Proceedings of the Subcommittee on
Veterans Affairs
Issue No. 7 - Evidence - March 29, 2017
OTTAWA, Wednesday, March 29, 2017
The Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met this day at 12 p.m. to study issues relating to creating a defined, professional and consistent system for veterans as they leave the Canadian Armed Forces.
[English]
Senator Mobina S. B. Jaffer (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: Honourable senators, joining us today is Adam Thompson, clerk of the committee, and our library analyst, Havi Echenberg. I will ask the senators to introduce themselves starting on my left, with Senator Boniface.
Senator Boniface: Gwen Boniface from Ontario
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: Senator Maltais from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Wallin: Senator Pamela Wallin from Saskatchewan.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Raymonde Saint-Germain from Quebec.
The Chair: Welcome everyone.
The Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs has a mandate to study issues relating to creating a defined, professional and consistent system for veterans as they leave the Canadian Armed Forces.
[English]
As part of our study, we have invited Chief Officer (Ret'd.) Guy Parent, Veterans Ombudsman, and Sharon Squire, Deputy Veterans Ombudsman and Executive Director of Operations.
Mr. Parent, you are not new to our committee. I want to put on the record that we appreciate the work that both of you do on behalf of Canadians and veterans and certainly all the assistance you give to us. We always look forward to hearing from you.
Chief Warrant Officer Parent has had a distinguished career in the Public Service of Canada to date. Starting in 2001, he worked in the office of the National Defence and Canadian Forces Ombudsman and since 2010 has served as the second Veterans Ombudsman.
I would like to thank the witnesses for coming and ask Mr. Parent to begin with his presentation.
Guy Parent, Ombudsman, Veterans Ombudsman: Thank you, Madam Chair and honourable committee members. Thank you for the work you do for our veterans and thank you for giving me the opportunity to share my thoughts with you as you begin your study on the requirement for a defined professional and effective transition process.
As many of you know, I am a veteran with 37 years of Canadian Armed Forces service. I know the challenges of transition on both a personal and a professional level: From my own experience, from that of my son who served in the Canadian Armed Forces in Bosnia and Afghanistan, and from the experience of the thousands of veterans whom I have met and worked with across Canada since I started as the Ombudsman in 2010.
I don't just talk the talk about transition. I have walked the walk from military to civilian live and it is from that perspective that I would like to speak to you today.
[Translation]
There are almost 700,000 veterans in Canada, and more than 100,000 serving members of the Canadian Armed Forces, plus all their family members. Not all will need assistance from Veterans Affairs Canada, but for those who do, they should receive the benefits and services they need, when and where they need them.
I am an independent and impartial voice for all those served by Veterans Affairs Canada, both serving and released. I am also Special Advisor to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In that capacity, I am a direct line to the minister from the veterans' community and brief him regularly on matters of importance to veterans and their families.
[English]
There are over 10,000 releases per year from the regular and reserve forces. Of those approximately 1,600 are medical releases.
In August 2014, I launched a project with the DND/CF Ombudsman to review the entire transition process. Our key findings threw a spotlight on why transition is often such a confusing and frustrating experience for veterans and their families.
For example, there are multiple players from separate organizations. In fact, at least 15 are involved in the transition process. Each has its own accountability framework, mandate and processes. The result is a duplication of effort, gaps and inconsistencies across groups and geographic locations.
Specific barriers to successful transition have been identified. The system is characterized by multiple stop shopping because an integrated process with a single point of contact for all releasing regular and reserve force members has not been established by National Defence, the Canadian Armed Forces or Veterans Affairs Canada.
Available services are not consistent across the country and service partners are not collocated under one roof to provide truly member centric one stop support.
Each department has a different case management system, multiple consent forms and a lack of consistent service across the country.
Integrated personnel support centres are a great construct for complex medical releases, but this represents only 10 per cent of medical releases.
There remains a duplication of vocational rehabilitation, education and long-term disability programs creating complexity and confusion.
Recently, my team completed a small, qualitative study to better understand what contributes to a successful transition, based on the lived experience of medically released veterans who self-identified as having a successful transition. We will be publishing our results in coming months but in the interim I want to share some initial findings with you.
[Translation]
The major challenge that we are hearing about is the complexity of dealing with the bureaucracy of the Canadian Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Canada. Getting information and services related to their entitlements and accessing the care to address their needs is no small feat.
[English]
Participants described broken lines of communication between different offices handling their files; poor, incorrect or incomplete information provided to them; and a feeling of information overload. In other words, it's often like trying to fit the pieces of a puzzle together when you have no idea what the picture is supposed to look like in the end.
When asked about the role that finding purpose outside of the military played in their transition, participants stated that it represented a significant challenge because they had spent most of their lives in the military. This is an important finding because it highlights the significance of integrating the shaping of self-worth and identifying a new life purpose post military service into the transition process.
One veteran said, "The military was my life, my family, my everything.''
Another said, "I realized that I didn't know who I was, if not in the military. What is my identity? What does the future hold for me?''
General Vance, the Chief of the Defence Staff, has stated that the transition process needs to be professionalized like the recruiting process. What does the recruiting process look like?
Recruiting centres and detachments are located across the country.
There is a single online portal for both regular and reserve force members. It's easy to use and comprehensive.
The process is highly structured, clearly sequenced and provides personalized attention.
There is a single point of contact online or face to face. Someone answers your questions, arranges your interviews, gives you the sequenced list of steps to follow and provides help at any time.
