Veterans Affairs Committee on April 22nd, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Good morning, everyone.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. We are a little bit behind because of the vote.

This is our ninth meeting on our study of the new Veterans Charter. We have with us today retired Colonel Patrick Stogran, Veterans Ombudsman, as well as Pierre Allard, service bureau director for the Royal Canadian Legion, Dominion Command.

We want to thank you, Mr. Allard, for the nice commemorative pins. We appreciate them.

Mr. Stoffer wanted a moment to say something.

Please go ahead, Mr. Stoffer. Then we'll go to the witnesses' opening statements.

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

I just have two quick things to say. In case some of the committee members aren't aware, the government announced recently that Colonel Don Ethell, who has appeared before our committee, is now the Lieutenant Governor of Alberta. I just thought it was a great move and that we may want to write a letter congratulating him.

Also, the Royal Canadian Legion has announced that Vice-Admiral Larry Murray, the former deputy minister of Veterans Affairs, will be made honorary president of the Royal Canadian Legion in June.

I just wanted to let the committee know. It's great news on both sides.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Stoffer.

We'll send congratulatory letters to both of them from the committee. I'll ask the clerk to draft something for both.

Without any further delay, Mr. Stogran, welcome. Please go ahead with your opening remarks.

[Colonel, Retired) Patrick Stogran (Veterans Ombudsman, Office of the Veterans Ombudsman]

Mr. Chair and honourable members, thank you for affording me the opportunity to appear before you once again.

As I understand it, you have asked me back to comment on the new Veterans Charter. You're probably aware that, since January, I have travelled coast to coast with my team and listened to what veterans have had to say about the benefits and services they are receiving and not receiving. In addition, I have also launched online public consultations through our website.

These meetings and consultations have been highly instructive. They have helped me understand much more clearly the concerns of veterans with respect to the new Veterans Charter.

As you all know, the charter was given royal assent in May 2005, five years ago, with the clear acknowledgement that it was not perfect. At the time, it was agreed that as a living charter it would be continuously reviewed and evaluated, presumably to ensure that “the recognized obligation of the people and the Government of Canada to those who have served their country so well and to their dependants may be fulfilled”.

I say “presumably” because while that obligation is clearly stated in the preamble to other pieces of legislation regarding veterans, nowhere in the charter does it say as much. Other acts also direct that the provisions and regulations shall be “liberally construed and interpreted”. Although it might be argued that the Interpretation Act accommodates this, it does not do so to the end of ensuring that veterans and their families receive the treatment they rightfully deserve. Once again, saying nothing says a lot.

Was the omission of such a preamble an oversight, or is it yet another sign of an evolving change to our commitment to veterans? My perception of a change in commitment is also apparent in other departmental plans, policies and programs.

The most noteworthy is the department's clear intention to stop maintaining priority access beds or contract beds for elderly veterans. Currently, only World War II and Korean War veterans have access to departmental contract beds. For the 592,000 Canadian Forces veterans who are not eligible for these beds, is the country less committed to their needs? When our World War II and Korean War veterans finally pass on, what will happen to this program?

The lump sum disability award has been the focus of fierce criticism from the veterans community. In town hall meetings in communities across Canada, I've encountered this criticism first-hand. As an incentive to making it more appealing for disabled veterans to go back to work rather than remain on disability, the program is viewed by many as a step back from the commonly recognized obligation of the people and Government of Canada.

We should not be under any misapprehension that this issue is new. In 1928 the House Committee on Pensions and Returned Soldier Problems dealt with the same issue of having given soldiers lump sums under the Pension Act. In retrospect, a committee member stated, “We should never have passed that law”, to which the chairman replied, “I think we are all agreed on that now.” In my view, it doesn't make sense to hand a disabled veteran a fistful of money and expect that they have the means to go off and start a new life for themselves.

While the intent of the charter to reintegrate veterans is laudable, I would submit that the fundamental premise upon which it appears to be based is flawed. Service in the Canadian Forces or the RCMP is not just another job. Within the CF and the RCMP, changing jobs is not uncommon. During my career in the army, I probably had at least 15 jobs. However, service in the Canadian Forces and the RCMP is a way of life. It's a culture unto itself.

As my wife says, “Soldiering is not what he does, it's who he is”. For me and, I dare say, for a great many veterans, leaving the military was a huge culture shock that makes reintegration into the civilian workforce much more problematic than simply finding another job.

