Veterans Affairs Committee on April 3rd, 2012

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

I call the meeting to order.

Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome.

I would just remind the committee that we have business at five o'clock, which could be cut short by a vote. We don't know that yet, so we'll get right to it.

I want to welcome all of our visitors here today. I'm very pleased that you came in.

We're continuing the study of front-line health and well-being services for Canadian veterans. We are looking forward to this presentation and the questions and answers that follow.

The routine generally is that we will hear from whoever will be speaking. We'd love to hear from all of you, but we might run out of time.

Welcome. We have Assistant Commissioner Daniel Dubeau and Staff Sergeant Michael Casault. Abraham Townsend is from national executive staff relations. Superintendent Lynn Lemieux is acting director general, occupational health, and William Gidley is the executive director of the RCMP Veterans' Association.

Welcome to you all. I don't have an order of speaking. Two of you are going to speak. Am I correct?

[Assistant Commissioner Daniel Dubeau, Acting Chief Officer, Human Resources, Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

Actually, I think there will be three of us. I'll be sharing my time with our colleagues from the staff relations program.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Well, I'll leave it all up to you, sir.

[A/Commr Daniel Dubeau]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, and members of the committee.

I would like to thank you for inviting me to appear before your committee. I would like to introduce Superintendent Lynn Lemieux and Garry Roy, who are sitting in the gallery. They are accompanying me today. Mr. Roy acts as our RCMP liaison with Veterans Affairs Canada. Superintendent Lemieux is the acting director general of the occupational health and safety branch at the RCMP.

I would also like to acknowledge the presence of two of my colleagues, Staff Sergeants Abraham Townsend and Michael Casault, from our Staff Relations Representative Program—which represents our membership—as well as Bill Gidley, Executive Director, RCMP Veterans' Association.

In brief, I would like to provide committee members with some information about how health benefits are administered in the RCMP.

As you are well aware, the majority of Canadian citizens receive their health care coverage under the provincial health care plans. RCMP members are excluded from the Canada Health Act, and as such, the RCMP is responsible for ensuring that health care is available to its members. Section 83 of the RCMP Regulations grants authority to the RCMP commissioner to approve medical and dental treatment programs for its regular and special constable members. Furthermore, the RCMP is also responsible for health costs for any civilian member who is injured in the performance of his or her duties, to the extent that the treatment is not covered by the provincial medical or hospital insurance plans.

Once RCMP officers retire, they are included under the provisions of the Canada Health Act and they receive their health care from their respective provincial health care plans.

At this juncture, I would like to highlight the important role Veterans Affairs Canada plays in regard to RCMP veterans and still-serving members. Veterans Affairs Canada provides medical and pension benefits for those regular members who retired from the force with work-related disabilities through an administrative arrangement with the RCMP. Serving RCMP members who suffer from a work-related disability are eligible for disability pension administered by Veterans Affairs Canada.

Furthermore, since 2005, members of the RCMP who are medically discharged from the force have had the right to be deemed a priority for employment in the public service under the provisions of section 8 of the Public Service Employment Regulations. Under this regulation, a member who is released or discharged for medical reasons can be considered for priority placement in a public service position, provided he or she meets the essential qualifications for that position. This gives these former members an opportunity to have a career in the public service.

Thank you for the opportunity to address this committee today. I welcome any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Thank you.

Please go ahead.

[Staff Sergeant Michael Casault, National Executive, Staff Relations Representative Program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, committee members, and guests.

As we were introduced, my name is Mike Casault, and with me is my partner Abe Townsend. By way of introduction, both Abe and I are elected to the national executive of the staff relations representative program. The staff relations representative program is the official labour representation program, representing approximately 26,000 members. We are members of the RCMP, elected from and by the members of the RCMP to represent their interests on issues of employment that may affect their welfare and/or dignity. Though members of the RCMP, today we speak on behalf of the membership, and not the force as an organization.

