That's right.
Evidence of meeting #52 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 worker.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #52 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 worker.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:40 p.m.
Executive Director, Case Management, Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (Ontario)
—it's not the norm, but since this legislation came to us in 2016, it was recognized in this program that many of the clients who wanted to apply didn't meet the standard of having that diagnosis. They couldn't. They had been treated by their family physician for a year and the mark hadn't been achieved, so in order for us to facilitate the administration of the claim quickly, particularly for cases on that list of first responders, we thought it was.... We already know that they are in harm's way, so to speak, when it comes to this type of injury, so we would facilitate that care. They would call us. We would say, “Here's a preferred provider in your region.” We would give them their claim number, and we would be billed directly for that assessment.
Again, we're trying to include rather than exclude in this scenario, because we already know that they work in that environment. We're just trying to make sure that they are trying to meet the threshold of impairment, so to speak, so that we can take them in and help them.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Neil Ellis
Thank you.
That ends our time today. I would like to ask the committee, with consent, if—
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
John Brassard Conservative Barrie—Innisfil, ON
Mr. Chair, I'm not sure whether it's a point of order or a point of personal privilege, but if you'll indulge me, I have information that I think is beneficial to the rest of the committee.
Yesterday I came across a story on a news wire that speaks about a research study to assist Canadian Armed Forces members and veterans to transition into civilian life. The news release said about $570,000 is going to be spent for funding and program research. There are quotes from the minister. There are quotes from members of the New Brunswick government.
Anybody who knows me—and I think this is important for all members of this committee as well—knows how much I hate wasting time on studies. The study that we did back in 2016, in which we made recommendations to the government on transitional aspects of medically releasing CAF members, was presented to the House of Commons in December. Since 2007, ten reports have been presented to the House of Commons and to various governments. In fact, in 2014, there was the following report, “The Transition to Civilian Life of Veterans”, of a study done by the Senate of Canada. In 2016, the report “Support to Military Families in Transition” was done by the veterans ombudsman. In 2016, the well-known defence ombudsman report on successfully transitioning was presented to Parliament, and, of course, there's the report that this committee did.
I realize, Mr. Chair, that I came to the committee in the middle of that report. I think you spent four or five months coming up with 18 or 19 recommendations on how we can ease the transition from military life into civilian life. Some of those recommendations were well received not just by the defence ombudsman but also by the veterans ombudsman in subsequent conversations that we had.
With regard to this new report, the department proposes that the study be completed and presented to Parliament in 2019. I don't understand, after all the work this committee did, all of the studies that have been done over the years of Parliament and all of the reports that have been presented to various governments, the previous government included, why there's a need for another report. I guess, in order to qualify my privilege, I would say why did we waste our time if the intent of the department was to do another report?
I want to bring that up to committee members, because I think it is important. It certainly shocked the hell out of me when I read yesterday that another study on transition is going to be done after all of the previous studies have been done and that the report is not expected until 2019, which means, I think it would be safe for one to presume, that nothing is going to get done to help in the transition from military life to civilian life among those who served in the military until at least that time, whereas all of these recommendations have been made in the past.
I am compelled to bring that up to the committee, because I know we worked very hard. We came up with, I think, terrific recommendations. Many of them were endorsed by not just the defence ombudsman but also the veterans ombudsman. We need to get on with this. We need to fix things, not just study things over and over again.
That's my point, Mr. Chair.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Alaina Lockhart Liberal Fundy Royal, NB
As the first order of business, I'd like to respond to that.
Have we finished with the witness? Can we dismiss our witness?
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Neil Ellis
No.
That's okay. We'll come back to that.
I'd like to thank you for coming today.
With the permission of the committee, the analyst would like to ask a question of the witness if that's okay. I see a consensus here.
It'll be short.
4:45 p.m.
Jean-Rodrigue Paré Committee Researcher
It's just to have something on the record.
