Veterans Affairs Committee on June 7th, 2016

[Gary Walbourne]

I think it would be an excellent employment opportunity, considering if we're talking about those who have already released and gone through the process. They have an experience that hopefully none of us will ever have to face. I'll leave it at that.

I believe that hiring veterans who have the knowledge and the capability is a tremendous boost to the veterans themselves. Again, it gives them a sense of belonging and being part of a team, so yes.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Okay. Thank you.

We've talked about the digitizing of medical records and how digitizing medical records really helps to speed the transmission of information from one practitioner to another. Is that coming along well? Are we where we want to be with that yet, or do we still have a ways to go?

[Gary Walbourne]

When I started with the department back in 2004—I shouldn't give this away—I was in charge of their records section, and we were talking about the digitization of records then. We're still talking about it now, 12 years later.

If we go back to my opening statement when I talked about attribution of service, if the attribution of service was determined by the Canadian Armed Forces, there is actually no file transfer. What do I need to transfer? I've already made the decision.

There is one notification that goes to Veterans Affairs, saying perhaps that this soldier was hurt on this day, doing this, in relationship to his service to Canada. That goes away.

I think that's where we need to be. I know the effort is still ongoing, but I don't think it's finished yet.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

How much time do I have, Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

One minute.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

I don't know if this is a practical suggestion or whether there would be the capacity for it, but one of the things we've noticed is the medical care. When they're in the service, they're receiving their medical care through the Department of National Defence. When they become veterans, all of a sudden their medical care is through the provinces. Is there a capacity for the Department of National Defence to still play a role in providing the medical care for veterans, or would that be unworkable?

[Gary Walbourne]

I think it's just straight-up capacity. Looking at the volume of what's going through the system currently, I think that to hang on and continue with the veterans once they've released is a straight-up capacity issue.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Thank you. I have no further questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

I would like to ask you a clarifying question on case managers. I believe you said 27 of them, and for the clerical workers it was seven. What proportion of the workforce is this? Is it 10% of the workforce, or 5%...?

The other question would be, how long has the department been short? Is it a year, two years, three years, or is it just a process that's always been there and accepted?

[Gary Walbourne]

I think the shortage is at about 8% to 10%. It's nothing new. There's been a gap in the staffing for the last several years. Two years ago, the first encounter I had as the ombudsman was in Halifax. I talked to the clinic there, and they were short seven members and had been for a few years.

The problem is not new. It's been around for a while.

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

Thank you.

Mr. Fraser is next.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Thank you very much to both of you for appearing today and for your excellent presentation. One thing I noted in your presentation that we've heard over and over again—we've heard from a number of veterans before our committee already—is that it's those who have fallen through the cracks that you hear from.

I'm wondering if you can expand on that so that we understand how it is people are falling through the cracks and what measures we can recommend in order to stop people from falling through the cracks. That seems to be the crux of the issue: that some veterans do very well, but it's the few who don't do well at all who are falling through the cracks. We want to fix that.

[Gary Walbourne]

As I mentioned, Veterans Affairs Canada has grosso modo 200,000 clients. For the most part, and I was the deputy ombudsman at Veterans Affairs, Veterans Affairs does a good job. It's not all 200,000 complaining every day. When I start to talk about those who slip through the cracks, it will be those who are waiting for adjudication because their file hasn't been digitized, or it has not been sent to Veterans Affairs Canada, or it's sent to Veterans Affairs Canada and it's not complete, or it's sent to Veterans Affairs Canada and in their first adjudication process they don't agree for some reason. Perhaps they don't think it's attributable to service, and it goes to a second level of adjudication. These are the people who for six to eight months, or sometimes 12 to 14 months, have been waiting for a benefit or a service without any other avenue. You can easily see how someone with an OSI or someone who needs medication would spin themselves out of control in that situation.

To your point about fixing that gap, I think I'll go back to my original statement: if the determination of attribution to service is done by the Canadian Armed Forces prior to the uniform being removed, it changes the game on the ground. It's no longer waiting to determine if I'm in the club or out of the club. I'm sure if someone who gets awarded three-fifths wants four-fifths, there's an adjudication process inside of Veterans Affairs Canada for exactly that.

