:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and committee members.
I have an opening statement of about ten minutes or so.
Thank you very much for welcoming me and my colleagues here this morning.
We're responsible for different areas related to the new Veterans Charter. Hopefully we can collectively address all of the questions you may have.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, it is a great pleasure for us to be here today.
[English]
We're pleased to have the opportunity to provide you with more information and clarification with respect to the suite of programs of the new Veterans Charter. We have tabled an information deck that will provide an additional level of detail.
While we're here today to speak specifically about the disability and income support programs, it's important to recognize that these programs work in concert with all the benefits under the new Veterans Charter. It is through the comprehensive nature of the suite of programs that we're able to respond to the needs of our modern-day veterans and their families.
Next week you'll hear from our colleagues on rehabilitation, the career transition program, and mental health services. They also will table additional information decks and offer to walk you through some client case scenarios. Although they are not intended to be a complete representation of all our client cases, they do help to illustrate how the programs of the new Veterans Charter can and do make positive changes in the lives of modern-day veterans and their families.
When we speak of the new Veterans Charter, we must first consider what led to its development. Prior to the new Veterans Charter, Veterans Affairs could only offer disability pensions. Because it acted as a gateway, if someone was eligible for a disability pension, only then could we provide other supports, such as health care and the veterans independence program, and then only in relation to that pension condition.
This gateway delayed treatment and often resulted in lost opportunity for successful rehabilitation and integration, and I do want to stress that point: it's not delayed opportunity, but actually lost opportunity. That's a very important point.
As well, for those who couldn't work, the disability pension did not provide a sufficient income stream to compensate for earnings lost. This caused some clients to focus more on their disability, since under the previous entitlement-based approach, the only way to get more support was to demonstrate increasing levels of disability. This resulted in poor transitioning and needs not being met. This was not our determination alone; this was what Canadian Forces members and veterans, as well as key stakeholders, were telling us.
The new Veterans Charter provides authority to offer a broader range of benefits that focus on re-establishment for today's generation of veterans and their families. The design of the new Veterans Charter is based on modern principles of disability management that stress concepts, including early intervention, a focus on wellness, and support through comprehensive programs of rehabilitation.
As a needs-based program, the new Veterans Charter provides the right level of support in relation to the level of need at the point in time when the need exists. This means that those with the greatest need get the greatest support. While those with less need may get less, they also have access to programs specifically targeted to meet their needs.
The specific features of the new Veterans Charter include, as I'm sure you're aware, a comprehensive rehabilitation program that includes medical, psychological, social, and vocational rehabilitation and a dual approach to financial compensation, and I do want to stress that aspect. The first part of it is a disability lump-sum award for pain and suffering that pays up to $276,000, and supplementary disability awards may also be paid if the condition worsens over time. The second part of that dual award approach to compensation is a monthly earnings loss benefit that is intended to replace lost income at 75% of pre-release salary while in rehabilitation or until age 65 if seriously disabled and unable to work. As well, the earnings loss benefit is indexed over time, based on a CPI indexing, and capped at 2%.
As well, the charter provides the Canadian Forces income support program. It's a financial safety net to bridge the gap for those who have successfully completed the rehabilitation program and are medically, psychologically, and vocationally able to work, but have not yet been able to find employment. The rates are at $1,273 per month for a single veteran and at $1,937 per month for a married veteran. These amounts are not taxable. I want to stress that this program is for individuals who are able and ready to work, but simply have not engaged, so this is not the earnings loss program. This is a social safety net.
Additionally, there is a supplementary retirement benefit that is payable at age 65, recognizing lost opportunity to contribute to retirement savings. This provides 2% of all the earnings loss paid for those who have been totally and permanently incapacitated.
A permanent impairment allowance that provides a monthly benefit payable for life in recognition of lost opportunity recognizes the effects that a permanent and severe impairment related to military service has on employment potential and career advancement. It pays at three grade levels that range from $536 to $1,609 and it pays on a monthly basis for life. That is for life, just to stress that point.
As well, there are expanded mental health services and supports; family support benefits; a death benefit for survivors, which is critically important, of $276,000; monthly earnings loss benefits for survivors...
[Translation]
Do you want me to speak more slowly?
My apologies, sir. I will speak a little slower.
