Finance Committee on May 18th, 2017

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Okay.

The second thing that was raised was the fact that there was a commitment, or they felt that there was a commitment at some point in time, to what I would describe as a physical treatment centre somewhere in the country where our military could receive counselling, receive treatment, before it was too late. According to the testimony yesterday, this $20 million that they felt was promised ended up being diverted into research. Can you make some comments on that?

[Faith McIntyre]

As I indicated, there were five other initiatives included in budget 2017 outside the budget implementation act. One of those that you're referring to is the centre of excellence on mental health and post-traumatic stress disorder. I will, however, start by saying that we currently have a network of 11 occupational stress injury clinics, which are located across the country. We work very actively with the regional health authorities, the provinces, in order to ensure through memorandums of understanding that treatment is available for individuals who require help with OSIs. There are physical locations and support available. There's also—

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Perhaps I could just interrupt. The argument to that was that they weren't specifically for the military. The testimony was that the military were in these centres with gang members, with people who they didn't feel comfortable around in expressing their views. They felt that there was a commitment to a specific facility just for military.

[Faith McIntyre]

Okay, thank you for the clarification.

The occupational stress injury clinics are indeed run under the authority of Veterans Affairs Canada, so they are for our client group. We do, however, include the RCMP, which as you know also through a memorandum of understanding are involved in our services as well. I'm uncertain specifically what types of programs these individuals were referring to.

Also, we have one residential clinic, operated by the Province of Quebec out of Ste. Anne's Hospital, where veterans only, and other clients possibly from the RCMP as required, can actually go and physically remain there for a period of weeks for in-patient type care. That is specifically for our client group.

The centre of excellence, with $17.5 million provided over four years, is to assist in moving forward with treatment practices, research, and analysis with key partners and stakeholders so that we can enhance the services that we are already providing as an example through these occupational stress injury clinics.

I'd be more than happy, though, to dig a little further into that. I haven't had a chance to read the testimony of the individuals yesterday, sir, but I can, and I can certainly get back to you.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Ms. O'Connell.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thank you for your testimony.

Yesterday, to refer to that testimony as well, we heard from an individual about the caregiver benefit—the $1,000 a month, essentially $12,000 a year. One individual explained, for example, that his wife had to leave a $60,000 job to care for him, and $12,000 certainly doesn't replace or cover that.

My question is, does this caregiver benefit take away from other funding that might be available for, let's say, a nurse who might come into the home or whatever other needs there are, given the extent of the disability? If someone accesses this benefit, does it then take away from other opportunities or other funding initiatives to help with their care?

[Faith McIntyre]

The caregiver recognition benefit is indeed, as stated, for recognition. It's recognized that it's not a financial or income replacement. The intent is to recognize that there are caregivers, most of whom are spouses, who require some moneys to assist. The purpose and the intent, however, is to provide recognition, and that is why it's named as such.

To your question, however, it will not and does not remove any other authorities or eligibilities; for example, for treatment benefits, veterans independence program services, other respite that might be offered to the veteran as well, or nursing services, as you mentioned—not at all. It would be “in addition to”.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

My last question is with regard to training for front-line workers. We heard testimony yesterday that front-line workers often don't understand whether there are new proposals or new benefits or how to interpret them. The testimony yesterday was that veterans are being denied just because the front-line or the intake person doesn't want to or doesn't know how to interpret whether they are qualified or not. It requires the veterans themselves to appeal constantly, and some just give up.

What is being done with any of these changes to ensure that the front-line intake people who are working with these veterans actually know what the policies are, know who is qualified, and ensure that anybody who is entitled actually receives the benefit?

[Faith McIntyre]

Thank you again for that question. It's a very important one.

I acknowledge that the system is complex and is not necessarily the easiest to manoeuvre through, whether from a client perspective or at times even from a staff perspective.

As you know, we've made a significant investment in order to hire about 400 new employees directly in the field and in the service delivery area. We have developed a very robust national orientation training program that all of our new field staff have gone through—and will be going through, if they are very recent hires. Part of it is certainly explanation of policy and of benefits, and it includes explanation of systems.

