Proceedings of the Subcommittee on
Veterans Affairs
Issue 12 - Evidence - May 27, 2015
OTTAWA, Wednesday, May 27, 2015
The Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met this day at 12:05 p.m. to examine the subject matter of those elements contained in Division 17 of Part 3 of Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015, and other measures.
Senator Joseph A. Day (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Welcome to this meeting of the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence. Today at our meeting we're dealing with the subject matter of those elements contained in Division 17 of Part 3 of Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures.
Those watching who are familiar with veterans' matters will know that Division 17 was introduced this spring as Bill C-58. It was then moved into Bill C-59, the budget implementation bill, which is an omnibus piece of legislation. Division 17 has been referred to our committee. That's what we will be dealing with today.
We have a limited time, so I'm going to ask each of our witnesses to provide us with any written comments they might have. Also, please introduce yourselves as we call upon you, just to save some time.
The Veterans Ombudsman is back with us today. We have also The Royal Canadian Legion and Veterans Affairs Canada. Thank you for being here.
Since we don't have the minister here, I propose beginning with Veterans Affairs, as this is a government initiative by Veterans Affairs. You can explain the legislation to us, and then we can hear some reactions from the Veterans Ombudsman and The Royal Canadian Legion.
Michel Doiron, Assistant Deputy Minister, Service Delivery, Veterans Affairs Canada: I will forego my opening remarks. I've given them to the clerk. That way, I can turn it directly over to Mr. Butler to explain the policy.
The Chair: I'm not sure we have your opening remarks.
Mr. Doiron: I did give them to somebody, but I can go through them quickly.
The Chair: Why don't you go through them, so we know what you're talking about. Get us warmed up.
Mr. Doiron: Certainly. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. I am the Assistant Deputy Minister of Service Delivery. With me is my colleague Bernard Butler, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy, Communications and Commemoration.
We wish to thank you for the opportunity to appear here today on a subject of such importance and great interest to veterans and their families. That subject is the elements of the government's response to the June 2014 report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, The New Veterans Charter: Moving Forward, which is contained in Bill C-59, as you well explained.
If passed, the legislation will amend the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act, or the New Veterans Charter, to address a number of the concerns and gaps that have been identified.
There are essentially five legislative amendments and provisions contained in the bill.
The first provision introduces a purpose clause ". . . to recognize and fulfil the obligation of the people and Government of Canada to show just and due appreciation to members and veterans for their service to Canada" and further provides that "This Act shall be liberally interpreted so that the recognized obligation may be fulfilled."
The second significant provision enhances Veterans Affairs Canada's ability to support the transition to civilian life. It authorizes VAC to provide information and guidance to CAF members and veterans on the benefits and services that may be available in order to help them with the transition, and to make decisions on applications for benefits and services prior to release.
There are three additional amendments, which effectively create new benefits for veterans. These new benefits will strengthen the government's support provided to seriously disabled veterans and their families through the New Veterans Charter. The first benefit, the retirement income security benefit, or RISB, would provide moderately to severely disabled veterans — those who need it most — with continued assistance with a monthly income support payment beginning at age 65.
The second benefit, the family caregiver relief benefit, would provide eligible veterans a tax-free annual grant of $7,238 so their informal caregiver, often a spouse or other devoted family member, will have flexibility or relief when they need it while also ensuring that the veterans' care is met.
The third benefit, the critical injury benefit, would provide a $70,000 tax-free award to support the most severely injured and ill Canadian Armed Forces members and veterans.
These new benefits will complement the existing suite of services and benefits through the New Veterans Charter and add depth to the supports available to those injured in service to their country, and their families, from the Government of Canada.
As announced in the budget, additional staff will address delays in service delivery, especially for the most seriously injured and their families. We will hire more than 100 permanent case managers for improved one-on-one services. We will also hire more than 100 new disability adjudication staff, temporary and permanent in this case, to improve the processing time for veterans who submit an application for a disability benefit application.
This is part of the department's commitment to service excellence.
[Translation]
Thank you for listening.
[English]
I will now open the floor for any questions.
The Chair: Mr. Butler, you have nothing further to add?
Bernard Butler, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy, Communications and Commemoration, Veterans Affairs Canada: Mr. Chair, not at this moment, and I will respond to questions as they arise.
Guy Parent, Ombudsman, Veterans Ombudsman: I am the Veterans Ombudsman, and accompanying me is my Deputy Ombudsman and CEO, Sharon Squire. Thank you for inviting us to appear before you to discuss the changes proposed for the New Veterans Charter.
[Translation]
Before beginning, I would like to thank you for the role that you played in the real progress for veterans and their families that we see before us in Bill C-59.
[English]
Does the proposed legislation address all of my concerns? No it doesn't, but it narrows the gaps in some areas that need to be addressed. For that reason, I believe it should receive your unanimous support.
The changes proposed in Bill C-59 will have a significant impact on the lives of some veterans and their families, and I encourage you to pass it without delay.
As you know, the work of the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman is evidence-based. Results are measured against the fairness principles of adequacy. Are the right programs and services in place to meet the needs — immediate and evolving needs — of veterans and their families? Are the right programs and services sufficiently resourced in terms of money and people? And there is accessibility. Are eligibility criteria creating unfair barriers, and can the benefits and services provided by VAC be assessed quickly and easily?
