Proceedings of the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs
Issue 1 - Evidence - April 14, 2010
OTTAWA, Wednesday, April 14, 2010
The Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met this day at 12:09 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 Tommy Banks (Chair) in the chair.
[Français]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I call the meeting to order. This is a meeting of the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs, which is currently examining, in respect of its mandate, matters having to do specifically with the New Veterans Charter.
I would like to introduce the members of the subcommittee: Senator Pépin, who has long had an interest in this matter, particularly with respect to veterans' families; Senator Wallin, the chair of the parent committee, the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence; Senator Manning, the deputy chair of this subcommittee; and Senator Day, who was the chair of this subcommittee and has long been a member of it.
Our guests today are Mr. Miller, Ms. MacCormack, and Ms. Hicks, from Veterans Affairs Canada.
Before we proceed with business, colleagues, I will solicit your assistance. You will recall we had talked about having, as panel witnesses, members of the Canadian Forces to discuss how they are faring, as well as released members. I will solicit all of our input through the clerk to find released members who are obtaining services from Veterans Affairs Canada in order that we can contact them. I would ask you each in your respective constituencies or wherever else to find some of those folks who would have interesting things to tell us.
We have easy access to serving members, but access to folks who were previously members of the forces who have been released and are now dealing with Veterans Affairs Canada is a different and more complicated question. Therefore, I earnestly solicit your input and suggestions in that regard through the clerk.
In respect of today's witnesses, I presume Mr. Miller will begin.
Ken Miller, Director, Program and Policy Directorate, Veterans Affairs Canada: I will, and I have an opening statement.
The Chair: I hope you will be amenable to answering questions from members.
Mr. Miller: We will be delighted. I am here with my colleagues, Ms. Hicks, who works on the operational side of our organization as Director, Operational Direction and Guidance; and Ms. MacCormack, Director, Rehabilitation Directorate. I hope that collectively we can cover all the areas of your interest and provide you with some information you will find useful.
[Traduction]
Mr. Chair, members of the Committee, it's a great pleasure to appear before you today.
[Français]
We are pleased to be able to provide you with additional information on the New Veterans Charter and how well it is meeting the unique needs of our modern-day veterans and their families. The goal of the charter is to support veterans and their families who join civilian life and to help them overcome any barriers they may have to enable them to achieve their maximum potential, no matter when that need arises.
More than 20,000 clients have received support from one or more of the programs since the coming into force of the New Veterans Charter just a little more than four years ago now.
Today, we have provided you with an overview deck, which provides some useful statistical information that may serve some informational needs you have. As well, we have provided some case scenarios. These cases scenarios take real life situations and make them concrete and real. They are not intended to be a complete representation of all of our client cases, but they are helpful in illustrating how programs of the New Veterans Charter can support the modern- day veterans and their families. If you wish later on, we would be happy to walk you through the case studies.
We also have provided you with a third document entitled ``New Veterans Charter: Criticisms and Facts.'' This paper provides some clear responses to some of the more common misconceptions about the new suite of programs.
The New Veterans Charter provides the younger Canadian Forces' veterans with the tools and opportunities they need to build secure lives for themselves and their families after their careers in the military have ended. The new benefits are an integrated set of programs and services designed to provide incentives for independence, which is key, for wellness and for reintegration into civilian life.
They include a monthly payment that provides up to 75 per cent of pre-release salary to compensate specifically for the loss of earnings while an individual is participating in our rehabilitation program, or until age 65 in those cases where an individual is disabled permanently and unable to return to work.
Second, the suite of benefits provides a permanent impairment allowance. This provides an additional monthly amount for those who are most seriously impaired. Presently that range is between three grade levels — at the low end, a little over $500 a month, up to what is now a little over $1,600 a month at the higher end of the scale. That benefit pays for the life of the individual.
Third, there is a supplementary retirement benefit. This benefit compensates for lost opportunity and contributes or helps contribute to a retirement plan. We recognize that someone who is in rehabilitation and disabled does not have the same opportunity during what would have been their working career to contribute. This supplementary benefit, which is paid as a lump sum at age 65, provides 2 per cent of all the earnings lost that they would have received up to that point in time. It provides substantial assistance.
There is also a disability lump sum amount. I want to be clear that this amount is specifically to compensate for pain and suffering. The lump sum is not intended to be a replacement for lost earnings. That is specifically dealt with through the Earnings Loss program. This recognizes the pain and suffering and provides some level of compensation and recognition to individuals for that.
As well, we provide financial counselling. I know the committee has raised comments and concerns about whether individuals make wise decisions about the use of the lump sum. The financial counselling and the financial assistance we provide can assist individuals in getting good solid advice so they can make those good decisions.
Through the suite of programs we also provide a rehabilitation program, and this really is the cornerstone program of the New Veterans Charter. It includes medical, psychosocial and vocational rehabilitation and is intended to be comprehensive and accessible early on to get people the treatment they need to achieve the best recovery they can.
We also provide health care benefits. These are supplementary benefits in addition to health care benefits that would be paid in relation to the entitled disability. Of course, we provide, as we always have, treatment benefits for the condition that is service-related. Clients also have full access, as they have in the past, to the Veterans Independence Program, VIP, but this is supplementary for those who may not have been able to purchase the Public Service Health Care Plan at the point when they left.
Finally, we provide access to jobs. Ultimately, if individuals are able to reintegrate and be successful and work again, that is the ultimate goal that they would have and that we would have for them. Therefore, we provide assistance in those ways.
Veterans and their families in need also have access to strengthened mental health services, peer support and comprehensive case management. The case management is a fundamental key, and it is important that it be in place.
Over the past three years, Veterans Affairs Canada has made changes to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness within its existing authorities. We are working closely with the Department of National Defence to ensure that Canadian Forces members who become clients of Veterans Affairs Canada receive necessary interventions as early as possible. This will ensure they are able to achieve positive outcomes and successfully transition to civilian life, which is the ultimate goal.
We have also been exploring and analyzing potential gaps, as I know you have, in the New Veterans Charter. These have been identified through a variety of sources, including veterans' organizations, through various advisory fora, through best practices of other countries and so on.
In fact, the charter was recently recognized by an Australian study as the best in its class, the class being needs-based rehabilitation programs. It was recognized as best in its class among the programs available in Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States. We were pleased to hear that.
