Senate Committees
Back

EVIDENCE

OTTAWA, Wednesday, November 25, 2009

The Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met this day at 12 p.m. to study the services and benefits provided to veterans and their families (topic: implementation of the New Veterans Charter).

Senator Michael A. Meighen (Chair) in the chair.

[English]

The Chair: Honourable senators, welcome to the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence. Welcome to our witnesses, whom I will introduce in a moment, and welcome to Senator Dallaire, who is a regular attendee, although not a member of the committee. Senator Downe is here today replacing Senator Banks.

Our subcommittee has been studying the implementation of the New Veterans Charter for the past several weeks. The Minister of Veterans Affairs has described the charter as a living document that will be amended over time to ensure it meets the needs of veterans.

Evidence presented thus far indicates there might be a number of inequities, anomalies and gaps in compensation benefits awarded under the New Veterans Charter when compared to those under the Pension Act. In almost three years of enforcement, the New Veterans Charter has not been substantially reviewed nor had changes made. Today, we will be continuing our discussion from previous weeks with representatives from Veterans Affairs Canada, VAC.

I am pleased to introduce Brian Ferguson, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister of Policy, Programs and Partnerships. Appearing with Mr. Ferguson is Brenda MacCormack, Director of Rehabilitation, Program Management, Policy, Programs and Partnerships. Obviously, she bears a huge burden at Veterans Affairs Canada. We are grateful you were able to find the time to meet with us today. We appreciate it.

The aim of this meeting is to clarify various issues related to the implementation of the charter. Mr. Ferguson has opening remarks to begin.

Brian Ferguson, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister Policy, Programs and Partnerships, Veterans Affairs Canada: Thank you honourable senators. It is a pleasure to appear before you today with my colleague, Brenda MacCormack, in order to provide an update on the New Veterans Charter. We are committed to keeping you informed on how well the charter is meeting the unique needs of our modern-day veterans and their families.

[Translation]

It is hard to believe that it is already more than three years since we implemented this important suite of programs and services.

[English]

It is hard to believe that it is already more than three years since we implemented this important suite of programs and services. You have been provided with a document that contains information about the development of the charter and the progress since its implementation in 2006. The document also contains a few case scenarios. Although not intended to be a representation of all our client cases, they illustrate how the programs of the New Veterans Charter can and do make positive changes in the lives of modern-day veterans and their families.

The charter's intent can be summed up in one word: wellness. The programs give modern-day veterans the tools and opportunities they need to build better lives for themselves and their families after their career in the military has ended. It offers personalized case management, access to health services and health insurance, rehabilitation, job placement, financial support, a lump-sum disability award, and earnings lost during the period of time that individuals are in the rehabilitation program. In short, it provides opportunity with security. In essence, it provides a statutory guarantee that the programs will be available to Canadian Forces, CF, members who have retired from the force even if the need is only detected months or years after release from the Canadian Forces.

The New Veterans Charter has laid an excellent foundation for meeting the needs of our modern-day veterans. It was recently described as follows in a review carried out for the Australian Department of Veterans’ Affairs: "The New Veterans Charter in Canada is the closest to a wellness approach of the systems we have reviewed. It is based on enabling and rewarding a return to the best life possible." One of the key features in trying to achieve the best life possible is to find a rewarding job for the individuals who have left the force.

The New Veterans Charter has always been described as a living charter. Plainly put, this means that the New Veterans Charter is not intended to be set in stone. Our programs and services have and need to continue to evolve to meet our CF clients’ ever changing needs as they arise.

Over the past three years, VAC has made changes to maximize efficiency within its existing authority and has been exploring and analyzing the potential gaps identified through various sources. In addition to VAC’s internal assessments of the programs, we have collaborated with the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces through various forums. We have consulted with stakeholders, including veterans’ organizations, and worked with advisory groups, including the New Veterans Charter Advisory Group and the Special Needs Advisory Group. Additionally, the department has examined other sources, including information on the best practices of other countries.

We know that approximately 6,200 CF regular force members were released in 2008; of these, 1,060 were medical releases. We are cognizant of the fact that Canada's combat role in Afghanistan will end in 2011, and it is anticipated that there will be an increased number of VAC clients flowing from that role.

As of October 1, 2009, the New Veterans Charter Advisory Group report has been received by Veterans Affairs Canada. It has as a major theme early intervention to rehabilitation services as key to successful transition. I understand your committee has received a copy of the report.

The National Institute of Disability Management and Research reports that an injured worker has only a 50 per cent likelihood of going back to work after being laid off for six months. This percentage drops dramatically to 20 per cent after one year. In addition to consideration of amendments to the programs of the charter, it will be imperative that VAC continue to work with the Department of National Defence to ensure that potential VAC clients receive the necessary intervention as early as possible to ensure that clients are able to achieve optimal outcomes and successfully transition to civilian life. In other words, intervention must occur as soon as possible, prior to an individual's release from military service after injury or illness.

I will review some of the points contained in the handout you have received. First, it is clear that prior to the introduction of the New Veterans Charter on April 1, 2006, existing programs at that time were not responding to Canadian Forces veterans' needs for recovery and rehabilitation. These needs arose from physical and operational stress injuries. At that time, the only gateway to VAC services was by obtaining a pension. Most pensions were awarded for amounts insufficient to provide an adequate income, as they were constructed to provide compensation for pain and suffering received in service to Canada and not as income replacement. Thus, we could offer a disability pension and associated treatment benefits, but we could not offer an income stream into the future.