Although it is too early today to offer you my opinion on the effectiveness of the proposed regulations or legislative changes, from an evidence-based perspective I can at least offer you my opinion in principle.
Do the proposed changes address the principles of adequacy, sufficiency and accessibility? I believe that they do. For example, the fairness principle of adequacy is addressed by the new retirement income security benefit. Sufficiency is addressed by the parity of the earnings loss benefit for injured Reserve Force veterans and by the hiring of new front line staff to improve one-on-one support for veterans and their families. Accessibility is addressed by the broadened eligibility criteria for the Permanent Impairment Allowance and by the proposed new critical injury benefit.
I believe now that we have come this far for veterans and their families, we need to keep the momentum going. Without delay after the passage of Bill C-59, we need to address the other needs of veterans and their families that are still unmet, such as a seamless transition and compensation for pain and suffering.
Three years ago in my report on improving the New Veterans Charter, I stated that before pain and suffering compensation was considered, we needed to resolve the issues associated with financial security for life for ill and injured veterans. The proposed changes of Bill C-59 potentially resolve the issue of financial security after the age of 65 among others, so it is now time to turn our attention to a comprehensive discussion on what the right amount of compensation should be for pain and suffering.
Another area that I believe needs to be addressed is treating veterans' support as a national security and economic priority, rather than as a social program. It is time to acknowledge that supporting veterans is not only an obligation but an investment in the security and prosperity of our country.
In conclusion, I would like to thank you again for your ongoing support for veterans and their families, and the level of effort that you and your staff have personally invested towards improving their lives.
Ray McInnis, Director, Service Bureau, The Royal Canadian Legion: Chair, committee members, it is a great pleasure to appear in front of your committee. I'm Ray McInnis, Director, Service Bureau. I'm pleased to speak to you on behalf of our Dominion President, Mr. Tom Eagles, and our 300,000 members and their families. The Royal Canadian Legion is the only veterans' service organization that assists veterans and their families with representation to Veterans Affairs Canada and the Veterans Review and Appeal Board.
The Legion's advocacy program is core to our mission and we have been assisting veterans since 1926 through our legislative mandate, and both the Pension Act and the New Veterans Charter. Please note that veterans do not have to be Legion members to request our services. Our national Legion Service Bureau Network provides representation starting with first applications to Veterans Affairs Canada through all three levels of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board. Through this legislation, the Legion has access to service health records and departmental files to provide comprehensive yet independent representation at no cost.
Last year, our service officers prepared and represented disability claims on behalf of over 3,000 veterans to VAC and the VRAB. There is no other veterans group with this kind of direct contact, interaction, provision of support and feedback from veterans, their families and caregivers. When it comes to serving veterans and their families, the Legion continues to be the only veterans' organization in Canada advocating for and providing assistance to all of our veterans.
The Legion recognizes the progress being made for veterans and their families in this budget and recommends that Bill C-59 be passed as soon as possible. Is it everything we have been advocating for? Does it answer all 14 ACVA recommendations? No, it does not, but it is a very positive step forward.
This bill lays out important enhancements that will improve the care and benefits provided to veterans and their families, especially for our veterans who will be turning 65. We need to ensure they have financial benefits beyond age 65 and for life, including their survivors. However, we do have many questions on how the retirement income security benefit is calculated, and until we receive and review the complete policies and regulations on the RISB, the critical injury benefit and the family caregiver relief benefits, we will not be able to see the adequacy of these benefits to our veterans and families.
Our concerns remain that the maximum disability award is increased consistent with what is provided to injured civilian workers who receive general damages in the law courts. The family caregiver benefits do not adequately compensate a spouse who has to give up a full-time job to become a caregiver. This is a respite benefit. Most families today are dual income families and sometimes the service member works two jobs to support the family. We would prefer to see something akin to the Pension Act's Attendance Allowance.
As I previously stated, Bill C-59, Division 17, Part 3 does not answer all of the 14 ACVA recommendations and the Royal Canadian Legion will not rest until all of these recommendations are adopted, and we will not cease in our efforts to push the government to honour its obligations. We have not shied away from making our stance on these issues known. We have shared our position paper, Veterans Matter, with all Canadians to encourage informed debate on veterans' issues.
I would like to address the issue of communication and accessibility.
The New Veterans Charter was developed to meet the needs of the modern veteran. It is based on modern disability management principles. It focuses on rehabilitation and successful transition, and it must be stated that the Legion, while endorsing the New Veterans Charter as it was adopted in 2006, has been steadfast in our advocacy for its change to better meet the lifelong needs of our veterans and their families. We all have an obligation to understand the complexities, interrelationships, and to inform and explain the New Veterans Charter. Our veterans and their families deserve nothing less.
The New Veterans Charter and the enhanced New Veterans Charter Act are comprehensive and complex. Our veterans and their families need to know what programs are available to assist them and how to access them, whether they are financial, rehabilitation, health services or family care. The government needs to ensure the resources and programs are in place to meet their needs, and it needs to review the accessibility to these programs while ensuring that frontline staff is available and knowledgeable to assist veterans and families. This can never become a self-serve system.
Most veterans and their families do not have a good understanding of the New Veterans Charter. I would suggest that this highlights the ineffectiveness of the government's communication of the programs and services available in the New Veterans Charter for our injured veterans and their families. What is required is proactive communication to all veterans across the country to ensure that they are aware of the financial compensation, rehab programs, health care services and the family care programs that are available and how to access them.