The design of the New Veterans Charter ensures more available resources are used most appropriately for all modern-day veterans whose service to Canada has left them with real challenges in civilian life. It allocates more resources to those with more severe disabilities and challenges while providing fair and proportionate compensation for those who have minimal transitional needs.
Even for those with minor or no disabilities, the New Veterans Charter provides a permanent, statutory safety net, a guarantee that if they ever have a need related to service, the charter is there for as long as it is needed. There are no time limitations attached to this. If individuals come back to us many years later — and they often do — with a condition that was perhaps not evident at the time of release or that has worsened over time, the door is open and that support is available to them. We feel that is a very valuable benefit to have available.
[Traduction]
We think that the new Charter has a positive impact. At Veterans Affairs Canada, we try to ensure that the new Charter keeps responding to the changing needs of our clients and to adopt approaches that give positive outcomes for each of our clients and their families.
[Français]
Thank you for the opportunity to provide you with this update. We would be pleased to take any questions you may have. Also, we have shared some case scenarios in the package that was provided to you. If members would find it useful, we would be pleased to walk you through any of those and make concrete the benefits that could be made available to individuals.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Miller. Does Ms. Hicks or Ms. MacCormack have anything to add before questions?
I am surrounded by chairs. We have been joined by the distinguished senator from Ontario, Senator Meighen, who was for a long time the chair of this subcommittee.
Senator Day: I would like to go through these scenarios, but I think it would be helpful for you to define who a ``veteran'' is. How far back do we go, and is there another category of veterans that does not fit into this?
Mr. Miller: That is a good question, and it does not have a simple answer. For the purposes of the New Veterans Charter, eligible clients are those who served in the Canadian Forces after April 1947, excluding the period of the Korean War.
Senator Day: Excluding?
Mr. Miller: I will explain that. Those Korean War veterans are considered on the same status basis as veterans of the Second World War — those we refer to colloquially as ``traditional veterans.'' They have access to certain programs, and their eligibility is defined within the legislation. The New Veterans Charter you are examining explicitly defines that group of veterans.
We could have Canadian Forces veterans eligible for this who were released from the forces many years ago. For the first couple of years in the New Veterans Charter, the majority of our clients coming forward were individuals released years ago who were still dealing with reintegration issues that were sufficient enough that they qualified for benefits under this program. That demonstrates in a positive way how the charter is always there and how it is open to serve those individuals.
The Chair: Can we or should we assume that Korean War veterans are excluded because of the technicality that it was not a war?
Mr. Miller: It is not a matter that they are excluded. Rather, they are included in the war service group. That is a more accurate way to state it.
Senator Day: For example, Korean War and Second World War veterans would be eligible for programs like the Veterans Independent Program, but newer veterans are not.
Mr. Miller: Actually, the newer Canadian Forces veterans are also eligible for the VIP.
Senator Meighen: What about eligibility for the VIP? My recollection is that you had to have served overseas. Then the ``overseas'' definition was changed to Newfoundland and then again to P.E.I. What is the definition now of service during World War II to enable one to be eligible for the VIP benefits?
Mr. Miller: It does not require singular service in World War II. A Canadian Forces veteran who served only in Canada is eligible today to receive the VIP benefits.
You are right that there was an incremental progression as the authority evolved over time. It started off as a benefit for the older, traditional veterans, and then that eligibility expanded. Today, you can have a 34-year-old Canadian Forces member with service in Canada retiring who has needs to support his independence, and those needs relate either to a pensioned disability or to something he received a disability award for under the New Veterans Charter. The VIP benefits can be provided to support that individual.
Senator Meighen: Would somebody who served for a few years in Ottawa, for example, during World War II be eligible, if they met other criteria for the VIP?
Mr. Miller: That is correct.
Senator Day: You have referred to an inability or a lacking of all of the skills to reintegrate into society. At another time, we were talking about having a disability. Can one lack all of the attributes to be reintegrated into society and still not have a physical or mental disability?
Mr. Miller: It is an important point you have raised. One of the issues with the old approach for the newer Canadian Forces veterans is that the pension program was a gateway program, and they had to demonstrate that entitlement to a pension before we could provide any other support to them.
With the New Veterans Charter, we have separated the two; there is no longer a connection. Whether somebody qualifies as having a service-related disability does not matter. In other words, we have created a lesser burden of proof around our rehabilitation program, and that was done deliberately so that individuals could access the program more quickly.
It is borne out by our success rate around applications to the program. I cannot give you the exact number, but over 90 per cent of individuals applying for the rehabilitation program are approved for it. That means you can get an individual in and start providing the support, regardless of whether that person eventually qualifies for a disability award for the same condition, which can happen at the same time, later, or never.
Senator Day: Let us suppose the individual does not have a physical or mental disability but is lacking in educational or social skills to reintegrate into society. However, he or she was a wonderful infantry soldier. How do you handle that type of person?
Mr. Miller: From a technical perspective, the authority speaks to barriers to reintegration. I will ask my colleague, Ms. MacCormack, to speak to that in more detail. If we can identify reasonably that there is a barrier, there is a lot of latitude and flexibility within the authority of the rehabilitation program to provide interventions.
This is an important feature of the program I want to make you aware of. It is not a program that defines, as many government programs do, a specific list of benefits. Also, it does not limit what we can provide to a specific list. It gives us latitude to respond when individuals have a barrier.
This has given us a powerful, useful tool to be able to respond to needs. Sometimes we find very unusual needs that can be best responded to in what might seem an odd way, but for a particular client, it is the best way. We have the latitude to deal with that.
Brenda MacCormack, Director, Rehabilitation Directorate, Veterans Affairs Canada: Clients who are participating in rehabilitation programs usually do have some form of disability, and it can be very minor. It may not be the biggest impediment in their reintegrating into civilian life. As for who is eligible for the rehabilitation program, anyone who is medically releasing from the forces is eligible for the program. Whether people have a minor disability or a significant disability, and whether it is service-related or not, they are eligible on the basis of the medical release. Second, if they have rehabilitation needs that are service-related into the future, and it is generally associated with some form of disability, they can come back at any time and re-enter the rehabilitation program.
It may be helpful to go through the scenarios.
Senator Day: I have a supplementary to your comments before I suggest that. Do you need to have a medical release in order to qualify?
Ms. MacCormack: There are two gateways. The first, medical release, is automatic, and the second is a rehabilitation need that is service-related. People can come back any number of times in the second regard.
