Proceedings of the Subcommittee on
Veterans Affairs
Issue No. 7 - Evidence - April 12, 2017
OTTAWA, Wednesday, April 12, 2017
The Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs of the Standing Senate Commmittee on National Security and Defence met this day at 12:04 p.m. to study on issues relating to creating a defined, professional and consistent system for veterans as they leave the Canadian Armed Forces.
Senator Mobina S.B. Jaffer (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: Welcome to this meeting of the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs. Joining us today is Mr. Kevin Pittman, clerk of the committee, and our library analyst, Havi Echenberg. I would kindly ask the senators to introduce themselves, starting on my right.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Senator Jean-Guy Dagenais from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Wallin: Senator Pamela Wallin, Saskatchewan.
The Chair: My name is Mobina Jaffer, and I am the chair of the committee.
[Translation]
The Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence has been mandated to examine and report on the issues relating to creating a defined, professional and consistent system for veterans as they leave the Canadian Armed Forces.
We are delighted to welcome, as a witness, General Jonathan Vance, Chief of the Defence Staff.
[English]
General Vance has a long history in the Canadian Armed Forces, having joined the Armed Forces in 1982. He served as the deputy commander of the Allied Joint Force Command — Naples and was the Commander of the Canadian Task Force in Kandahar, Afghanistan, in 2009 and 2010. He went on to become Commander of the Canadian Joint Operations Command in September 2014 and the Chief of the Defence Staff on July 17, 2015.
General, I want to say to you that when I heard you speak at the CDA Conference about your aim to make the lives of veterans easier when they leave the forces — you talked about when soldiers enter the Canadian Armed Forces, there’s a professional entrance way of doing it, and we don’t have that same kind of professionalism when they leave. When I came back and discussed with my colleagues what you had said, my colleagues felt that we could help you with this; we could listen to people and make some recommendations so that, as we always know, we want to work with you, so we could find ways to work with you. This is why this study is being done.
I also want to share with you something else, general, and that is that this issue of veterans is not just an issue for this committee. The Senate as a whole takes this issue very seriously. In our Diversity Committee, we are always looking at four groups: women, people with disabilities, people of colour and Aboriginal people. We’ve added a fifth category that we are going to make people who leave the Canadian Armed Forces aware of the opportunities to work within the Senate.
So we are looking to work with you, because we believe we all have to work together to honour the men and women who have made great sacrifices for our country. Your appearance today couldn’t be at a more appropriate time with what we’ve just remembered; namely, those we lost at Vimy and those who were hurt. It has been 100 years since Vimy, and we’re really looking forward to hearing from you today. I know my colleagues and I will have questions of you. The floor is yours.
General Jonathan Vance, Chief of the Defence Staff, National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces: Thank you, Madam Chair, for that introduction and for coming to the conference. It was an important speech to launch off or further progress my ideas around transition.
I’m grateful for the opportunity to appear before the subcommittee today. As you say, the timing could not be better, as I’ve just returned from the ceremonies marking the one hundredth anniversary of the Battle of Vimy Ridge. I was accompanied by some special guests on that trip, but I particularly wanted to point out that I was accompanied by Corporal Arthur Currie, who is the great-grandson of Lieutenant-General Sir Arthur Curry, currently serving at CFB Cold Lake as a corporal technician.
It was great to have him along. He had never been here before. Through his eyes, it served for me as a poignant reminder of how much we owe those who fought, bled and died so very far away from home.
It also reminded me that we who wear the uniform of Canada today are the heirs of those great traditions that were won and fought for on the field of battle.
One of the best ways, therefore, to honour their legacy is to support those men and women who serve today and encourage others to serve Canada through their military, always mindful of our role in successful transition when they leave the forces. It’s a truism that if you leave well-content and satisfied looking back on your career, then you will provide more of a positive reinforcement to those who may wish to join and start their career in the Canadian Armed Forces.
[Translation]
I am pleased to appear before you today, especially since I’m the first Chief of the Defence Staff in office to be called to appear before this subcommittee.
I believe we are at a turning point in the Canadian Armed Forces in terms of how we recruit, train, and treat our personnel. From the moment they first step into a recruiting centre to the moment they leave our institution, we have to treat our members with the same level of care, dedication, and professionalism we devote to our operations.
[English]
We must do this because it’s the right thing to do, but we must also do this because how we treat our people is critical to our future success as a combat-ready force and one that Canada continues to admire and respect. The challenges we face in the modern security and conflict environment are complex. They’re multi-faceted. They’re dangerous, and they’re extremely taxing on each one of our individuals. To fight and to win in this environment, we need to recruit the best Canadians from across Canadian society. We need to train, educate and prepare our recruits for an increasingly diverse country, with diverse talents and skills, to meet current and future challenges.
We need to provide a work environment that’s interesting, challenging, respectful and rewarding, one that demonstrates our commitment to our people and their well-being.
But if people think that they’re not being treated well, that we are not looking after them, then they won’t come to work for us. And they won’t willingly risk their lives and espouse the very important ethos of the Armed Forces, which is service before self, and that is critical in a successful military. If we cannot attract and retain the talent we need, then we won’t succeed on operations. It’s that simple.
In July of last year, we began an initiative that we’re calling for now, “The Journey.”
[Translation]
The goal of “The Journey” is to develop a personnel management system that’s more comprehensive, dependable, and applicable in the modern day. The term “modern” is important. Many of our personnel management policies were developed decades ago, for a military that treated every member with a one-size-fits-all approach. If our policies are not achieving their goal of properly managing and supporting those defending their country, then they need to change.
[English]
I’ll say that again in English: If our policies aren’t doing what they’re supposed to be doing, which is to properly support and administer those people who defend our country, then the policies need to change, and we’re going to change them.
[Translation]
It’s going to take some time, because there are a lot of pieces to this exercise that affect every aspect of how we recruit and train our members.