Lastly, it is also time for all of us to understand the New Veterans Charter and the enhanced New Veterans Charter Act. This should be a priority. Our veterans need to know not only the weaknesses but also the strengths behind the legislation, the programs, services and benefits.
We, too, help our veterans and their families. Since commencing our advocacy in 1926, the Legion's advocacy and programming efforts continue to evolve to meet the changing demographics, while still supporting our traditional veteran community. However, notwithstanding the capacity of the Royal Canadian Legion, we certainly believe that the Department of National Defence and Veterans Affairs Canada have a responsibility to ensure that policies, practices and programs, supported through a sustainable research program, are accessible and meet the unique needs of all veterans, with the goal of enabling the healthy transition of all veterans and their families through this very changing and sometimes difficult life course.
Finally, I would be remiss if I did not mention our World War II veterans and post-World War II veterans who are now seeking assistance through the Legion for access to the Veterans Independence Program. These veterans are often frail and are approaching the end of their life. This very proud group of veterans has never applied to the government for any type of disability benefit assistance, and now, because they want to remain independently in their own home, rather than going into a long-term care facility, they cannot access the Veterans Independence Program benefits for frailty because they have not established a disability benefit or are not low income.
Last October, we sent a high-priority list of resolutions to the minister, including a resolution that all veterans be deemed eligible for VIP benefits based on need, irrespective of their having established disability entitlement or low-income status. We urge the government to action this resolution without delay, and we understand that a response to our resolution is forthcoming from the department.
The passage of Bill C-59 is a step in the right direction. The Legion appreciates the opportunity to come before the committee to brief on our perspective on issues of concern for Canada's veterans. I would, at this time, also extend to this committee, on behalf of our president Tom Eagles, an opportunity to visit our national headquarters, Legion House, and an opportunity to provide you all with a full brief on how the Legion is one of Canada's great institutions and how we support all Canadians and our communities. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Mr. McInnis, thank you. We do have your material that you circulated. In fact, all honourable senators have.
We have heard both from the Veterans Ombudsman and the Royal Canadian Legion that you feel this is a good step in the right direction but not the end goal, certainly.
Is that the way Veterans Affairs looks at this as well, as a good step but not everything that needs to be done?
Mr. Butler: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for that question. I think it's fair to say that certainly, from the department's point of view, this is a very positive step to support Canada's veterans, and I think it's also fair to say that there is probably a no-end state when it comes to advancing the interests of Canadian veterans. I think you will see continuous advancements over time.
The Chair: In our work here in the Veterans Affairs subcommittee, one of the areas we've been working on is this transition of Armed Forces personnel into retirement, and we're trying to make that transition for the veteran and the family as smooth as possible. There is an initiative in here, early intervention by Veterans Affairs Canada in the transition to civilian life. You didn't talk a lot about that initiative, but an article in the paper just recently described the situation of a veteran who had been assessed by the Canadian Armed Forces to have a certain level of disability. When he was assessed by Veterans Affairs, it was a different assessment, which resulted in a lot less compensation and support.
You're familiar with that situation without talking about the individual. Is this initiative going to help us a little bit when you get into making assessments earlier so that we don't have these two silos with the veteran caught in the middle?
Mr. Doiron: Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair. First, I'd like to clarify. Veterans Affairs does accept diagnostics from the Canadian Armed Forces. The article mentioned that we did not, that we reassessed and things like that. We accept a doctor's assessment or diagnostic from the CAF.
But, to come back to this question — and I won't talk about the individual for confidential reasons — this will help in the transition, absolutely. Previously, our authorities accepted the provision that a disability award would start once the individual became a veteran. There are some exceptions, but, generally, Veterans Affairs authorities would start at that moment.
In the case of the new authorities, we can start working with the CAF member prior to them becoming a veteran to eliminate that seam. We know that transition is very important to a successful life post-CAF, and we're also trying to eliminate or will be decreasing a number of handoffs during transition between case management from CAF, case management from us, VAC, and others. That relationship could start, we're saying, in six months, but, actually, way before that, once we know a veteran will be medically released, to start working with him to ensure that all of the tools are in place once they actually leave and also to help them with disability awards that they could apply for at that moment.
So it will greatly help. Some of those case management positions I mentioned in the opening remarks will go toward that also.
So our hope is that, if we do this right, during that transition, c'est pas un gouffre at the end of the day. They're not falling off of a cliff. We will be able to figure out what the employment opportunities are, put them in rehab if that is the need — we talked mental health at length a week or two ago — make sure they get the mental health services early in the process. This is all part of that transition.
Mr. McInnis: I would just like to comment on the position of VAC and the medical doctors. As a service provider, we have done over 3,000 claims in the last year. When we submit a claim to Veterans Affairs for adjudication, if it is a still-serving member, we use the service health records, and there is a diagnosis there. If it happens to be a veteran, we have a medical questionnaire signed off by a medical professional. We will not submit a claim until there is a diagnosis there, signed by a professional. The VAC doctor doesn't get involved. There may be a medical adviser opinion on the diagnosis that is provided, but the VAC doctor doesn't normally get involved until reassessment two years down the road or every two years after that when the reassessment comes in. That's when the veteran or the still-serving member who already has entitlement and an assessment will go for further assessment by a VAC doctor.