There is an interview and testing to determine individual strengths and interests and ultimately a career path individualized for each member.
Once a decision is made, you sign a contract that clearly defines your terms of service and you are not enrolled until all the approvals are in place.
Once enrolled, you receive an ID card, which you carry on your person for your entire career. It's your new identity.
Then you begin basic and occupational training, which shapes you for service before self and prepares you for your chosen career path, your new life. You are excited about what the future holds.
As part of this onboarding process you develop social networks that remain in place during and after your career. This network provides support, encouragement and camaraderie.
From the member's perspective, at the end of the recruitment process you truly feel like you are part of something bigger than yourself and that you have a future. A civilian is transformed into a Canadian Armed Forces member. All is accomplished under one governance accountability model.
Just as with the recruiting process into the Canadian Armed Forces, the transition process needs to be defined, professional and effective. This would be truly transformational. It would also mean that we are living up to our obligation to ensure that the men and women who dedicated their lives to serving our country have the programs and services they need to transition to a new life.
One veteran we interviewed said, "I joined the army at age 19. Before that I was in high school. I was never really a civilian adult. I don't feel that I am transitioning back to civilian life, but becoming a civilian for the first time.''
I envision a transition process for all releasing Canadian Armed Forces members, regular and reserve, that would have similar elements and processes to the recruiting process such as accessible release centres across the country, a single online portal under one single authority, all benefits in place at release, and a single point of contact assigned to both regular and reserve force members.
A navigator would help fill out forms and submit a single application for benefits, would help plan the member's release and set up required appointments, provide advice in relation to possible third party organizations that may offer support, and follow up after release at predetermined intervals to ensure evolving needs are met.
Dedicated support would help injured members back to work. If they can't return to work and their case is too complex, the IPSC would help to coordinate their release in conjunction with the release centres.
There would be only one program for vocational rehabilitation and long-term disability to reduce complexity and confusion
A professional counsellor would help determine the education, training or employment needs of the member, as well as assist them in finding their new purpose in life, tailored to their attributes and desires.
Finally, veteran ID cards would be issued for every releasing member that not only recognizes their service but also avows Veterans Affairs Canada to proactively follow up with them after release.
In this defined, professional and effective transition process the releasing member and their family would begin a new life with purpose, a life tailored to their needs and offering the best future possible whether they are retired, employed, in school or a community volunteer.
I believe that this is possible and we can move toward this end state easily and quickly.
Wholesale change is now required to accomplish this. It's going to take re- engineering rather than tweaking. After decades of layering regulations and policies one on top of the other the process we have today is too complex, too confusing and too difficult to follow for our releasing veterans and their families. The system needs an overhaul.
I commend this committee for taking up this challenge. You have a historic opportunity to action change for the men and women who have served the country so well.
[Translation]
I also acknowledge the Government of Canada's Budget 2017 commitment to undertake a transformation of both DND and VAC programs to ensure our women and men in uniform have a better transition from the Canadian Armed Forces to VAC.
[English]
Veterans need hope for their future. They deserve no less.
Thank you. I stand ready to take your questions.
The Chair: Ms. Squire, am I correct that you are not presenting?
Sharon Squire, Deputy Veterans Ombudsman and Executive Director of Operations, Veterans Ombudsman: Yes.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. Before we go to questions, I want to clarify something.
In the middle of page five of your presentation you spoke about the navigator. I found that term interesting. I am assuming you mean navigating the system or the processes. Besides a navigator, do you also see a specific advocate assigned to each veteran? Have you considered that?
Mr. Parent: The navigator concept is similar to the concierge concept that might have been brought up by the military ombudsman. We are looking for someone to simply help individuals to know what the next step is and how to accomplish and access certain benefits. It could be a guide or a coach. You can use many different terms for the same purpose. It is not somebody who is an expert in transition or in social adaptation. It is somebody who can just guide people through.
On the veteran side this is already happening. Some of the area officers already have a pilot project where they have frontline officers acting as navigators. It is certainly making it easier for veterans to navigate through.
Senator Lang: I commend you for the pilot project that you undertook to see what the implications for the vets are when they transition. I am sure I can speak for everyone here that it would be a difficult situation, especially for those men and women who have committed themselves to the Armed Forces for most of their adult life and then all of a sudden are in a position where they are not part of that anymore. That alone is a big adjustment I am sure from a personal point of view.
That being said, what we have raised in this committee on numerous occasions is the duplication of programs. You have touched on that in your presentation to some degree but you don't really say we should combine a number of these programs in order to make it simpler for the beneficiaries to have access. Maybe there would be more benefits if there is less administrative cost for the running of these programs. I would like your comments on that with respect to referencing the navigator and the question of the transitioning itself.
Another area I would like your comments on is when you talk about education, rehabilitation and all those responsibilities that actually fall under provincial jurisdiction.
It would seem to me that one of the first priorities would be to arrange with the provincial and territorial governments to ensure that veterans transitioning into an educational facility or a rehabilitation program are given priority. In other words, they are at the front of a line when they put their applications in. They are not waiting for six months or two years to get into a program, in recognition of the commitment they have given to the country.
Perhaps you could comment on those two areas, if you would. I don't want to take up all the time here.
Mr. Parent: They are very good points, senator. On your first question about vocational rehabilitation programs, obviously it is something we have been talking about for a few years. There are presently three different vocational rehabilitation programs.