Senator Day: That was my understanding, but I wanted to clarify the record on that.
Mr. Chair, is it your intention to take questions before we go to the scenarios or to deal with the scenarios?
The Chair: I think we should do that in order for everyone to have a chance to ask questions.
I neglected to say at the beginning that because the Senate sits today at two o'clock, we have the luxury of being able to work until at least our designated time. I will try to bring us to a close at 1:30 p.m. or close to it.
Senator Manning: I have questions about a couple of the existing programs. Maybe you can give us some idea of the success and reintegration back into society, which is very important. A couple of former soldiers I talked to were trying to find employment opportunities through the job placement assistance program. How many inquiries do you have? What is the long-term success rate of people you have assisted?
Ms. MacCormack: The job placement program you are referring to is now known as the career transition services program. It is a broad-based generic program available to anyone who is voluntarily leaving the services. We begin to deliver the program while the person is still serving.
We offer workshops that enable people to understand how to write resumes and how their skills attained in the military might translate into civilian society. They can participate in those workshops at any point during their service when they are thinking about releasing from the forces. We have delivered 276 workshops since we implemented this program, and we have had over 2,000 participants in the program.
Once members have participated in the workshops, they can go on to one-on-one counselling where they work more specifically on their individual situation. They look at what skills and abilities they bring to the table, what the civilian labour market looks like where they will live, and they develop a return-to-work plan. It is much more targeted at the individual and working with a counsellor who has knowledge of the geographical area where the member wants to live.
We have had a low uptake of clients to that component of the program. We have identified a number of reasons as the cause, which we have moved to remedy. Fewer than 400 people have gone on to the individual counselling. Those who have are very positive about the program and the services they have obtained, and they have gone on to secure employment.
Mr. Miller: This program is specifically for those who are voluntarily releasing. In other words, it is for those not dealing with a disability or medical issue. Those with a disability or medical issue who enter the rehabilitation program get access, if they are successful in rehabilitation, to vocational elements through this program, not the one that Ms. MacCormack just spoke about.
Senator Manning: Is the vocational assistance program available to both groups?
Ms. MacCormack: The vocational component is available through the rehabilitation program. The career transition services program that I just spoke about is about enabling people to understand the skills they bring to the table, where them would like to work if they want to transition to civilian life, what supports they might need and access to supports that exist in their own communities. As we know, there may be other supports they can access as well. However, there is no formal training program associated with the career transition services.
Senator Manning: If support is identified, is there a process to assist that person in further education and training to help them to rehabilitate?
Ms. MacCormack: As Mr. Miller mentioned, it is important to understand that those targeted in the career transition services are people who do not have disabilities. They are well people choosing to leave the service. Our experience with this group is that they are choosing to leave because they want to retire or they are choosing to leave because they have another civilian career opportunity. Their needs are different, and they are making decisions rather than having decisions forced upon them because of disability.
The other group benefiting from vocational rehabilitation are those with disabilities, those medically releasing and those with service-related disabilities. The program we use to assist that group is the rehabilitation program, which contains all of the vocational supports, including the career transition pieces I talked about. They are targeted at someone who is disabled, which is very different.
Mr. Miller: To answer your original question, senator, it is within the rehabilitation program that we offer retraining and educational opportunities for individuals when they require that to make the transition to civilian life. In other words, there is a gap between the skill set they have and what they would need, given their disability, to reintegrate successfully. That training and educational component is available through the rehabilitation program.
Senator Manning: You talked earlier about the Korean War veterans versus those from 1947, I believe you said. I realize we have a new group of veterans from Afghanistan. However, approximately how many veterans are we dealing with today in Canada?
Mr. Miller: Not only our clients, but the overall number of veterans in Canada?
Senator Manning: Yes.
Mr. Miller: I can hazard a ballpark number, but I do not have an exact number. We can provide you with the actual number, but approximately 60,000 Canadian Forces veterans have received some benefit from Veterans Affairs. I have seen numbers from various surveys that suggest there may be 400,000 or 500,000 Canadian Forces veterans living in Canada who have retired from the forces. A majority of those would not be our clients currently.
The Chair: If that information is available, we would be grateful if you could provide it to the clerk.
Mr. Miller: We can. I have never seen precise census data, but approximations are available.
The Chair: I think you would give a better approximation than others.
Senator Wallin: One concern always raised about this, even by some senators, is that the New Veterans Charter is simply a cost-saving measure for government. I am not one of those who believe that is the case. Could you respond?
Mr. Miller: It never was, and it still is not. When the New Veterans Charter was designed, our objective was clearly to create programs to further successful transition and reintegration. We recognized a number of problems with the old programs. It is fair to say that the old programs were costing a lot of money, but it is not money that was clearly resulting in the kind of client outcomes we all wanted to see. It led us to question whether, if we were spending the money, we could not spend it in a better way. That was always the premise.
When the New Veterans Charter was first put in place, the government authorized $740 million as incremental money on top of expenditures that would have happened had we done nothing. That money was to fund the first five years of the program. That is not cost savings; it is investment in long-term outcomes for individuals.
Of course, I have also heard the criticism. Many years from now, if it turns out that there are any savings as a result of the new charter, it will be because of the success of the programs. If through these programs we can help people reintegrate, be independent and be able to support themselves, people who would not have otherwise have been able to do so, I think it is a very good outcome.
Senator Wallin: Almost everyone who wants to be under the umbrella of Veterans Affairs Canada, the New Veterans Charter or the Veterans Independence Program seems to be able to do that without difficulty. You indicate that number is approximately 60,000 out of 400,000.
Mr. Miller: Yes, approximately.
Senator Wallin: Is anyone deliberately excluded who wants service but cannot have it?
Mr. Miller: I would not say so, senator. If they have a need, and we define ``need'' very broadly, then there are certainly benefits that can assist. There may well be some who feel there should be some benefit for them and there is not, but within the scope of the authority we have, and I quickly walked you through those programs this morning, it is very broadly based and we have a great deal of flexibility and latitude to meet any legitimate need that is identified.
Senator Wallin: I will leave you with one comment, because there may be another question and you can answer this when we get to the scenarios, but in three of the four scenarios, the fourth one being a spouse of someone who lost their life in combat, you cite post-traumatic stress disorder, PTSD. Again, I know this is a serious issue, but there are those who believe that anyone who has been involved in any military service suffers from this. I do not believe that, but I am concerned, when every example you give cites PTSD, because I do not want us to leave the impression that everyone who serves in the military suffers from this.
