Proceedings of the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs
Issue 5 - Evidence - April 25, 2012
OTTAWA, Wednesday, April 25, 2012
The Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met this day at 12:06 p.m. to study the services and benefits provided to members of the Canadian Forces; to veterans; to members and former members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and their families.
Senator Roméo Antonius Dallaire (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Welcome, everyone, to the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs. The subcommittee is currently studying the services and benefits provided to members of the Canadian Forces; to veterans; to members and former members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and their families. The study covers all dimensions related to the transition of members who are still serving or who are no longer serving or have become veterans, to help them integrate civilian life and contribute positively to their country and of course also be positive for themselves and their families.
Today, we have the pleasure of having General Bigelow, Director General of Personnel and Family Support Services at National Defence.
Good afternoon, General Bigelow. I did not receive your biography, so perhaps you could say a few words about your career.
General Bigelow is accompanied by Colonel Blais, Director of Casualty Support Management. It is not the first time we see him.
We also have André Bouchard, President of Financial Services for the Service Income Security Insurance Plan (SISIP), who has also been around for a long time.
Welcome to all of you.
Brigadier-General Fred Bigelow, Director General of Personnel and Family Support Services, National Defence: Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is a pleasure to be here today to provide you with an overview of my organization's role in facilitating the transition of Canadian Forces personnel from the military to civilian life.
I am joined, as the chair said, by Mr. André Bouchard, President of Financial Services for the Service Income Security Insurance Plan (SISIP), and Colonel Gerry Blais, Director of Casualty Support Management for the Canadian Forces and Commanding Officer of the Joint Personnel Support Unit (JPSU).
[English]
Mr. Bouchard is responsible for administering the Canadian Forces Long Term Disability plan and the Vocational Rehabilitation Plan. Colonel Blais is responsible for the provision of non-clinical support services to ill and injured military personnel and transition services for all personnel leaving the Canadian Forces.
As you may know, the Canadian Force's Long Term Disability plan is a replacement income protection for Canadian Forces personnel whether they are released for medical reasons or depart voluntary. Personnel who leave the Canadian Forces due to medical limitations have an automatic 24-month entitlement to those benefits, and those who leave of their own volition are eligible for the same benefit if they are deemed to be totally disabled.
All long-term disability claimants may be eligible for continued benefits as long as they qualify as totally disabled, up to the age of 65. Please note that SISIP, the insurance program for long-term disability, is the first payer and covers members 24-7, whether those members have a service-related injury or disease or, indeed, if the injury or disease is not service-related.
Veterans Affairs programs integrate with the SISIP Long Term Disability and Vocational Rehabilitation Program, supporting members who are medically released.
[Translation]
Manulife Financial, as the contracted insurer for all SISIP insurance programs, provides administrative services such as all claims adjudication, the payment of monthly Long-Term Disability benefits, and management of the Vocational Rehabilitation Plan.
[English]
SISIP Financial Services has been in operation since 1969. The organization is an integral part of the Department of National Defence. It is dedicated exclusively to the Canadian Forces community. It is a division of my organization, the Canadian Forces Personnel and Family Support Services, and its personnel deliver life insurance products, financial counselling, financial planning services, financial management and education programs, in addition to administering the Long Term Disability and Vocational Rehabilitation Plan.
It should be noted that the Chief of the Defence Staff is the policyholder to SISIP programs. Treasury Board is responsible for the governance of the Long Term Disability programs and pays 95.5 per cent of the premiums for regular force long-term disability and 100 per cent of the premiums for reserve force long-term disability plans.
The Vocational Rehabilitation Program is a component of the Canadian Forces Long Term Disability that provides members with an opportunity to obtain gainful employment in the civilian workforce. They do that by building on their existing education — a key point — their skills, their training and their experience at the time of release. Benefits under the Vocational Rehabilitation Program can begin as early as six months prior to release and continue on for 24 months post-release, for a period of up to 30 months.
Treasury Board, as I previously mentioned, has full governance of the plan, therefore SISIP Financial Services cannot pay benefits in excess of the various amounts authorized by Treasury Board with respect to claims and the Vocational Rehabilitation Program.
Recently, on April 10, the Minister of National Defence announced that enhancements to the minimum benefits paid under the Canadian Forces Long Term Disability program have been approved by Treasury Board, aligning them with the Veterans Affairs Canada Earnings Loss Benefit, or the ELB program, designed for disabled veterans. I will point out that these enhancements are retroactive back to October 3, 2011.
I would like to provide a few key statistics to demonstrate the benefits derived from SISIP to Canadian Forces personnel. There were about 141,000 serving and retired military personnel and their families insured under SISIP Financial Services life insurance plans in 2011. Approximately $38.5 million in life insurance benefits were paid in that year.
There are currently 100,800 regular and reserve force members insured under the SISIP Financial Services Long Term Disability plan — the issue at hand today — and payments and support provided by long-term disability and vocational rehabilitation plans in 2011 were valued at $71.2 million that year. Finally, we have roughly 3,500 members receiving long-term disability benefits and about 3,200 members received vocational rehabilitation plan benefits in 2011.
Moving from SISIP proper, we see the creation of the Joint Personnel Support Unit has facilitated interaction and the exchange of information between SISIP and the Canadian Forces to the benefit of the member. At the headquarters level, the Joint Personnel Support Unit transition services regularly update SISIP on an individual's release status and provide support documentation to expedite the process; whereas at the field level the Integrated Personnel Support Centre provides general information on the various programs available to releasing personnel, including long-term disability and vocational rehabilitation programs.
For further information, an appointment is arranged with the local SISIP representative who tailors a solution to each person. Contact is also made with our colleagues in Veterans Affairs at the early stage to ensure that the transition efforts are coordinated in order to ensure that the person leaving the Canadian Forces has the very best opportunity for a successful transition to civilian life.
