National Defence Committee on Feb. 25th, 2014

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

But that's to plug them into provincial services....

[Col Russell Mann]

—where our online resources come in.

What we do, sir, is make sure that we can help families navigate complexity within both provincial and federal systems of care and help get them connected, and it's not perfect.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

But you can't provide couples counselling.

[Col Russell Mann]

Yes, we do. We have a program called InterCom, which was just launched last year. Last year was “train the trainer” and we've trained approximately 100 people already in 2014 in couples counselling and strength for couples in communicating with each other.

I hope the honourable members will know that we're not standing still on this because of legislation. We're trying to engage some of our partners who have a responsibility for care to the very families who are deeply affected. My own family would be one of them. I need the provinces to get on board and help us with providing support, and we do engage in that dialogue, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, Peter Kent]

Thank you. Your time has expired, Mr. Harris.

Thank you, Colonel.

Mr. Chisu.

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much, Colonel Blais and Colonel Mann, for appearing in front of our committee.

I would like to ask a question regarding the military family resource centres. How do you plan to develop these resource centres and how will these military family resource centres take care of the reservists?

I served both in the reserves and in the regular force, but your presentation was actually.... I was reading it like it was for the regular force. How are you making these programs available for the reservists and their families? Because that is a problem. For example, I think 20% of the reserves served in Afghanistan and so on. How can we reach out to them in such a way that they and their families can benefit from this program?

[Col Russell Mann]

It's a very pertinent question. I just spent Sunday with all of the army command teams from the reserve communities across the country, helping to do just that, to reach out to help them understand what is available to their members and families, particularly to their families. I was quick to point out that one dimension that's very important with reserves, particularly young reserves, is the parents, and making sure the parents have access to good information.

That's where our family information line is a key connector. We have family resource centres that serve our reserve communities admirably—places like London, places like Calgary, places like Vancouver, where we do not have a military base but we have a family resource centre that's serving reservists in their communities. We have reserve outreach, which occurs from every MFRC across the country.

We also have recently launched, at a level above my level and Gerry's, morale and welfare services, deeply committed to connecting with reserves. We've started with Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver. Since January we've reached more than 2,000 reservists in their communities, in their armouries, at their units. We've brought the services to the units and the command teams so they can get information, and in the case of the family, bring that back to their families. We had family information line representatives there. We had SISIP representatives there who could talk about financial education. We had Bank of Montreal there for Canadian community defence banking. We had a host of supports that could help the reserves better understand what services are available to them. Because they are part time and they have limited time available to become informed, we decided to concentrate that and reach out to the community.

It has received excellent feedback. We have had measurable changes in the use of services through that outreach. For me it's nothing but inspiring and encouraging to know that we are starting to get the word out. We need to continue this outreach in order to get to Calgary, to get to London, to get to the satellite offices of the London MFRC in Windsor and Hamilton, where we know reserves will only have one point of contact, because there is no other necessarily military presence other than the recruiting centre.

So we are working very actively to serve reservists, as we serve regular. The difference comes from the conditions of service. The ombudsman, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, highlights three. Two of those deeply affect reserves and three of them affect the regular force community. The factor that's less prevalent for reserves is mobility. Deployment and absence are very much real factors for their families. The risk that I referred to is very much a factor for their families, and we are doing everything we can to get the word to them.

The other factor that makes it an extra challenge for me in my role in family services is connecting with the families. The reserve population is more fluctuating, with people entering and leaving with more rapidity than the regular force. It's sometimes hard to keep up with where they are and how I can get in touch with their family.

Does that help, sir?

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Thank you very much for your answer.

I'd like to go back a little bit to the regular force issue of spousal employment. That is a big problem. When you are deployed, when you are transferred from one unit to another, or from this part of the country to the other part of the country, if your spouse is working it's very difficult. For example, somebody needs to leave their work: either the member leaves the forces or the spouse leaves their job. Sometimes that can be a big strain on families.

How are you prepared to deal with spousal employment, or how are you improving?

[Col Russell Mann]

We have known for some time.... This is not a new challenge, but it is more poignant in today's military lifestyle because of dual income families and the added cost of living. We have been studying it, and our researchers have looked at a spousal employment income study over three phases to really dive deep into this aspect and find out what things that we can do. How can we shape policy and programming to help blunt that impact? We know that on average they earn $5,000 less than other Canadians. The only reason we know that, though, is from having embarked on the study.

Now what we're trying to do is engage key sectors and key implementers in employment to talk about career continuity for spouses, rather than a “job”. We're hopeful that we may have the opportunity to participate in other transition services. We are hopeful that we will be able to incorporate spousal employment opportunities into job portals. We are trying to get the dialogue and get the right partners who can help shape and influence the employment environment.