Mr. Miller: That is a good point. Certainly it is correct that not everyone suffers from PTSD. This is very topical today, which perhaps is one of the reasons it features in some of the scenarios. Over a number of years we have seen a rapid increase not only in PTSD but also in the number of clients who come forward with various mental illnesses that connect in some way to their service.
With many of the various physical injuries that soldiers may experience today, we are also seeing a fairly high degree of co-morbidity. If they have a significant injury, they may well also be dealing with some sort of psychological injury. That is prevalent. We do not want to overstate it, but it is there.
[Traduction]
Senator Pépin: I would like to know who are the physicians who determine the level of incapacity of the soldiers. Do they get a special training? Who are the doctors who will officially assess the level of incapacity of a soldier or a veteran?
Mr. Miller: Thank you for your question. I will answer you in English, if I may.
[Français]
Yes, we have departmental physicians. We also have physicians that we access as consultants on contract. They are available to assist us with making those determinations. Ms. Hicks can speak to this in more detail from an operational point of view.
The actual assessment of the level of disability is determined by departmental staff. Most of them professionally tend to be nurses with specific training to assess the conditions they are responsible for assessing. We have an elaborate departmental manual called a table of disability, which provides them with detailed directions around how they do that; and when they need to seek the guidance of a physician, those physicians are available, and they have specific training and expertise in the areas of these assessments.
[Traduction]
Senator Pépin: We know that, in the United States, and now in Canada, there are several operations centre, that give psychological care to our soldiers. Do the members of the family have also access to these rehabilitation services? What are the Canadian criteria those families must fill to have access to those services?
[Français]
Mr. Miller: Yes, absolutely. Perhaps Ms. Hicks could speak to that, but we have an extensive network of psychological injury clinics. We very much recognize that psychological injury through military experience can have a different characteristic to it than other types of mental illness. There is a certain expertise required.
Ms. Hicks, could you please explain the structure of the clinics and networks?
Jane Hicks, Director, Operational Direction and Guidance, Veterans Affairs Canada: We have a series of 10 mental health clinics, operational stress injury clinics, across Canada. Nine are outpatient or can be accessed as required. There is an interdisciplinary team of doctors, psychologists, and psychiatrists that will do an interdisciplinary assessment of the individual's needs. Ideally, it is preferred that people are treated within their own communities. They can set up a treatment plan and assist as required to link up to resources.
The tenth clinic is the in-patient clinic at Ste. Anne's, the residential clinic that just opened about a month ago or late January, which assists with residential care. I think there are 10 spots available. It is quite extensive.
There is also a mental health strategy. A whole series of mental health services is available. The operational stress injury clinics are just one resource that we access across the country.
Ms. MacCormack: I add that the Veterans Affairs Canada network of operational stress injury clinics is coordinated with the Canadian Forces network of clinics. We have interchange between Veterans Affairs Canada and the Canadian Forces in terms of accessing these outpatient clinics, which have similar standards and are staffed by similar professionals.
As well, we have the operational stress injury social support program, which has been a very successful program for providing peer support to those suffering from mental illness at the veteran member level, and at the family level and the grief counselling level. Veterans Affairs Canada and the Canadian Forces have also put a lot of effort into building capacity in the community, to educate providers about the military culture in particular, about mental health and how it affects people and families, to bring more openness to that, and to build capacity in those communities so that when veterans go back to their communities there is the capacity for ongoing treatment.
We have also been experimenting with tele-mental health and other types of avenues to deliver service because we know that not everyone lives in urban centres. We have been trying to build that capacity as well.
We currently have more than 2,000 registered providers across the country. We also have a Veterans Affairs Canada assistance line run for us by Health Canada; family members or veterans can call this assistance line at any time, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and have access to a health professional.
While we have made great strides in building capacity for mental health, in raising the bar in terms of openness, and in increasing our capacity to integrate with the Canadian Forces and the Department of National Defence, there is obviously still work to be done. The issue is certainly on the Canadian agenda as well.
[Traduction]
Senator Pépin: You have women veterans, women who have been sent to war. Do you know if a high percentage of women veterans are being followed for stress problems? Do they have specific or different problems from those of the other veterans?
[Français]
Mr. Miller: My colleagues may have some information, but I am not aware of any information that would separate the male and female demographic in terms of the impacts they would have.
Ms. MacCormack: I can speak from a rehabilitation perspective. If you look at the demographics of people participating in the program, about 20 per cent are women. I think intuitively there may be some differences, but I am not aware of any kind of research.
The rehabilitation program specifically is intended to positively influence a person's capacity to function in any of his or her roles in society, whether in a family role, at an individual level, at a community level and, where we can, in a workplace. By its very nature, we sometimes assume these different roles. I guess there is the potential for that, but the programs as they are structured are intended to deal on an individual basis with whatever needs the person brings to the table; and the interventions that can be put in place, particularly through the rehabilitation program, would be designed to meet the individual's specific needs, whether the person is male or female, in whatever place he or she is functioning.
Mr. Miller: It is important to understand that the goal of the rehabilitation program is not, as is the case with many rehabilitation programs, singularly focused on getting employment or getting back into the workforce. The goal is to eliminate barriers, help with reintegration and help with functioning. That functioning, as Ms. MacCormack suggests, can be at a family level, at a community level or as a parent. If someone can reintegrate into the workplace, then it can be in that context, but it is not singularly focused on that.
Senator Meighen: Thank you for being here. I have only one question. Senator Wallin referred to one particular area of criticism of the New Veterans Charter, to which you responded, and this paper is helpful in dealing with the general areas we have all heard, where people have raised questions. I personally think that the charter is a great step forward, but it is not without its teething problems, of course, like any new piece of legislation.
One area you do not deal with in your paper and where we have heard criticism — and it is probably an area where you can never be perfect — is explaining what is available to veterans and the nature of the programs they can avail themselves of. That seems to be an ongoing problem. As I say, you can never be perfect.
What has been done in the recent past to improve communication? What has been done — perhaps in non- conventional ways, because not every veteran belongs to the Royal Canadian Legion — to reach out to these people? Where does the buck stop? Whose responsibility is it? Is it your responsibility in your department, or does it fall upon public relations people? How does it work?
