Veterans Affairs Committee on Feb. 13th, 2018

[Gary Walbourne]

There's blame enough to go around. I believe we both have issues inside our own organizations that could be addressed to make this much easier.

Where exactly does the problem lie? Well, I think it comes from how, if we look at the current structure we have, there are two case managers, there are two nurse case managers, there are two vocational rehabilitation programs. There's SISIP as first payer, and then there's the new veterans charter that kicks in. When you look at the number of programs and services, and the duplication, those are major problems. Both DND and Veterans Affairs Canada have a role to play there. It is what it is.

How do we hold people accountable? We need to go to the most senior leadership level. For my organization, if I don't perform, guess what? I own those performance standards. They're mine. I can berate my staff as much as I like, but I'm going to wear it at the end of the day. That's just the way it is, in my opinion, but I believe that's where we start. People have to be responsible for what we've committed to doing.

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

Thank you.

You also recommended that DND transfer to VAC information about medical releases and medical conditions, especially when they're attributable to military service. You mentioned that this would make the process a lot easier for people who are medically released. Can you explain why, and what other solutions exist or what other changes would be necessary in order to help the process?

[Gary Walbourne]

Right now, when a veteran is applying for a service or benefit at Veterans Affairs Canada, there's a 16-week adjudication process. Veterans Affairs can take up to 16 weeks to just determine whether or not it is attributable to service. Their service standard is to meet that 80% of the time. The last stats I looked at in October, they were nowhere close to meeting that number. That's how it gets measured.

I have to be careful. We know how it gets measured. We know the two programs are there. Where we go from here is the question. I'm not quite sure if I have an answer to that question. I go back to it again. I keep going back to it. We know what, where, when, and how, but I want the....

I mean, if you go to a private sector insurance company, you're hurt or injured, and you ask for service, they want to know when, where, and how you got injured. We know when, where, and how a soldier has become ill or injured. That's enough to release them from their career, but not enough to be accepted at Veterans Affairs Canada. That, for me, is a problem.

What would happen in my world is the member would leave with their piece of paper saying that this illness or injury is attributable to service that happened on such a date, and we have the evidence for that. Veterans Affairs then takes that file and just determines the level of impact of this illness or injury on the person's life. That would make a tremendous difference on the ground.

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

With regard to transition in general, not necessarily just medical releases but for any time a soldier ends his or her service, can you make any recommendations as to how the transfer of information can happen in an easier way? I mean not just when it comes to medical issues, but in general, to get the support they need when they're done with their service.

[Gary Walbourne]

The information flow between Veterans Affairs Canada and the Canadian Armed Forces is a fairly easy fix. What we need to do with our recruits, when they're coming in, is to have them sign off that the information the CAF collects can be shared with Veterans Affairs Canada for the application of benefits and services, and so on and so forth. We can do that with our new recruits coming in.

As for the situation we find ourselves in today, we're going to have to just work our way out of it as they come forward. As the gentleman was saying, people may come back 30 years later, but if we start to process and make it part of the tempo of what we do, I think we'll find ourselves coming out of that issue as we move forward.

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

Thank you.

I have one minute, so I'm just going to thank you once again for everything you do. I know your term is coming to an end soon, but I appreciate everything you've done until now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

Thank you.

Ms. Wagantall, you have six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Walbourne, so much for being here today. I do share your angst with regard to the fact that so many studies have been done. When I was new to the House at the beginning of our term two years ago, my first question to this committee was why are we restudying this? Why don't we look at what was recommended unanimously in the previous report and at what is and isn't being done at this point?

I would think it would be part of the role of this committee as well to hold the powers that be to the recommendations that we put forward to see if they are being implemented the way we suggested they would.

You mentioned in your opening statement that senior leadership needs to be held accountable with regard to implementation. Then when questioned, you also said you couldn't really speak to why it's not being implemented.

On page 8 of your report, “Simplifying the Service Delivery Model for Medically Releasing Members”, you make a statement:

A willingness by the Canadian Armed Forces to state on the release message whether an injury or illness is attributable to or aggravated by service—and that the Canadian Armed Forces determination be presumed by Veterans Affairs Canada to be sufficient evidence to support an application for benefits—would open the door for significant improvements in the delivery of service.

The elephant in the room is the willingness side of things. Why is there a lack of willingness, it seems, and where does the buck stop on that willingness to make these changes?

[Gary Walbourne]

As I said, for my organization, I'm responsible. At the end of the day, I think it's the same for any organization. I think that's where the responsibility lies. I don't know if it's a reluctance to implement these recommendations. I do believe they're accepted in good faith, but I wonder, as times change, if resources are pulled away and put somewhere else or, for some reason, we go off the trail we were on and we find ourselves not implementing the recommendations. There's a multitude of reasons, but I'll go back to it again. If we were measuring this on a timeline of what was supposed to happen and when it was supposed to happen, we'd know very quickly if someone pulled the resources of a couple of million dollars away from an entity. We would understand quickly what the impact of that was going to be, so I'll go back to it. You need to measure and manage.

