Veterans Affairs Committee on April 2nd, 2015

[Col Gérard Blais]

In the initial stage the person comes into the integrated personnel support centre. We listen to everything they have to say to analyze all of their various needs. If insurance or vocational rehabilitation is needed, they are then sent to the SISIP representative on the base. At that point they discuss the individual's insurance needs.

[Phil Marcus]

On the SISIP side, when a member does get an effective date of release, we engage with them up to six months prior to that date to establish the continuity of the vocational rehabilitation plan.

As well, we encourage them to fill out their LTD application. That application is adjudicated within a week or two after release, assuming we have all the information. Then they deal with a separate cell within Manulife, which is called Manulife/SISIP Services. These people are exclusive to the operation of this program. There are case managers, vocational rehabilitation case managers, and LTD case managers for every case within the program.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Perhaps I could ask just one last question.

A veteran leaves the Canadian Forces. In his mind, he is not injured and his body is not injured. One year later, he has an injury that he wants to make the system aware of. His release has already happened. He could go through SISIP. He could go through VAC. He would be obligated to go to SISIP first under those circumstances as well, because SISIP pays first. Is that the thinking?

[Phil Marcus]

That is the principle. However, both SISIP and VAC policies on LTD and VAC ELB state that there is a point of entry outside of the 120-day application period, which is the standard policy period within which someone should apply.

For example, latent PTSD is very recognized.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Yes.

[Phil Marcus]

Someone could come in and say they are now suffering the effects of their military engagement. If they can prove that and we can show that through medical and psychological evaluations, then we will reactivate the claim as if it had happened at the date of release.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Okay. Good.

[The Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Mr. Valeriote.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, gentlemen, for appearing before us.

Mr. Lemieux and Mr. Stoffer have been pretty thorough in their examination of the financial services that are available to our forces members. Are any of you able to discuss the non-financial services that are available, the psychological services that would be available through any of these programs for someone who may have suffered from PTSD?

[Cmdre Mark Watson]

I'm not exactly sure how to answer that question. For example, I oversee several charities under the “support our troops” umbrella. We have Soldier On, which provides support to serving or retired personnel and to veterans who have suffered mental or physical injuries to get them back into sports and athleticism. We provide supports by buying them physical training equipment or sending them to various training camps, such as fly fishing or skiing camps, and we do that with our allies as well.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Would you be able to answer questions on getting access to one of the OSI treatment centres across Canada?

[Col Gérard Blais]

The mental health questions would be best addressed to the surgeon general, because they control those services. However, one psychological service we do offer through our programs is operational stress injury peer support, in which we have hired as public servants a number of people who have suffered operational stress injuries themselves.

Once they have had the chance to get better and their physician certifies that they are better, they come back and are hired as peer support coordinators. They meet one-on-one with individuals. They are not clinical in any sense, but they listen to people and they refer them to the services they need. Very often those suffering from post-traumatic stress are much more open to listening to one of their peers. When they get this service, they then find their way into the medical system to actually be referred to one of the clinics.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

You're familiar with the term “skills translator”, and I understand from reading the document that you presented to us today that there are some great programs out there through third parties like Prospect, which is based, I think, in Edmonton. We heard about that the other day and it seems to be a great example of an efficient, effective model that could be adopted.

We've had people from the United States come before us, including a former admiral you may be familiar with, who has engaged with Monster.com, which has adopted a computer program that will better translate the skills of an active forces member into those associated with a potential job. I remember being out at Wainwright for five days and then on the HMCS St. John's, and I was just amazed at the skills that are learned by our forces members when they're on active service that could better be used in the industry for things way beyond security positions. I have a concern that sometimes we rely too heavily on organizations like Prospect or Canada Company, third party agencies that have to raise money independently of government sources to help our forces transfer into private industry.