The Chair: That's helpful.
Senator White: Thank you to each of you for being here as always. I'm very pleased actually to see the agreement, I have to say. I'm not suggesting there's not always agreement, but I always say that, most times, it's 80 per cent agreement, 20 per cent disagreement. It seems like we hear the 20 per cent more often than we should.
Mr. Doiron, we hear about other suggestions going forward. Can you kind of walk us through the next couple of years as to what you think are some areas that we should be focusing some attention on? We spend a lot of time hearing about it. It might help us to actually prepare for the next couple of years as well.
He's looking at Mr. Butler, so, obviously, he's not going to help me out. Mr. Butler can assist if he likes.
Mr. Doiron: I can talk about the service side at length, but, I think, on the policy side —
Mr. Butler: Not to bounce the ball around, but I think we might refer that question to the ombudsman and perhaps to Mr. McInnis.
It's fair to say, as the ombudsman has indicated and our Legion colleagues, that the response the government has put forward through Bill C-59 is a very positive move in the right direction. From a departmental point of view, we will continue to be very sensitive to the issues and concerns that the ombudsman has highlighted, as have other stakeholders and veterans who have appeared before this committee over time and certainly before the House of Commons committee.
At this time, our intent, and what we would encourage you to do, is to continue to monitor the success of the provisions that have been advanced. We'll continue to look at them in terms of whether they address the needs of Canada's veterans in the way that they are intended and needs of veterans' families as we hope they are. As we watch, monitor and measure the performance of those initiatives, it helps to inform us as a department and the government. Certainly, we will inform committees such as yours in terms of where to focus. It's an ongoing process that we're engaged in. As I suggest, we continue to learn as we move forward and to identify where weaknesses and gaps may be in the charter.
As you know, the ACVA report clearly stated that the charter, the basic principles of wellness and re-establishment, were sound and that's the direction we need to continue to move in; and that addressing the needs of the most seriously disabled veterans is one of the key features. What you see in Bill C-59 is an effort to meet those needs. The challenge for us and for you over time will be to ensure that the needs are being met in the way that we anticipate and hope.
Mr. Parent: I would like to add a few things to that. I already mentioned in my opening remarks that transition is a big concern. Certainly, there is work to be done in that aspect. I would like to inform the chair and committee members, if you are not aware, that we are involved in a joint partnership with the military ombudsman to study the transition process at this time. We have provided some preliminary findings to our respective ministers; so there is work underway on that aspect.
My first answer to the question would be that we need to continue to narrow the gaps from the ACVA recommendations. We recently published a website report on how the government to date has been able to meet the intent of the ACVA recommendations; and we provided you with a copy of that. In most instances, the intent is being met, but there are still some that need to be addressed. Of course, that would be a priority to us — closing those gaps and looking at the transition.
The last one, which was mentioned by Mr. McInnis, is the pain and suffering aspect and the adequacy of the disability award. The related benefits for pain and suffering need to be looked at in the future as well.
Mr. Butler: I'll just add to what the ombudsman has identified. The minister has given some clear direction in his public statements around the direction of the department over the next few years. It's very important to this committee to know that there are three pillars for the direction of the department. One of them relates to the issue of transition, which the ombudsman referred to, and fixing same and getting it right. These provisions in Bill C-59 will support that direction. Next is developing service excellence within the department to ensure that we are providing the level and quality of service that veterans expect and need. The third one is ensuring that all of our programs, policies and practices are veteran-centric. Those are issues that really map out the strategic direction for the department and are certainly ones on which we'll be working with our colleagues, such as the ombudsman, to advance those various initiatives.
This committee might well wish to contemplate those over the next few years to see what success the department has had in achieving those outcomes. The veteran 2020 strategic direction is an important one for us. We hope that it will pay great dividends and benefits to Canada's veterans over time.
Mr. McInnis: As the ombudsman stated, Bill C-59 narrows the gap; so we're always going to be there watching the government. We would like to see more narrowing until there is no gap. In addition to the ACVA recommendations, that's not all there is.
The Chair: Could you tell the audience what ACVA stands for?
Mr. McInnis: It's the House of Commons Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.
The Chair: It's a full committee and not a subcommittee.
Mr. McInnis: Yes. In addition to those recommendations are the resolutions from the delegates to our national conventions that we forward every two years to National Defence, Veterans Affairs, Finance and Health. The biggest one is the Veterans Independence Program. We're also working closely with the Canadian Medical Association on a seniors' health strategy for Canada. They're looking at an independence program as well. We'll continue to follow along, watch what the government has to say and proactively advocate for veterans and their families.
Senator White: I want to say how good it is to see all three of you here. It's nice to see people come together in the same space. I want to thank you for the work you're doing. Often it's from different places, but certainly from my perspective and others I'm sure it's valued.
The Chair: Mr. Butler, I want to comment on your third pillar, when you said that all of our programs and policies should be veteran-centric or veteran-oriented. I suggest you might want to add their families to that. A lot of work should be done with respect to families, who provide tremendous support. Some programs may be lacking from the point of view of how we can help the spouse or the family in some of these situations.
