Veterans Affairs Committee on June 7th, 2016

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

You have mentioned your service delivery model a number of times. In you text, you talk about a “fundamental change”. You have listed a number of aspects of that fundamental change, but could you also tell us about other aspects of the fundamental change that you may not have had the opportunity to tell us about until now. I assume that you have a specific list of the fundamental changes that are needed.

[Gary Walbourne]

I've learned in this environment that the best way to eat an elephant is one bite at a time. I believe attribution of service is a game-changer on the ground. I think we can cut four to six weeks off the process immediately.

The second thing we have to do is get out of this class-of-soldier thing we're in, A, B, B-plus, C, regular force, reserve force. We need to stop that.

The third point for me, once we've accomplished those two other things, is make a commitment to the suffering soldier who has experienced injury or malady. We don't let that soldier go until we have everything in place. That's what I'd like to see in a delivery model. Attribution of service goes to the Canadian Armed Forces. Veterans Affairs Canada determines quality of life and supplies benefits and services. Then, before we get there, the Canadian Armed Forces should hang on to the member until everything is in place.

These are the three steps I'd like to see brought to bear. I think we'll have to do them incrementally. We should try attribution of service first. Seeing that we already do it for reservists, why wouldn't we extend it? Moving forward, I think the other pieces would automatically go away; if we say that there are no classes of soldiers, everyone gets equal treatment. The third piece, the idea that you're not going anywhere until we have everything you require in place, would eliminate most of the transition problems.

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

I have a more general question. It may not be related to your official role, but it concerns you nonetheless.

I have heard that the federal government should set money aside in the event of future conflicts. This goes beyond the Department of National Defence. It seems that funds are already available to meet the increasing demand for services over a certain length of time, such as we have with Afghanistan at the moment.

[Gary Walbourne]

I think it's an excellent point and I agree with you wholeheartedly.

We have the data. Someone once said to me that Veterans Affairs Canada was data-rich and knowledge-poor. I do believe they have the data. With the data we've captured over the last 50 or 60 years, we should be able to project what the cost of putting a soldier in any theatre would be.

We have accrual accounting, so if we know that it takes $5 to put a soldier in theatre but we're going to need $5 more to support them when they come home, then we should book that. We shouldn't continue to have these conversations because every time there is a theatre of operation, a special duty, or whatever it might be, we come back and these conversations start. Ombudsmen get in front of committees, and we talk to parliamentarians and we have the same conversations. If we have the ability and we have the data, why aren't we mining that data to tell those who make these decisions that it costs five bucks to go but another five bucks to come home? I think we could do that. I think we have enough expertise and technology today that we could extrapolate what those costs could potentially be.

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

I have 20 seconds, so I'll just say thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

Go ahead, Ms. Romanado.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

I'd like to thank you both for being here today. I know we had a chance to meet a couple of months ago.

You talked a little bit about the transition team and the goal of maybe getting us to the point that the same person from DND would follow the member to Veterans Affairs. I'm going to ask a question that you might not want to answer, but why is Veterans Affairs separate from DND? It seems to me that there is a duplication of services happening.

The transition is not smooth because of sharing of information or lack of sharing of information. There is the introduction of new people in the veterans' life because they are no longer in DND. Now you're a veteran, so you lose your identity and you're no longer a DND member. You were a Canadian Armed Forces member and you're now a veteran.

I'm curious why they are separate entities. I would just like your thoughts on that.

[Gary Walbourne]

I'll answer any question, apparently.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

You have the unique question.

[Gary Walbourne]

First and foremost, they have different responsibilities—that goes without saying—but is one an extension of another?

Let me compound your issue, and I'll probably get in a lot of trouble on this. Why are there two ombudsmen? I serve the current and former members of the Canadian Armed Forces , and my friend Guy Parent is out there doing the same thing. I understand the complexities of each entity, but we do it ourselves. We talk about coming together—let's get closer—and meanwhile, we do the same thing.

I do believe the two departments could be closer together. This concierge, life coach, or whatever you want to call it, doesn't have to be a DND employee. They can be a Veterans Affairs Canada employee, or maybe a veteran who has been hired. There are many opportunities.

Could the two departments come closer together? Yes, but it'll go back to a comment made by one of your colleagues this morning about swimming lanes. The lines will become more blurred. We know that the funding going to veterans is statutory funding and won't be touched. That's a no-brainer, but how is the administration going to work and what would it look like?