Prior to becoming a member of the national executive in December 2011, I was the divisional staff relations representative, SRR. I was also the chair of the National Occupational Health and Safety Committee, which is part of the SRR program. I replaced Staff Sergeant Murray Brown, who presented at these meetings in the past.

In our roles as staff relations representatives, we quickly learn about Veterans Affairs Canada, because we represent members who suffer injuries during the course of their duties. Many times these injuries are very similar to those of our brothers and sisters in the Canadian Forces.

While the injuries may be similar, the working life of a member of the RCMP is much different from that of the members of the Canadian Forces. In Canada, most CF members are posted to bases in major centres. Members of the RCMP are posted from coast to coast to coast in communities small and large. Many of our members perform their duties with a minimal operational support and backup, at times hours away by plane or road. By their very nature, many of these small communities do not have VAC offices, or, for that matter, the community-based support we enjoy in our major centres.

SRRs routinely meet with those they represent in their places of work. It is an unfortunate reality that most of our members have little or no knowledge of VAC and the services offered. SRRs have endeavoured to carry the VAC message to the membership. We ask on behalf of our members, as clients receiving a service, what steps VAC has taken to deliver their message to our members. I see no VAC literature or pamphlets in the majority of the RCMP offices and detachments that I have visited. This is unacceptable. VAC must step up and create awareness of their programs.

I would like to spend a moment to speak about the VAC core service, that being transition interviews for those members being released from service. This service, in my understanding, has been available to all CF members for many years. It was only a few short years ago that this service was offered to RCMP members. It was a pilot project for the members posted in Saskatchewan. It was very well received by the retiring membership, and the service was expanded to include Atlantic Canada. Again, this service was appreciated by our members. As we roll the calendar ahead two years, today this core service has not been implemented for all members of the RCMP releasing from service to their country. Why not? Why are some of our members being left out?

We carry similar frustration around the issue of the veterans independence program and chronic care, programs available to CF members but not to members of the RCMP. Much has been written and much has been said over the past several years, but our members and our retired members do not have access to these programs.

More recently there have been instances of serving members in receipt of VAC awards finding themselves being taken out of a job that they love and placed on administrative duties because of the pensions they receive. A fear we have is that members may under-report so they do not sideline their career.

This leads us to our final comment on occupational stress injury social support, OSISS. It was recently learned that our operational stress injury program in the RCMP was being shelved and that members were not going to have access to the RCMP-designed OSI program, and I stress “RCMP-designed” program; they would have access to the OSISS clinics that the military provides to their members. Occupational stress injuries that a member of the Canadian Forces suffers from are different from those that RCMP members suffer from. Sure, there are some who would suffer from similar traumatic events, but policing injuries and military injuries in general are different.

In recent weeks I have spoken to several RCMP members who have utilized these clinics, and their concerns are that they are military-based, they are too far away for weekly meetings, and that cost is becoming a factor.

As mentioned before, we are not in the major centres. We are everywhere, and our members living in small towns in the north don't have the same access. That in itself is an issue. Do they self-identify, with a risk of being moved to a larger urban centre? Many of our members join the RCMP because they get to police small towns.

Last, I would like to draw this committee's attention to the stigma that is attached to members who are identified with occupational stress injuries and/or VAC awards. There are many examples of members who identify, only to find themselves on administrative duties. This is, again, causing our members to suffer in silence and not seek the help they need.

Before concluding my opening remarks, I’d like to thank the committee for the invitation and the opportunity to speak on behalf of the 26,000 members of the RCMP who are proudly serving Canadians.

Thanks, and I await questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Thank you very much.

Peter and I would like to say you're doing a good job trying to replace Murray Brown. We wish you all the best on that.

I believe, Mr. Gidley, you are up next.

[William Gidley, Executive Director, RCMP Veterans' Association]

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

I have been the executive director for the RCMP Veterans' Association for over 10 years. I am the only veteran employee employed by the RCMP Veterans' Association; however, we have many excellent volunteers throughout Canada.