Senator Mitchell: I'll follow up with a comment on what the chair said about veteran-centric. I'm very pleased, as everyone is, to hear veteran-centric as an explicit pillar. I have been on this committee or the defence committee for a number of years. A number of years ago there was a sense amongst some veterans that they weren't being treated like clients should be treated. They are customers or clients of that important department but yet it was easy to get a bureaucratic face in response. It's very important that the department be service-oriented. It sounds like that is obviously a priority.
My first question concerns the presentation by Mr. Doiron. In the fifth element of the bill, you mentioned the critical injury benefit of $70,000 tax-free for severely injured and ill Canadian Armed Forces members. I assume that implies that it hasn't been the case to this point, although there have been, at one time, lump sum payments. How does that benefit balance between severely physically injured, which is more obvious, and severely mentally injured, PTSD, which is less obvious but every bit as debilitating? Is it 90 per cent one and 10 per cent the other? Is it proportional?
Mr. Butler: If I could just set the contracts for the critically injured benefit. This is a new benefit designed to address issues that had evolved that we became very sensitive to over time where we had members who suffered very serious injury to the point that they would require extensive medical intervention over extended periods of time, which might require rehabilitation over a lengthy period of time and so on.
But at the end of that period — it might be six months or it might be 12 months — when they applied to Veterans Affairs for a Disability Award, in other words a pain and compensation award, a non-economic award, by that time, through the miracles of modern medicines, their injuries were reduced. The ultimate or end-state disability had been significantly mitigated.
So when they came to us for our programming, once they were medically stabilized, we would assess their disability, and it would be much lower than the member or the veteran thought they were entitled to. So the Critical Injury Benefit is designed to ensure that there is compensation and recognition for the immediate effects of a traumatic event.
I'll give you the classic example. Unfortunately many members in Afghanistan suffered catastrophic injuries. They would be taken to a field ambulance hospital. Their lives would virtually be saved. They would then be taken to a secondary care centre and then to a tertiary centre. Then they would be repatriated to Canada, hospitalized and undergo much treatment. There would be much concern and upset for families whose lives would be interrupted. But after an extended period of time, they would become relatively stable, and their condition or end-state disability may not be great enough in their mind to support the level of assessment through disability award purposes that they would like. So the Critical Injury Benefit is targeted directly at those types of injuries; to address compensation for pain and suffering, the effects of the incident, but before the medical condition is actually stabilized. That's the group.
We anticipate that the majority of members and veterans who may be eligible for this benefit — the majority of the claim types may well be physically oriented. But the intent and design of the program is to ensure that individuals who meet the criteria with a mental health issue would qualify.
So the numbers may be lower for those who might qualify for this benefit. Again, we're trying to ensure that there is sufficient flexibility written into the regulations and the policy so that it would capture an event where an individual suffers a significant mental health, traumatic event, in whatever circumstances they may be, the result of which requires significant intervention over a period of time in order to help stabilize or bring them to a stable state.
That's really what the program is designed to do.
Senator Mitchell: Do you have access to enough mental health professionals, psychiatrists in particular, to deal with PTSD issues in veterans?
Mr. Butler: My colleague may wish to speak to that on the operational side. I think it's a positive news story.
Mr. Doiron: The short answer is: not quite. Some of the resources will be put toward that. This was not in this budget. It was under the mental health announcement for which additional funds were allocated to the department to add an OSI clinic in Halifax and reinforce a lot of our operational stress injury clinics across the country. It wasn't under Bill C-59 that we received that funding. It was under the mental health submission that we got the funding. We have received money and we are in the process of starting the new OSI clinic in Halifax, which should be operational in October, and with added resources across the country in our other OSI clinics.
Senator Mitchell: You also note in your presentation that you will be hiring more than 100 permanent case managers, more than 100 disability adjudication staff temporary and permanent, which sounds like a good idea. What's the proportion of temporaries versus permanent and why?
Mr. Doiron: The proportion is about 60-40, rounding off the numbers a bit. The why is because we have a backlog. The temporary ones are to concentrate and get rid of the backlog of disability awards. There are multiple reasons why that has occurred, but there are files that we have to address. The new resources are to meet the increased demand and some of the veteran-centric changes that we have already implemented in the adjudication process, such as calling a veteran before saying, "No." So we make a phone call and we say, "You know, based on what we have in front of us, you're not going to get the award. Is there anything you could provide us that is not in the file?"
As an example, we started that our first-level approvals were at 71 per cent. It's now up to 79 per cent and some months it is around 80 per cent, because often the veteran doesn't know that they have to supply a certain document. It's not in the file, but when we ask them they say absolutely, and that takes more time. We want to get rid of that backlog that's there. Those are the temporary resources.
The other thing we'll be doing to eliminate the seam is embedding a portion of those resources directly into the CAF. I think we discussed that before this committee. So by embedding funds there it will address some of those timelines when it comes to receiving medical health records. We will be able to get them out faster.
Senator Lang: Like Senator White, I want to say it's encouraging to have a presentation like you've given us today with respect to the actions that are being taken on behalf of the government, and most important on behalf of veterans. I don't think anyone here or in the country begrudges the commitments to the veterans. At the same time, the taxpayer wants to know that what's being spent has been dispensed in an efficient manner and that the veterans are getting the direct benefit. Of course, that's one area that I have raised — the number of programs we have which I think is 37 — and whether or not we are looking at these programs to evaluate whether they're working the way they should. If they are not, then are we going to revise them?