[English]
There are three aspects of “The Journey” that I’d like to introduce to you today: First, developing a flexible, adaptive career path; second, professionalizing our transition process; and third, as part of the plan to converge the Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs efforts around veteran administration, we will help and do our part to set the conditions for the success of our members once they leave uniformed service.
First, on the Armed Forces career path, as you know, it’s divided into regular and reserve service, and our people often transfer between the two. But it’s difficult to do, takes too long and is not well administered. This approach was designed for a time when people worked the same job in the Armed Forces for their entire career, largely without any breaks. That’s seldom the case anymore. We recognize that a person’s aspirations and priorities change over time. Maybe a young parent wants to take some time off to raise their children, or maybe someone needs to take a few months to look after a sick relative. Maybe they want to take a few years off to earn a degree and then come back and apply that knowledge that they’ve learned. These aren’t bad things. We want our people to pursue what’s important to them, and they change over time. An 18-year-old is not the same as a 40-year-old, and things change in your life while you’re doing uniformed service. However, senators, I would remind you that service before self is who we are in the Canadian Armed Forces. It’s our ethos. But so is loyalty, and loyalty is a two-way street. As leaders, we must show our people that we care about what’s important to them as individuals. In return, we are able to demand loyalty from them under the most trying of circumstances. Without this ethos of loyalty and service before self, the Canadian Armed Forces will not function as the military force it needs to be for Canada in crisis and conflict. We are a high-performance, unlimited-liability force for Canada.
I want my people to have more options on how they serve, restricted or unrestricted, full and part time, regular and reserve. This, I believe, will build confidence, longevity in their careers and loyalty, ultimately making the Armed Forces a more desirable career for future generations and one that promotes retention of our incredible talent.
[Translation]
This brings me to my second point. Life in the Canadian Armed Forces is a constant process of transition. It begins in the recruiting centre, where you begin the transition, physically and mentally, from civilian life into one of military service. From there, you’re moving between jobs, moving between bases in Canada, conducting exercises, training, and deploying on operations. We ask our members to transition all the time. Each of those transitions puts stress on our members and their families, and the greater the transition, the greater the stress.
[English]
So when it comes to that final and ultimate transition out of uniform, as a member prepares to leave uniformed service and return to private life, we need to support them, help them and enable them as much as possible. We can do very much more.
As you pointed out, Madam Chair, as I had talked about in my speech, if you look at how we treat our recruits when they join, they get a great deal of personalized, professional attention to become members of the Armed Forces, effective members of the Armed Forces. We do not have the same approach when our members are leaving the Armed Forces. It’s not a personalized, professional system, but it has to be. So we are establishing a specialized transition unit. From the moment one of my service members is ready to retire or must medically retire, this unit will have them well in hand. If an individual member’s situation doesn’t fit the policy, then we’ll work with that member, and we’ll customize the solution to that individual.
This support will vastly improve what our Joint Personnel Support Unit provides to our ill, injured and wounded members now, but it will do the same for all retiring members.
The third part of this effort will be closing the seams between our system and that of Veterans Affairs. I want my members to retire knowing that their pension cheque will be coming, that their care will be in place and that everything else they need will be taken care of. Whether or not they are healthy when they retire and whether or not they experience a service-related injury after retirement, it doesn’t matter. That’s how it should work, and, too often in the past, it has not.
When I hear stories from my people about how they have gone for weeks or even months without the pension they’ve earned through their service, senators, disappointed doesn’t even come close to describing how I feel. DND, the Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs are working on converging these two systems. We have direction and intent from both of our ministers to close the seams, and that’s what we will do. We want an approach that is streamlined, veteran-centric. We want to guide our members through a process that is less complex, focused on them. Until that work is complete, there are some things I can do and have already done to take the burden off of our new veterans. First, our pension program, now administered by Public Services and Procurement Canada, provides 96 per cent of our people with their first payment within 30 days, provided all of the paperwork is done properly. That’s a better number than we’ve had before. However, we’re still working on that 4 per cent, and we’re still working on making the process less complex. It’s good, but it’s only a start.
Second, we’re doing our very best — and I have been since I became Chief of the Defence Staff — to ensure that people are not released until they’re ready.
Madam Chair and senators, my duty as Chief of the Defence Staff is clear: I have to make certain we produce the force Canada needs now and in the future. I’ve got to make certain those who wear Canada’s uniform and the families who love and support them receive the care and attention they deserve from the moment someone first walks into a recruiting centre until the moment they retire, and well beyond. These aren’t separate issues but parts of a continuum of professional support to our members and their families.
If we treat people well, we’ll be able to recruit and retain the talent we need to succeed on challenging operations on behalf of Canada well into the future.
Thank you, and I’ll be happy to take your questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much, general, for your remarks. When you said that you’ll make sure people don’t leave until all the services are in place, I was very happy to hear that, and I’m sure my colleagues were too, because that’s one thing we’ve been hearing a lot about.
General, before I go to questions from my colleagues, I was wondering, for the Joint Personnel Support Unit, could you please tell us what the mandate is, what the resources are and who they report to?
Gen. Vance: Thank you, Madam Chair. I think we’re still working on all of that, and it will be part of the Defence Policy Review. At this juncture, I’m not at liberty to describe all of the detail, but I think I can tell you that we will change our approach from that which is provided by the current JPSU and staff an organization that will exist across the country and provide expertise and direct support to those members who are retiring, regardless of the reason for their retirement.
I think I can give you the intent. The intent would be to ensure that we have this professionalized system, and I’m going to re-establish the former personnel administration branch that became defunct some years ago. I’m going to re-establish that branch of the Armed Forces, whose members are experts in personnel management and HR support, with a view to ensuring that no member leaves that base, completes their move and eventually leaves the Armed Forces and takes the uniform off without everything possible being done to ensure that the paperwork for transition, whether it’s a pension cheque or any of the benefits owed to them, are ready to go and that they are handed off in a collaborative manner — ideally, with collaboration all the way through for those who would be ultimately receiving Veterans Affairs benefits.
