Veterans Affairs Committee on March 8th, 2016

[Maureen Sinnott]

Yes. Again, the service delivery assistant deputy minister will explain that at length.

Some area offices have a larger number of veterans in their area. It depends on where people settle. Recent veterans who leave the military may not settle close to the base they were at but will move back home, to another location. We're always adjusting how many case managers we have in different areas in order to respond to the need, and it was very evident that we didn't have enough.

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

My questions may be appropriate for a different time.

[Maureen Sinnott]

I'm happy to see what we can do for you.

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

Okay. I would just note that there's funding for 100 more employees to help process quickly. There's also an increase in the number of employees dealing with an increased demand for disability benefits and allowances.

Are those two different employee groups serving different purposes?

[Maureen Sinnott]

What your document was talking about was that another 100 employees were to be hired in order to more quickly process requests for benefits and services. We were seeing a larger influx of applications for disability benefits, and we were unable to deal with those disability benefit applications in as timely a manner as we should have; therefore, we were hiring additional individuals in order to adjudicate the disability benefit applications and ensure that the funds were provided in a faster manner after the applications were adjudicated. That was one group of individuals to process the benefits.

In the second one, there was an increased demand for health care, rehab, and re-establishment services, and employees were dealing with increased demand for disability awards and allowances. One group we were hiring had case managers to case manage the veterans. The other had disability award specialists—

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

Sorry, we're going to have to wrap that up.

We have six minutes to split, or we could give them to one person.

Are there any questions on the supplementary estimates?

Ms. Romanado.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

I absolutely have questions.

Thank you so much for being here today. As I'm sure you're aware, Veterans Affairs is something near and dear to many of us across Canada. Looking at this, I think we're definitely moving in the right direction.

In terms of the internal transfers, I would like to get some further clarity on the reallocation of resources for contributions and grants. For those, I understand that we're moving, but it seems as though we have a program on top of a program on top of a program. It's very unclear to me why we have so many programs on top of programs, instead of just one disability award and so on.

I just want to get some clarity on why we have so many programs and why they are all lumped together. Is it because of the new Veterans Charter? Could you elaborate a little bit to give us some explanation?

[Maureen Sinnott]

You're speaking from the...?

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

When you look at some of the funding we're putting forward I notice that we have lots of programs for disability awards and so on. I don't know if it's because we have the new Veterans Charter that we've added another supplement. I know you can have a disability benefit and then after 65 you get a different benefit. I want to get some clarity on the amounts to make sure that I'm understanding them better.

[Maureen Sinnott]

On Thursday, you will receive large comments and explanations on many of the programs.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Okay.

[Maureen Sinnott]

But if I can, we do have a disability award. We have an earnings loss benefit, because if an individual is injured and they're unable to work, then they are losing income.

When you asked about programs on top of programs, a new program, which was introduced in May in supplementary estimates (A) and listed as a grant, was the retirement income security benefit. Essentially those benefits stopped at age 65 and the question, rightly so, was what they were going to do after 65; hence, there was an examination of that and a determination that there should be a benefit that would extend beyond age 65.

The other new benefit that you would have seen is the critical injury benefit. Last year, an individual was injured in an explosion of some sort overseas. There are cases where individuals would be severely injured, and it would be sudden and traumatic. They could be hospitalized overseas for a long period of time and then back in Canada they'd be unable to function the way they normally did. Normally our disability awards are finished when a condition has stabilized. Due to the miracle of modern medicine the individual who was so severely injured could be put back together, be back at work, and fine. But during that period of time when they were hospitalized severely injured, and the family was going through such trauma, there was no compensation for that. The critical injury benefit was the compensation to deal with that, and it's a one-time, tax-free payment for that one incident.

When you ask if the benefits are stacked on top of each other, in some respects it may seem that they are but there was no benefit to deal with that particular thing. Disability awards are meant to deal with a condition that has occurred. A decision's made, the disability has stabilized, and then your award is based on a certain.... For example, earnings loss is based on lost earnings and your ability to earn in the future.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

I have another question with respect to Ste. Anne's Hospital. As you know it will be transferred to the Province of Quebec effective April 1 of this year. I'd like to get some information in terms of whether federal funding will be following that or will taking care of our vets now be a provincial matter. I'm just curious. Could you elaborate on that, if there's significant funding for health care for Ste. Anne's? I'm not sure if that will be repeated going forward.

[Maureen Sinnott]

There is an agreement with the Province of Quebec to transfer Ste. Anne's to the province. As you noted we still have veterans at Ste. Anne's Hospital, and we still are not only obligated to care for the veterans but are seriously concerned about the care they will receive. Hence, the transfer agreement addressed that.

