Veterans Affairs Committee on Feb. 13th, 2018

[Gary Walbourne]

If you look at the program that General Jon Vance is talking about, “the journey”, much of what we're talking about will be captured inside that. I do believe it's a good program, and I guarantee it will change as we grow, but it's a good start.

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

You talk about no release, and again I agree one hundred percent with that. What do you think of universality of service? Is that affecting us as far as no release is concerned? Should we be looking at maybe making some flexibility around that, so that we're able to ensure there is no release before everything is in place?

[Gary Walbourne]

Again, General Jon Vance has spoken about this, universality of service. I know they've set up a tiger team and they're looking at it, which for me is very encouraging because this conversation would not have taken place as little as three to five years ago.

I think the Canadian Armed Forces under General Jon Vance had determined that there is value in these members. Yes, they might be ill or injured and might not be able to do everything, but they can bring value back to the organization. There's talk around looking at easing of universality of service, and I think that's a good thing. I think the assets we can hang onto are going to be tremendous.

Secondarily, easing of the universality of service may allow those—and we always talk about the stigma that's attached to operational stress injuries and mental health. There may be an opportunity where we could open that door a little further where people wouldn't feel so stigmatized or that this is the end of their career if they come forward.

I think there is great possibility in that. I think this is a modernization piece. I'm very pleased to see that the conversation has started.

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

The other piece is the pension. Some members across the room here made reference to the pension and trying to iron out what was there before and what's there today. It's amazing because for 10 years a livable document did not live very much when it came to trying to answer to those ill individuals. If we look at the pension that we brought forward and add all the benefits that tie into that, there seems to be a big forward movement. Ten billion dollars has been invested in the last two years compared to the last 10 years.

When you put in the pension, you can't just leave the pension by itself. Can you comment on the pension with all the extra benefits that came to support our injured veterans, because the question was asked solely on the pension without talking about the full picture.

[Gary Walbourne]

I have always said that the new veterans charter is a modern piece of legislation. I think there's a lot of benefit inside the new veterans charter, access to health care and family benefits, and so on. I firmly believe that.

My question—and this is what keeps coming back to the desk—is financially, how am I going to be now compared to what I would have been under the Pension Act? There is a delta there. How big that delta is, I don't know. I can't get visibility on the tool they're using to do these projections. The $10 billion has been costed, not funded. We have it costed out for a period of years.

Where do we go? I think this is going to change as we go forward. The amount of pain and suffering was always the problem with the new veterans charter, and then at age 65 all the benefits ceased. These were always problems with the new veterans charter, but the new veterans charter is a more modern piece of legislation. It's about rehabilitation and reintegration, all those things that we talk about under modern management techniques. Again, it keeps coming back to the comparison of dollar for dollar, unfortunately.

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

You do realize that the old veterans charter did not have all those benefits in place?

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

Sorry, we're out of time.

Mr. Kitchen for five minutes.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Walbourne, for being here again.

I read your report last night and I could feel the frustration in your report. It resonated with me extremely because I have that same frustration; we're seeing the same witnesses, hearing the same responses, and getting nothing out of this.

You were asked questions earlier around why these recommendations we're making are not being put in place, and why we're restudying the same transition. Recommendations that we make go to the minister, and then the minister needs to respond to that. When we talk about where it comes from, it comes from the top.

Can you delicately answer.... Is that where it's coming from, more so directing that to the supervisors below?

[Gary Walbourne]

Ministers, like ombudsmen, come and go, but the bureaucracy never changes. The minister has to reach down into his department, both on the civilian side of the house or the military side of the house, to get the information that will assist him in defining his position, that evidence that's given to him by the department. However, at the end of the day, folks, what hasn't changed? That's as delicate as I can be. Thanks.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

That's what I thought. I appreciate that.

Sir, under the legacy of care initiative, a range of service benefits for the ill and injured were introduced. Some benefits appeared to only be available for the members who served in Afghanistan. The JPSU is denying benefits like child care support for the seriously ill and injured because of this Afghanistan requirement. I believe the child care benefit is under section 211.005(2).

