Proceedings of the Subcommittee on
Veterans Affairs
Issue 3 - Evidence - March 26, 2014
OTTAWA, Wednesday, March 26, 2014
The Senate Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met this day at 12:06 p.m. to continue its study on the services and benefits provided to members of the Canadian Forces; to veterans; to members and former members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and their families.
Senator Roméo Antonius Dallaire (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Welcome to the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence.
Today we welcome the Honourable Julian Fantino, Member of Parliament and Minister of Veterans Affairs. He is accompanied by Mary Chaput, Deputy Minister.
[English]
We also have Lieutenant-General Walter Semianiw, Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy, Communications and Commemoration.
Welcome to your team.
This meeting is in the context of us looking at how VAC is meeting the requirements of the veterans of Canada. As such, we are in our normal duties of study and legislation, and we have been looking forward to when we could have the minister before us.
I have got to tell you, sir, that it has been a hell of a long time since we've had a minister in front of us, so welcome. It is most appreciated. I believe you have an opening statement and then we will go to questions.
Hon. Julian Fantino, P.C., M.P., Minister of Veterans Affairs: I do, senator. Thanks to you and your colleagues here for giving me and the folks at Veterans Affairs Canada an opportunity to come before you. I'm grateful for that and it is a pleasure, indeed.
It is truly a humbling privilege and a great responsible to serve the men and women and their families who have served our country at home and abroad. As stated, I appreciate this opportunity to meet with you and talk about Canada's efforts to care for and support veterans and their families.
Before I go any further, I would like to introduce a few other members of the team that are here with me. You have alluded to our deputy minister, Ms. Chaput, and the general. We also have Michel Doiron, Assistant Deputy Minister, Service Delivery and Glynnis French, Assistant Deputy Minister, Human Resources and Corporate Services. I feel that it's important for them to know what goes on within their own shop and beyond, and this is a great opportunity for all of us to be here.
Together we are also here to answer any questions that you may have. While the main focus of today's meeting is the New Veterans Charter, I hope you will permit me to briefly address a few other timely issues in my opening remarks.
To start, I want to thank your committee for its excellent report last year on the New Veterans Charter, and the meetings that you and other members of the committee have had with all of us around this very issue. You have performed an invaluable service with your thoughtful and balanced assessment of veterans programming in our country. In fact, I want to quote from the introduction because it really does help to put everything into perspective. You wrote:
To begin, the Subcommittee wishes to recognize that the overwhelming majority of VAC clients are being served well and are satisfied with the support being provided.
I think it is worth remembering, especially given recent media reports that dwell mostly on complaints and concerns some veterans have — I am the first to admit that there is always room for improvement, and that is our focus — that we do often hear in private of the deep gratitude many veterans feel for the services that they have been provided by Veterans Affairs.
At this point, I want to thank the almost 3,000 people that work at Veterans Affairs Canada for their dedication, commitment and loyalty to the program and in service of our veterans and their families. They are the people in the trenches. They are doing the heavy lifting and doing the best they can. However, as I stated, there is always room for improvement.
I have a number of examples here, but I picked a couple that reflect the positive response we're getting from veterans. On March 4, I received a letter from a veteran who described the many disabilities they cope with due to their service. The letter went on to thank Veterans Affairs writing that, "I want to thank them for their kind support and genuine concern to ensure all is well."
I received another letter thanking Veterans Affairs staff for handling "a matter of some complexity. The inquiry was handled so effectively and promptly by Veterans Affairs. I am grateful." And there are many more.
While media will often focus on negative stories, I believe it is important to not forget the diligent work of so many who work to serve the veterans who served us for many years. Overall, as you have found, Canadians can be proud of what their country is doing for our men and women in uniform, past and present, and hopefully in the future.
The government will issue a formal response to your report shortly, but I can tell you that we appreciate what you have done. In fact, as you have likely noticed, we've already acted on a number of your recommendations. For example, you suggested that the Government of Canada look at providing greater access for veterans who want to start new careers in the federal public service. I'm pleased to say that we have legislation before the house that will make it easier for honourably released veterans and still-serving members of the Canadian Armed Forces to start rewarding new careers in the federal public service. I encourage you to take an early look at this legislation and convey to me your comments or concerns so we can move this along quicker.
I believe veterans should be moved to the front of the line if they have been injured in the service to Canada, but only if they are qualified for the position to begin with. I also believe veterans who have been honourably discharged after three years of service should have a priority above average Canadians when applying for positions in the public service. Again, I believe only those who are qualified should ultimately get the post or those positions.
My officials have been working directly with some veterans' organizations, and I can tell you I am working more and more with reputable organizations or those who are committed to helping us help veterans to help their families to achieve a greater quality of life.
A great example is our new partnership with the Royal Canadian Legion called the Long-Term Care Outreach and Visitation Initiative, which is making use of the Legion's national network of volunteers to visit thousands of veterans who are receiving assistance from our government for their long-term care. Through these visits, which are being conducted by trained and qualified volunteers, veterans have an opportunity to raise any concerns or identify any needs that they may have or simply have access to a helpful listener.