I want to go to Mr. Doiron and the question of money. For the three measures before us, what is the estimated cost per year?
Mr. Doiron: When you say the three measures?
Senator Lang: The measures in the budget.
Mr. Butler: I can give you sort of a general idea.
Retirement Income Security Benefit: we anticipate that the five-year cost will be $14 million. The Family Caregiver Relief Benefit: we anticipate or forecast that it will be $10.7 million, for five years. The Critical Injury Benefit is forecast at $10 million as well.
Senator Lang: Basically, for the measures before us — just doing some quick math — we're basically talking about an additional estimated $6 million or $7 million per year.
Senator Mitchell pointed out the persons-years that you're recommending be put in place: that's a total of 200, is that not correct? There is 100 doing compensation and another hundred are involved in other responsibilities.
Mr. Doiron: It's over 100 in case management and over 100 resources in adjudications.
Senator Lang: What's that estimated to cost per year?
Mr. Doiron: The total estimated cost is $191 million over five years.
Senator Lang: In one year we've got roughly $30 million, so the additional commitment that the government is making is approximately $40 million a year, ballpark?
Mr. Doiron: That sounds about right.
Senator Lang: To give it context, can you give me the overall budget for Veterans Affairs, primarily for our viewers and for people interested in this particular department? What's the total amount per year committed to Veterans Affairs for the purpose of meeting our obligations plus this additional $40 million?
Mr. Doiron: I'm going by memory so I may be off a bit. For service delivery, my budget is $3.2 billion, $100 million of which is actual operational cost. I'm rounding off the numbers. It's a small portion of the $3.2 billion. We have to pay VIP, and the various disability awards, disability pensions and medical awards come out of my budget. That's the present cost. The department, I believe, is closer to $3.2 billion. That's what we're paying presently on a yearly basis.
Senator Lang: I get confused on the financial side of this because I've heard figures well into the $4-billion range. Is there other indirect money involved when we look at Veterans Affairs to get an accurate picture of what's being spent?
Mr. Doiron: That is what we are spending. I can provide the committee the exact numbers.
Senator Lang: I think it would be worthwhile to have the exact numbers tabled here. It's important to know.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Thank you all for coming here. It is good to hear that you're supportive of the provisions in the bill. I'm pleased also to hear that there will be an ongoing review of how this bill is working out.
My question for Mr. Doiron and for each one of you is what's your time frame — and I'll use old terminology — for a quality assessment? How is it working? What more do we need to do? In every initiative you should have an end to close the loop all the time. Have you worked out a plan for that?
Mr. Doiron: We are working on a plan. The legislation has not yet passed, so some of the timelines will be dependent on its passage, when we receive the funds and the governmental process. That said, we have expectations. If I talk about my resources, once we get approval, I hope to have my adjudicators in place as early as July so we can start accelerating the payments and do the changes.
We're hoping to have our case managers by October. However, we are out recruiting presently. We had about 600 applicants for case managers and about 600 applicants for client service agents and adjudicators. We've already gone through screening and done interviews, so we are gearing up to be ready to be able to bring them in so the results are felt quickly.
Once we get Royal Assent, we want to put these measures in place as quickly as possible. Mr. Butler can talk more about the timelines.
Mr. Butler: In terms of implementation, I can tell you that we're at the legislative stage. We're in the process of drafting regulations. Once the legislation passes and the regulations are approved and put in place, the policy work will support the regulatory framework as well. Our intention is to have it implemented simply as quickly as possible. There is a commitment on the part of the department to ensure that these benefits are put in the hands as veterans as quickly as we can. That is what we are working toward.
Mr. Doiron: On your question about quality assurance, I have already or am in the process of implementing a QA process to ensure that not just these but other benefits are being implemented and delivered in a consistent manner across the country, which was not being done previously. We are in the process of that. I won't give you a timeline because I don't know, but, over time, we'll be ready to readjust at least the service delivery component of these new programs and then, working closely with my policy friends, making sure that, if policy changes or tweaks are needed, we take the time to do so.
Mr. Parent: Thank you very much for the question. Obviously, for us, the biggest concern now is where will the regulations take us insofar as it involves accessibility? That's our next concern. At that point in time, we'll be able to put a good index on the fairness of these new programs and how they are actually administered.
For the office itself, I think the goal and our objective for the next couple of years is, first, to make sure that the NVC is fixed. That has been our intent for the last four years and we will continue with that until it's done.
Our work on the transition will be important because it touches on a lot of those issues. We're doing some work on families, too. That's certainly a concern. Even the minister borrowed the phrase "veteran-centric" from us with regard to programs. We meant them to be "family-centric" as well.
Senator Stewart Olsen: It's good to know you're listened to.
Mr. Parent: It's very important that the family be looked at. It is a big aspect, certainly in the transition aspect. That will be our intent in the future. We certainly will continue advising the minister on some of the improvements to the NVC. Already we have had a request from him to work with the department to look at the application of the grades for the permanent capacity allowance. We will be working on that aspect of it.
Mr. McInnis: Our focus is pretty much the same. The Legion will look for the details of these benefits. Once we receive the details and start working with the benefits, we will be in a better position to see how it will affect the veterans and their families. For us it's a living charter. We'll always be advocating for what's there and what's not there. In the future, there will always be something new. We have a lot of complex cases now and there'll be some in the future. We'll deal with it as we go and advocate for whatever is best for veterans and their families.