One is with the Canadian Armed Forces where individuals are allowed six months prior to their release to actually engage with a company, to work there as a uniformed person and to learn about a second career outside the military.
The second one is provided by the insurance system, which actually has a vocational rehabilitation program.
The third one is Veterans Affairs Canada.
Already you can see a layering of benefits that leads to confusion and complexity. We have recommended that there should be a review aimed at merging the two or finding one vocational rehabilitation program for all.
The difficulty right now, if I were asked to tell you which one is the best of those three programs, is that we really don't know because outcome has never been measured. We know what the outputs are. We know how many people have gone through the different programs, but we don't know how many were successful. Did they actually work in the area that they trained for? Did they keep a job after they accessed it? These figures are not available.
Yes, what needs to be done on the vocational rehabilitation program is to have one program for all based on best practices with a measurable outcome so that we know whether or not people are successful.
That would be to the first question. The second question is also very interesting because we certainly have been doing some work in trying to bring levels of government together to look after the care and wellness of our veterans and their families. This is a very good point on the education side.
The same has been discussed for housing, for instance. We have been trying to get the municipalities, the provincial governments and federal government to work together so that there is a transparent continuum of service through levels of government that brings a very high level of wellness to veterans and their families.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: I am very pleased to see that you seem to be working well with your counterpart, the Ombudsman for the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces. You also mentioned the efforts you are making, and rightly so, to reduce the number of programs so as to eliminate overlap and improve access.
My question concerns another aspect of the management process and program access for veterans. Despite efforts, what we observe all too often is that the management side of things makes the work of the program manager easier rather than improving program access for members. Your counterpart from the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces shared with the committee some recommendations that had been made to the Minister of National Defence. One of those recommendations had to do with how the medical evaluation process was managed. To make things easier, he was recommending that the Surgeon General be assigned the responsibility for determining whether an individual's illness or injury was attributable to their service and that Veterans Affairs Canada accept that determination in order to activate their benefit suite for the releasing member. What do you think the impact would be if the Surgeon General were assigned the responsibility of determining whether an individual's illness or injury was attributable to their military service? If that were to happen, what would it mean for veterans and particularly those who turn to your office for assistance?
Mr. Parent: Thank you. You just raised a very good point. In looking at how the process is managed, we see that confusion abounds given that two departments are involved. The transition process is supposed to be integrated, but there is no governance structure, no accountability mechanism. No one can make a single decision because each department has its own authority, each pitted against the other.
As far as allocating services to veterans is concerned, many people have access to benefits a few years after retiring from the Canadian Armed Forces. In those cases, it would be very difficult for the Surgeon General to be involved in service allocation. Another common situation is when people experience symptoms or develop problems later in their career. It would therefore be difficult for someone to look — It is also important to note that the process has two stages: the allocation of services and the medical evaluation. Veterans Affairs Canada handles the medical evaluation and Canadian Armed Forces deals with the service component.
I would certainly be in favour of expediting the process as much as possible. Under the current system, people cannot be reimbursed for medical expenses before a decision is made, so the sooner a decision is made, the more beneficial it will be for veterans and their families.
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you.
The Chair: Is that all?
[English]
Senator Wallin: First I have a comment and then a question. The most important thing that I took away from your remarks this morning is the quote from the veteran who said, "I joined the army at 19. Before that, I was in high school. I was never really a civilian adult. I don't feel I'm transitioning back to civilian life but becoming a civilian for the first time.''
This is core to what we have to understand here. It is the flipside of recruiting. They have never been in military life when they come in. If there is an actual grasp of what that means we will have come a long way.
We have this "closing the seam'' project. You and your counterpart in the Canadian Forces both want or at least say you want formal and joint case management so that the handover is not a handover but a continuum. "Proper sequencing'' I think is your phrase. This transition is supposed to be integrated. You want it. Your colleague wants it. The CDS wants it. The retiring member wants it. God knows we want it. We have discussed it endlessly at this committee in my six years.
What needs to happen? You have written about it; we have written about it. What is the next thing? Can you say, "Please, committee, in your report tomorrow could you insist, stand up and yell and scream and wave a placard?'' How can we make this happen?
Mr. Parent: Thank you very much. It is a good question. The whole system needs to be revamped. We have tweaked the system over the years. We have added new benefits. We have added new processes.
When people are asked about integration, whether it is the Veterans Affairs Canada side or the military side, they understand their own little silos. They understand their programs and benefits but not the overarching process and what needs to happen. We say that we need a complete overhaul to start from scratch and say, for instance, "What is the normal process for members that are uninjured, that are healthy?''
There is a challenge there as well because then it becomes a cultural challenge that you started to talk about before. It is huge. The transition to a new culture is very hurtful and affects members and their families.
We need to start from scratch to have a process for people who are healthy and a process for people who are slightly injured. As I said before in my note, the IPSCs are doing very great work if you have a complex case that has a career manager and somebody well framed within a multidisciplinary team. For somebody that is in between, communications are poor, processes are difficult, and we have some challenges there.
Senator Wallin: Give us a specific direction here. When you say "we,'' that is you and your counterparts: the Canadian Forces, DND, VAC and all of those things. In terms of our being useful in terms of recommendations should we be saying to the Minister of Veterans Affairs that this must be one integrated, seamless process?
