Proceedings of the Subcommittee on
Veterans Affairs
Issue No. 1 - Evidence - February 3, 2016
OTTAWA, Wednesday, February 3, 2016
The Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met this day at 12:04 p.m., pursuant to rule 12-13 of the Rules of the Senate, to organize the activities of the committee.
[English]
Adam Thompson, Clerk of the Subcommittee: Honourable senators, there is a quorum. As clerk of the committee, I'm prepared to preside over the election of the chair. I'm prepared to receive nominations to that effect. Are there any nominations?
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Mr. Clerk, I would like to nominate Senator Day for the position of chair.
Mr. Thompson: Are there any other nominations?
[English]
Seeing none, is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Mr. Thompson: I declare the motion carried and invite Senator Day to take the chair.
Senator Joseph A. Day (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: Isabelle Lafontaine will be our Library of Parliament analyst.
Adam Thompson is our permanently appointed clerk, which is good news. He has distributed the agenda to everybody. We are on Item 2, the election of a deputy chair. Are there nominations for the position of deputy chair?
Senator White: If I may, Mr. Chair, I'd like to nominate Senator Dagenais as deputy chair.
The Chair: The name Senator Dagenais has been put forward for the position of deputy chair.
Are there any other nominations?
Seeing none, I declare Senator Dagenais elected as deputy chair of this committee.
[Translation]
Please accept my heartfelt congratulations on your appointment as deputy chair of our committee.
Senator Dagenais: I accept with great pleasure.
[English]
The Chair: Next is Item 3 is the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure. My understanding is that the chair and the deputy chair normally act as the subcommittee. There's not a third member, as there would be in the main committee.
Is that our usual procedure, Mr. Thompson?
Mr. Thompson: That's correct.
The Chair: Do we need a motion to that effect?
Mr. Thompson: Yes, we do.
Senator Mitchell: So moved.
The Chair: Thank you.
All those in favour? Contrary minded, if any?
Motion carried.
Next is a motion to publish the subcommittee's proceedings.
Do we have to get permission of the main committee to do anything like this, or can we go ahead and do our own thing?
Mr. Thompson: In the motion that established the subcommittee, the main committee delegated all these authorities to the subcommittee, so you are essentially taking ownership of those powers.
The Chair: Can I have a motion that we, as a subcommittee, publish our proceedings?
Senator Mitchell: So moved.
The Chair: All those in favour? Contrary minded, if any?
Motion carried.
These are mainly administrative items.
Motion No. 5 is the authorization to hold meetings and to receive evidence when quorum is not present.
Is the normal procedure in here? Provided there's one member of the subcommittee representing the opposition and one representing the Senate Liberals, we could have meetings. Are we okay with that?
Senator White: So moved.
The Chair: Research staff: ask the Library of Parliament to assign someone, and I have already mentioned IsabelleLafontaine.
[Translation]
We welcome you among us and we thank you.
Isabelle Lafontaine, Analyst, Library of Parliament: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Do we need a motion to ask them to do that?
Senator Dagenais: So moved.
The Chair: All those in favour? Contrary minded?
Motion carried.
Next is the authority to commit funds and certify accounts.
Senator White: I would move that.
The Chair: All those in favour? Contrary minded?
Motion carried.
Travel: That the chair and deputy chair be authorized to designate, as required, people to travel.
We'll be talking during "other business'' about potential meetings that we might want to go to in order to represent our subcommittee, and that would be one of the things that might be included in here.
Senator Mitchell: So moved.
The Chair: I would leave that to the steering committee.
Motion carried.
Motion 9 is the designation of members travelling on subcommittee business.
Explain why that would be necessary, Adam.
Mr. Thompson: Senators, this relates to the Senators Attendance Policy where there is provision that if you are travelling on committee business you can be marked as present. This motion delegates to the chair and deputy chair the authority to determine whether or not someone is travelling, if it's speaking at a conference or something like that.
Senator White: Or if we decide to spend a day at Petawawa, as we go through a side study as an example, meeting with some of the new staff there on mental health. We could do so on a Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday without it having to be a break week and still be marked present.
The Chair: And the chair and deputy chair need to liaise with whoever makes this list up as to where senators are.
Mr. Thompson: If such a decision were made, then I would report this to the Clerk's office.
The Chair: Having been directed to do so by the steering committee?
Mr. Thompson: Exactly.