Additionally, no rehabilitation was available. Real needs were not being met as too many pensioned and non-pensioned CF veterans were not successfully transitioning from military to civilian life. We recognized that a new wellness model based on modern disability management principles was required.

The components of the program that came into effect as the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act are outlined in the handout provided to you. A key feature of this package of services is direct access to rehabilitation services — physical, psychosocial and vocational — without the requirement to apply for and receive a disability award.

I will discuss briefly the introduction of a disability award, which has replaced the pension. The disability award is one part of a dual award system aimed at providing both a payment for pain and suffering and an economic payment to cover any employment earnings loss incurred while undertaking a rehabilitation program. The earnings loss is calculated at 75 per cent of the veteran's pre-release income and is indexed. If the member is incapacitated and cannot work, the payment continues until the member turns 65. Seriously wounded veterans are also eligible for a permanent incapacity allowance, which recognizes there are challenges in seeking stable, continuing employment. If the member is killed in service, the surviving spouse receives the earnings loss payment until the member would have turned 65.

Our experience to date indicates that the average annual earnings loss payment per client — not the disability award — exceeds the average disability pension payment per client. While the wellness programs are the main focus of the New Veterans Charter, the financial payment scheme is heavily weighted to provide the most financial support to those most seriously injured, while providing a safety net of rehabilitation services should injuries be missed upon release from the Canadian Forces, regular or reserve force.

[Translation]

We feel the charter is making a difference and at Veterans Affairs Canada, we are continuing our efforts to provide new services for veterans.

[English]

We feel the charter is making a difference. We believe the foundation is very solid, and any future improvements need to build on this foundation.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide you with this update. I and my colleague, Ms. MacCormack, would now be pleased to take any questions.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Ferguson, it is my understanding, and I think you indicated it, that 75 per cent of pre-injury salary is what individuals would receive. And that is in the case of what?

Mr. Ferguson: That is in the case of being required to go through a rehabilitation program.

The Chair: Is it for the length of the rehabilitation program?

Mr. Ferguson: Yes. Then, if they cannot work, it would be until they turn 65.

The Chair: That is no doubt very helpful. There is one constructive criticism I have heard, and I wonder whether you have thought of any way out of this problem. Let us say the life-time award must be paid to someone injured early on in their career — let us say as a private — but that individual might otherwise have ended up as a general or at least would have progressed modestly through the ranks to a certain level. How can we take that into account?

Mr. Ferguson: We have done some analysis and file reviews with the Department of National Defence. Normally, by the time those who entered as privates retire, they have achieved the rank of sergeant, if they have stayed in the Canadian Forces and not left early. That is our best evidence at this time.

That issue is front and centre in our considerations as we look at the recommendations of the New Veterans Charter Advisory Group and as we hear from others on this. Some of the changes required to address that obviously would be legislative, but we are looking at and analyzing the situation.

The Chair: Thank you very much. That is very encouraging.

Senator Wallin: Mr. Ferguson, let us please go to page 13 of your update. I have a couple questions about the favourable rate. I am assuming it refers to cases that have been solved, people who are happy or on the right track. Could you tell us what the definition is of "favourable rate"?

Mr. Ferguson: That is the percentage of people who applied for rehabilitation and who have been approved.

Senator Wallin: It does not necessarily mean they are on the right track.

Mr. Ferguson: No, it does not mean they have finished the program and have successfully transferred.

Senator Wallin: It means they have been accepted and are in the program.

Mr. Ferguson: Yes.

Senator Wallin: I ask that because you have applications received — say for rehabilitation — and there are 4,100; and under applications with completed decisions, again for rehabilitation, there are 3,700. There is a discrepancy of 300 or 400. Are those people in the queue?

Mr. Ferguson: Yes, they are in the queue.

Senator Wallin: Okay.

On the earnings loss issue, the favourable rate is 100 per cent, not necessarily meaning they got what they wanted but there was a decision.

Mr. Ferguson: There was a decision, yes.

Senator Wallin: On those decisions, what are the avenues for appeal?

Brenda MacCormack, Director, Rehabilitation, Program Management, Policy, Programs and Partnerships, Veterans Affairs Canada: There is an internal administrative review process. The first level of appeal is at the regional level. The final level of appeal is at head office.

Senator Wallin: So there are steps to go through and they are laid out.

Ms. MacCormack: Absolutely. There is a formal process.

Mr. Ferguson: Our appeal process completely separates those who have made the decision from the people who hear the appeals.

Senator Wallin: Do the numbers reflect that?

Mr. Ferguson: Yes.

Senator Wallin: What is the average time for the resolution to get to that 98 per cent? I know there are exceptions, but I am looking for the average time. Do you do it in six weeks, six months or two years?

Ms. MacCormack: The service standard for determining that eligibility decision for the rehabilitation program is four weeks. We are not meeting that in all cases at this point, but we are striving to get there.

Senator Wallin: Would you say 80 per cent or 90 per cent?

Ms. MacCormack: I do not have the figures here, but we could provide that and what the trend has been.

Overall, the intent of the rehabilitation program is to deal with the eligibility question quickly at the outset so they enter into the program and begin to receive that earnings loss, that financial stream that may be needed. We do not wait to start that. Once we say yes to them, they are in the program and we start planning.