[English]
There is a death benefit for survivors of $276,000, plus monthly earnings, for survivors of service-related death. That's an important point: the earnings loss that would have been paid to the veteran now pays as well to the survivor.
There are career transition services, expanded access to the public service health care plan, financial counselling, and all-important VAC case managers who coordinate services so that the services are best tailored to the individual needs of releasing Canadian Forces members and their families.
It is also of note, Mr. Chair, that since implementation of the new Veterans Charter, Veterans Affairs and DND have worked to establish integrated personal support centres that co-locate VAC client service staff with Canadian Forces staff to support CF members in their recovery, rehabilitation, and reintegration.
The rehabilitation program is the cornerstone of the new Veterans Charter. If offers comprehensive rehabilitation services to a broader eligibility group than what was available before. While SISIP vocational, rehabilitation, and income replacement programs are aimed primarily at medically releasing members, VAC's rehabilitation program--and by extension the earnings loss program and other financial benefits--is not available only to CF members who are medically releasing from the forces; it also includes CF members who have not medically released but who have a service-related physical or mental health problem that at any time poses a barrier to making or maintaining successful transition to civilian life. This includes, for example, veterans who are diagnosed with service-related post traumatic stress disorder years after leaving the military.
This is an extremely important feature of the new Veterans Charter. The door never closes. The support is available at the point in time in the future when it's needed again. That is a very important guarantee of security for CF veterans.
There are also the spouses or common-law partners of those CF veterans who qualify for rehabilitation but who are unable to participate in vocational rehabilitation due to their disability and, finally, the survivors of CF veterans whose death is related to service. We can provide benefits under the NVC to all of these additional categories of recipients; benefits could not have been provided to them under the previous SISIP regime.
The new Veterans Charter also provides services to those who do not have either a disability or a barrier to re-establishment. All who honourably release have access to career transition services that can help them prepare for and find civilian employment; SISIP vocational rehabilitation is primarily intended for medically released CF members.
[Translation]
The new charter has created many more options to meet the needs of families. Veterans Canada has more options than ever. These options include professional and rehabilitation services that can be provided to the spouses of Canadian Forces veterans who are unable to work. Child care support can also be provided if the veteran is in rehabilitation. Family members can also have access to counselling services.
[English]
As well, there is expanded family access to the public service health care plan. Consistent with previously existing legislation, educational support is available for the children of deceased veterans who were severely disabled or whose death is related to service. In cases of service-related death, death benefits to survivors include the lump-sum death benefit of $276,000 as well as the monthly earnings loss benefit that would have been paid to the veteran. This pay is irrespective of the income or the future income of the surviving partner.
Another important component of the new Veterans Charter is the mental health services, particularly given that over the past five years the number of clients receiving disability benefits related to psychiatric conditions has increased significantly. You'll hear more about mental health services from our colleagues next week.
The design of the new Veterans Charter ensures that the level of support is proportional to the level of need. It's about providing a level of support at the point in time when the support is needed. It is not about the total amount of money paid over a veteran's lifetime; it is about providing the support and the assistance required when it is required.
In order to implement the programs of the new Veterans Charter, the government invested an additional $740 million over the first five years to fund the incremental costs over and above expenditures under the old pension program. To date the new Veterans Charter expenditures are $826 million. If the new Veterans Charter is successful over the long term, more veterans will have had a successful transition to civilian life. If that is achieved, costs could eventually be less. However, if that occurs, it will be because more veterans have successfully made it to civilian life, and that, of course, is the main goal of the program.
I thank you for the opportunity to provide you with this update.
[Translation]
We will be pleased to answer your questions.
:
Thank you for the question.
The 75% that I referred to is set in statute, so that is law. One could talk about whether the amount is right or not, but that is the amount we have authority to operate on. It is based on the gross pre-release salary of the individual and it's indexed forward in time. It is taxable, as you point out; that's not defined by Veterans Affairs but by colleagues in another department, who determine what constitutes income and is therefore subject to tax.
I should point out, though, that in addition to the $276,000 there is the permanent impairment allowance. The $276,000 is not intended to replace income; it is intended to provide recognition to the individual who's been injured, to provide some level of compensation for the pain and suffering they have sustained, and to provide them some opportunity.