Mr. Miller: That is a fair comment. In fairness, it is an area where we can and should do a better job. There have been many positive efforts around communication, outreach, and making sure that potential clients are aware of the benefits, but I do not think it has hit home with many as well as perhaps it should have. I take your criticism.
Senator Meighen: Constructively, I hope.
Mr. Miller: Absolutely, it is constructive. There is a collective responsibility. A large part of the responsibility rests with Veterans Affairs Canada. Some of the responsibility also rests with our colleagues in the Canadian Forces to make individuals aware.
The document we shared with you was created simply because there are many unfortunate misconceptions out there. We find that when we have the time or the opportunity to sit down with people and actually explain what the benefits are, how they work and how they can benefit them, they get a very different picture.
In response to your question, I feel that we do need to do more around outreach, particularly at local levels. We do a great deal presently on bases at the time of release. Ms. MacCormack or Ms. Hicks can speak to that. We conduct transition interviews now with the vast majority of individuals who are releasing, and we provide information in that form at that time. There have been attempts to provide information at earlier points in time. It is not a time when young, fit soldiers want to hear about this. Nevertheless, more could be done and should be done so that people are aware of the benefits.
Ms. Hicks: Certainly a main focus of communication has been those serving in the military, as a starting point, as well as pre- and post-deployment sessions, making sure members are aware of benefits and services from Veterans Affairs Canada, and those who are medically releasing. The military holds second-career assistance network sessions, and Veterans Affairs is there. We provide information on the New Veterans Charter programs, benefits and services. There are integrated personnel support networks and integrated personnel support centres. Those are mechanisms to communicate. We are located on the bases, so members are aware that we are there and they can drop in. We do sessions with the Canadian Forces units and with reservists. We are asked to meet with reserve units to provide information on benefits and services. We certainly focus on those who are still serving.
For those who are released, this becomes more challenging. We have stakeholders. We provide sessions to particular organizations. We send out our newsletter, Salute!, to all of our clients. We provide information on available benefits and services. As you said, there is certainly more we can do in that regard. An outreach strategy is being developed to focus on communicating New Veterans Charter benefits and services.
Senator Meighen: I have one supplementary comment. What about veterans released in 1945? Communication with them poses some problems, if for no other reason than some of them would not have needed the services of Veterans Affairs since 1945, but now perhaps they do. Perhaps they are eligible, and they do not go to the Legion, let us say. How do you reach them? Is it possible, for example, to include with the Canada pension cheque a little brochure saying, ``Are you a veteran? Maybe you qualify for some of these benefits.'' Has that been explored?
Ms. Hicks: Not to my knowledge have we recently explored that type of outreach. We have 30 district offices across the country and 19 integrated personnel support centres that focus on community engagements. They do presentations with stakeholders and health service providers in the communities. Once they encounter a veteran, we rely on word of mouth and education from service providers on benefits and services for veterans so that if they do become aware of a veteran in need of services, they will refer that person to us. Certainly there is more we can do in that regard, but those are some of the initiatives we have in place.
Ms. MacCormack: As you point out, there is a lot of opportunity in the future as the Government of Canada moves towards a single window of service provision, to make sure that if I walk in somewhere, someone can at least say, ``Are you a veteran? You might want to check with these people.''
This is good timing in terms of trying to leverage some of the existing capacity, and I certainly see us going there down the road.
Senator Wallin: This is related to the question of how you categorize. The two World War II veterans in my life with whom I am very close are thrilled by what they get from VIP, but they come from a generation that thinks they do not deserve it. If they get a little bit, they feel guilty and do not want to ask for anything more. That is one category. Then you have the young guys saying, ``No, not me; I do not have any problems.''
Are you actually breaking it down into categories? To Senator Meighen's point, you need different strategies, depending on the state of mind of the individual veterans.
Ms. MacCormack: There is certainly a solid recognition within the department that we are at a point where we have quite a number of different cohorts. We have traditional veterans who are declining rapidly in numbers while at the same time their needs are increasing. We have a Canadian Forces cohort that is quite varied even within itself, because they have been released since 1947. Some of them are young and some of them a little older. Overall, our client base is declining.
Yes, it is fair to say that we are definitely directing our minds to what are the targeted solutions needed for each of those groups and how do we best position ourselves as an organization to meet those needs, so that we have the right people, with the right skills, in the right places, at the right time. The service delivery area that Ms. Hicks represents is doing a lot of work in that regard.
Ms. Hicks: To add to that, with the younger guys, over the last number of years we have done transition interviews; all releasing members of the military have access to a transition interview. Thus they are aware of Veterans Affairs Canada. They may not need the benefits and services at that time, but further down the road, if they do need them, they are aware of the name ``Veterans Affairs'' and what we have to offer.
The Chair: There is a peer issue that comes into play at that point, though, is there not? General Cox has just made an excellent suggestion, which you might suggest to your communications people, that this really is a communications question, and Veterans Affairs Canada could take out 30-second ads on MuchMusic in which a young, recently released veteran were to say, ``Hi, I am a recently released veteran. If you have a problem, call VAC 1-800.'' It would be not very expensive, quite effective and proactive as opposed to reactive.
Senator Pépin: It is important as well that the spouses are aware of those services. They should know that the services are addressed not only to the veterans but also to the spouses and families. The spouses are the first to acknowledge that there is something wrong with their husband or wife.
Senator Day: Do you include families in exit interviews?
Ms. Hicks: We encourage the members to bring their spouses with them. It is obviously the members' decision whether they do so or not. Case management and rehabilitation are about how the veteran works with the family. The assessment is about the whole person and the resources that are in place for that person.
The Chair: Do most members bring their families to the exit conference or do most members not bring their families?
Ms. Hicks: In my experience when I was the director in Ottawa, the majority did not bring their families.
The Chair: They did not. Therein lies a problem.
I want to return to the question of vocational rehabilitation. I presume that, in addition to the clinics to which you referred, some people are contracted out to other providers of rehabilitation help. Would I be correct in assuming that CanVet would be one of those?
Ms. MacCormack: CanVet is our national provider for delivery of vocational rehabilitation services.
The Chair: CanVet is a consortium of three private companies, one in B.C., one on the Prairies and one in Ontario. Their website says that they provide services in the English language only. Regardless of whether that is the case, who provides those vocational rehabilitation services in Quebec, P.E.I., New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland?