Mr. Parent: The first place to start is with governance by one accountable organization. Whether it's VAC or the military is not relevant. There needs to be somebody that has the power and authoritative mechanisms involved in the process so that people don't constantly have to go back to one minister or the other to try to get a decision.
There needs to be accountability. This is now possible with the Minister of Veterans Affairs Minister being Associate Minister of National Defence. There is a reach into the department now that we didn't have before. That is a good starting point.
Senator Wallin: That's very helpful because we should be very specific in our ask and in our direction. I appreciate that.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: Thank you, Mr. Parent, for your brief. For the past three or four years, I have been an honorary colonel, meeting regularly with veterans and attending honorary colonel meetings with the brigadiers general. When certain cases are raised, the response is always the same: a solution is coming but it is not known when.
In talking to veterans, I have come to realize that a member learns two things in the armed forces: how to take orders and how to obey them. Officers with authority give orders and expect them to be obeyed. A serving member has access to support. If they need a pair of boots, they are given a voucher to buy some. The matter is settled quickly. When that member leaves the armed forces, they no longer have that support.
When dealing with Veterans Affairs Canada, the former member has to navigate a structure of less than enthusiastic public servants. I don't blame them, because public servants are swamped with files. The member, who is not accustomed to this kind of process, becomes discouraged, eventually giving up and turning to every possible vice. They are completely discouraged, with psychological support often arriving too late. That is why we see former members of the military begging in the streets. The transition between the end of their military career and entry into civilian life is lacking.
Fortunately, the Canadian Legion, made up of former members of the military, is much more attentive than the Department of Veterans Affairs when it comes to helping those members. It's alarming that, after devoting 30 or 35 years of their life to the military, members find themselves on the street for a variety of reasons, and that is unacceptable. As a society, we do not have the right to turn our backs on them. I have met former members of the military who led six missions in Afghanistan and various other parts of the world who ended up homeless. These are people who had been awarded medals, Canadian heroes.
Some sort of support framework is needed to help these members as soon as they find themselves in vulnerable situations, and public servants should not be the ones in charge of providing that support. I think the armed forces have a duty to assist and support those members, which is not the case right now. A minimum year-long transition period has to be introduced to help them reintegrate successfully. Military personnel in positions of authority need to oversee these cases and answer the questions of those who served. That is what veterans are calling for.
Mr. Parent: Thank you for that excellent observation. You are right, support is lacking during the transition period. In terms of people who are accustomed to taking or giving orders, I would say veterans are a great resource for the civilian world, for the people who hire them. The people in charge of providing realistic and veteran-focused transition services should be retired members of the military who have transitioned successfully to civilian life. In the past, vocational rehabilitation and the transition to civilian life were lumped together, so people were often reluctant because they wanted to stay in the military culture. They didn't necessarily want to retire or begin the transition to civilian life. Separating the two programs and putting former members of the military in charge of the transition program would help members transition successfully. The underlying principle would be similar to that adopted by the Canadian Legion; former members of the military who had integrated into the civilian world would help others with their transition to civilian life through a supportive framework.
Senator Maltais: It has a negative impact. Ninety-five per cent of reservists are college or university students. When they finish their schooling and realize what happens to veterans, they become discouraged. I attend annual meetings with reservists, and they wonder what will happen once they are out of the reserve. Although they know they can join the army, earn a good living and receive a good pension, they wonder what kind of life they will have after the army. That's an important issue that young people are thinking about. It is well and good to recruit them when they are 19 years old, but they are going to get out one day. The military's criteria are much more stringent than they were 25 years ago, and that discourages young people. Once they finish their schooling, young people turn their backs on the military. Despite the armed forces' investing a great deal in their training, its efforts are not paying off because young people have this concern.
Mr. Parent: You raise another important issue. That is why we keep saying that a successful transition is also a matter of national security: no one is going to walk in to a recruitment office or want to serve in the armed forces if they realize that they are not going to be treated well if they become injured while serving.
On the subject of reservists, I want to take this opportunity to point out that what matters is identifying injured reservists and members of the Canadian Armed Forces. An ID card is very important, not only to identify veterans, but also to give them a new identity that they will not lose when they leave the Canadian Armed Forces. It is also very important that, going forward, they be able to identify as a Canadian veteran, that the government recognize that status and that they have an ID card confirming it.
[English]
Senator Boniface: One of my questions was already asked, but are there other jurisdictions you're looking at that actually do this well, other countries that have facilitated the transition better?
Mr. Parent: We have looked at individual processes and programs. I don't think there is anything comparable to the Canadian experience. When you look at the benefits in place and all of that, I think we're above any other country that we normally compare ourselves to.
However, it's the lack of communication, the complexity, the layering of programs and all those sort of things that need to be addressed. A lot of people come to us, for instance, because they are interested in some of our programs. In the transition per se it's quite different too.
You can look at the culture of the forces as different. The Canadian military culture is different from the American military culture. The transition needs to be different as well. It needs to be more centric and more personalized, which in the States, for instance, you can't do because of the sheer numbers.
Senator Boniface: In terms of the navigator model you refer to the case management system. You have two systems going: one for DND and one for veterans. I would think you would have to do an integration of the systems.
Mr. Parent: Yes, that's a good point. The confusion in the case management aspect comes from the fact that the case managers on the DND side and the case managers on the Veterans Affairs Canada side have two completely different roles. The handover can't just be one to the other. There needs to be a multidisciplinary approach. There are other people involved.