Senator Wallin: Point 3 underneath your chart says an additional 1,481 clients are eligible for earnings loss but are not receiving payment because their current income exceeds benefit. What is an example of that? Are you talking about income from the military or from external sources?

Mr. Ferguson: As noted here, senator, 64 per cent are receiving the 75 per cent now because of their Service Income Security Insurance Plan, SISIP. The remaining 36 per cent are receiving a disability pension.

Senator Wallin: You are talking about money received from one of the programs.

Mr. Ferguson: Yes, or any other income source that is permanent for them. They might be working somewhere part time as well.

Senator Wallin: That is included in that figure.

Mr. Ferguson: Yes.

Senator Wallin: I will switch gears and go to a more general question because this is where we are at in our whole discussion. We have been focused on the lump-sum disability payment and whether that is the way to go, given the young age of many of the people who have disabilities today because of our missions that are currently under way.

I think it is fair to say that the problems actually occur after the award as opposed to before the award, because you cannot tell people what to do with it. Can you give us your thinking on this whole issue?

Mr. Ferguson: The rationale for separating the disability award from the income stream was that under the pension system, we had a system where I think the average number of times people came back to have their disability pension increased was something like 12 or 15 times during their lifetime. We found that people were dissatisfied with the level of income they were getting under the pension system — because it was not meant to be an income replacement — but they were not also engaged in a rehabilitation program to find a job.

Therefore, the experts advised us to sever the tie with a disability process like that. Instead, give people a disability award up front that would recognize the severity of their injury, but give them earnings loss coverage while they are in a rehab program to enable them to successfully transition; so it is no longer dependent on access to a pension from the federal government to be able to transition successfully to civilian life.

That is the recommendation from all the experts, and that is why we have made that change philosophically. I might add that the level of payment on the earnings loss while you are on it in most cases guarantees a level of income higher than you would get at a maximum pension. The individuals most in need would get coverage they need for as long as they need it.

As I mentioned earlier, if someone is missed in the process or has some injury like a mental illness that was not detected when the initial disability was given for a physical injury, that person can come back and apply for a disability award at that time. It is not a closed door; it is an insurance policy for the future.

Senator Wallin: I know these tend to be one-off’s or anecdotes, but we have had people say to us that there is the 19-year-old who takes the lump-sum payment and buys a Porsche and that is it. There he is without a future plan and not many access points back in. It is not your fault; it is not the system's fault. The kid is 19. What do we do?

Mr. Ferguson: In those cases, before they get their lump sum, we strongly encourage them to take financial counselling, which we pay for under the New Veterans Charter. You can only go so far telling someone who is entitled to an award what to do with it. We try to strike a balance.

We are fully cognizant that if someone is mature enough to serve in the Canadian Forces and put his or her life at risk, we have to find a balance to say, "You do not have enough savvy to know how to take this award and use it." We hear this as a concern and we have heard of some anecdotal evidence, but we do not have evidence either to support that concern or to disavow it.

We will try to find out how many people have made rational decisions versus what we might consider to be others. I know that in the early days of the Disability Pension Program, many people misused that money as well.

It is more a matter of the individual than it is the method of payment. However, people do have the safety net to always come back to the department to seek rehab, and to seek earnings loss while they are going through the rehab.

The Chair: I have an editorial comment that comes to my mind because some of us were in Petawawa a week ago and met some wounded soldiers. They were generally satisfied with the help they received. However, one young man told me he received a cheque in the mail and then received an information package after the fact. We are all human, and gosh, a cheque for X dollars and then a pile of material telling me what I can do. Maybe he did not read it carefully.

My comment is that I think it would be helpful for the military to be more proactive in the counselling — maybe before the cheque is received by the individual. You could say, "Look, here is what will happen. We really think you should take the time to meet with someone financial counselling." If the individual does not want to, okay, but at least explain it to him or her.

Senator Wallin: Otherwise, we are calling your mother.

The Chair: Yes. Just mailing out a bunch of written stuff does not always cut the mustard, in my view.

Mr. Ferguson: Certainly, that is not the way the program should be working. We need to follow up on that; but that is one of the reasons we have created the integrated personnel service centres. It is to get our people working on these cases together to get a seamless hand-off.

Senator Day: Thank you for being here and helping us gain a better understanding of this important issue. We all feel Veteran Affairs Canada is doing a great job, and we appreciate getting the statistics on how the New Veterans Charter is working.

I am looking at pages 14 and 15 of your presentation. It is helpful to have these statistics in a new program. It was passed three years ago, but how long have you been operating the various programs within the charter?

Mr. Ferguson: Since day one.

Senator Day: For three years now?

Mr. Ferguson: Yes.

Senator Day: These statistics are helpful to us in looking at what has happened over the last three years. On page 14, under "Client Demographics," which is under the highlights of the rehabilitation program, I did not understand. It says 26 per cent of current rehabilitation program clients are accessing vocational rehabilitation services from VAC. What are the rest doing?

Mr. Ferguson: There are a couple of options. They may be accessing SISIP because they were entitled to that, or they may be accessing medical or psychosocial rehabilitation.

Senator Day: So they could be in rehabilitation programs. When it says "vocational rehabilitation services from VAC," are you talking about actually giving the rehabilitation or giving them money so they can go out to a third party and get that?