As well, we will be rolling that orientation out to all of our existing staff to make sure that everybody is at the same level of understanding. Even more so, for example, in my area in policy, the training and orientation will also be offered to staff in other areas of the organization.

More specifically to your point, we also just completed a service delivery review. One outcome of that service delivery review acknowledged that communication needs to be more assured in terms of the way we communicate, from a functional direction perspective, with the field. As well, there needs to be a reduction of complexity, in the numbers of policies, of business processes; it ties back even to the legislative authorities that we have.

How can we best simplify that work going forward? We have already reduced our policies by more than 200 in the last few years. We are also looking, as an example, through what we're doing with the budget implementation act, putting in this waiver whereby, if we already have all of the information on file, we would be able to make a decision without having to have contact directly with the veteran to get further information. We can then also look at what other benefits they would be eligible for and make decisions on those. That should reduce the, as you said, unfortunate need for the veteran to be constantly going back and forth and possibly even requesting reviews and appeals.

It's certainly something we're very aware of through the training, orientation, and even our service delivery review action plan. We are looking actively at moving forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you both.

Mr. Dusseault.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to go back to the remarks made yesterday by members of a group representing veterans. They said that significant amounts will be allocated to the training program to help people who have left the Canadian Armed Forces return to school.

I asked how many people could use the program, and I was told the details, meaning the regulations, could cause problems. Even though there are new provisions, clause 5.93 of Bill C-44 states in part:

5.93 The Governor in Council may make regulations: (a) prescribing how the length of service in the reserve force is to be determined for the purposes of paragraph 5.2(1)(a); (b) respecting what constitutes honourable release for the purpose of paragraph 5.2(1)(b); (c) providing for the periodic adjustment of the maximum cumulative amount referred to in subsection 5.2(2); (d) defining “educational institution” for the purposes of paragraph 5.3(1)(a); (e) prescribing the education or training that may or may not be approved by the Minister under section 5.5;

Therefore, everything will be established through regulations. As we were told yesterday, the regulations could cause difficulties in terms of whether veterans can use the program, for example.

Can you tell us when the regulations will be made and when the details on eligibility will be released so that veterans can know whether they're eligible for the program?

As parliamentarians, we can also determine the program's effectiveness.

[Faith McIntyre]

Thank you for the question.

I believe you raised three points.

First, we're reviewing the regulations. We're open to possibilities regarding eligibility. We want a fair process for the veterans who will be eligible for the program. Depending on the Treasury Board's approval, we anticipate that the regulations will be released by the end of June. As you know, a process will be followed in that regard.

I'll get back to the three points. For the institutions, we intend to use Employment and Social Development Canada's current list. The department already has a list of recognized institutions, and we intend to use it. Other federal departments that conduct research and analysis also use the list. We don't intend to do things differently.

Regarding what constitutes an honourable release for Canadian Armed Forces members, we intend to consider the definition used by the armed forces themselves. We won't create a definition that differs from the existing one. However, as required by the legislation, we'll give power to the minister for certain exceptional cases. For people whose release isn't considered honourable, but who may have had a good reason for their actions, we'll give the minister the necessary flexibility.

The maximum amount will be set based on the person's years of service. We're talking about $40,000 or $80,000. For example, a person may want to take a course to become a helicopter pilot, but the course isn't provided on a quarterly basis, as is the case in an institution such as the University of Ottawa. We'll have the necessary flexibility to give the person the full amount—$40,000—so they can take part a six-month program, for example, rather than issue the amount on a quarterly basis. That way, the conditions will be more flexible for the veteran.

In short, the goal is to be as flexible and respectful as possible when it comes to veterans.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Okay. We'll check part I of the Canada Gazette, at the end of June.

[Faith McIntyre]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you both again.

Mr. Ouellette.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you very much for testifying. I have a few questions.

I was reading about the creation of an education and training benefit, and I was looking at clause 274. It mentions having served “for a total of at least six years”.

Can you describe why six years was the number of years chosen?

[Faith McIntyre]

Yes, that's an important question.