Ms. MacCormack: I can assure you that that is not the case. CanVet provides services in both official languages in all parts of the country.
The Chair: Vocational rehab services are provided in French where appropriate?
Ms. MacCormack: Absolutely; clients are served in the language of their choice.
The Chair: I will reread their website. Perhaps I misread it.
In the case of unilingual veterans who are under vocational rehabilitation in areas where theirs is a minority language, is it a prerequisite that those providing the rehabilitation deal with that in their skill set for rehab?
Ms. MacCormack: Are you referring to providing the services at the level that is appropriate in the language of their choice?
The Chair: Yes, and to take into account what needs to be done to make them employable in that region.
Ms. MacCormack: It would be part of the assessment. A vocational assessment looks at individuals, their experience, their education, where they want to live, what the labour market there is like and what they will need on their resumé in order to do what they want to do. The vocational provider would be well versed in the local labour market. It is an individualized plan for the individual's needs, circumstances, disability and goals. The vocational counsellor would work with the client to understand all of that. In certain cases, if there is significant disability, there may be more comprehensive assessments and then a plan made with the individual that works for that person.
The Chair: We know about certain policies that take into account people undergoing vocational rehab who are seeking employment in the public sector. What is your experience with potential employment opportunities for those folks in the private sector? We will be asking the Canadian Council of Chief Executives that question, but what is your experience at that coal face? Are there private employers who are willing to provide employment to folks who are not fully mobile and have some physical disability?
Ms. MacCormack: Yes, there is a great deal of interest in the community in supporting and providing jobs to veterans. It is our responsibility, too, to ensure, in collaboration with the vocational counsellor, that we are not putting people into jobs at which they cannot be successful. Yes, there is a great deal of interest, and I know that the Canadian Forces also spends a great deal of time recruiting prospective employers, and they would also say that there is a great deal of interest. That kind of partnership does happen. Our service providers, whether Right Management, which provides career transition services to those who are well, or CanVet, which provides vocational services to those who are disabled, also have community linkages with prospective employers. They are very attuned to which employers can accommodate those with disabilities and what the best fits are.
The Chair: I will ask a generic, catch-all question. You have talked positively about all the aspects of the implementation, the effect, the efficacy, and the usefulness of the New Veterans Charter. You have also identified some of its shortcomings, as has the ongoing internal examination of that, of which we have copies.
What is your worst nightmare? What is the biggest failing? What is the biggest problem that you face, and what would you do to fix it?
Mr. Miller: I think the fundamental design, the philosophy that led us to the New Veterans Charter, was right, and it is has shown itself to be. The foundation is there, the building blocks are there, and I would not suggest changing any of that. It is also very important, as you look at the New Veterans Charter, that you consider it collectively, because the different pieces build on each other and work together.
It is fair to say that some potential gap areas have been identified. We have received very good advice from very learned individuals, including some of our colleagues who have served on the New Veterans Charter Advisory Group. I know that their report has been shared with you and that their chair, Professor Muriel Westmorland, testified before you late last fall.
The Chair: We kept calling her General Westmorland.
Mr. Miller: I do as well.
That is grounded and solid advice. If you were to focus somewhere, it should be on the areas that need slight adjustment to ensure that the philosophy and the original intention of the program are fulfilled and realized for each veteran who needs support through the program.
Based on our experience over the first four years, it is fair to say that the majority of individuals who have accessed the program have realized the kind of outcomes that we envisaged at the front end. However, it is also fair to say, as others have observed, that there are some areas where some slight adjustments over time should perhaps be considered.
The Chair: We were all happy to learn about having won the beauty contest among the respective countries for how we deal with veterans.
Given that you just said adjustments need to be made, can you comment briefly on the numbers contained in the report of our sister committee in the House of Commons with respect to the lump sum disability payment? In Canadian dollars, the top number is in Australia with $324,615. In the United Kingdom the number is $1,051,422, and in Canada it is $267,364.94. I hate to be specific, but the fact is that our number is lower than the others. Is that one thing we need to look at, or are we in the right place given the other aspects of assistance provided to veterans?
Mr. Miller: The current level in Canada is $276,000, approximately. It is difficult to make those comparisons because our systems exist in different forms, and as I said earlier you have to consider these things in totality. It is hard to do so in isolation. For example, you mentioned the amount in Britain, and that is correct. On the level it sounds like there is a lot more compensation there. However, you have to consider other facts; for example, Britain's assessment system is more rigorous than ours, and although they have had their lump sum in place longer than we have, there have been very few awards at the top level, and it is only awards at the top level that also come with an earnings loss component. My point is that you cannot look at these things in isolation and compare just a lump sum to another country's lump sum.
The Chair: I agree; all comparisons are odious.
Senator Manning: As a follow-up to some of the wonderful information you bring forward today, the New Veterans Charter seems to be a major step in the right direction, and I want to applaud your efforts in its implementation.
My question concerns the follow-up to programs that are available for veterans. Could you explain the mechanism that is in place, if there is one, that allows access to the program? If 300 veterans participate in one of your programs, is there a mechanism in place to see where some improvements could be made, if they are needed, or what needs to be critiqued? Can you give us some indication of what is in place to deal with that?
Mr. Miller: I will ask Ms. MacCormack to speak to that, but I should point out that shortly after the implementation of the New Veterans Charter we created a reorganized structure within our department to specifically create an area of program management. The intention was to put a specific focal point on the very question you are raising, so that as programs operate over time there is a deliberate monitoring function to see whether the outcomes that are desired are actually being achieved and whether we need to make adjustments at the policy level or the operational level. This is an important point because there was a significant shift from the old approach, which was an entitlement-based program approach; in other words, if you met certain qualifying criteria you were entitled to receive a benefit irrespective of what your need might have been.
With a needs-based approach that is not the case. We have more flexibility, and it means that the intervention provided is more proportionate, more appropriate and more in response to the particular need that the individual has. With that type of system, we have given more authority and more latitude to our front-line staff to make decisions, to get the right benefit in place, so that it is timely and meets the need. To go along with that, we have created this program management focal point to ensure that we are monitoring how that is working and making adjustments as we go along.
Ms. MacCormack can speak to some of the specific activities that happen in regards to that.
Ms. MacCormack: We have put a great deal of effort into building program performance templates to look at what we are achieving, and there are many outputs we can look at fairly immediately in turnaround times, how many clients we are dealing with and their health profile. We do that on an ongoing basis and respond as we can through policy operational changes.
