Veterans Affairs Committee on Nov. 30th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Mr. Kerr is next, please.

[Greg Kerr, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to you both.

I'd like to continue from where Peter Stoffer was, in the sense that as a committee we're learning a lot about.... There have been a lot of advancements and a lot of things have happened, but there are a lot of things left to do.

One of those continuing issues is employability--when we talk about the charter, or as part of our Veterans Affairs stuff, or whatever--and about keeping employed, or re-employing, those who have returned from particularly combat duty.

You were saying that you're at a point where you're looking at it. Can you give us a little more detail on that, and where you see that heading, in terms of the report you're talking about?

[Pierre Daigle]

I'm sorry, I'm not sure.... We haven't started our follow-up report yet. We will start that in a few months.

[Greg Kerr, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Okay. I'm sorry. I misunderstood. I thought you said--

[Pierre Daigle]

Because all of those questions have arisen in the past few years, and we did our last report in 2008, there are a lot of updates and a lot of things we need to look into further. That's why I decided that we'd do a follow-up to a follow-up, which we don't normally do. It's because of all those questions that affect people.

[Greg Kerr, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

All right, then, I'll leave that. We'll look forward to that, but it's probably another year away.

[Pierre Daigle]

Yes, sir.

[Greg Kerr, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Thank you.

A while ago we had retired General Dallaire, now Senator Dallaire, in to talk to us. There are a number of very difficult cases, but at the same time, as you point out, a lot of changes and improvements have taken place. A lot of things are heading in the right direction, and I think you remind us that it's slow progress to get there.

What particular issues are moving in the right direction, but have to continue or need more work? I know it's very general, but I'd like to put it in a general context.

[Pierre Daigle]

I must admit that since we did those three reports.... That's the 2002 report, the follow-up in December 2002, and the other follow-up in December 2008. And I'll do another one, because this is not going to go away, and it's very important.

If I can share my own first impression, I must admit that there is a lot of writing but not enough acting. We write a lot of things. We produce a lot of CanForGen, “We will do that. We will produce a policy to address this.” But what happens on the ground, and the reality of things, is that it's still not there.

There are issues where, I'm sorry, a bureaucratic answer, to me, is.... You know, there are issues that could be looked at as having more priority.

Families, more and more, need to be looked at. Families are not getting the care and services that we all say they will get. They're not part of the armed forces, but they are very much linked to everything that the spouses are going through.

The database—I'm going back to that—is important. We're looking at what comes ahead, but it seems to me that we don't move enough on that. In 2002, eight years ago, we were asking for work on the database to identify the scope of the problem.

Again, with all those budget cuts, we need to bring in enough money and resources to increase the number of caregivers, because they will need more caregivers in the near future. The caregivers are very important. We all talk about what's happening now, but if you don't have the professional health caregivers, it's not going to go away. It might be worse, because people won't come forward and you'll lose them too.

So the database is very important. Then we need to take care of the caregivers by taking away their administrative function and putting the emphasis on the clinical duties that they were hired to do. Then, obviously, there is family. We cannot dissociate any of those things from the family anymore. They're really part of the issue and the challenge.

[Greg Kerr, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Okay. Thank you for your candour.

I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Lobb if I can, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

You have three minutes, Mr. Lobb.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On November 23 at our meeting we had Lieutenant-Colonel Stéphane Grenier and Rakesh Jetly attend. They are part of the Department of National Defence. With their focus on post-traumatic stress and operational stress, you would know these gentlemen.

They provided us with great testimony. They outlined the improvements they've made and where they would like to take their progress forward.

Do you agree with the direction in which these two gentlemen and their larger umbrella group are taking operational stress disorders?

[Pierre Daigle]

I'm sorry, I'm not too familiar with everything they said in their testimony.

As I said, since we produced our report with 31 recommendations in 2002, there has been some improvement over the past eight years. They created OSISS, a joint partnership between Veterans and CF. In 2007 or 2008 they created the joint personnel support unit to coordinate all services to take care of members, which was an improvement.

So as I said, I don't remember reading their testimony, but there was progress, and I'm saying there is progress. There are three key areas--we're repeating this constantly--that need to be given top priority, and we haven't seen too much progress in those areas.

This is why I'm convinced now we need to do a follow-up to make sure that we maintain the momentum on what has been done, because the future is not going to be nicer than it is today.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

My next question is around training, and that falls under a piece in your A Long Road to Recovery. In there it talks about training and education across the CF. Obviously that would deal with personnel and staff.

Do you think that for psychologists, psychiatrists, mental health nurses, and mental health professionals there should be tracks along the college and university education system that would help them to better serve our forces? From what we've heard so far, most of their training is on the job, which is fine, but do you believe there should be more of a relationship with the education profession?

[Pierre Daigle]

Do you mean for the caregivers?

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Make it a very short answer, please.

[Pierre Daigle]

I think we need to take away from the caregivers all the clerical stuff they weren't trained to do and instead focus on their clinical service to the forces. We need to give them time to upgrade their skills. Right now they have difficulty leaving the office to upgrade their skills through their association because there are not enough of them on the ground and they cannot leave their positions. We need to free them from distraction, focus on their first line, and give them the chance to upgrade their skills so they can give good care to our troops.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Ms. Zarac, please.

[Lise Zarac, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, Mr. Daigle. In listening to you, I've had the impression that you had very clearly grasped the reality. These figures are high, but we know full well that they are not really representative. Reservists and those who have left were not taken into account. This is a troubling problem.

You also said that far too much time is spent on administration. That means that there are not enough resources and an increase in resources means a bigger budget. I also understand that you need a database. This will enable you to increase the budget. We know that data has been lost because, among other things, the veterans do not talk to the people from the Canadian Forces. It will be very complicated and costly to set up a real database that provides you with relevant and accurate information. However, budgets are going to be constrained. When you talk about families, that resonates with me. Families can indeed help the veterans.

Bearing in mind that we are in a time of fiscal restraint, I would like you tell me what are your priorities.

[Pierre Daigle]

That is, in a nutshell, the challenge. Care for the sick is the priority. We assess budget envelopes, we know that there are sick people, but we do not know how many. There may be more than we think and yet again even more in one, two, three or four years. So if we start to mortgage the future by cutting the budgets now, that will not resolve the problem, it will aggravate it in the long run. In my opinion, our priority should be to try to identify the magnitude of the problem and to do a more detailed analysis to find out where these resources are, even if we do find ourselves in a time of fiscal restraint. Some sectors deserve more money than others. As I said to you earlier, we are adopting one-size-fits-all approaches where everyone is treated the same way. However, things do not work that way. There are some sectors that are solicited much more heavily than others, and yet they have the same resources as the others. So if there is a problem, it will not disappear, it will get worse. So if we are serious about this, we have to direct the resources to the right place. I do understand that there are cutbacks, but we must not make cutbacks that hurt the ill.

[Lise Zarac, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

In your opinion, where should we be putting the money?

[Pierre Daigle]

First of all, we need to do some screening, get to know the people, and if people are reported ill, we have to provide them more support and services. So we need to invest in the resources of the health service providers, and not forget about the families.

[Lise Zarac, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

In 2002, you recommended the creation of a database. You said that National Defence was slow to react. Why has National Defence taken so long?

[Pierre Daigle]

I do not know why, Ms. Zarac. Perhaps you should ask the department this question.