Veterans Affairs Committee on March 25th, 2022

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chair, am I done?

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Yes, you're done. I'm sorry.

Right now, we're going to have two quick rounds of questions from our colleague Luc Desilets, followed by Rachel Blaney.

Mr. Desilets, you have two and a half minutes for your questions. Go ahead.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Jardine, I'm glad that you have the exact same concerns we do about the numbers and what they mean. That is the information that will truly reflect the suffering of veterans. We can never lose sight of that. That brings me back to what you said at the beginning of your opening statement: look at the man, the woman, the person behind the veteran and understand what they are going through. The figures may also help dispel the cynicism people have about the system.

I do want to tell you, however, that three weeks ago, the department gave us data that did not at all match what we received from the Library of Parliament. I agree that the department should be made to collect more detailed data, disaggregated data, but that will require establishing some criteria. I am wholly in favour of collecting more detailed data that could be analyzed using the same methodology year after year.

Is there something we should add to our report in that regard, Ms. Jardine?

[Col (Ret'd) Nishika Jardine]

Yes, Mr. Chair. Again, I would strongly encourage the committee to ask precise questions and ask for much more detail, as I have stated a couple of times already. Ask who we are looking at. Ask who these veterans are. Ask what their circumstance is. Then, I believe the committee could focus in on those veterans who are the most in distress and who need the department's help the most.

Quite simply, that is my perspective on this issue. I am really focused on those people, those veterans who do not have access to the health care treatment they need.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

I think the report should take something else into account. You talked about veterans who had submitted their first application. You brought that to our attention, and I think it's an important point. The suffering of a veteran returning from combat is not the same as the suffering of another veteran. Applications should be processed according to predetermined priorities. I really appreciated learning about that, and I think it needs to be reflected in our recommendations and in progress summary tables that we can track over time.

I think I still have five minutes, Mr. Chair.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Mr. Desilets. You definitely saw the red card.

Right now, I would like to invite MP Rachel Blaney for two and a half minutes, please.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you, Chair. I guess it is a testament to how much we enjoy the presence of these particular witnesses and the great work they are doing that everybody would like more time with them.

Reflecting on what we have heard today, I just want to thank this office for its work and for how committed it is to just having a space for reviewing justice for veterans, as well as for the fact that it is nonpartisan, that it is not a branch of the government. I really appreciate what Mr. Tolmie said and apologize for some of the tone I have heard here today.

I have a question specifically on the office's report from June 2021 on the VAC-funded peer support for veterans who have experienced military trauma. I am just wondering if there's any update that could be provided to this committee. Could you let us know how things are going? This issue continues to be a considerable concern for many of us, and we want to see action. I am curious whether there's any update you could share.

[Col (Ret'd) Nishika Jardine]

I am sorry. I did not think to ask for an update from the department on the progress they are making in setting up the peer support. However, I know that at the moment we published our report, progress was under way. They have a joint working group between Veterans Affairs and the Canadian Armed Forces. To me, that is very encouraging.

I've heard from.... It's not just 700 who are...I won't say satisfied, but encouraged by what they are hearing and what they are seeing in terms of progress.

What I can do is ask our office for an update from our perspective and ensure that you receive that as quickly as possible.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

I would really appreciate that.

I have a few seconds left.

What I hear again and again from this...and when I look at the status update and the report card, it seems to me that the gender-based analysis—you mentioned in some of the reporting that that is still not being done—really needs to be done. A lot of the challenges I see here are either for female-identified veterans or for roles that are traditionally female that are not being cared for, both for the veterans and for their loved ones.

I would love to see some sort of report on that, talking about how they're going to take that seriously and start addressing these issues in a meaningful way. I thank you for doing your work to continue that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you so much.

We started the meeting with questions from Mr. Frank Caputo. Let's go back to him now for five more minutes.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Thank you, Chair—I appreciate it—and Mr. Desilets.

I want to go back to my initial line of questioning. I believe that my colleague, Mr. Samson, and I want the same thing. It should be a bipartisan issue, but we may take different avenues.

