Veterans Affairs Committee on Feb. 1st, 2018

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

That ends our time for this panel. We'll recess for about four minutes here, and then we'll get back to the second panel.

On behalf of the—

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to just remind members that I am a member of this committee and, therefore, I'm completely allowed to ask questions. Any impediment to my ability to ask questions could be considered a question of privilege.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

Thank you.

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

May I speak to that, please?

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

Yes, Mrs. Wagantall.

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

Thank you.

I totally appreciate what you say, and I agree with you that it is your privilege.

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

Thank you.

I'd like to thank everybody here today who helps our men and women who serve. All that you've done and continue to do makes our job easier. If there's anything you'd like to add to your testimony, you can email it to the clerk, and she will get it distributed.

We'll recess for a couple of minutes, and then we'll come back to our second panel.

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

Thank you, everybody. We'll call the meeting back to order.

We have our second panel here. As individuals, we have Allan English, professor, Queen's University Department of History. From Mount Saint Vincent University, we have Deborah Norris, associate professor; and from Supporting Wounded Veterans Canada, Hélène Le Scelleur, veteran ambassador and head of the mentoring program.

We'll start with your opening statements for up to five minutes. We can start with Mr. English.

[Dr. Allan English, Professor, Queen's University, History Department, As an Individual]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank you for inviting me to appear before the committee. It's a pleasure to be here.

I'd like to speak briefly to two issues that have been a focus of my research recently, related to number 8 in your questions to witnesses: “What are the main obstacles to a smooth transition...?”

This adage represents for me the most important principle in measuring how closely the stated intentions of organizations like Veterans Affairs, DND, and the CF match their actions. It can help us identify systemic barriers to transition as well as guide investigations into other processes. This principle also allows us to determine whether lofty statements of intent by senior leaders are actually supported by appropriate matching reward systems that will help to realize the stated intent. Research has shown that if reward systems do not match stated intent, little will get done.

I will use the systemic barriers to military and civilian staffing for the joint personnel support units—which we've heard about already—and associated support organizations as an example of how this principle can be applied in practice.

A number of commentators, including General Vance, the current CDS, have portrayed the JPSUs as an excellent concept that was badly executed. For example, a 2013 DND/CF ombudsman’s report identified acute staffing shortages in the JPSUs as a key problem in their deficiencies. These shortages were entirely predictable when the JPSUs were created in 2008, because the shortages were caused by systemic problems that were well known at the time.

Five years later, in 2013, in response to criticism of the JPSUs, the CDS at the time, General Tom Lawson, declared that JPSUs were a part of his “personal priority” of “caring for our members and their families”. Despite the CDS’s assertion of priority, the CF had assigned JPSUs the lowest staffing priority level—that is, level 6 on a scale of 1 to 6, which you heard about earlier—and this virtually ensured that the military staff shortages would eventually impact negatively on their missions. This is a systemic problem that is based on the CF culture, where the teeth, the combat units of the organization, almost always receive staffing priority over the tail, the support units.

On the civilian staffing side, complex public service hiring processes and inadequate compensation rates have frequently been identified as serious obstacles to the timely employment and retention of health care professionals for DND. Again, this is a systemic problem that was understood to be a long-standing problem for DND when the JPSUs were created, and therefore would undoubtedly have an impact on them in the future. This systemic problem will surely impact on the new, proper, professionalized organization intended to help CF members better transition to civilian life, which the CDS referred to last year before this committee.

I will conclude with some points on your measurable outcomes, specifically what two questions might be asked of those responsible for creating and implementing policies on veterans’ transition to assess their plans and progress against their stated intention.

The first question could simply be, “What staffing priority level has been assigned to this organization?” This answer would be a measurable outcome of the level of priority that has been assigned to it by the CF, regardless of stated intent.

The second question could be, “What steps have been taken to address the issues with public service employment practices that have been significant barriers to hiring and retaining health care professionals in the past?” Once again, the answer would be a measurable outcome of the actual level of priority assigned to any particular plan.

My final point restates this principle that enables those investigating or overseeing any activity to have a focus that can guide lines of questioning and help to identify systemic barriers to transition.

Thank you, and I look forward to the panel’s discussion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

Thank you.

Now we have Ms. Norris, associate professor at Mount Saint Vincent University.

[Dr. Deborah Norris, Associate Professor, Mount Saint Vincent University]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I represent a group of researchers at Mount Saint Vincent University in Halifax who are conducting qualitative work emphasizing the impact of operational stress injuries, most notably PTSD, on veteran families. Some of us have been involved in this research for about 25 years.