The Chair: All those in favour of Senator Mitchell's motion to that effect?
Motion carried.
Thank you for that explanation.
The next motion concerns the travelling and living expenses of witnesses. This is a usual motion. The witnesses who come before our committee are paid for out of a different fund. We don't have to go through the normal budgeting process for witness expenses.
Senator White: So moved. Dispense with reading it.
The Chair: Any discussion? Contrary minded?
Motion carried.
Motion 11 relates to broadcasting and that the chair and deputy chair be empowered to allow coverage by electronic media.
Senator Mitchell: I want to move that.
The Chair: All those in favour? Contrary minded?
Motion carried.
The time slot is worthy of some discussion. We have only one hour and a half per week, which usually works out to about an hour per week. If we have caucuses meeting a little longer than they should for whatever reason, then we have a long walk to East Block, which is our normal location for the meetings. If you're making a statement in the Senate, you want to be there beforehand.
Senator White: Sitting at 1:30 and not 2:00 on Wednesdays?
The Chair: We'll be sitting at 1:30 on Wednesdays. I think the motion is coming up very soon. The bells usually start ringing at 1:15.
Senator White: Do we have an alternate day, Mr. Chair?
The Chair: Senator Dagenais asked that same question.
Senator White: Could we bring in an alternate day in case we're faced with that? My perspective is that this should be a permanent, full-time committee.
The Chair: I agree wholeheartedly.
Senator White: I think we should express that we've had four years here, and we should be having that discussion pretty soon.
Barring that, I think we do have to have a discussion about an alternate day where we can grab an hour, because it's not very much.
Mr. Thompson: That will need to be discussed with the whips as they have control of the schedule of committees.
Senator White: Sunday afternoon would be good for me. I'd drive in from Kanata, if necessary.
The Chair: Or one of the hours from the National Security and Defence Committee.
Mr. Thompson: If you'd like to negotiate that with the chair of that committee.
Senator White: That's a great idea actually. Why not 1:00 until 2:00 on Mondays and then do National Defence from 2:00 until 5:30? I would support that.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: I would like to make the following suggestion. I do not have to take the plane to get here, but since the meetings of the Committee on National Security and Defence take place on Mondays at 2 o'clock, could we meet on Monday around 10 a.m. or 11 a.m., if that suits you, since you travel by plane? Rather than driving 100 kilometers an hour, I will drive at 160 kilometers an hour; no, that is not a good idea.
[English]
In Quebec, I'm okay.
The Chair: Don't tell us.
Senator Dagenais: But with the OPP, it's different.
[Translation]
I am a member of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, which meets on Tuesday evening and Thursday morning, and I also sit on the Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, whose meetings take place Wednesday evening. So we cannot hold committee meetings at 6:30 p.m. or 7:00 p.m. It is a bit complicated.
[English]
Senator White: If I may, Mr. Chair, National Security and Defence now meets at 2:00 instead of 1:00. Why wouldn't we use that room from 1:00 until 2:00?
Mr. Thompson: Senator, this week's meeting of National Security and Defence was at 2:00 only because there was not a witness available for one o'clock. It's not the intention that that be a permanent thing.
Senator White: It would be nice if we're in the same room. That way we sit as this committee and also it would be fresh in our mind walking into that room if we have discussions.
Senator Mitchell: We could take an hour. I arrive at 1:00 in the morning. Otherwise I arrive at 12:30 on Monday morning, so I can make a one o'clock meeting.
Senator Dagenais: I have another suggestion.
[Translation]
Could the committee meeting take place following the meeting of the Committee on National Security and Defence? If that meeting ends at 5:00 p.m. or 5:30 p.m., our committee could meet after that. You would be on site, having arrived by plane and all that, and the meetings of the committee could take place from 5p.m. to 6 p.m. or from 5:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.
[English]
The Chair: Those are a number of interesting options. Clearly we would have to talk to the parent committee on this. Why don't we take your ideas and we'll talk to the parent committee and see if something can be worked out.
Senator White: It's not like we're opposing the committee or that we are in competition. We are actually supplementary to their work. I think an hour before or an hour after would work great.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: We would already be here, in the committee room.
[English]
Senator White: Realistically, we could leave at 5:00 and do 5:00to 6:00 in the adjoining room.
