Veterans Affairs Committee on Oct. 24th, 2012

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

The next question I have is this. If a man or woman who is in the Canadian Forces questions the answer from the Canadian Forces specialists and has been referred to a provincial specialist and still questions the answer or treatment or the regimen for therapy, what recourse does that person have within the base to seek a second opinion?

[RAdm Andrew Smith]

They always have the right to ask for another opinion. They also have a unique construct in the Canadian Forces that is in various forms resident in private institutions across the country. We affectionately refer to it as the chain of command.

The chain of command has an abiding interest to make sure that the morale and welfare of their men and women is looked after, and that chain of command is a very powerful champion in advocacy for their morale and welfare. If they do feel, for argument's sake, that they're not being heard or not diagnosed well, they have a very quick, very active response mechanism to ensure that there is sober second thought provided as and when required.

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

This is through their chain of command?

[RAdm Andrew Smith]

Their chain of command can certainly advocate on their behalf to ensure that their diagnosis or their morale and welfare are looked after.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Thank you, Mr. Lobb.

Now I think we're back to Mr. Harris, if you're ready.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank you for coming, Rear Admiral Smith. I think you were here as a presenter at my first sit-in on this committee. It's nice to see you again.

Mr. Hillier, your reputation for trying to get your department working as well as it can for veterans is well known, and I commend you on all of the changes you've been able to quarterback and get into the system. There's no such thing as a perfect system and never will be, but I know that your committee works exceptionally hard to assist in reaching a level of perfection when we're dealing with veterans in various forms of need, in order to make life as easy as we can for them. Thank you for that.

Does your committee actually look for and seek out new opportunities for cooperation between the departments, or is it the other way around: are the ideas brought to you for consideration? How exactly does the interaction between the departments and your committees work?

[RAdm Andrew Smith]

Mr. Chair, I would offer that it's some of both, frankly. There are times when an issue may come on the radar to Mr. Hillier or to me that is worth bringing to the committee, and there are times when from the grassroots level, whether at the service delivery level or the policy level, wrinkles come forward that merit our collective review at the steering committee.

One that springs to mind, from maybe 18 months ago, is the issue of common-law status. There were some different views and applications of “common-law” that affected veterans. This percolated up to the steering committee. In that particular case, it came to our attention from both above and below.

With respect to your comment about no system being perfect, I'll just echo that. I'm not here to state that this is a perfect system. We don't always get it right. I would submit that we get it right an awful lot of the time, but when we don't, the Canadian Forces prides itself on being a learning institution.

One of the governing principles behind the steering committee is that it is on a road of continuous improvement in an effort to better understand some of the wrinkles or some of the questions, when we don't get it right, from our collective perches atop the steering committee, and then ensure that these get addressed and driven down to lower levels of the organization.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Thank you.

Do you want to comment, Mr. Hillier?

[Keith Hillier]

I would just echo the comment that it is about continuous improvement.

Do we get every case right every day? I'd like to say yes, but I have 2,000 employees in 60 locations across the country, and we learn from the feedback we get from veterans. Some of the best learning occurs when I get an email or a call from a veteran who says that it's not working right for them. Then we can look at our policies, our procedures, our business processes. Our five-year transformation program is about continuous improvement.

I was out in the staff office visiting some of the front-line people last week, and they said, "When the transformation is over...". I replied, “No, this is an organization committed to continuous improvement for veterans and their families.” Yes, some of the things we're going to do around technology will be done, but this is an organization committed to continuous improvement.

Some of the things we're seeing include reducing red tape and trying to make things much more hassle-free for veterans, so that not only can they get the services and benefits they need but get them in a way that is as easy as possible from the veteran's end of the lens.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Thank you. I understand what you're talking about. As you're going through the transformation, trying to reach that goal will probably always be a work in progress. I think you never want to reach an area of comfort, because that means you're standing still, but you try to reach a level of satisfaction that things are moving along as well as they can.

I think it's right to assume that from time to time you get together to take stock of where you are and how things are going. I know this might need a long answer, but is there any way to encapsulate how you would give yourself a rating at any given time? Are there any things you look for, or is it just how you feel things are going, with complaints decreasing and plaudits rising?

