National Defence Committee on Oct. 25th, 2016

[Gary Walbourne]

In regard to that particular report, we haven't received a very favourable response other than that they are being taken under consideration and further work needs to be done before we get there. Again, it's the inertia I spoke about.

My concern about the classes of soldiers resonates in just about everything we do. If you're a class A soldier on a training exercise and you should become ill or injured, there's going to be a different level of engagement, different level of benefit or service available to you. So I've been talking about parity. I've said it: I think once you put on the uniform, we should stop talking about levels of and types of soldiers.

Just take that forward for an example. If I have class A, B, B+, C, regular force, rangers, and cadets, and once I put all these entities together, now I have to have several programs that have three and four streams because I have three environments—army, navy, and air force. So I multiply and make things so complex that I can see why there are delays and why the system is as stuck as it is.

I'm about to release a report within the next 45 to 60 days that's going to talk straight up about parity for reservists across the board. That will be coming out of my office, as I said, within the next two months. I am talking about a way to stop talking about classes of soldiers. If you have the uniform on and you get hurt while you're serving this country, the benefits and services suites should be open to all.

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

I completely agree with you on that.

My colleague Darren Fisher raised a question about that a bit earlier.

I have experienced it and know that the resistance to change in the Canadian Armed Forces is extremely strong. We are familiar with this resistence at the political level between the government and the opposition. In my opinion, a political decision cannot produce change. Regardless of which party is in power, the problem is within the Canadian Armed Forces. Is there even a way to impose change?

I know that when they receive an order, all members of the military obey. Yet if no order is given, they do not do anything. They do not move. Is there a way to get the chain of command to make draconian decisions so that all force members comply? Do you think it is because there are many levels of command that it is difficult for a directive to be followed? In your opinion, do the problems have be solved at the political level or by the Canadian Armed Forces?

[Gary Walbourne]

There are two parts to that question.

I do believe there are certain things that are outside the realm of authority of the Canadian Armed Forces, such as increasing benefits or those types of things. But I do believe also that many of the issues we're talking about are within the control of the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces. To change the release process is well within their authority. To decide to retain a member, that's going to run into an impact on the salary and wage envelope. That might be causing some chafing.

I do believe there are many things that we could be doing inside the department without any request or demand on the political side of the equation. Again, it's a matter of, as you said, when the Canadian Armed Forces decides to do something. When General Jon Vance decided that he was going to operationalize sexual assaults, sexual harassment, he pulled the trigger and put the resources to it and the entity is up and running and starting to collect a lot of data and a lot of engagement. So it is possible.

The chief of the defence staff did say at the stakeholder summit three weeks ago that they're looking at operationalizing the transition process to make sure there's an operational standard and process that everyone will have to pass through.

My only word of caution is this. I do believe we can do things, but some of these things we're trying to operationalize are very emotional. I think the chief has taken the time to get these things right. But I believe we need to start. We can start. We don't need outside influence to change some of the things we're currently talking about.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Mr. Rioux, you have the floor.

[Jean Rioux, Liberal, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Walbourne, it is a pleasure to meet you twice in such a short time.

As a member of the veterans affairs committee, I can tell you that the information you gave us was very useful to me during the week after our meeting. I met three different groups of veterans and I think I gave them some measure of hope.

I am the MP for Saint-Jean. The Royal Military College and the military base are in my riding. Members of the military move around a great deal. You said that members of the military were experiencing unreasonable financial losses from the sale of their homes. My colleague talked about this earlier. Since home prices vary from one region to another, force members arriving from other parts of the country often have to pay more for a house in Saint-Jean. So they suffer losses that are not covered. Moreover, force members do not have very much time to find a house.

In addition, the forces should cover certain costs to allow force members to go see a house or other accommodations. I think they are allowed three visits. If they leave before the end of their posting, the costs add up.

Some property developers have come to see me to suggest building housing stock including houses and other accommodations. Since the price would be based on market conditions, people would know what it is. These developers would offer a service to show people this standard housing by video. In addition, there would be no penalty for people leaving before the end of their tour since there would be constant turnover.

Might that be a more efficient system so that the forces and their members would not lose money?

[Gary Walbourne]

Currently our office is working on an electronic engagement type of resource that we'll have available to all members of the Canadian Armed Forces. It's going to be a little more than the ABCs of moving. We're going to tie it in to the MLS system so that you can see average housing prices across the country, and so on and so forth. I think that's a tool that will help the families make some good, conscious decisions.

As for military housing, the Canadian Forces housing agency has turned the corner. I think they're starting to do some really good work.

With reference to allowing people to visit by video, I was in Yellowknife earlier this year, and what they've started to do there—an initiative on their own—is measure the rooms, take pictures, run videos, and send these to the potential occupants of these houses. It is working out extremely well. I think it's an initiative that was started by CFHA in Yellowknife. Someone very low on the management ladder decided to take this upon themselves. The response has been fantastic.

I know Ms. Francoeur was looking at expanding that program. I understand that she has recently announced her retirement. I'm hoping CFHA will continue with that type of program. I think tying it in to an educational model that we're going to publish will help to alleviate some of these issues.

[Jean Rioux, Liberal, Saint-Jean, QC]

What do you think of the idea of the private sector providing housing stock?

[Gary Walbourne]

That's a very large piece. Once you get into the private sector, what part of the private sector is it? Will there be competition? All these things have to be considered.

I think the Canadian Armed Forces do a good job with the housing they have. They're starting to modernize the whole portfolio across the country. There are many options we could look at that would be of benefit to the members.

As for engagement with the private sector, it's way outside my purview of authority. I'm a little uncomfortable with the question.

