Veterans Affairs Committee on April 23rd, 2015

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Thank you to our witnesses. Mr. Parent, Ms. Squire, welcome and thank you for being here today.

Ombudsman, you said you had begun a comprehensive review of the transition process just over a year ago. I couldn't tell whether you had completed that review and were going to report on your findings.

[Guy Parent]

We are currently in the first phase of the review, but we have made some preliminary observations.

We have already notified both departments, the Department of National Defence and the Department of Veterans Affairs, of our findings so far in order to facilitate ongoing improvements. I mentioned a few things in my opening remarks. Certainly, something that's quite significant is the fact that the language used by the Department of Veterans Affairs to talk about transition is completely different from that used by the Department of National Defence. I think that, at the very least, it would be important to make sure that they use the same terminology.

One of the best examples of confusing terminology for veterans is the term case manager. At the Department of National Defence, case managers are health professional experts who handle the medical aspect of the transition process. At the Department of Veterans Affairs, however, case managers deal with the psychosocial dimension of the transition process for veterans. So it leads to confusion among veterans, and that's a serious issue.

Something else that other witnesses and committee members alike have brought up is the fact that the Department of Veterans Affairs should enter into the transition process much earlier than it does right now. In your discussions with the previous group of witnesses, it was even suggested that transition planning be incorporated into a member's initial career training, that the member learn about the programs and benefits available to veterans.

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

I can understand why a member of the military or a veteran would be confused; it's quite complicated. I even have trouble following certain aspects.

You also talked about the fact that you had already started mapping the transition process. I'm a pretty visual person, so seeing the mapped out process would help me. I'm not sure whether you'd be able to provide the committee with something—not today, of course—but having a diagram or map of that nature might help us understand the whole transition process a bit better.

Is that something you've already completed?

[Guy Parent]

Yes, we'll provide the committee with a document that has at least one flow map, but it's complex.

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

It's complex, indeed.

[Guy Parent]

Without an explanation, it's complex.

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

I'd very much like to see it, if you have it. It would help me understand the process better since it is, indeed, quite complex.

One of the issues you raised was governance, and you briefly explained where things stood in that regard. I'm not sure whether it's too early in the process for you to elaborate on how that governance component could be improved, in your view. Would that mean merging certain services? Can you tell us more about that?

[Guy Parent]

It's the office's view that the discretion to make decisions should fall on a single department or an individual jointly appointed by both departments. Under the current regime, some decision-makers work for Veterans Affairs Canada and others work for the Department of National Defence. No real joint decision-making authority exists. Decisions are made by both departments, and then we end up chasing our tails in order to solve release-related problems. The transition process needs to be fully integrated. Decisions should be made by an authority that both departments recognize.

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

I expect that would help with all of the business processes.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Mr. Lemieux, you may go ahead.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you very much for being here in front of committee today and for highlighting what we're studying, which is the transition process as well as transitioning programs. Maybe that's where I'd like to shift my questioning at the beginning. Some of the transition that a veteran goes through is related to process and of course some of it is related to programming in terms of what kind of tangible support they receive.

I wanted to ask a few questions about some of the more recent announcements. I ask it because the recent announcements by the minister are very much aligned with recommendations that you had made as the veterans ombudsman and also aligned well with recommendations that the committee made. Some were implemented and some were not quite implemented.

For example, I'm not going to list them all, but could I ask you to perhaps comment on the reserve parity? That is respect for reservists and of course that announcement was saying that part-time reservists would be treated, in terms of access to the benefit that they receive, the same as a full-time, regular force soldier. I'm wondering if you might have a comment on that. Did that achieve what it was you were hoping it would achieve when you made the recommendation?

[Guy Parent]

Certainly to us it met the intent of one of our recommendations, which we considered one of the most important ones in the new veterans charter improvements and the recommendations from the committee. I think what's important is that it also supports the theme that we have in the office that a veteran is a veteran is a veteran. Wherever you get injured and whatever your status is at the time, it is not important. If you suffer an injury, whether it's physical or psychological, because of your service, then the government is responsible to treat you at the same level. We welcome that.

It's very early in the stages now to comment on the fairness of those programs because people are just now starting to access these new benefits. The one that you were talking about is one of the ones that was introduced by regulation and not legislation, which is good and certainly easier and faster than the other way. I certainly encourage the committee, whenever you look at Bill C-58, to put it through as quickly as possible.

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

That was my next question, because you're right, the reserve parity initiative has already been implemented through regulation. There are others that require a change in the act or in law, for example, and then will be followed by regulation.

You kind of answered my question. I was going to ask whether your recommendation would be that these initiatives should be supported so they can move forward.

[Guy Parent]

Certainly they're moving in the right direction and they're narrowing the gaps that exist in the new veterans charter. What's important for us is that I'm an advocate of fairness. I can not judge fairness in the aspects of adequacy, sufficiency, and access until the regulations are in place and those programs are active. At that point in time I can give you a much more substantial answer as to the fairness of the program. Certainly they are narrowing the gaps on the new veterans charter and I encourage the committee to go ahead and approve them.