There’s another thing that’s important here, and I think I’ve got the numbers right when I say that a full 75 per cent of Veterans Affairs Canada’s caseload, or close to that, are those people whose injuries or needs manifest after they’ve left the Armed Forces. So we want to make sure that the transition, and the process around transition, also supports those who need to come back to VAC or to us to ensure that, if they need additional support after they’ve left the Armed Forces, they get it.
This has a direct bearing on the third part of my opening remarks, which is how to make that transition seamless. There are policies and there is a guided veteran-centric approach to eliminate the mystery around the paperwork and the challenges that our veterans have described, and do that in a way that is as complete as possible before they take the uniform off.
I think we’ve got enough time to answer this question more fulsomely, so I’ll end on this point: I see in this process, probably, a longer period to have someone depart the Armed Forces. It’s an interesting dynamic. There are those people who, when they have the opportunity, they have a new job offer or they feel it’s time to retire, want to leave very quickly. We often receive concerns, observations or complaints that they want to leave faster than we’re prepared to let them go. On the other hand, there are those who will need more time, whether it’s to accommodate a medical injury, ensuring they’re set to depart and that all is in place.
I go back to this point: It has to be a personalized, customized system. I am prepared to admit, and I said so in my opening comments, that many of our policies underpinning how we manage our people are decades old or have their basis in decades-old ideas about modern human resources and personnel management in the Armed Forces. They’re out of date. They tend to treat everybody on a template and if you fall outside that template and you don’t quite match the profile, then it becomes incredibly difficult and challenging to get the customized support you need. That has to change. We need to take a far more individual and customized approach to someone’s transition, and they may have very different needs than someone else, but that’s okay. We have to account for it.
The Chair: Thank you very much. May I ask that when you do have all that in place and are able to share with us, can you send that to the clerk of the committee? We’d appreciate the information when you are able to release it. Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Thank you for being with us today, General Vance.
I have an idea of what military life looks like, since one of my nieces has been in the army for a number of years, and so has her spouse. They are currently in Gagetown, but they will be transferred with their three children to Germany in June. Clearly, there is a degree of stress. It’s a matter of becoming accustomed to it, I guess, and I’m sure things will go well.
That being said, here is my question: When a person decides to retire, so to speak, things usually go fairly well, but when they have to do so because they are forced to end their career in the Armed Forces and the reserve is not an option, it sometimes becomes more complicated, because you know as well as I do that, for some, wearing the uniform means everything to them. Can you give us an idea of the type of support that future retirees can receive, and also what you would like to put in place to limit the stress of the departure?
Gen. Vance: Thank you for your question, senator. I will answer in English to be exact and accurate.
[English]
You are right, senator; there really are those voluntary releases that either come as a result of the end of your term of service and you have had ample time to prepare yourself to retire, whether you’ve been in for a short time or a long time or you simply see an opportunity that you want to take that’s outside of the Armed Forces, you wish to leave and it’s done voluntarily, and you are otherwise healthy, fit, and mentally prepared to leave. That accounts for the vast majority of people who leave the Armed Forces.
However, for those who leave where it is not their choice, either as a result of a medical limitation that prevents them from further service, where further service could harm them further or they would not be able to participate in operations because of their condition, or for any administrative or disciplinary reason, where they are required to leave the Armed Forces, then, of course, there is a challenge. The challenge for them exists on two planes and both are incredibly important.
One is the psychological or psychosocial plane where you’ve been accustomed to being in uniform. It’s your family and your home. You are well and truly a member of a large and important organization. You’ve had your duty to do, you have been indoctrinated and you’ve been comfortable in that. For many people, it’s their identity, or forms a part of their identity, and we respect that. To have that removed from you before you’re prepared, when it’s not your choice, that’s difficult and I recognize that.
The other part is on the practical plane. Have you had ample opportunity to prepare to get a second job? If you are injured, are you able to see to your livelihood? If you are disabled and unable to work, do you have the continuation of income that allows you to take care of yourself and your family? There are these practical aspects of where will you move and what you are going to do and so on, and all of that on those two sides comes to bear, and I respect that.
The idea of professionalizing transition is to support all three of those categories — that is, those people who are well set and ready to go — and to make certain that everything is in place for a successful transition or for a return to the system, either to Veterans Affairs or the Armed Forces. Should something happen to you, even if you transitioned out on our own accord, happy, healthy and ready to go, we have found that some things manifest later.
For the other two, we have a number of policies in place right now that do help. Ultimately, however, they are not necessarily the best for every person. For example, on a medical limitation, we have a process that we use very liberally that allows someone to be what we call accommodated. That is, it allows someone to continue to serve for three years so that they are not denied their paycheque or their livelihood. They are still able to add value to the organization they’re in but at the same time, they must be set on a path to transition.
I believe in the past that that has not occurred. That is, they haven’t been properly guided from that point to recognize actively that their new mission is a successful transition in this three-year period. Whether that’s retraining, education, taking advantage of the various benefits, and so on, that would be available to them, I acknowledge lots of work is being done in this space by Veterans Affairs. While they’re serving they need to take full advantage of all the support that they can get to ensure that they can make the transition, are competitive for a new livelihood and are competitive and satisfied in their workplace, even though they may not want to retire but they are practically able to transition out.
Senator, I think that psychological aspect of separation from the Armed Forces is something that will be somewhat mitigated if you are properly supported and you find new purpose somewhere else. One of the greatest complaints or concerns by people who suffer potentially mentally, physically or otherwise is that this life in uniform is full of purpose. Every single day you are completely and utterly involved in the defence of Canada. You are, by definition, full of purpose. A sudden separation, even if it’s a three-year “sudden,” without adequate preparation, leaves you absent that purpose that has been the driving force in your life for so long.