Looking at where we are today with two separate departments, I think there is going to be complexity in trying to bring them together. There are going to be problems and difficulty in getting it done, but I don't believe that precludes us from finding better ways to work together, such as saying, “This is your responsibility; you do that, and then I'll do this.” I would start to look that way before I would say, “Let's bring the two of them close together.”

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Just switching gears, we've heard in testimony about operational stress injuries and the amplification of that in putting a veteran through the stress of transitioning and so on and so forth.

We've also heard that this sometimes starts before they've actually seen action. For instance, we've had some losses at RMC in Kingston. We know from the universality of service that active members are fearful to come forward to say that they're suffering or they're having difficulty with something because they don't want to have something on file saying they are not fit for service, so it's chicken and egg: you don't want to say anything and get help because you're afraid to lose your job, but if you don't get help, there is nothing on your file that later on down the line can prove that it was attributable to service.

What are your thoughts on making sure that our active members of the Canadian Armed Forces, whether they be reservists or at RMC, have access to a third party, the type of employee assistance program that the rest of us have, so that they can go to get help without worrying that it's going to be reported to their employer?

[Gary Walbourne]

We're living in that world today because there are—and Robyn, you can correct me on the number—10,000 serving members who are currently drawing services and benefits from Veterans Affairs Canada. I would say the chain of command doesn't know about three-quarters of them.

General Vance came out a few weeks ago and said the universality of service is absolutely critical to what it is they do, and that it must stay in place. I'm going to leave the command and control of the Canadian Armed Forces to General Vance. There are countries that are looking at the universality of service in trying to determine whether the universality of service we imposed 50, 60, 70, or 80 years ago is still a viable tool today. Those questions, I think, are better directed at the Chief of the Defence Staff.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

In terms of transition, you mentioned the families a bit. In terms of training for families to take care of their veterans—because often it is the families who are supporting the veterans in the transition, especially those who are ill and injured—should we be improving the training we're giving to the family members to help them? They're going to be the people who are staying at home taking care of the vets. I want to know what your thoughts are on that aspect.

[Gary Walbourne]

The families need to be engaged earlier. When there is an inkling that this type of thing is going on, the families need to be engaged much earlier by the Canadian Armed Forces. They need to be trained on what they can expect as these maladies manifest themselves. I believe they should have the ability to pick up the phone to reach out for help and be able to get it quickly.

I don't know if we need to set up a whole new structure, but maybe we need to expand the one we currently have. Right now, Veterans Affairs Canada and the Department of National Defence, the Canadian Armed Forces, have extended services through the military family resource centres, the MFRCs, to families for a couple of years after retirement. I think that's a tremendous idea. It allows for continuity before phasing off to the next part of their lives. We could do the same thing for mental health.

We have to get the families, and especially the spouses, involved and tell them what it is they can expect and where they can reach for help, because these maladies manifest at home first.

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

Thank you.

We're down to five minutes.

We have Mr. Van Kesteren.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was mentioning to some of the others when I first got here that this is my 11th year in Parliament, and I have never sat on Veterans Affairs. This is a first for me. I'm privileged to be here.

When you jump into a new committee, one of the unfortunate things is that you get somewhat of a shallow understanding. It's like one of those prayer chains: when you're at the very end, everybody else has prayed for what you're going to pray for. I've gotten to that point. I've listened to this question and that question.

If I were going to be praying for vets, one of the things I'd be asking for is that in their transitions.... We touched on it slightly, but I want you to elaborate on the importance of moving into the workforce and on what we're doing as a government to make that easier for them. Are there areas in which we can improve on those things?

[Gary Walbourne]

Thank you. This is one my pet projects.

Last year a piece of legislation called the Veterans Hiring Act was approved and passed through the House. I sat in front of the committee and said that I thought the opportunity that then presented itself gave the authority to the Department of National Defence to determine whether the injury or malady was in service to Canada. If it's in service to Canada, you get statutory placement on that list. If you're medically releasing, but not due to service, you get mandatory status on that list. It's absolutely critical to get on that list quickly, because the jobs come on and off the list very quickly.

Throughout the jigs and the reels, the authority was given to Veterans Affairs Canada. Let me tell you what happened.