Senator Mitchell: Another possibility would be to say to Senator Lang, "Why don't you sit from 1:00 to 4:30?'' Three and a half hours is a pretty big chunk of time, and then we would sit from 4:30 to 6:00, because if we're back to an hour, we're back to where the problem is on Wednesday afternoon, where we just get an hour. We want more than an hour, I think. That is where this all started. It seems to me that three and a half hours is a big chunk and then we go to Veterans Subcommittee meeting after that. It's a long day for those of us who are on both.
The Chair: But it's a change of subject and that sometimes helps, especially if Adam brings some cheese with him.
Senator Beyak: My apologies, chair, but when was the meeting room changed? Nobody told me. I was over at 257 East Block. I left caucus early to go over there.
The Chair: Senator Dagenais has been chosen as deputy chair of the committee and I'm chair.
Senator White: He was also supposed to advise you of the changes.
The Chair: It was the deputy chair's job to do that.
Senator Beyak: I'm replacing Senator Lang today.
The Chair: Why don't we take the ideas you've suggested, but I assume that the clerk is going to tell us that we should have some formal time slot at the present time.
Senator White: So lock in the time on Wednesday and then let's look for an alternative.
The Chair: We can have that discussion.
Mr. Thompson: Absolutely. We can certainly begin planning around the Wednesdays and where we need to add extra time and then where we can best find that.
Senator White: We can do two full days every break week.
The Chair: This isn't a motion; this is just for information purposes.
Mr. Thompson: Just for information purposes that that's the slot that we put to the side.
The Chair: The other half of this is the room that has been assigned.
Mr. Thompson: The permanent room that has been assigned to this committee is this room. However, in the previous session, because of the frequency that we were broadcasting, we were often assigned to 257 in the East Block and I think used it on an ongoing basis. If it's the desire of the committee to meet there regularly, then perhaps we could adopt a motion to ask the whips to make that assignment and I can communicate that to them.
Senator Mitchell: I would like to move that.
The Chair: Let's get it on the table.
It has been moved that room 257 East Block be designated, for the time being, as our permanent residence in this time slot, 12:00 to 1:30.
Mr. Thompson: Correct.
Senator White: I don't disagree with that. I support it.
As well, if we're going to find ourselves with an hour before or after National Security and Defence, it better be in that room or in the adjoining room because scrambling from here to there when we only have an hour and a half is challenging.
The Chair: You're absolutely right. That's why I said "for the time being.'' If we can work out something with the parent committee that will allow us, before or after, to have our Veterans Affairs Committee meeting, then presumably we'll be in the same room. We don't have to have a break because it's the subcommittee. Typically they don't like two meetings so close together, but in this instance we should be okay.
Mr. Thompson: I would think so. Certainly meeting before wouldn't be an issue. I just have to check the schedule.
The Chair: We will work on the time slot. If you could give Senator Lang a heads up as soon as possible so that he can start thinking about it, then we can try to get together with him formally and talk about this. A time slot —
[Translation]
— as well as where the meeting will be held, before or after.
[English]
"Other Business'' is next. That's what we had intended to deal with as the other part of our meeting today. We would like to have an open discussion on the following: With the one hour that we have, or a bit more, where do you think we can make the most impact to help the veterans of the Canadian Armed Forces and the RCMP? Our mandate is to deal with issues and improve their lifestyle.
When we finished before the election in the spring, we were dealing with post-traumatic stress. We did an interim report just to get down on paper the information that we had gathered and the work that we had done.
One possibility would be to pick up and carry on with that, but are we getting the best out of our time by doing that at this stage?
Senator White: Mr. Chair, I think that was a very worthwhile discussion and I'm not suggesting it wouldn't continue to be.
There was a gap, though, in even understanding what benefits were available in particular for veterans who retired or left the RCMP and the military. I'm not sure I fully understand what's available to them. I get from it that if I have OSI, I have a place to call. We heard that over and over again, but that's not the only benefit to have a discussion on. At some point I would like to have presentations on what benefits are available, whether they're accessible and whether they're actually being utilized. I don't know that I understand fully what's available. I'm a veteran of the RCMP and I don't know what's available to me, to be fair. Until you're looking for it, you don't know. I would love to know what benefits are available for members of both organizations.
Senator Mitchell: I think we should continue to pursue the PTSD issue and the question of benefits, the subset that Senator White is talking about. I think there are some issues that we have yet to explore further.
