question. The witness would have 20 seconds to answer the first part, and then we'll have to move on.

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

Thank you. I appreciate that.

[Guy Parent]

The lump sum award is a pain and suffering.... We opted not to mix it with the income replacement types of benefits. We are, right now, doing some work in the pain and suffering area to try to determine what is fair and what is comparative to a police officer, for instance, injured during service. We're in the process of doing that right now in our office.

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

Thank you.

I guess for time's sake, this ends our questioning of you today. You might be invited back, so I would say keep your calendar open.

On behalf of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, I would like to thank you for taking the time out of your schedule today and for all the work that you do on behalf of veterans. We quite enjoyed meeting you here today and hope to have you back sooner rather than later.

[Guy Parent]

It would be a pleasure. We're here to assist.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

We will take a short break to reset the mikes. Grab a quick coffee, and we will move to the second part of our agenda.

We will suspend for a few minutes.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

Let us come to order, please.

In the second part of our meeting we'll be going over the supplementary estimates. We have two witnesses here today, Ms. Stuart and Ms. Sinnott.

We will open the floor for 10 minutes. I can't give you 10 minutes each, so we'll combine five and five minutes, or seven and three.

I think we're ready to go.

[Elizabeth Stuart, Assistant Deputy Minister, Human Resources and Corporate Services Branch, Department of Veterans Affairs]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, vice-chairs, and committee members. It's a pleasure to be here with you and I look forward to discussing the Veterans Affairs 2015-16 supplementary estimates (C) submission.

My name is Elizabeth Stuart. I was recently appointed assistant deputy minister of human resources and corporate services branch for Veterans Affairs Canada. I'm here today with Maureen Sinnott, who is the director general of finance division and acting chief finance officer in Charlottetown, P.E.I.

Honourable members, as you know, the department is responsible for providing benefits and programs to veterans, Canadian Armed Forces personnel, and their families in recognition of their service to Canada, and for ensuring that their achievements and sacrifices are honoured and remembered through commemorative activities. The department is proud of this dual mandate, just as it is proud to continue to do everything in its power to enhance the programs and services that are important to Canada's veterans and their families.

As you have seen from our 2015-16 supplementary estimates (C) submission, Veterans Affairs Canada's overall total planned spending this fiscal year, including the supplementary estimates, is almost $3.67 billion. That's close to a $150-million or a 4.2% increase over our 2015-16 main estimates budget of $3.52 billion.

As these supplementary estimates show, our first priority is to make sure that veterans and their families have the support they need when they need it, for as long as they need it. For the younger veterans, this often means ensuring that they are able to successfully transition to civilian life. That's why the largest chunk of this new funding, $81.3 million, is for veterans programs and services, the majority of which flow to Canadian Armed Forces veterans through the new Veterans Charter. Another $25.5 million is to enhance the delivery of services and benefits by increasing front-line and case management staffing levels to provide increased support to veterans and their families. These funds will also be used to improve the timeliness of disability benefit decisions so that veterans have earlier access to benefits.

A further $2.7 million in new funding is to support implementation of three new grant programs: the retirement income security benefit, the critical injury benefit, and the family caregiver relief benefit, which were initially approved through VAC's 2015-16 supplementary estimates (A) submission. However, this submission includes an additional $400,000 for the family caregiver relief benefit. It also includes funding to hire resources to implement these three programs, provide online training to primary caregivers, and improve system interoperability between Veterans Affairs and National Defence. With this supplementary funding, we continue to ensure that Canada is there for the men and women and their families who were there for Canada.

Our supplementary estimates also contain $1 million for the community war memorial program, which will allow the program to continue for one more year. This program was initially approved for five years in 2010 and extended for one year to cover the final cost of contributions for the construction of new monuments previously approved by the department.

There is also a return of $200,000 to Canadian Heritage for funds previously provided to VAC to help with a commemorative initiative; however, as the funds were not required, they were returned.

The last item of notice in VAC's supplementary estimates (C) submission is an increase of $3.8 million for an increase in employee benefits plan cost statutory funding, which relates to increased new personnel costs.

It is important to understand that VAC's budget fluctuates each year because of the demand-driven nature of its programs and services. VAC updates its client and expenditure forecast each year to ensure that all veterans who come forward receive the benefits to which they are entitled. Expenses, however, are only incurred for the veterans who actually come forward as qualifying for our programs and services.

As VAC's program budgets can only be used for the purpose for which they were intended, excess funds cannot be redirected for other purposes without explicit consent from Treasury Board. This reality has led to repeated criticism in the media in recent years around lapsed funds; that is to say, our not spending our entire budget. This is primarily attributed to the declining number of veterans we are supporting.