The DND case manager is a health professional, whereas the VAC case manager is a social service professional to get people reintegrated into the social model. It's a bit different in that respect.
Also, there needs to be a coach on the military side and a coach on the Veterans Affairs Canada side. Like I said before, some people will get out of the forces and will try to access benefits five or six years after they are out of the forces. At that point in time what they need is a buddy, a coach or a navigator on the VAC side, whereas in the transition it should be in fact probably a retired military person who guides people through the process.
Senator Boniface: What I'm trying to figure out is: Is part of the solution a technological one, or is this a training issue that would be supported by a governance model so that the people are cross-trained at least to have enough information to know who to point them to on the other side?
Mr. Parent: It's always a difficulty and a challenge in the continuum of care. Obviously, when you transition out of the military, you face the same problems as you do in civilian life in trying to find a physician and trying to find help. The continuum of care is very important.
The point is that there should not be a disengagement of either one of those case managers until the situation is either resolved or stabilized. That's the important thing. Very often the case manager side will look after, let's say, medication that is available on the DND side but not necessarily acceptable to Veterans Affairs Canada.
The transition needs to be made but it's to facilitate those things. A perfect transition model that is veteran centric would look after that continuum of care as well, not just a case management continuum.
Ms. Squire: What is important, further to what Guy said, is that it be a single point of contact so that no matter where you are it's the same person. It doesn't have to be a case manager because they are so busy. It could be someone else like a coach or a single point of contact.
As to whether it's technological or in person, I think they need to have the option of both. As we know from mapping the veteran experience, some people prefer to go online. Others don't. Others want a live, warm human being to talk to. I think it can't be either/or. I think both have to be offered as a solution.
Senator Boniface: Where I was coming from on the technological piece was whether or not the systems within are dropping information. I was trying to figure it out because you made reference to information being lost or not available.
Are there systems that need to be integrated that would help facilitate the information to the humans who are trying to deliver the service? That's where I was coming from on that piece.
Ms. Squire: It's so complex. That's the issue, right? If it was simplified and streamlined it would be so much easier for them to follow that path.
Senator White: Thanks, Senator Boniface, for stealing my question. I'll go to another one.
Often complaints are about the preparation for leaving an organization such as the military. In Senator Boniface's and my case, in the policing the preparation starts about six months before the exit. In fact, retirement training usually happened in one of the most senior courses that the RCMP used to offer.
Is the military doing enough throughout the career of a soldier to prepare them for retirement and for the financial realities? I don't know about now but a lot of them used to be in government housing. Are they prepared for what it looks like when they return to their home of 25 or 30 years previous? Are they prepared to buy a home and walk through that piece?
Realistically, not from a VAC perspective but from a leaving military person's perspective, a lot of these pieces could probably be prepped every 5, 10 or 15 years through the different training models. Military train continuously and appropriately, but I'm not sure that they train their own soldiers on how to leave.
Mr. Parent: Thank you for your good question and good observation. Maybe I'm a bit dated now because I have been out a few years, but there was a program within DND which used to be called the Second Career Assistance Network or SCAN. It was originally designed to be taken every five years, and then there was an evolution, as you got closer to retirement, more toward investment and employment at the end. I don't think it was ever a mandatory program. I think that's one of the problems.
Is DND doing enough? I think they need to think of retirement when they think of recruitment. It should be part of the recruiting process. One of these days that career will end. That needs to be done.
Certainly, on the side of Veterans Affairs Canada, they need to do more. Veterans Affairs Canada needs to be involved in the Second Career Assistance Network program. They should be involved in communicating benefits, processes and access to the leadership courses, for instance. There is not enough involvement of Veterans Affairs Canada in that particular aspect.
The difficulty comes from the old military culture of retention. When I left the forces 12 years ago there was no such thing as JPSUs, IPSCs and transition centres because they didn't want anybody to leave. It's very hard to change that culture of retention into a culture of transition. Now they have to rethink the process to say eventually there will be a transition.
Senator White: If I may, it's a great discussion looking at other countries but in the U.S. the average soldier probably leaves at 25 or 26. A lot of them will come in, do four years and move on. It's a totally different model. The expectations of the military in the U.S. are much different from ours in terms of how long the career of a soldier is going to be. When somebody in Canada joins the military, we consider that they will have a lengthy career of 20, 25 or 30 years and at 45 or 50 they will retire. It's totally different thinking for us, even around hiring.
Right now I'm talking to a couple of military folks who are looking at leaving the military. To be fair, even their understanding of what civilian life is today is a bit dated in many ways. They think about it and maybe get a bit from other people, but they really don't engage with that civilian life, what is out there, what it looks like and education.
One individual is a technologist on aircraft and thought that some of his qualifications actually mapped over to civilian life, and now he finds out they don't. If he chooses to go work in that field he actually has to go through a lengthy amount of retraining.
I'm not suggesting people are keeping information from members of the military. I'm just suggesting they need to be more open. From my perspective in every single training session you have there should be a period of time that talks about transition. A 25-year-old hearing about transition may not listen as well as a 45-year-old, but I think it should be there each time. There has to be a question. Don't you agree?
Mr. Parent: I agree. I think it's important too for young military people to take responsibility for their future. That's why we have suggested that every serving member should get a Veterans Affairs Canada account, My VAC Account, with a number already given to them by Veterans Affairs Canada. If they are found somewhere on the street, if they have any injuries or any time they see a physician for some medical care of some sort, they enter it themselves in their VAC account. Whenever they get out of the forces they have the opportunity at least to build up their case toward access to benefits and that sort of thing.