I don't know how you would do this one, but there is the whole question of Veterans Affairs being responsive. We hear stories about how bureaucratic it is and how difficult it is for people. I would like to see us exploring how you get an organization like that to view their clientele as clients rather than as a problem, as a nuisance. That occurs so often. It occurs with Workers' Compensation Board kinds of people. Yes, they're adamant, intense and can get on your nerves, but the fact of the matter is that people in Veterans Affairs have jobs because they're veterans and that's their clientele. That's one thing.
The other thing is we agreed that we would focus on PTSD in the RCMP. I think that while Veterans Affairs understands they have a responsibility to veterans and current RCMP who have OSI injuries, I think there's a disconnect there. I think former General Natynczyk gets that, but I would like to pursue it further.
I think we did agree to further focus on PTSD in the RCMP. I'd like to see that. I'd like to see us bring in one or two spokespeople for the RCMP who have had the condition, or who have the condition — you never get rid of it — not to make a spectacle of it, but to give a couple of them a chance to speak.
Those are the two things that I would like to emphasize.
Well, there are three: one, continue with PTSD; two, focus on the RCMP; and, three, focus on the culture of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
The Chair: Isabelle, would you be able to make a list of the ideas in point form and we can circulate that to everyone? I don't see us making a decision today. Steering will take that list, along with you, and we'll talk about how we can best work that into our program. We want to get the ideas and we don't want to lose any.
Senator Mitchell: One other — and this is maybe totally off the wall and maybe for culture — is that we fund a number of war memorials and war museums much more than we fund the Juno Beach museum. That is largely done by volunteers or by donations. It's striking to me. I think we fund Vimy 100 percent. Juno Beach is every bit as significant in the history of our veterans.
The Chair: A different war.
Senator Mitchell: Yes, a different war. I visited it. It's nice, but it's not fully funded by the federal government at all. It's largely funded by donations, and they're running into problems.
The Chair: I think members of the Juno Beach board are here in Canada. Maybe we can have them in for a session and let them tell us about their problems and challenges.
Senator White: This was triggered by the senator's comments. When General Natynczyk was here, he said we would never turn an RCMP veteran away. To be fair, that wasn't good enough. He had no responsibility to have them, but he just wouldn't turn them away. So yes, great, we have someone who cares and will always welcome RCMP officers who have OSI and PTSD into those programs, but there is no absolute responsibility to carry veterans of the RCMP in some of those benefits programs. I think we need to have a pretty frank discussion as to why it is "as and when'' rather than a responsibility for Veterans Affairs. I think that would help with the benefit discussion as well. It becomes more than just a handout; it actually is a part of the program.
The Chair: We'll need to hear from some clients as opposed to just the service providers.
Senator White: Absolutely. I'm sure that through the system we'll be able to find witnesses.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Of course, this is my first time at a meeting of the Committee on Veterans Affairs. We have to look at potential solutions to support them, as well as the members of the RCMP.
What I understand from what little I know is that when they come back from combat, veterans come out of the armed forces and suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder. We know that there are funds that have not been spent. Correct me if I am mistaken, but some veterans receive a lump sum. There are also disability benefits.
Of course, there is the whole financial issue, and providing support. Is there a program to help personnel that allows for a follow-up, so as to ensure that these people, in addition to receiving benefits, are supported in their recovery from post-traumatic stress?
I'll tell you about an experience I went through personally, in 1990, during the famous aboriginal crisis in Oka, Quebec. Approximately 2000 police officers were involved in that incident, in addition to army soldiers. The police officers were not well trained for this type of incident, and many of them suffered from post-traumatic stress. I was a member of the group, but I did not experience any trauma.
That said, the employer offered meetings and follow-up with psychologists, and in some cases this continued for a long time. In the case of veterans, we are talking about sums of money, benefits and pensions, but we also have to think about follow-up.
Senator Mitchell talked about clients earlier. I agree with him that these people are clients, who expect a service, and that is what we have to provide.
I understand that you have already done work on this, but I was not here at that time. What we often hear from veterans is that they do not feel supported in the journey back from post-traumatic shock. This does not only affect the veterans themselves; the members of their family live through that experience with them, especially the wives and husbands.
This is certainly a matter that deserves our full attention, because what we often hear, and correct me if I am mistaken, is that the follow-up after the post-traumatic stress is lacking. The same applies to RCMP officers.