I know that part-time reservists from the Canadian Forces who get injured can elect to file a claim with Veterans Affairs Canada or with the compensation board in each province. In that case, that would mean that the Canadian Forces are the employer.
Do you have many claims of that type and can you say something about the process involved?
4:45 p.m.
Executive Director, Case Management, Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (Ontario)
They would be considered civilian, I believe, and that's why they gain entrance to our legislation. We do have claims. I've dealt with some myself.
4:45 p.m.
Executive Director, Case Management, Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (Ontario)
We would treat the employer as we would treat anyone else. There's an agreement that wherever the worker is injured, the laws of that province, regardless of whether or not the employer is federal, would take precedence. We require the same thing from the accident employer, the federal government in this case.
It's not been my experience that we fine the federal government for a lack of co-operation, whereas perhaps with other employers, small ones, we would. We still have the return-to-work meetings. We still do the case planning. We treat it as any other case.
We're involved in return-to-work planning with the federal government in those type of claims. Some of the ones I've witnessed have been quite significant. There are challenges, though, in dealing with those cases, with some of the intricacies of a collective agreement, or with the management of those cases with, I believe, Health Canada. There are some steps that are outside of our norms in reintegrating someone back to the workplace. There are different areas of Health Canada that have some jurisdictional parts to it.
However, our approach is the same. We just keep going and look for the same goal as long as we can.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Neil Ellis
Thank you.
On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank you for coming today and for all the service to our men and women.
That will wrap up the questioning of this panel.
We will suspend and come back—
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
Mr. Chair, before we move in camera, Ms. Lockhart would like to respond to the point of privilege.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Neil Ellis
I can do that now, or suspend and come back and do it.
Okay, I'll give you the floor.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Alaina Lockhart Liberal Fundy Royal, NB
Thank you, Mr. Brassard, for bringing this up.
Shaping Purpose was one of our witnesses during the service delivery study we did.
They talked to us about the work they were doing. They had private sponsors at the time, those being Saint John Shipbuilding, as they mention here, and the Desjardins group.
They felt at the time that their work would be very relevant to our recommendations in respect of the transition of veterans. This isn't a government release. I have actually referred to their testimony several times since then, because the work they were doing sounded very much in line with what we were recommending.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
John Brassard Conservative Barrie—Innisfil, ON
If I could briefly respond to that, I'm not discounting the work that they're capable of doing, Ms. Lockhart. The fact is that there have been numerous recommendations in the past on how to deal with transitioning. Some of them are very simplistic ones, as the defence ombudsman testified here: low-hanging fruit opportunities.
My concern is that we're going to waste another two years, and I say that loosely. We're going to push this off for another two years when the problem of veterans transitioning from active service into civilian life is a very real problem now.
It's a very real problem, Mr. Chair, because we've heard numerous testimonies that have told us what a problem it is.
That's the issue that I have with this.
Thank you.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Alaina Lockhart Liberal Fundy Royal, NB
Mr. Brassard, I'm not sure why you would sense this to be pushing it off. The work they're doing is actually with those who are transitioning, and the program they have is in response to some of the recommendations we've made. They're putting transitioning veterans through the program to see if helping them to determine their purpose going forward would be beneficial in the transition.
I don't see anything else being put on hold, but I would say that testing out one of the recommendations we made is a positive step.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Doug Eyolfson Liberal Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB
Yes, I just want to add to that.
I'm looking at the news release on this, and this is an independent organization that is doing this study; it's not the government. How this in any way, shape, or form either delays or invalidates any of the work that we did, I don't know. This is a completely independent issue that's come up.
I understand your perspective that there's urgency to getting this done, and I agree with you. There is urgency to getting this done, but how does this have any effect on the work that we did? This is an independent organization that's decided to do this research. We have no control over them and we're not participating in this. They've decided to do this study.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Neil Ellis
With that, I would like to suspend. Again, thank you for being here.
We'll take five minutes and come back. Thank you.
[Proceedings continue in camera]