Ms. MacCormack: The vocational rehabilitation services are provided by a national contractor — a third party with the professional expertise. However, as Mr. Ferguson noted, the program is comprehensive in its offerings; it offers medical and psychosocial rehabilitation.

A number of clients participating in the program are not ready to move to that vocational stage. They are still working on restoring function at medical and psychosocial levels. That relates to what we know about the profile of the health status of the clients entering the program. We know they are quite ill and so we fully anticipate that we will work with them for a longer time before they might be ready to pursue the vocational aspects.

Senator Day: Under "Eligibility Gateway," your presentation indicates that most who were voluntarily or medically released some time ago are eligible. Mr. Ferguson, what do you have in place to assess whether they are eligible?

Mr. Ferguson: Case managers do that with them when they come in after the fact. Some criteria are applied to determine whether their difficulty transitioning to civilian life can be related in any way back to their military service. The criteria are generous enough in terms of making people eligible. If someone who is out on the street and out of work comes to the department and looks for help, generally they will get it.

Senator Day: The caseworkers are the same people who have worked within Veterans Affairs offices across Canada in the past. Some had a portfolio of clients, while some have moved over to become caseworkers to deal with some of these new applications. Is that correct?

Mr. Ferguson: Caseworkers have a current workload, but when someone new comes in, that workload is distributed among the caseworkers based on availability and expertise.

Senator Day: Is there easy access across Canada?

Mr. Ferguson: Yes, there is a national network with a large number of service centres with staff trained to deal with this aspect of the work.

Senator Day: I find the next heading in your presentation, "Client Status at Program Entry (Survey of CF Veterans entering VAC's Rehabilitation Program in 2007-2008)," very informative. It states that 75 per cent have an identified mental health problem.

Mr. Ferguson: It is very serious.

Senator Day: Are you setting up programs to deal with that high percentage?

Mr. Ferguson: We have other programs that complement the New Veterans Charter program. Our mental health strategy is predicated on helping such individuals with their mental health status by providing them with treatment. We also have operational stress injury clinics that have been set up across the country to provide diagnosis and to develop treatment plans for these individuals. We partner with DND on the peer support network called OSISS — Operational Stress Injury Social Support — which is a collector lane for people who have yet to come to the department but are experiencing problems of an operational stress injury nature. They can come to these groups, which are headed by peer support coordinators who also have suffered from operational stress injury. They are able to advise their comrades on how to find the help they need from Veterans Affairs.

Senator Day: I would like you to comment on the points at page 15 of your presentation. Under "Rehabilitation Program," it states that clients are staying in the program longer than had been anticipated. The program has been in place for three years, and the first of those was to get it up and running. Your information on the program shows that 38.7 per cent of eligible clients have been in the program longer than two years.

Mr. Ferguson: That is correct. These figures show an unexpected trend in some respects and speak to the design of the New Veterans Charter being flexible enough to allow it. In other words, the New Veterans Charter is designed specifically to allow people to stay on rehab as long as they need to be on rehab, according to a qualified rehab specialist, to be able to find work.

Ms. MacCormack may comment on the fact that the people who have been out the longest are those who came to us initially, which is 69 per cent. As the experts say, if you do not have early intervention, these problems compound themselves. We have found that those who come in with more serious problems are the ones who did not have early intervention. That is one of our findings.

Ms. MacCormack: That is precisely why a large number of clients are staying longer than we anticipated. We are seeing actual cases where it will take three or four years before they are beginning to function and to maximize their capacity to function at all of the levels the program targets, such as family, community and, where possible, vocation.

We need to highlight that part of the rehabilitation program. It is important to understand that people can come back as many times as they need to return. I do not think it will be unusual for someone to be successful, achieve their rehabilitation outcome and operate within their community. Perhaps in 5 to 10 years they might have a setback, at which point they are able to return to rehab and retraining if they are not in a line of work that is compatible with their level of disability. The programs are intended to be highly responsive. They are individualized and set up to assist people over the course of their lifetime in sustaining that reintegration to civilian life.

Senator Day: Do you anticipate that some of the 40 per cent who have been in the program longer than 24 months might be there longer than five or six years? Is that possible? Have you prepared new projections on how long this will take?

Ms. MacCormack: I would expect that a certain percentage of this group will be declared totally and permanently incapacitated and unable to work. They will continue to receive the earnings loss payment until the age of 65. They might be able to return for reassessment and receive another disability award. They would receive a supplementary retirement benefit at the age of 65 and they might be eligible for a permanent impairment allowance, which is a monthly payment for life. It recognizes that when someone is seriously disabled, it affects their career progression or their capacity to work. Those financial benefits would be available over the course of their lifetime.

Senator Day: That permanent disability does not necessarily have to be a physical disability.

Ms. MacCormack: Absolutely not.

Senator Day: It can also be a social or mental disability.

Ms. MacCormack: Yes, it could be a combination of both. I would also like to highlight that it is not just about work. It is about maximizing people’s capacity to function and achieve maximum quality of life within their environment, which includes their family and community. When they think about rehabilitation, that is what they think about, but it is a much broader approach. We rehabilitate the person and the family within their context.

Senator Day: Still at page 15 of your presentation, under "Earnings Loss Benefit," can you explain what you are trying to tell us?

Ms. MacCormack: We are highlighting some of the analysis that provides further evidence around the financial gaps that you have identified and the adequacy of the earnings loss benefit for some who are in the lower ranks or those who were released some time ago.

