Veterans Affairs Committee on June 7th, 2016

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

We have Mr. Fraser and Ms. Lockhart.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Walbourne, I'm wondering about the one veteran, one standard model. I'm wondering how you would characterize that standard and what it would be like as part of a one-stop shop. Could comment on that and tell us what you think it would look like?

[Gary Walbourne]

Well, it's probably a question best left to my colleague Mr. Parent, the ombudsman for Veterans Affairs.

However, I would say that if we talk about one standard, there should be one route of access. There should be one engagement. There should be one form to fill out. We need to get down to one. At Veterans Affairs Canada, there are now 15 different forms for 15 different types of services and benefits. We want to get down to one.

When we talk about one veteran, we're not just talking about everyone being treated equally; we're talking about one access. How do people get access to services and benefits? I believe there's a lot that can be done.

I believe, first of all, that a soldier is a soldier. If we started there, we wouldn't have these classes and types of veterans when we get to the other end. You can be class B your whole life and never see a theatre of operation, yet still be hurt in the service of this country. Probably your access to services and benefits is going to be a little different from that of a regular force member, even though the malady may be exactly the same.

I'll leave it at that, but it's a good question for the veterans ombudsman.

[Alaina Lockhart, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

I'm going to ask a succinct question: is there one thing we shouldn't do?

[Gary Walbourne]

The answer is don't give us more of the same. I don't mean to be flip, but as Einstein said, to do the same over and over again and expect different results is a definition of insanity. The model has been built for 40, 50, 60 years. It's been built over that time with layer on layer. It's time to have a good honest look and get out of our silos and stop protecting our turf. Let's get the rust out of the system. We're there.

[Alaina Lockhart, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

Next we'll have Mr. Clarke and Mr. Van Kesteren. They are going to their time.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

As to universality of service, a key concept of our Canadian forces, I am supportive of this concept, and I understand the angles. We're not a proletarian army; we're a professional army. Each soldier needs to be able to engage in combat and not just drive a car or whatever.

Is it true, though, that universality of service is a problem in that it creates other problems for veterans?

[Gary Walbourne]

I'm going to come down on this towards the middle of the road. I believe we need a concept like universality of service. General Vance has said it clearly and I support what he said, but I also believe that universality of service is a stumbling block, especially to anyone who is suffering an OSI. There are going to be people who are not going to come forward.

It's not only the loss of a job and a paycheque; anyone who has served knows this is a career and a lifestyle. You're giving up more than just a job. Universality of service is a stumbling block, but how do we work around it? I think we need to get the right minds in a room to have a conversation. Can universality of service be held in one quarter but not in all quarters? That's just off the top of my head.

There are a lot of different ways to look at this issue. What are our allies doing and how are they moving forward and transitioning with this?

Someone said it's 2016. Well, it is. Maybe it's time to have a fresh look. I'm not saying take universality of service and throw it out the window—I don't think that's the answer for the chain of command—but if we've put barriers in the way, either we find ways to get over the barriers or we find places to put those issues that we are going to run up against. I believe that unless we have that opportunity, we may be causing some of our own grief.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Thank you so much. This has been so informative.

I really appreciated what you said about thinking about the total cost of a mission. You are so absolutely right. I think all of us have a love for our military. When people ask me what the greatest part of my job is, I say it's the military and the veterans. That is probably what is nearest and dearest to me.

In my riding of Chatham-Kent—Essex, or Leamington now.... I say that because we have the Essex and Kent command in Windsor and Chatham, and these men and women have had such an impact on all of our lives.

When we talk about the total cost, have we really taken into account the later years of our soldiers? Are we doing enough there? Are we considering what might happen two, five, or maybe 10 years down the road? Is there enough effort being focused on that part of their life?

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

I apologize. You will have to wrap it up in about 35 seconds.

[Gary Walbourne]

I don't think there is enough being done. I believe there is more we can do. I can tell you how much it takes to put a CF-18 in the air for an hour; I can't tell you what it takes to put a soldier on the ground somewhere. I believe we have the data. I just think someone has to have enough interest in taking that and moving it forward. I think we could do more. I think we could give the government a better projection on what a theatre of operations may cost going forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

Thank you.

Ms. Mathyssen, we will end with you, with two minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Many interesting things have come up, but one that sticks out in my mind is the fact that there is a great deal of time spent taking the civilian out of CF personnel. Their culture is changed to a military culture. However, when the time comes to establish a connection back to civilian life, not a lot of time is taken. Although there has been a great deal of talk about education and preparing the CF member and his or her family, it seems to me that there is a lot of confusion. We heard from veterans who said, “Well, I didn't know these services existed” or spouses who said, “Nobody told us that this opportunity was there.”