I'm looking forward to seeing the transition piece. My background before the Legion was Military Family Services, so families are extremely important to me and the Legion. It will be good to see that transition piece come out and how we can make it smoother. There is no such a thing as a seamless transition, but a smooth transition would be acceptable.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Mr. Doiron, do you do an annual report on the changes that have been made in the department? If so, where does that go?
Mr. Doiron: I don't do an annual report. We have the RPP that talks about the department and departmental performance review which is tabled in Parliament and states what has occurred within the department, what's impacting the department and reports on our performance.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Do you think it might be helpful to have such a report? You have new legislation that comes into effect. Would a report to the minister or a report on that legislation be helpful?
Mr. Doiron: Yes. As we're moving forward, I think we probably will have to report against these initiatives, as well as on how we're using our resources, to government in some way, shape or form yet to be determined, but I suspect we will have to report against them, as we do against the mental health strategy.
The Chair: I'm looking for some clarification on the questions asked by Senator Lang about how much this will cost.
How many veterans do you anticipate each of these three initiatives will impact on an annual basis? Can you help us with that?
Mr. Butler: Again going back to the forecast, if we look at the Retirement Income Security Benefit, over five years, we forecast that about 260 veterans will become eligible immediately for that payment.
Again, this measure is targeting veterans when they reach age 65. If you look at the demographic of the modern-day veteran, so to speak, they're much younger than that age. We anticipate by forecast that, by 2020, about 5,800 veterans will be eligible for the benefit upon reaching 65.
Going back to Senator Lang's query, one needs to look at this benefit as designed to meet an evolving need of veterans. As they approach age 65, they need to know that there will be financial security for them and, as the demographic changes for this population and they become older, over time more of them obviously will enter the program. That's the context for the Retirement Income Security Benefit.
For the Family Caregiver Relief Benefit that we've chatted about, we forecast about 350 veterans will become eligible for that benefit over that five-year planning horizon.
The Critical Injury Benefit is a unique benefit in that the legislation has been structured to ensure that it captures those veterans who have suffered this type of catastrophic injury, particularly through the Afghanistan period. This benefit will be paid to those who have suffered this type of injury since the coming into force of the New Veterans Charter. We anticipate for this benefit that about 120 veterans will become immediately eligible for the benefit on passage of the legislation, and then our forecast is that there may be a very small number, we hope a very small number, who will access the benefit in the years thereafter.
As this committee would be well aware, the operational circumstances of Canada's armed forces can change at any time, and the exigencies of that service could change at any time so that number could readily change. We anticipate and hope it will be a very small number in the years following. Certainly, as with all of these programs, once the program is in place, the resources of the Government of Canada are always there to meet the need because of the nature of the funding that supports them.
The Chair: Let's just talk about the Critical Injury Benefit. It was perceived that there was a gap here that needed to be filled by this particular program for 120 over five years.
Mr. Butler: Indeed.
The Chair: I'm looking at the bill that we've been asked to give clause-by-clause consideration, page 127. There are a couple of qualifiers on this particular program. It was a single service-related injury or a disease, which is interesting, that was the result of a sudden and single incident that occurred after March 31, 2006, and immediately caused a severe impairment. There are a lot of qualifiers there, a lot of restrictions on this. We've been dealing with post-traumatic stress, which often doesn't manifest itself immediately, or as immediately as appears here.
You've put in the term "liberal interpretation," which would help to perhaps interpret "immediately" and to say, "It really happened then but it didn't manifest itself until later." However, why are all these qualifications in here? This is for the $70,000 amount; right?
Mr. Butler: Indeed. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Again, it goes to the nature of the benefit and the gap that it was intended to address. If you go back to the foundational program of the New Veterans Charter for non-economic benefits, which is our disability award program, it is designed to provide monetary compensation for pain and suffering for stabilized medical conditions. If you suffer a traumatic event, what we know from our experience with veterans and what the evidence would seem to suggest is that oftentimes post-traumatic stress disorder, as an example — but PTSD is only one type of many mental health situations that we deal with — has, in many cases, a very long latency period between an event and the actual diagnosis. It could be five years, ten years or more. This benefit is not intended to address those cases. Those cases are dealt with by our disability benefits program. That's what it is intended to do.
This benefit is intended to provide immediate compensation for this unique subset of injuries that our men and women have suffered and regrettably will suffer into the future. These are the cases where there is a sudden single event, a traumatic event. As I indicated in my earlier remarks, physical injuries will be the more common ones, but it may be flexible enough that there may be mental health conditions that could be captured by it. For instance, if you were so traumatized by an event that you required immediate care and treatment of a significant degree in order to get you through the following days and weeks, you may well qualify for the benefit.
Senator, the answer is simply that this is not a disability award benefit. It is a Critical Injury Benefit. The title reflects the target population — critical injury, traumatic injury, life-altering effects essentially — but recognizing that during and after that period that flows from the event, the condition may well be stabilized at a point. We have cases where the veteran has said to us, "You mean to tell me I was hospitalized for weeks, I went through multiple surgeries, my family thought I might die, my family's lives were absolutely disrupted and interrupted for weeks and weeks, and now a year later when I come to you and look for a disability award, you're telling me it's only worth whatever it might be, 20 per cent assessment or 30 per cent assessment?" Why? Because through medical interventions and effective rehabilitation programs, the end state is actually much better than it looked at the outset.