Finding employment, transitioning into new employment, finding a path that is right for you for education, or vocational rehab, or whatever support you need so that you can go on and find new purpose, is what this professionalization of our transition services and closing the seams with VAC are all about.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: I would like to go back to those who leave the service as a result of an injury or permanent disability. It has been said that in some cases they have to routinely redo the process of proving their disability. So they have to prove that they are still disabled or that they still have an impairment. Could you explain that in more detail? There seems to be some confusion, because when people get injured, they have to have their situation reassessed. Are you aware of that? Could you tell us what happens in those specific cases?
[English]
Gen. Vance: I think this question is best directed at Veterans Affairs.
I’m not administering a system that has that. However, if someone is undergoing or has long-term disability from SISIP, then the nature of their injury is less an issue. It is whether or not they are able to work in the Armed Forces any further. It’s an insurance program. That’s what I manage. I think that question in its nuance, which is an important nuance, is best directed at Veterans Affairs.
I will tell you, though, that it is understandable. I’ve spoken with colleagues and soldiers that I respect who are in this situation where it seems rather odd that you have to prove an obvious injury that still exists. I understand that and I understand how painful and maybe even silly that may seem.
At the same time, not everyone that is disabled has an obvious physical disfigurement or are disabled physically. Some of it is mental and some of these mental injuries change over time. Sometimes they get worse and sometimes they get better, so your level of disability can change.
It is I think incumbent upon any sensitive system not to make you prove that you’re still disabled but to ensure that there is regular contact with you such that if there is a material change in your condition, either for better or worse, the system is responsive to you. This may not be obvious or even sensitive to those suffering from a dramatic physical injury that is plainly obvious and will not change ever, but it may be very germane to someone suffering an injury that you can recover from or one where you might find yourself getting worse. I’m not trying to defend it. I’m just saying that, generally speaking, these policies are not done to harm people deliberately or to confuse or baffle them. They’re done for a reason.
That said, I think that all of the people working on this matter of effective transition, closing those gaps and seams — and I know on the Veterans Affairs side tremendous work is being done to make sure no one gets lost in the process and everyone is managed well with a guided support system — is intending to reduce the complexity, the challenges of paperwork and the obvious inefficiency of asking someone who has lost a limb if the limb is still lost. I think that common sense approach will prevail while at the same time making sure we maintain contact with individuals so that we know if there is a material change in their life for better or for worse.
Senator Wallin: Thank you and welcome. I’m glad that you’re here. My experience with you is on the ground in Afghanistan, where you were commander twice. I know that you care about the men and women. Is there a time frame in your mind, now that you’re the boss, to get this done? I want to come back and ask about a couple of specifics, but when is this going to be if not fixed, at least changed in terms of structure?
Gen. Vance: Last week is when I would like to have had it done. All kidding aside, I am very enthusiastic about all that we think we can get done.
I have control of some of it. I don’t have control of all of it, senator. I think there are a whole range of issues about how to attract and retain a more diverse work force that will have an impact on human resource management policies, government-wide, let alone those that are in the Armed Forces. I can, though, put in place a more effective system, and it’s my job to administer those people in the Armed Forces effectively. In fact, it’s fundamental to my role. I recognize this and have recognized it for some time but certainly was seized of it almost immediately upon taking command.
What I have been working on since then is to ensure that the system that we have right now — because I’m dealing with people now; it’s not all into the future — we reinforce the JPSU. I put a general officer in charge of that organization.
I have changed as many of the policies as I can at this juncture, including the ability to promote someone despite having a medical limitation. I think that is incredibly important, not only removing a barrier to care but also to recognize someone for their value and reward them for what they’ve done. In ensuring that chief military personnel does not release someone before they’re ready, I fully acknowledge that the definition of “ready” sometimes is different. There may be a difference of opinion between what we think as an institution and what the individual concerned thinks. We try to do our very best. A range of things have been done to try and improve the system we have now.
I can’t put a precise timeline on it, as much as I’d like to. I can tell you that as part of the defence policy review we have looked at all of this, and the implementation of defence policy and the implementation of those things I have already put in place as extant policy will happen as quickly as possible.
My intent would be to see a transition organization stood up as quickly as possible. That said, I want to make certain we don’t stand up a shallow photo op. It has to be real, and so I have to re-establish a branch of the Armed Forces that has become defunct, the personnel administration branch. I have to put the resources where they need to go.
There will be some further internal policy changes. I’m not making excuses. Believe me, I will push this as fast as I possibly can, and we are, as they say, working on it now.
Senator Wallin: I have two related points, just so I’m clear. With re-standing up, if that would be the way to put it, the personnel administration branch, does that mean JPSU is amalgamated into that, or are you using the JPSU model to deal with everyone and not just those medically impacted?
Gen. Vance: My intent will be to recommend disbandment of the JPSU and the re-establishment of or establishment of a new organization that has the resources and the policy base and flexibility to adequately deal on a personal, individualized level across the Armed Forces, so I have to put people on it.
Senator Wallin: That’s great. When we heard from the Veterans Affairs ombudsman, he quoted a young man, an outgoing CF member:
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 think this is what you’re talking about. You need a cultural change inside so your release and retirement is as professionally handled as the recruitment.
Can you just do this internally; or do you really have to reach out to the outside world, the civilian world, the corporate world, the business world, the medical world to be part of this process in a very direct way?
Gen. Vance: Thank you, senator. That’s a great question. I’d like to have an active role in that transition period, helping them find new purpose. Some will have found it on their own. Others may need more support. There were lots of folks who were in that unique place of never really being a civilian adult. The vast majority — remember the numbers are very high — of people are very successful coming out of a military career and are well-positioned to do lots of things.
