Veterans Affairs Committee on Oct. 20th, 2009

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Thank you for being here again.

I do want to extend congratulations on the fact that you and our program were recognized internationally by the Australian community, and they were the head agency for the international look at programs. Of course, there are always areas for improvement and a lot of the discussion has been on that today.

I'm interested in going down a line of questioning about where it does tip the balance, because I think you brought up the point about where you actually cross the line of offering too much. That will be different for different people, but certainly the experts in the field of assistance say there's a point at which the individual has to want this rehabilitation and has to want to get back into the workforce. Most probably do, but it's different for different people. Do you have difficulty in dealing with that with the charter as it exists?

[Brian Ferguson]

To say that we don't have any would be misleading. Actually, I think it's a continuing issue because, as you say, with each individual case it's probably different, and each has to be assessed on its own merits.

Our case managers are trained social workers who are trained in dealing with the new processes under the charter. One of the things we try to do right up front is establish a contract with the individual. There's a contractual relationship whereby the individual says, “This is what I want to achieve out of my rehab program and this is what I'm committed to do to help make that happen”. That's a new tool, if you like, that helps us in this regard.

But there is a strong recognition that you're talking about people here. You're talking about people who for years and years and years in the system would have bent over backwards to do everything possible for our veterans. They still will, but they have to learn that in this new environment you really are helping them in a better way if you can get them to focus on their transition. I think we're making good progress in that regard, but it's not perfect yet.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

I think the committee is kind of directing questions that way. How do we offer them more of a hand up, more of a way to make the transition? Perhaps it's reinventing themselves in their lives out in the private sector. In that regard, I'm not so certain I'm clear on this, but if a veteran has an opportunity, let's say, such as in that one example of going into a drafting career as an architectural technologist or something like that, is there a program that incents the employer to provide an opening for a veteran?

[Brian Ferguson]

No, not that I'm aware of. I know there have been a lot of efforts made by the Canadian private sector communities in certain areas to take steps to help veterans, but I'm not aware of any broad-ranging, comprehensive program.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Is it something that you--or the department--have ever explored?

[Brian Ferguson]

Our response has been the job placement program. As part of the planning in the job placement program, it really does connect individuals with employers and gets them to approach employers. That has been our response to date.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

I guess there are a lot of parallels to my way of thinking in a community that I've spent a lot of time in, the community of people with special needs, often with disabilities that aren't so severe that they cannot work 20 hours a week. They may not be able to work 40 hours a week. In this case, they're generally in fairly menial work, but having said that, I will say that it improves their self-image so much. It helps them so much.

Often the way to get them into a work environment is to provide an incentive to the employer to consider this person in that work environment. I'm not suggesting subsidizing wages, but even a tax incentive program of some sort can facilitate this. To me, it's just another tool in your tool box.

I'm suggesting that the program look at this possibility because there are a lot of people who do desire to work, although maybe not full time because they're not able to focus that long. Maybe it's a way to still get them out there and into meaningful work. Again, there are all the self-image benefits that go along with that. As for overcoming other problems, an employer may say they need someone full time, not part time, or that type of thing. This is just another idea.

I also wanted to comment on the chart. In the deck, it's on page 13.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

I just want to advise you that you're at 5:36 right now. There is another Conservative slot, but you're going into the second question period.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

I'll just make a quick comment.

I'm really, really buoyed by the favourable rate of approvals when people access the program. I really want to commend you on that.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Now we'll go to Mr. Kerr for five minutes.

[Greg Kerr, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Thank you very much, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Madam Sgro?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, could you save five minutes or so at the end of the meeting so that we might talk about new business?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Absolutely.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

My apologies.

[Greg Kerr, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Does that come into my time?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Certainly not. I'll let you have it from the Liberal time.

[Greg Kerr, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Now I'm rattled. I don't know what to do.

Welcome, Mr. Ferguson and Mr. Mogan. It's good to see you again.

As just a general thing, because the committee wants to look at the charter itself and do a review, one of the things I've learned in this short year of being associated with the department is that there's an incredible amount of activity that goes on, and often the overlaps take place. You can tell from the questions, which sometimes go into an area that's totally separate, and so on.

One of the things I want to focus on for a moment and get some comments on from you as we try to move forward is that there's an evaluation process under way, and I think it's important that we're made very clear what that is so that we're not duplicating effort. But the committee does want to take a look at the review, and certainly when I started off, in my briefing last November, one of the first things we ran into was the discussions with the legion about this living document. It still sticks in my mind that there were many players who participated very actively in the creation of the original document, and I think the committee would probably like to hear from the appropriate groups that were early participants. So it would be helpful to know what the list looks like, so we can make sure that we at least include those who should be here.

The other thing, though—and perhaps you can help us out a bit here—is whether there are some things where we'd add to a problem, as opposed to a solution, if we delve in them too deeply right now. In other words, is there a point to waiting until the evaluation process is complete before we get into that?

I'm not looking for us to avoid it. I just don't want us to get involved in duplicating effort if in fact we're going to get a report in a few months that's going to clarify something.

Can you comment on that? As we move forward looking at this, I'm sure every member here wants to be helpful. We all have our individual frustrations, including, I know, professionals in the department, but I think we have something good going here as a basic premise. The process is a good one. The charter has some excellent opportunity to even improve on what it's doing right now, but we want to make sure that we're being helpful, as opposed to simply adding a parallel track going down the road.

Do you have some general comment as we move forward as to things that we perhaps should be considering ourselves as a committee?

[Brian Ferguson]

I could say something. And Darragh, perhaps you have some comments.

I wouldn't put any constraints on the committee in terms of looking at the charter, because I think it should all be examined from cradle to grave.

However, there is one area—and I don't know how to express it clearly, but it was touched on here: Maybe the committee could ponder the issue of independence versus assistance. I know it's a pretty intangible area, but it's one that is important in the overall scheme of things. Sometimes you get bound up in a particular case where you just know in your heart that there needs to be a bit of discipline but you can't get there because there is just no possibility in the end. In other cases, you want to do more, but you may feel that you can't get there.

What I'm throwing out is a very intangible suggestion, but it is an important one, because it's an area where I think this committee could offer some informed judgment as to where the department should be heading.

[Darragh Mogan]

The only thing I would add is that what you as politicians focus on is going to be very important. It adds evidence. If, for instance, findings of this group on notion A, B, and C were the same as the veterans organizations on A, B, and C—the special needs advisory group, the new veterans charter, the research, and the international evidence that's there—that just adds weight to moving forward in those three areas, and in my view, it can do nothing but good.

[Greg Kerr, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Thank you. That's pretty clear.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Just for clarification, Mr. Ferguson, when you were talking about the aspect of the intangible, is the limitation primarily with the fact that the individual CF member does not want to go ahead with any kind of treatment or the process that you have for employment re-engagement, or is it more on the privacy issue, or is it both?

[Brian Ferguson]

I think it's both, and we've wrestled to find the right balance between the two, from time to time. It's not something you can legislate in that sense, but it's something to be aware of in the overall picture, that it's a constant balancing act as we go through the implementation of the charter.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you.

Now we'll move to the Liberal Party for five minutes.

Mr. Andrews, do you have some questions?

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Yes, I do. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I've asked the clerk about a couple of the reports that you have identified on page 24 of your slide presentation, the NVCAG report and the SNAG report. I understand we will be able to get copies.

The SNAG report from January, it says here, “identifies gaps with respect to financial compensation”. Exactly what gaps were they referring to there, and do you agree that those gaps exist?