Veterans Affairs Committee on Nov. 19th, 2009

[Prof. Muriel Westmorland]

I'll make a brief comment on your first point about the ombudsman. We worked on our report separately. We're aware of what Colonel Pat Stogran has been doing as an ombudsman, and in fact he attended our recent meeting, but we have not actually actively, as a committee, sent him information. He has a copy of the report now, so in that instance that's how I want to respond.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Did DND as well?

[Prof. Muriel Westmorland]

DND has a representative at the table. They are aware of the details--

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Oh, I'm sorry; I meant the DND ombudsman.

[Prof. Muriel Westmorland]

The ombudsman was actually at the table for the first time at our last meeting.... Oh, you mean the DND ombudsman; no, we haven't had a representative at the table.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Okay.

[Prof. Muriel Westmorland]

I have a quick comment and then I'd like to ask Joe Sharpe to respond, because he's been chairing the economic needs committee.

As a rehabilitation professional, I can tell you that the issue you raised is critical in terms of getting an individual back to wellness. Money, as we all know, can be a very stressful experience, and this, as you quite rightly say, is just a tremendous, terrible indignity that's being handed to a lot of these individuals.

This case actually came from our psychologist, who dealt with this individual. The psychologist was fit to be tied in terms of what was presented to her. All of us, without question, were really indignant that this was still going on. There's a huge concern and there's a real disconnect. You read the information, and it looks great, but when you start digging, you can see that in reality there are individuals who are really suffering, and they're being caught between a number of different points in the system.

I'd like to ask Joe to get into this in more detail.

[BGen Gordon Sharpe]

I won't go into too great a detail because I recognize the time constraints.

The one we've called “Tom” is a personal involvement. I've been involved with this chap for a number of years. Quite frankly, it's one that really, really bothers me, and that's why it's in here.

We don't tell the whole story. You can't, obviously, in a very short period of time. This one indeed has been worked through the CF ombudsman. In fact, I spent three months doing the background and investigation for them on this one to try to get it moving forward.

The challenge we have.... I'll just step back for a second. Again, from the soldier's perspective, and particularly from the veteran's perspective, the challenge is dealing with bureaucracy. Any bureaucracy is a challenge to start with, and in a personal opinion not necessarily reflected by my cohorts here, the bureaucracy has become stifling in the ombudsman's offices. That's not a.... Pat Stogran is a personal friend and I have tremendous respect for him, etc., and it's the same with the CF-DND ombudsman, although that tends to be a little more bureaucratic, but any time one of these guys has to approach that bureaucracy, it's intimidating.

For Tom, in this case, it took every ounce of determination this fellow had, plus the psychologist, Vivienne Rowan, pushing him to actually talk to me the first time. It was all he could do. It virtually almost destroyed him to do that. And I'm not the bureaucracy. I'm just some old guy drifting around talking to old soldiers. His case continues to deteriorate because he doesn't follow the rules. He doesn't sort of fit the pattern. That's the background on this particular case, but the others are similar.

Most of the people who “fall between the very large gaps” we have are people who have trouble interacting with the bureaucracy. That's why one of my concerns is that in this transition process from the uniformed life to the civilian life--or for the reservists, every time they do it--there has to be a focus of attention on that particular phase. How do we do that better? How do we actually reach out there and push some of these services on these guys who are either too proud or too intimidated by the system to use it?

As soon as we start challenging their dignity, we lose them, and that's a major concern. I would just reflect the dignity and respect part of it. We have to beat that into people, quite frankly.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Thank you.

Could I have just a quick one, a snapper, Mr. Chair?

I'll get back to you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Stoffer and Mr. Sharpe.

We'll now go on to the Conservative Party for seven minutes. Mr. Mayes.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the advisory group for being here. I really appreciate that and I appreciate all the work that you've done to make these recommendations to make the charter better. I often speak with Betty Hinton, who used to be the parliamentary secretary for this committee. She's still interested and still asks questions about how the charter is coming along. Thank you for your work.

