Veterans Affairs Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2017

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

Good morning, everybody. I'd like to call the meeting to order. We have quorum.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted on February 6, 2017, the committee resumes its comparative study of services to veterans in other jurisdictions.

This morning we have both ombudsmen here. We will start with Mr. Walbourne, the ombudsman of National Defence and Canadian Forces, and we have Robyn Hynes, director general, operations.

We'll turn the floor over to both of you. Thank you.

[Gary Walbourne, Ombudsman, National Defence and Canadian Forces Ombudsman]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good morning to all.

I appreciate the invitation to appear before you today to discuss issues surrounding transition from military to civilian life. I am joined by my director general of operations, Ms. Robyn Hynes.

It is my understanding that you are currently studying programming and best practices from like-minded countries around the world. I believe it is important to keep up with the latest trends and innovative practices from these countries in order to best inform what we do here at home.

An ombudsman really is no different. Our office is part of the International Conference of Ombuds Institutions for the Armed Forces and other like-minded institutions, whose aim is to establish best practices and lessons learned related to the mandate, powers, and functioning of these institutions. There is a lot to be learned from all participants, as there's a lot to be learned from the witnesses you have and will hear from over the course of your study. However, I also believe that there are made-in-Canada solutions to some of the issues facing current and former members of the Canadian Armed Forces, whether in uniform or transitioning to civilian life.

Since my appointment to the position in 2014, our office has published 11 evidence-based reports that are a direct result of systemic investigations that we have undertaken. I provided a comprehensive document to the Minister of National Defence in response to his call for submissions from across the country to inform the new defence policy, now known as “Strong, Secure, Engaged”.

Progress on implementing the evidence-based recommendations contained in my report has been lacklustre. Our constituents are now publishing report cards on departmental progress on our website and through various social media channels, and we will continue to publish and update these report cards on a regular basis. As an office that is not entrenched in legislation, nor do I report to Parliament, I have few levers that I can pull in order to hold the department to account. Therefore, publishing departmental progress is extremely important as a measurement tool moving forward. I am pleased to say that some of my recommendations have been accepted and have appeared in the defence policy review.

Last year, I published a report recommending a new service delivery model for medically releasing Canadian Armed Forces members, in which I made three recommendations: first, that the CAF retain all ill and injured soldiers until all benefits and services from all sources are in place; second, to establish a type of concierge service to act as a single point of contact for transitioning members and their families; and finally, to develop a secure web portal, single point of entry, for all matters relating to the transition from the Canadian Armed Forces to civilian life.

I was pleased that the first chapter of “Strong, Secure, Engaged” was dedicated to the well-being of the Canadian Armed Forces members and their families. My recommendation to retain ill and injured members until all benefits and services are in place appears to have been accepted. However, my constituency and my office have yet to see a policy suite to support the departmental claims that holding the member is already being done across the country, and sadly, my office is still getting calls from members being released before these benefits and services are in place.

However, in a recent conversation with the chief of military personnel command, I have been advised this is currently being worked on, with an eye for completion by year's end. This is good news. I'm also pleased to report that a concierge-type service is being developed, and I anxiously await this end product.

Finally, in the interests of expediency, our office, working in conjunction with the Canadian Armed Forces, is building a benefits browser that will help Canadian Armed Forces members understand what benefits and services they could be eligible for through the transition process.

Ladies and gentlemen, the terms “closing the seam” and “seamless transition” are buzzwords that are not unique to this government. These terms have been used for decades. We have been trying to move the Canadian Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Canada closer for years. However, I believe that the system that was built to support current and former members of the Canadian Armed Forces cannot be brought any closer together without taking a hard look in the mirror and asking why we do things the way we do. We have to get to the core issues. Hiring more people and opening more offices to do more of the same will not get current and former members any closer to that which they are entitled, which is a well-managed and timely transition process.

Based on the evidence it has, the Canadian Armed Forces decides whether a member can continue serving or should be released. It therefore raises the question, if the forces have enough evidence to end a member's career, why is that not sufficient to determine eligibility for benefits from Veterans Affairs Canada? Why there are two government entities that independently determine whether an illness or injury is attributable to military service still baffles me. The Canadian Armed Forces knows when, where, and how a member has become ill or injured. This is attribution to service.

On September 26, The Globe and Mail published my opinion editorial where I called for simple changes to the current system. In the op-ed, I reiterate the recommendation I made in the report published last year calling for a system in which the Canadian Armed Forces simply checks a box indicating that a member's illness or injury can reasonably be attributed to their service. Once this is done, Veterans Affairs should immediately accept that decision and determine what benefits and service the member is entitled to, not whether they are or aren't.

This simple change would cut wait times for benefits drastically. It would also provide clarity for releasing members of the Canadian Armed Forces and their families in a period of change and uncertainty.