There is that, and there is the 75% of the earnings loss, but in addition, as in the example that you cited, if somebody is seriously, permanently disabled for life, then in most cases that person would also be eligible for the permanent impairment allowance. That's an allowance that pays at three different grade levels, from a little over $500 a month to a little over $1,600 per month. That's a monthly amount, and it pays for life. If you add that to the amounts that you've already cited, that is a fairly strong level of financial support for the individual.
I should point out, though, something equally important. It may not be something that you add up in terms of dollar value, but the support available through rehabilitation and the various health interventions, as well as other supports that are made available to the family, are also worthy of note.
:
There certainly is. Debbie may wish to add to this as well.
I think what's important to point out is that the legislation requires that when we provide either a disability pension or a disability award, the decision to do so be based on evidence. There's a scope of evidence or a range of evidence that we can accept and do accept, and it's not all singularly direct evidence like an injury report. There are other types of evidence that are very credible that we can and must look at and accept.
Often that is the problem. You're pointing out something that is real. Sometimes many years later it can be hard to find the evidentiary basis. Whenever we can, we certainly look for that and try to support the client, and make the decision. Yes, there certainly are many cases.
There is a situation in which we typically will see what we like to call the late onset or recurrence of a condition. This situation has particular applicability in the new Veterans Charter. It relates to the fact that the door remains open on rehabilitation, and by extension the door also remains open on the earnings loss benefit.
When somebody has had an injury--maybe it was a physical injury, an injured back, for instance--and has in the early years gone through rehabilitation and done quite well and carried on with life, and many years later, 15 or 20 years later, has had osteoarthritis set in and they can no longer do it, there's a very clear evidentiary trail that this was connected to service.
We can and do make those connections and re-entitle people. Now we're in the early days of the new Veterans Charter, so we haven't had that passage of time yet. It certainly provides for that. We are always seeing applications from our traditional older veterans today based on injuries or exposures they had, and those decisions are made as well.
:
There are a lot of important points there, and I touched on a couple of factors in my opening comments.
Perhaps it is easy at this point to look back and think that somehow it was better, but at the time we were designing the new Veterans Charter that was certainly not the case. A lot of work had gone into the up-front research. We had undertaken studies through things such as the review of the care needs of veterans, which led to an extremely comprehensive look at the existing programs through the Veterans Affairs and Canadian Forces advisory group. There were many experts involved--experts in disability management--who looked at it.
What we were seeing with the pension program at the time was that expenditures were going up. It wasn't that the expenditures were increasing that was so troublesome; it was that they were increasing without a corresponding increase in the outcomes that clients were having. In other words, the Government of Canada was spending the money through that program and clients were not succeeding. They were falling through the cracks. We were hearing that the pension program simply did not provide adequate support. It was not needs-based, so there was not a strong correlation between the needs the individual had and the level of support provided; it was provided irrespective of that.
We also recognized, as I mentioned earlier, that it was a gateway program. Historically it had taken up to two years in the past--we're much better than that now, I'm glad to report--to actually rule on disability pensions. While that was happening individuals had no availability for support from Veterans Affairs. Because it was the gateway, they had to have that eligibility before we could provide anything else. Well, we knew from a disability management point of view that the further out people are the more lost opportunity there is for people to actually recover.
In relation to that, I also want to point out that people were very much focused, understandably, on their disabilities. They were focused on that because they didn't have enough support, and the only way they could get more support out of the system was to demonstrate they were more disabled. What experts in disability management said was that they needed to focus on getting better, not on the disability and on how unwell they are.
So that is some of the backdrop that I think is very important to understand. I've stressed, and I'll stress again, that the approach is needs-based. It provides the right level of support at the point in time it is needed. But it provides support not just in a different way, but to a broader audience. One of the audiences that was a real gap group were the individuals who had been released some years ago and were still dealing with issues--or will deal with issues into the future--and there was no support for them. That was a very significant and major piece. There was inadequate support for the survivors. With the new death benefit plus the provision of the EL to survivors of CF veterans, that's a substantial piece of support.
There are many things, but I would point those few out to you.
Thank you for coming here today.
I want to try to go down a couple of avenues. It's my understanding that my colleague across the floor, who I'm good friends with, through another committee--and I have travelled across the country with him looking into penitentiaries---brought up this brochure example. It's interesting that he would bring that up, because we've done an in-depth analysis, and he targets that one thing, and I'm not so sure that you've done the in-depth analysis. But are there not, on top of the individual who's paralyzed, a lot of other programs? If they are not employed, they get 75% of their wages, and if they are unemployable, that continues on, on top of the lump-sum payment. I think it was characterized that there was this lump-sum payment they had to live off for the rest of their lives, and I don't think that was very clear.