When the member is released, either statutory or medical, because of service, the file goes to Veterans Affairs Canada for adjudication. It can be adjudicated. I don't know what the timeline is. I've lost sight of it. We've tried so hard to get at that data, and it's almost impossible. That's one thing.

When the person says, “Yeah, okay; it's attributable to service, so on the list you go,” then guess what? If that veteran now wants benefits and services, the file goes back for readjudication.

We're doing this to ourselves. We continue to add complexity and put layers where they should never be. When I spoke to the then acting president of the Public Service Commission, the comment to me was, “We don't care who gives us the name as long as someone in authority gives us the name.”

I think it was an opportunity. Had we taken that opportunity and given the authority to the Department of National Defence, it would have been a quick step from that point to my other point of attribution of service with regard to access to services and benefits. A lot of the things we are encountering we've imposed upon ourselves. I firmly believe that was an opportunity missed.

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

I live near Detroit, and I don't know if we tried this, but there's an ad that comes on WJR. I don't know if you've heard it, but these are vets who are talking. “I still have nightmares. I'm okay, but I still have these recurring visions.” It's a public awareness campaign. I remember the first time I heard it. Now that I've heard it a number of times, each time I hear it, for me as a civilian it reinforces the severity of what some of our vets have gone through.

Have we thought about that as a way we can reach out to the public at large? When I talk about jobs for vets too, has there been co-operation? Do we need to address businesses at large to make them aware of the plight that some of our vets are involved in?

[Gary Walbourne]

I think I can say from my experience at Veterans Affairs Canada, and now in this position, that corporate Canada has stepped up pretty well. I think that through a lot of work, both Veterans Affairs Canada and the Department of National Defence have gotten a lot of corporate partners on side.

My word of caution about those types of commercials and advertisements is that sometimes too much exposure scares away a potential employer. We talk about operational stress injuries, and it's an umbrella term. It can mean anything from anxiety to full-on, full-blown PTSD and the gamut of everything in between.

I think we need to educate the public that we have soldiers on whom we've spent millions of training dollars, who have learned loyalty, command, respect, dedication, and those types of attributes that are wanted by any organization, whether it's private or public. I think that's what we need to be promoting. These people who do experience OSIs are day-to-day operationally fully functioning; they have maladies, and they suffer through them.

My caution is that not every soldier leaving the Canadian Armed Forces is broken. There are 5,000 to 6,000 releasing every year; about 1,400 are releasing medically—that's about 600 because of service, 900 not—so there are people with a lot of attributes and capabilities who are just walking out the door and could be picked up by anybody. That's my word of caution about those types of things.

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

Thank you.

Ms. Mathyssen, we have three minutes, and then we're going to suspend for a little bit before the next round.

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

Okay.

Thank you, again. I have two quick questions.

We've been focusing on the veteran and that preparation for transition from DND to VAC. We also know that there are injuries that the veterans themselves might not be aware of; these manifest themselves over time, perhaps over 10 or 15 years. How should these service-related injuries be addressed if DND is sending notification to VAC before individuals are out of uniform?

If time permits, I have a second question. There are support staff, people who have worked for DND, but they're not part of the forces. I'm thinking, for example, of an Afghani interpreter who was brought to Canada, and his reward was to be brought here and given opportunities for education. He has PTSD and he cannot function. All those opportunities mean nothing because he cannot function and he cannot get help through DND or the operational stress injury clinic. Is this an issue? It doesn't seem to be on anyone's radar. Should it be?

[Gary Walbourne]

As for the Afghani interpreter, I have no idea what type of arrangement was made there. If the person is suffering, if he is in Canada, I'm hoping there's access to some sort of support or assistance for him. Probably if he is encountering those types of issues and doesn't have access to service benefits, maybe he should go back to the sponsor and see what can be done for him. Our office has not been approached by anyone in that situation. I'm not quite sure if I'd know what to do if someone did.

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

The second part was about those injuries that manifest themselves much later.

[Gary Walbourne]

This goes back to the fact that there will always be a need for an adjudication process inside Veterans Affairs Canada because of these types of maladies. I think if the malady is recognized while the person is in service and there's a record of it, that's all that's required. We need to have that causation between service and malady so that Veterans Affairs Canada can start to open that door for services and benefits.

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

It's a bit of a catch-22, isn't it?