I have not received a wholesome response to this member-centric recommendation, despite many attempts at explanations as to why neither department has the policy authority to implement such a recommendation. However, I believe that it comes down to leadership and the steadfast devotion to the status quo. Instead, the stream of interdepartmental working groups devoted to transition is forever growing. The bureaucracy is throwing darts at concentric circles instead of aiming for the bull's eye. All the while, more current and former members of the Canadian Armed Forces and their families are waiting. They are the greatest victims of bureaucracy.

Every time a new program or practice is put in place, the government must take into account how it may brush up against the existing system to avoid duplication or unnecessary red tape. For a recent and troubling example, look no further than the Veterans Hiring Act. The ability for Veterans Affairs Canada to meet their 16-week service standard for priority hiring sits at 26% in this fiscal year. It is my opinion that this is unacceptable, yet no one seems to be asking the tough question: why? More accountability needs to be demanded from senior leadership.

I was deeply troubled by recommendation 15 on page 63 of this committee's report published in December 2016, titled “Improving Service Delivery to Canadian Veterans”. You call for changes to the service income security insurance plan, also known as SISIP. I caution this committee, and those considering fundamental changes to SISIP, that this is a program that works and works very well. Let me give you some examples.

With SISIP, each member is assigned a case manager and vocational rehabilitation counsellor who are accessible by phone, email, fax, or in person when geographically feasible, depending on how the member wants to communicate. This is not the case with all service providers. There are 91% of members who apply for this benefit prior to release, and 96% of those eligible members receive notice of their approval prior to release. Payment of the benefits are timely. Payment is made, 88% of the time, within five days of Manulife receiving all the information required to process a claim. The program works well for the members of the Canadian Armed Forces who pay into this insurance plan. Why make substantial changes?

In my line of business, one way to measure program success is by how few complaints you receive. When it comes to SISIP, we don't receive many engagements, and the majority are either for education or information on the program.

In order to best support all of our transitioning members, we must determine what the desired outcomes of our programs, benefits, and services are to be. If the goal is to have a happy, healthy, self-actualized, employed, and well-integrated former member in society, then we should build for that by removing already identified and studied impediments that a releasing member faces on his or her road to success. If machinery of government changes are needed to knock down those barriers, there is a mechanism for that. If legislation or regulatory changes are needed, there are also mechanisms for this.

Everything is within the realm of the possible, should the government choose to act on many of the recommendations that have been made. However, my fear is that those who have the loudest voice and believe change is impossible are being listened to at the end of the day.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. I stand by for your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

Thank you.

Mr. McColeman, you're up.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Walbourne, for your testimony today and for being here.

I read your latest report, and when I look at the things you're saying, it makes me wonder what you would do if you had a clean slate, if none of these barriers existed.

In other words, you're a painter and you have a blank canvas. How would you establish a system that would work for the best possible delivery of benefits for our serving members in that transition time to Veterans Affairs? What would it be? What would it look like?

[Gary Walbourne]

It's a bittersweet thing, if I may say, because I do believe the mechanical pieces we require are in place in one form or another. I think the fundamental change that needs to happen first and foremost is that we must define what we want our programs of benefits and services to be. What ability we are trying to bring back to this transitioning member first needs to be determined.

I think the secondary issue that we're having is on who is responsible for what at any point in time. It's very convoluted now. I mean, there are various entities that can reach back to a member, so it's a little confusing on who's doing what. I believe there are programs that are running in duplication that could be sequenced. We could even see reductions in costs to the Government of Canada. There are many possibilities, but I think it's first and foremost, clear lines of responsibility and setting the program needs to our desired outcomes.

If we look at where the chief of defence staff is going, talking about the journey, he's talking about building some of these things. The JPSU needs to be the centre where these people are assigned, with a clear chain of command and one person responsible to decide when a member is being released and when Veterans Affairs Canada should be engaged.

The pieces are there; it's how we're exercising them, I think, is where we find the problem. Then we'll come up against some legislative...where there are certain authorities given to Veterans Affairs or not to the department, or they are given to the department. We need to decide who should have these responsibilities and who should be given this legislative right to implement these programs and services.

I think that the pieces we need are in place. It's a matter now of clearly defining what the programs are to be, who should be responsible, and giving that person the resources they need to do the job.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

You look at the workings of government and how we've established these various bureaucracies to handle issues and the politics around that, and I know there has been blue sky thinking that at some point in time the best way to serve our current CAF members and veterans is to combine the two agencies together, Veterans Affairs with DND. What are your thoughts on that?