I note one of the challenges in looking at recommendation 2.1, “End the legacy of the insurance-based approach to economic benefits”. I can understand that. Mr. Sharpe explained the disadvantages. But also, I sat as a chair on a claims committee for an insurance company. The challenge is to determine what compensation or award would give a reasonable quality of life. How is that determined? How do you analyze that?

If I may, I'll ask Mr. Sharpe this question. Did you do any research into what they're doing in other countries like Australia, the U.K., or the United States with regard to that issue?

[Prof. Muriel Westmorland]

I can certainly respond in terms of the fact that the Department of Veterans Affairs has done a fairly extensive review of what is happening in other countries. As I understand it, they were very much influenced by Australia. That was a major player in informing the process of looking at claims. My understanding was that this largely led to the position of where the claims grid certainly ended up.

Joe, did you want to add to that?

[BGen Gordon Sharpe]

One of the members of our subcommittee who is very well versed in this area and has done a lot of personal research into it is Brian Forbes. Quite frankly, some of our suggested solutions are based on best practices, if I can use that term. It's not necessarily just in the military but in the broad spectrum. As you'll notice in one of our comparisons, we take that lump sum payment, for example, which we give our soldiers if they lose a leg or an arm, or whatever, and compare it to what would happen in the civil sector if you lost your arm or leg in a car accident, or whatever. It's about a half. It's significantly less in the military case. Without beating that particular horse, one of the things we're trying to get to here is to treat our people fairly and equitably, like we would treat anybody else. If a soldier loses a leg, that should be at least the same as if you lose a leg in a car accident. That's really what we're trying to say here. We're not saying they have these gold-plated awards, but we should be actually looking for comparability. I would suggest other militaries are certainly worth looking at. The Australian model is certainly one that VAC has looked at. We should probably look across Canadian society too, because we are a different society from many others.

[Prof. Muriel Westmorland]

Can I ask for Dr. Loisel's experience? He has some thoughts on this too.

[Dr. Patrick Loisel]

I think we need to understand that there are two very distinct problems. One is compensation for a loss, such as the loss of a leg. There is a dollar figure attached to that, and that is normal. There is the civilian versus military debate. A price can be put on it, albeit very artificial.

The second thing is to make it possible for this individual to reintegrate into society. No amount of money, short of being astronomical, would allow someone to truly reintegrate, without the means to do so. Those means are especially difficult for a veteran, who has to leave military life and enter civilian life, which is vastly different in day-to-day living. The person then has to find a job, which can already be tough for a civilian. You can see there is another layer involved.

And that is what insurance is not good at providing. In fact, it is the insurance model. I am not saying that insurance cannot provide it, but, based on the economic insurance model, the second point is harder to achieve, generally speaking, and not just for veterans.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

You actually answered my second question partially, and I thank you for that.

I want to get back to caution that mindset of looking at what happens in the courts with regard to claims. You have to remember that the lawyers who defend those claims are getting 30% or 40% of the claims, so the claimant doesn't actually get the full settlement. So you have to take that into consideration.

That was my next question. There was a statement made about some of the challenges of disconnecting these veterans so that they understand that people care and want to help and deal with their problems. Do you think it would be valuable to start earlier on connecting with those people in the Canadian Forces? For instance, sit down with those who are active today and build up a relationship with the Department of Veterans Affairs and let them know that this is not just you serve, you go, and we'll take care of you if something happens, or you have your pension or whatever it might be. We were told, I think it was last week, that the average veteran is now 43 years old. That's not a very old person as far as I'm concerned. There's a long-term relationship that needs to be built up as they go forward.

Could you comment on that, please?

[Prof. Muriel Westmorland]

I'll just comment quickly.

I would say absolutely--one word--in terms of your statement. We feel very strongly that early intervention is essential. In fact, there have been some strides forward, with Major-General Walter Semianiw leading the charge, along with working with his VAC cohorts in setting up the joint personnel support units. These are set up to deliberately coordinate together but to physically have VAC staff and forces staff there in the same building. The idea is that this not only physically sets the fact that there's communication between the two departments but that individuals also then have access to a joint event and an opportunity to discuss these kinds of issues. It's far from perfect yet because it's in its infancy, but it's a big start in the right direction.