In addition, we want to look at client outcomes over the longer term, looking at the kinds of transitional outcomes. We need to do more research on that, and that is under way within our research area. I cannot speak in detail about that.
In particular, with the rehabilitation program, we use surveys that clients participate in when they enter the program and when they leave the program. We get information on five key areas we would be looking at when they come in, such as economic security, their health status, community integration, employment and how they feel recognized for their service. At an outcome level, we are trying to understand clients' profiles when they come into the program and what they look like when they leave our rehabilitation program.
The monitoring of these outcomes is in the early days. We are less than four years in. Many veterans who were participating in the programs are still in the programs because they were ill when they came in. Therefore we will not have good, solid information, but we are building the right building blocks to get there. In respect of some of the preliminary information around those particular client outcomes, we know that already we are seeing some marked improvement in those who have completed the rehabilitation program. In particular, they are reporting marked improvement in their mental health, and we know that 90 per cent of the clients who have completed the program — and there have not been that many, approximately 500 — who were not unable to work because of disability or did not want to work have been employed. That piece is under way.
As well, at the time of implementation we committed to undertake an evaluation of the New Veterans Charter. That is under way. There are three phases to that evaluation. Phase 1 has looked at the relevancy and rationale for the programs and whether they make sense. By and large, the conclusion is yes, these programs make sense. They are highly consistent with modern principles of disability management. They are highly consistent in meeting the needs that have been identified by these client groups around needing supports for reintegration.
That same report recognizes and recommends that we continue to focus on program performance information and continue to build that kind of information. That report also recognizes that the issue of families is an important one, and we need to understand what we must do better there to influence the successful outcomes that we want for veterans and their families.
We also do generalized client surveys, and our 2007 client survey was at 80 per cent for overall satisfaction for the Canadian Forces veteran population. Another survey is being conducted now, so we will see where that goes.
A number of pieces are under way. It is a matter of pulling them all together and making sure we understand what we are achieving and that we are focusing on outcomes.
I want to highlight a point Mr. Miller made earlier. We are not just looking to get people in jobs. The programs are designed to maximize independence, to maximize our clients' capacity to function in life and achieve whatever they can achieve given their circumstances and their disability. Those supports are there. If the rehabilitation program can only assist someone to improve their functioning at a family level, then that is a legitimate outcome and one we would definitely pursue and look to achieve. It is helpful to highlight that we are looking at individuals in all facets of their functioning and not just a narrow function and looking at them in the context of their families as well.
Senator Manning: The mechanisms in place and the flexibility to make changes or improve on what is already there is within your hands also.
Throughout discussions on the New Veterans Charter we have heard about the opportunity programs available for veterans. I will step over to the spouses for a moment. In my own experience as an elected member, I dealt with several spouses of veterans who were not aware of programs that were available to them, even many years after their spouse had passed away.
Would you elaborate us on the programs that are available to spouses, so that everyone is aware, and the take-up of those from your programs versus the take-up of the veterans themselves?
Mr. Miller: I will speak generally to some of the benefits, and then Ms. MacCormack can fill you in on the statistical details.
Important changes and benefits were created under the New Veterans Charter specifically to provide for family members, particularly in the case of service-related death, which is the extreme situation where we want to ensure that those benefits are in place. I did not mention it in my overview, although I should have.
In the same way that the lump sum pays $276,000 for 100 per cent disability, the same amount pays as a death benefit to a survivor in the case of service-related death. That is an important benefit to help survivors adjust and re- establish themselves. It provides some immediate opportunity for them to face many of the issues that they will face.
It is also important to recognize that the survivor receives the earnings loss benefit that would have been paid to the veteran had the veteran been seriously injured but survived. That earnings loss benefit pays to the survivor until the time the veteran would have turned 65, irrespective of that survivor's personal income. The same amount of money that would have supported the family if the veteran had lived supports the family in the case of the veteran's death. That is an important benefit.
Senator Manning: Would that be on top of the death benefit itself?
Mr. Miller: Yes, it is.
In the case of service-related death, we also create an access point as a primary recipient to the rehabilitation program. For most survivors, that takes the form of vocational rehabilitation, but we can provide any rehabilitation element that may be necessary to assist survivors to re-establish, including elements of retraining and helping them get jobs and so on.
As well, we have an educational assistance program. This pre-existed the New Veterans Charter, but it continues to be available to the families of servicemen who die as a result of service. It provides assistance for their children to attend higher education. Those are very clear and important benefits in the case of service-related death.
We also created some new access points in the case of significant injury, where the veteran is the recipient of the rehabilitation program. We invite the spouses to participate in that. When the spouse or the family members, including children, are also dealing with issues that have an interacting effect with the veteran's rehabilitation, we have the authority to provide direct treatment or counselling intervention to support them to the extent that it is important and necessary for the overall rehabilitation plan for the veteran. That is an important benefit there as well.
I should also mention that when a veteran is significantly disabled to the point that he or she is unable to participate in the rehabilitation plan, we make those benefits fully available to the spouse, to the family. The philosophy is that the program was created to benefit the veteran, and if it cannot benefit the veteran, then let it benefit the family. That was the objective.
Those are some significant improvements to support family members, far above what we had available to us in the previous legislation.
The Chair: I will interrupt and take that as an answer because we have time left for only two short questions before we are out of time. We will study the scenarios and get with them as soon as we can. We may have questions on those, which I hope you will accept from us.
Senator Day: We will also study the document you provided for us on criticisms and facts. We have not had a chance to look at this yet, but one of the items you talk about in detail is the lump sum payment issue that the chair raised earlier from the House of Commons committee report.
Just to clarify, you indicated earlier that the lump sum payment is for pain and suffering, and that there are other programs and opportunities for monthly payments up to 75 per cent of salary for loss of earnings until the person is rehabilitated. That is separate from the pain and suffering lump sum payment.
Mr. Miller: It is.
Senator Day: I thought it was important to clarify that.
The other point of clarification is vocational training in the Eastern provinces. This consortium of companies is actually offering the same services in Eastern Canada as it is in other parts of the country. Is that correct?
Ms. MacCormack: That is correct. We have a national contract with CanVet. The requirements that we ask of that contractor are the same across the country. The same standard of service would be provided no matter where they were accessing service in Canada, and in their official language of choice.