[Translation]
Transition services provided by the Canadian Forces in addition to those available through the SISIP programs include Second Career Assistance Network seminars at every Canadian Forces base to assist with retirement planning and preparation, Priority Hiring in the Public Service, job placement in the private sector through the Transition Assistance Program, Education Reimbursement for upgrading and in preparation for career transition and the Vocational Rehabilitation Plan for Serving Members that allows up to six months of career transition preparation prior to release.
[English]
Mr. Chair, this concludes my opening remarks and we would be pleased to respond to any questions you have. You did ask if I would care to explain my bio. I do not know if that is of interest now, but I would like to point out that after a pretty traditional operational career, where I had a chance to deal with these programs from the bottom up, from the unit or the base level, dealing with the services we provide, whether it is insurance through the IPSCs and IPSUs, it was my strong desire to work in human resources. I sought out this particular position because of the chance we get to work with the ill and injured on Colonel Blais' side and the other human resources services we provide our members, and particularly the families of our members.
With that, it would be our pleasure to take any questions you may have.
The Chair: Did you fly maritime air?
Brig.-Gen. Bigelow: Principally maritime patrol, as well as search and rescue and a little bit of teaching on the prairies.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
I have Senators Plett and Lang to start. I remind senators that we have an hour and a few minutes as we go around on what can be a bit of a complex exercise as we look at the whole program. We should also remember Veterans Canada in all this.
Senator Plett: Thank you for accepting our invitation to come here again. We certainly appreciate all the presentations you have made in the past and we appreciate this one as well.
I have a document from a group that is a little unhappy with compensation that some of our vets are receiving. One of the things that I hear about is a comparison of our disability plans with workers' compensation and even with private insurance. This group compares the benefits they are receiving with workers' compensation benefits that they would be receiving if they had been injured under Workers' Compensation.
First, I understand that there is obviously a huge difference in the two. Clearly, workers' compensation injuries are generally injuries that are more by way of an accident, and compensation varies from province to province.
Would any one of you indicate whether you believe that the compensation packages we offer injured and disabled vets are close to what many of the workers' compensation programs in the provinces would be paying?
Also, if those of us who have been in business have had group benefit packages that we have gotten for employees, how do they compare to the average type of package that we could get there?
Brig.-Gen. Bigelow: My focus to date has been on comparing how our package relates to other government-funded disability plans, but that does not answer your question. I will see if Mr. Bouchard can answer your question concerning how our package relates to other packages we would see provincially, across the country.
André Bouchard, President, Service Income Security Insurance Plan (SISIP): Like you, I know how we compare with the other government insurance plans, but I would not have an answer as to how we compare overall with the various workers' compensation plans across this land and as to what other insurance companies do provide. With respect to other insurance companies, it depends. A person would have to buy the coverage that they need, and, of course, they would have to pay a high price for that coverage. However, generally speaking, my focus is on the various government disability insurance plans, and I can say that we do compare extremely well with all of them. For example, the RCMP essentially mirrors the benefits in our plan. Essentially, the plans that you or the members of the public service have would also compare fairly well with what we have. The benefit we pay is essentially 75 per cent of someone's pay at the time of release. Most of the DI plans within government would pay maybe 70 per cent, except for the RCMP, which pays 75 per cent. That would be the extent of my answer.
Colonel Gérard Blais, Director of Casualty Support Management, National Defence: We do have one outstanding program for reservists called reserve force compensation. Any reservist injured as a result of their military service receives 100 per cent of their salary until they are either able to continue with their military or civilian operation or, because a lot of our reservists are still at school, until they can resume school full time. Until the doctor certifies that they are ready to do that, we give them 100 per cent of their salary.
Brig.-Gen. Bigelow: If I may, senator, and if the chair is in agreement, I would like to take that question as notice. I will tell you why. I have been doing a similar analysis on our life insurance policies — the premiums we pay and the benefits — in comparison to those available in Canada in the private market.
For the same reason you are interested, I too would like to know how those programs compare to the comparable programs available from the various provinces. It would be my pleasure to get that analysis back to this committee.
Senator Plett: Thank you very much. I would appreciate that because my second question was about the life insurance policies, so you have started already with that.
Do you have an answer about the life insurance policies?
Brig.-Gen. Bigelow: I certainly do, senator. We offer a couple of types of life insurance programs. Most of our serving members get what you are familiar with as a group term policy. There is a slightly different policy available, but it is the same idea for group term insurance for those post retirement.
Generally speaking, our rates are favourable. It depends, of course, on what groups you are comparing it to. We have done a fairly rigorous analysis, and there are, indeed, groups. For example, I always cite the Canadian Bar Association, which has a very favourable premium plan compared to ours. However, generally speaking, our rates are favourable, but that is only part of the story because we do not differentiate based on employment. I will deal with war risk coverage later. As a very personal example, but a good one, when my wife was pregnant with our first child, I was teaching and flying a small jet in Moose Jaw. My sister, who is in the insurance business, would sell me a policy, but she could not come close to the rates that I could achieve with SISIP because of the way SISIP is structured not to differentiate based on one's actual occupation.
I am saying our rates are favourable, but our coverage, generally speaking, is broader and better in the sense that it has no limitations for either occupation or war risk. That is an issue that has changed somewhat since Senator Dallaire and I first started with the military. We did not have war risk coverage, in the days of the Cold War, should Canada have gone to war with certain nations, which would likely have been a disaster, a global war.
Around 1991, that was changed such that any member was covered in the situation of a war zone or, as we talk about now, terrorism, which is something that almost all policies will not cover.
When you combine the fact that our rates are generally favourable with the broad coverage and no war risk and terrorism exclusion, that puts us in pretty good stead.