Those who have to wait inordinate amounts of time for whatever reason are the ones who are slipping through the cracks. These are the ones we're hearing about, those who find themselves waiting and have had no answer. These are the ones slipping through the cracks. I think we can stop that by doing the attribution to service determination inside the Canadian Armed Forces.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Thank you.

With regard to reservists, we know there is a concern that they get treated differently from other veterans. I'm wondering if you can explain to me how they would fit into the model you're talking about and what differences there might be for reservists who are transitioning out.

[Gary Walbourne]

I was there when Mr. Parent coined the phrase “a veteran is a veteran”. I think we're at a point in time when we should start to say that a soldier is a soldier, a sailor is a sailor, and an aviator is an aviator. Why do we have classes of soldiers?

In 2006 the Australian government decided to go parity across the board, where all soldiers—they went even so far as to include cadets—are covered. Should they become ill or injured in the service or custody of their country, all those members, both reserve force and others, have full access to benefits and services. I asked the Inspector General of the Australian Defence Force for some input on what happened financially, and they said there was basically no change in what they had done, either administratively or program-wise.

I think we're probably finding ourselves getting to that point. Inside the Canadian Armed Forces you have the army, navy, and the air force, and then some special entities. The way in which reserve force soldiers are used, engaged, deployed, and employed is different inside each element. I think we need some continuity across the board. I think we're at a point in time when we need to start removing complexity from the system, because the first thing a reservist has to do.... The question will be, what type of soldier are you: A, B, B-plus, or C? Once that's determined, that opens up certain doors and gates for you. If you're not a B-plus, then certain benefits and services are not available to you.

Why are we still talking about this? I think what we need to do is start saying that a soldier is a soldier. It changes the game. Removing complexities from the system will start to go right to the core of the issues we're talking about—those who slip through transition, those who don't have some support when they get out. I think that would be my point on that question.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

I'm glad you raised the comparison with Australia's model. My next question was going to be whether we've examined, in your view, best practices from other countries on this transition piece. Is there more to learn, do you think? You mentioned Australia. Are there other countries with a properly functioning system that we would be satisfied with, such that we can try to implement their best practices into ours?

[Gary Walbourne]

The product I talked about that I'll have ready in six to 10 weeks is going to look at all our allies and what they have available.

First, as I think any member of the Canadian Armed Forces or a veteran would tell you, we need a Canadian solution. However, I don't think that fact precludes looking at best practices.

We have found Australia.... I do believe parity across the board is a good practice. The Americans are doing some things so that they will not release a soldier, not allow him to take off the uniform, until everything is in place, so the continuity of life and salary and all those things continues until there's a place for this person to go.

We are looking at best practices, and they will be included in the document that I hope to produce in the next six to 10 weeks.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Great.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

You have a few seconds.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

No, that's fine.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

Mr. Clarke is next.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, Mr. Ombudsman, Ms. Hynes. I am very pleased that you are appearing before the committee this morning. Thank you for the exceptional work you are doing.

Mr. Ombudsman, you mentioned integrated personnel support centres, or IPSCs. Were you talking about non-military personnel? Did I understand what you said correctly?

[Gary Walbourne]

Yes.

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

Some veterans have said that there are not enough senior military people. In those integrated personnel support centres, there were a lot of people in the ranks, but not many officers. I have been told that the lack of senior military people indirectly leads to suicides, in the sense that there are not enough superiors to take direct charge of the soldiers and to supervise them closely. An officer cannot really observe who among his troops is not doing well when he has to handle 50 people rather than 30, which is the normal number for a lieutenant, for example.

Are you aware of those problems? If so, what have you told the army so that they can rectify the situation?

[Gary Walbourne]

As I mentioned earlier, General Vance has taken the JPSU structure and its management as one of his key deliverables. They are devolving some of the responsibility back down to the local commands. They are even going to up-rank the person in charge, which means that if the person was a major before, he will be a lieutenant-colonel or a colonel. They are bringing more resources to bear from the senior level. That's what General Vance is planning to do. We need to give him the opportunity to institute that type of program. Then, as always, we will be going back to look at the effectiveness of it.