Indeed, if my wife's views are not as compelling for you as they have become for me, I can offer the words of Dr. Anne Irwin, assistant professor with the Department of Anthropology at the University of Calgary and the CDFAI chair in civil-military relations, who says:

I have always thought that it is astonishing that the military spends so much institutional energy socializing recruits into a new culture (what some could call a "total institution"), spends [an] inordinate amount of time and institutional energy reinforcing the different values and ways of behaving throughout a career, and then expects people to be able to leave the military and integrate into civilian society unproblematically with nothing more than a few briefings on changing careers.

While that might be considered by some to be an overly simplistic statement, its message must not be lost in the new Veterans Charter debate. When a psychological or physical disability is combined with that culture shock, the transition from the CF or RCMP back into civilian life is much more difficult than the new Veterans Charter would have us believe. I hasten to suggest that this may be beyond the comprehension of anyone who has not served in uniform.

A wound or an injury suffered in the line of duty or in preparation for combat operations cannot and should not be likened to an industrial accident. The treatment of veterans and the families of service personnel who have been injured or killed in the line of duty is not an issue for insurance companies and worker’s compensation.

Yet the design of the new Veterans Charter even incorporates the prescriptive long-term disability-based formulas of an insurance company. We talk about Canada’s commitment to veterans' needs, and then enabling legislation and supporting guidelines fail to foster the department’s new needs-based philosophy.

In closing, I reassert my urging that the new Veterans Charter be revised quickly, comprehensively, transparently, and with full retroactivity to all veterans who have been affected by it. We've come to a significant milestone in our history regarding the treatment of veterans, and the decisions we make now will affect veterans, their families, and indeed our country, for decades to come.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Stogran.

Now, Monsieur Allard, may I have your opening remarks?

[Pierre Allard, Service Bureau Director, Dominion Command, Royal Canadian Legion]

Honourable Chair and members of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, on behalf of the Legion's Dominion president, Wilf Edmond, it is a pleasure for me to appear today at your committee to continue discussions related to the new Veterans Charter.

We have consulted, and the following veterans associations are in agreement with our Legion presentation today: the Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans in Canada; the Canadian Association of Veterans in United Nations Peacekeeping; the Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association; the National Aboriginal Veterans Association; the Air Force Association of Canada; the Canadian Naval Air Group; the Naval Officers' Association of Canada; and the Last Post Fund.

Your support of veterans and their families is exemplary. It is obvious that you care. There should be no doubt that the Royal Canadian Legion also cares for veterans and their families.

You have been briefed by Veterans Affairs Canada officials on the new Veterans Charter programs, and by other advocates, including members of the NVC advisory group.

We are struck by two obvious trends in the testimony that you have heard. First, there seems to be a reluctance by VAC officials to acknowledge gaps in the NVC programs, notwithstanding the very thorough analysis and the concrete recommendations of the New Veterans Charter Advisory Group.

Second, it is becoming very clear that the NVC programs have duplicated other programs that were already in place, resulting in more confusion and delays, when the objective of the new Veterans Charter was to facilitate rapid intervention. The introduction of the NVC has resulted in more confusing eligibility grids, which have put into question whether or not all veterans are treated equally and fairly.

The outcome of any legislation should be fairness. This is even more fundamental for those who put their lives at risk for the protection of the nation and of national values.

In their report of October 3, 2009, the NVC advisory group identified gaps in three areas: family support services, financial security, and rehabilitation services and outcomes. VAC has always defined the new Veterans Charter as a family of interrelated outcomes that cannot be viewed as stand-alone elements. The Legion still supports the new Veterans Charter's broad goal of “wellness”, which is meant to facilitate the reintegration into civilian life of the disabled veterans while meeting the needs of their families. However, we are greatly concerned that the “living Charter” focus has been set aside.

We are concerned that the issues of fairness and equality are not being addressed. Improvements are required on a critical basis in the following areas: mental health support for families in their own right, and greater access to vocational assistance for veterans and spouses, including post-secondary education. Children of deceased veterans already have this benefit. It is of note that if you want to work for the public service, the lack of a university degree, even under the priority appointment programs for certain medically released CF members and spouses, is often the cause for screening out applicants.

Another improvement required is that of improved access to skilled health care providers. There are too many disparities between rural and urban centres in regard to lack of access to specialists, etc. All released members, especially medically released members, often do not have access to medical care.

Other improvements needed are: improved support to family members caring for critically injured veterans; increased support for survivors and families of the fallen; and, under financial security, ending the legacy of the insurance-based approach to economic benefits. Veterans deserve a better model than the SISIP workers' compensation model. This is an area of clear duplication, which even VAC recognizes in their internal documents--and we'll get to that.

Other improvements needed are: to improve earning loss benefits by raising the earnings loss to 100% taxable and establishing a higher base salary consistent with normal rank progression and probable earnings models; to increase access to permanent impairment allowance; and to increase disability awards to at least match the maximum cap awarded by the civilian courts, by including a structured settlement option that recognizes that some disabled veterans may not be able handle a large lump sum.