[Gary Walbourne]

I think it's fraught with possibility. Again, even if we decide to bring the two departments closer together to make one an agency or dependent on the other, I think it's irrelevant. It's still going to come down to who holds which responsibility and who is actually implementing these programs and services. I don't see any harm in bringing them closer together.

I think if we could find a way that we could get beyond the information-sharing problem we continue to have.... We have to wait for files to be digitized and the authority given for the file to be transferred. Bringing the entities closer could start to eliminate some of these mechanical pieces that have been causing problems for years. We've talked about file transfer. It's been one of the agonizing, ongoing beefs we've had over the last 15 or 20 years.

There are synergies in bringing the two of them close together. My only caution would be that we don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. We want to make sure that at the end of the day, no matter what the entity looks like, there is one belly button to push and someone is responsible for what's going to happen to this transitioning member from the time we found out he or she was ill or injured until the time of release.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

The veterans ombudsman, when we visited, showed me a chart that looked like a plate of spaghetti. I don't have a copy of it with me today, but you might have seen this chart.

[Gary Walbourne]

Yes, I know it well.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

It's very illustrative of how complex the system is for the veteran to navigate. I appreciate everything you've said here today in terms of your thoughts going forward. I think in both cases of meeting with the veterans ombudsman and listening to you here today, there's a line you said. I underlined it here, and I'm not going to go back and try to figure out where it is. It says that the veteran bumps up against the bureaucracy, and the bureaucracy is the issue. Would you agree with that?

[Gary Walbourne]

Yes.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Further to that, then, there are the politics around trying to streamline an existing bureaucracy or trying to work within the context of saying that there's a better way. Grandma used to bake the cake this way in this pan, and it isn't the best way. There's a better way to do it. You learn from all of the obstacles and barriers that have been put in place.

How do you suggest, as a legislator, that we deal with that issue, that bureaucratic maze?

[Gary Walbourne]

First and foremost, we have to have a willingness on the ground to actually change the bureaucratic maze. I think from that it will roll, if you decide to design your programs, benefits, and services to meet your desired outcome. I'll leave the movement of legislation to this body and others, but it's a matter of designing what we want and then putting in support—the policies, regulations, and legislation—to get us there. There are going to have to be changes made, I think, if we want to make this as bureaucratically simple as possible. We're going to have to determine what we want to be at the end of the day before we decide on the changes we make as we move forward.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

You used the word “lacklustre” in describing....

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

Sorry, we've run out of time on that one.

Mr. Samson.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Thank you very much.

I appreciate your presentation, and I'm extremely ecstatic to meet with you. It's the first time I've met you. I'm Darrell Samson, and I'm the member of Parliament for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook in Nova Scotia. Nova Scotia represents the highest number of veterans and military in Canada per capita, and I believe my riding has the highest in Nova Scotia, with 23% either military or veterans. It's the former riding of Peter Stoffer, who did a very good job and continues to do a good job in this area.

I have to tell you that in the two years that I've been a member, I've tried to continue to learn and I'm learning every day in this area. I'm extremely ecstatic to be on this committee.

That being said, I agree with you in many ways, as most of us I'm sure do. The transition is something that I continuously ask myself about. We have to do better. I agree 100%. I don't understand, so I guess I'm learning.

In any profession with public servants—all of us around this table—it doesn't matter what area we work for in government, we can advise, let them know, three months before we leave our job, and guess what. Everything is in place when we leave. It's unacceptable, so I agree 100%. I thank you and your office for doing the work you do. It does enforce the very important discussion.

Now, there are 10,000 members who retire yearly, and 27% of them have issues in transition. I'd also like to note that 60% of them are non-medically released. It's not just a problem with one group. It's a problem right across the board. It's unacceptable in many ways.

I like your suggestion on the what, the who, and the how. I think that's the crucial part. You talked about a report card your office has. We, as government, need to create a report card. We're talking about it now, as far as how we can make it better. We need to be doing the same thing. I believe that our government, right now—and I'm not talking about politics; it's not about politics at all—needs to do this right, and we need it done quickly.

We said not long ago that no member would be released without all benefits in place. I think it's pretty straightforward. “No members will be released.” We should be ensuring that's what we do. It's going to take a little time, but we don't have much. I really believe that we need to work very hard on that piece.

I'd like to talk about a few quick questions, because I've already used up three-quarters of my time, of course. I have an issue with that.

On accessibility and awareness, how can we do better in those two areas that are a major part of the transition? Can you speak to that please?

[Gary Walbourne]

The two of them are distinct and separate, yet they work together in harmony at the end of the day.

I think raising the level of awareness of what's potentially available is a part for entities like myself. We have put a major emphasis on education and pushing forward over the last two years of my mandate. We're also building things like the benefits browser inside the Canadian Armed Forces, which will be a one-stop shop for folks to determine what's available for them.

