Veterans Affairs Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2017

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

Ms. Lambropoulos, go ahead.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

I'm going to start by saying that the outcome for these veterans.... Seeing as they've given their lives for their country, they should be given whatever services they need to get back, to have fulfilled lives after service.

Let me be completely honest: this seems much more complicated than necessary.

Sharing information between the two departments seems to be the solution, but that is not what is happening. I have trouble understanding why, since this is the only way to make sure that every veteran receives the services they need.

One of the biggest problems is probably related to the culture in the two departments. I do not know exactly what the problem is, but it is certainly related to the culture. Typically, if you want to change the culture in an institution or department, it has to be from the top down.

I don't know what the structure is within the department, but can we have a bit more information as to where you think the problem lies?

[Guy Parent]

Thank you. That's a very good comment.

I would say that culture is certainly where to start. On the National Defence side, obviously, if there is a resistance to sharing information, because some secret information may be contained within personal files and that sort of thing.... On the other hand, Veterans Affairs Canada, as we know, have had their fingers burned in the past with having privacy of members accessed.

In the end, if a client of Veterans Affairs or a serviceperson signs confidentiality waivers, information should be flowing back and forth. It's the individual's wish. The problem right now, as we know, in the transition process is that there are about six different confidentiality waivers that have to be signed for the transfer of documents to take place. Again, it's very complex. There is a bit of a culture of protectionism. It's a bit of everything.

Another thing is the fact that on the National Defence side, for instance, right now your service records are held by National Defence, but your medical records are held by Archives Canada, which is in Winnipeg but the access office is here in Ottawa. You can't make it any more complicated than that.

All of that goes into that particular issue.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

When a member begins service, is there no way to sign waivers for both departments, or to have one document saying that whatever information they share with this department will also be shared with...?

[Guy Parent]

That would be one of the ideal approaches. In fact, I'll go back to one of the questions before. One thing they do in Australia, for instance, is that the veterans affairs side gets in contact with the recruits. As soon as they are enrolled in the forces, they are clients of veterans affairs, and veterans affairs has access to their records.

Right now, Veterans Affairs Canada is trying to introduce My VAC account to everybody who is serving. Then we will be in the same position as Australia.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

I have one last question.

In your experience—I know you have a lot of it and you've been doing great work—do you think it would be best at this point to merge the two departments, or to find a way to have them work better together?

[Guy Parent]

What we need to look at is harmonization, and maybe look at a sequential process. If we merge the two completely, we'll be facing the risk of having money that is supposed to go to operations taken away from the veterans' side to support our veterans and their families. The Canadian Forces are an operational unit.

We are lucky to have two separate departments. If you go around the world.... That's why I'm saying that our veterans and families are well looked after because of that, the independence of the departments.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

Ms. Mathyssen, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to touch briefly on what Mr. McColeman and Ms. Lambropoulos said.

You said it in your brief, that, essentially, there is frustration in regard to the complexity of it all. For example, if someone has a service-related injury and can't work, does income replacement means only the salary, etc., down through the line? It is complicated—I understand that—and it seems to be unnecessarily complicated. Do we need an advocate who is simply there and says, “No, this individual has given his or her life to the country, so there must be an automatic assumption that we are simply going to compensate and make sure that there is the financial security that should go with a full career”? You talked about financial goals and whether we should bring people up to the level of poverty. I would say that this would be a slap in the face to everyone who served.

Do we need someone who is given the authority to say, “No, we're going to cut through this, and we're going to make sure that we have been absolutely fair and honourable in terms of dealing with this veteran”?

[Guy Parent]

I believe that's happening right now. The departments are working together, even with the central agencies, to try to make it simpler and reduce complexity in the access to programs, for instance by consolidating benefits. As I said before, if a person is able to generate a certain percentage of the revenue that they could generate while they were serving, then the payment financially is the difference between that and what they can generate themselves.

However, I think we have to be careful that we don't concentrate just on the financial aspects. That's one of the complications. We always say that financial well-being is important because it will allow you to transition successfully to the vocational rehabilitation and the psychosocial rehabilitation. Unless you have a decent income while you are doing that, you are facing some risks. I think that's important. It will never be simple, but there are instances right now, as you've seen in our reports, where people are actually compensated more. They are actually earning more than they would have earned if they had stayed in the forces uninjured. Sometimes they are getting less...but never at the right time in their transition. I think that's important.

The one hope now is that, with the veterans affairs minister having the responsibility of an associate defence minister, there would be more reach inside and more possibility of harmonizing the programs that were in existence before.

[Sharon Squire, Deputy Veterans Ombudsman, Executive Director, Office of the Veterans Ombudsman]

One other way to reduce the complexity is to have the onus on the department versus the veteran. For example, if the department met with the veteran and looked at the file, looked at everything, and then they were responsible for determining every benefit the veteran was eligible for, instead of the veteran having to understand the system and apply for every benefit, that would help a lot as a first step, in addition to what Guy said.

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

Yes, it's the old government game. If you can guess what you are entitled to, then maybe, if you put it in the right format, you might get what you've earned. I am very familiar with that.