So most people adjust pretty well, but some don’t. Not all do. I don’t want to take any chances, so I want to put them through a process where their mission is to transition successfully. In achieving that mission, I would like there to be support for transition into new purpose. Now, that new purpose may be employment. That new purpose may be volunteer work. That new purpose may be something completely different, but nonetheless, whatever suits their fancy, whatever they think is best for them. Most of the time it’s employment.
It is very important that all manner of support to veterans, whether it be privileged hiring into the public service, the various and important volunteer and philanthropic organizations that support veteran transition, trying to help them find jobs, be somewhat professionalized. Veterans Affairs has an intent to look at this, as do we, and as we consider that aspect of closing the seams, we should think less of this and more of this, more of an overlap. In that transition period, you’re a client of this guided support process with an awful lot of support from Veterans Affairs while still serving in uniform to make certain that everything you need you get.
Whether I do it or the minister does it or the Minister of Veterans Affairs or the Deputy Minister of Veterans Affairs, we all have a desire that the Canadian population, industry, academia, anyone who would employ a veteran, would recognize the value, the latent incredible skill sets that exist in someone who has had a military career but that’s all they had. There are a lot of transferable skills, but there are a lot of intangibles — leadership, dedication, loyalty — that transition nicely to new organizations. Ultimately it’s about finding purpose, and for some it will take some time to find that purpose.
As an example, we have a policy in place right now that says within one year of retiring is when you can select your final place of residence. That’s problematic because very few people, but particularly those who are ill and injured, have had the ability to do the right sort of horizon scanning, the transition, what are you going to do, what’s your job going to be. Some people retire with a prohibition, a cooling-off period so you cannot possibly find employment, and that employment may take you somewhere else that you have to move to and you may very well be outside of that year-long period.
Policies like that I think can change. We need to do the expert staff work, provide the advice, make certain that we’ve got the resources and all of that, but nonetheless we’re looking at everything, and we’re doing a complete review of all of the compensation benefit packages to ensure that there is a transition lens put on.
Senator White: Thanks, general, for being here. A couple of pieces around that end-of-career next movement piece for members of the military moving on into the veteran pieces. There is a financial reality that hits many of them. I know a number of organizations have done things like DROP programs, a Deferred Retirement Option Plan where they go to a 60 per cent workweek and allow the employee to collect their pension earlier.
In California when they were having a loss of high-end policing, for example, and difficulty recruiting, which probably meets where you are now in many ways, they were successful at keeping people for four or five years but also allowing them a soft transition into the reality of life.
The second piece, which is slightly connected, is whether you have given consideration to some of the models in Australia with the home loan schemes for retirees, to allow them, again as they retire, to not face the reality for many of not even having the 10 per cent down payment for a home. Are either of those something you’re considering?
Gen. Vance: Thank you for your question, senator. I think the best way to answer that is for us everything is on the table. I don’t know if that satisfies you, but the best way to approach this is I want to make certain that we have the policy base and capacity to answer for the needs of an individual, the needs of that particular person.
Some of the policy bases underpinning deferred retirement, home loans and so on are things I would have to work out within a wider whole-of-government approach as to how we would support those people leaving the Armed Forces as they become veterans.
I’m not going to dismiss any good idea. I’ve heard of those ideas. I’ve spoken with chiefs of defence, our allies. We’re looking for all good ideas. As we then have a menu of policy-compliant useful things we can do, then we can apply those to the individual as befits their stated needs. And if they don’t fit, we need to build the agility to determine that they are unique; they have this particular issue, and we have the policy flexibility and authority to make the necessary adjustments to make certain that it’s individualized.
There are a range of things that we’ll have to examine from retirement age to how much pension one can accrue. If we’re going to keep people longer, do we stay just at 70 per cent pension? Do you augment things? These are not entirely within my control, but I think that what we’d like to do is have a range of these really great ideas that may or may not apply to an individual and then be able to apply them.
Senator White: Thank you very much for that, general. I appreciate you being here.
On the retirement bubble, where are you now when it comes to a percentage of people who are pensionable in the next five years, for example? What percentage of your staff?
Gen. Vance: I don’t know. I’ll have to get back to you on that. There is an inexactness to it. I will have to do a bit of a survey, because in the next five years, there will be 54-year-olds who will apply for CRA 60, and I don’t know if they’re going to do that or not. I can probably judge it and give you a pretty quick answer on who is at the age of 55 or approaching the age of 55, but it has become a bit more difficult to forecast because we are allowing people, and in some cases encouraging people, to serve beyond 55.
But if you’re at 35 years of service, then you are no longer accruing pension, so it’s something that we will have to look at.
Senator White: Thank you very much, general. Thanks again for being here. You are doing a great job.
The Chair: General, I have a few questions. In your 2015-16 performance report, there were several programs of particular interest to me. The first one is the enhanced transition service program. As you know, it involves coordination between case managers from the Canadian Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs to see to it that everything is in place before members left or to make sure that administrative things were in place.
We have been hearing here and also anecdotally when we speak to veterans that when they leave — and you have addressed this in your opening remarks as well — the services they were entitled to, like pensions, were not in place. Now, you have said that you have put some things in place, so we have to give that a chance.
The second is a program that is the Canadian Armed Forces enhanced career transition service program. This program, as you know, is partnering with external agencies and departing members to have more opportunities. I don’t know if you are the right person, but I would really like to see how proactive federal services are in encouraging veterans to participate. For example, we were told that sometimes people have to leave the forces because they are not deployable because they have suffered, but those people can be accommodated in the federal service. So I’d like to hear from you about these programs that you have set up. Where are we now?