In the early 1990s, as part of the quality-of-life initiative, there were significant improvements in salaries for those serving in the Canadian Forces. Therefore, a gap group exists consisting of those who were released prior to those improvements. Even when we index up their earnings loss benefit, we are not bringing them to that senior private level where we want them to be. We know that there are some gaps for certain groups, which is indicated in one of the lines of evidence. That would feed into the analysis around where we need to make some improvements in the living charter.

Senator Day: Is this senior private monthly income statutory?

Ms. MacCormack: Yes, it is statutory in terms of the guaranteed base level.

Senator Day: That fits in with our chair's question about people not expecting to remain a senior private over their careers. As far as this program is concerned, that is the limit.

Ms. MacCormack: It is not the limit; it is the base amount.

Senator Day: You calculate 75 per cent of that figure.

Ms. MacCormack: Yes. It is 75 per cent of the pre-release salary. As a minimum base, we would want it to be, at a minimum, the senior private level. That is what the legislation allows for. However, for a certain group of clients released prior to 1990, when we index up that senior private, it will not bring them to the minimum base that we have set.

Mr. Ferguson: It is important to clarify that a major, a lieutenant or other officer would receive a higher amount.

Senator Day: Yes, thank you.

The Chair: On the question of someone who comes back, perhaps with a non-physical injury, it is always more difficult in many ways than with a physical injury. Let us say it was clearly attributable to military service. The person was treated with the best medical knowledge and recovered, then came back 7 or 10 years later. Are there no questions asked at that time?

If the person is suffering from a mental disability, are no questions asked about whether that is due to military service? Perhaps the person had terrible problems — personal, family or monetary, for example — which some might argue caused the second incident. Do you get into that, or if the person has been treated once for a condition that was attributable to military service and comes back later with the same illness, you deal with it the same way?

Ms. MacCormack: That it is an excellent example that I expect we will see in the future. In such a case, we would not get into the cause. The person is presenting with a disability that is creating barriers to her optimal functioning in the family, community or workplace. We would enter her into the program again and assess where she needs help. How is she functioning in the family? What is her medical status? Does she need to see a doctor again? How is the family functioning? Does the family need counselling?

In the example you raised, it might be someone who is still working, getting by, but struggling. In such a case, the person could come back to the rehabilitation program and we could work with him to get him medically stabilized again and work with the family issues to try to prevent loss of the employment he wants to retain.

This highlights the individual nature of the interventions that we can provide.

The Chair: If someone discovers after he is released that he has a malady and he is treated for that under the New Veterans Charter, and a contemporary of that individual reported and was treated for the malady at the time of release, say 10 years ago, the second person would be treated under the Pension Act, would he not?

Mr. Ferguson: Only if he was released prior to 2006, when the charter came in.

The Chair: Am I correct that if two people are released at the same time, the first with a malady reported and accepted five years after release and the second with a malady reported at the time of release, the second is treated under the Pension Act and the first is treated under the New Veterans Charter?

Ms. MacCormack: What defines the piece of legislation is when you make application. If the first person’s injury happened 10 years ago and the second person’s injury happened yesterday but both make application today, both will be treated under the New Veterans Charter.

The Chair: No, I am speaking of a situation where both injuries happened 10 years ago.

Mr. Ferguson: If two people were injured 10 years ago and the first applied immediately, under the Pension Act that person would have received his or her pension and treatment benefits. The individual who applied later would be covered under the New Veterans Charter.

The Chair: Exactly. My point is that there is a difference between the two. This can be analyzed in a variety of ways, and some people find one more advantageous than the other. What are you doing, if anything, to put the two on an equal footing or to soften the differences?

Mr. Ferguson: We think that the New Veterans Charter is much superior to the previous program, but the date of implementation is April 1. If individuals who claimed under the Pension Act come back, they have the right to reassessment of pension under the Pension Act. All elements of the Pension Act still apply to them. If they get any new conditions, they can come in under the New Veterans Charter.

The Chair: You just said that you believe, and you are persuading me, that the New Veterans Charter is superior to the old Pension Act. People who applied earlier will not get as good and complete treatment as those who applied later, because they are under a regime that is not, by your own testimony, as good as the present regime. Is that not correct?

Ms. MacCormack: With the caveat that the New Veterans Charter rehabilitation and earnings loss programs are available to earlier applicants. We have quite a number of participants currently in the rehabilitation program who are disability pensioners.

The Chair: What are the earlier applicants not eligible for?

Ms. MacCormack: The earlier applicants are receiving a disability pension and would continue to receive that. Entitlement to any benefits accruing under the Pension Act legislation would continue. They would be able to access any of the services under the New Veterans Charter. If they have new disabilities, they can claim for that and we would pay a disability award. They are eligible for the rehabilitation program if they have rehabilitation challenges. They are also eligible for the income stream and the earnings loss benefit based on release salary.

Mr. Ferguson: To summarize, they are eligible for all the programs of the New Veterans Charter. The only difference would be the disability award versus the pension.

The Chair: That is what I wanted to know. We should examine that to see whether that is a big difference.

Mr. Ferguson: I accept that. That is the key.

Senator Downe: Prior to asking my questions, I want to follow up on one of your earlier editorial comments. Is there not a cap under the charter on the amount of money that is spent to provide financial advice?

Ms. MacCormack: Yes, there is. It is $500.

Senator Downe: Have you found that people need more? Do those who seek financial advice spend that limit?

