Veterans Affairs Committee on June 7th, 2018

[Gen (Ret'd) Walter Natynczyk]

We're trying to up the game of 4,000 mental health practitioners.

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

Thank you. That ends the time for this panel. We have another panel waiting.

On behalf of the committee, I'd like to thank both of you—

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Thank you, all, very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

—for testifying and for all you're doing to help.

I know some questions weren't answered, but I'm sure your department will get back to the committee.

We'll break for a few minutes. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

I'll call the meeting back to order, please.

In the second part of the meeting, we have the pleasure of having, from the Department of Veterans Affairs, Charlotte Bastien, Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Oversight and Communications; Bernard Butler, Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy and Commemoration; Michel Doiron, Assistant Deputy Minister, Service Delivery; and Elizabeth Stuart, Assistant Deputy Minister, Chief Financial Officer and Corporate Services.

We'll start with questioning, and Ms. Wagantall is up first.

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

It's good to see you again. Thanks for being here.

I'd like to talk about the monthly pension side of things to get a little clarity there.

The maximum lump sum amount is $360,000, with a monthly payment of $1,150. Nothing else has changed as far as determining the lump sum amount is concerned. It's tax-free, and determining the degree of disability hasn't changed.

However, under the Pension Act previously, which had exactly the same objectives, the amount was $2,793 for a single individual without children. Here we're looking at $1,150. What's the rationale for that?

[Bernard Butler, Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy and Commemoration, Department of Veterans Affairs]

Under the pension for life framework there are basically three elements to be considered. The first part of it is converting the disability lump sum award to a monthly pain and suffering compensation award. That's the $1,150 you're referring to.

The second element of it is again a non-taxable benefit, the additional pain and suffering compensation award, which will be paid to the more seriously disabled veterans who are experiencing permanent and severe impairments that are creating barriers to re-establishment. That benefit will be paid according to the degree of impairment at three grade levels: $500, $1,000, and $1,500.

Then, in addition to those two non-taxable pain and suffering compensation elements, there will be a third element, the new income replacement benefit element, which is 90% of pre-release salary, adjusted and so on.

It's very important, when we look at the pension for life proposal, to consider it as three elements. It's the sum of the whole. It's not a single element that is to be considered.

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

Okay, so the $3.6 billion that's been announced is not in line with the amount that's actually being paid out. I think that's where there was some questioning with the minister as well. The amount presented, at $3.6 billion, is on an accrual basis, but when you look at the cash basis, it shows that the actual expenditure is the lesser amount over several years. Instead of a lump sum, it will actually save the government over $1 billion in six years. That's when you look at the cash amount for this payment versus what's presented in the budget as an accrual amount of $3.6 billion.

[Rear-Admiral, Retired) Elizabeth Stuart (Assistant Deputy Minister, Human Resources and Corporate Services Branch, Department of Veterans Affairs]

I would start by stating that the pension for life has not yet received approval. I acknowledge it was announced in the budget. It's not part of the main estimates, but I can provide an explanation of the investment calculation should you wish.

The $3.6 billion investment in the pension for life announced in the 2018 budget is not in line with the amounts to be actually paid out in the upcoming fiscal years. As has been alluded to, the difference is explained in a note in the budget plan. The amount of $3.6 billion over six years is presented on an accrual basis. The accrual basis means that essentially every year Veterans Affairs Canada reassesses the client base. We work very closely with the Office of the Chief Actuary on costings, looking out 60 years and comparing what the current client base has in terms of the status quo versus the new policy.

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

I just want to clarify. You went to the year 2022-23, whereas if you had gone further, the amount announced would be lower than $3.6 billion.

[RAdm Elizabeth Stuart]

That's because the investments do not in any way mean that the Government of Canada will have spent the $4.2 billion that was on the table in the budget letter in 2017-18. The initial investment that is booked in the accrual accounting represents the additional investment of all currently eligible veterans. Every single one of them immediately receives the entire amount payable by the government until death.

Over the subsequent fiscal years, in the accrual tables, the amount is negative, meaning that it will cost less than what was already payable as a disability award. If the government had presented the fiscal years after 2022-23, the total investment would have been lower than the $3.6 billion announced.

I would be pleased to provide a written comparison of the accrual accounting amounts versus the cash amounts that are actually paid and received by veterans in a fiscal year.

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

Right. This is something that upsets veterans when they hear these numbers, correct?

[RAdm Elizabeth Stuart]

Yes, it's complex.