Senator Plett: Thank you. Does SISIP pay even if the injured vet has some other private life insurance or accident policy? You would pay regardless?
Brig.-Gen. Bigelow: I would be careful there. Are we talking about life insurance or disability?
Senator Plett: I am talking about both.
Brig.-Gen. Bigelow: That is what I thought, sir. Life insurance is not a problem. The life insurance policy would be paid out. When we look at long-term disability insurance, we talk about the first payer. Generally speaking, SISIP is the first payer. However, as you may be aware, depending on other sources of income, reductions can be made to the long-term disability payout, which is traditionally 75 per cent of what one was making at release. There are reasons why that would be reduced. For disability, that number could be reduced if, for example, there was a pension amount — Canadian Forces Superannuation Act pension. Those things would be pulled off the top such that the net amount would still remain at 75 per cent. Do I have that right, Mr. Bouchard?
Mr. Bouchard: Yes. However, in addition to CFSAP, the Canada Pension Plan would also be a reduction, as would the monthly Pension Act payment that some members may still receive. Those are the only three reductions from the 75 per cent. They are guaranteed, overall, a benefit of 75 per cent of their pay at the time of their release.
Senator Plett: You spoke about helping people prepare for retirement. One of the things that we have heard — and at least Senator Dallaire was with me in Edmonton a year or so ago — is that our communication is not always as good as it should be. Yet, when we sat around the dinner table, I asked some of the young vets. Of course, we were meeting with veterans. I always thought veterans should have a haircut like yourself, general, and here we had these young guys who were 21 or 22 years old and had done two or three tours of duty. I asked them about the communications, and they said, "Well, senator, you know, when we have free time, leave, or whatever, most of us would rather go and drink beer than go to listen to some seminar about what our benefits are."
They were not complaining about the lack of communication, but, overall, we hear that many of our vets are not familiar with what options are out there for them. How well do we communicate retirement planning benefits, teaching veterans what benefits there are out there for them?
Brig.-Gen. Bigelow: I will start and then maybe pass it over to Colonel Blais, who is actually dealing with these people in transition.
I honestly think that we do a pretty good job of trying to lead a horse to water. We run things through — and I made reference to it in my opening remarks — the Second Career Assistance Network, like a two-day workshop for everyone who is potentially leaving the military. We encourage people to take it long before making final plans, and there is another day specifically designed for people who have injuries or who are leaving on a medical release because their administration is more complicated. There is a lot of information out there. I recently attended one of these SCAN seminars, and I got a fair bit out of it. Not everyone avails themselves of that information. What the people who work for me are tired of hearing is that communications tend to be the root of all evil in any organization. Mr. Blais and I have been dealing with a couple of cases recently where an individual, who is soon to be released, misunderstands his situation because he has not got the right information. That turns a very minor issue into a huge problem and a lot of angst for that individual and his family.
To recap, I think we are doing a good job, but especially when emotions are involved. Again, the easy cases, the people who sleep well, come to work, pay attention and read what is given to them, that is okay. People who are dealing with huge issues in their life, be it physical or mental injury, their receiver is not always as finally tuned, and we need to be sensitive to that. That does not make it easier when dealing with the tough cases. That is my overview.
Colonel Blais and his staff are dealing with this stuff every day in the IPSCs.
Col. Blais: The one big improvement we have made recently is that transition services used to be split. I looked after them for the ill and injured and the Canadian Defence Academy looked after them for the remainder of the Canadian Forces. The CMP has decided that will be done through one shop, which is ours. The one instrument we have to make this easier is that in each of the Integrated Personnel Support Centres we have a position called an outreach coordinator. They go to every unit in their location, in their region, and provide briefings. Not only will they explain the benefits are for ill and injured personnel, but they will expand on retirement and transition possibilities. That will get the word out more efficiently.
Senator Plett: Those are volunteer workshops?
Col. Blais: In some cases. In many of them they are professional development sessions asked for by the commanding officer, and for those it is, "You will attend."
Senator Plett: Thank you.
The Chair: In the case that we are talking about today, we are talking about veterans still in service who are transitioning outside of the service and will fall under the auspices, at one point, of Veterans Affairs. SISIP is that sort of holding pattern before Veterans Affairs kicks in. That might be a point of questioning that we might want to talk about later. We will come back to that.
Senator Lang: I want to bring Senator Wallin's regrets that she could not be here. She has a personal family matter that she has to attend to and has asked me to sit in for her.
I have a number of questions. First, in your opening statement you refer to the premiums for the regular force of 95.5 per cent and then 100 per cent of the premiums for the reserve force long-term disability plan that is paid for by Treasury Board. Is that consistent throughout government? Is that for all government programs, from the point of view of premiums being paid?
Brig.-Gen. Bigelow: First, let me explain that 95.5 per cent figure and then we will talk about across the government.
Reserve force is easy: 100 per cent. With the regular force, the government pays 100 per cent of the premiums for service-attributable illness or injury. However, for non-service-attributable illness or injury they pay 85 per cent, and 15 per cent is paid for by the member. That has not always been thus; I think it goes back to 2009.
Mr. Bouchard: It goes back to 2009. To answer part of your question, it is also in line with what the other government plans are doing. There are two components to our long-term disability. One we refer to as "own occupation" for the first 24 months. If you have a medical condition that is directly attributable to military service, this is the piece where the government will fund 100 per cent of the premium. This is consistent with what they do with the other government plans.
Senator Lang: That was basically my question, whether we were paying a 100 per cent premium across the board for these various types of insurance.