Ms. MacCormack: Our experience to date has been that not many people utilize that service. I do not have exact figures, but we could provide them. I think fewer than 1 per cent of those who have received a disability award are utilizing the resource of getting financial advice.

We are not sure why that is. It could be that they already have access to financial advice. That would be true of those who are still serving, as they have access to that through the Canadian Forces. It is not entirely clear why it is not being utilized, but it is an area that we will be looking at through the New Veterans Charter evaluation, which is currently under way.

Senator Downe: I would like to see those figures. I cannot understand why people would not utilize $500 worth of financial advice.

My questions pertain to the New Veterans Charter Advisory Group. They reported that over 2,600 clients had been approved for rehabilitation. Of those 2,600, only 23 were surviving family members and only 20 were spouses or partners. Do you know why those numbers are so low?

Mr. Ferguson: That benefit applies only when the spouse is deceased.

Senator Downe: Do you know the percentage of uptake of those who are eligible?

Mr. Ferguson: We could send you that figure. We know that the number is, tragically, over 100 recently. I do not know how many of those had a spouse. We will figure that out.

Senator Downe: Thank you. My second concern is about figures on page 14 of the report. It shows that 99 per cent of the clients are from urban areas. What is the definition of "urban area"? More important, do people living in rural Canada not have access to the service?

Ms. MacCormack: Obviously there are more providers in urban centres, and it is probably easier to access services there. We do have a national contract to provide health care, psychosocial and vocational services across the country. Any of us would admit that there might be challenges in remote locations. However, the infrastructure is there to serve everyone in their community, and certainly we would make every effort to make sure that the service gets to them where it is required.

Senator Downe: Obviously it is fine if 99 per cent of them are living in urban areas, but if people in rural Canada do not have the same access to services, we would want to keep an eye on that.

Ms. MacCormack: One particular innovation that is being pursued with mental health is telemental health and looking at other types of avenues to provide services to clients who live in remote locations and perhaps do not want to travel.

Senator Wallin: As a point of clarification, we are presumably talking about people who go back to base. We consider that an urban environment, I guess?

Mr. Ferguson: We would mostly, yes. You are right. They may get their services upon release. Some rural people may be included in those numbers.

Senator Downe: The last time I saw the figures, a higher percentage of the rural population is from Atlantic Canada. If someone returns to rural Newfoundland, that could be a concern. That is why I would like to pursue that at a later date. I look forward to getting your information, Mr. Ferguson.

Mr. Ferguson: Yes.

Senator Downe: Some of the veterans groups have called for the implementation of all the advisory committee's recommendations. Have you figured out how much that would cost the department?

Mr. Ferguson: Not yet. We are still analyzing the report from that perspective.

Senator Downe: Given that the budget is normally presented in February, do you anticipate having that costing done in time to submit a proposal to Treasury Board and to cabinet this year, or would it be next year?

Mr. Ferguson: I am afraid I cannot comment on anything related to the budget process.

Senator Downe: We will save that for the minister.

The House of Commons Committee on Veterans Affairs has recommended that the Department of Veterans Affairs explore with Canada Revenue Agency the possibility of modifying income tax returns in order to allow veterans and their families to identify themselves so that they can receive information on the financial benefits. Is the department considering that?

Mr. Ferguson: We actually conferred with our colleagues at Canada Revenue Agency, and we were convinced by discussions with them that the tax form is already trying to do so many different things that this would be a difficult thing for them to implement and there would be considerable difficulties with it. I can provide you with more background on that, but basically we had a look at it, and it does not look feasible from the quick look we had.

Senator Downe: We will follow that up. I think the government did do something on the Guaranteed Income Supplement where it was trying to identify low-income Canadians who were eligible for the program but not receiving it. They did do something in the Income Tax Act, and I do not know why it could not be done in this case. I look forward to your information.

Mr. Ferguson: We will provide you further information on that.

Senator Downe: Thank you. Those are all my questions.

Senator Dallaire: On page 2 of the prepared notes, I wish to raise the point that we need more metrics or empirical information. Having received the technical information from the status of the department, we will be seeking information from clients as we continue to evolve the study. Am I to take that as a given?

The Chair: Yes, I think that is a fair statement.

Senator Dallaire: Subsequently, we will probably call the department back to respond to that.

The Chair: Yes.

Senator Dallaire: Thank you. In the old charter, what rank was the monthly pension based on?

Mr. Ferguson: I think Ms. MacCormack has the answer to that.

Ms. MacCormack: I will have to wrack my brain a little bit and we can provide —

Mr. Ferguson: It was sort of a Labour Code.

Ms. MacCormack: It was a look at composite wages, wages in the public service. Also, the CPI rate, whichever was higher, would be used to index the amount.

Mr. Ferguson: We will have to get back to you, but my understanding was that it was based on sort of a labour rate of pay.

Senator Dallaire: What I remember was that it was based on a private's pay at the time, and everyone received the same thing. If you had more children, you received more funds and it was adjusted. However, none of that was taxable. Now we have one that goes by rank, and it is taxable.

Mr. Ferguson: Yes.

Senator Dallaire: There might be a question about why not re-establish a baseline and keep it non-taxable rather than having this variety of options that are taxable. Was that option considered? I do not remember that.

Mr. Ferguson: Yes, it was. Basically, we retained the equivalency between the disability award and the pension process by making the disability award non-taxable. The non-taxable element is retained, and that is where you get the replacement of the pension by a disability award.