So this benefit is targeting a unique set of circumstances, and it is intended to fill that gap of providing immediate compensation for those events, but before the condition has become stable, when the individual then becomes eligible for our disability benefit program under the Charter.
The Chair: And the $70,000 was chosen based on what?
Mr. Butler: That's a very good question, Mr. Chair. That took a lot of soul searching to come to an appropriate amount, and we looked at different organizations. There is a similar benefit that the USVA provides. This is certainly comparable to that. We also, however, looked at our current disability benefit program and the schedule that the ombudsman and Mr. McInnis have referred to that's in play for that. We looked at a host of factors and came up with an amount that we believed was reasonable and appropriate and achieved the outcome of what we were targeting here.
The Chair: Tell us how you came up with the annual grant of $7,238 for the family caregiver program.
Mr. Butler: Well, how about I round it off to $7,200 for purposes of discussion.
The Chair: Why don't you round it off to $8,000? The caregivers need some help here.
Mr. Butler: We looked at what was the per diem cost of providing respite care. That term has been used as an equivalent proxy.
So, using a per-diem cost of $300, we tried to compare it to other sectors that were providing similar types of benefits. We ultimately settled on 30 days. We concluded that 30 days of respite care per year would be a reasonable target to provide relief and support to the veteran and his or her informal caregivers, as reflected in the legislation.
That's how the amount was arrived at. We hope it will meet the need that it's designed to address.
The Chair: It's not indexed?
Mr. Butler: It would be indexed, as well.
The Chair: That would be good.
Senator White: Thanks again, everyone. The question I have is around the funding. First, is it fenced specifically for this program?
Second, is there the potential to carry forward surpluses if we're anticipating any? This won't be a "we have 10 this year; we know we'll have 10 next year" situation — if there is the ability to carry forward the surplus — if there is one at the end of the year, because it's a special program .
Mr. Butler: I'm just not sure I understand what you mean when you say "the program." Do you mean three elements or the family caregiver?
Senator White: The three elements.
Mr. Butler: Regarding the three elements, as I understand it, this would be no different than any of the other program components of the New Veterans Charter, like the Disability Award Program or the Earnings Loss Program. The government commits funding each year to these, but if the demand is higher, then the government is obligated to provide it. It's what they refer to in accounting terms as quasi-statutory funding. Parliament is committed to providing that funding.
We forecast, but as an example, if we entered an operational event tomorrow and the demand tripled, then the funding is assured by the Government of Canada.
Senator White: That satisfies my first question about fencing.
The Chair: Senator Lang, in case you had another question, I put you on for this second round.
Senator Lang: I'm not going to explore it today, because I know we're coming to the end of our time here. However, Mr. Parent and I have had some discussions over the last number of years in respect to the various programs that have been made available to veterans. I hope we can have an update in respect to the review of the program in conjunction with the departments to see where we are going to make some changes, so we can better meet the commitments we have to the veterans within the scope of the dollars we have.
I'm not going to ask for a response, but I just want to give everyone notice. Thank you.
The Chair: I've gone through the programs that appear in legal terms here, and it's very difficult to follow them in terms of percentages and As, Bs, over Q, et cetera, but I think I have an understanding. We're concerned because we're doing a lot of work on post-traumatic stress disorder situations and operational stress injury.
If a soldier were injured and were 100 per cent disabled, he would receive 100 per cent disability plus the $70,000 Critical Injury Benefit. But if the person were to suffer from an operational stress injury diagnosed later on, he would get 100 per cent disability but would not get the $70,000; is that correct?
Mr. Doiron: That is correct.
The Chair: Is that fair? Do we need an amendment to rectify that?
Mr. Butler: Thank you for the question. It's an important question, but it goes to the contextual piece for the New Veterans Charter. It's very important to understand that the New Veterans Charter is comprised of many components. There's a disability award, which is a noneconomic benefit up to $306,000 for 100 per cent disability, graduated at levels below that depending on severity. But that's only one small component of the New Veterans Charter.
The New Veterans Charter is oriented largely around rehabilitation and wellness. So, for the individual who suffers an injury, transitions to civilian life and has a need for rehabilitation, the New Veterans Charter meets the need. Under the New Veterans Charter we will do everything we can to rehabilitate. If we can't, then there are income supports that are put in place while they're in rehabilitation, and if they cannot be successfully rehabilitated through to age 65, then benefits like the Retirement Income Security Benefit pick up.
The Critical Injury Benefit, again, is simply targeted at physical and potentially mental health injuries, as well, but only if they're single and traumatic events. I guess the answer to your question is that fairness may be in the eye of the beholder, but it's important to understand the gap that the government felt was there and the need that this particular benefit was intended to meet.
It is important to understand fully that there is no differentiation between mental health issues and physical health issues within the New Veterans Charter. It is all based on issues of disability.
The Chair: Unfortunately, I'm going to have to call the meeting to a close. This discourse will continue on behalf of veterans and veterans' families.
We very much appreciate Veterans Affairs Canada, the Veterans Ombudsman and The Royal Canadian Legion for the support that you provide. Thank you for helping us understand this legislation before us today.
Mr. Doiron: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Butler: Thank you, Mr. Chair and senators.
(The committee adjourned.)