Gen. Vance: Thank you for your question. In terms of enhanced transition, this is all part and parcel of what the chief of military personnel has put in place to ensure we don’t release someone before they are ready. Now, there are times when it doesn’t work out as well as I’d like. They are few and far between. Very often, they become somewhat celebrated, but they are almost individual cases now.
The vast majority of people transition successfully, but I’m not certain enough, and that’s why I want to professionalize it. I don’t want there to be room for variations across the country. You may get great service coming out of Base A and not so great service coming out of Base B. I need to make certain that it’s even and level across the country for everyone.
I had addressed the pension issue. Some pensions are incredibly complex and you are required as an individual to participate in that process by putting in the correct paperwork that describes your service and also that that paperwork is backed up by all of the information that supports what you are going to get as a pension.
We have pay systems that make it incredibly difficult. If you have broken service where you have reserve service and then regular force service and then back to reserve service or different types of reserve service, it is incredibly difficult to determine in a timely way, with all of the proof, what your pension ought to be.
So we have had situations where people haven’t gotten their pensions for a long period of time. I think one of the ways to address this is to acknowledge that the individual has at least some pension and pay them that. If we’re dealing now on the margins of what else they would get, maybe that follows.
I’m not an actuary, and I think there is a lot of work to be done here. My preference would be that we retain them in uniform at full pay until such time as all of that work is done, that we know with a great degree of confidence what it is that their pension will be.
As it relates to career transition services, I think there is a very active, important dialogue going on in this country about hiring veterans. I’m grateful for it. I think there are companies and governments, both municipal and provincial, that have taken this on. As a sort of situation report to you, I would say it continues to need energy and leadership. I would like to see veterans being offered the opportunity, privileged, because as Senator Wallin mentioned, many are entering the civilian workforce for the very first time and therefore may not be as adept at getting the job but at the same time have so much value to add to an organization.
I think across the country, when faced with the questions “Would you hire a veteran?” or “Do you have a veteran’s hiring process?” I think many people are seized of it, but I think it needs to be further operationalized and become an issue for employers and governments to pay attention to.
And I would say the same thing for families. Military families often undergo the same stressors, save for deployments, but they have different stressors during deployment than the member does. So they too may experience that moment where they’re no longer in the same city they’ve been living in for their whole lives and now have to move and find employment or have to transition with their partner to post-service life, with all of the stresses that accompany that plus finding a job.
So I think I would like Canada — and I’m grateful for your interest in this — to be actively pursuing the hiring of veterans and looking after families and spouses.
The Chair: I believe that we all have a responsibility. One of the things we’ve been hearing that is really troubling me is the issue of someone who has to leave as a result of getting hurt on the job. Correct me if I’m wrong, but they have this big file from the Surgeon General or whatever the name in the army is; they have all this information about them. But when they stop and become veterans, they have to be reassessed.
I have asked this question in the last few hearings. They say it’s an issue of governance. From an outsider’s point of view, why can’t that file just be transferred? Why does the person have to go through all the tests again? I’ll give you my theory for it, and I hope you will say I’m wrong: When they’re in the army and they’re hurt, they’re being treated. But when they leave the army and they become veterans, they’re being assessed. How much do we have to give them? The lens changes, and when that happens, then the kind of service changes. That’s my theory on it, and I’m hoping somebody will prove me wrong.
Why can’t it be a seamless service? Why can’t the same person treat them? Maybe not because they’ve left the city, but why do they have to reassess and do their tests again?
Gen. Vance: Thank you for the question, Madam Chair. I agree with you. I’ll try to explain some of it. I note that the ombudsman has also commented on this.
The Chair: Yes, he did. I don’t mean to interrupt you, but if I’m not mistaken he said it’s an issue of governance. Maybe you can expand on that.
Gen. Vance: It is in part an issue of governance. I think it’s fair to say that nobody in a senior position anywhere in Veterans Affairs or the Armed Forces deliberately sets out to make it hard on people. If it was easy to solve, it would have been solved a very long time ago. We get lots of criticism, and some of it is probably deserved, but there are complexities here that are legitimate complexities. I’ll give you an example.
Most people leave the Armed Forces healthy, the vast majority, and symptoms manifest after they leave the Armed Forces and then they need VAC benefits and services after the fact. I think the number is as high as 75 per cent of VAC clientele manifest after the member has left the Armed Forces.
With that as a framework, it doesn’t matter what the Surgeon General says on the military medical file. They will have experienced something now inside their life as a civilian that may be a function of their military service, it could be service-related, but they’re not seeing their military medical doctor anymore. So if we fix just one part of it and ignore the other part, we’re actually ignoring the vast majority of people.
So what we’re saying here, and I agree with you, is harmonization, the veteran-centric approach. We’ve done some things on this. Those medical boards have active Veterans Affairs participation in them now that is not a surprise to Veterans Affairs. It’s not a cold start to Veterans Affairs when a person leaves the Armed Forces under medical restrictions with a requirement for disability or their earnings in place and so on, ELB, Earnings Loss Benefit. So what we have done to this extent is tried to close the seam as much as possible, but it’s not completely closed.
The Surgeon General is a medical jurisdiction. He’s like a provincial medical system. Even amongst medical systems in Canada, there is not the smoothest transition and sharing of medical information. So it’s not just governance. There are laws, regulations and the role of the Surgeon General in this is key.
That said, if as a result of your transition you are effectively transitioned with a veteran-centric approach, where the Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs are collaborating all the way through and at that point of taking that uniform off, then those people that need veterans benefits, that should be all sewn up; it should be done before you leave. Those who retire healthy but need to come back into the system, there will be a transition file and it will be easy for Veterans Affairs to acquaint themselves to that person.
We also have to make certain that those who have retired healthy and who need to come back into the system because of a latent, unknown or newly manifesting condition are recognized. Their service record is there and any medical treatment they’ve received before is there. They’re not an unknown entity.
