Veterans Affairs Committee on April 15th, 2010

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

You say your medical file was not kept confidential. Did you file a professional complaint in connection with that situation? You no doubt filed a complaint with the Department of Veterans Affairs. Have any steps been taken to respect your rights, which were violated by officials and ministers? Have you filed a complaint? Are any legal proceedings underway?

[Sean Bruyea]

Thank you, sir.

What I did with respect to Veterans Affairs was I first reported the allegations as I understood them; I didn't have access to the documents at the time. Then, when I received responses, there was nothing about allegations in the letter, but it asked me to please speak to a VAC psychologist because, it said, I needed help. It was very upsetting for me.

I went to the Prime Minister's Office. I reported the allegations. I told you what happened.

Being in the military, we're a bit naive. We really believe that government is honest and that--

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

In what year did that occur?

[Sean Bruyea]

The fall of 2005 was when I first reported my impression of what was going on. The involvement with the Prime Minister's Office was in August and September 2006, and then after that time I was engaged in a three-year process. I provided the department with all the details of what the reprisals were. I've offered to provide them with the documents. I've also provided them with free mediation: I've arranged for two federal departments to mediate the situation free of charge. I've followed the public service harassment guidelines, but they don't apply to me: I'm not a public servant.

The department then commissioned what it called a review of my correspondence, as opposed to an investigation. In this review they claim they never received my original allegations; therefore the harassment never took place.

In the Privacy Act files, there are three hard copies sitting on the deputy minister's personal file that she holds on me--three hard copies of those allegations. Over 100 hard copies exist in the department. More than 50 Veterans Affairs employees had those allegations circulated among them. This investigation, which was concluded two days after I reported to the Senate veterans affairs committee my initial impression of the harassment, was closed by Veterans Affairs, saying they never had those original documents.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Bruyea and Monsieur André.

We are now moving on to Madam Hughes for five minutes.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Thank you.

That was a great presentation. I can see that your wife has provided a lot of support to you to provide you with the strength you've had to continue this fight and to continue addressing the inequities in this charter.

I think we've been running into similar walls with this government, not only with your case as you're describing today, but also with what's happening with the Afghan mission and some of the documents we've been trying to get.

I want to touch base because I'm trying to get a little bit more understanding, and I think it's good to have it on the public record. You've indicated in your second point here that Veterans Affairs Canada should immediately set a target that 30% of all staff must be veterans. Your report is based on what you have been living and what you have been discussing with others. They are people who have actually lived it. Could you elaborate on that? I'm assuming that you want 30% of all staff to be veterans because you know they will be able to connect better with what is going on, on the ground. I'll leave that with you right now.

[Sean Bruyea]

Thank you.

Ms. Hughes, you're absolutely right. In the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, veterans make up 30% of the entire employee workforce, and 25,000 of that 30% are disabled veterans. Veterans Affairs cannot answer how many veterans are employed in their department. I suspect it's because there are very few and because it's an embarrassingly low number.

It astounds me. Every federal department is obligated to set appropriate hiring targets for minorities, for aboriginals, for the disabled. Every department is also obligated to hire people who have specialties in the fields they represent. Transport Canada has to hire transport engineers. They have to hire inspectors who perhaps were airplane engineers, aero-engine engineers, or pilots. Indian and Northern Affairs has positions that specifically require some exposure to or involvement in the aboriginal culture, and Statistics Canada has to hire statisticians, yet Veterans Affairs is the only department that is not obligated to hire the very specialty they are supposed to be serving: the veteran.

You in the committee well understand the unique demands of military culture. There is no way that someone who hasn't served in the military can really understand what it's like to have served in the military and the transition into civilian life. It's absolutely inexcusable that they don't have any targets for hiring veterans in the department, let alone disabled veterans.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

My riding of Algoma--Manitoulin--Kapuskasing is humongous, and throughout it there are quite a few legions. There are lots of veterans in the area as well, of course, and some of them continue to have difficulties with respect to being diagnosed with related illnesses that may come around. I know you've made the argument with respect to people who have disabilities of some kind, and we know that sometimes these disabilities don't show up right away, especially when they're mental disabilities.

You talked about treatment authorization centres and counsellors. Could you elaborate on that, as well as the importance of the changes you are requesting and how they would benefit those people? Are there other recommendations you can make with respect to accessibility for people who are looking to be diagnosed? I know of one case in particular in which they're indicating that we're not going to provide any service unless the person can prove it; the onus is on the person to prove that they have these symptoms or these disabilities.

[Sean Bruyea]

Thank you, Ms. Hughes. You've touched on the crux of the problem in Veterans Affairs.