Will there be funding? There is a funding agreement whereby certain amounts of money will transfer to the Province of Quebec on certain dates based on the transfer agreement. But after that, we will pay the Province of Quebec a per diem for the care of our veterans. That will carry on in the future. The per diem will be paid, so they will be paid to look after the veterans in the manner we have determined appropriate, in the language of their choice, and so on. The veterans will receive the care and concern that they should and that they have in the past.

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

You have 10 seconds, Sherry.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

I'm good. My question will be longer than that, so Irene maybe...?

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

Okay.

Ms. Mathyssen.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you so much for being here and providing some clarity to the numbers. My first question has to do with something that Madam Sinnott said with regard to expecting a decline of 11,000 veterans who had war service. I understand that. I see these folks all the time. They are frail. They are elderly. But the reality is that we have a lot of new veterans who also have war service, Afghanistan veterans, and in many cases they have some profound injuries, some of which won't appear for the next 10 to 15 years.

I wonder, in light of the fact that funds are returned to the Treasury Board, how you anticipate the needs that Veterans Affairs will have with regard to those post-Korean veterans, because their needs and the needs of their families will be quite significant.

[Maureen Sinnott]

Let me put it this way. Yes, we do expect a decline of 11,000 war service veterans. In order to make somewhat of a separation, we refer to them sometimes as our traditional war service veterans and then talk about our new or more modern-day veterans. There is an age distinction between the two, for sure, and there will be a decline. There's nothing, sadly, that any of us can do about that.

With respect to whether or not we will be able to meet the needs in the future, we do forecasts. We forecast fairly generously in this department in order to ensure that we have sufficient funds to be able to provide for all of the eligible people who come forward to request services from the department.

Now, when we say we lapse, we do lapse some money, because we don't have the right or the ability to vary from what Parliament voted the money for to this department.

Will we have money in the future? We go back in our main estimates. Once we make our forecast, then our main estimates determine, as of December of the previous year, what the government's spending plan is.

Obviously it doesn't take everything into account, so we adjust our forecasts every year. The supplementary estimates (A), (B), and (C) are the three opportunities we have to go back to the government and say, you made new decisions after December of the previous year, or you made a decision in the budget, or you made some decision that you would like us to go in this direction and add a new program, and we're coming back looking for additional funds in order to do it. We have the opportunities to go back regularly, and our forecasts will show where we expect to have increased demand.

The nature of our funding is that our programs are quasi-statutory. When I say that, it means not that they're statutory and governed by law and that the money is mandated and has to be provided. We have to go back to Parliament saying, “This is the amount of money that is required or needed for these programs.”

But it's a great thing to be quasi-statutory, in one sense. It's a thing that is need- and demand-driven and entitlement-driven. It's not that the government can say, “Thanks, but we're not going to fund those.” They're quasi-statutory. As soon as you need additional money and an eligible person comes forward, then that person must be provided for.

We like to say that if 10 people come forward or 10,000 come forward, we go back to ask for additional funds in order to provide for them. In the future, if people come back with post-traumatic stress disorder or other injuries that didn't manifest themselves or didn't show up, or if they didn't want to come forward when they left the military and it took them two, three, four, or 10 years to come forward, we still have the ability to go back and say, we have a bigger need than we thought we had at the start of the year.

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

Thank you.

The transfer of Ste. Anne's to the Province of Quebec was mentioned. I want to underscore my concern about the fact that post-Korean vets don't have access to long-term care in places such as Ste. Anne's, now that the transfer is complete, or my home hospital, Parkwood, and the need is there.

I know there's nothing you can do about it—this is something that happened as far back as the early 1960s—but I want to underscore that it disadvantages post-Korean vets, who are reliant upon the province, when it's a federal responsibility to look after our veterans.

I wonder, too, whether you have any indication explaining why the following programs are seeing such an increased demand: disability awards, allowances, health rehabilitation, and support services. From your perspective, why has there been that increase?

[Maureen Sinnott]

With the disability awards, I'd say that we have a larger number of people coming forward. We also had, however, with such a large number of applications coming forward.... You say we see “such an increase”. The increase is partly due to the fact that we have hired more staff and we have changed our business processes internally so that we are able to produce related decisions in a more timely fashion and the disability applications that are in the system are being produced a lot faster; hence, the money is being paid a lot faster, so you see a spike in funds.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

We have six minutes left on the last round of questioning. Are there any questions from the Liberal side?

Mrs. Romanado.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Thank you very much.

In terms of operating, we talked a little about it. I know there was an increase in the statutory appropriations. You talked about $3.8 million in total statutory appropriations for employee benefits, and so on and so forth. What percentage of that amount is management, versus front line and casework?

I'm trying to get a better sense in terms of those who are actually providing front-line service versus the administration of Veterans Affairs. Could you elaborate?

[Maureen Sinnott]

The $3.8 million that's listed in the statutory appropriations [Technical difficulty--Editor].