The RCMP has generously provided office space for our RCMP Veterans' Association national office. In addition to this, the force has given us computers, telephones, and other office equipment. From two years ago until now, RCMP human resources has given us a public servant, and this has proven to be a great addition and assistance for our veterans.

I will get right to the subject at hand. The serving RCMP members and former RCMP members have their disability benefits administered by Veterans Affairs Canada under the provisions of the Pension Act. The Pension Act is linked in legal terms to certain sections of the RCMP Superannuation Act and the RCMP Pension Continuation Act—I could enlarge on this, but will not here in the interest of time—unlike our sisters and brothers in the Canadian Forces, who have their disability benefits administered by VAC under the provisions of the new Veterans Charter.

This new Veterans Charter is a living charter, which means it can be amended as time goes by. It was proclaimed in 2006, and so far there have been over 500 recommendations made to VAC by the stakeholders committee, and only three of these recommendations have been acted upon thus far.

The main difference between the RCMP and the Pension Act provisions and the Canadian Forces new Veterans Charter is that the Pension Act generally provides a monthly disability pension for a disabled RCMP member or former RCMP member, whereas the new Veterans Charter thus far provides a cash award for the disabled Canadian Forces member, generally on a one-time basis.

Prior to the new Veterans Charter being proclaimed in 2006, the Canadian Forces members were also under the Pension Act, and those who were receiving benefits under that Pension Act still do. In other words, they're grandfathered before 2006.

Now that you know the main differences, I would like to inform you of the treatment afforded our serving and former RCMP members, bearing in mind I have most experience with usually retired RCMP members.

I have found VAC's decisions to be, in a word, inconsistent, and I'll give some examples. I dealt with a case where a retired RCMP member had served 35 years in northern Saskatchewan police detachments. This retiree had many physical concerns—neck, shoulder, leg, and ankle injuries. When VAC read his submission, they found in his favour, and he was awarded a monthly disability annuity.

The reasons given by VAC were that this person could have only incurred these multiple injuries during his 35 years performing police work, which often involved fighting and wrestling with persons confronted during his service. In addition to this, he had to be outside in all kinds of extreme weather pursuing suspects or searching for lost persons and children. This to me was a common sense decision by VAC, based on facts, and I thought it was a good one.

On the other hand, there are more of these types of decisions made, or should I say ongoing cases, that seem to exist in a limbo state for a very long time. For example, a female member of the RCMP who served in the Lower Mainland of B.C. was participating in an annual firearms qualification shoot and was the subject of a further training matter referred to as a “carotid artery hold”. This policewoman was a member who did not tap out readily, and in fact in this instance, after several attempts by the emergency response team members to have her tap out, she never did because she was unconscious. This resulted in her suffering damage to the nerves at the base of the neck area that affected the mobility and use of her arms.

Today this disabled person cannot even use a knife and fork due to these injuries. Subsequent medical attention has related this injury directly to the techniques practised on her. This injury has become a very debilitating one, and she subsequently had to take her discharge from the RCMP for medical reasons in January 2007. She does receive a VAC pension for her injuries, albeit a small one.

She has been dealing with this matter, suffering physically and mentally, for almost 10 years. This injury has cost her not only the loss of normal family amenities but the loss of family companionship. In short, she is now alone.

At the time of injury and initial treatment she contacted VAC and began to receive some compensation for the on-duty injury. However, since that time no further benefit or assistance was received.

In September 2010 a VAC area counsellor contacted her and advised her that her VAC file had been misplaced since approximately 2004, and they had been unable to perform a file review in order to add to her benefits. Her benefits are $225 in monthly compensation for the original injury, $30 for her 15-year-old-son, as she is now a single parent, and $270 a month for a living allowance. The RCMP veteran who brought this file to my attention receives more VAC pension for a simple hearing disability than this injured lady.