We are told that there is less and less violence in the country, but there have been a lot of incidents. In the New Brunswick tragedy, people suffered from post-traumatic stress after that shooting. We must look at the issue of follow-up, in addition to benefits, to provide support to these people.
The Chair: You know that we produced a report last June. It was a good starting point in our examination of post- traumatic stress, as the report contains a great deal of information.
[English]
Senator Mitchell: There are so many components and layers of this. With regard to the comparison between PTSD causes in the RCMP and PTSD causes in the military, there will be some overlap, but there will be some differences as well, which would be worth pursuing.
Also, if I understood Senator Dagenais properly, there's more family support in the military, although probably insufficient. As far as I know, there's very little structured family support in the RCMP.
We're told that there are a number of causes of PTSD. Clearly, one of them is trauma, but there's also a variety of others, such as grief, just being ground down over time. Whereas the military have intense periods of trauma and war, you could be in the RCMP for 30 years, and every single day you're confronting a car accident, deaths and injuries. That can build in a way that's somewhat different.
Looking at the causes, the manifestations and the support systems, are they similar? At the very least, the support systems should be comparable between the two forces. They really should be, and I'm not sure they are.
To the RCMP's credit, I think part of their problem may be underfunding, that they've dumped it on the public health care system. That's a strong word. I don't mean that, but they've deferred to the public health system because they don't really have the money. The military has had more money given the profile of its activities, which has given it some advantage. I think we need to look at that for the RCMP.
The Chair: Before we can start delving any deeper, we have to know the current state of the situation here.
Senator Wallin, thank you for being here.
Senator Wallin: Thank you. I hope to be a regular auditor of the committee, to sit in. That's how the system works as an independent. Thank you for the opportunity.
As you know, I've been part of the committee over time. The whole issue of spending lapses is unconscionable to me, and we need some kind of explanation of that so that we keep a spotlight on that issue, because it obviously goes to the heart of the issue: Are programs being delivered or aren't they? If there's money left over, I'm surprised by that. I think that someone should speak to that issue.
Something we have talked a lot about over the years, especially given the demographics of our veteran population now, is reintegration into the work world. In the same way as you might be searching out some explanation of what programs are available, I think it would be a service if we did that as well, to remind people what's out there, to have people come and speak to that issue, and not just government programs but private-sector programs.
As you all know, because this committee is watched carefully, there's a real educative value if we shine a light on those two issues.
The Chair: Good suggestions.
Senator Beyak, welcome.
Senator Beyak: Thank you. I'm replacing Senator Lang today. I don't think there's anything that I would have input on that he would not have already updated you about.
I do apologize again. I didn't get notice of the change.
The Chair: You weren't the only one that had some confusion. We appreciate you being here. You're often here.
Senator Beyak: I love this committee. My dad was in both wars.
The Chair: Even if you're not replacing someone on a regular basis, you can see the flow of discussion.
Senator Beyak: I love the vets. My dad was in the First and Second World Wars.
The Chair: This we'll have to discuss, the deputy chair and I, but I think we got bogged down with the post- traumatic stress issue. We didn't get a lot of attention for our committee because we went on and on with that. We could spend all of our time for the next 10 years on post-traumatic stress and what's going on.
The Canadian Institute for Military and Veteran Health Research, which is in Kingston, Ontario, is growing exponentially. The number of universities across Canada that have signed up for that group is just incredible. We've had them here before to tell us what's going on.
One of the things we could do to get ourselves up to speed again is to meet with the minister early on, get the minister in, see what his plans are and what he's thinking about so he knows us and we know him. Maybe he will bring the deputy with him.
There's usually an Armed Forces general, who is still in uniform and is responsible for veterans, to talk about that liaison.
Should we bring the ombudsman back in again to talk about what his issues are?
Senator White: I don't think that would hurt. It also wouldn't hurt for us to have the Minister of Public Safety in, both from his experience in the military and now overseeing the RCMP. Correctional Service Canada may show up in the discussion, but certainly the RCMP.
The Chair: Who from the RCMP? Would they have someone designated?
Senator White: I would say Mr. Paulson. To me, there's only one person that speaks for the organization, the commissioner.
The Chair: We'll ask them to come in and get them on the record as to what they say is going on and what the challenges are. Then we have to get someone on the other side to tell us —
Senator White: I think the head of either the Mounted Police Professional Association or the head of the division staff relations representatives, the national executive committee. One of them has just died, by the way. Abe Townsend just passed away unexpectedly last month.
