Veterans Affairs Committee on Nov. 7th, 2017

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

Will we be able to get a copy of that information?

[Michel Doiron]

Yes. The report is public, so I'm willing to provide it.

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

We'll circulate that.

That's great. It sounds like Churchill's saying that we have the worst system except for all the others, or when Bernie Sanders says that we have the best health care and somebody else says, “Are you kidding? I'm not getting treatment.” What I am focusing on is that there is a feeling of accomplishment, of well-being, and of satisfaction, and I think it's important to note that.

Has the eligibility for the new training benefits changed? The government announced that education and training benefits in budget 2017 would now be available to Canadian Armed Forces members who would not qualify under vocational rehabilitation.

[Bernard Butler]

That's exactly right. The new education benefit runs side by side with the educational provisions contained in our vocational rehab side of the house, but the criteria are very simple. If you have six years of military service, you will be eligible for up to $40,000 as an educational benefit, just for having worn the uniform. If you complete 12 years of service, that grows to $80,000. Those are all the criteria required.

That represents a significant departure from what I spoke to earlier, veterans programming that was historically always based largely on service attribution or, in some cases, economic-related issues. For this particular program, though, it's just on years of service.

I would also point out that this program was designed with the assistance of our colleagues on the Canadian Armed Forces side of the house. It was very much a joint effort so that it complements their programming and also meets their concern about retention. It represents a fairly good balance in the mix.

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

Thank you.

Ms. Wagantall is next.

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

Thank you, Chair.

It's good to have you here.

I have a couple of quick questions that your comments have tweaked for me.

For the funding for education, you qualify with a minimum of six years. Is the amount you qualify for the same across the board, or is it based on your rank?

[Bernard Butler]

I'm sorry; the same across the board as...?

[An hon. member]

Rank—

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

Is everyone receiving the same amount of funding?

[Bernard Butler]

As rank, yes. Absolutely.

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

Okay. Great. Thank you.

With regard to the surveys—and this applies to all surveys, including 2010—the way they seem to work is “very satisfied”, “somewhat satisfied”, etc. Is your 82% the combination of “satisfied” and “somewhat satisfied”?

[Michel Doiron]

It is a combination. I don't remember if it's “satisfied” and “very satisfied”. They had five or six, and it's the upper echelon.

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

Right. Okay. Great.

I'm just going to quote Mr. Butler, assistant deputy minister of Veterans Affairs. He made a statement to us: “...the financial, physical, and mental well-being of eligible veterans and their families is our goal and the strategic outcome to which many of the programs and services of Veterans Affairs Canada contribute.”

It sounds wonderful and it is the overarching philosophy, I believe. However, we talk about things being tailored to their needs because everyone is different, and then we talk about the commonality of issues, even in our study. Internationally, we all struggle with transition and suicide.

If we wanted to take care of that cohort on the bottom end who are never satisfied, for whatever reasons of difficulty they face, would we not be wise to better define what the outcomes are so that when someone enlists, whatever happens to them, whether injured or choosing to leave, they know that this is what the country is going to do for them?

[Michel Doiron]

That's a very interesting question for sure, and a very complex one. I think in many respects it may well go to the very heart of your study.

At one level you are engaged in a comparative study of what other countries are providing, but perhaps the real issue is to define the need. What is the gap? What are we all, as countries, trying to achieve in providing programming—in the Canadian context, billions of dollars in programming—to support veterans?

From our perspective, in the work that has been done over the last many years, we have focused this discussion for this very reason around well-being as the outcome, because there is no specific generic issue that you could say is the one thing we're trying to achieve.

Every veteran, I can tell you, comes into the military with a different background, a different context, and different needs. Every member leaves the military with the same challenges. There may be service-connected disability; there may not be. There may be financial security; there may not be. There may be needs for rehabilitation, or there may not be, and so on.

At the end of the day, from our perspective, we have tried to focus a concept around well-being that is based essentially on the social determinants of health, because all the research says that for all of us in the room and for all our veterans, it's the same issue.

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

I understand what you're saying. I agree.

Is that defined somewhere, or is it just...? What is this well-being that you're seeking?

[Bernard Butler]

If you go to our departmental plan, that may be the point of fidelity that you may be looking for. I quoted from our departmental plan, in which we clearly say we are trying to ensure that the best benefits and services tailored to the individual needs of each veteran are provided, but those needs are across the spectrum and there's not one single element. At the end of the day, that concept of well-being is essentially determined by many factors. The key ones are achieving a sense of purpose for the veteran and financial security, so all our financial programs are designed to support that where there is a need. That's the definition that we work to—

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

I think we both know...yes.

The cohort that really struggles is not a large. They're that 10% to 15% on the bottom. If we got it right for them, we would have it right, definitely, for everybody. That's what I'm thinking.

You mentioned, sir, that psychiatrists can prescribe cannabis. However, my understanding is that within Veterans Affairs, veterans who are on cannabis will not be accepted if they try to access existing facilities for mental health care. They have to come off cannabis before they come in. Those third party providers only use pharmaceuticals in treatment.

Is that accurate or not?

[Michel Doiron]

That would be accurate.

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

Okay. Thank you.

I have a quick question in my remaining 30 seconds.

The Canadian, United Kingdom, and Australian governments all found that traditional programs did not meet the needs of veterans of post-world war conflicts. This led to the move to the new charter, and around the world the approach has become very different. It's similar, but different from what it used to be.

How did we come to this decision in agreement all around the world? What was it that wouldn't work well in that traditional program for our veterans of today? I know we want them to engage in society. My understanding is World War I and World War II veterans came back, got jobs, settled into communities, and married. All of these issues were as real then as they are now, so why the need to change?

[Bernard Butler]

The Canadian context is that after the Second World War, we did in fact have a charter. The charter at the time—or so it's been described—was a suite of benefits that helped re-establish all those men and women who came back. There were farm loans, educational loans, soldiers' insurance provisions, and so on. There was a range of them. Over many years, as that cohort aged, the need for that programming dropped off and governments dropped the programs.

As we headed into the late 1990s and early 2000s, as a younger cohort was now being released from the military—and some after more aggressive peacekeeping than we had seen for many years, such as Bosnia, Somalia, and so on—there was now a resurgence or a requirement to meet this new need. In a way, the new Veterans Charter programming tried in a modern context to mirror some of the programs that existed back in the late 1940s and early 1950s, in particular the concept of rehabilitation and achieving well-being. If you can't find a job and you can't easily reintegrate, you're not going to be very well. That's what the research showed, so that's essentially how it evolved in the current context.

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

Thank you.

That ends our time for today.

I'd like to thank both of you for taking time out of your busy day and testifying, and for all you do for the men and women who have served. Thank you.

The meeting is adjourned.