I want to go to another area, if I could. We referred to the Vocational Rehabilitation plan and you said the numbers receiving benefits under that were 3,217 members. Can you give us some idea of our success rate from the point of view of providing the Vocational Rehabilitation plan? Since we have had some experience, at the end of the day how many are successful and move on to other capacities in life and subsequently, I would say, we, at that time, bear no responsibility?
Mr. Bouchard: On the success rate, when we look at the complete book of business, we have roughly over 3,000 members. That is always in vocational rehabilitation. That means that any given year about 1,000 new members come in and some leave the program. With respect to the 1,000 who leave on any given annual basis, the success rate is about 70 per cent. That would be people who would have the right skill sets to find gainful employment. The key words there are the tools and the skill sets to find gainful employment. That is about 70 per cent of that 1,000.
We do not track numbers of people, per se, who find employment, but while they are within the confines of the program, during the first 24 months, we know a good number of people leave the program. That is because they have the skills, and during that 24 months they are physically finding employment.
There is also a group of people who will terminate after 24 months who have the skill sets, but we do not know whether they have found employment. The success rate of giving people, the claimants, the required skill sets is over 70 per cent. That is our success rate right now.
Senator Lang: Perhaps you could clarify this for me then, because I am somewhat confused. If I were a vet and I enrolled in the Vocational Rehabilitation plan and I spent 24 or 30 months — according to this that is the longest that I could be part of that program — at that stage am I then on my own to move on into civilian life?
Mr. Bouchard: Before you move on your own you are given all the required tools to find employment. For example, it could be a job search or a job lead with various employers. We do all of those things while the person is within the 24 months. Once they leave the program that essentially stops. There is also a transition that happens with Veterans Affairs. Those people are essentially not being dropped.
That is why, concurrently with VAC, those people could go to VAC and while in search of employment could receive benefits under VAC, similar to under the SISIP LTD. It is similar to SISIP LTD, which is the Earnings Loss Benefit. Some people could qualify under VAC for other benefits while in search of employment.
When I talk about this 70 per cent, so it is not misleading, there is always another 30 per cent that will fall off the program. Once they start vocational rehabilitation if, for some reason, they have a medical condition that worsens and they can no longer take that program, they drop off, they will remain claimants but will not remain on the VRP itself. There is another 15 per cent that, for some reason, will quit the program for various reasons, such as personal reasons they may have. However, for the ones who remain, 70 per cent is the rate of success.
Senator Lang: I want to make myself clear. I do not know a great deal about this program, but I think the government is doing the best they can to provide the services for these men and women in recognition of what they have done for us.
What I would like to further pursue in respect to this is looking ahead. In view of the fact that Afghanistan is coming to a close — at least at this time — our commitments in the world theatres are becoming less, do you see these numbers going down in the next number of years, assuming that we do not move into another area such as Afghanistan or something similar in nature?
Brig.-Gen. Bigelow: I would like to jump on that. To back up to ensure it is entirely clear, Mr. Bouchard was focusing on the Vocational Rehabilitation plan, and the disability benefits is another matter. That is why I think you picked up on the difference between what I quoted as roughly 3,500 individuals receiving disability payments but only 3,200, roughly, in that year going through the Vocational Rehabilitation Program.
There are a number of reasons for this, not the least of which is there are people who are totally disabled and there is not a practical vocational rehab.
Looking forward, this is a challenge for us because, barring another major operation like Afghanistan, one would assume that the reduction in physical injuries and the tough numbers, tough folks we are dealing with coming home from overseas, would diminish and therefore the demand for programs like this would lessen.
We tend to get fixated on physical and not mental injuries. I am new to this game as someone working in the field as opposed to just supporting my men and women. However, I have learned quickly that the latent effect of mental health issues is we are getting better at predicting, but of course there is a delay. As we are starting to see the fall off of numbers from our time in the Balkans, we are still dealing with cases like that. The health services folks are working hard with our colleagues in VAC as well who would like to project what kind of services will be required before a member leaves the military and what support we give them before potentially handing the member off as a member or a client of VAC.
That is a long-winded way of saying that I do not anticipate an immediate reduction in demand following the end of the training mission in Kabul. It is a science we are working on; it is not a science we have down pat, but we are anticipating a continued demand well past the final date in Kabul. I know Colonel Blais' folks are looking at this and working closely with their partners in VAC. Perhaps the colonel can elaborate with more details than I have provided.
Col. Blais: Statistically we average approximately 1,000 releases for medical reasons from the Canadian Forces in any given year. If we look at Mr. Bouchard's numbers and say there are slightly more than 3,000 people in the program and that the benefits are available for 30 months, which is close to three years, and you do the math, it is 1,000 a year for three years. We should be at about a steady state in the area of 3,000 to 3,500.
Senator Lang: One other question, if I could, to go back to PTS and all the mental injuries that are associated with that. What about this scenario: I am a vet. I come home and things are okay. I go back into civilian life but there are, say, two years down the road, some repercussions from what I experienced over in Afghanistan. Am I eligible to come back or am I on my own?
Brig.-Gen. Bigelow: This is an important understanding of the social contract the Canadian Forces has with Canada and the programs that are there.
The Long Term Disability program that we have described and focused on is pretty similar to anyone else who works for the federal government. Although we talked about how it is obvious if you get released on a medical disability — and this is not the case you described; the person leaves voluntarily — we mentioned that you could conceivably come back if someone released voluntarily and become a SISIP client.
However, then there is VAC and the Earnings Loss Benefit and all the other support programs that go with that. VAC's position, and someone will probably tell me, Brigadier-General Bigelow, you are representing DND here and not Veterans Affairs, but I will give you my cut on it to try to answer your question as best I can, and Colonel Blais can back me up if I stray too far off.
Someone who has been released for some time, has an injury — and we do not really care what kind of injury it is; in this case you describe a mental injury, but it could be a physical injury — attributable to service, that is what VAC is there for. Is it as simple as that, Colonel Blais?