Getting someone from the national executive committee of the division staff relations representatives would be helpful, because they certainly have concerns about the loss of benefits, and I think they could express that.
The Chair: We've heard from many veterans about this issue of lump sum versus monthly payments. Maybe we can ask the minister about that. They recognized that a lot of money is going to a young soldier that has just been released for whatever reason, and they tend to go out and buy a new truck and a snowmobile and the money is all gone.
Senator White: They're not all from New Brunswick, Senator Day. For some of them, it's a new boat.
The Chair: I mentioned the Canadian Institute for Military and Veteran Health Research. I attended their meeting in the fall in Quebec City, which was very good. I spoke on your behalf about what we're doing. There's a meeting coming up in Toronto on May9 and 10. You will want to make a note of that date. That would be a good one to have some representation at. What this is about is post-traumatic stress research and enabling bedside implementation. At every one of these, you find out just how much is going on in this area.
We could probably get a good rate. The regular fee is $395. If I had an expression of your interest —
Senator White: It would be a good idea going as a committee.
Senator Mitchell: What's the group called?
The Chair: It's that group that I was telling you about in Kingston. It's easiest just to call it the institute, but it's CIMVHR, the Canadian Institute for Military and Veteran Health Research. If we went as a committee and tied that in with another visit, maybe to Sunnybrook Hospital or something like that, that would all be very helpful.
Senator Mitchell: That's in Toronto?
The Chair: In Toronto. Their annual meeting is in the fall. It's usually in November. It was last year.
Senator White: If I may, Mr. Chair, I think it's called the general's course, which is in Toronto as well. I think they have a major component of their training right now around OSIs as well. It wouldn't be bad to hear from senior colonels, lieutenant-colonels, and have them meet with us on what they see as the pressures out there right now in the military as well.
Senator Mitchell: We could do that in Toronto.
Senator White: Yes, it's right there.
The Chair: I don't know what the ninth and tenth is. Do you have your calendar? If it's the latter part of the week, that could work out okay.
Mr. Thompson: May 9 and 10 is a Monday and Tuesday.
Senator White: That would be perfect. We could go down Sunday and come back Tuesday.
The Chair: That's a possibility. Why don't we circulate that to everybody?
One other thing that we should put on our long-term list is visiting Charlottetown so they know there's a Senate Veterans Affairs Committee. That's where all the work is done and that's where the veterans appeal board is based. I find it's a lot better to go to them than to have representatives come up and tell us everything is fine.
Senator White: Mr. Chair, I apologize. I made an appointment three weeks ago before I knew we were doing this. If I run out now, would that be okay? I think you still have quorum.
The Chair: We will. Actually, as long as we have your name down, we still have quorum.
Senator White: Thanks, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Thank you.
There are a couple of other areas. Suicide is an issue that we should be thinking about, and homelessness. These we could delve into and get a quick statement out pretty fast from our committee, as opposed to getting bogged down in a study for a year and a half. Perhaps you have any other ideas like that, or short ones.
These I picked up along the way from various sources, including our former colleague Roméo Dallaire, who is obviously always very interested in post-traumatic stress issues. He led the charge on that one.
Senator Wallin: There was a big report done on homelessness by former military. Those folks have done the research extensively, and we could have them in.
The Chair: To brief us on it. That's a really good idea.
Senator Wallin: I've got a copy of it actually.
The Chair: Do you know who did the study?
Senator Wallin: I don't have the fellow's name; former military.
The Chair: Isabelle will find that. Whoever we can find as a representative to come in and talk about that, that would be an hour well spent.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: I'd like to go back to something we spoke of earlier, homelessness among the military. We were told that veterans receive a lump sum when they leave the armed forces, but would it not be worthwhile to study the impact that a pension could have on former members of the military who are homeless? A lump sum provides momentary comfort, of course, but in the long run it may not have a positive impact. That amount could be bolstered by an employment assistance service, for instance.
To my mind, having a job is a good starting point in the prevention of suicide and homelessness. Even if former members of the military receive a large lump sum, keeping them at home doing nothing does not really help them, it seems to me.
I don't know if you are aware of this, but at this time the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires is running an ad on radio to promote its recruitment campaign. I believe I understood that it is looking for former members of the armed forces or of the RCMP. That is an opportunity that could be interesting for former members of the military.