I have a number of studies I could highlight, but I'm going to give a very high-level overview of one that I think is germane to the work ongoing by this group. The results of that study focus directly on question 3 and question 7 that are guiding your work.

This is a study that's near completion, which focuses on the impact of PTSD on family members. Some of the outcomes that I think are relevant to your agenda are that the imperative to care for the veteran becomes the central organizing facet of family experience. Our study results reveal that changes in family structure, including role redefinition and reallocation, are very common outcomes throughout the trajectory of supporting the veteran. Spouses described their experience assuming full responsibility for family functioning and changing routines while also providing care for the veteran, and for many this is a change from the status quo.

In some cases children share this responsibility, enacting role behaviour incompatible with their stage of development, which has consequences for them throughout their life course.

Emotional stress, relationship tensions, and financial stress as a result of changes in employment have also been commonly cited as impacts.

Spouses report that they act as caregivers to the veteran, performing daily work, mediating and buffering the stresses that are often felt by the veteran. In fact, the spouse is often considered to be a linchpin. As a consequence, spouses themselves experience burnout and their own health problems. Throughout, family members are reconciling, in many instances, the loss of the veteran as he or she once was.

It also should be noted that family members exhibit capacities for coping and adaptation. One of the themes in my research program is resilience, which I won't get into here, but it is one of the other outcomes.

Why do these mental health and well-being impacts on families matter, and how are they relevant to your work? Because the relationship between the veteran's mental health and well-being through the military to civilian transition is bidirectional and interdependent, the veteran's mental health and well-being impacts the family, and correspondingly, the family's mental health and well-being impacts the veteran. If the family is struggling, the veteran will as well, and this, of course, would be a significant barrier to health and well-being through the military to civilian transition.

Relevant to question 7, our study also reveals that formal and informal support systems are also integral. Family and friends obviously play a major role, but on the formal side, our participants report that military-centric groups, as compared to civilian social support groups, in many cases are more helpful. Social and geographic isolation can be a barrier, though, as is the lack of high-quality information about interventions and supports, administrative delays, system navigation issues—all matters that I'm sure your group is considering—as well as the coordination of administrative processes. These barriers have acted to cause and compound gaps in service to the veteran and his or her family.

Participants have offered many suggestions about the way to move forward, and remember, these are families who are offering these suggestions. Family involvement in the care of the veteran is essential; a proactive approach, moving further back in the MCT trajectory, so involving families onboard before the member releases. And a collaborative model of service delivery is also recommended, one that involves formal and informal systems working together to address vulnerabilities, increase access, and maximize veteran and family strengths.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

Now, from Supporting Wounded Veterans Canada, we have Ms. Le Scelleur.

[Hélène Le Scelleur, Veteran Ambassador and Head of the Mentoring Program, Supporting Wounded Veterans Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all committee members for inviting me to testify in this important study.

In my last appearance before this committee, I explained, as an injured veteran who was medically released in April 2016, what the problem was and what actually aggravated my symptoms; it was not my transition at the career level or the health care I received. In fact, I had received excellent treatment from health care professionals, and my transition at the career level was smooth, since I was able to pursue a PhD in social work in order to overcome the identity crisis resulting from a non-voluntary medical release from the Canadian Armed Forces.

The challenge for me and for other psychologically injured soldiers when we were still serving was the inflexibility of the principle of universality of military service. There were no conceivable accommodations to address the fact that our injuries kept us from handling firearms. This policy should be relaxed in order to ensure retention of military members within the Canadian Armed Forces. Many of us would still be serving today if it were not for this policy that forced our release, and that may, when all is said and done, have deterred people from seeking help during their service.

According to the research I am doing for my PhD and my personal experience, the major challenge during transition is adjusting to one's new identity and to other people.

We aren't ready for that when we are pushed out the door; nobody is. It was truly never our intention to leave our military careers behind. Alas, when the decision to leave was made for us, it left us without an identity.

In 2012, the National Defence and Canadian Forces ombudsman wrote the following in his report:

Though demographics are shifting, a preponderance of CF members still joined the military in early adulthood and know only what it is to be a sailor, soldier or airman/woman. Not only has their military career been the only one they have ever had, but it is a major part of their identity. As a result, the notion of ‘returning to civilian life’ is invariably more complex and cathartic than the term suggests. More often than not it is an arrival to adult civilian life rather than a return, with all the uncertainty and trepidation that such entails.