Don would like to add something to that.

[Col Donald S. Ethell]

We go back to CFAC, sir, early deliberations, better part of ten years ago. DND was over there, VAC was over here. You got out of the military--I use my own case as an example--and five years later I thought I had a hearing problem. I do have a hearing problem.

I went to the VAC. It took months to get these microfiche out of here, and thank God in my release medical--although I'm healthy as a horse, jumping out of airplanes, all the rest of it--the doctor had listed six different things. The VAC individual, the pension officer, asked me why I hadn't applied for all of them. That's kind of irrelevant. That's just a personal story.

But there was a long process, and part of the process that we went through in CFAC was to bring these two organizations together. Our thinking was that there would be a seamless approach from the time Bloggins or Susie joined the military until they moved into the veterans arena and then expired.

Now, a lot of people have worked very, very hard to do that. As the professor has indicated, the JPSUs are a quantum leap forward in regard to having VAC and DND working together. They work together in the OSISS committee and so forth.

So there has been a great closing of the ranks. It's even to the extent, as General Sharpe has indicated, that maybe there should be VAC individuals over in Kandahar, as an example--it's pretty secure inside the camp--because, as the chair has indicated, one of the things that Chief of Military Personnel General Semianiw and Brian Ferguson and others support is early intervention. If there's a problem with an individual who has been identified in the military, be it psychological or physical, then VAC needs to be involved right at the beginning. We don't want this big gap in which literally years and years go by.

So there has been a quantum leap forward. Is it perfect? Of course not. This is something that has to be worked on all the time.

[BGen Gordon Sharpe]

The only comment I would add to that is we have Tim Hortons in Kandahar, and it's a neat thing to be able to go down and get your coffee and bagel in the morning. I think we could probably benefit from having a VAC presence in Kandahar. Kudos to what has happened. It has come a long way, but I don't think we should ever stop pushing for what we think we need.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Your time has expired. Thank you very much for your answers.

Now on to the Liberal Party for five minutes. Mr. Andrews.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Thank you very much, folks, for coming in today.

First, let me congratulate you on this document that you've put together. It's quite comprehensive. It outlines everything quite cleanly, succinctly, and it's a very good read in understanding where we go in changing the charter.

Let me ask two questions, and if there's any time left, Madam Sgro has a couple of questions as well.

With regard to the recommendations--in particular, strengthening the family support services and 1.4 and 1.5, where we say provide more support to family members and support to survivors and families--you've got some strategies outlined here in this document. About the strategies, the VIP program, and how this program is helping veterans now, could you highlight some of the things that you would really like to focus on improving in the VIP program? It is a good program, but I'm sure we could make it better. The second part of that is providing respite care services. Could you elaborate a little more on that? You also talk about decommissioning some beds recently. It is an issue in my province, where there is a Department of Veterans Affairs thing there, and some modern-day veterans can't get access to the beds. So maybe you could elaborate on those two things.

Secondly, General Sharpe, when you mention losing track of veterans, I am astonished that Veterans Affairs Canada is not allowed to track our veterans and maintain a database of our veterans. I really think that is something we need to do, because unless a veteran comes to Veterans Affairs, there's no way to do outreach. It's so important to have outreach and maintain a list of veterans from DND over to Veterans Affairs so you can do the outreach.

It's just something we've talked about around this committee four or five times, and it amazes me that we don't have that ability. We can track everything else, but government is not allowed to track our veterans.

[Prof. Muriel Westmorland]

You've asked a couple of questions. I'll just make a brief comment about the importance of the caregiving role and the issues there, and then I'll ask Don to talk about that in more detail.