I think I’ve answered your question. It’s in part governance. Our desire is to close the seams, conduct effective transition, and ensure that private medical knowledge about that individual is used to best effect to help them. There are differences in the system. Some of this is fundamental to how we’re going to proceed, and not all decisions have been taken yet on how we will proceed. In fact, we are in the process of determining how best to make this a veteran-centric approach. What is the trigger that causes the veteran to be supported with Earnings Loss Benefit or with insurance? Is it that you can no longer work in the Armed Forces? Because you’re right, the system that we have in the Armed Forces is triggered when you can no longer work in the Armed Forces, and it doesn’t matter why. If you can’t work anymore, then your insurance program kicks in, because it’s insurance and you pay premiums.
Calling it a challenge function is probably too strong today because I think there’s a very compassionate way that Veterans Affairs is doing this, but there is a function to determine: Is this a service-related injury or not for a retired individual? Did this happen as a result of service? Because that triggers a level of and certain types of benefits. Or did this happen for other reasons?
When you have to make that judgment, you’re making a different judgment than I have to make or my organization has to make, which is quite binary: Can you serve or not?
Madam Chair, right now we are dealing with all of this and developing options to consider going forward to try to make it the best possible system that is veteran-centric, makes sense, is efficient and effective.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: I have one last question for you, General Vance. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I had the impression that, when you leave the Canadian Armed Forces, the reserve can be a refuge, that is, a person can leave the regular army to serve in the reserve. That could be a solution. Can you tell me why the reserve has lost the place it used to have? I know it is hard to find reservists. Can the reserve still provide a solution when a soldier wants to leave the regular forces?
Gen. Vance: Thank you, senator.
[English]
First, I don’t want to be argumentative. The reserve is not a refuge. The reserve is a place where we want high-functioning, valuable people who are part of the defence of Canada in our obligations. But I don’t think you meant it that way. Is it a place where people can turn to for employment? They can, provided there is room in the unit, that they have the right skill sets, that they are fit and ready to serve, they can do a component transfer out of the regular force into the reserve, but it’s too hard, too complex.
As I said in my opening comments, I would like to make that far more porous in terms of transition.
If you retire from the Armed Forces, sever from the Armed Forces, regular force, and then go to re-sign up in the reserve because you want to maintain some identity with the military, you’d like to work part-time, you have something else going on in your life and you’d like to devote part-time work to it, you can do that. But it’s too complex. It is Byzantine in terms of the process to go through. I want to make that very easy.
I don’t want the reserve to become a place where, if you’re no longer fit to serve in the regular force, you can simply step down into reserves. That’s not what the reserve is for. The reserve needs to produce capability, and we want to fund and equip them adequately to do that job.
There should be opportunities for someone to go from the regular force into the reserve and back into the regular force if they want to be stable for a while or if they want to do that particular job for a while or want to specialize somewhere. We need to be able to do that and make it absolutely simple.
If you are injured in the Armed Forces or you would not qualify for recruitment and service in the regular force, some people see the Reserve Force as a place where they can go. We need to be very careful about that. We need to resist seeing the reserve as a place where you go if you can’t serve in the regular force. It’s a function of the time you can dedicate to it, which defines that part-time citizen soldier we so hugely value.
One of the things that I’m undertaking is, where someone is injured, to look at going beyond a three-year accommodation policy. Are there jobs in the Armed Forces where they could stay and finish their career but not be deployable? Is that possible? I’m being very candid with you. It’s a very difficult thing to do, because Canadians want — and I need — to have an Armed Forces that will be deployable and available in crisis and conflict. If we have an Armed Forces made up of those who can and cannot deploy, then it makes it that much more difficult: only some of the people are deploying all of the time, other people are not deploying at all, only a part of the force is experiencing all the stress of deployments and all of those transitions and that unrestricted lifestyle, where others are not. That starts to become unfair to those who need to be able to rotate jobs that are somewhat more static. So we have to be careful here.
That said, I am looking at it. I look forward to providing advice to my minister and to the government as we go forward on how best to manage this.
I’ll tell you why. Someone with an injury but still capable of performing in a role and even — people call them office jobs. There are no office jobs in the Armed Forces. Everybody is subject to call, but day to day, you might go to the office.
The fact is we have invested so much in that person. We’ve given them that identity. We’ve given them leadership and technical skills where they may be able to offer something of incredible value in continued service to the Armed Forces if they want to and it works for us.
Ultimately, it’s service before self. We have to be able to do the job that the country demands of us before we look after ourselves. It’s fundamental to who we are. Sometimes people lose sight of that. Nonetheless, I think there is opportunity here.
I know it’s a long answer, but I would just say one other thing. At some point, those individuals will have to transition out of uniform. We all do. We all have to transition eventually. I want to make certain that if someone has a legitimate career path that goes from regular force to reserve in terms of time spent and then retirement and then do something else, I don’t see that as a bad thing. I think that may be a valuable way for some people to reduce the amount of regular-force time they’re spending and more reserve time. They can devote more time to other things.
We’ll have to look at conditions of service and the financial aspects around this. You cannot retire from the Armed Forces and collect your full pension and serve in the Reserve Force and collect your full paycheque. It’s called double-dipping. It used to be done; it’s not done so much anymore.
Senator Wallin: To that very point, I met a young woman who was a pilot. She had some hearing loss. She’s perfectly deployable, except as a pilot, but there are many other jobs she could do on that front. So there are a lot of people.
The Morale and Welfare Services, where does that fit in your new system?
Gen. Vance: The Director General of Morale and Welfare Services reports to me directly on my non-public fund responsibilities and reports through the Chief of Military Personnel as Director General of Military Family Services, DGMFS.
Morale and welfare services are critical. It’s a very old system. It’s been around since the First World War, where demobilized soldiers and their families needed support. It’s done through public and non-public support.