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

We make these big announcements about the billions we're spending, but then you look at the actuals and they're very different numbers. That's where, a lot of times, our veterans are feeling very misled by the amounts of money that it appears are being spent on their programs. I just want to make that statement.

[RAdm Elizabeth Stuart]

I can understand that.

We do a careful walk between the accrual numbers and the cash numbers, and we can provide some background information to clarify that as well.

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

Also, the new additional pain and suffering compensation to be available April 1, 2019 will be tax-free, unlike the career impact allowance, albeit it is not in the budget right now. When you look at the numbers on this benefit for disabled veterans—which has three grades and it's tax-free—the amounts being given are less than were given under the old program. I'm assuming that the lower amounts are because it's tax-free and they're not having to pay the taxes. So really, it's not a new program. It's the same amount of money less having to pay the taxes. Would that be accurate?

[Bernard Butler]

No, how I would frame it for you to better understand it is that, over a number of years, the old career impact allowance received a fair amount of criticism from stakeholders and the ombudsman when it was originally framed as the permanent impairment allowance. The issue was that the policy rationale was related to trying to ensure that we were addressing issues around the impact on careers associated with severe disability.

With this new program, the additional pain and suffering compensation, you're absolutely right that a big portion of it is that it is tax-free. It's actually approximating the CIA under those grade levels. The other thing that's very important is that the career progression factor has now been built into the income replacement benefit, so that veterans are actually going to benefit on both sides of the equation—the non-taxable APSC, and the taxable IRB, or income replacement benefit.

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

Thank you.

Mr. Samson.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Thank you, all of you, for being here today. It's always nice to see you getting more specific information concerning some of the issues we're hearing about.

I will continue on my theme of access to doctors who can assess veterans in need of medical cannabis in Nova Scotia. I still do not have a list of names. I think there's another list that came the other day, but we've been going through that and our people still don't have access.

Mr. Doiron, I know you've been working on it, but I still have my issues, and as long as I have my issues, you will have my issues with you.

[Michel Doiron, Assistant Deputy Minister, Service Delivery, Department of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Samson, I know as long as you have that issue, I will have the issue. I'm aware of that. We've chatted about it.

I'll follow up—I thought we had sent a list to your office. On marijuana, I'll restate what I think I've probably stated often at this table. The responsibility of giving, I hate using the term “ prescription”, because you do not give a prescription for marijuana—it's a script—resides with the medical doctor.

Veterans Affairs in this case is actually the payer. I won't say “only the payer”, because we do oversight and we work, but we're the payer. If it's over 3 grams, they have to see a specialist. We all know there are challenges across the country, as you've heard the minister and the deputy minister talk about, associated with getting doctors in certain areas of the country to...even more so if you need a psychiatrist because of mental health issues and you want a psychiatrist to prescribe. We've had the conversations about Saskatchewan multiple times. It's not always easy.

There is a list of people out there who will help veterans to get that script. I'll make sure your office has received that. There are a couple in Nova Scotia, so I'm a little....

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

As you know, we've been having a lot of trouble with that and it's not right if other provinces or individuals have access and we don't, because this is crucial.

I have to say we have Christian, who I think is here now and he's doing a good job, so I wanted to share that. I think he's drilling deep for us and trying to find answers. That's very important for any MP. It doesn't matter who you are, it's extremely important that these individuals want to find the right answers and that they do so.

I'm still hearing about delays. There are still delays. How are we doing? I know you came last time and said that there was improvement. I know there are a lot more demands. The minister shared that as well—a 32% increase, I think, in the number of requests. Are we getting there? If not, what's the plan, and if so, what's making it different?

[Michel Doiron]

Thank you for the question. I knew this one was coming.

We're not making progress to the level I would like. I'll say that right up front at the table. Our incoming requests are exceeding anything we've ever seen, which is, as the minister said, good news, but it is my challenge to try to fix that, and I will admit it is daunting.

Our pending files are now around 33,000. That does not mean files that are late, by the way, but the work in progress. Depending where you work, people use different terms. We call it “pending”. With that are the requests under the new programs from April 1. Our backlog is just above 10,000.

We've undertaken multiple stuff, amendments, to fix it. We will be staffing up once we get all the authorities, but as the deputy minister or the minister said—I forget which one—we've actually gone out now to do pools so that when we get the money, we hit the button and people get into the seat. Sorry, I usually use another term, but to get into the seat.

The reality is that we have to get to the fundamental basis of why there's a backlog. Numbers are one thing—

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

I don't want you to take too much time.

[Michel Doiron]

Okay, sorry.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

They'll ask the question, right—