I think that's an ongoing responsibility for everybody in the environment, not only the ombudsman's office. I know the chief of defence staff and CMP are doing a lot of work along these lines. That's the educational portion, and I think that's an evergreen piece that will have to continue to grow and change as the rules and regs around us do also.

As for accessibility, here we go. We're going to the core of the issue. Why is it so difficult to get into these programs? What is the reason for all the delay in the adjudication review processes? Why are we doing this twice? If we start to look at what we do and list out the steps and all the processes we've developed, I think we'll quickly find where the redundancies are.

We have to understand what we have done to accessibility. I'm not sure if I could answer the question if you asked me. What's the one problem with accessibility? We have to go back and look at all the pieces that have come to bear on that. They've all had an impact either positively or negatively, but we need to determine what that was.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Can you expand, if I have a few minutes, on the browser and the portal? If the military individuals are now involved directly in using it, would that not simplify the game at the end, and if so, how?

[Gary Walbourne]

Yes. It will simplify it. It's not live yet. We're still in the testing phase, making sure that everything is working. We've worked in conjunction with the Canadian Armed Forces on this, so they've done the review of the content to make sure we're accurate. We're looking to go live with it at the end of November. What this will be is a place...and it will be positioned so that family members can go and have a look at what's available. We're going to open it up on a large scale so that everyone can understand what is in the realm of the possible.

It will be a very simple explanation—go click what type of soldier you are, where you are, and what stage of your career—and it will come back and tell you what programs and benefits are available, much like the benefits browser that was built by the veterans ombudsman's office. When I worked there as the deputy ombudsman, they had already started building this internal model they were using for their own purposes, but I think Mr. Parent quickly saw the benefit behind that. Through his work, the department accepted that browser and it's something that's publicly available. I think they call it the “navigator” now. It's that type of work that I think we can do more of.

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

Thank you.

Ms. Mathyssen.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Walbourne. I have to say that whenever you come here, you just energize this committee, because you truly have the interests of our CF personnel and veterans at heart. It's very clear, and it makes me feel that someday we will make the kind of progress we need to.

You talked about delays, and we've heard about that—things done twice. The whole issue of the service record not being accepted by Veterans Affairs is a key example, as you indicated. You must have a sense of where these redundancies are. Do you sense any appetite within DND or Veterans Affairs to truly address that?

[Gary Walbourne]

I can speak to the Department of National Defence's side. I think the next witnesses would be better prepared to speak to the other side.

I truly believe that the chain of command, the senior leadership inside the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces, are seized with getting this right. I tip my hat to General Jon Vance when he talks about the journey and what they're going to do. It's a large-scope project he's talking about. I think the end date—2023 or 2025—is a little long. There are steps, redundancies in the system, that we could quickly identify and work on today.

I think two things could work in parallel. There is, to use a catchphrase, low-hanging fruit that we should get now, and then allow and support the bigger program that the chief of the defence staff is looking at rolling out. I think it may be the biggest part of the solution we want when we get there. There are things we're going to have to do prior to getting there. We cannot continue to see this type of performance on turnaround times and accessibility into these programs and services.

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

Thank you.

I'm going to put you on the spot. You said, “I have few levers that I can pull in order to hold the department to account” because you don't report directly to Parliament. Would you like to have a situation where, clearly, you have those levers so that you are reporting to Parliament, and perhaps there could be some shakeup?

[Gary Walbourne]

This goes back to another report I published last year that was looking for a new governance model for this organization. As I said, there are very few levers we can pull. Even with evidence-based information, we're not getting the traction that I think some of these reports warrant. We can suggest, recommend, and pressure as much as we can, but at the end of the day, the decisions will be made by the Minister of National Defence and the chief of defence staff.

I believe the issues we're talking about are of a national security concern. If we cannot continue to take care of our members and make sure that those who become ill or injured are taken care of, and put them in the right place. I've used this phrase before in front of this committee. It was George Washington who once said that the willingness of any young man—given the time and space he said it—to participate in a war, no matter how justified, will be dependent on how we treat our veterans.

I think these issues are of a national concern. I believe that this body, and others, have a right to have full detail of what's going on and to help anyone in this position to move those things forward.

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

I empathize with your frustration, with report after report ending up on a shelf and not receiving the kind of attention and action it deserves. I've been around here for quite a while, and I've seen a lot of reports too.

I have so many questions, I really don't know where to start.

In terms of the universality of service issue—and you've touched on that—is there a disadvantage in retaining injured personnel in the military? We've heard from a number of witnesses that it would really help if people could be assigned different duties without having to be concerned about universality of service.

The flip side was on too many deployments. Because you have a limited number of personnel, those who are in acceptable physical condition are deployed too many times and are being used up. Is this something you've seen and considered?