Under rehabilitation services, the following improvements are needed: a modernized rehabilitation program to provide integrated physical, social, and vocational rehab services, and this is linked to the elimination of SISIP rehab services; improved case management, not only for veterans, but also for their families, while addressing clients' needs; improved access to VAC rehabilitation services; and repair of damaged relationships with health care providers.

You will have noticed that the issue of SISIP is a recurrent theme. In a recent internal audit, VAC has come to some very interesting conclusions on the new Veterans Charter programs. Copies of this audit are included in your handout. I will quote directly from VAC's cryptic observations that there are some similarities to other programs.

Under disability award, it is stated:

SISIP is an insurance plan offered by the CF...to serving and former members of the CF and their spouses.... Through SISIP, veterans can apply for an Accidental Dismemberment Insurance Plan which provides a lump-sum benefit...if [dismemberment]...is attributable to military service.... This benefit may appear to duplicate the Disability Award; however, the purpose is very different.... [SISIP dismemberment]...is an insurance payout while Disability Award is for pain and suffering....

The audit report then addresses rehabilitation:

SISIP Long Term Disability Vocational Rehabilitation Program provides training and education to eligible beneficiaries with the goal of enhancing the former member's existing education, skills, training and experience. This program is administered to provide eligible individuals with the skills to obtain gainful employment in the civilian workforce. This program overlaps with VAC’s vocational rehabilitation services.... It is estimated that approximately 15% of the 3,700 Veterans currently in the SISIP Vocational Rehabilitation Program will go on to access VAC’s vocational rehabilitation services.

Note that figure of 15%.

The report continues:

The difference between these programs is that through SISIP the vocational training is centered on the existing education while VAC’s vocational rehabilitation services concentrates on providing training for a skill that is appropriate for the client’s health interests and in the long term will provide gainful employment.

Of note, the VAC audit report fails to acknowledge, however, that both SISIP long-term disability and VAC's rehab program result in a monthly payment equivalent to 75% of salary at release—the so-called VAC earnings loss benefit—while we are well aware that SISIP payments are offset by disability pension payments or by EL benefits. Why make a comparison to the NVC disability award when addressing the SISIP long-term disability, while not making a similar comparison when dealing with the new Veterans Charter earnings loss benefits?

Other similarities exist in the area of career transition. Again, let’s refer to the report:

DND provides CF members a Transition Assistance Program which assists medically releasing CF members in making the transition into the civilian workplace. VAC provides a similar service within the Rehabilitation Program by providing vocational assistance to help medically released CF members find suitable employment. There is some overlap present in that both programs provide medically releasing CF members with information on résumé writing, job search assistance and job finding assistance. The difference is that DND’s Transition Assistance Program actively recruits prospective employers; in both the public and private sector.... DND’s Second Career Assistance Network is designed to assist CF members in order to provide transferable skills analysis, as well as counselling and training to individuals who are preparing for civilian life. VAC’s Job Placement program is integrated with this network and a VAC-DND program arrangement was developed to establish the roles and protocols for VAC to now deliver these services which were previously delivered by the DND.

We are suggesting that we are not dealing with similarities; rather, we are dealing with duplication and sometimes triplication. One must ask why VAC developed a new Veterans Charter that in a number of areas duplicates services that were offered by DND and SISIP, while in other instances, some of the new programs seem to have resulted in significant savings for the department while creating additional categories of veterans.

Another concern is that in some programs VAC has grossly overestimated the uptake. Again, I'm quoting from the report:

Additionally, the estimated number of clients was based on a sample of 400 released CF members.... Since the Job Placement Program was not designed for clients with a disability the methodological flaw was increased. In addition, from this sample only 162 clients participated...indicating that they would have “liked help in finding a job after release.” This percentage was then used as the basis for estimating that...52% of the approximately 4,000 CF [members] who release annually, would access the...[Job Placement Program]. VAC further estimated that...90%...would access the career counselling and job finding assistance components. However, since...October 2007, only 1,490 clients have attended a workshop with only 18% receiving career counseling and 3% accessing job finding assistance.

In an attempt to increase participation, VAC has been mailing out letters to those who might be eligible. “However”, says the report, “the response from the mail-out resulted in only a few hundred additional Veterans applying.”

One wonders how many other design flaws have been built into the new Veterans Charter. To correct the last flaw in the so-called job placement program, VAC has found the perfect bureaucratic remedy. It is redesigning—rebranding, as they say—this program as the career transition services.

