Veterans Affairs Committee on Feb. 13th, 2018

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

We'll start meeting number 75, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), study of barriers to transition and measurable outcomes of successful transition.

We have National Defence and Canadian Forces Ombudsman, Gary Walbourne, also Robyn Hynes, director general, operations.

Welcome to you both.

We'll start with 10 minutes of testimony and then we'll swing into questions.

Thank you, Gary. The floor is yours.

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

Thank you to the committee for inviting me here today.

Ladies and gentlemen, I am entering the last year of my mandate, and this may well be the last time I appear before this committee to discuss transition from military to civilian life. On the subject of a seamless transition, I believe the cycle of constant review is doing more harm than good to the current and former members of the Canadian Armed Forces. This committee is currently studying the barriers to transition. The barriers are well known; hundreds of recommendations have been made to fix them by this committee and others over the course of successive governments. Dozens of recommendations have been accepted and implemented, however, many more have not.

Ladies and gentlemen of this committee, in 2010, Veterans Affairs Canada conducted a major survey on transition in concert with Statistics Canada. A related study with Statistics Canada was also done in 2012. The release of the results of another StatsCan survey of over 400 Canadian Armed Forces members, veterans, and their families on the subject of transition and well-being is anticipated this month. I can guarantee you that those results will tell us exactly what we know. Enough is enough.

Prior to this committee appearance, I circulated my testimony at previous committee appearances. The points I will make on transition today are the same ones I made in the reports produced by my office. I believe that much of what you are looking for has already been presented by me and other witnesses.

If at the end of my appearance here today I have persuaded you to shift direction and focus on implementing what has already been studied, then I—indeed all of us here today—will be doing right by our transitioning members. They and we do not need another study into transition. We just need to do it. We know what needs to be done.

I would respectfully suggest to members of this committee that you take a hard look at why, after years of studies and ignored recommendations, so little has been done. Senior leadership needs to be held accountable for implementation, not tasked with more research. The recommendations I have made to government are scarcely given credence. This includes one simple recommendation that would greatly benefit our transitioning members: authorizing the Canadian Armed Forces to determine if a member’s illness or injury can be attributable to service. As I have said, the Canadian Armed Forces knows when, where, and how you have become ill or injured. The Canadian Armed Forces should tell Veterans Affairs Canada that the illness or injury is attributable to their service, and this determination be accepted. This recommendation would significantly decrease wait times for veteran services and benefits. I made this recommendation in 2016, and Veterans Affairs Canada and the Canadian Armed Forces keep passing the hot potato back and forth, creating some very fanciful excuses as to why it cannot or should not be done. The only thing they seem to agree on is maintaining the status quo at all costs. That is a problem of bureaucracy; it serves itself.

Between the two parliamentary committees, both ACVA and NDDN, 14 studies have been conducted, with 190 recommendations made. The Office of the Veterans Ombudsman and my office have also made a number of recommendations. As all of you are aware, my recommendations are based on evidence. Evidence is not created, it is uncovered. True to mandate, everything our office publishes is evidence-based and factual. To contribute to lasting improvements for the defence community, we take our research seriously. Evidence-based decision-making is championed across government. Political parties and senior public servants commit to its principles. However, my fear is that little of what our government does for its ill and injured members is measured in a way that can be easily understood. The outcomes of various programs are simply not well known. Yes, there is some tracking on turnaround times, on adjudications, and some basic operational items. However, there is no reporting on rehabilitation programming and other key indicators that any private sector benefits administrator would follow.

As a result, current and former members of the Canadian Armed Forces, members of Parliament, senators, and the Canadian public have an incomplete picture of where the issues lie. To change what ails us, the bureaucratic approach and the bureaucratic systems need to fundamentally change. We need a transition process informed by evidence-based, user-centric design. It is not enough to try to fix inefficiencies here and there when the system is broken.

Ladies and gentlemen, I have a five-year appointment. I know the exact date I will vacate my office. Similarly, you, as members of Parliament, know roughly when you will have to seek re-election. We do what we do because we want to make positive and lasting changes for our constituencies. Bureaucracies cannot do this for us. If you want real change, I encourage you to pressure senior leadership and hold them accountable to measurable promises. Please take a hard look at some of the evidence-based solutions that have already been suggested. Of course, there is the need to be up-to-date on transition, and it is helpful to be aware of best practices and other solutions that may be adaptable to the Canadian Armed Forces context. However, I fear that a redundancy of studies only feeds bureaucracy. It lets senior leadership off the hook. When questioned, one can respond, “We are studying it”. The ill and injured continue to lose out.