For example, we are forecasting a net decrease of about 11,000 war service veterans and survivors receiving Veterans Affairs Canada benefits this fiscal year. This is the single largest reason for the lapses in our overall spending.

VAC's 2016-17 report on plans and priorities sets our course for the coming year. These plans are driven by three basic principles: care, compassion, and respect.

Our top priority is to provide veterans with excellent service from their first moment of contact with our department. We will place veterans at the centre of everything we do: our philosophies, our ideas, and our operations. This means being proactive and responding quickly to veterans' changing needs with care, compassion, and respect.

Secondly, we will provide veterans with the services they need, when and how they need them, and in ways that work for them. Finally we will work closely with the Department of National Defence to make sure we fully support our Canadian Armed Forces members to make an easier transition to civilian life and focus on their well-being.

In closing, I would like to point out that in this year, as in previous years, approximately 90% of VAC's budget, or $3.3 billion, will flow directly to veterans, their families, and the other Canadians served by VAC.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Maureen and I would now be happy to answer any questions that you or other committee members may have about any part of these supplementary estimates.

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

Thank you.

I'll just ask permission of the committee here. Time-wise, if we did the first round of six minutes, and six minutes, and six minutes, that should take us closer to our time limit. Having said that, I spoke to a few of you before. Some of you might not have questions on this and some of you have very short questions, so if it is basically the consensus of the committee, we could start again with round one with the Conservatives, which would be six minutes. We could divide that among the three of you, if that's fine, and then that should wrap it up with you, Ms. Mathyssen. Then we can vote on the estimates, if that's fine.

Do I see agreement with that, if we're going to make it to House duty today?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

Okay, seeing consensus, we will start round one of the questions with Ms. Wagantall.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Thanks very much. I just have a couple of little questions. I'm sure they're nothing significant, and I'm not sure if they can be answered here today anyway.

Under “Operating Expenditures”, at the end of the first paragraph there, it talks about “payments to the professionals providing some of these services”. It's basically outlining what the 80%, about $720 million, is spent on, and indicates that some of it goes to the payment of professionals providing some of these services. Then for the remaining $180 million, it talks about the“ salaries of employees assigned to other programs”, so for the “some” and the “other”, I was just wondering which programs are covered by which employees' funding.

[Maureen Sinnott, Director General, Finance, Human Resources and Corporate Services Branch, Department of Veterans Affairs]

Okay, yes. If I may, Mr. Chair, the 80%, about $720 million, relates to health care rehabilitation and re-establishment services. Now, you are aware that we have Ste. Anne's Hospital as well, so it's long-term care and medical expenses, and so on, that are provided for within that $720 million.

The salaries of some departmental employees are assigned to the programs. For “payments to professionals providing some of these services”, those would be payments that we would be making on behalf of veterans who would have seen their own physician or physiotherapist or rehabilitation specialists. An individual would, under our health services programs, have gone to their own health care professional, received a service, and because the Department of Veterans Affairs was responsible for the services they were receiving, we would provide the payment to that professional.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Okay, thank you.

In the next paragraph, it says the remaining $180 million are for “salaries of employees assigned to other programs”. What would be the “other programs”?

[Maureen Sinnott]

Non-health-care related programs. When they're talking in the previous paragraph, they're saying “assigned to these programs”, which would be health care, vocational, rehabilitation, and so on. We would have commemoration programs. We would also have the department's office and travelling expenses, commemorative partnership programs, and there are a number of other ones in that group of programs.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Okay.

Then below in the first bullet point, where it says that this goes toward hiring case managers to achieve a ratio of 30 cases per manager, how many cases annually in, say, this last year did we deal with? Where's the need for—

[Maureen Sinnott]

Additional...?

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

How many are they handling now?

[Maureen Sinnott]

I would preface my remarks by saying that I know you're going to be spoken to by the assistant deputy ministers of service delivery and of policy on Thursday. They will expand on this generously, I'm sure.

However, if I can say it this way, we did receive additional funding in supplementary estimates (A). We received additional funding, or there were representations made, for three new grants. We also made submissions for additional staff, because some of our case managers were trying to deal with an excessive number of veterans. An ideal number according to some of the literature reviews is 25 or 30 veterans to one case manager, but some case managers were dealing with 50, 60, or 70 veterans at a time and trying to case manage them. In an effort to reduce that ratio, the department was allocated another $25 million.

That determination and that agreement were made at the time of supplementary estimates (A), but we did not receive the money until supplementary estimates (C), so that's why you're seeing this money now, rather than at a previous time.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Are those high numbers based to some degree on where veterans are located?