Since all the current VAC brochures refer to the job placement program, what will the cost of this rebranding be?

What credibility can we assess to the VAC audit statement that this program is “relevant and highly valued” when only 3% of the participants have access to job-finding assistance?

Gaps in the new Veterans Charter have been identified by a reputable advisory council of academics and representatives of veterans organizations chosen by Veterans Affairs Canada. We are still waiting for an official reply from the minister on the findings and recommendations of the New Veterans Charter Advisory Group. If the NVC is indeed a “living Charter”, when will it be modified? Changes are needed now.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Allard.

Now we'll go to our regular round of questioning. We have only 55 minutes, so I will be just a little extra disciplined in trying to keep it tight to get as many questioners in as possible.

Mr. Oliphant, for seven minutes.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Thank you.

Thanks to both of you for being here.

Thank you, Colonel, for your round tables. I was able to go to one--the one in Montreal--and it was well done. Your work today is obviously very improved by those consultations.

Both of our witnesses today have obviously looked at the problems of the new Veterans Charter.

Colonel, you basically talk about the lump sum disability problem and Legion representatives focus on that, but also on other things. Colonel, do you agree with the general analysis? Have you heard those things as well, other than the financial problems?

[Col Patrick Stogran]

Yes, Mr. Chair. In fact, I have heard all of this before in one form or another. One thing with respect to the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman that I'm trying to preserve is our objectivity and our impartiality. I do not want to get drawn into the discussion of the specifics. There are organizations such as ANAVETS, the Legion, and a multitude of other very good organizations that are on the leading edge of the details, and I encourage them to continue in their endeavours.

What I'm trying to establish--and it's being reinforced in my visits--is the philosophical foundation upon which this charter can be built. I use an analogy of shooting a cannon out of a canoe. If we don't have that basis, if we don't understand the ethos of the military and the RCMP mind coming out, these details, sir, you witnessed it yourself.... The veterans become very passionate about such things as the earnings loss clawback, the SISIP clawback, and all of those.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

All of those.

I will focus, then, a little bit on your job as ombudsman because I think that goes part and parcel with the new Veterans Charter. We had concerns on the appointment of the ombudsman. In principle, we like having an ombudsman. We were very concerned about the lack of independence in that it is different from the ombudsman's office at DND; it has a degree of line reporting. I want to get your opinion on whether this is the best model for an ombudsman in this department.

[Col Patrick Stogran]

Mr. Chair, with all due respect, I really haven't spent too much time looking at alternative models. What I can say is that in my experiences, there have been attempts to try to influence the activities of the office, but I have, in my two and a half years, passed; I have exercised complete independence, I have not been interfered with, and my decisions have not been influenced.

I dare say that any model, if you look at the commissioners who are under legislation.... I've learned a new term since I've been in the public service and it's about “managing up”. Really, with the authorities and the acts under which these organizations are created, if a public servant is interested in managing up and looking after their career after their mandate, then I dare say there's no foolproof method.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Have there been any events where it has been suggested by officials, the department, that you not attend? Has there been one?

[Col Patrick Stogran]

Mr. Chair, no. I can say that categorically. I think the honourable member is referring to a round table that was conducted some months ago during the proroguing of Parliament. It was my decision. I do not enter into events such as this. I'm free for any member of Parliament to discuss the issues, but I will avoid at all costs any sort of air of any kind of political involvement.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Do you answer correspondence from members of Parliament?

[Col Patrick Stogran]

I'm sorry...?

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

If you receive correspondence from a member of Parliament, do you answer them?

[Col Patrick Stogran]

Mr. Chair, we endeavour to. I must say that we have been overwhelmed by the amount of administration—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Just a moment, Mr. Stogran.

Yes, Mr. McColeman, a point of order.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Through you, Chair, what does this have to with the relevance of the new Veterans charter, these questions? Could I have an answer for that?

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

From me?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

No, we don't need an answer from Mr. Oliphant.

I would just caution, as we did the last time, to try to get as much material as we can for the new Veterans Charter review, and correspondence isn't under it, so....

Go ahead.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Chair, I understand that Mr. McColeman is raising a point of order. We are indeed straying from the topic at hand, which is the new charter. I would still point out, however, that for several meetings now, Mr. McColeman has also been going off topic, especially in terms of his questions. I do not think his comment about Mr. Oliphant is valid, given the fact that, on the flip side, we do not deal strictly with the veterans charter.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Vincent.

I certainly did not penalize anybody. I simply gave a caution to make sure that we got as much information as we could about the new Veterans Charter. It is the procedural obligation of the chair to try to keep us on track, so, Mr. Oliphant, I have—

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

I understand.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

—abided by the time to make sure you have enough.