The most important aspect to consider and what is currently lacking for a smooth transition is the absence of a new purpose in life, and I'm not necessarily talking about a job here. Upon release, we are faced with a void, and many of us see no reason to fill it. Our original purpose in life as military members is now rendered obsolete. It cannot be transposed into civilian life. We are then forced to find ways to reconnect with ourselves. As military members, we are constantly thinking as a team. In fact, we set aside our individualities during missions to achieve progress. However, when we transition to civilian life, it becomes extremely difficult to think for ourselves and by ourselves, since we have been conditioned differently.

Currently, no training is offered that could help our military members transition and prepare them to reconnect with themselves and recognize their own, distinct identities. I believe that the collaboration between the Canadian Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Canada is a good thing. That being said, in order to fill the void I mentioned earlier, it would be important to reach out to community organizations that take on these issues.

Since I was in need of a new identity and a new purpose, I was put into contact with the founder of the Supporting Wounded Veterans Canada charity. I was then able to get help and support from a mentor for one year after my transition. This mentorship experience allowed me to find a new path towards self-fulfilment, to redefine my own values and needs, as well as to create a new purpose in life.

Since I receive disability benefits and cannot work full time, I am volunteering for this organization as their ambassador for veterans and coordinator of the mentorship program.

Our organization's mission is to help veterans who have been medically released from the Canadian Armed Forces regain meaningful civilian lives. To do so, we use a three-step program: rehabilitation through sporting activities, a one-year mentorship, and support to allow them to create new purpose in their lives. This can be done through a new job, if possible, a new passion, or even the creation of small business.

What veterans fear the most when they leave the Canadian Armed Forces is isolation, the loss of their community, and lack of purpose. For this reason, transition must be approached differently if we are to help veterans face these challenges. Their contact with other injured veterans during sporting events gives them the opportunity to build new support networks and bolster team spirit, which prevents them from being isolated. That is the right time to offer injured military members the support of a fellow community member. This person can act as their guide, help them broaden their view of the world and seize new opportunities. This can allow injured veterans to leave their comfort zone, which isn't always a good place from which to redefine oneself.

Once again, thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. I am extremely grateful to have the opportunity to speak before you.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

Thank you.

We're going to have to go to five-minutes rounds. We'll start with Mr. McColeman.

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

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, witnesses, for being here.

This week in Ottawa, a group of veterans arrived who have formed a group called Equitas. They are moving forward with an application to the Supreme Court of Canada for leave to argue their case, which was won at one court level but then turned down by the court of appeal in British Columbia.

One of the main issues in this particular situation is their request to the court to recognize a social covenant between Canadians and military members—or in some people's minds you can insert the term “military covenant”. One of my colleagues has a private member's bill currently being debated in the House of Commons calling for the recognition of a military covenant.

What is your view?

This is especially to you first, Mr. English, and then to the other people on the panel. Does this exist in Canada already? Is there a covenant? Has there ever been a covenant historically between Canadians and military personnel and the military?

[Dr. Allan English]

Thank you for that excellent question. Actually, as my biography indicates, one of my articles is about that and is available online. You can read it there.

The short answer is no, we don't have a covenant, because a covenant implies a permanent commitment, and there has been no government that I know of that's prepared to make a permanent financial commitment to our veterans.

In 1938, the second-biggest budget item, next to paying off the interest on the national debt, was veterans' pensions. The public was outraged because it was in the middle of a depression, and people said, “Why are we paying so much to veterans?” Seventy percent of them were suffering from shell shock.

You have to remember that the public doesn't always support veterans, but there's a lot of support now. I would say that if we have anything, we have a social contract. The contract is negotiable using the government, the legislative process, and whatever financial means are available.

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

Thank you.

Ms. Norris.

[Dr. Deborah Norris]

I would totally agree. I know that in the military family support community there is a statement that I guess would serve as a contract as well. It pledges support to families, so I guess I would put a pitch in for any ongoing work around covenant-making to include the obligation and responsibility to military and veteran families as well.

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

Absolutely.

Ms. Le Scelleur.

[Hélène Le Scelleur]

Yes, I would say that as of now, I believe that my organization exists and has a purpose because such a covenant does not necessarily exist in another way, through the military personnel or through an organization like Veterans Affairs. I do believe that it's something we need to look at. That's what I would say.

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

Okay.

This committee is called the Veterans Affairs Committee for a reason.

[Hélène Le Scelleur]

Yes.

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

We're tasked to look for the best possible services to meet the needs of the veterans. There has been much discussion over many years of the dysfunction of Veterans Affairs Canada in terms of its bureaucratic structure.

Your being a veteran, Ms. Le Scelleur, I am interested if you have you ever heard the senior management of Veterans Affairs being characterized as “the four horsemen of the apocalypse”.

[Hélène Le Scelleur]

No, I haven't.

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

Have any one of you at the table ever heard that before?