Like the Veterans Ombudsman, I have begun publishing report cards that reflect the status and effort that has gone into implementing accepted recommendations. It is my humble opinion that asking the government why accepted recommendations have not been implemented will bring timelier, more concrete results than doing an additional study. The current system is broken, however it can be fixed. Please do not be an impediment to transition by standing in the way of action. The people who make up the members of the defence community are important. I ask that we stop defending positions on the subject of transition that are indefensible.

Now, I stand ready for your questions. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

Thank you.

Mr. McColeman, you have six minutes.

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

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

My first question has to deal with something that I've heard from veterans and I believe I've heard it from yourself and others. It's a description of the management and senior leadership of VAC as the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. Could you tell me what that means to you?

[Gary Walbourne]

I've heard that phrase in two different contexts. One was a reflection on the management and inside of Veterans Affairs Canada and the other one had to do with certain policy suites. It depends who you're talking to, but I have heard the expression, and I do believe that's what it was referring to.

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

In your opinion, does it speak favourably to the way the leadership runs affairs at VAC?

[Gary Walbourne]

Again, these are opinions that I received from members and former members of the Canadian Armed Forces. I do have to ask the question, “Why are we at the same place today as we were 8 to 10 years ago?” Maybe there is a reflection. Maybe some of our policies and managerial procedures are too strict or unable to change.

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

Okay. I'll move onto another subject.

Late last year, after the House adjourned, the government rolled out its Liberal pension scheme for veterans. They did so saying and maintaining that this met their commitment for lifelong pensions. What's your opinion of the program and the scheme that was rolled out?

[Gary Walbourne]

I wasn't in the room when the conversation went on about whether we were returning to “a” lifelong pension or “the” lifelong pension. I believe there were expectations on one side and promises on the other. I'm not sure if both have aligned.

As for the rollout, we ran into a bit of an issue. We wanted to run some of the scenarios ourselves because our former members or transitioning members would like to see what their future looked like. We asked for access to the tool, so that we could run some scenarios. We were led to believe that the tool wasn't as stable as we would like. It was considered that manual manipulation was required before they could enter the scenarios into the system. Therefore, I don't have a full view of how this works. I know there have been multiple benefits combined and then they're going to be rolled out in a different fashion. The communications on this have been absolutely horrendous. Last week at a town hall, I had someone ask me if the new pension would impact the Canadian Forces pension.

There's much confusion in the environment. I still wouldn't be able to answer your question about whether it's adequate. I do believe that there has been some positive movement for those most permanently incapacitated or most severely disabled, but I have no idea what the window looks like for those who are between 25% to 70% disabled.

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

From the veterans advocates that I've spoken with and others who have spoken out about it—and I could read probably a dozen quotations here—it doesn't measure up to what was promised during the election campaign, when the Prime Minister stood up and said that they would deliver lifelong pensions. Clearly, the announcement claimed that this would return to the benefits equivalent of what existed pre-new veterans charter.

When you do some of the analysis—and again, I don't have time to go through some of the analysis of what benefits would be for the more moderately medically discharged service members—it doesn't measure up, and it doesn't measure up even in the most severe cases either. It's still less than that.

As you have so wonderfully articulated, due to the issues with implementation and the fact that we repeatedly look at the things that are problematic in the transition of a service member, the scheme that was rolled out is woefully inadequate. Without going into detail, would I be fair to characterize your comments here today as saying that, although it's difficult for you to determine, it does not measure up to pre-new veterans charter?

[Gary Walbourne]

We can safely say, dollar for dollar, it does not line up to an exact same type of financial compensation that was under the Pension Act. Again, not having access to the tool and understanding how it works, I'm kind of out on a limb here making a comment on something that I haven't had the chance to review.

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

You made the recommendation, in one of your reports, that a concierge service should be set up, and we've heard that the government responded to that saying, “Well, the pilot project that we put together is indeed, a concierge service.” You've looked at the pilot program, you know what's happening there.

Is it the same as what you envisaged for another one of your recommendations to help veterans?

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

I apologize for interrupting, but you only have a few seconds to answer.

[Gary Walbourne]

No, when I was talking about the concierge service, I was talking about something that was to be embedded inside the Canadian Armed Forces. General Jonathan Vance is looking at this type of service in the program called “the journey”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

Mr. Fraser.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Walbourne, I know your term is coming to an end as the ombudsman for the Department of National Defence. I want to thank you for the work that you've done. I understand and take fully what you say, and the fact that it must be frustrating to make recommendations that then don't see implementation after making those recommendations time and time again.