Do you see the value of a Monster.com kind of protocol being introduced into the forces so that our force members, more quickly, more ably, have translation services and are linked to the various programs that are out there—I'm not saying it's all up to government—so that we have better use of our resources and a better opportunity for our forces members to find jobs?

[Cmdre Mark Watson]

We've had discussions with Monster.com over the last couple of years, but they deal with the American military. The American military is so mammoth. It's very different from what we have in Canada with our limited number of people retiring each year. There are two trains of thought. One is that we need the translator to explain to people what we do, and the other is that some people would rather do one-on-one counselling in which we can find what the person wants to do with his skill set and then work individually. A lot of the time, that's what Prospect and Canada Company are doing. They work individually as opposed to putting information into a computer and pumping it out.

Having said that, we are working closely to accredit a lot of our programs as Red Seal programs, or programs for journeyman cooks, and all the others through our Canadian Defence Academy, and we're also looking to make sure that various trades are being recognized by various professional institutions across Canada. We are working towards the same, if you want, desires, as Monster.com is. We're not necessarily working through their system, but I think we're achieving the same effects.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you.

[Col Gérard Blais]

We are also working with Human Resources Development Canada and Veterans Affairs to develop a skills translator. We're examining this public option first before we potentially look down the road at a private sector option.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I'm just curious. Given that they already have the translator, and they told us what the cost was, which was, frankly, quite minimal, why would we try to reinvent the wheel when there's something available right there in front of us?

[Col Gérard Blais]

The solution that's offered in the States would not be identical to the Canadian model. Our trades and the officer classifications are quite different in a lot of cases, and it wouldn't be just as simple as taking an off-the-shelf solution and importing it here. It would require a lot of extra work done, and as you can imagine, any IT work does tend to become quite expensive.

[The Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Mr. Hawn.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Just to follow up on the conversation with the Admiral, the numbers you were given were to get us in the door. If we were going to do a follow-on program it would get a lot more expensive than that.

I have a point on the MFRCs. I visited the MFRC in Halifax recently, and I'm from Edmonton and I spent time with the MFRC there. They seem to be pretty aware of taking on the veterans and they seem to be already moving in that direction. Maybe they're just doing it on their own initiative without waiting for direction, which I think is a good thing.

When somebody comes back after being away—they missed the 120 days point—and a couple of years later they say they're suffering now, and so on, we allow them to come back and obviously assess them and so on. One of the things that have always concerned me is burden of proof. I have a feeling that sometimes we set the burden of proof too high. I have seen, in the last couple of years, a more reasonable standard applied such that maybe someone can't prove it medically 100%, but it's a reasonable assumption or conclusion that their current condition is related to being there.

How hard are we being on burden of proof and are we softening on that?

Mr. Marcus.

[Phil Marcus]

The burden of proof is based on policy, which once again I'm going to say is sort of governed by Treasury Board policy. The LTD policy itself is quite clear that you have to demonstrate that, number one, your current condition was related to military service, or that it was not related to military service but you are totally disabled, and both of those conditions satisfy the requirement and the policy that you cannot work. As long as you cannot work and you can demonstrate that through either physical, psychological, or other evaluations, then you are eligible for the benefit.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

So there is room in the process, I hope, for somebody to say, maybe strictly against policy, “You can't prove that, but you know what? That is reasonable”. Is there room for that?

[Phil Marcus]

Because the SISIP, LTD, and life insurance policies are owned by the CDS, it gives the CAF through SISIP a unique advantage in the management of life and disability insurance cases, where through delegated authority under CDS, SISIP has the authority to overturn Manulife decisions. Our job is to look at the second level of appeal for all those cases and to always try to find a way to give people benefits, if they're deserving of those.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Good, that's what I wanted to hear. I've heard some cases where that has been applied quite effectively.

You mentioned that people should go to SISIP first, but they can go to VAC and bypass this altogether. How often does that happen? I'm not sure who would be the best to answer that.

[Phil Marcus]

We don't know that. You would have to ask VAC that.