Where the tax comes in is where it is viewed as an earnings income stream. That picks up, for example, on what SISIP has done over the years; any payment of the SISIP was an earnings stream. Earnings loss is considered income, but the two go together. Therefore, there is a chunk of it that is non-taxable, and there is earnings loss, which is taxable.

For the vast majority of the recipients, during the time they get their earnings loss, whether it is for the time they are on rehab or whether it is permanent, it looks like the earnings loss with the taxable element would exceed the amount of money one would get under a tax-free maximum pension. In other words, while they are on earnings loss, most people will be in a much better financial guaranteed state. If you have a pension of 15 per cent but you are in rehab, you would get much less money than you would if you were in rehab at that level and got the earnings loss. I do not know whether I am being clear on that.

Senator Dallaire: I think that should be part of or at least reviewed technically in the evaluation you are doing. That is a worthy argument to offer if that is the case, or perhaps reassess it.

My second question in relation to that is why do you have to go back to legislation? The way the charter has been written, it gives the minister a lot of room to manoeuvre. It surprises me that you would have to go back to legislation on that one.

Mr. Ferguson: We have been informed that we do because of the specifics of the way the legislation is written in this regard.

Senator Dallaire: In this specific regard?

Mr. Ferguson: Yes. I would add that we have some case examples that were prepared that we can provide to you. They give even more information on how someone who has received an 80 per cent disability assessment versus a 60 per cent or a 10 per cent or 15 per cent disability assessment would do pre-charter and post-charter. We will give you those case examples so that you can actually see them.

I believe they show that, except for those who are in the low level of disability, clients are further ahead when they are on earnings loss. That is over and above the disability award. I think that will be fairly clear when you see the cases.

Anyone who is not in those categories has the right to come back and apply should they fall into a need situation.

Senator Dallaire: We have more privates and corporals than we have warrant officers. As we see the impact just by the scale of the psychological side of the house or the operational stress injury, we may find that that can be skewed over time as those injuries continue to plague the junior ranks in greater numbers. It is a matter of being evaluated.

With respect to the family concept in the New Veterans Charter and the links between the family concept and the rehab structure, DND does not go very far in taking care of the family of an injured soldier in their responsibilities while the member is still serving. I am wondering how far your rehab structure is built to be able to handle the spouse and children of an individual who falls under your auspices to the extent of medical support and rehabilitation for the family while you are doing it also for the member. The family is also a casualty in this era, and so how far has that concept evolve?

Mr. Ferguson: I will attempt to address that through two points, the first not directly on what you are saying. I will come back to it. If the vocational rehabilitation available to the injured member cannot be accessed by the member either because of permanent incapacity or death, the spouse can access that rehab program for himself or herself. That is one spousal family connection.

The other is for anyone undergoing psychosocial rehabilitation where it is determined by the treating clinician that the family has to be treated as well, they are brought into the treatment program and treated as part of the family structure. Those are the two main areas of support that we provide.

However, DND has recently been doing more with their military family resource centres to support the families. I would not be surprised to hear they are doing a fair amount there.

Senator Dallaire: I am the president of the one of the family resource centres, so I am well aware of that. However, they still do not go as far as overriding the provincial systems in which the families would get priority of support. Interestingly enough, as an example, in Quebec, for those who are injured, under the CSST, their families get preferential treatment versus the general population, and yet ours do not. That one we always back off from. It seems to me that if we commit the member and the member has a family, then the family is just as liable to be injured or to need rehab. I go back to the family concept of this new charter that the family and the member were an entity, and it is written throughout. How far will you push that in regards to prioritizing the rehabilitation support and the help the families will get when you face these provincial systems?

Mr. Ferguson: These recommendations in the report almost mirror what you just said, senator, in terms of the need to look at the whole issue in the evaluation. We are looking at that, I can assure you. I cannot promise what the outcome would be, because we are in the early stages.

Senator Dallaire: What happens in regards to an injured client of yours, if I can use that term, a veteran, who commits suicide? How is the analysis done in regards to the link of the suicide and the injury and benefits compared to someone who is killed outright in operations?

Ms. MacCormack: I will speak from my personal experience in dealing with claims. Generally speaking, the types of cases we see would be suicide associated with and manifestation of a mental health injury, in which case it would be considered to be service-related. With respect to suicide occurring in theatre where there is coverage 24/7, that would be automatic. There is quite a bit of cultural shift in how people think about suicide and its being a manifestation of a psychological injury as opposed to a separate entity.

Senator Dallaire: Would your statistics reflect that now in the cases you have?

Mr. Ferguson: We do not keep regular statistics; there are difficulties with getting a statistical database on this subject. It is not always easy to determine. It is an under-reported phenomenon for a variety of reasons. We do not have good statistics, but we are undertaking studies now to try to link the Statistics Canada database with deaths of veterans. Statistics Canada keeps death data from the provincial system, and where suicide would be identified, we at some future date will be able to link it.

Senator Dallaire: I find it difficult to see why, if you have a client, you would not be able to keep the statistics. In my personal opinion, we have not lost 133 in Afghanistan but probably about 155, because they are just as much casualties as in operations. They are clients, and you should have that data. That is to come up, I think.

OSISS is voluntary and has a small budget. Is VAC partly funding OSISS?

Mr. Ferguson: We are.