Can you look into this and report back if you can't answer this right now? Will all of our operations need this?

[Gary Walbourne]

I will have to get back to you on the specific answer, but if I may, let's just talk about that for a second.

We do that a lot. Every time there's a theatre of operation or another footprint that we've assumed somewhere in the world, we'll come back and develop a program that's just for that cohort of people. If we look at Veterans Affairs and ask why they find themselves behind the eight ball sometimes, just look at the number of programs. There are three different types of soldiers in three different elements, and that gets multiplied and it just goes on and on. It's so complex and convoluted. You may have two veterans who serve side by side and one may be eligible for a suite of benefits and services that the other is not. That is a possibility; that can happen.

As for the specifics on your question, we will get back to you, sir.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Thank you.

You mentioned data collection and its use.

We do collect a lot of data and information, but as you say, specifics such as what program is being offered, who is using it, how often, and how successful it is; that's the information I would like to know.

Is your research set up to be collected in that manner, or does something need to be put in place to make certain we see it?

[Gary Walbourne]

I think we do some measurement. I don't know how structured it is and what cycle it comes on. I believe we have to get to a structured reporting cycle whereby we can clearly see how recommendations are being implemented over time. But the information we have now is the same as anyone else would receive on the website.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Thank you.

In your report “Determining Service Attribution”, you posed a question, “This begs the question...why a protracted bureaucratic process is required for VAC to review records...”, and I won't read all it. But after reading it, for me it begged the question. Would it be easier if we had VAC as an entity within CAF, as some countries do?

[Gary Walbourne]

Again, I think any way we want to slice and dice this could work, but I think it's going to come down to no matter what the entity is, who is responsible to do what, and on what timeline? I think this is where people slip through the cracks and this is a handover instead of a hand-off.

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

Thank you.

Mr. Johns, you have three minutes.

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

Thank you.

You mentioned that you don't have the numbers of veterans who have gone into public service positions. Certainly we know that return-to-work training is really important, and having case workers who understand the issues. Other countries have hired former veterans to be case workers for their veterans affairs. I think in the U.S. it's 30%.

Can you speak to the importance of that?

[Gary Walbourne]

To be with someone who has walked through the same life you have walked through does go a long way in helping some transitioning members. I believe there is a lot in that camaraderie, to have walked through the exact same process. I think a certain level of acceptance readily becomes available when you get two people together like that, so I think there is opportunity in that.

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

But about decision-making at the front line, early on, is that...?

[Gary Walbourne]

If we put people in the positions we're talking about, they should have the appropriate authority that goes with that position and be allowed to make the decisions that need to be made within the parameters of the policy or regulation, whatever it may be.

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

There was an article yesterday about the government turning to a private firm to help soldiers transition into civilian work after leaving the military. Some have expressed concern that they're unsure of what this means.

Can you expand on how this might work, or any thoughts you might have on that?

[Gary Walbourne]

I have absolutely no visibility on it. I was as surprised as anyone else. I had the same concerns.

We have 7,000 people currently in a program. What is to become of them?

It's this type of thing...we throw it out there without the communications behind it. I guarantee you—Robyn, as my DG, will man her phones a little heavier because it's going to start. But I think our comms on how we dump some of these things is a little lacking; this is another case of that.

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

In DND you talked about the importance of health records being transferred to VAC, and that it would reduce wait times. Can you speak to the 29,000 who are waiting right now? I think 48% aren't going to meet the 16-week threshold, the way it's going. Can you speak to what that might look like on the numbers side?

[Gary Walbourne]

I don't know the full makeup inside the 29,000. I do know a large portion of those applications will be trying to bridge to 75% to 90% when they've updated the ELB. They went from 75% last year to 90%. That's going to be a portion of them.

I don't know if actual operational files are coming in daily in that 29,000, so I have no visibility on what the breakdown of that looks like.

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

You don't have any idea of whether it would cut it in half or...?