I will start by saying that all of this was done in partnership with the Canadian Armed Forces, so in all of our discussions in terms of time frames, eligibility—to the point just a moment ago as well—we had these discussions to ensure we were on the same page as our colleagues. We wanted this, the education and training benefit, to not only be a recruitment tool but also a retention tool, in the sense that we did not want individuals to necessarily leave the forces earlier than they might have. The incentive is as well, then, at 12 years, so that if they're at 10 years and thinking of going, they may stay the extra two in order to benefit from the $80,000.

As to why the six years, again it really ties in to that retention. Individuals in the Canadian Armed Forces, unlike our American counterparts, tend to have longer careers. They come in for much longer periods of time. In the States they come in, they might do one tour and then they'll release. Here in Canada we already know that individuals stay. Really, by the time they invest in basic training, in whatever education is required, possibly language, six years was felt as a very reasonable return on investment for that initial $40,000 for education and training. Then, double that...the 12 years. Again, we're seeing it, really, as an incentive for individuals to stay on. It also ties in to the period when they might be eligible for the Canadian Forces superannuation, pension.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

When I first joined the forces in 1996 they gave you a three-year contract. They used to do that after your BMQ, your basic military qualification. Now the tendency is towards doing five-year contracts. Essentially, if you're doing two initial contracts, both of five years, that would take you up to 10 years, which might be a little long in the life of a 19-year-old, to think, when you're 29, that you have to start making choices. Anyway, I'm not always sure it's the most appropriate thing to have someone stuck for 10 years in a job they might not like to be doing, because at certain points as we grow older we like to make those choices.

Did you consult with not just veterans but young people who are in the Canadian Forces about some of their preferences? I know the chain of command has certain preferences, but did you discuss that with actual 25- or 26- year-olds, in the Canadian Forces, who are in those situations, in that bump period?

[Faith McIntyre]

Thank you. That's very relevant.

We had round tables where we engaged many different sectors of both still-serving veterans and stakeholder groups. I don't know the exact specifics of numbers of who would have been at those round tables, who might fit the category you just mentioned, sir. Certainly they were part of the conversation and the consultation.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Often when we think about veterans, a lot of people in the Canadian Forces don't consider themselves veterans. We go to a Remembrance Day service and we see the old gentlemen and older ladies, perhaps in wheelchairs or with canes, and they, for us, are veterans. When you're 25 you never think of yourself in that way. When you do veterans groups, which are very easy to get a hold of, I would like to.... Anyway, it would be interesting to know what the consultation would be, if it was by age group, about what people would prefer.

I have another question. In this section here it mentions “served...a total of at least six years in the regular force, in the reserve force or in both”. What happens if you do, let's say, the regular force initial contract, and you do two of them and you get up to 10 years, and then you leave and you go into the reserves at the end of those 10 years? Are you able to then access the $40,000, or are you now required to leave completely the Canadian Armed Forces and then re-engage with the reserves at a later date?

[Faith McIntyre]

In terms of eligibility with the regular force/reserve force, we will be using the same determination that is used under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act. There's certain eligibility for reservists under that act, and that is the same eligibility and number of years that we'd be using to transfer, then, over to this benefit.

I can't specifically respond to the scenario that you've outlined, but the intention would be, again, to follow what's in the pension act for Canadian Armed Forces, but to make sure that an individual is obviously not penalized for having left the regular force, going to reserve, or back and forth. That would be our point of reference.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Under the superannuation act you have to serve a minimum of 10 years, I believe—pensionable service— in order to access that benefit. You have to serve for six years in full-time service, is what you're saying, in reserve or regular forces.

[Faith McIntyre]

In the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act there's a section that defines reserve force time. Unfortunately I don't have the act in front of me to pull it out. My apologies. That's what we'll be referring to in terms of how to then define reserve force time pertinent to this education and training benefit.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I believe there is also a reserve force pension act.

My question is this. You often have long-time reservists who have been serving up to 15 years but might not have six full years of service. They might have done three months here during the summer helping out with flood work and a couple of missions in Afghanistan, so they might not get up to that six years. They might not be eligible even though they've been working for the Canadian Armed Forces for over 15 years. That's what I'm understanding.