[Keith Hillier]

Mr. Chair, I'll take the first crack at that.

I spend time visiting field offices. I also visit Canadian Forces bases and wings, and Admiral Smith does likewise. We sometimes note things that are what we might say are imperfections in how we're dealing with some of the issues. As I say, it's not just about the steering committee. From time to time, the admiral and I will sit down, just the two of us, and have a discussion about the things that are going well and the things that aren't going as well. He's equally honest with me about some of the things that he has probably picked up from going out and visiting some offices and visiting some bases and wings.

[RAdm Andrew Smith]

The feedback mechanism is often immediate and direct. I got a valuable one just walking into the committee this afternoon from some of the folks who are here to witness this afternoon, and I have an action item to take away today to look at something.

There's an issue with respect to responsiveness and adherence. We get that on a daily basis from individuals, from organizations, and from some of the veterans advocacy groups. Oftentimes those might be individual cases, but the ones I really look to turn my attention to are those systemic issues involving possible policy gaps or program gaps that need to buttressed up.

In terms of performance metrics, where the steering committee has come to, certainly in the tenure I've been here, is that we now have much better defined agenda items, with points of contact in our respective organizations to marshal those forward and get those reviewed. Whether we give ourselves an A, B, or C—we don't do that regularly—we certainly do follow the progress. As Mr. Hillier mentioned in his remarks, those agenda items don't get closed out and struck from the agenda unless or until there's a mutual agreement that we have taken them where they need to go.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Thank you. It sounds as though you have a good formula going.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Thank you, Mr. Harris.

We now will end the first round of questioning and we'll move into the second round. We'll start the four-minute round with Ms. Mathyssen, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be sharing my time with Madame Perreault.

I would like to say thank you for being here today. It's good to see you again, Admiral Smith. Certainly, Mr. Hillier, we appreciate your contribution.

I have a couple of quick questions. I was encouraged to see that Minister Blaney says that he accepts the recommendations of the Auditor General and will proceed with an action plan. What's the timeframe for this action plan?

Secondly, obviously if there is going to be movement in that direction, it will require resources. I'm concerned that it could be impeded by the deficit reduction strategy that's currently in place. I wonder if you could comment on that.

[Keith Hillier]

Mr. Chair, first of all, I would expect that the action plan will be coming forward in a matter of days. Number two, with respect to the action plan, I'm comfortable there are sufficient resources in the department to act on the items that will be in the action plan.

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

In regard to the auditor's report, he found that personal support centres located across the country got very good reviews. People were quite satisfied with them. Even in that, the auditor discovered that programs were inconsistent, that what was offered was inconsistent across those centres. Is part of the work that's going to be undertaken going to address those inconsistencies and rectify them?

[RAdm Andrew Smith]

Thank you for the question. I'll take that, Mr. Chair.

Let us bear in mind that the support centres that he refers to across the country were stood up in 2009. In relative terms, that's yesterday. The Canadian Forces and Veterans Affairs have never worked as closely together as they do today, but that wasn't necessarily always the case. From a consistency perspective, we have put standard operating procedures in place. We have put an October 2011 directive in place with respect to what would be involved in a transition plan. That speaks to the evolving nature of working together. That's a work in progress. I freely acknowledge that, and it goes to my answer to a previous question related to the continuous improvement cycle that we're on.

With respect to the first part of your question—I'm assuming everybody's had a look at the Auditor General's report—there are 15 recommendations that have all been accepted; seven of those are joint between Veterans Affairs, the Canadian Forces, and the Department of National Defence; five are specific to the Canadian Forces; and three are specific to Veterans Affairs. So we will be working together on those seven that are joint to come together with a joint action plan. On those departmental-specific recommendations, we'll be coming forward with a departmentally specific action plan.

[Keith Hillier]

I'd like to give a little context if I could, Mr. Chair. We stood these things up very quickly, the Canadian Forces and VAC. We started off by putting a couple of employees on a base. Today, as we sit here, I have over 100 employees who actually go to work in an integrated personnel support centre somewhere in this country.

