Veterans Affairs Committee on Nov. 24th, 2009

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Thank you for coming today. Sorry, my apologies for being a little late.

I've got three questions. One of them was put together by one of our analysts. But first on PTSD, post-traumatic stress disorder, and doing more for people who come back with PTSD, how can we get that into the new Veterans Charter? How can we get these people rehabilitated and possibly back into our forces?

[Dr. Elizabeth Taylor]

From my perspective, it's that return-to-work connection. The project at Valcartier clearly demonstrated that if you can reintegrate people during the time they're experiencing the OSI injury or the PTSD, if you can start and work with them right on the bases where they reintegrate at a return-to-work program, they do very well, and very often then they don't need to move into the Department of Veterans Affairs side.

So I think we need more return-to-work programs.

Let me give you another example. We have a project at the university where I work. It's called an occupational performance analysis unit. We're seeing more and more military there as well, and they're working with the base to try to reintegrate them, because when you're a soldier, you're a soldier for life. That's the image you have of yourself. So when you're rehabilitating, rather than being put in the canteen, it's really important that you begin to establish yourself in the job that you would have had before.

A good example is what we've been using in Nova Scotia where an occupational therapist worked--this is a direct service example--with a soldier who had had an injury to his shoulder, had lost most of his shoulder, and also has an OSI injury. The occupational therapist, using a wooden gun and a Wii mechanism, rebuilt the weights in the shoulder, but also there was a psychological re-engagement in what he was meant to be. The soldier did not move to the VA side. He stayed in the military. So we firmly believe that we've got to be both places, but the return to work is a very strong and very crucial part of what we need to do for our veterans, whether they're integrating into the military or whether they're moving into the return to work on the Veterans Affairs side. It's very important that those programs exist.

[Ronald Griffis]

In partial response to your question, may I suggest you're never going to be able to completely erase what's in the memory of the soldier who experiences trauma, occupational stress injury. I'm not a professional, but by the same token, the more they talk about it perhaps the better it is, perhaps in our particular case, with people who have experienced that particular trauma of picking up body pieces or experiencing trauma that was absolutely out of this world. They have to be able to accept it and deal with it, but deal with it after a professional intervention.

[Lorne McCartney]

One of the problems you're dealing with, and we've talked about it, and certainly returning to work is good, because when you return to work you're dealing with outsiders who can see a problem developing.... In the home, it's another story. You don't know you have PTSD, and sometimes months, years later, you wake up short of breath, a whole pile of experiences, and then you realize you have a problem. But being military in nature, a lot of people will refuse to acknowledge that problem or think they can deal with it themselves.

That's the next question: is the spouse authorized to make a phone call on the person's behalf? Do they even know it's happening? Sometimes they've split up, and it's too late, the people are on their own.

So it's getting that person out there when the PTSD symptoms raise their head, and then finding the right people to help them get better.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Thank you.

This is a question our analyst identified for us, and it relates to getting back to work. The Canadian Forces have changed policies, so that seriously disabled military personnel can stay in the military longer compared to those on early release in the past. As a result, do you believe the real test of rehabilitation and other services of the new Veterans Charter will only take place a few years from now?

[Lorne McCartney]

Yes, that's one of the problems they're faced with: it's all based on getting out; a whole series of things happen when the person gets out. By delaying it two or three years, some of those things are missed. That's one of the issues that was raised here, that somehow we have to get together.

Why are they keeping them in longer when perhaps they should be discharged? Don't get me wrong, there are many places within the military where a person without legs or arms, for instance, can work, and work very effectively. I like that idea. But is that the only reason these people are staying in? Or are there other things having to do with what you get when you get out isn't giving you the amount of money you need to live properly?

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair (Mr. Robert Oliphant), Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you.

We now go to Mr. Mayes of the Conservative Party.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much to the witnesses for being here today.

I'd like to direct my first question to Mrs. Taylor, please.

The occupational therapist is dealing after the fact. Do you think work should be done with the active soldiers in the Canadian Forces, an education on how to deal with not only the stress and the symptoms of PTSD, but also the transition that might have to be made? Could you comment on that, please?

[Dr. Elizabeth Taylor]

Evidence in the civilian literature would suggest that would be very effective in the military, so you have to look from both sides. It hasn't occurred in the military yet, but certainly the education that goes along with the kinds of stress management, the kinds of dealing, the communication of what OSI injuries look like, and how you can effectively deal if you begin to get one should occur much earlier.

And certainly the work with transitional programs is well documented and should occur within the military so they understand where they start, where they're going, and where they may go within the course of their careers.

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

Do you think there also needs to be a little education around the structure of the military, which maybe doesn't traditionally allow for that conversation to happen?