Col. Blais: That is right.
Brig.-Gen. Bigelow: The answer is he should not be on his own. To say that no one falls through the cracks through my organization or others, we work hard to ensure that does not happen, but that is the way it is supposed to work.
Mr. Bouchard: If I may, I would like to add something on this one. With respect to the assisted plan, there is also a clause within the policy if there is a relapse. Once a member is off-benefit, at 24 months that member may be described as off-claim for that period of time. However, if that member has a relapse within three years of being off-benefit, then he could be reinstated under the SISIP program. At the same time, as the general described, he could also apply for VAC benefits. He has quite a good safety net in that case.
The Chair: Would my colleagues mind an intervention to set a bit of the scene in regards to SISIP and VAC here and to ensure I am on net with you?
SISIP came into being during peacetime soldiering as an insurance policy for injuries that occurred, sort of garrison injuries. It was not a program brought in for operational conditions and special duty areas; that has always been the purview of Veterans Affairs Canada. We essentially brought in a civilian program of compensation and benefits, plus life insurance, in this peacetime civilian mode, which SISIP covered. If you lost a finger or whatever, you have all these things.
Senator Lang: Like workers' compensation.
The Chair: The scenario we have stumbled into however — and your question was right on, Senator Lang — is that we all of a sudden turned into an era where the troops are no longer in garrison but are in operations all the time and hopefully come back to garrison to lick their wounds.
In that context, the question is does SISIP still have its role with regard to veterans who are injured operationally, and where does it stop and Veterans Affairs Canada kick in? Should a veteran who is injured operationally automatically fall under Veterans Affairs Canada and not under SISIP? As an example, and correct me, Veterans Affairs Canada will provide benefits for spousal training and so on because the individual cannot find a job; however, SISIP does not have that program. If the individual is sitting two years under SISIP and then falls under VAC, there are some nuances there that should, perhaps, be looked at. Do we want to touch on that a bit as we continue?
I am just trying to set the scene. SISIP was a civilian equivalent of a compensation program for peacetime soldiering where previously we had absolutely nothing when you trained and were injured. Veterans Affairs Canada is an operational. The two are working and we are not too sure exactly how that works out.
Brig.-Gen. Bigelow: To help set that scene, the honourable senator brought up the analogy to workers' compensation. I think that is not correct. I will take advice from my colleagues, but workers' compensation was all about being injured on the job, whereas SISIP Long Term Disability is like private or other government long-term disability programs where a tragedy happens — for example, in your private life a car accident — which leaves you unable to work or support yourself and your family, which would not be a workers' compensation thing. The important distinction to make is this LTD, this SISIP Long Term Disability, covers the individual at work or not at work, as opposed to workers' compensation. As the chair correctly points out, it was originally designed with the idea of those more traditional civilian disability programs, not visioning the state of operations in the last 10 years.
Senator Day: I am still trying to sort out all of these points.
The Chair: We have a lawyer here, so we are going into detail.
Senator Day: Some of my questions will probably be plowing ground we have already been over at other times you have had a chance to visit us looking at this from a different point of view.
From the point of view of SISIP Long Term Disability that you talked about for non-occupational injury, that was 85 per cent coverage. Is 85 per cent paid for by the government? Am I correct?
Mr. Bouchard: That would be the part for non-service attributable injury where the government pays 85 per cent and the member's share is 15 per cent.
Senator Day: As a result of that, is that optional or is that still mandatory?
Mr. Bouchard: No, it is mandatory. It is part of the package. We do not differentiate. All members of the Canadian Forces must have SISIP LTD. As soon as they enroll in the Canadian Forces, they have this LTD.
Senator Day: You start deducting from their paycheque 15 per cent?
Mr. Bouchard: We start deducting their 15 per cent from their paycheque.
Senator Day: Does that cover life insurance as well?
Mr. Bouchard: No, it does not. Life insurance is completely optional.
Senator Day: Life insurance is optional, but the 15 per cent that the general was talking about, this non- occupational injury, is mandatory?
Mr. Bouchard: It is. It is part of that LTD package. It is for both service attributable and non-service attributable injury. This also aligns with all of the plans of the federal government. They are all essentially compulsory plans. The fact that you are working as a senator or a member of Parliament or members of the public service, you have to enroll in those plans. They are compulsory and you pay for them accordingly.
Senator Day: There was a special differentiation a few years ago between dismemberment and injury for higher- ranking Armed Forces personnel. Was it the lower-level members of the Canadian Forces who were under SISIP, and this other program was for someone else, the higher ranks?
Brig.-Gen. Bigelow: Yes. Any Canadian Forces member can avail themselves of SISIP products. Members of the public service and members of the Canadian Forces at equivalent ranks, which is colonel and above, have the General Officers' Insurance Plan, which provides certain automatic benefits. It is a benefit, like anything else.
Then arose the question, "Why would my leg be worth more than my captain's leg?" Essentially, that was the debate. The decision was made that they are not worth more; there should be no difference. Along came the Accidental Dismemberment Insurance Plan. Perhaps Mr. Bouchard can explain it. It is entirely funded, right?
Mr. Bouchard: Yes, this program is entirely funded by the Canadian Forces. Members do not pay any premium for that coverage.
Senator Day: It is the same?
Mr. Bouchard: It is the same. It is harmonized with the General Officers' Insurance Plan.
Senator Day: If as a result of that dismemberment there is a disability — there likely would be — they come under the SISIP Long Term Disability program, which is something separate. Is that correct?
Mr. Bouchard: It is possible. If someone has been dismembered, they will get compensation for that dismemberment, and it must be service-attributable. If it is not service-attributable, they do not qualify under the Accidental Dismemberment Insurance Plan. If the same member is later released on medical grounds, they would be entitled to receive the SISIP Long Term Disability plan as well.