Senator Wallin: I have just a tiny point on this. I want to go back to something that Senator Boniface raised because we had this discussion with Mr. Walbourne, your counterpart.
Part of the problem if we try to dissect where the roadblocks are, he seemed to suggest, was that sometimes the information can't be passed from DND to VAC. This is specific to the medical issues. If I'm being medically released and then we want to smooth this transaction, DND can't tell VAC what my medical issue is because they would that would be a violation of my privacy. Is that still the case?
Mr. Parent: Yes, it is. The passing of information is a matter of personal information not being shared. However, a consent form can be signed. The problem right now, as I already mentioned, is that about six different consent forms are actually used right now in the transition process.
I'm sure in this day and age we can design one all-encompassing form that somebody can sign to give everybody permission to share personal information as long as it's used for the right purpose.
The Chair: I have a few questions. You have covered one of them many times, including just now with Senator Wallin, but I'm asking you this question again.
The last time we had Mr. Walbourne here, the National Defence ombudsman, he spoke about how the surgeon general's office had the files. Please correct me if my understanding is wrong, but those files stay there and when the veterans leave the army they have to do a complete reassessment.
You have covered it but I would like to cover it again because as an outsider I don't understand why that file can't just be handed over to Veterans Affairs. Why does this person have to go through all the assessments again? I don't understand that. He seemed to think that should not happen as well.
Mr. Parent: If I may just explain the adjudication process, when someone releases from the Armed Forces and applies for benefits at Veterans Affairs Canada it's not always right when they are released. It could be five or six years later. The first thing that happens is that there has to be the proof of service and a diagnosed illness or injury that is attributable to that period of service. There are two different steps there. After that there is an evaluation of how much the injury or illness affects the individual's life or ability to generate income.
What is happening now is that the veterans do not submit the medical records themselves. Veterans Affairs Canada has to go to Archives Canada or to one of the military headquarters to get the medical files. Then they look at the file and the adjudicator looks at the diagnosis on the file and decides the attribution of service.
Very often there are difficulties in some of the adjudications that may be of a medical background questioning the diagnosis of the physician that has actually written a record. That becomes a bit of a problem. The attribution of service and the evaluation that takes place afterward are based on the adjudicator's decision whether or not to accept the medical evidence provided in the records.
We have had some difficulty with that. We did a report a few years back on the Veterans Review and Appeal Board in the cases that went from the board to the Supreme Court of Canada. We found that many of them were returned to the board because they had not considered the medical evidence at the right value.
If the Veterans Review and Appeal Board did not recognize it, neither did the adjudicator in the first part of the process. Recognizing medical evidence when it is submitted by a certified professional is a big deal. When we talk about liberal interpretation, presumptive judgment and that sort of thing, the medical evidence should be recognized.
The Chair: In my other life I was a personal injury lawyer. You can be critical of my judgment, but when I was preparing for this today, the way I saw it is that when they were in the army they were being treated for whatever happened to them. They had services and they leave the army knowing the illnesses they have.
When they come to Veterans Affairs it's not so much what injuries you have but how much they have to pay you for this. The lens changes: What do we pay you for this injury? How much are you injured? How much should we pay you? The lens changes and there is a reassessment. There is a different way of looking at this. Am I wrong on this? Have I got this wrong?
Mr. Parent: I'm not sure if it's a different lens. The big thing is whether the injury that led to your release due to your service.
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Parent: Very often maybe it's not. In those cases there is no entitlement. If you get injured and it had nothing to do with your service, there is no responsibility on the part of Government of Canada at that point in time. However, having said that, in the presumptive judgment approach in the United States, for instance, they say that military service affects your health and wellness regardless. You don't have to have a specific injury. It's a presumptive judgment.
We have to be careful we don't go toward a world of entitlement. It's not necessarily an entitlement. It's the fact that people have served and were injured in the process. Now it's a matter of diminished earning capacity and of pain and suffering. The benefits of Veterans Affairs Canada that are adjudicated upon have to do the disability of war, which is pain and suffering. Then all the rest of the vocational rehabilitation and income replacement benefits are a completely different suite of programs.
The Chair: I'm going to stick to this. I accept what you're saying. The injury has to happen while you were doing something for the army. I get that. You are saying that it can't be no-fault. Just the fact that you're injured doesn't mean Veterans Affairs has to pay. The injury has to be because of something that happened during your service.
Mr. Parent: Attributable to service.
The Chair: Say it is but the lens is different. The person is treated in the army and then he is released for whatever reason because he was injured. When he comes to Veterans Affairs it's all about how much they are going to pay him.
For me, that's where I think your lens changes. Why can't you just accept what was assessed and do another assessment? Why does this person have to restart? That's where I'm having difficulty, and many veterans have expressed the same thing to us.
Mr. Parent: It's a good point, and I go back to what I mentioned before. When you release from the Canadian Forces the diagnosis and your medical evaluation have to do with your inability to meet the universality of service standards.
In Veterans Affairs Canada it has to do with your ability to generate income. It has to do with access to medical care. It has to do with vocational rehabilitation to a new job or a new career. It is completely different.