[Dr. Elizabeth Taylor]

Absolutely.

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

I have a question for Mr. Griffis and Mr. McCartney. It has to do with the 75% earnings-loss benefit and the one-time cash settlement. I am a former claims chair of an insurance company. But I found it difficult to assess a person's earnings potential in light of his career advancement possibilities. I was also unsure about the method of compensation to apply.

First, was the cash settlement intended to compensate for that possible loss? Secondly, have you come up with a way of rating the loss, so that the settlement would be more reflective of it?

[Lorne McCartney]

We've gone through this in our meetings. With respect to the pain and suffering—and it is only pain and suffering—it's clear that the way it was brought out is the only reason it's there.

You were talking about the rate?

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

What I was saying was that the cash settlement for pain and suffering is not compensation for the loss of potential earnings.

[Lorne McCartney]

If you go to the people who run insurance programs, especially people who look after injuries, there's well- established information. They can look at the information and know how particular ranks progress—on average—during the course of a career. Some people might be getting out when they're 30, or whatever, but they have ways of handling these things. There is a mythology behind it that is agreed to by insurance companies.

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

Mr. Griffis, do you have any comments?

[Ronald Griffis]

I would like to make a comment on the 75% salary you get when you leave injured. That is taxable. I don't understand why it's not 100% and then taxable. If you were employed in a routine job and you were injured, when you went on worker's comp, or some other plan, you would still get 100% of your salary, though it's taxable in some cases. So the 75% taxable, I don't understand how that ever came to pass.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you.

On to Monsieur Asselin.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I feel that the government and National Defence put a lot of money into seduction and promotion in order to entice young people to join the Canadian Forces.

However, because they are often young, as you said so well, they lack experience and training because they are often reservists. We call on them to serve, and, unfortunately, military personnel can be injured in accidents.

Instead of putting so much money into seducing young people into the Canadian Forces, why does the government not put the same amount of money into prevention? The goal would be to alert soldiers, the men or women who join the Canadian Forces, as to their rights and privileges, what they will be entitled to if an accident should happen, what they will be entitled to when they are no longer in the military and are considered veterans. These people deserve follow-up, just as if they were still National Defence's responsibility; they should not be left to their own devices.

The people left to their own devices are real people. They have served us to the best of their ability. When they are wounded, physically or psychologically, it is over for them, and we move on. They are considered merely numbers.

The government should work on prevention first and foremost. In order to understand it all—you have taught us a lot this morning—there should be a real investigation. Perhaps we would find out things that we already knew, but we cannot just go in circles like this. You are going to come back in a year or two and tell us all the same things because nothing will have changed. We must consult veterans first, and their families, the children and the wives, or the husbands, because there are also women in the Canadian Forces.

You also said that the SISIP is not working. What are we waiting for to get rid of it or make it work differently? I feel that we need to move quickly. I also see that veterans are being left on their own. They are wounded. They may not be in wheelchairs, but they are psychologically and physically wounded, and they are being left to their own devices. They have to fight, in the face of their financial problems, their family problems, their disabilities, their despair. They then reach the only solution they see as possible: suicide. They see no light at the end of the tunnel. The only way out of the disaster that they are living is suicide.

The government has a moral responsibility. The government, the Conservatives mostly, should begin an investigation in order to help us find solutions. The people who could help us do that are those who have the experience of it all, personal experience.

Let us please not have a Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs to which we invite people to testify—it costs a lot of money to operate, Mr. Chair—and then, after the meeting, we put everything into file 13, start wondering who next week's witness will be, and keep going like that without anything changing.

My colleague is soon going to be introducing a motion asking for a real investigation into cases of suicide in the Canadian Forces, and I hope that the Conservatives are going to have enough compassion to bring themselves to vote in favour of the motion.

Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to know what is not working with SISIP. I would like you to explain it more. It looks like the organization does not want to support our veterans.

I have to say that you are quite right. You do not see many veterans at the Royal Canadian Legion, especially the younger ones.

[Lorne McCartney]

One of the problems with SISIP, which is an insurance-based thing, is that they are the ones that are preventing higher levels of remuneration. Money was paid in such that people would get, for instance, 75% of their wages, and half their taxes. Because the money was put in, that's the only money they have available. They can't exceed it. Not only that, any other money that's given to the individual is written off against the cap of 75% and SISIP puts it in its pocket, because you were allowed to make only up to 75%.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

You are quite right. If a person has lost a leg or both arms—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Asselin—

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

—he is considered disabled, but if the wound is psychological, it is hard to prove.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Monsieur Asselin, you're already over your time. I was simply letting the witness answer. You consumed four and a half minutes in your introduction, Monsieur.

Go ahead.