Senator Day: I see. There are a number of different plans here. We have to be sure that when you are talking about one, you are not covering another concept.
Mr. Bouchard: It is interesting to note that under SISIP, the maximum for ADIP, the Accidental Dismemberment Insurance Plan, is $250,000. Under VAC, they have a like benefit that pays a bit more because it is indexed to the cost of living. Essentially, a member who loses two legs under service-attributable could collect $250,000 from SISIP and close to $290,000 from VAC for the same dismemberment.
Senator Day: Therefore, he or she would have to have suffered the dismemberment being covered by Veterans Affairs?
Mr. Bouchard: No. Everyone is covered. Any service-attributable injury or illness is automatically covered under VAC. The Accidental Dismemberment Insurance Plan is strictly for pure dismemberment. Medical conditions are not covered under ADIP, but there are medical conditions covered under VAC for the same amount of money. Someone could have a medical condition as opposed to dismemberment. That is why they are currently paying the disability allowance, which can go up to about $290,000. That also covers dismemberment.
Senator Day: I have to ask you more questions on this. How do you get into a payment for dismemberment under Veterans Affairs Canada as opposed to payment for dismemberment under the Canadian Forces program?
Mr. Bouchard: It is part of the coverage that is being offered to members of the Canadian Forces. They will know. If they do not know, we will guide them to the benefits they are entitled to. They will apply to both the SISIP and the ADIP and they will receive the benefit. If they are not aware of the VAC benefit, then they will be guided to apply for that benefit as well in order to ensure that no one falls through the cracks during the process.
Senator Day: From a dismemberment point of view, are they entitled to a lump sum payment from both?
Mr. Bouchard: Both from VAC and from SISIP.
Senator Day: One of them could be $290,000 and the other $250,000 for the same dismemberment, correct?
Mr. Bouchard: Exactly.
Brig.-Gen. Bigelow: Correct me if I am wrong, but the key here was to harmonize those benefits throughout the chain of command so there would be no differentiation between the most junior and the most senior person.
Mr. Bouchard: Yes.
Senator Day: That is one issue we were pleased to have participated in solving by exposing the inherent unfairness there. We are now getting into this transition area between Canadian Forces and Veterans Affairs.
You indicated there was an announcement made recently to try to align with Veterans Affairs Canada's Earnings Loss Benefit. Veterans Affairs Canada has an Earnings Loss Benefit program together with the Canadian Forces Long Term Disability program, and the announcement was to try to take away the discrepancy between the two of those.
Brig.-Gen. Bigelow: Really, we need to go back about a year when the government made a decision. Notwithstanding these disability programs, whether we call it long-term disability or the Veterans Affairs Earnings Loss Benefit, it should be based on 75 per cent of the salary at release. A decision was made that there would be a minimum, a backstop, if you will. That decision was pegged at a basic corporal. Both Veterans Affairs and National Defence were to raise their minimum, which required an injection of funds to cover that off.
In the case of SISIP, through National Defence, that required an injection of about $113 million, which would mean that for regular force clients it would be based on the salary of a basic corporal, which last year was around $53,000. 75 per cent of that would mean they should see a minimum of $40,000.
Veterans Affairs did that through their program which, again, are similar but not identical because who qualifies for these plans? We have talked about service attributable versus non-service attributable, which is a key difference. However, the net result is that for someone with a service-attributable injury where they receive a benefit through us or through Veterans Affair, they should get the same amount. That same amount is based on a basic corporal; their gross benefit would be around $40,000.
Veterans Affairs put that through in the fall; we continue to work on that. Ours was announced recently but backdated. Not only would the benefit be the same, but retroactive payments would be the same, so whether you are a VAC or a SISIP client, the net result would be the same.
Senator Day: To clarify your explanation, which is very clear, your earlier explanation to an earlier question was whether they are in the Veterans Affairs program or the Canadian Forces when they qualified, which would be determined by virtue of when the injury or the disability became apparent. If he was still in the Armed Forces, he would be on the Armed Forces Long Term Disability program. If that injury became apparent after he was retired and under Veterans Affairs, then their program would trigger it. Is that correct?
Brig.-Gen. Bigelow: Exactly, with the caveat that that would only apply in situations where it was attributable to military service. If it was not, then it would not be a VAC issue.
Senator Day: Yes. I understand that.
I have one other point for the record because I think we had this clarified once before. Manulife is the private sector company that manages the SISIP program. I have forgotten how long that contract was and when it is coming up for renewal in order for other private sector companies to bid on it.
Mr. Bouchard: That contract is over 40 years old. The first part of the contract was owned by Maritime Life, and when Maritime Life was purchased by Manulife, the contract just continued with Manulife.
There is nothing right now in the works to have this part of the business sent to market again for potential bidders. When we start looking at the various disability plans out there, there are very few companies to start with that have the right skill set or the expertise to manage long-term disability plans.
Right now, for unionized employees of the public service, Sun Life provides the same service as for employees who are not unionized. For members of Parliament and senators, it is through Industrial Alliance, and Manulife looks after the business of the military. This is where we are at with this.
I must add that there are all kinds of checks and balances being done throughout the year to ensure that the fees charged by Manulife, Sun Life and Industrial Alliance are in line. If some of the charges were out of whack, Treasury Board would be the first one to question why Manulife or Sun Life is charging more for administrative fees than others. There are all kinds of checks and balances throughout the year through OSFI.
Senator Day: We do not have time to get into all those checks and balances now, but I think it is important to recognize that there must be checks and balances. When a private sector company is providing services to the government on an indefinite contract where the fees are determined between the parties, there have to be some checks and balances involved.