Senator Day: But the service is being offered in the area where the veteran is, as opposed to requiring the veteran in certain areas to go to another part of Canada.
Ms. MacCormack: That is correct.
Senator Day: The final point I need a clarification on is part of this vocational training and job placement. We, as legislators in the past, or our predecessors, have created special categories for the families of deceased military personnel or veterans who have disabilities. Under the Public Service Employment Act, there are special categories.
Do you pursue that? Do you make sure those categories are filled? What is your experience in dealing with the department heads in relation to those special openings for veterans and veterans' families?
Ms. Hicks: In terms of hiring through the public service, there is the Public Service Employment Act and a public service regulation. As a department, if we want to hire externally, there are identified priorities, and military is one of those. We would have to consider those individuals prior to hiring someone else from the general public. In Veterans Affairs Canada, we have hired former military as priorities within the department. I am not familiar with the numbers.
Senator Day: I am talking about the entire public service. The same rules apply. Are you going to different departments and trying to marry up the veteran who would qualify, or the family of the veteran who would qualify? Are these rules useful in the service that you are providing?
Ms. MacCormack: We do ensure that our service provider — for example, CanVet — is aware of the access of the priority status. From a government-wide perspective, I cannot speak to how many are actually being placed. I think the Public Service Commission of Canada perhaps could.
Senator Day: To save time, could you check with CanVet and find out what their success rate is, and if they are finding this to be helpful?
Ms. MacCormack: Bear in mind that we have not had a large number of clients who have completed the rehabilitation program. We have had about 500, but we will look to determine that.
Senator Day: I would just like to know what kind of reception CanVet is getting on behalf of Veterans Affairs Canada, on behalf of these veterans who have these privileges. Are they being used? When you raise the issue, are the heads of the various departments in the public service saying we will work with you on this?
The other area we are looking into, and will be doing more work on, is the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires and Treasury Board's special contract with them. The corps has pointed out that one of the problems they have is that many of the federal contracts they can bid on in priority require bilingual service, even in areas where many of the veterans would not be bilingual.
We want to ensure that you are helping the corps to raise the vocational aptitude of the various veterans who might want to go in that direction. Do you have a special relationship with or any contact with the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires to help achieve that?
Ms. MacCormack: We will look into that.
Senator Day: We have passed special rules, but we do not know whether they are being used.
Senator Wallin: We are not suggesting that we want to send veterans on language training at age 65 or 72. We are looking at this the other way; under the existing rules, how can they be accommodated and are the rules a help or a hindrance?
One of the critiques of the internal review or audit going on is that they tend to focus on efficiencies. You have seen X people between noon and one o'clock in the afternoon and 14 people have come in — all of those things. Are you saying that you are actually doing effectiveness checks as part of that — not only does the guy have a job, does he have the right job, a good job, a job that works or whatever the case may be? Is that built in or are you doing that on your own?
Ms. MacCormack: A certain amount of that is built in. Can we improve upon it? Most likely we can. Certainly the departmental evaluation will be looking at outcomes. In phase 2 we will be looking at the service delivery framework we use, which would include efficiency and effectiveness.
Senator Wallin: What is critical mass? Where would you be able to get a good assessment of this — at 1,000?
Ms. MacCormack: I am not in a position to answer that today, but it is a valid point for understanding when the data is meaningful and when it is not.
Mr. Miller: That is a good point. It is another of the important distinctions between an entitlements-based approach and a needs-based approach. It is fine to have measures about service standards or how many files one produces in X amount of time. It is not that such is not important. However, from an outcome perspective, it is more important to ask other questions: Were veterans able to integrate successfully? Are they functioning better with their families and communities? Do they have better health outcomes than they would have had otherwise? Those are the kinds of things we are trying to focus on because that is what really matters at the end of the day.
The Chair: We are at the end of our time. I will ask Senators Pépin and Meighen to be as brief as possible.
Senator Pépin: When you speak about the rehabilitation services for family, we have the young veterans. I visit women's shelters, and they are full of spouses suffering from violence at the hands of their husbands. Do we have special treatment or services for those young veterans? I can assure you that family violence is very high.
Mr. Miller: It is a difficult problem, and an important point you make. The primary authority we work within is an authority to provide rehabilitation benefits to the veteran. It is through that authority, by extension, that we are able to deal with aspects related to the family when that impacts on the overall family situation and rehabilitation for the veteran.
Generally, we can find a way to deal with those situations, but it can be difficult in some cases because the authority we work within is the veteran's authority, not a unique authority to the spouse.
Senator Pépin: Thank you.
Senator Meighen: I have a very quick question on Earnings Loss Benefits. A young private is released and is entitled to a maximum of 75 per cent of pre-release salary. When that person reaches 65 per cent or 75 per cent of the salary he or she was receiving back at the time of release, it is probably not too important to some, perhaps, that such a person might have been destined to become chief of the general staff. Is there any way to factor in such elements?
Mr. Miller: Theoretically, yes. However, within the existing authority, it is structured to be 75 per cent of the pre- release salary. It is indexed over time on a go-forward basis.
There is another benefit, as well, and I referred to it earlier, the Permanent Impairment Allowance, which is actually an employment type of allowance. The specific policy objective of that allowance is to compensate for loss of career path. In some measure, it does offset that. It recognizes that, even for individuals who may be able to re-enter the workforce, with a significant disability, they will not likely have the career progression they would have had. It offsets that in large measure. Beyond that, it would be a matter of authority.
The Chair: Could you briefly describe the career impairment allowance?
Mr. Miller: It is called the Permanent Impairment Allowance.
The Chair: How does it work?
Mr. Miller: It is not actually related to a particular percentage point of disability. It is related to functional outcome. Individuals who have serious injuries, such as multiple amputations, would qualify for this. Depending on the nature of the disability, they would qualify for one of three grade levels.
It pays as a monthly amount between a little over $500 per month and slightly over $1,600 per month at the upper level. This pay is in addition to the lump sum amount and the earnings loss they would qualify for. It also pays for life, which is beyond age 65, to respond to your question, Senator Meighen.
Senator Meighen: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, senators. Thank you, Mr. Miller, Ms. Hicks and Ms. MacCormack. We may have some questions we might send you. I hope we will see you again soon. You have been very forthcoming today, and we are grateful for it. We learned a great deal.
(The committee adjourned.)