I keep going back to this notion of triage and proactive triage. I'm struck by something from earlier on in my career. I was a federal parole officer before I embarked on a career in law. I remember that within five working days of their admission, you had to see a federal inmate face-to-face. The reason was to look them in the eye and see what was going on. In other words, we don't trust people to check a box saying, “I don't have feelings of self-harm,” or “I don't have immediate needs.” That's the problem I have with having just a check box system. It's one thing to tick a box. It's another to look somebody in the eye and ask, “What are your needs right now?”

When we talk about proactive triage, then, my question, in a roundabout way, is this. We've talked about looking past the numbers. What better way is there to look past the numbers than to look somebody in the eye? Is that human interaction not what we need at this point? If we give it to federal inmates, why don't we give it to veterans?

[Col (Ret'd) Nishika Jardine]

I would agree with you in the sense that most veterans.... Here's something I heard from the RCMP Veterans' Association that applies to military veterans. We have served, and we expect that to go a long way to explaining when we tell you that we're broken. We don't do very well at complaining. We don't go to seek health care. So many of us grew up in the Canadian Forces with this credo—and you'll have to forgive a touch of crassness, but that's the soldier in me: “Suck it up, Buttercup.” We don't complain. We push through the pain. We put service above self, and when we are released from the CAF and we come to the department and say, “I served and I am broken,” we expect that to go a very long way to explaining what the problem is, and then to being heard and understood.

Some of the complaints I've heard from veterans are, “If I could just speak to somebody....” or “If I didn't have to fill out these forms....” or “I don't even understand these forms.” I would agree with you, from my personal perspective, that that human connection will always be valued and will make a difference.

At the same time, I believe this would be a recommendation I would make to the department: Consider how this can be done. Consider how you could provide a better service if we understood the mentality of veterans, and that it should be enough for me to tell you that I served and I'm broken.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Through the chair, I appreciate your candour. It's really important, because you can't really tell a check box on a form that you're broken, and conversely, a check box on a form can't see that you're broken. That's one of the biggest problems I really see with this.

I wonder if we might actually see a greater efficiency, because when you talk about triage, not everybody needs the immediate service as you, as the ombud, have stated. There are people who have benefit packages, who've already gotten a second job. That person might be able to wait for their service, but what about the person who is struggling with PTSD, who might have other things going on in their life, sometimes exacerbated by their experience in the Canadian Armed Forces? They need help right now, so you get them their help right now.

I will just leave you with that. Thank you for your work, and thank you for your candour today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Mr. Caputo.

Now I invite MP Rechie Valdez for five minutes, please.

[Rechie Valdez, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Colonel Jardine and Mr. Schippers, thank you for your time today and for providing all your testimony.

Colonel Jardine, I really appreciate that you've been providing us with the true, what I consider very human, aspect of who VAC supports every day.

Referring to your progress report, I've noticed that since 2017 you've made an increasing number of recommendations to the VAC. What are the changes you've observed over the years and the types of issues that have contributed to that increase year after year?

[Col (Ret'd) Nishika Jardine]

That's an excellent question. I'm going to ask Mr. Schippers to provide what will probably be a better answer than I can provide, given the short time I've served as the ombud.

[Duane Schippers]

I'm not sure I'm going to provide a better answer, but I'll try provide an answer.

You're going to see an increasing number of recommendations just because we've continued to do more reports over that period of time. Up until 2017-18, we picked a lot of low-hanging fruit, which would largely be focusing on the financial compensation for veterans. Successive governments acted over time on a number of those recommendations.

Since 2018, we've moved more into the tougher pieces, the inequities, whether they are sex-based inequities or condition-based inequities. We're looking at the situation of families. We've expanded some of the things we look at and I think that really accounts for the changes.

What we see is that the implementation of recommendations comes in bulk packages. When they're legislative or regulatory, it takes time for these things to make it onto the legislative agenda and to get Parliament's attention, so they come in batches. You'll see a bunch of recommendations dealt with at some point, and then it will take a few years before there's the political ability to do a bunch more.