I myself have been a caregiver twice, having lost two of my family members to cancer. I know what the stress is like. In this instance, we're talking about a very, very stressful situation for most of the caregivers. One can say that if you love the person, you'll do everything for them. That isn't enough. The fact is that a number of people who are caregivers have lost their jobs in order to provide the care that is needed. As they age, there is the issue of not being able to provide supports, whether they be physical or psychological, because of the stress.

The caregiving world cannot be underestimated. We were very concerned about what needs to happen in order to strengthen that role and the fact that if an individual hasn't, for example, used VIP, then the opportunity to obtain that is not there. That's really a major concern, and I think Donald would probably like to elaborate on that a bit more.

[Col Donald S. Ethell]

One of the members of our families committee is Gwen Manderville. Gwen is the widow of Chris Saunders, the lieutenant who was killed in a submarine incident. She's a delightful lady. When her husband was killed she had a babe in arms and a two-year-old child. She was covered by the old Veterans Charter, such as it was.

I will digress for a moment. When we went through CFAC, we made a point of emphasizing to the traditional veterans—World War I, World War II, and Korea—that we were not going to make any recommendations that infringed on their rights and privileges. That's an aside, because we're concentrating on CF members.

Until March 1993, Joe Sharpe and I weren't considered veterans, regardless of our service. It was just traditional veterans—World War I and World War II. I'm getting off the subject here.

But in the case of Gwen Manderville, she's remarried, to a police officer, to which we said, “Geez, Gwen, can't you find a bank clerk or somebody to marry?” Anyhow, that's beside the point. She is a delightful lady. She was covered under the old charter. She sat with us in committee and she brought a lot to the table, particularly regarding VIP. She said she would have loved to have somebody take care of her kids for a couple of hours every afternoon; however, it “wasn't in the regulations”.

The VIP has been inserted into the new Veterans Charter now, not only with regard to individuals, but the family members if required. They've come a long, long way from having nothing to where they are now.

Sir, you made a point about the decommissioning of beds, which is a separate issue. I'll put on one of my other hats, from the veterans quarterly consultative group that we have with the Department of Veterans Affairs. We're aware of the decommissioning of beds across Canada. The good news is that they're decommissioned but they have not been given up. From my understanding from Veterans Affairs, there's still a string attached to them where they could activate these beds. It is a longstanding discussion or argument between the veterans organizations and VAC.

When we signed on to support the new Veterans Charter when it was going through Parliament and the process, we kept our powder dry. But there are two issues that were and still are on the table. One is the lump sum payment, whether it be giving the individual the option of a lump sum or annuity, and the other is long-term care.

The numbers of veterans are going down. When the last Korean veteran goes, there won't be any veterans beds left. We find that disturbing. As I said, the good news is that they're decommissioned, so the negotiations aren't over yet.

Having said that, to the credit of the Department of Veterans Affairs—and we've talked this through—rather than the individual going into a long-term-care centre, like the Perley Rideau, or the Colonel Belcher, in Calgary, and so forth, they take the service to the individual. In other words, they try to keep him or her in their home environment, which is where most of them prefer to be. You can take that with a grain of salt, but that's the theory, and in fact that's the practice right now.

Does that answer your question, sir?

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

It's good background information for someone who's new to the committee.

Thank you.

[BGen Gordon Sharpe]

Tracking veterans when they go presents a serious problem. There are challenges, and the bureaucracy will tell you about a lot of them.

I circulated an e-mail this week. We've been beating up on the system a bit, particularly on the mental health side. Young Frédéric was one of the reasons we've been doing that. The answer that came back written by a very senior medical officer in the Canadian Forces was that if they don't self-identify, the system can't help them. I have a difficult time accepting that as an answer, because it's a medical community. I understand that this is a restraint the medical community lives under. They have to; they can't fix that. The chain of command would not accept it.

I know from personal experience that if you have an individual in your command who you're having difficulty contacting, you will do anything and everything necessary to maintain that contact. That's why I say we keep beating this drum. This is a leadership issue, not a medical one. Tracking of our veterans is a leadership issue, not a medical one. We lose our reservists constantly, particularly our reservists. It's a serious concern.