Secondly, there's all the other suite of services that help that individual become rehabilitated, get back into the workforce, which is the ultimate goal of the program. It is done not on a category basis, for everybody who is paralyzed; rather; it's done on that individual's situation. They might have one child, they may have six children--who knows? It's based on an individual analysis, and that's where I appreciate what you said in your opening statements, because it was clear that the cornerstone of the program is to offer a comprehensive set of programs that allow that individual to integrate back into as much normality of life as they can. It's based on that.
I've listened very closely to all the testimony that's come here. You've taken it on the nose big time from a lot of people at this committee--you probably know that, because you read a lot of the testimony--who advocate, quite frankly, to close down Charlottetown completely, it doesn't work.
I want to ask something relative to that. I think there are some issues. I'm not saying they don't exist. There are probably a lot of issues that have to be worked on. Nothing is perfect. But to characterize that our veterans are not being treated with respect and dignity... We went to Charlottetown and we viewed the operations and met the people there and met veterans who work in that operation. There is respect and dignity, I believe, from what I saw. Of course, they are showing MPs the best side possible that day, I'm sure. We've also had testimony to say that your front-line people are fantastic and treat us with great respect and dignity. There are some structural things we perhaps need to look at in revising this charter.
The spectrum of information that we've been getting--and I am leading to a question here, Mr. Chair--is broad and wide and diverse. It's healthy to have that discussion, but the insinuation that you are less than professional on that scale of respect and dignity... I don't think you should walk away from this committee today, from my point of view, with that observation.
I would like to lead back into that argument that we've heard, that for some reason there's such dysfunction because the operations are in Charlottetown and not in Ottawa. What are your views on that issue?
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would agree with my colleague. I haven't met one DVA person yet in all the years I've been a member of Parliament who doesn't treat the veterans with respect and dignity.
The problem is the system: “You're 85 years old, now go apply for a benefit”, and they have to fill out the forms and appeal, and get a legal counsel and appeal, and go to VRAB and appeal. It's mind-boggling for people who have never done it. At my age, I could fight the system and maybe be successful or not if I had a personal issue. But for those who are disabled, those suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, and those who are elderly, it is quite a challenge to even attempt it. We know that many of them try for the first time, maybe are denied, and just say, “well, that's it”, and give up. That is most unfortunate. It's not you; it's the levels they have to get through. You had indicated earlier, sir, that within the mandate you have, to streamline that process and get rid of, as you said, the nonsense, would be greatly appreciated. I'm sure many veterans would appreciate that.
I have a couple of questions for you on the earnings loss benefit. If you're a lieutenant in the navy and you're medically released for something serious, you get 75% of your income at the salary you're earning at that time. But if you're a lieutenant in the navy, and say you served 11 years, there's a high probability that you were going up the ladder. You could have been a commander, a lieutenant commander, or even an admiral. You could even have been the Chief of Defence Staff, maybe. The problem is that 75% stays at the level you earned when you left. There's no allowance for the possibility that you might have made more of an income as you progressed down the road. I know that's not been taken into consideration, but that's one of the recommendations that we have received from various people. I'm just wondering if you could comment on that, if indeed you have heard that, and what you would think about that.
The second thing of course is that we had the old Pension Act system, and we have the new Veterans Charter. Now you've had that for almost four years. I think that's enough time to make a financial analysis of the benefits and the amount paid out under the new Veterans Charter compared to those under the old Pension Act. Has your department had an opportunity to compare the two in that regard in the overall dollar sense?
I have one last question for you, and this is about something outside the charter. Mr. Ferguson—Brian Ferguson's a great guy—has just announced that they're doing a survey involving 1,200 of the over 217,000 DVA clients. They're asking the 1,200 clients, “What do you think of DVA's services? Have they been done appropriately? What do you think of the staff?”, etc. It's a good thing to do. The problem is they're not asking people who are not clients of DVA, of whom there are twice as many as there are clients. They're not being asked their opinion of DVA. What do they think about being denied a pension plan? What do they think of taking months and months and months to get through the system? Mr. Ferguson had indicated to some people who asked him that they can't get hold of those people. My advice is, if you get a chance to speak to Mr. Ferguson, you can put it on the website. There are six major veterans organizations in the country representing 90% of the veterans. Ask them. It can be done through newspaper ads, through television, or whatever.