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

Great, thank you for that.

I wanted to also mention something else. We've had a number of witnesses and I know you've been reading through all the transcripts. We had SISIP come and SISIP brought with them a lot of information about the programming that they offer. One of the comments that they did not make, but which I asked about afterwards—and that's kind of why I want to raise it right now—was their accidental dismemberment insurance policy.

When a soldier is injured, I think there is a fairly good understanding about the disability award, which is roughly $300,000 or up to $300,000 depending on the nature of the injury. It is delivered by Veterans Affairs. What's not always understood is that all soldiers, serving soldiers, are paying into SISIP. One of the benefits that SISIP offers is the accidental dismemberment insurance policy, which will pay up to $250,000. This is not to be confused with the disability award for accidental dismemberment, which could include for example, the more seriously injured veterans or serving members, the loss of a limb, the loss of eyes, that type of an insurance policy. The access to concrete tangible benefits in terms of an injury has two components to it. It has the SISIP component of up to $250,000 and the disability award of up to $300,000.

I'm wondering if you have a comment on that. Is that good? Have you had many complaints about that, or have you found that veterans appreciate having up to a maximum of $500,000 worth of compensation for a more serious injury?

[Guy Parent]

Mr. Chair, in the....

[The Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Mr. Parent, Mr. Lemieux left you three seconds to answer that.

[Guy Parent]

Three seconds!

[The Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The committee is going to top you up 57 seconds.

[Guy Parent]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Any complaints about SISIP of course would be directed toward the military DND ombudsman. Certainly a lot of people don't understand that there are complementary systems. SISIP is very often the first payer because it is an insurance company. In many cases they will provide, for instance, the vocational rehab program for the first two years. After that, VAC takes over. People have to understand that there are complementary systems. What people get from Veterans Affairs Canada is not the only payment that they get. Sometimes there are other benefits that kick into play.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Mr. Valeriote, go ahead.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for appearing before the committee and for all the work that you are doing. I have seen it and it is very much appreciated.

You mentioned an ethos that exists in the military culture. I think in the States they call it “sanctuary syndrome”. You are looked after. Everything is covered, and all of a sudden you are out there on your own. I think in large part that contributes to the severity of the PTSD that may be suffered. I am speaking particularly of the families. You talked about the families in transition. You have heard conversation around this table about better engaging spouses. I am wondering if you can comment on the inadequacy of our response to those needs and what more can be done to engage spouses.

You know Jenifer Migneault has been active in encouraging training of family members to deal with PTSD to relieve VAC, doctors, and others from that responsibility. Can you comment on that? What might be done by the government even in supporting the NGOs, such as Wounded Warriors and others, that are trying to do this so that they can contract it out in some cases?

[Guy Parent]

Thank you for that question.

I think families are very important. They are not issued by the military. People have families. It is just recently that National Defence has realized that young soldiers have parents. If you get injured when you are 18 or 19 years old, they will be mostly the ones looking after you as caregivers. Yes, families are important. There is not enough being done at this point in time, although there are some movements afoot to bring some improvements there.

I think what is also important is the fact that, even for the healthy veteran, the family's transition is a challenge. I am not too sure that National Defence and VAC have the release and transition process in place for the healthy veterans. Certainly it is a good place to start and realize that the family is there. There is quite an impact on the family when you leave the forces.

I served for 37 years, and I moved every three years. We really had no anchor town anywhere or that sort of thing. To go from that kind of a lifestyle—and it is not a job; it is a profession and a lifestyle—to a completely new world is quite challenging, quite daunting. Imagine if you have psychological or physical injuries on top of that. It's even worse.

The involvement of the spouse in the transition process needs to be mandatory. Of course, it is always an individual's choice, but certainly people have to be encouraged to bring the family into the transition process. I believe that our research and the review that we are doing right now with DND will probably bring that to the forefront as well.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

You mentioned case management in point 2 of your presentation, as well as the independence of the CAF and VAC case managers, and the lack of coordinated transition. I recall some testimony that was given by a young veteran who appeared before us who said that his medical reports, which caused his medically related release from the forces, identified very severe injuries, emotional and otherwise. Then, when he got to VAC, he essentially had to start all over again with new assessments by VAC doctors, which disregarded in fact the severity that was identified by the forces' doctors.

Is that a gap that actually exists? I was overwhelmed by that. Is that the case, that they don't know the situation from which the force member is coming when they come into VAC?

[Guy Parent]

I think one of the important factors there is the disconnect between CF case managers and VAC case managers, and the inability to pass on the right information because of privacy issues, privacy matters. As I said before, the DND case manager is based on a healthy transition to medical care, the spectrum of care, whereas in the VAC, one is looking at the psychosocial.

But there is an interaction between the two and the information must be passed on. At this point it's not, so there needs to be a better flow of information from one to the other.