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

In the business world it's the same thing—you look for efficiencies and effective ways to meet your goals—but it seems the idea that our veterans are the true priority in all of this is lost.

You also said earlier on in your report that this reduction in processing time that would be achievable by having their illness or injury identified before they leave is “ achievable as the Veterans Affairs Canada adjudicator would no longer have to gather evidence from both the member and the Canadian Armed Forces.”

Do you have any sense of what that would mean for VAC? When you look at how much longer it takes because they have to do that, the number of weeks it takes people employed within VAC to come to those determinations, when really a lot of it is predetermined at the Canadian Armed Forces level, would that impact the number of people working within that bureaucracy?

[Gary Walbourne]

First and foremost, I don't think if we have an opportunity we should be pulling resources out of this community as it is today. I've often talked about how I've worked with Veterans Affairs Canada through the ombudsman's office. I can honestly say they're a good group of people trying to do the best they can with what they have on the ground. There's no doubt about it.

I believe if we look at all of the other issues that are inside of these transitioning members—getting a vocation, getting rehabilitation, getting family care, and getting medical care—that's where the focus of these employees who are not doing adjudication could be turned, to look forward instead of looking backwards to find out if somebody is in the club or has an injury, yes or no. I think you could take that energy and put it forward and let's talk about vocation, rehabilitation, and the follow-up and the constant concierge service whereby somebody would be in contact with this veteran as they transition out of the military and into civilian life.

Opportunity is there. I would shudder to think that if we could save a few bucks on adjudication, we'd pull those people out of the system. I think there are enough gaps in the system.

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

Just to clarify, that's not where I was going with that. Really then what I'm looking at is that we struggle to have enough qualified, informed, educated case managers. Really, to me, if they were where the buck stopped within VAC to make those decisions—because they are educated, they know their role, and they know the people they're involved with—you could have significantly more impact there if they weren't having to deal with this other side of the issue.

Would that make sense to you?

[Gary Walbourne]

Yes, as I've said, I think we can be future looking and looking forward for the member.

One of the big things about transitioning members—and I think others have said this—is that they need more hope in front of them than they have in the past. I think there's opportunity inside of.... Even these changes we're making are going to have other benefits that we haven't fully realized yet.

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

I'd like to follow up on the question of how best to use your office. The information that you provide is significant, and everything that you're suggesting here could be implemented; but again it's that accountability portion of the picture and who is going to make sure that is happening. Where do you see the best place for the ombudsman's position to be? Right now, you're accountable to DND, correct?

[Gary Walbourne]

Yes.

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

Where would you see a better place for that accountability to be?

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

You'll have to make your answer very short, please.

[Gary Walbourne]

Where would I see a better place for the ombudsman to be reporting to? Again, another report I released said I think this office should report to Parliament. I've said that before.

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

Right, thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

Mr. Samson, you have six minutes.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Thank you once again for your presentation. It's always exciting to talk with you about veterans, and you have the experience and the knowledge around that. Then of course, with your leaving in a year's time, we get the opportunity to get all the key points.

I have a couple of very important questions. First, you're making mention that CAF should tell VAC what is attributable to service, and I agree with that one hundred percent. But if someone develops PTSD 10 years later, how would you capture those individuals?

[Gary Walbourne]

In the report we released, we talk about those individuals. There's always going to be a need for an adjudication cell at Veterans Affairs Canada because the new veterans charter gives us that flexibility where someone can come back 10, 15, 20, or 25 years later, the late manifesters, as we call them. That system would have to stay in place because there probably wouldn't be another vehicle for those members.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Thank you.

The second one is extremely important. I'm not saying we should join DND and Veterans Affairs 100%, but what do you think of being joint when it comes to transition? You can have DND and you can have VAC here, there, and everywhere, but when it comes to transition, it's one department. How do you see that?

[Gary Walbourne]

I believe there are roles for both sides here. Where I think we get into trouble is when we don't clearly define what those roles should be. Who owns the member when they're transitioning? I think we're going to have to make some very hard decisions. I think while you're wearing the uniform, you are the responsibility of the Canadian Armed Forces. As the client in this particular case reaching out to a service provider, Veterans Affairs, I think the Canadian Armed Forces should determine when Veterans Affairs gets engaged and on what it gets engaged. I think if we had that type of a format, where the clients could dictate the services they wanted, it would work much better. I don't know if we need a third separate entity to do this; I just think we need to have clear roles and responsibilities.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

I didn't mean necessarily a third entity, but that is the entity when you talk about transition. There is only one.