Veterans Affairs Committee on Feb. 15th, 2018

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

I don't see that as something that was discussed in the House. I rule you out of order.

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

I'll challenge the chair, then.

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

Okay. Would we like to vote on that? We're voting on the point of order. Call the vote.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Just to clarify, are we voting on the...?

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

The vote is on whether the decision of the chair should be sustained.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

I would like to clarify one point, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

Yes?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

I would simply like to know why you said that my colleague's comments were—

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

I'm sorry, I can't hear you. We're having translation problems.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

I'll start again.

You didn't really explain why you thought my colleague's comments were out of order. It's still serious. My colleague was only at the beginning; he hadn't even formulated his question yet. Even in the House of Commons, people are given a lot of latitude when they set out the lead up to their question. I know that when you ask a question, you have to try as much as you can to get right to the point. Having said that, I would like to understand why you said that his comments were out of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

I appreciate that. The vote has been called, so we'll call the vote and see whether we continue on this.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4)

The motion is carried.

Mr. McColeman, the floor is yours.

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

Going back to the witnesses, I'll begin by asking Madam Douglas, first of all, if you had an opportunity to review the transcripts of our last meeting, when the veterans ombudsman, Mr. Walbourne, came to this committee. Did you have a chance to see his comments?

[Elizabeth Douglas]

I saw the summary, thank you.

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

You did. You're well aware, then, that he says, and is very emphatic about the fact, that there have been 14 studies and some 190 recommendations that he has made jointly with the veterans ombudsman on transition.

Are you well aware of that?

[Elizabeth Douglas]

Yes, I am.

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

Okay, and you're aware of his very candid comments about the fact that there are some things that could be done and should have been done a long time ago, should have been acted upon, to help in the transition for members coming out of the CAF. The impact he stated, if I might characterize it, was that of its being an overstudied issue. Are you aware of that?

[Elizabeth Douglas]

I'm aware of his comments on that matter, yes.

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

Would you like to comment on why you think many of those recommendations—because you've been around this program for a long time with Veterans Affairs—on these things have not been acted upon?

[Elizabeth Douglas]

I will give not my personal opinion, but the opinion of the department, which is that we are making a lot of steps forward and taking on.... For example, in terms of transition, going back to 2006, we made movement with a program agreement between our department and CAF on ways we could avoid duplication and streamline some of our processes and programs during transition.

Then in 2015 enhanced transition services were put in place, and we moved some of our case managers and our own staff to the integrated personnel support centres, so work is being done there. We are looking to ensure that applications for benefits are being made and filled out prior to members' leaving and becoming veterans.

We are thus working very closely to fulfill the spirit of some of his recommendations.

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

Okay. One item that he continually says is a no-brainer is attributing a medical condition: if it's attributed by a doctor within the CAF, that should be acceptable at Veterans Affairs as the medical file, showing that the condition that has been diagnosed is attributable to service. Instead, veterans have to go through the whole process a second time, as you know.

Is it your view that this is a legitimate change that could be made to ease the stress on veterans through the transition?

[Elizabeth Douglas]

Again, VAC certainly wants to ease the stress of transition for veterans, but we believe it is our mandate to make that “attributable to service” designation. As a result, VAC is mandated to look after the ill and injured, and we see this as part of our role.

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

I see. I don't know whether I got an answer to my question there; at least, if there was an answer in that response, I didn't understand it.

Do you think this is a simple way by which we would be able to reduce the burden on veterans who are transitioning from the CAF to veteran status?

[Elizabeth Douglas]

VAC feels that the attribution of service would be better made, as it is now, by VAC.

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

You believe, then, that the current system would be better than the one the veterans' ombudsman—I just want to be very clear—Mr. Walbourne has said repeatedly would make the lives of CAF members transitioning out much easier.

[Elizabeth Douglas]

We always respect the recommendation of the ombudsman and look for ways in which we can pick up some of those recommendations, but we believe that declaring attribution of service is a VAC role.