I will cease on this shortly, as it is a very long file overflowing with efforts for more benefits for this person who is going downhill medically, in many ways, regarding this injury.

These two cases I have given illustrate the difference in decisions, one with common sense and the second one with an apparent lack of common sense and lack of empathy for a human being who is entitled to some dignity and disability benefits but is ill and worn out by the effort.

As a matter of fact, this weekend I received an email from this lady. She had been turned down by VAC for kinesiology treatment. She doesn’t know me, but she told me she’s giving up. She’s at the end. She doesn’t want to pursue it any longer.

Anyway, what to do? The latter case has highlighted the fact that when an RCMP member takes his or her discharge, very little information is given to the member regarding the VAC process, forms, etc. Also, there should be counselling provided, I think, by VAC personnel when an RCMP member is going to retire, and especially so if the retirement or discharge is for medical reasons. In numerous cases the VAC area counsellor should stick with the disabled pensioner, as oftentimes the injuries are serious and the ill person cannot be expected to handle the myriad forms and complexities of this process to obtain benefits.

If it were not for one of our veterans in our Vancouver division veterans' association, the former policewoman in the example I just gave would continue to be alone with no help from anyone she trusts, and she would continue with Veterans Affairs Canada, with no progress in her injury-related affliction.

Another fact is that the RCMP pays VAC for the disabled members from the RCMP budget, which I do not consider a good thing. In contrast, the Canadian Forces disabled members have VAC award payments and rehabilitation paid for by Treasury Board, or, in short, the government. It's not a take-away from the CF budget.

In closing this summation, I must comment on the VAC's Veterans Review and Appeal Board, VRAB. I feel that this board is much too legalistic in format, and members who have appeared in front of this board actually feel it more intimidating than some of the criminal court trials they have given evidence at during their service in the force. Recently there has been a retired RCMP member appointed to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, which I am pleased about, as he knows the pitfalls in police work and the dangerous situations our members are faced with on a daily basis.

Another very important point is there are no doctors on the VRAB, which is really unfortunate, as the VRAB are making all of their decisions based on medical matters.

Finally, it would be gratifying to see more veterans from the Canadian Forces and the RCMP as employees of VAC. I have read that in the United States, Britain, Australia, and New Zealand there are numerous veterans working in their veterans affairs offices, which they have found to be advantageous in many respects.

That ends my little talk. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Thank you very much, Mr. Gidley, and to all of you for your presentations.

We will now go to the committee members for questions.

We will start with Mr. Stoffer for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Folks, thank you all very much for your service. Thank you very much for being with us today.

Abe, I was wondering if one of you could possibly mention something. I do know that for the last several years there has been a file on the desk of the Minister of Public Works asking that the veterans independence program be applied to RCMP veterans and their spouses.

I was wondering if you folks could tell me how that process is going along. Do you have support, if you know, of the current commissioner for that possibility? I know the previous commissioner was not supportive of it, but I'm not sure if the new commissioner has even had time to be briefed on that very important issue for your retired members, especially the more elderly ones.

[Staff Sergeant Abraham Townsend, National Executive, Staff Relations Representative Program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

I'll provide some opening remarks in relation to that, Mr. Stoffer.

That is a priority for the SRR caucus representing the members. We had support from earlier commissioners. This dates back to Commissioner Zaccardelli, I think, if we go back three commissioners past. That's how long this has been an issue for our members.

In relation to the current commissioner, I have not had any dialogue with him specific to this and I can't speak for him, but it still is something we'd be looking at, not only for our retired members but also as a service to our serving members.

When you look at VIP and chronic care, it's about delivering a service into the home. As the treatment can be in the home, the assistance can be in the home, thereby taking our members away from institutional settings and giving the service where it's probably more cost-effective and most living-effective.

I'll turn the time over to Assistant Commissioner Dubeau.