I want to begin with the conversation you were just having regarding the rollout of the lifelong pension option. The veterans charter that came into effect in 2006, as I understand, was to be a living tree, to be a living document that would be improved over time. It seemed there weren't very many improvements made for a number of years.

There were additional suites of benefits that recently came into being, education and training benefits, caregiver benefits, and other things.

Do you see these as a positive additional step, not only to the lifelong pension option but for the well-being of medically released veterans who can then use those tools in order to regain livelihood in the workforce?

[Gary Walbourne]

Most definitely. Any of those programs or services that help an injured veteran move forward, for example, the caregiver benefit, which gives some relief to families and takes some of the pressure off, is a benefit.

All of these programs are bringing benefits, without exception. There has been an incremental movement over time, but when we get to the end of this, we still find ourselves talking about those slipping through the cracks. There's been good work done on both sides.

The Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces are headed toward a solution with “the journey”. That's why I challenge to go back and look at the implementation of that project. When is it going to happen? What are the milestones? How can it be tracked? Is it resourced properly? If we could start asking these types of questions, we could really start to change the game.

As for the other benefits that have been brought in by Veterans Affairs, the ones you had mentioned, they all bring value back to the veterans community, without a doubt.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Along those lines with retraining and vocational benefits, SISIP provides income and vocational rehabilitation after release, but vocational rehab is not mandatory, as it is in VAC.

Can you comment on that, and give an opinion, perhaps, as to whether that poses challenges to people going through the system of transition?

[Gary Walbourne]

It comes down to the core of what we're talking about. We have two entities doing a very similar job, at roughly the same time, the end of career. SISIP is first payer, so its programs will come to bear first. I believe there should be a phase-in from SISIP to Veterans Affairs Canada.

Why do we have one program that starts and stops, and then another picks up and goes on from there? Having these dual programs running at the same time can be confusing. They can cause issues. I think SISIP and its performance standards are second to none. It really does a good job.

There are synergies in those programs that could be melded together to make something that would be cost saving to taxpayers, there could be continuity as a member transitions, and lots of opportunities. Having dual programs, run by different entities with different sets of criteria, with different rules, different applications, different entry processes, you can see how this could cause a problem.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

You mentioned in your comments and expressed the frustration, as I mentioned, about making recommendations and them not being implemented. You talked about DND and Veterans Affairs seeming to play this game of not taking ownership of the issue. Why do you think that the recommendations that you've made—some of them that seemed very common sense—have not been implemented? What can this committee do to see them implemented?

[Gary Walbourne]

I can't answer to why they haven't been implemented. As for the second part of that question, what can the committee do? I've said it, and I'll say it again. We need a timeline when these new entities, or new programs, are going to be introduced, when do I need the resources, when does it happen, who is responsible, and what's the outcome I'm looking for? We need to map and measure these things because, sadly, what gets measured gets managed. Any recommendations that are out there that have been accepted, and there have been some, I think we need to start measuring. We need to find out if we're actually putting the resources on the ground when we said we would. I think that would go a long way.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Can I ask one quick thing that you had mentioned as a recommendation that seems to be a very good idea that's not been implemented? That's CAF actually determining attribution of service not being accepted by VAC. Have you had a response from the government on whether or not that is something that they would consider doing?

[Gary Walbourne]

I've had a couple of responses, because when we submit the report, we look for an initial response, and then we will follow up, depending on the report, eight to 12 months later. I've had two responses, and both of them are different. They both have little nuances inside that are different in the response, but, again, I do not have a clear, concise response as to why it cannot be implemented. I keep hearing that legislation would have to change. I don't think so. I think we have opportunity there that we don't have to do that, but if we do, then let's do that. That's what we're all here for. I haven't got a clear answer for you. I'm sorry, but that's where we find ourselves today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

Thank you, Mr. Walbourne.

Mr. Johns, you have six minutes.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Thank you for being here today, Mr. Walbourne, Ms. Hynes, and for the work you do. It's greatly appreciated. Certainly we share your frustration, and you're here again bringing recommendations that aren't being applied. Mr. Fraser talked about measurement of spending. What do your numbers say about how this spending has affected the veterans community so far, and what performance indicators measure the effects of spending so far that you can speak to?