It is a vibrant, active part of what we do in the Armed Forces: everything from providing families recreation and family services to offering opportunities for youth. It’s an incredibly important part of what we do.
I’ve expressed this thought at the CDA conference, where we need to reinforce that in a fairly significant way. As we look at support to families, we are an organization that used to be housed on bases, quite contained from the Canadian population. We had our own police force, shopping centres and whatnot. You lived a somewhat subsidized life. That’s gone away. We’re now largely out in the economy.
In doing that, we lost a little bit of the care for the community that can come from being contained on a base, having a level of service standard that was more or less the same across the country and overseas. That sort of certainty of quality of life, that regular existence that could occur no matter where you were, that’s gone away. You can still live on base in some areas, but you buy a house, and you’re subject to the market volatility. There may or may not be the services, the education, a doctor and all the rest for you.
Morale and Welfare Services and Family Services are going to become increasingly important as we try to provide that almost sort of virtual base for people to connect to, whether it’s the Family Resource Centre or the services that are provided from DGMFS that help you adjust, transition between moves and make certain that you can settle into your community. They have a role to play in all of that. While you’re posted somewhere, your quality of life is as high as it can be given that you’ve been transient.
Senator Wallin: I’m asking because the families have to transition out as well, not just the CF member.
Gen. Vance: I couldn’t agree with you more. In fact, it’s true that all of the transitions that a military member undertakes during their service is amplified into the family, from changing schools to changing neighbourhoods, friends and jobs. All of that has to change for the family, yet the member experiences that everything is more or less taken care of. You’re going to a new job, it’s all done. So I would say it’s harder on families.
Then that final transition, that family may be in a place they never expected to be. They haven’t decided to move somewhere different at that time or the time available to them, and there they are; they’re stuck somewhere. They need a huge amount of attention at this juncture — everything from finding meaningful employment for the member and the spouse, to finding medical support or a family doctor, or what have you.
My aspiration here is that part of that transition support is that the family has been well counselled and supported as they’re about to experience this significant change in their life. There has to be support for the family, too; I couldn’t agree more.
Senator Wallin: Do you put it into the personnel administration branch or does it stay separate?
Gen. Vance: The professional transition services will be done by the transition unit.
I would like to see the range of benefits. There’s a pilot project going on right now for veterans to access our MFRCs. I think it should be a matter of course that veterans have access to our MFRCs, recreational programs and all the rest. I would like to see that. I see no reason to bar them from it, other than making sure we have the resources to be able to handle that.
We are a community in Canada of a million people, if you think of all the people connected to the forces in one way or another. We do not have a military family support structure through our MFRCs or otherwise that could support a million people. So we have to look at this in terms of resources, what programs are needed and how to create that sense of community, which is really important.
Senator Wallin: I want to follow up. This is kind of a different topic, but the CF Ombudsman has, as I’m sure you know, called for a permanent independent office of the ombudsman that would report to Parliament rather than through the minister and, more often, the DM, who are the people whose work he’s assessing and of whom he may be critical. I can certainly understand why the ministers don’t really embrace this idea enthusiastically, because it does mean this stuff would become public fodder. All of the negative stories tend to get more ink than the positive stories.
Do you see, however, any benefit in their being independent officers of Parliament, reporting to Parliament rather than to the minister?
Gen. Vance: This is very far outside my lane, and I am really not qualified to comment on it.
I can tell you that I have experienced a tremendous, positive working relationship with the ombudsman. Many of the things we have been working on successfully have become subjects of their reports. Therefore I am, by definition, supportive of it. Everything I’ve just described to you in terms of transition — I’ve been working on this before the reports came out. So I am, of course, delighted to see the attention paid.
Sometimes I have a different opinion on how to execute a plan, as is my right and our right in defence and the Armed Forces, to look at all aspects of how we put something into practice. But I absolutely welcome the comments and recommendations by the ombudsman. I’ve seen no instance that I can think of where I have had a vastly different opinion about the nature of the problem. There are some nuances and differences sometimes — but rarely — in what the solution looks like. For instance, one of the ombudsman’s reports was that the Surgeon General should be the decider on whether something is a service- or non-service-related injury. That’s the ombudsman commenting on how to solve a problem, not what the problem is, then putting the problem before those who are qualified to make a full analysis of how one might solve that problem. But I have no issue whatsoever with the fact that there’s a problem.
In that case, it’s as I described to you. It doesn’t matter what the Surgeon General does if 75 per cent of the people who are coming to VAC are doing so after they’ve served. It would solve part of the problem part of the time but not the whole thing.
If we’re going to solve something and be fair to everybody, we have to look wider.
There is broad agreement, at least from me, that what the ombudsman has recommended in his reports in terms of identifying a problem. I see very little daylight there between us.
At this juncture, I’m not commenting whatsoever on his status. I think it’s working fine the way it is.
Senator Wallin: Understood. Thank you.
The Chair: One issue that was brought up is that if a person joins the service, they can go to an online portal and get everything — all the issues they have, have face-to-face contact online — it’s all on one portal.
But this is not the case for veterans. The veterans ombudsman told us there are multiple layers and separate organizations. Currently, there are 15 different organizations involved in members’ transition process, each with their own accountability framework, mandates and processes. I don’t expect you to comment on that, but perhaps when you’re looking at professionalizing both entering and leaving, maybe you can look at the online portal.
General, I want to say to you that last Sunday, Senator White and I were at the memorial service at Vimy. We were both there, and it was a very touching moment. I could not help but think that we are in very rough times at the moment, and you have a lot on your shoulders with what may come.
But, through you, to convey on behalf of our committee and on behalf of the Senate, please convey to your men and women that we respect what they do, we have confidence in what they do and we certainly are worried about their safety as well.
Thank you very much for all the work that you and your men and women do on behalf of Canada.
(The committee adjourned.)