Veterans Affairs Committee on March 8th, 2016

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

All right. Do you think there is sufficient access to mental health services at this time?

[Guy Parent]

Whether there is sufficient access depends on how we define the need. There are regional inconsistencies, obviously. There isn't an OSI clinic in every city but some have been added to the network in the last year or so. I don't think there will ever be enough. People will always need some help, and again, having the right treatment at the right place at the right time is a problem.

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

You just mentioned the family caregiver relief benefit. Are you satisfied with the level of support that provides?

[Guy Parent]

I'm glad you brought that up. The family caregiver benefit was introduced. Certainly it meets a need for families, but it's not what we had in mind when we recommended a family caregiver benefit under the new Veterans Charter. We were recommending full remuneration for a spouse who sacrifices his or her life or career or income to look after an injured military person.

Right now this new benefit provides a respite type of benefit, a small amount of money so that a person who is giving care can have a bit of relief, but what's needed is a program like the American program called TAPS under which people are actually signing a contract with the department to say they will take care of the injured spouse. They are then trained, certified, and paid to do that. That's one thing that's lacking here in Canada, that particular benefit for a family. A lot of veterans don't want anybody but a family member to care for them, and there's no reason why they shouldn't be remunerated.

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

I'll just change gears a bit. Do you think the Government of Canada is making sufficient efforts to foster partnerships with civilian employers that would be interested in hiring veterans?

[Guy Parent]

That's another good point and I will go back to what I said before. A lot of people are offering benefits and a lot of people are offering opportunities, but there's no coordinating agency. The problem for a veteran going through a transition process is that they are inundated with options, and a lot of times they don' t have enough details about particular options. In our transition review, we found that there needs to be some kind of a coordinating agency or a list of what is available for veterans, and that's not the case. There are a lot of people out there, a lot of organizations that are trying to support veterans, but they're all over the place, and we need to have some kind of a controlling agency to look after that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

Thank you.

Next we will have Mr. Clarke.

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

Thank you very much for being here, Mr. Parent.

I would like to talk about transition and the fact that it is a process of reintegration.

I also feel that the one-stop shop is a very good idea, but I wonder how we can be sure that the process will be done correctly and appropriately. It seems to me that we often talk about before and after, but not about the period during which veterans are unaware that eventually they will be needing services.

We often hear about the way in which they become clients—which is not the best term here—of Veterans Affairs Canada. But once they are, how can we respond to the different needs of the Veterans Affairs Canada process?

I would like to know how the identity card is going to help veterans who will need Veterans Affairs Canada's services in 10 or 15 years. How is the card going to help them get information from the department, to get into contact with it? The department should be communicating with them directly.

[Guy Parent]

Thank you.

We recommended the identity card in one of our reports. The essential point is that people in the service must prepare themselves for the possibility of being injured or discharged for medical reasons. Taking that responsibility is a priority. A second career is possible, given that a military career is dangerous.

An identity card would specifically allow people who are part of the military to already have an account or a file number on record with Veterans Affairs Canada. Proof of their service and their diagnosis would already be in the file when they need to access certain benefits at the end of their service.

Members of the military lose their military identity when their service ends. It is not reintegration, it is integration into civilian life. By receiving a card authorized by the federal government and showing that, henceforth, they are Canadian veterans, they maintain their military identity. That is important, in my view.

Some veterans are transients, homeless. So if they had a card in their pocket proving that they served and that they have an account with Veterans Affairs Canada, half of the adjudication process is already complete.

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

For a year, I believe, at the recommendation of this committee, Veterans Affairs Canada has been able to make contact with members of the military before they leave the Canadian Armed Forces. In other words, the Department of Veterans Affairs can make contact with a member of the military who is going to leave the service for health reasons, either for physical or mental injuries, in order to make sure that the transition is done appropriately.

Is that actually the case? Does it work?

[Guy Parent]

First, I would like to clarify one point. Members who are still serving have been able to get access to Veterans Affairs Canada benefits for several years. That is also the case during the transition.

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

Last June, the critical injury benefit came into effect. A number of members are already taking advantage of it, both those still serving and those who no longer are.

In your opinion, would it be desirable for this benefit, a total of $70,000, to be deferred, like lump sums at the moment? I think the benefit is paid in one single payment.

[Guy Parent]

We are in the process of analyzing the benefits that came into effect last June and of considering their impact. The act, the regulations and the processes must be in operation in order for us to be able to determine the extent to which those benefits are fair.

In that situation, what counts is to provide people with an amount so that they can meet their needs when they are faced with the impact of their injuries. An amount that is divided up would perhaps not be the ideal choice.

That said, when a new benefit goes into effect, we have to determine what the needs of the people are and what we want to accomplish.

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

Thank you, Mr. Clarke.

Ms. Lockhart.

[Alaina Lockhart, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Parent, for being here today, and for your service and the services of your office.

From my time in speaking with veterans in my riding, I think many times they need to be heard. They are having frustrations with the processes and the inefficiencies, and sometimes they're made to feel like a burden. We need to move past that.