Every single veteran and/or their spouse should have the opportunity to comment on what they perceive are the services of DVA. Then I think you'll get a true reflection of where you may need some slight improvements or something. If you're talking only to people who get a benefit, obviously if I'm 85 years old, get VIP and get treated well, I love you guys. But if I'm 85 years old and was denied VIP and couldn't get the service, I'm not going to be very happy. If you want a careful analysis of how you're doing, I think you should ask both people to see what they think. If you're speaking to him, and he could do that, that would be great.
Thank you.
:
I noted three questions. Thank you, Mr. Stoffer.
Maybe I'll start at the bottom and work up. I'll ask Anne-Marie to talk to you a little about outreach as well.
I accept the points you made. Obviously it's very important to have the views of not just veterans who are clients, but veterans who are not clients. There are various outreach strategies that Anne-Marie can speak to, but I'll leave that to her.
On the comparison between the disability pension and the disability award, one can make scenarios for ever and ever. There are many scenarios I could present to you that show very positive outcomes, and many of them are based on actual case examples where we've realized those outcomes. I could also present to you scenarios where, at least from the financial perspective, over the long term someone would appear to be better off under the old program, and we acknowledge that.
You had testimony before that in some measure the new Veterans Charter is a recalibration of how money is used. It follows the philosophy that those with greater need should get greater support. So are there areas where someone might get less money? If it's the money you're focused on, absolutely, and I'd be happy to share those scenarios with you.
Next week our colleagues are coming with scenarios, and I encourage you to take the opportunity to ask them to walk you through them, because I think scenarios can be a very good way of getting some useful information.
You made the point on career progression. You're quite right that the earnings loss program does not factor that in, as I acknowledged earlier. In some measure the permanent impairment allowance does, although somewhat indirectly. It makes certain assumptions, it assumes there will be some impacts, and it provides a level of money based on sort of functional levels the individual may have.
I'd like to share with you--and certain of our advisory forums have shared this sort of information with us--that there are models out there one can look at and compare, where career progression is a factor. Now it's not within our authority, so there is an implication to that. But those models do exist. We know, for example, that the Canadian Forces can tell you what an average career progression would be. Everybody is not going to be the CDS, but typically if people start at a certain level and they're in it for a career, they will rise to a certain level. So there is information available that you can consider if you wish. But my point is that it is not within the authority we have today.
:
Through you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to thank my friend Mr. McColeman for his kind words. I have often given him the ultimate compliment that I can to a Conservative MP, which is to say he's really a Liberal. But I will tell you that over here, Mr. McColeman, we don't normally filibuster through our questions.
Going back to what Mr. McColeman mentioned, the disability award... Just so we're clear, I fully understand that there are other mechanisms to support a veteran who needs it. My concern was that we should be erring on the side of generosity to a veteran who has sustained a severe injury. When I read this example for the disability award of somebody with such a severe injury getting under the maximum, I was concerned. So you are going to look into that and report back whether that would be an actual example that would take place. I would hope that you would report back that somebody who had a spinal cord injury and was paralyzed would get the maximum.
In terms of the death benefit, you did mention that if somebody died on the 32nd day, there would be the same level of support because they would receive that money elsewhere within the overall system. But I'd like to get specific details from you with respect to that analysis. When you look at the death benefit of $250,000, it's tax-free, so they can take that and invest it. They don't have to buy an annuity, but they could buy an annuity. And if they did buy an annuity, they would then receive tax-free payments of roughly $15,000 a year from an insurance company, because all payments from insurance companies are tax-free.
Could you please provide exact details--whether you can do it now or write it up and table it another time--of how, if a veteran died on the 32nd day, their family would receive the equivalent of approximately $25,000 or $30,000 per year for life from this system, or otherwise how they would take that money and invest it for longevity? I'm not on this committee, so I can't give you the exact details. I am concerned by your answer, which was that somehow this would be replaced automatically through other mechanisms. I'd like to know if that's accurate. Just let us know how they would receive approximately $25,000 or $30,000 per year for life or how they would receive approximately $15,000 per year tax-free for life if they are a couple of days late under this system. Because if not, I think the system needs to be changed.