Senator Dallaire: Does OSISS have any financial problems whatsoever in achieving its objectives?

Mr. Ferguson: Not to my knowledge, senator. I can tell you that DND provides the vast majority of the direct salaries of the OSISS peer support coordinators. Thirty-three are DND staff and about seven are ours. We provide the office space for them. We also provide self-care out of Ste. Anne’s Hospital and we provide training. When you add that up, there is a fair financial contribution from the department.

Senator Dallaire: If there are reductions in DND, would you pick up the slack? It is out there. I mention how close your links are in your committee.

Morale within VAC, trying to manage two different charters, a culture shift in VAC with the new charter and formal retraining and the quality of your third-party contractual agencies that are providing this — in your evaluation, we see the general terms, but I do not smell in there the requirement for some sophisticated development of your personnel in a complex new dimension, which needs some pretty agile people to handle both systems and feel fair. I do not have that warm fuzzy feeling that it is covered enough in your evaluation. I would contend that comes to the fact of your veteran at the counter and their first encounter. There is a lot of data that makes that first encounter très pénible. Will you grasp that more?

Mr. Ferguson: That is a great observation: the challenge you have outlined there is exactly what we perceive. It is the cultural change that took place when the new charter came in. Staff had to be trained. We injected 26,000 hours of training at the beginning. The cultural change that remains is a preoccupation of senior management and management throughout the department and one that merits the comment that you just gave. Thank you.

Senator Dallaire: Morale is good?

Mr. Ferguson: Yes, morale is good. People love to serve veterans in this department; it is one of the enduring hallmarks of the department.

Senator Dallaire: The personnel are human, and being in P.E.I. is a great advantage because they are not in this area, which lacks passion. However, there is the natural tendency of individuals to look at the benefits the veterans are getting compared to what they get as public servants. What is your sense that that might influence decisions sometimes?

Mr. Ferguson: Our people are very cognizant of wanting to serve veterans. I do not think that comes into play in terms of decision making, if I understand your thrust.

Senator Dallaire: That is exactly the answer I was looking for, because without that there is no confidence in the system. That has to be sold by VAC to the veterans that much more.

The Chair: We will have to leave it at that. Senator Day has a short supplementary question.

Senator Day: Many of us as senators receive calls under the VIP, the Veterans Independence Program. Under the old rules, a veteran had to be receiving some percentage of a disability pension in order to qualify for VIP. You, to your credit, have been picking up. It seems almost unbelievable, but many people in their older age are being qualified for pensions in order to qualify for VIP. I am hoping that, under the New Veterans Charter, you will get away with that requirement. Can you tell me what the rules with respect to VIP are for those being treated under the New Veterans Charter?

Ms. MacCormack: I would have to say the rules are still the same in terms of qualifying for a disability award and, by that virtue, accessing the Veterans Independence Program.

Senator Day: The disability award would be under the charter?

Ms. MacCormack: If they receive a disability award under the charter — and they do not have to have any percentage assigned; they just have to be eligible — then they would qualify for the Veterans Independence Program.

Senator Day: It is costing millions of dollars to qualify someone for a disability pension who does not need the pension but only wants VIP. You know that.

Ms. MacCormack: That may well be more a phenomenon with the Disability Pension Program. I do not think that would be the case with disability awards.

Senator Day: There may well be people who do not have a disability award but who have been treated under the New Veterans Charter who will need some help when they get older, and they will come back and apply for a disability award. You will say, "Oh, you can come back at any time," and you qualify them for 10 per cent or 20 per cent disability just so they can get the VIP. Can we not get around that?

Mr. Ferguson: It is a good observation. I really cannot say. As Ms. MacCormack said, the charter is an evolving document. The previous charter evolved over 40 or 50 years. This does not seem to be a pressure point at the moment, from what we are hearing from our advisors.

The Chair: Maybe they do not get the letters we get.

Senator Day: Most of these veterans that get on VIP did not want the disability. They did not need it, and they did not want it.

The Chair: They needed their grass cut and their snow shovelled.

Senator Dallaire: The minister yesterday announced the program for the homeless and the start of the study to find out how many veterans are homeless out there. That was catastrophic after World War II, if you remember, and it is going on now. Nowhere in that do I see that they will be looking at the judicial background of these people. Americans have discovered it, and we have not. Many soldiers were thrown out because they were psychologically injured and became administrative problems and ended up busting up a bar and being thrown in jail, and no one asked any questions about whether they were veterans. I have been in court to help cases. This thing the minister has launched is significant, but I think they should look at whether the judicial system is taking into account whether he is a veteran or not, and whether they can assist in responding, because the veterans end up on the street after they have been thrown in jail.

Mr. Ferguson: That is an astute observation and we will follow up on that.

Senator Dallaire: Thank you. I did not see any police there yesterday. Everybody else was there.

The Chair: Thank you, Senator Dallaire. That was not only short but astute. That brings us to the end of this hearing. Next week, there will not be a meeting. The chair will be participating, under the auspices of Veterans Affairs, in a pilgrimage to Italy to mark the 65th anniversary. On December 9, we have been able to secure the presence of an excellent witness in the person of retired Colonel Don Ethell, who is chair of the Joint VAC-DND-RCMP Mental Health Advisory Committee and a member of the New Veterans Charter Advisory Group. He is coming from Calgary. With your indulgence, the meeting is now terminated.

(The committee adjourned.)