I'm interested in this concept of one-stop shopping and I'd like to ask you a bit more about that. First, do you see that as something that happens at the time of discharge when that process begins?

Second, do we have any models of that to look at? Are they doing that in other countries or with other service providers? Are there other scenarios we can look at to model something on, or are we already doing some pilot projects?

[Guy Parent]

Thank you.

In answer to your first question, I think this one-stop shop or process should take place as soon as a person is informed of an imminent medical release. It should not be after the date has been set. It should be done as soon as a person has been told, “That's it. You no longer meet universality of service standards, and you will now be released.” That's when all the benefits should be known to the individual, at that point in time.

There are comparisons made with other countries. We haven't looked at that in an in-depth analysis yet, but I know for instance that in the Netherlands nobody is released from the forces until they have been rehabilitated vocationally and they have a job. Then they are released from the forces. There are other countries we could look at to see what best practices are out there.

I always hesitate because Australia is Australia, and Canada is Canada. Sometimes veterans are frustrated when we do comparative analysis with other countries because we are Canadians and we need to look for Canadian solutions.

[Alaina Lockhart, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

If the department were to look at doing a pilot project, what types of resources do we need to look at to do that? Would you suggest it should be at an active base, or what other services would we want to bring in on that front end?

[Guy Parent]

I'm not sure I get the question.

[Alaina Lockhart, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

I'm saying that if we're looking at creating a Canadian model, what services do you see that we should be involving in that? Is there a natural place that we would have that happen?

[Guy Parent]

Within the transition process, wherever that happens....

There are some joint personnel support units that are being restructured. There are units that do provide assistance for people in transition, and that's where it should begin.

I would like to stress this: what is it that we want for our veterans? If we want financial security, how much do we want and what is the outcome we want to achieve? We need some benchmarks that we can measure to see whether we're accomplishing what we set out to do or not. I think that's what's lacking right now. There is no outcome, but a lot of programs and benefits are offered. We had a good example a while ago with a $70,000 benefit for critical injury. Where does the $70,000 come from? What is the outcome we want to achieve? There was no outcome there.

Is it because we want people to be able to get through a period of time when their family is affected and they have to adjust to a new lifestyle? If that's the outcome we want to achieve, is it enough? These types of approaches for our veterans need to be discussed in the future, and not by just arbitrarily putting money into a certain program.

[Alaina Lockhart, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

I'm interested in the whole concept. From your responses, I take it that we certainly would be at the preliminary stages of looking at something like that. There's a lot of study to be done there.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

Next is Ms. Wagantall.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Thank you so much. I really appreciate this.

I'm very new to my job in this committee. This is a huge file, with so much at stake. I have a friend involved in the Catholic Church who said you don't turn a dinosaur around on a dime. Clearly, we have a lot of issues here, partially because of all the changes that have been taking place within our forces and trying to meet those needs.

It was interesting to hear the conversation turn very quickly to programs and whether or not they're successful. The whole concept of looking at it from a veteran's outcome perspective is a change of mindset and thinking that I think would be really good.

I'm not sure if I'm hearing you correctly, so I'm just going to say what I think I'm hearing and then you can tell me if I'm on the right track. When we talk about a one-stop model, it would take so much pressure off our veterans. I think that's a wonderful direction to go in. It's also the type of thing that you look at.... How do you test that, or do you make a huge transition change to your ideology and how you approach this whole area?

Would we be looking at, obviously, the changes going forward, or trying to change the processes that are already in place for so many veterans? Do you know what I mean?

[Guy Parent]

Certainly. As you say, it's a new concept. Looking forward and developing benefits and a new delivery system, a new way of delivering benefits, I think, is what's important.

Right now benefits and programs have been designed after missions, based on the needs of the particular individual who served. Afghanistan is a good example. There was a suite of programs brought in after the Afghanistan era that was made specifically for people who served in Afghanistan. Again, one of the eligibility criteria was “must have served in Afghanistan”. There were the same types of programs after World War II and Korea.

What we're saying is that right now the needs are not based on the mission; the needs are based on what a veteran and his family are facing. The new concept is to make sure we work from there backwards to what we need to achieve. What are the benchmarks, and how do we put the law and the processes in place to achieve them?

It is a brand new concept, yes. Veterans Affairs Canada is not known to be proactive, that's for sure.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Thinking in that direction, what I heard was that there was discussion around database systems to do this in a way that is efficient for the veteran. That ID card, I think, is a wonderful way to get that off the ground.

Obviously, we were talking too about veterans. It's a one-stop thinking. A lot of times a veteran may not realize what their needs are until further along, but then at least you wouldn't have to rehash what's already there. You would be adding something new to that file in having another conversation.

Also, we'd be looking at training new people. Now we have case managers who deal with specific areas. You, then, would be needing people who had a really good understanding, an umbrella understanding of all the potential needs of that veteran and would be able to deal with them on a personal level. Is that what we're saying?