National Defence Committee on Oct. 25th, 2016

[Gary Walbourne]

Nothing comes to me off the top of my head, no.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

You talked of the home equity assistance program and suggested that the only problem you see with it is that it has not been indexed since 2008, I think you said.

[Gary Walbourne]

That was the post living differential.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I'm sorry, yes. That was on the next page. So the problem of the post living differential program is that it has not been indexed?

[Gary Walbourne]

The post living differential program has not been updated since 2008.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

When you say updated, do you mean that the policy needs to be updated or that it just needs to be indexed to inflation or whatever the cost of living is?

[Gary Walbourne]

I think the review needs to go back and look at the basket of goods, do a regional review across the country, and determine what has changed. That's where I am.

Whether the government decides to index it or whatever they decide to do is the government's decision to make. What I'm talking about is keeping the program current, so that the families who are being posted from one area of this country to another have clarity on what their income package looks like, and giving them stability. That's my position on PLD.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Okay.

You said the home equity assistance program has insufficient protection, and then you said that's fixable. How is it fixable?

[Gary Walbourne]

When we look at the home equity assistance program, and there have been a couple of cases that have been very loud in the media, what the member has to prove is that there has been a greater than 20% reduction of the value of their home in that area. Trying to prove that is almost impossible. I think there's been one approval that has come out of Treasury Board over the last 20 years in favour of the member.

We've had some members who have lost in excess of $80,000 or $90,000 on the sale of their homes. I believe the home equity assistance program is a good program, if it were accessible. You can call anything fair, but if you make the barriers of access so high that no one can get at it, then I think it's rather redundant to even have it in place.

My problem is that when someone moves from one area of the country to another and experiences a major financial loss, I think consideration should be given to the conditions that are on the ground at the time. Just to say that you have to meet a 20% reduction.... There's one particular case that comes out of Alberta because a community was designated to be within one township instead of another. The person lost a considerable amount of money, and no consideration was given to what happened in the greater environment, in the regional environment, that caused that drop in the house price.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Is this something that happens a lot? Obviously, you have mentioned it in your comments. Is it something that comes up a lot that you continually find challenging?

[Gary Walbourne]

We'll receive on average five to six cases of it a year. It's not the number of them. It's the major impact it has on those individuals when it does happen. We talk about a loss greater than 20% on your home. That's the magnitude of it. If a member moves and has a major loss on the sale of their home, we can very quickly put that member into a bankruptcy position.

Those are the concerns I have. It's not the number of cases, but the magnitude of them is quite large for those individuals.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Okay, thank you for that.

I think that's all I have for now, Mr. Chair. If I have any more time, I'll give it to Ms. Romanado.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

You're pretty close to the end. I'll turn the floor over to Mr. Fisher, and we'll go to five-minute questions.

Mr. Fisher, you have the floor.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you, sir, for being here.

I appreciate your opinion all the time. I like your no-nonsense approach to solving problems.

Your focus on solving the problems with regard to transition to civilian life greatly interests me, and I know it greatly interests you. Part of the minister's mandate letter from the Prime Minister is bridging that gap.

Do you have a relationship with the minister? Do you sit down with the minister? Obviously, he's read your report. He knows what you hope to accomplish. Could you give us a sense of what his thoughts are on your recommendation to keep them under the umbrella of the CAF?

[Gary Walbourne]

The last two reports that I submitted to the minister were the attribution of service report and the new service delivery model. The responses I have got back have given me some encouragement. He's saying the recommendations have great merit and they're under further consideration.

I was at the Veterans Affairs stakeholders summit a couple or three weeks ago, and I was very pleased to hear the chief of the defence staff speak about a concierge type of service and maybe hanging on to our members until we have all they need in place, and taking care of them until that point in time. I haven't received the stamp of approval, but I'm hearing the right words in the environment.

As I've said before, it doesn't have to be my program, but it needs to be something that is efficient and effective, so I'm encouraged about what I'm hearing back from the senior levels inside the department.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

To drill down just a tiny bit more on this, you're considered to be a special adviser to the minister. Do you have weekly meetings, monthly meetings? Do you have his ear when you feel like having his ear? Can you tell me a little bit about the relationship you have with the minister, as special adviser to the minister?

[Gary Walbourne]

I try to meet with the minister every 30 days. It doesn't always happen. He's a busy fellow. We do try to meet on a regular basis. If I have cases that are of extreme urgence, I can get hold of him very quickly, if there's something in the environment that I think needs his immediate attention. That's pretty much it.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

To do what you recommend, can you tell me what you think that might look like from a staffing perspective? Do you see a great swath of Veterans Affairs staff moving over to National Defence, being seconded? Can you sort of describe how you picture that new way of doing things, that new policy change?

[Gary Walbourne]

I do believe that, if we get the surgeon general's office to take the responsibility for determination of attribution of service, there will be pressure inside the surgeon general's office, remembering again that we're already dealing with these 1,500 cases and we are tracking them and doing all the medical things we need to do and keeping the files. I think there would be some burden on the surgeon general's office.

As for moving large swaths of people one way or the other, I'm not sure. If we did develop a more efficient, effective model, I think the last thing we need to do is to start pulling resources out of this environment on either side. I think we can refocus those resources. We can start having conversations about what the future would look like instead of waiting for the releasing member to explain to several entities what's happened in the past.

I believe there's opportunity here. No one has asked me how they should set it up, but if someone would like me to sit on that committee, I would do so. I talk, and I talk very basic, and I appreciate your comment that I have a logical, no-nonsense approach to dealing with things. They're very complex, but they're also built by us. We have built these complex systems, so I think we can fix them.

As to the moving of staff and who does what, I believe we just need to clear the lines of responsibility a little bit. If the member is serving, he's the responsibility of the Canadian Armed Forces, and until the uniform comes off, I think we need to do everything in our power to make sure that person is positioned to move forward.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Do you see any bureaucratic resistance to that type of change, like empire protecting? You're no-nonsense, so I would appreciate your thoughts on that.

[Gary Walbourne]

I believe people become very protective of what they've built. I believe people take ownership of their processes and their procedures, and it's a good thing to have pride in what you've developed. But as the times change around us, I think we all have to learn as we grow older to let things go. I think there are new mindsets, new thought processes, new technologies that are available. It's time. There is some rust in the environment, no doubt about it. Change is always difficult. It causes fear in people.

I do believe we're at a point in time where enough is enough. We've made this so convoluted. I think we can reduce it back down to something that is much simpler, but I think we can do it collectively. I think there's an opportunity and a role for both sides to play here, but yes, I would agree there is some rust in the system and there is some protection. I get it.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you. I hope to get a chance to speak later, if possible, if there's spare time on—

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

I think we'll have time, but I have to give the floor to Mr. Paul-Hus.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you, sir.

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Walbourne, I would like to mention that next February will mark 30 years since I joined the Canadian Armed Forces. I served for 22 years. There were problems then that still exist 30 years later. I can see that things have not changed very much.

In 1998, I was a major and superior officer when the ombudsman's office was created. There was reluctance to change. When the ombudsman arrived, I was one of the people who said that we did not want an ombudsman involved in our business and someone like you coming to check up on us. Today we are happy to have had an ombudsman and to still have one.

My first question is about the medical services available to reservists.

A report released last May described the various problems related to the medical services offered to classes A, B, and C. I experienced the three services and I know what you are talking about.

I would like to know how the Canadian Armed Forces responded to your report about these problems. Was it well received? Were your recommendations taken into consideration? Were you told that changes would be made?