It adds to the complexity and that is why in many cases there is a re-evaluation. No evaluation is done on the military side other than you do not meet the universality of service standards.
All the rest has to be done as far as planning for your future and determining whether you are totally and permanently incapacitated and will never be able to generate income. Then the benefits kick into place.
Senator Lang: I want to follow up on Senator Wallin's questions with respect to exactly what this committee could recommend regarding what you have just said here and how it would be implemented. I think those are valid questions.
I'll ask two questions. In your opening statement you say that there are over 10,000 releases per year from the regular and reserve forces, and then you refer to the 1,600 medical releases. Obviously, the medical releases will be in a separate category and should be dealt with in that manner where one can argue that.
The way I understand it, basically members of the Armed Forces in the reserve force served for a period of time but also have an active civilian life in a lot of cases, if not most cases. They are actually experiencing civilian life as they are perhaps part of the Armed Forces.
When you say 10,000 releases I want to get a sense of the numbers we are speaking of here. We are talking about the ones who joined at 19 and are 45 or 50 and looking at transition. Are we talking 5,000 or 2,500 of that 10,000? Just give me ballpark figures. Is it 20 per cent or 50 per cent? Am I right in this evaluation?
Mr. Parent: Yes, of course. There are really three types of people. There are the ones releasing at end of career that are healthy I would say are 50 per cent of the people. If you look at the veteran population in Canada of 700,000, for instance, about 200,000 of them are clients of Veterans Affairs Canada. That is a bit of the proportion of retired people compared to people who are drawing benefits from Veterans Affairs Canada. With the reservists or the regulars it is difficult.
Senator Lang: It is a relevant question because you are dealing with the question of transitioning. The way I understand it, the reservists have already done transition or part of it and are part of civilian life. They don't necessarily face the same problems as the individuals we speak of who have made lifelong commitments to the military from the point of view of accessing and understanding civilian life.
Mr. Parent: It is dependent on their actual occupation in civilian life. As Senator Maltais mentioned, a high percentage of them are students which means that they really haven't been civilian adults yet. They probably know more of the military culture and military work than they do on the civilian side. It is one of those very hard things.
There is an issue with a reservist releasing medically if they are not students, if their job on the civilian side was a higher paying job than their salary as a reservist, and if they get injured because of their service. Then they have some problems because they are only compensated for their military salary and not for their civilian salary.
Senator Lang: That is why I think the medical assistance has to be in a separate category, whether it be the reservist or the regular force member.
All I am trying to ascertain is what volume of numbers we are dealing with in reality. I am trying to remember the terminology in previous testimony here, but we were told about 25 per cent of those released every year had to be dealt from the point of view of seeking services from the VAC and DND.
In other words, if you take the 10,000 there were maybe 2,500. Of those probably 1,600 were medical assistance because those people really do need direct care, I would think.
Mr. Parent: We can certainly send these figures or statistics to the committee if it would be useful.
Senator Lang: It would be useful for you as well so that we have an understanding of the exact numbers. This is all caseload. If we are to go the right route, it means that people have to be redirected from existing positions or new positions have to be created. It's a question of bureaucracy. It is too easy to sit here and say we agree and then we have created a bureaucracy of $50 million. Is that what you really want at the end of the day? You better know where you are going. That is my point.
My question following on Senator Wallin again is with respect to recommending where this navigator would be. It would seem to me that the most important area would be the last six months of a member's service in the regular forces. He or she knows they are leaving. You referred to one program where they could work somewhere else outside the service if that was provided for them. That would be the most important place to get the best success rate to help people transition. Would you agree from the point of view of the "navigator'' that the recommendation of this committee should be at that period of time? That's not to say that there isn't work afterward.
Mr. Parent: I certainly would agree that it should be as soon as the member knows he is going to be released medically. Someone should be appointed as a coach, buddy, navigator, concierge or whatever it is. It could be two years later that they are actually released.
Senator Lang: I am sorry to interrupt here. I understand the medical release and I don't think we probably can do enough for them, but my concern is the regular forces, those that are transitioning.
Mr. Parent: Any release.
Senator Lang: Those individuals are the bulk of those transitioning. Should the emphasis for the navigator be in that first six months in the Department of National Defence? Right now they are neither fish nor fowl in the way you have explained it to me, and that is one of the problems. When we go to the VAC and to the Department of National Defence we don't know where to go. I am trying to be practical here.
Mr. Parent: As I said in my briefing, if there were transition centres and there were some coaches or some navigators available there, it would be a matter of matching the program with the Second Career Assistance Network program or something like that. Six months prior to release you would go to the release centre and be given a coach or a navigator to help you with the process. At least a year before they are released would be the ideal situation.
Senator Lang: Would these people be employed by the Department of National Defence? Who would the navigator answer to?
Mr. Parent: Again, we called for a central authority to be established. Whoever that central authority is, they would provide the governance for that particular process.
It doesn't matter whether it is VAC or National Defence, but the person should be someone that transitioned successfully, preferably ex-military, to help the people through. If there is a model design it's hard to tell where and when, but certainly pre-release for sure.
Right now I would say at least a year before releasing someone should be coupled with someone who knows about the release process and be helped throughout sort of thing.
Ms. Squire: I don't think it is necessarily one size fits all because everyone has different needs. It is like the recruitment process. Starting in the recruitment process you are offered all these things. Guy's thesis throughout his speech is that we should have the same parallel things for transition when we leave. All the same supports are there should you choose to use them. You're encouraged and made aware of those supports to use, no matter if you're transitioning medically or if you are just transitioning.
