Veterans Affairs Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2017

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Are you aware of any cases of individual members as they're transitioning, filing access to information requests, being stonewalled with access to information requests, or any of these types of examples where we could streamline the system to make it more efficient? The information actually belongs to the individual, not to the government per se. At least, that should be the culture within the department. How many cases are we talking about?

[Gary Walbourne]

We've had a few cases where the member has had to go through access to information and privacy to get access to information they felt was being held and not released. Very rarely do we have a problem with the Canadian Armed Forces releasing information to the forces' member. It rarely happens.

Occasionally, we will get files where the member has been waiting for his file to be sent over to Veterans Affairs Canada. There can be a multitude of reasons for that: someone forgot, couldn't send it, or couldn't find it. It's not that great. However, there is still a compatibility issue and there are still some chafe points that I think we could eliminate if we had a close look at exactly how we do that.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Okay.

My last question is going to seem a bit obtuse, but I'll see if I can make my point. As a person who was a former employee of the Province of Alberta and the Government of Canada, I've seen first-hand some of the issues. I'll call it “career management”, and how an individual can best progress through the system and get promoted and so on. I'm not specifically sure how it works in the Canadian Armed Forces, but suffice it to say in the experiences I've had, sometimes the less I do and the less trouble I cause for myself as an employee, and the less I get done, the better chance I have of being promoted because I'm not taking any risks and not making any decisions that might cause consternation for my career advancement.

Are there any blockages within the Department of National Defence, any issues in that regard, where work is not being done as efficiently, rapidly, and in the best interest of the veteran as possible as they transition because people are actually too scared to make a decision within the agency for fear of reprisal, a promotion, or something of that nature? Is that a cultural issue in the Department of National Defence?

[Gary Walbourne]

I'd like to say a flat-out no. I believe we're getting to “no”. I believe we evolve as we grow. There's a different approach on the ground in the Canadian Armed Forces, and I've seen it in my short time as ombudsman—three and a half years. I listen to the chief of the defence staff and the open conversations from the minister, and I think there's an actual cultural shift happening.

If that type of behaviour went on in the past, and I'm sure it goes on in every environment, I don't think that to be the case today. I don't have any evidence that supports that type of behaviour.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

Ms. Mathyssen, you have two minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I have spoken to you, Ombudsman, about military sexual trauma, and I want to raise it here. I understand that General Vance has put in place some processes that hopefully will address it, and I'm very grateful for that. However, I'm still concerned about the resistance or the fears of young men or women in regard to reporting sexual trauma. For example, they may be depressed, suffer from PTSD, but the cause of that is not necessarily in the medical records. If it is, it becomes a matter of privacy and, therefore, it's not necessarily tracked by the military.

There's the problem with tracking and then there's the problem, as I mentioned, of fear. It's a fear that if they go through the court martial process they will be exposed and their career limited, or a fear that there won't be any justice for them, because when they go through the court martial process only about a half of those perpetrators are convicted, or at least that's the information I have.

In terms of your experience, are you hearing from young men and women in regard to military sexual trauma? If not, what can we do to make them feel safer in regard to reporting it?

[Gary Walbourne]

I don't want to go back in history, but this office was set up coming out of Somalia in 1998, because of the sexual assault allegations and so on that happened around that point in time. The chief of defence staff has introduced the sexual trauma team. I think they are starting to really get their feet under them. We still deal with sexual harassment and sexual assault cases, people who feel more confidence in our shop than others, and we offer it as a service. We do try as much as possible to refer them to the sexual trauma team if they so desire. We always go to the victim's wants and desires. That's where we head.

As for the conversation around feeling secure and safe coming forward, I think we can look not very far around us today in the world and see that this is evolving and changing. I think the stance that the chief of defence staff has taken is an admirable one. He has stuck to his guns. He called it an ”operation”, and he's made it that. I think we're started on an evolution of working our way out of this. It's going to take some time. When I had to deal with these cases at a higher level, I saw nothing but acceptance from the chain of command, the ability of the senior bureaucrats to move quickly to fix and solve these issues for the individual. It's not my job to solicit complaints, but we do—

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

You have to wrap it up in about 20 seconds, please.

[Gary Walbourne]

We don't solicit complaints, but for anyone who comes to us with this type of complaint, we'll take it forward for them and we can offer certain levels of protection.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

Thank you. This ends our time for you today. I would like to thank both of you, on behalf of the committee, for all you have done and continue to do for our men and women who serve.