[A/Commr Daniel Dubeau]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Stoffer.

You referenced the VIP. Yes, I have briefed Commissioner Paulson on the VIP file and what's happened to it. At this point, as you realize, we have no authority to authorize the payment of VIP, and so we can't proceed with that.

We have provided advice. However, what we're doing now is looking at our health services program as a whole for serving members and veterans, and looking at what we provide to our members and our retired members to see how we can ensure they have the proper services. We have policies and practices in place, but we're doing a full review of the whole health benefits program in the RCMP currently. We started reviewing that.

We will be engaging, as I mentioned to Abe earlier on, our SRR colleagues on how we can possibly improve and how we can maximize what we're doing with the resources we have. That is proceeding accordingly.

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

Very good.

My second question for you is this. With the concerns you've expressed over the VAC and especially those two cases, which couldn't be more profound, have you had an opportunity to share these examples or your concerns with the veterans ombudsman, Mr. Guy Parent? Have you had a chance to meet with him on a one-on-one to discuss the concerns facing RCMP members and their families?

[William Gidley]

Of the two cases, the first one in Saskatchewan was resolved to everyone's satisfaction. The second one has only come to light recently, coming to me from one of our veterans in Vancouver. He brought it to my attention.

What happened was I asked him if he would volunteer to be an advocate; he said he would, but he wanted to tell me about a case. It was this second one. I thought it was ideal to present it here today.

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

I meant, on more general terms, if your organization has been able to speak to the new ombudsman about some of the concerns regarding RCMP veterans and their families?

[William Gidley]

Yes, we have. They were not these cases, but yes, we have in general terms, and specifically as well, with not only Mr. Parent but with Paul Woods as well, who's a former member of the RCMP.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Ms. Mathyssen, your question had better not be a hefty one. You have one minute to go.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Just very quickly—and perhaps I'll have a chance to ask again—Staff Sergeant Casault, in your brief you wrote about RCMP members not having knowledge of the VAC services that are offered and the fact that VAC must step up and create some awareness.

What would you like to see VAC do so that your members are not so disadvantaged?

[S/Sgt Michael Casault]

To touch on a bit of Mr. Stoffer's question as well, I've been in the VAC ombudsman's office a couple of times, actually several times, and I didn't see any information there. There could be general information displayed saying that Veterans Affairs does offer this service to members of the RCMP as well as retired members of the RCMP.

I've also gone on their website and I googled OSISS, or googled different portions in their website with the words “RCMP” in it, and there's nothing. They talk about veterans and serving military members, but there's nothing in there that says RCMP members. If you go on their website and look up in the top corner, there is a very little picture of a Mountie dressed in red serge, but you'd have to actually, physically, go to that site. We're requesting that Veterans Affairs actually promote the services they offer.

With regard to the transition interviews, those members retiring still communicate through the vets to the serving members within the communities that they live in, and they tell two friends, and so on, and so on. It's a word of mouth as well as documentation, pamphlets, posters, etc.—anything that would be visible that would encourage members.

There are 41 of us in the staff relations program. There are about 250 total, with a part-time sub-rep. They do it off the side of their desks. For us to go out and visit with people and inform them of this service, with 250 to deal with 26,000, it's hard to get through. Some members don't pay attention until it's too late; there's that type of thing as well. I'm not saying it's just veterans; it's also within the organizations.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Thank you very much—

[S/Sgt Abraham Townsend]

Mr. Chairman—

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Sorry, Mr. Townsend. Please be very quick.

[S/Sgt Abraham Townsend]

One thing that is fundamental to our organization in its dealings with VAC and getting the message out to the serving members is we need a full-time liaison embedded within the VAC organization. We've had that in the past, and it has proved successful in opening lines of communications to the serving members. That's one thing that would certainly benefit both organizations in getting the message out to their client base.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Thank you very much.

Go ahead, Ms. Adams, for five minutes.