Evidence of meeting #24 for Veterans Affairs in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was believe.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Alupa Clarke Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Do you think the JPSU should not be on the base? As Madam Lockhart said, it was a problem for many in the military to go to the base.
4:20 p.m.
National Defence and Canadian Forces Ombudsman
There is a problem for some military members to return to base, but I think we have to go back to the general rule. Those assigned to the JPSU for most intents and purposes are on base. Let's say it's the 80/20 rule.
I believe that other piece, that 20%, also needs a soft place to fall. That means we have to have a JPSU and by extension an avenue for those who don't want to return to base.
You can't take someone who's suffering that type of a malady and put them in an environment that compounds it. I firmly believe the Canadian Armed Forces chain of command is very aware of this, and they are as adaptable as they can be.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Alupa Clarke Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC
What's the percentage of army recruits in a year who will eventually be medically released? Do you have any numbers on that?
4:25 p.m.
National Defence and Canadian Forces Ombudsman
No. I could do the math if I had a couple of minutes and a calculator, but proportionately if I bring in 1,000 and currently I have a force strength of about 55,000 to 60,000 and I'm losing 8% on attrition and then about 2% of those are medical releases, so say 28 out of the thousand.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Alupa Clarke Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC
I'm not sure if it's part of your mandate, but do you believe we should invest more in service delivery or in benefits? The $3.7-billion retroactive for disability awards could have been used for service delivery, processing or enhancing that service delivery window. What's your opinion?
4:25 p.m.
National Defence and Canadian Forces Ombudsman
We need to ensure that a releasing member has quality of life. I'm not going to say what I think that looks like, but I believe it includes access to all financial services to which they are entitled. It means having a secure medical path forward. It means their families are fully informed and aware of what's happening, but I wouldn't put a dollar value on it.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Alupa Clarke Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC
I've read your brief many times, and you talked to me about it a little, but I still have a hard time understanding why the medical corps has an ethical problem with putting on paper that the injuries are related to the service.
4:25 p.m.
National Defence and Canadian Forces Ombudsman
I really can't answer that question. If we go back and look at how the process is supposed to work once the injury or illness takes place, and we fill out the proper forms.... Let's just step outside the Canadian Armed Forces for a second. Let's look at any workers compensation board across the country.
When there's an accident at work, the employer is responsible for filling out the paperwork and saying where and when that person got hurt. When the person goes to the workers compensation board, yes, he or she will be medically examined and will be questioned—where and how did this happen—but that's about the extent of it.
I'm saying I don't know what the ethical problem is. I don't know where the chafe point is. But if I'm filling out the CF 98, and making sure it's sent to the proper destinations, and all things are done, and I'm telling you the soldier fell off the back of the truck while he was on duty and it's attributable to service, maybe it's far above my pay grade, but I don't understand where there would be an ethical dilemma.
Now, I do know there are serving members who can draw benefits from Veterans Affairs Canada, and I think I made it very clear in my report and my memo that I am not talking about those who are still serving drawing benefits. I could probably see where there is a chafe point there. A member is drawing a benefit from Veterans Affairs Canada. The CAF may not know—I can see that. But for those medically releasing, we know if you don't meet U of S, universality of service, you're going. Once U of S has been determined, where's the ethical issue?
That's my opinion.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Irene Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
I have two quick questions. You made mention of the ID card. There has been a lot of discussion about whether it's a good idea or not, privacy issues, etc., but have those concerns been addressed? Do you have a sense that something like this is going to go forward?
4:25 p.m.
National Defence and Canadian Forces Ombudsman
From what I heard this morning in the conversation, the veterans in the room were asked questions about what they would like to see on the card, how the card could be used, and what it would look like. There was talk about enabling it with chip technology, that it could be expandable.
I think, again, if you ask the veterans ombudsman, they did a report one time about the veterans ID card that included many of the attributes we're talking about today, about the privacy issues. We all have bank cards, and Visa, and billions of dollars are transferred that way every day, so I think we can get our heads around that pretty quickly.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Irene Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
I have a money question. I always worry as soon as a sum of money becomes an issue. There's reticence. There's a pullback.
In your report after your recommendations you say the cost to implement your recommendations would be a minuscule amount relative to the government's budget for the department. You placed it at $22.27 billion.
I wonder about the time frame, and how you see that money being spent. Is it $22.27 billion over a long period of time? Where does that figure come from? That is my question.
4:30 p.m.
National Defence and Canadian Forces Ombudsman
That number is just a total of the two budgets of the Canadian Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Canada. I'm talking about an expenditure of $4.7 million a year, I think, to bring these concierges in. I do believe it will have to be a ramped-up cost. I don't think we would hire all of them the first year. I think it would be a ramped-up cost over a period of time.
Again, once you get good at what you're doing, there's also a tale that comes down the other end. I think the efficiencies and the effectiveness you will pick up in the system by having that type of service is going to far outweigh what other additional costs we're currently facing with the problems we're having.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Neil Ellis
That wraps up our round of questioning. As in the past, we'll give you a couple of minutes to wrap up, Mr. Walbourne, if you wish. From there we'll recess for five minutes, and then go into committee business.
4:30 p.m.
National Defence and Canadian Forces Ombudsman
The only thing I'd like to say in closing is, first of all, thank you for the opportunity to be here today. I know the department is doing a defence policy review, and I've said before it's sucking a lot of the oxygen out of the room.
I am cautiously optimistic. I'm hearing the right things, that a lot of these things are being considered and should find their way into that document.
I really hope they do, but if they don't make it into the defence policy review, I think these are fundamental changes we can make today, at minimal cost, that are going to have a tremendous impact on our serving members.
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Neil Ellis
On behalf of all the committee, thank you for taking time out of your day today to come and testify, and thank you for all you do to help our men and women who serve.
We'll adjourn for five minutes, and we'll come back in camera.
[Proceedings continue in camera]