The Chair: Would you like us to organize a meeting with the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires?
Senator Dagenais: It would no doubt be useful to hear from the management of that organization, to find out how they see their recruitment campaign, and to determine whether former members of the military and of the RCMP are candidates who interest them.
The Chair: Do you think they have the capacity to recognize post-traumatic stress syndrome?
Senator Dagenais: In my opinion, post-traumatic stress syndrome has to be diagnosed before people start to look for work. However, I remain convinced that one of the ways of dealing with that problem, at least in part, is for them to have an occupation so that they feel useful.
We could hear a representative of the Commissionaires, in order to find out more about their recruitment and the criteria they use to choose the members of their organization. I think they have a personnel shortage at this time.
I know many police officers who after retirement realized that they were not happy just staying at home. Senator Mitchell explained this very well; often, it is when their career ends that problems start to arise. That was just an idea I wanted to run by you.
The Chair: These are good ideas.
[English]
Senator Beyak: Thank you, senator.
I am reminded of a meeting I came to last year that was wonderful. The gentleman who spoke talked about post- traumatic stress disorder and a new approach they were using about the windshield being bigger and the rear-view mirror being smaller for the reason that they were not focusing as much on the event that had caused the stress as they were on moving forward. I think it would be interesting to have him back again. It might be a similar report to the one that Senator Wallin has mentioned. We could have him back again.
The Chair: Was that here?
Senator Beyak: Yes, it was in room 257, but I don't remember his name. I think I was replacing you. I'm not sure.
The Chair: That's why I don't remember.
Senator Beyak: He was with the Armed Forces and he did post-traumatic stress disorder, and he said they were trying a newer, more positive approach.
I think it works, because Senator Dallaire and I sat beside one another on the bus going to Cheyenne Mountain and Roméo had just gone through that little episode in his life and said that his new approach was that as well, that they were focusing less on Rwanda. You can never forget that. My husband died in my arms. You can never forget the post-traumatic stress or the thing that caused it, but if you focus on going ahead rather than looking back, that is apparently their new approach. I just remembered that and I thought there must be a reason I remembered it.
The Chair: Good. Isabelle will try and track that down.
We've got to stay on top of post-traumatic stress developments, even though we're not at this stage going to delve totally into it because there are so many other areas where we can have an impact, such as suicide. We'll bring somebody in on that like the ministers and the appeal board. There are a lot of different areas.
Is there anything that we have discussed this morning that you absolutely feel we shouldn't be looking into? I assume not.
The deputy chair and I will talk to the clerk and Library of Parliament in terms of witnesses and subject matter and what we will pursue. Maybe we can make the decision collectively. Would it be reasonable for us to try and have the minister initially and get that started?
Senator Mitchell: Yes.
The Chair: I think that would work out. Then maybe you can work on the head of the RCMP and the military person in charge. Was it a doctor?
Mr. Thompson: I'll look into that. Is that for the following meeting?
The Chair: Yes. We just want a situation representation of what's happening with respect to challenges for those who are out of the military for whatever reason, age or post-traumatic stress. We certainly continue to be interested in post-traumatic stress. That would give us a couple of weeks for you to work on. When we get back from our break next week, then steering will get together and we will start talking about future business.
Mr. Thompson: Just to be clear, for February 17 we're looking at the Minister of Veterans Affairs and his entourage, and on February 24 the RCMP and the military?
The Chair: Now have in mind that the Minister of Veterans Affairs does have difficulty getting around with his wheelchair, so we'll go to a room where it's easiest for him.
Mr. Thompson: I'm pretty sure that 257 East Block can accommodate that, but I'll make sure.
The Chair: That's way the heck out there. I don't know if he can get his wheelchair in here. I'll leave that with you. It's important to accommodate him. If he has a room that's more comfortable for him, we can go there. We're not that big of a group.
Is there anything else to bring before the subcommittee at this time?
Senator Mitchell?
Senator Mitchell: No.
The Chair: Senator Wallin?
Senator Wallin: I'll try to find that report.
The Chair: We will keep you informed. I've asked Adam to put you on the mailing list so you will get everything; Senator Beyak as well. You have seen a number of times senators who are on this subcommittee have difficulty at the last minute getting here, for whatever reason. It's very helpful, even if you're not a substitute for somebody, if you're here and can follow the subject, we appreciate it.
(The committee adjourned.)