We'll recess for a couple of minutes and come back with Mr. Parent, the veterans ombudsman.

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

I'll call the meeting back to order, please

We are tight for time so we're going to have to keep moving here. In front of us we have Mr. Parent, veterans ombudsman, and Ms. Squire, deputy veterans ombudsman and executive director.

We will turn the floor over to you, Mr. Parent, and you have 10 minutes. Thank you.

[Guy Parent, Veterans Ombudsman, Office of the Veterans Ombudsman]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning.

Good morning, committee members as well. Thank you for inviting me to appear before you again as you come towards the end of your comparative study of services to veterans in other jurisdictions.

As I said, on May 1, as you began your hearings, I think it is important to look at what other countries are doing to support their veterans in order for Canada to keep up with best practices.

At that time, I put forward also that it is imperative to develop Canadian solutions to address Canadian problems. I left you with three elements to consider as you weigh your evidence going forward. Those elements were context, complex design, and outcomes.

I gave you a few examples of the difficulty making direct comparisons with other countries, since each country designs and administers their programs differently to meet their own national needs, imperatives and economic realities.

I also showed you diagrams that illustrate the complexity of Canada's veteran support system so as to remind you that any changes in design must serve to simplify the system and not make it more complex.

Finally, I spoke to the necessity of having clearly defined outcomes that define the end state we are trying to achieve. Without a clear understanding of what outcome for veterans is expected, we have no benchmark to measure whether we have achieved success or not.

You have now heard from five countries and they have provided you with a good overview of their efforts to support their veterans. I commend you for the quality of questions asked and for making it possible for this information to be collated in your future report.

For my office, this body of evidence provides us with useful information to better discern how to improve the support to our own veterans. As you have seen, the scale of effort the United States requires to support its veterans is huge due to the size of the United States Armed Forces and its very significant differences in national social programs from the Canadian context.

The fact that the United Kingdom does not have a department of veterans affairs creates a very unalike dynamic to the Canadian experience of providing services for veterans.

France's colonial past and New Zealand's small size create a different perspective on the services offered to veterans.

Australia is perhaps the country with the closest comparator to a Canadian context, with its similarly sized armed forces, national social programs, and geographic challenges. However, there are still significant divergences that require us to consider the context.

One of the problems with looking at how other nations support veterans is how to replicate a good idea in our already complex system. Over the last few years, Canada has layered numerous benefits to address gaps without considering this as an opportunity to consolidate and simplify benefits. Even though these new benefits have made a positive difference for some veterans, it has also made it even more complex and difficult for our veterans to navigate the system. It is for this reason that I have repeatedly recommended that a personal navigator would be a valuable addition in terms of helping veterans who need it most.

Although looking at what other nations do is useful, my office still struggles with the fact that what we as a nation are trying to achieve for our veterans is not clear. Simply stating what we are going to do to meet the needs of veterans and their families is not enough. What does “meeting their needs” mean?

For example, let’s consider a veteran who has a service-related injury and cannot work. We know that such a veteran needs to have his or her income replaced. Does income replacement mean we only replace the salary at the time of release? Do we consider career progression, and what do we mean by “career progression”? Is there a retirement component to this after age 65? Is a survivor benefit available after death? Are we trying to replicate what the veteran could have received if she or he had a full military career, or is it a recognition benefit that recognizes some aspects of a full military career but does not fully compensate for it? How do we determine where we draw that recognition compensation level?

This example illustrates why I have continued to push for clearly defined benefit outcomes. When we know what we need to achieve for the veteran, we can design our programs to achieve that outcome.

The current approach to income replacement is intended to improve existing programs or create new programs without truly understanding the results we are trying to achieve. No one has taken the time to clearly define the level of income replacement that should be offered to veterans.

In addition to defining the outcomes for what benefits are provided, we also need to define the outcomes for how those benefits are provided. If we look at homeless veterans, for example, we see that local authorities at municipal and provincial levels are better positioned to meet the immediate needs of these veterans. We should define how the federal government is going to work with those organizations to enable their efforts so that these veterans in crisis can then access the federal programs that will take them out of homelessness.

With clearly defined outcomes through partnerships, we can leverage the expertise of other levels of government and third parties to meet the immediate and long-term needs of veterans and their families more effectively. Without clearly defined outcomes, we cannot measure success and we cannot communicate effectively with our veterans. If we could focus on specific outcomes, then we can focus the support on what the veteran actually needs, and we can communicate clearly the types of programs available. From the veterans' perspective, this makes the system easier to navigate and understand.