We're always hopeful that those recommendations are going to be implemented, but we turn it over to you and your colleagues to move forward the ones you believe, considering all the other challenges and things that have to be balanced by parliamentarians, should advance.

[Rechie Valdez, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Thanks very much for answering that question so well.

You spoke about families. I know, even just myself, that we have colleagues here whose children are serving today, so I want to really hear about the specific gaps you've been hearing about from families, and what you're hearing from the calls that are coming in.

[Col (Ret'd) Nishika Jardine]

A big one is mental health supports. As we know, mental health is certainly front and centre in people's concerns today. With the pandemic, we all understand so well how important mental health is, the concept of resilience, and just how difficult some things are and how they impact us.

As I've said before, when a member serves, their family also serves. Understanding the impact of service on families I don't think can ever be underestimated. Where families need mental health support in their own right, we strongly encourage the minister and the government to look at how they can extend this support to spouses, ex-spouses and children whose mental health is impacted by the service of their soldier, sailor or aviator. This is really important, and it deserves a great deal more attention.

[Rechie Valdez, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Can you also elaborate on the sentiment that you've heard from women who have been waiting for assistance? You get to speak to them, so I really want to hear that.

[Col (Ret'd) Nishika Jardine]

Could you perhaps give me a little more?

I hear from veterans. I hear their concerns, and those are unique to their cases.

We did a women's forum last spring. I think one of the big issues is that the way women get broken—pardon me for being so blunt—by service in the Canadian Forces or the RCMP is different from the way men are broken. What we are encouraging the department to do is to use that gender-based analysis lens and put all of their policies and adjudication tools through that so that they can better meet the needs of women and females specifically.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Colonel Jardine.

Now let's start the last round of questions. One member from each party will be able to ask questions, including Mr. Desilets.

Let's start with Ms. Cathay Wagantall for five minutes.

Go ahead, please.

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

I just want to make a comment about something you said when you started this afternoon. You said that VAC reports its backlog and wait times as an average of those for all claims that are being considered—first applications, reassessments and expedited claims by “red zone” veterans who are over the age of 80 or who have a life-threatening health concern.

I understand the need to focus on first applications. Are you referring to new veterans' first applications or to those of any veteran who has come to that point in their life where they now have an injury that is unbearable due to service, but who cannot get the ear of VAC, that benefit of the doubt, and are continuing to have to go through multiple claims, efforts, appointments with doctors, analyses and yet not getting the response they need from VAC?

I heard this two weeks ago. An individual in desperation stated to me that they feared they were going to be left for the red zone. This red zone thing is brand new to me. How does one end up in the red zone? Does it happen the first time I need hearing aids because I'm over 80, or do we have people who are suffering long term, waiting for that care?

[Col (Ret'd) Nishika Jardine]

As far as I understand it, the red zone means that if you are over 80 years old, your claim is expedited. If you self-identify as someone with a life-threatening condition—for example, you may be in palliative care—then your claim is pushed to the front of the line. It's given priority treatment.

What I mean by the first application is that it is the very first time that you, whether you're still serving or you're a veteran, put in a claim based on a condition that is disabling to you. It could be your knee, your hearing or whatever it is. There are myriad conditions that are service-related. It's the first time you put in that claim. There is a lot of information you must provide in that claim. You have to make the connection to service. You need a diagnosis. If you don't have a family doctor, it's difficult to get that diagnosis; in fact it can be almost impossible.

That's what I mean by first application. It's that first time someone makes an application. If they are not over 80 years old or they don't self-identify as being in a life-threatening situation, then they just join the queue.

Reassessments happen once an application [Technical difficulty—Editor] and the department has said, “Yes, you have a problem with your left knee. We agree that's a problem, and here's the assessment we've made.” They will do a reassessment a couple of years down the road. Those go through fairly quickly.

The wait time for a reassessment or a red-zone application is really short. The amount of time it takes to do that is really short, and that drives down the average number that you're hearing. You're not hearing what the true problem is, in my opinion. This is Nishika Jardine's opinion. The people who put in that first application could do so before they leave the service. It could be right after or 50 years down the road for that first application.