It seems to me that it is a lot of information coming at people all at once, and they are just not taking it in, or they are so injured or upset about leaving the military that they can't take it in. I wonder what suggestions you would have to deal with that particular problem.

[Gary Walbourne]

I am going to steal some of the things I have heard in the environment. I will try not to take credit for them.

There has been talk. You know, we have boot camp, the basic training for people coming in, and we spend all this time developing the type of soldier we want. However, going out, we get a SCAN seminar, a second career seminar, that lasts two or three days or maybe a week. I think there is more we can do there.

We will go back again to where I am. We get a temporary medical category for the person before they get to a permanent medical category. At that point in time, there are at least six or eight months before the soldier is let outside. Why aren't we taking advantage of that time to do some training? It is civilian acclimatization, or whatever you want to call it. Something as simple as writing a CV and translating your abilities and capabilities to civvy talk is a piece of work. There is almost a bit of a game to it, and you need to know how to do that.

I have had colonels apply for positions inside my organization, but the rules are that I can see only what is on their application. When he tells me he is a commanding officer, I get it. He has handled everything: HR, finance, procurement, parking, whatever. He has done it. I know he has all the experience he needs, but if he doesn't demonstrate it to me, there is nothing I can do to help him.

I think things like that are little things we could teach folks to help them out, and then bring the families into a part of that and start talking about what the impact on their life is going to be and what is available. I think education is a big part of it.

We are working with the department right now to build one common IT platform with everything on it, very similar to the one that was introduced at Veterans Affairs Canada, the benefits navigator, so we are working with them on that and trying to develop that platform. I think it would be a tremendous boost, especially to spouses and family members, to have a place they can go to find out whatever they want. Through a series of clicks, what is important or pertinent to you would come forward, and everything else would fade into the background.

We are working towards that, and I am very pleased with the help and engagement we are getting from the department.

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

That's great, and thank you.

That ends our questioning. The committee would like a wrap-up from you if you have another two minutes and there's anything you would like to say. Again, if there's anything you would like to add afterwards, please send an email to the clerk, and it will be distributed to all our committee members.

[Gary Walbourne]

I have a few very quick comments.

There are certain things said here today that I think are of key importance. I think the attribution of service piece goes without saying. I really believe we need to have an adult conversation about that.

Secondly, I say a soldier is a soldier. There should be parity for our reservists. The reservists played a big role in Afghanistan, a large role in Afghanistan.

When I talk about attribution of service and having to avoid that adjudication process at Veterans Affairs Canada, please, please do not leave this room with the thought that I'm saying we should remove resources from the environment. Now is our opportunity, with the additional resources coming in and a change to the business model, for us to get this right. I think the case managers we're hiring at Veterans Affairs are required. Will we need them all to be case managers? Maybe not. Maybe some can be life coaches. Let's not take the opportunity today to cut other resources out; instead, change the delivery model and bring the resources to bear.

I'll now do my public service announcement.

Our website, ombuds.ca, has a lot of information on it. We have just started to transfer all our videos and literature into ASL. That's online for our members, so we're doing as much as we can to educate. I suggest to everyone to please drop by. I love the stats.

The last thing I'll say is that the issues we're talking about here today have been talked about for years. I've been to these committees. I love every opportunity I have—I'll get that on the record—but I do need to make sure that it's time for something to happen. I come down and I talk about leadership and desire. If you desire to change something badly enough, and you want to fix it, put the leadership to it and it will happen. I think it's time to stop hiding behind our own silos of authority. Open the doors. It's time for a change.

What I'm hearing from the members, both those serving and released, is that frustration is mounting. It's mounting. People are frustrated. My calls are up almost 30% over last year. I noticed that MGERC, the military grievances external review committee, has released its report. Their grievances are going through the ceiling. Something is happening in the environment, and if we're not cognizant of it and we don't deal with it, I hate to say it, but we'll be back having this conversation again in 10 or 12 months.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

On behalf of the committee, I want to thank you for taking the time out of your schedule to offer your excellent and frank testimony today.

We will now break for one minute. Only because we are very tight for time, I ask you to leave the room very quickly if you're not supposed to be here for the in camera meeting.

[Proceedings continue in camera]