In conclusion, as I cautioned earlier, while it is worthwhile to learn from others when developing new programs, it is difficult to draw direct comparisons, because each country designs and administers their programs differently to meet their own national needs, imperatives, and economic realities. These comparisons are made more challenging when we do not clearly understand the outcome we are trying to achieve in our own system. Above all, to achieve wellness for our veterans and their families, we need to stay focused on finding Canadian solutions to Canadian problems.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

Mr. McColeman.

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

Thank you for being here, Mr. Parent, and for your words today.

The theme of what I have just heard seems to be putting the cart before the horse, almost, in terms of creating another program, yet another level of benefits that complicate the system more. I want affirmation that what I'm hearing you say is that we need to do it at the other end and figure out what it is that we want the veterans to have, and then work back from that.

Is that correct?

[Guy Parent]

That's quite correct. It's a good statement.

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

That's what I'm taking from your words today.

Now, you're also saying, in the context of this study, that we have to be cautious about the fact that these are all different contexts around the world that have different settings and different goals to achieve. You've been in this job long enough now to have looked at what might be the best in class around the world. Can you share with me any perspective that you have in terms of systems that you would take something from and put into play in Canada?

[Guy Parent]

Yes. Thank you very much.

It's obvious in our report and so on that we have done comparative studies in the past with other jurisdictions as well. Personally, after having been almost around the world to talk to other veterans' organizations, I still believe we have one of the best systems around. However, there are ideas around the world that need to be considered, and one good idea that comes to mind, for instance, is Australia. Once you have been part of the armed forces there, you are entitled to mental health services, for instance, for the rest of your life. Things like that are things we should look at in the future.

I believe there are other countries as well that have good ideas, but to put them into our own system would be very awkward. For instance, one question that I didn't hear asked during the committee's work was how they define a veteran in other countries. I know that in some of those countries, for instance, it only includes people who have been deployed outside the country.

If that were the case in Canada, that would make a big difference in our support to veterans, so, really, I think our system is good as it is. It needs improvement, obviously, and maybe when we had the chance four or five years ago, instead of building benefits on top of benefits, we might have had better success if we had just decided to start over again and redesign a service for our veterans and their families.

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

Let's talk about that. Blue sky that one for me. What would your views be, having your knowledge now, being in the position you've been in? If you had a blank canvas and you were to start redesigning this whole system, how would you propose it, in very broad strokes?

[Guy Parent]

I would think, first of all, that the transition is the most important element, because people serve willingly. They have unlimited liability, but the transition from one culture to another is quite important. I think the start would be to look at a transition that is positive for the member, so that there's hope in going forward to another life.

One thing that has always struck me as strange is the fact that the Canadian Forces, and VAC, in fact, have never designed a transition process for the healthy veteran. The process that exists right now has been designed for injured veterans, and that's why I really welcome the opportunity coming forward from the chief of defence staff's announcement of a transition centre that will look after all veterans. Then if we have a healthy veteran who can transition well, we can actually look after the injured one when there are difficulties and barriers and those sorts of things that need to be eliminated.

That would be the starting point.

Second—I go back to my speaking notes—you have to have an outcome. What is it that you want our veterans to accomplish? Do we want them financially to reach the poverty line, to have the median income level, to have the same kind of revenue that they would have had, had they stayed in the forces uninjured? I think these are the things that should be considered in looking for the best system. I think it's important.

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

Okay. You are, sir, highly respected in your role. You have many years of experience in this role. You're going to see a broad cross-section of what those definitions should be in terms of outcomes, from various points of view and contexts.

Sir, you are probably, in my estimation, better seated than anyone else, with the knowledge that you have from advocating for veterans. What would you see those levels being? Really when you boil it down here, what you're saying in your notes today, to me—correct me if I'm wrong—is that it's the determination of income, the level of income, or the level of remuneration that an injured veteran...or whatever that outcome would be. What would you recommend specifically?

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

Can you make that a very short answer? We're at the end of the time.

[Guy Parent]

My starting point would be something equivalent to what you would have made if you had stayed in the forces uninjured. In other words, people have a career plan. They know when they are going to be promoted. They have a superannuation plan that they can plan retirement with, and that sort of thing.

To me, we have to look at what the equivalent would be. If they can't earn that, then Veterans Affairs Canada should supplement the rest.

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

Thank you.