Ombudsman, you talked about financial security and the various programs. I wonder if you could give an opinion in regard to the three primary methods of compensation that are currently in place for those who are medically released. There is the lump-sum payment, such as the disability award, along with the adequate income replacement measures. There is the lifetime monthly benefit, and third, the convertible pension, whereby the veteran can receive the lifetime monthly pension and then convert it into a lump sum.

Can you comment on the advantages and disadvantages? In regard to some of the pensions, I understand that benefits—medical services, etc.—have been substituted for some of the monetary things. When I start to look at all the possibilities, I'm trying to figure out whether veterans are further ahead or behind.

[Guy Parent]

That's a good question. Holistically, the new Veterans Charter provides three types of payment. The first, as you say, is the lump sum award payment, which is strictly for pain and suffering. It has nothing to do with replacing income or anything like that. It's strictly for pain and suffering.

Unfortunately, that has been misinterpreted in the past. People looked at that and thought maybe it was to replace income. The only challenge with that particular payment is that you have to be careful, because when it's given to people who have mental injuries and illness, they might have some difficulty managing that lump sum payment.

After that, the other payments are two vocational rehabilitation programs. There's an earnings loss payment—which is now 90%, up from 75%—but over and above that, once vocational rehabilitation is done, there is what you could call a pension for life. It's really a payment for life under the CIA, which is actually for the most seriously injured people. It gives a monthly payment for the rest of your life.

These are the three cash or income replacement and pain and suffering payments that are available, and they're much more generous than in some of the other countries you've talked about.

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

Thank you.

Mr. Bratina.

[Bob Bratina, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Thank you.

It's good to have you here once again. It would have been interesting if you had been at this table an hour earlier, for a bit of give and take between your colleague and you. I'm going to ask you directly: is there a working relationship between the two ombudsmen?

[Guy Parent]

Yes, there is. What Gary was alluding to is that not only do we personally keep in touch, but also there is a relationship between my deputy and his deputy. Almost on a weekly basis, people are talking about different reviews that we're doing, helping each other, and that sort of thing. There's a consultation going on continually.

Also, very often we have to transfer files over to the military ombudsman. For instance, in PTSD cases, where information is required from the DND side, we would do a hot transfer to the DND ombudsman. This means we would speak on behalf of the client, so they don't have to repeat their story. There is a relationship in that respect.

[Bob Bratina, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

In any government, we're always dealing with silos—these people don't talk to these people, and it would be a lot better if.... You made reference to the fact that there is no veterans department in the U.K. What would you say to a potential harmonization or rationalization of the two entities? Is that something that would be useful, or are things working fine the way they are in your view, with the two ombudsmen and the two departments somewhat separate? Is that something we should be moving toward or not?

[Guy Parent]

The model we have now, with two separate ombudsmen and two separate departments, is working fine. It certainly needs some tweaking. It's going to take some refinement, but we're fortunate to have a full entity looking after our veterans and their families. What I see in other countries that don't have the actual veterans department is that, sometimes, a lot of money that should be flowing towards supporting veterans and families is flowing into the department for more toys, more missions, and that sort of thing. I think we're fortunate to have the two.

[Bob Bratina, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

As a former councillor and mayor, I couldn't get over the comment in your presentation that local authorities at municipal and provincial levels are better positioned to meet the immediate needs of homeless veterans.

As the mayor, I actually had a senior adviser on military heritage and protocol, which some of my colleagues and the media made fun of, as though we were going to attack Burlington or something. The point that I wanted to stress was the importance of reacquainting the city with its military heritage and presence. We have a large garrison and lots of soldiers. The sad loss of Nathan Cirillo was under my watch.

Is there currently any working relationship or a sharing of information with community services people in various communities? I would assume that if a homeless veteran was discovered, someone would say, “Here's a phone number. Go call that guy,” as opposed to embracing the person and working with him at the local level. Can you tell me whether there is a flow of information to municipalities and provincial governments, or at what level it is with regard to veterans and municipalities, as you suggest in your line?

[Guy Parent]

I don't think there is presently—

[Bob Bratina, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

I don't think so either.

[Guy Parent]

It's nothing coordinated.

It happens by word of mouth and by experience. I'll give you a good example of the sequence, for instance.

Vets Canada is an association that is contracted with Veterans Affairs and is actually responsible for homelessness for veterans. They are contacted when a homeless veteran is found. They are only looking at getting him off the street and into housing. The housing is the responsibility of the municipality, normally. Once the veteran is housed, medical care becomes the next step. The province looks after that. When people are receiving provincial health care, the federal programs for veterans should fall into place after that. There's never been any linking of all these levels of responsibility, and that's what's needed.

My hope is to talk to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities at their next meeting, to talk about what I've heard from mayors around Canada, what they do for veterans, and how they deal with homelessness. We need to try to get that link in there. Right now, the only place where there might be that connection is in Nova Scotia, because they have a provincial parliamentary committee for veterans. When you have Halifax and the province involved with veterans, then we can make the link, and that's my point. Some services are provided, probably now, by some of the levels that are available in some other jurisdictions.

[Bob Bratina, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

It would be an interesting proposition for the veterans committee of our city—and I'm sure most cities would have one—to introduce the notion and have some interplay. The veterans committee would report to council, ultimately, and bring it into consideration.

Thanks very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

Mr. Eyolfson.