Veterans Affairs has designed a host of programs. They are programs designed by bureaucrats to satisfy bureaucratic processes; they're not programs designed by veterans in conjunction with bureaucrats or medical experts. They're meant to satisfy Treasury Board demands. Treasury Board demands do not necessarily equate to the demands or needs of disabled veterans and their families.

What has happened is that Veterans Affairs is now an incredibly top-heavy organization that is far too isolated in Charlottetown, and whenever a problem occurs, you know the expression: it rolls downhill. It falls upon the front-line workers. The front-line workers have been given 45 pieces of legislation to administer for war veterans, and on top of that they've been given a whole new host of very complex programs. The charter is an incredible burden to the front-line workers. They're not given any extra staffing. They're meant to administer all of these programs all at once, while still providing what they say is case management.

An area counsellor, for example, has anywhere from 900 to 1,500 cases. It doesn't take a genius mathematician to realize that given the paperwork they're required to fill out by head office as they come up with new processes--which they do all the time--they can actually only devote approximately 10% to a maximum of 20% of their time to true case management. That means we're looking at probably 95% of their clientele not being served.

In addition, they have no authority to actually approve a lot of these processes. They can recommend them, but they have to go through another chain of command.

What do I recommend? Do away with the regional offices. Do away with the majority of positions in head office, because a lot of those are merely approving things that can be approved by the front-line workers. Enhance a lot of those positions in the district office with the vacated positions in head office and regional office, and also provide them with clerical staff so that area counsellors and client service agents aren't inputting these incredibly burdensome processes.

That should remain until we can actually have some veterans in place who can say that a particular process doesn't work, or have a medical person in place at Veterans Affairs who can decide that since some process isn't going to help a disabled veteran, the process should be gotten rid of.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Bruyea and Mrs. Hughes.

I have a very respectful reminder. Our witness has been very good at answering questions, but the questions from the last two questioners were really outside the new Veterans Charter. We have been cautioned by the researcher in the past that he wasn't getting enough material in order to do a report, and I believe I was encouraged by some members to keep us on track, so consider that a small shepherding process.

Now we will go to Mr. McColeman for seven minutes.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I trust that I won't go into the areas that you're trying to articulate we shouldn't move into. However, my first comment to our witnesses is to say thank you to Mr. and Mrs. Bruyea for being here. We can see that you're a highly decorated veteran, and I want to thank you for your service to this country. I say that with utmost sincerity, because we wouldn't live in the country we have unless we had individuals like you who are prepared to lay their lives on the line for our freedom.

As a new parliamentarian I have not been involved with the past development of the new Veterans Charter, but we have done a lot as a committee to get various opinions. We've been to Charlottetown. We've had a lot of people come here. We've studied the delivery models of other countries and compared what they provide for benefits, etc.

My observation from the start is that everybody looks at issues from their own frame of reference. You're a very strong individual, and very competent and capable as an advocate. I sense that your presentation is highly emotional, and you're also making some very strong allegations and accusations about the way the delivery system works today. As well, you're providing us with recommendations to move forward with a model that is vastly different from what currently exists today.

As I frame and drive to my question here, I have to say that in the visits and discussions with the bureaucrats who run this department now, I don't believe I had any sense of there being anything disingenuous about what they were doing. I didn't sense, as you commented on several times here, hidden agendas, or that they're bureaucrats obsessed with cost-cutting. In fact, I will lead into the first question this way: on doing some analysis--because I treat things from a business point of view and try to remove emotion from it--since the new Veterans Charter came into being, we've increased the funding, and hence the spending, to improve benefits for vets by $1.93 billion. Are you aware of that?

[Sean Bruyea]

Yes.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

What's your view of that?

[Sean Bruyea]

What's my view of the spending?

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Yes. What's your view of the increase of almost $2 billion in spending to assist veterans?

[Sean Bruyea]

Yes, I'm well aware of that. I'm sure the committee is familiar with the Pension Act. The fact is that there are mandatory increases that have nothing to do with government. Whatever government sits, those spending increases will occur, and in fact it was, I believe, in 2007 that there was a 7% mandatory increase for all veterans' benefits, precisely because the CPI wasn't keeping pace with the equivalent in the public service for employees' salaries.

My calculations are that probably half of that $1.9 billion was actually a mandatory increase that no committee or sitting government should be taking any credit for. I mean no disrespect to you, but I think this is another piece of misinformation that the bureaucrats are providing you in taking credit for something that's not really their due.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

You also mentioned in your comments that you are a client of Veterans Affairs, so on your discharge you went through the process of applying and going through that process. I'm curious to know your experience in dealing with them and in getting the benefits awarded that you've obviously said you are receiving as a client. What was your experience? Did you have difficulty getting those put in place?

[Sean Bruyea]

Do you mean benefits for myself?

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Yes.