The Chair: Having been at the head of that in the past, the Treasury Board is the overseer and arbiter of that. Second, there is not another company that has presented itself as being willing to take the risk in regards to war injuries at this time.
Senator Nolin has a supplemental.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: You took about 45 minutes to explain a series of services offered generally to all members. I would like to go back to the means of communication you have for troops who do not have time, like us, to sit down and understand what you have to offer. What are those tools? I understand that you have an Internet site which is available. However, proactively speaking, what do you do to ensure that everyone fully understands the services you have to offer and what they are entitled to?
Mr. Bouchard: You mentioned the Internet site, so I will not talk about that, it is a tool that is in place. We also have a great deal of information regarding forms, pamphlets, and so on.
Senator Nolin: Can you send us some copies of what you are talking about so that we can understand what tools you are using to prevent people from falling through the cracks and inadvertently discovering later what they were entitled to?
Mr. Bouchard: I will see that you receive a package.
Senator Nolin: You can send it through the clerk.
Mr. Bouchard: Each year, our team works with over 20,000 people in Canadian Forces units. That does not mean that everyone will listen to what we have to say.
Senator Nolin: Until the day someone cuts off his finger, then he will be wondering what his rights are.
Mr. Bouchard: For people who are released for medical reasons, we have what we call a scan where all of those things are explained. Although tools exist, some people will miss them. We can always do better. However, I can assure you that we take the necessary steps, along with Colonel Blais's staff, to ensure that all members have the information they need.
Senator Nolin: If you have any educational information and tools, we would like to have a look at them, so that we can put ourselves in the shoes of the ordinary soldier who does not have your knowledge of the file and who has needs you will have to deal with.
Col. Blais: As I said a little earlier, we try to reach out to at least 50 per cent of Canadian Forces units using the integrated personnel services centres. Each year, we hold professional development sessions in the units where we explain everything that is available.
Senator Nolin: Does that include reserve units?
Col. Blais: Absolutely.
[English]
Senator Day: I have a supplementary: Are the integrated centres that you just referred to different from or related to in some way the Joint Personnel Support Unit?
Col. Blais: The centres are part of the Joint Personnel Support Unit.
Brig.-Gen. Bigelow: They are subordinate.
The Chair: The Canadian Forces went through extensive education on how to handle injured people. Before, the whole concept was based on people normally retiring after peacetime service. Therefore, trying to take care of injured people, particularly psychologically injured people, was a whole new exercise, and one they are still learning. That is why there is a Joint Personnel Support Unit.
The second element is that members of the Canadian Forces work under a paternalistic system where they do not look at this dimension, contrary to people in civilian life. Therefore, just educating and being conscious of what you are allowed to have is foreign to them, because they always believe that the command structure will take care of them and that they will get the best of service. There is still a cultural exercise that I would argue — and Senator Nolin and Senator Plett raised it quite well — is yet to be broken with regard to giving responsibility to individual members about what they should know about what is going on. Am I correct?
Brig.-Gen. Bigelow: I suspect we are kindred spirits.
I would point back to the early part of the Afghan campaign where we were dealing with some very difficult cases. The leadership from General Hillier and General Natynczyk was adamant in that people in responsibility should do the right thing. Sometimes, and even before that, we interpreted "doing the right thing" as "doing everything," and that is not always the best way to help a member and his family help themselves. If I treated my children that way, I am not so sure they would be as successful as they are.
Therefore, we are now struggling with that because, as you know, there are some difficult cases out there that tug at your heart-strings. However, at the same time, helping people help themselves has a long-term payoff — "teach a man to fish" versus "buying him dinner," shall we say. We struggle with that.
I struggle with that frequently. However, through Colonel Blais' organization, we are trying to ensure the resources are out there for the common individual while trying to ensure that we are not necessarily spoon-feeding them; we should be helping them help themselves so that when that safety net is gone, they are not looking backwards.
The Chair: This is very much a responsibility that has yet to be fully fleshed out, either from the soldier point of view or the chain of command in terms of educating and being conscious that these soldiers are different than they were. My father had grade 8, but we are into a whole different era now.
When the New Veterans Charter was being built, we heard often that there were references back to SISIP as being a basis for a lot of the compensations and programs that were built in. With that, it took on an aura of being an insurance-based policy or charter versus the old charter. However, the SISIP system was based on peacetime and not on a wartime veterans' scenario.
If we have injuries from conflict zones, is it not more appropriate that people should fall immediately under VAC versus staying under SISIP, and that maybe VAC has a different perspective of what the needs should be than SISIP does?
Brig.-Gen. Bigelow: It is a very interesting question. It is somewhat philosophical.
My Canadian Forces initial response is to say "No, he is in the family; I want to take care of him." However, your question was not how I feel about it but what is in the best interests of the member. Mr. Blais has been living this for some time, so I would like to ask him to comment on your question.
The Chair: Forgive me, but the addendum to my question was added because VAC has a responsibility to family in their program which SISIP does not have, and that is significant in this exercise.
Brig.-Gen. Bigelow: Yes, sir.
Col. Blais: The one important component to this is that members, while they are still serving, are still eligible for a number of Veterans Affairs benefits. For example, a member can receive the disability award while they are still serving. Prior to the Veterans Charter, a member who was still serving who was eligible for a disability pension was eligible to receive that. There are also other benefits like the Veterans Independence Program and things of that nature that a member can receive while in service.
Therefore, I think that we have already adopted that philosophy to a certain extent.
The Chair: In the concept of SISIP and regarding its response to the needs of the member and the two-year time frame, you are saying quite clearly that you are not giving them a whole new way of life but simply building on the skill sets. Let us say I am an infantryman but I have grade 12. I have been injured and so on and I want to look to the future; I want a degree and that is four years, or I want a technical college diploma, which is three years. Where does SISIP fit in that?