We didn't wait for the 100% solution. We didn't wait to debate it for years. We saw there was a growing need, particularly with veterans coming back from Afghanistan. This was one of the classic things for which we said, “Let's go with the 80% solution. Let's get it stood up. Let's get people on the bases and wings to help the men and women; then, as we go along, we'll work out some of the details.”

As Admiral Smith has noted, there have been various operational directives, but we didn't sit around for a couple of years to figure out what we were going to do. At the steering committee we identified a need, and both the Canadian Forces chair and the VAC chair agreed that we would put resources into this and work together to make it work. I think, as the Auditor General has noted—and certainly it's confirmed in feedback I've received from veterans and veterans groups—there was a need that needed to be filled at that very point in time and continues to be needed today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Thank you very much, Mr. Hillier.

We'll now go to Mrs. O'Neill Gordon.

[Tilly O'Neill-Gordon, Conservative, Miramichi, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for being here. I don't get to sit in on this committee that often, but I have to say how much I enjoyed the information that you poured out to us this afternoon.

As we all know here, a lot of work would have gone into getting this model together. I was happy to hear you say that others are envious of our model. It gives Canada a great name to have the model that others would like to have.

Further to my colleagues' conversation, I'll say to both of you that a lot of issues are going on between these two models. What is the single biggest concern you have with regard to operations between the Department of National Defence and Veterans Affairs Canada? What efforts are you undertaking to address these issues?

[Keith Hillier]

I'll start, Mr. Chair.

One of my concerns—and something we always have to look at—is to make sure that we actually deliver on what we commit to.

I'll speak for Veterans Affairs. We have wonderfully dedicated staff who come to work every day to do things for veterans. Our staff just sometimes—what should I say—in the hurry to make things better for veterans, working together, will say, “Let's get the first thing delivered before we get into the second thing, because we may not get anything delivered.” I think it's the goodwill, energy, and anxiousness by the people who are committed to doing this.

Certainly on a broader, more strategic level, I don't have any concerns that we have an open dialogue. It's some of these things that are important for veterans, such as being able to stay with the same provider, but I think that we have to make sure that we don't try to bite off....There are a plethora of things. An example is the electronic health records: it's really important, but it's really important that we get it right, not just get it fast. These are the things that we need to make sure of.

From the standpoint of accountability, I've been around government many years and on many cases. I would argue that our accountability is some of the toughest. If you're a director general and you have to stand up in front of a committee of generals and assistant deputy ministers and explain where you are or where you are not, that's a pretty tough accountability. I've been around a lot of places, and that's a pretty tough accountability.

[RAdm Andrew Smith]

I would echo Mr. Hillier's comments.

I was going to mention the electronic health records transfer in terms of a challenge that continues to be worked on. Getting that piece right in full respect of the Privacy Act is key, because getting that right will significantly speed up the access to adjudicators within Veterans Affairs. That is one that we continue to work on.

The other one I wouldn't necessarily say is a concern between departments, but it continues to merit my attention. It's the issue of outreach and awareness. We have moved the yardsticks and have had several first downs on that. I think that continues to be a challenge.

It's been my experience, by and large, that when men and women join the Canadian Forces—and I can speak similarly, because I didn't think of it when I joined—they don't necessarily take the time to take stock of “what happens if“. We're all caught up in the great career opportunities, the adventure, the camaraderie, the leadership, and all the training. They don't necessarily say, “What happens if I blow out my knee, or my parachute doesn't open until late, or whatever?”

Making sure that the men and women of the Canadian Forces understand there are people there to help them, both in service and after service, and making sure they understand and have confidence in that seamless handshake I spoke of is an ongoing challenge for us both.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Thank you very much, Admiral.

We now go to Ms. Perreault for four minutes.

[Manon Perreault, NDP, Montcalm, QC]

Good afternoon. I am happy to have you with us. I think your answers are useful.

I am addressing Mr. Hillier.

Earlier, Mr. Smith said that you have implemented an initiative for homeless veterans. I don't really know anything about that initiative. I only know about initiatives by private organizations such as Veterans' Employment and Training Service, VETS.

Regarding specialized organizations for the homeless, I am wondering whether the government has not combined money that was already gathered. What initiative was Mr. Smith talking about earlier?