[Sean Bruyea]

Benefits for myself were non-existent, and I mean that. They were absolutely non-existent. I was not even briefed about SISIP long-term disability. The dark decade of the 1990s was a real shambles.

Having said that, please let me give credit to Veterans Affairs in terms of their front-line employees. These people, the majority of them, are super-compassionate people. They work super-hard, and they're overworked, stressed, and frustrated. If you speak with district offices, I think it'll be pretty clear that if district offices at random throughout Canada are asked how often a senior manager has come down and actually heard concerns directly from them, the answer will probably be, “Never”. They've come and visited and said hi once every year, but never more than that, so I'm wondering, first, how the senior managers in Charlottetown, isolated from the main oversight agencies in Ottawa, can understand how the rest of the federal government is working.

Second, I'm wondering how those senior managers who are isolated from their district workers can understand what the real needs and requirements are for administering those programs directly to the veterans.

Third, they are not veterans. I mean no disrespect to you, Mr. McColeman; I understand that everyone wants to look at these things logically, but the point is that you have veterans who are disabled and have lost everything. There is a difference between World War II veterans and disabled CF veterans. Word War II veterans were more than happy to get out of the military and integrate back into the workforce, and they were provided with all the programs, which were much more extensive than what exists under the new Veterans Charter, but CF veterans who are disabled want to stay in the military.

I cannot emphasize too much what an incredible blow to the soul, the self-esteem, and the actual sense of worth a veteran has when they're kicked out of the military and forced to go through bureaucratic processes. These are good bureaucrats, they're good people, but they're not good administrators and they don't understand veterans and the needs of those veterans. That's where the problem lies. They will come here sounding very professional, and they are very professional, and they're following all the processes, but they're not doing the job that veterans need them to do, and that's where the problem lies.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

On that very point, I made a note here as you were speaking--and it was brought up earlier--about lump sum payments. You were expressing the view that it's not appropriate and that you need a pension that goes on. Again, through our witnesses and analysis of this charter, we've heard testimony that says the opposite. Some people do benefit greatly and want lump sum payments.

I would suggest to you that for certain people in certain circumstances, a lump sum is totally appropriate, because they've expressed that to us. To exclude that possibility for those people would certainly not be very acceptable to them at all. I'm wondering what your thoughts are on those situations and how you would deal with those people.

[Sean Bruyea]

I think there are a couple of questions. Would people be immediately happy if they received all their money up front? Probably, and I would think they'd be happier than if they were receiving just a small monthly cheque.

However, the big question has to be asked: how will they feel five years from now, when they realize that veterans who were disabled the day before they applied for the program--because it was March 30, 2006--are still receiving monthly money that they'll receive until they die? The veterans who spent all their money from the lump sum and were happy for a year or two have nothing to show for it.

I fully respect the rights of adults, and they deserve to have a choice between a lump sum and a monthly pension, but at the same time we also have a responsibility, a moral duty, in Canada to make sure those veterans are looked after and to ask the questions: “Why are you happy with your lump sum instead of a monthly pension?” If he says it's because he could buy a house, well, if I walk into a bank with a guaranteed-for-life monthly disability pension, I'm going to get very favourable terms on a mortgage, and at the end of paying that mortgage, I'll still have my monthly pension.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. McColeman, you're way over.

We have finished our first round of questioning. Now we'll go to Madam Sgro for five minutes.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Bruyea, thank you so very much, not only for what you've done for us in the past, but also for what you're doing today and what you've been doing for 11 years. No doubt your frustration is very strong, but we are reviewing the charter, specifically because we want to hear from you.

In case you don't know, and I'm sure you do, this committee tends to work in a non-partisan way. It doesn't matter who's in government; mistakes are made. Our job is now to review this charter and try to make the necessary improvements. I appreciate you and your wife coming and commenting as you have and giving us these recommendations so that we can look at what we can do. I know that all of us have the same intent in this committee, and it's to try to make life better for our veterans.

You certainly raise a variety of issues, and the lump sum payment is one aspect that I think some of us have concerns about, but I want to ask you about the 299 recommendations.

You have a wonderful report here. It must have taken you a lot of time to put together. It's clearly reflective of your 11 years of advocacy. What keeps you going? It's 11 years; you and your wife have suffered personal pain and problems trying to deal with something that you wouldn't give up on. What keeps you going? Why do you keep doing it?

[Sean Bruyea]

Thank you very much, Ms. Sgro.

In the military--I joined at age 17--I was taught very quickly that I was responsible for other persons' lives and that they were also responsible for mine. They fulfilled their duty looking after me while I was in the military; it's still my duty to help look after them now. A duty to Canada and to the other soldiers who have been in or are still in the Canadian military is ingrained deeply in me. If I see an injustice, I can't turn a blind eye to it; I have to speak up, and I would hope that most Canadians have that sense of duty as well.