Brig.-Gen. Bigelow: Let me start a little higher up, sir, and then I will pass it off to Mr. Bouchard, who is the expert on SISIP.
I spent a really good day with the folks down at Manulife who actually deal with those tough issues and help make determinations on these very questions.
An infantryman has a lot more skills than just closing with and destroying the enemy. They have leadership and organizational skills, as you know better than I. They can work on that, but, as you say, what about a degree or a community college program that could exceed the 30 months? There are ways to deal with that, because of prior learning assessment and different colleges that will give credits, but it is still a limit. We are not trying to cop out, but we have Treasury Board limits based on the six months before, 24 months after and certain financial limitations.
You note that many of the issues or cases we are dealing with are people coming out of conflict. As a result, these are complex transitions. When we talk about complex transitions, I believe you understand that this is not your straightforward six months, another six months and you are out the door. This can take time. Aside from SISIP proper, and the LTD vocational rehab program, the CDS has directed Colonel Blais in his unit to look at ways to get people involved with education programs, especially those seeking an undergraduate degree or things that would go longer than the traditional 30 months, to exploit that time they have, because there is a lot of other rehabilitation going on, physical and otherwise, during that time pre-release. Let us not waste that answering the phone at the IPSC if a member can take advantage of educational opportunities.
Sensitive to the number of folks we have, particularly in the complex transition side, we are dealing with both physical and mental injuries; we are starting earlier than that six months before. That is not SISIP. That is not vocational rehabilitation, but there are existing programs that cater to that demand.
That is how we are dealing with it in the broader sense, but then SISIP has a certain degree of flexibility as well.
I will turn it over to Mr. Bouchard to answer the tighter SISIP piece.
Mr. Bouchard: If you look at the case you just described to us, I have to mention that the plan under SISIP on the VRP, if we look at the plan under VAC they have exactly the same limitations. They have the same financial framework as I have to work with.
The Chair: I am aware of that and, particularly to assist you in your answer, under the old Veterans Charter, where we have troops now with more combat time than World War II veterans, the old system paid the university completely; and under the New Veterans Charter we do not, nor does SISIP.
Mr. Bouchard: Under the SISIP, if we take the case of someone who hardly has any transferable skills, we have to be cognizant of this from the get-go. We will look at the education and training of that person to develop a plan that should have that person with the right skill sets to be gainfully employable within 30 months. Typically, we will work with the claimants and come up with some kind of a program. With education reimbursement, this is achievable. In all likelihood, we would achieve 30 months to have someone fully employable. If it is not possible, if we come to the end of the 30-month period and the member is still missing some of the skill sets to be gainfully employable, then he will be classified as fully disabled. He will continue on the benefit, on 75 per cent beyond 24 months and will continue with the training program beyond 24 months.
The Chair: You will cover him beyond that?
Mr. Bouchard: We will cover. If, for some reason, during that 30-month total period, there is something that would be lacking by the time we get to 24 months, that person will continue on claims and will be also able to continue on the Vocational Rehabilitation Plan. This is what we do.
Senator Plett: First, let me say how happy I am with the answers I have received here today. Some of the stories that we hear from veterans who have been injured are gut-wrenching, yet you need to make decisions, not in a cold way but in a matter-of-fact way. The analogies you used, general, when I had the question about communication and you said you tried to lead the horse to water, and that is so true, they then have to want to drink after that. I appreciate those comments.
I have a short question on dismemberment. I think VAC sometimes pays a percentage of the $290,000, depending on how severe the dismemberment is — maybe that is the correct terminology — whether the leg is cut off just above the ankle or knee. Does SISIP have the same on the 250,000?
Mr. Bouchard: On the 250, we have the same limitation as VAC for dismemberment. For pure dismemberment, if it is a loss of one limb, that would be 50 per cent of the amount. If someone loses two limbs, that is a full 100 per cent.
On pure dismemberment, we have exactly the same limitations, the same thing.
Senator Day: As a follow-up to the point made earlier when I asked you the question about Manulife having the contract with SISIP, you said there are quite a few checks in the system. Could you provide us through the clerk with an explanation of what those checks are? We can do our due diligence.
Brig.-Gen. Bigelow: In preparation for this discussion, that was a question I had. It is an intuitive question to say if you are going to contract out something so important, and this is not a trivial contract, there would be a formal review process and conceivably a re-tendering. We will get that information back to this committee, sir.
The Chair: Are you satisfied with the agencies that you are using that are giving the rehabilitation training and reintroduction of people into the work force and so on that SISIP contracts out, and what is the satisfaction from your clients in that regard? It is a higher-plain problem. Remember the 75 per cent comes when combined with specific sources of income, so if they have a pension, then it is not what they have, a pension plus the 75 per cent, but in fact they get 75 per cent and then they cut whatever the pension is. That is a great point of contention still and probably brings all kinds of heartburn. I think it is worthy to pursue that point.
My last point is that SISIP used to be voluntary when it was first brought in and created all kinds of horror stories about those who took it and those who did not, so by making it compulsory it changed the whole nature of how the troops looked at that problem and the chain of command. That was an important step at that time.
Senator Day: I was aware of that issue and it was a question of the 15 per cent, when the soldier had to pay, that is compulsory, even though you would think that if something is coming out of your paycheque, that would be a voluntary thing.
The Chair: The benefit is the 85 per cent.
Gentlemen, if you can give me that answer subsequently, because we have to conclude our session, I would be most appreciative. Thank you for being so clear. We hope the troops get more and more of that clear information to achieve their aim.
Brig.-Gen. Bigelow: Thank you, sir.
(The committee adjourned.)