[Jean Rioux, Liberal, Saint-Jean, QC]

Okay. I understand.

At the end of your report, you stated the following:

My position has always been: a soldier is a soldier; an aviator is an aviator; and a sailor is a sailor. Once you put a uniform on, you are in service to Canada. If you get hurt while you are in uniform—serving Canada—you should be treated equally.

Does that mean there are disparities between the three branches of service?

[Gary Walbourne]

The different type of treatment usually comes from the class of soldier. Are you class A, just in for your Thursday night or on the weekends? Are you class B less than 180 days? Are you class B greater than 180 days? Are you class C? I think that's where the complexity comes from.

I believe that, depending where you find yourself, whether you're A, B, or C, if you should become injured, the potential benefit suite and care can be different across all three elements and across all levels of soldiers. That's my concern when I ask, once you put on the uniform, should it matter?

[Jean Rioux, Liberal, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Chair, may I ask one final question?

It's just a short one.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

I'm sorry, but we're out of time. I'm going to give the floor to Mr. Bezan.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Walbourne, for your great reports, for spending time with us today, and for discussing all the different issues that are facing our men and women in uniform, but in particular for the last two reports you've brought out focusing on those who are in transition, are ill, injured, or being medically released. You make some great recommendations.

I know there is discussion around the whole idea of concierge service, something that you brought forward and I know the CDS embraces, something you feel could be done through the surgeon general's office, that it can handle some of this transition. I know there are others out there who are thinking that this should be controlled by Veterans Affairs. I just want to get your opinion on where the concierge service should be, how it would operate, and how that would tie into Veterans Affairs as the member moves over.

[Gary Walbourne]

One of the major concerns we hear from transitioning members is the fact that they have to talk to multiple people. There can be two case managers. There can be two rehabilitation programs. It's just the complexity of what's there.

When I speak about a concierge, let me be very clear. It should be a Canadian Armed Forces member. The members who are releasing adapt better and respond better to their comrades. I'm talking about a Canadian Armed Forces concierge service. I think it could be tied into the IPSCs, the joint personnel support units and the IPSCs on the wings or bases. I believe that's a great place for it to be, but I am very certain of the position I take, that it should be a Canadian Armed Forces member. Just for the continuity for the member who is releasing, having that ability to talk to someone who has lived your life, I think, goes an extremely long way.

I think the concierge service is not to do the work but to make sure the member is getting to where he or she needs to be next, or explaining what's coming next, so that we can ease this burden that's placed upon that member. I'm adamant that it should be a Canadian Armed Forces member.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

With your experience of being, first, the deputy ombudsman over at Veterans Affairs and now being the ombudsman at National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces, you clearly have articulated that there's a backlog over at Veterans Affairs, so if it actually got hold of the concierge service, that would exacerbate the problem, would it not?

[Gary Walbourne]

It wasn't I who raised the backlog. I think it was the CBC that released the report about two weeks ago.

The backlog exists. I know that Veterans Affairs Canada is in the process of hiring a whole bunch more front-line people. Maybe that will reduce the backlog. The backlog exists, so having worked and having had to meet a payroll in my life, I know that when something is not working, you don't add more to it. I don't think it's through anyone's fault that we find ourselves here—I just think it's time and circumstance—but if there is a burden on one entity or another of your business, then you don't go back to that entity with more burden. I think we have to give them relief.

When I talk about setting this up inside the Canadian Armed Forces, it's not to take anything away from Veterans Affairs Canada, because I think it does fantastic work, but it is to make sure that the downstream entity that will receive these files has a chance to get it right. I think if we keep just releasing people and they keep finding themselves here, yes, our backlog will remain. That's what I'm talking about. I think we need to be very clear about the lines of responsibility, when we let go and when they catch. That's where we find ourselves today.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

From your experience, why is there resistance from Veterans Affairs to accept the terms of medical release from National Defence, especially as they're coming through the surgeon general's office?

[Gary Walbourne]

I don't believe it's a reluctance. I'll go back to the fact that it's a process that's been set up over 40 years, and we've always done it this way. Do we know another way to do it? Have we looked at other ways to do it? I can't say. I don't think it's reluctance. I just think this square peg doesn't fit into the round hole.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

From the standpoint of the surgeon general actually making these determinations of whether or not a release is attributable to service, are the resources there for the surgeon general's office to continue to do those types of determinations and share that information with VAC?

Also, I know you've presented this to the minister, and he wrote back to you. What was the response from the minister?

[Gary Walbourne]

As for the surgeon general—I like to keep things as simple as possible—when a member of the Canadian Armed Forces has breached universality of service, his or her career is over with the Canadian Armed Forces. To breach universality of service, shouldn't that be adjudication enough for everybody? That's my point. Will there be some requirement on the part of the surgeon general maybe to have more medical officers or medical techs, whatever that looks like? Possibly, but there's going to be a cost to doing business, and right now I think we've shifted a lot of that cost onto the backs of the members who are releasing. Those are the ones who are waiting for the adjudication. Those are the ones who are waiting for these benefits to be put in place. I do believe there may be a demand for some resources at the surgeon general's organization, but I believe what we can save on the other end is going to far outweigh that cost.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Thank you.

Ms. Romanado, you have the floor.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Thank you. I have some additional questions—

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Sorry, Mr. Chair, but on a point of order, I think in the spirit of motions at committee, all members get a chance to ask questions. I know that Mr. Robillard hasn't asked a question yet. I think he should be given the opportunity. If he doesn't want it, then it's up to him whether or not he shares that time or passes it on. It's not a determination of the chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Thank you for that, Mr. Bezan, but I had already conferred with my colleague and he passed his question over to Ms. Romanado.