At a family resource centre level, they're very much engaged in employment counselling, prior learning assessment, and educational upgrading to make their employability more attractive in a community that they find themselves in. For example, if they're in a remote community where the job market is depressed, they could also upgrade their academics, anticipating the next move back to a centre where they might be able to continue employment. We try to turn these negative challenges into positive opportunities through the family resource centres and the staff and counsellors who can help them navigate that and access municipal and provincial supports and services. As you know, education and employment largely fall in the provincial realm and in the municipal realm.

[The Chair, Conservative, Peter Kent]

Thank you, Colonel.

Ms. Murray, please.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you.

I appreciate your testimony.

I have some questions for Colonel Mann first.

In terms of the importance of supporting families, we know that the ombudsman reinforced that it's core, and you've said so in your remarks. I'm interested in funding for programs that do that. I wonder if you could tell us about the change in the budget for programs: the integrated relocation program, the home equity assistance program, the military family services program, the military family resource centres funding, the Canadian Forces member assistance program, and the program for rent subsidies. These are all critical pieces of support for families.

I'd like to know whether the budgets are the same or greater, and greater by how much between 2010 and 2014, with the recent budget. Do you have any information on that?

[Col Russell Mann]

I can partially answer your question, Ma'am, but I'll have to advise the chair that the director general of compensation and benefits is the authority for integrative relocation and home equity assistance. The “rent subsidies” are not clear to me; perhaps that would be post living differential. Those are not areas that I influence or control, and I'm not able to answer what those funding lines look like.

I can speak, however, to the military family services program and to military family resource centres, if you will indulge me. On the family resource centres, I referred to $27 million. What is perhaps interesting to note is that for family resource centres, that envelope of funding is provided through the chief of military personnel. It has grown in each of the years between 2008 and 2012, and since 2012 has remained stable. That's why we're at $27 million today. We disburse that to the 33—

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Yes, no details about how it's used. I'm just trying to get a handle on it—

[Col Russell Mann]

Okay.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

—because we can't find this in the way the government's budgets are laid out. I would appreciate.... May I request that the committee receive answers on the budget differences between 2010 and 2014 for each of those programs?

[Col Russell Mann]

I'm able to respond to the MFSP and the MFRCs. I'm perhaps not the right authority to be asking the question to on the others.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Okay.

[Col Gerry Blais]

We'll take the question under advisement and get you a response.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you.

I'd like to ask Colonel Blais a couple of things.

In the national defence committee's 2009 report on PTSD, recommendation 12 was that injured Canadian Forces members should have “the use of a designated advocate chosen by the member” and that the CF will “provide an appropriate level of cooperation with such advocate” and forces members “should be advised of their right to an advocate”.

The JPSU obviously is designed to do some of that work, but we've heard in the committee that the system is understaffed and the staff are overworked. We also heard from the military ombudsman that there are staffing issues: staffing shortages, gaps in staff training, and so on.

This recommendation was not followed through on by the government. Colonel Blais, can you explain why not and whether you're prepared to reconsider that?

[Col Gerry Blais]

I believe it has been followed up on, although not in assigning someone specifically to each individual. As you correctly mentioned, the joint personnel support unit does provide that advocacy.

The other good link for individuals is through the operational stress injury social support program. Anyone suffering from an operational stress injury is welcome to use the services of the OSISS program, which is our peer support program. In the peer system, they understand each other very well, because the peer has come from the same situation that the person with the operational stress injury now suffers from and can greatly assist them in that.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Okay. So the committee's observation that it was not adequate to have a whole set of programs that needed an advocate's help to manoeuvre is not one that you see as necessarily useful.

Recommendation 13 says, “The Canadian Forces should give primary consideration to the continuity of quality care for recovering soldiers, over career development options.” The way I understand that from my reading of the 2009 report is that redeployment elsewhere or relocation should not be considered during the period when there's a continuity of care that's required.

This committee has received no update that this recommendation has been applied in any way. Can you speak to that?

[Col Gerry Blais]

Yes. For personnel posted to the JPSU, one of the important things we've able to do now is that each one of the locations provides the same framework, the same programs, and the same methodology. So if an individual does need to move because their family, for example, which is his or her support network, is in another part of the country, when we do move them to be with their support network, they come into a situation that is very familiar to them. The staff may be different, but the approach and the way they're treated is exactly the same, so that's a great positive, and we don't move them—

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

So it's a partial response to that recommendation—

[Col Gerry Blais]

Well, that is one aspect. The other is that people are given.... As I mentioned in my remarks, once the condition is stabilized, they can be given from six months to three years to release. But until the point of stabilization, there can be a prolonged period of three, four, or five years when the individual is undergoing treatment to get better. During that time, we don't send them back to full duty. They are able to take the time they need to recover, until they get to a point where they can either return to duties or leave the armed forces.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

I have one more question. Do I have time, Mr. Chair?