Senator Lang: I don't want to belabour this but I'm trying to visualize who those individuals coaching and providing the service would work for. I am not disagreeing with anything you said, Ms. Squire, in respect to what we're striving to do to make these various programs available and to ensure that these people are successful.
From the practical point of view, it is how to do this in respect of the day-to-day operations that we're looking forward to and what do we take from VAC and DND that we're doing right now so we are not duplicating it. Those are the questions that I have. I'm trying to understand how it works.
Ms. Squire: I think the single point of contact has to understand both situations. It may be a new type of person. It may not be one that currently sits with VAC and one that currently sits with DND because this point of contact has to understand both worlds and be able to navigate both worlds and refer people elsewhere.
I am not sure if right now it makes sense to decide where it should be but rather what it should look like, and then we can decide where it best fits, if that makes sense.
The Chair: I have a question for you. As I told you, last week Mr. Walbourne, the ombudsman of National Defence, was here. One of the transition issues we hear all the time is that when a member leaves the Canadian Armed Forces sometimes the paperwork is not all in place and sometimes their pension is delayed.
For me that is absolutely unacceptable. Who can do without a paycheque in our world? To think you had a regular paycheque and you are entitled to a pension but the next month you don't get it. Help me understand what is going wrong in the system.
Mr. Parent: It's hard for me to explain since it's not my jurisdiction but it is a superannuation issue. I hear things are getting better, but having served 37 years in the forces and having a steady salary for 37 years I certainly can't understand how they couldn't figure out that 70 per cent of my salary would be my pension two weeks after I left.
The Chair: Exactly.
Mr. Parent: There are all kinds of government programs where at least you get paid and then they readjust later on. At least people have some subsistence for that period of time.
I agree completely. In fact, it was a common recommendation that nobody should be released from the forces until all benefits are in place. In Holland they don't release anyone until people have actually found a job. We have a long way to go yet. Yes, all benefits should be in place because financial stability is very important, especially if you are going through vocational rehabilitation.
The Chair: This question may be a little left field. We in the Senate have a diversity committee. One of the things we are looking at is how we can encourage veterans to come to work in the Senate as an option. We have some veterans working for us but we want a diverse working force.
Have you given thought to how the federal government can make veterans aware of this? Veterans know they can get a job in the federal service but how much is being done to encourage veterans, especially young veterans who leave, to look for opportunities within the government?
Mr. Parent: As you know, there is a public service priority hiring bill, but unfortunately not that many people are taking the opportunity. Again, I am not sure if it is because of the transition or the culture that it is a completely different lifestyle from that in the military.
A lot of people when they leave the Armed Forces go to security. My son went into policing in metro Halifax. Everyone has a different outlook.
Advertising and communications are weak when it comes to agencies that are offering hiring. When we did our transition study we found there were 30 different third party agencies that offered hiring through Veterans Affairs Canada, but they are all over the map.
There is Helmets to Hardhats that has to do with hard trades. There is Treble Victor at the executive level will help people find employment, but there is no common place to go to. There is no one focus point to go to and ask, "What's available to me?'' This concierge and navigator service would be very useful in telling people, "Here's what is available to you. You can pick from that,'' but that is lacking now.
The Chair: I haven't been in the Armed Forces so maybe I have it wrong, but to take your idea further my understanding is if you are a member of the Armed Forces you know where to go and what is needed. When you need something you know where to go. It is all regimented: where you go and what you do.
When you leave you are then on your own. Have you considered recommending one stop where people can go for all these things? From getting a job to medical to benefits, they just have to walk in or go by computer through one portal and everything is provided as it is within the forces, if I'm not mistaken.
Once you leave it is like you are left there on your own. That is okay if that is the world you lived in but we expect the Armed Forces to do things differently and then we abandon them. That's how it feels.
Mr. Parent: That's why in my opening remarks I did recommend a one-stop shop where everything is done for you under one government's authority and with some guidance provided by someone who has successfully transitioned.
The Chair: Mr. Parent, you have talked quite a bit and I have made notes. You have spoken a number of times about governance. I am intrigued by what you said about that. Can you expand on what you mean? If you were to recommend that what would that recommendation on governance look like?
Mr. Parent: What we found in the transition review is that there are two departments involved. They are not as integrated as they are supposed to be. They call them integrated support services but really they are not. They abut one another.
All the decisions taken by the military go to a certain point and then they have to transfer over the wall to Veterans Affairs Canada. Sometimes the decisions from Veterans Affairs Canada will affect people who are still serving. We need to fill that gap with one governance or one authority that is made up of either one. It doesn't matter who it is or it could even be an integrated team of people who had the authority to decide when somebody leaves the forces and when they start dealing with Veterans Affairs Canada and that sort of thing. That doesn't exist right now.
A one-stop shop that is actually under one authority and can actually make decisions on the military side and on the Veterans Affairs Canada side is where we need to go.
The Chair: Mr. Parent and Ms. Squire, as always, you have helped us with our work. With the questions we have asked, if there is anything you want to add, please send it to the clerk and we will distribute it to our members. We have started many conversations and, as you know, we are studying this carefully. Any help you can give our committee will be appreciated. We thank you for being here.
Mr. Parent: Thank you very much.
Ms. Squire: Thank you.
(The committee adjourned.)