Some of the other issues you raised in your report include: Canada's social contract with its men and women in uniform; financial supports for seriously injured veterans; and support for veterans' families. Again, I'm pleased to say that we are taking action on all of these points.
When I appeared before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs on November 19, I stated that the New Veterans Charter is, in fact, a new social contract between the people of Canada and our veterans, both past and present. I reaffirm this commitment today. In fact, I asked my parliamentary secretary to ensure that these very issues are studied as part of the parliamentary comprehensive review of the New Veterans Charter. We want to make sure that we are providing the right care and support at the right time, and we want the legislative review to go beyond the enhancements of the New Veterans Charter, which significantly improved financial benefits and payment options for seriously injured veterans.
I believe the review by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs is the appropriate forum for all Canadians to participate in an open and frank discussion about veterans' programming, and I am proud to have made my own formal presentation to that very committee.
Specifically, I asked them to look at what more we should be doing to support seriously injured veterans; what more we could be doing to support veterans' families; how we can improve the way my department delivers its vital benefits and programs; improving communications and providing information about services to veterans and to all Canadians; how we can address the issue of homeless veterans; and studying the benefits of service dogs. This is just to name a few examples of our focus going forward.
I also asked the committee to recommend how we as a nation should be stating our commitment to current and future veterans. This is in keeping with the tradition of having such language at the forefront of the legislation so that the intent and indeed our commitment to Canadian veterans is abundantly clear, well understood and unequivocal about our commitment to support of veterans and their families.
Having said all of this, I think it is worth pausing to reflect on the fundamental question, and that is whether or not the New Veterans Charter has proven to be a real improvement over the Pension Act. We need to sort that out because of perceptions that do exist. I am sure it won't surprise any of you, but I believe the answer is a resounding, "We need to do this," because it offers a truly holistic approach to supporting the successful transition to civilian life of veterans and their families. Veterans' organizations have taken great pains to note the areas for improvement, but few if any have called for outright abolishment of the New Veterans Charter.
As this simple fact implies, and your own report concluded, we have to make improvements, but pound for pound, dollar for dollar, this new system — the New Veterans Charter — provides far more benefits to veterans in the areas where they need it most: transition, retraining and rehabilitation.
With that, I look forward to your comments and questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister. As I have been derelict in my protocol duties, may I take this opportunity to permit my colleagues on the committee to introduce themselves to you, starting with the deputy chair.
Senator Wells: My name is David Wells, and I represent Newfoundland and Labrador as a senator.
Senator Doyle: I am Norman Doyle, and I represent Newfoundland and Labrador as a senator. I'm not a member of the committee, but I'm sitting in for the senator when he has to leave in a few minutes.
Senator Day: I am from the Atlantic provinces side over here, Joseph Day from New Brunswick.
Senator Lang: Senator, I'll take Northern Canada. Daniel Lang, Yukon.
Senator White: Vernon White, Ontario via Cape Breton Island.
[Translation]
The Chair: And I am from Quebec, so we have covered all the bases.
[English]
Mr. Minister, you will notice that we are on CPAC. We're glad that many veterans watch CPAC, although it's maybe three o'clock in the morning, but many of them are awake at three o'clock in the morning because of that. This is also their committee. They are here, and we are proud that they find value in coming and attending and having the informal discussions also. So thank you for that, and thank you for being present, colleagues and comrades.
I would like to commence the questioning by going to the deputy chair, Senator Wells.
Senator Wells: Welcome, minister. Thank you for appearing. Welcome, deputy. General, thank you for appearing. We appreciate the work that you have done and will continue to do.
Minister, I want to get straight to the point on the New Veterans Charter and the issue of the social contract to the degree you can speak about it. The social contract speaks to obligations. Can you tell us what obligations or what social contract there may be under the charter?
We've spent a lot of time in this committee discussing the New Veterans Charter. It's an important aspect of what we've done over the last couple of months and will continue to do. Can you comment on the social contract aspect, and if you are able to, the obligations under the charter?
Mr. Fantino: Thank you, senator. Let me qualify my response by indicating that as a newcomer to this particular file, I tried in earnest to get my head around what those words actually mean. My interpretation is a simple one. It's one where we are, in fact, striving to achieve the best possible outcome for our veterans, whatever their needs may be, in a way that we help them with their issues, with their support programs and their families. To frame it in the context of very simple language: It's our absolute commitment to ensure that no veteran is left behind and that no family of a veteran is left behind.
In there, of course, come a whole host of programs and services, but as I pointed out in my presentation to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs on November 19 last year, I spoke without getting technically into interpretations. I gave my interpretation. I, therefore, reaffirm my commitment to improve the New Veterans Charter, and to that end, I've asked the parliamentary review to include consultations with Canadians, veterans and experts on exactly what our shared duty, responsibility, mandate, obligation, commitment or contract is with Canadian veterans and how that should be stated in the New Veterans Charter. We hope to flesh that out so we can take language, words, if you will, into actual interpretations about how we then operationalize our obligation and our commitment to veterans and their families.
I obviously want the committee to work on this, not to just say those things without some tangible meaningful language that you can actually do something with. It's sort of ambiguous, and no disrespect to that terminology, but from my point of view, my experience, where I come from, I think we need to do more than just speak words. We need to find ways to actually implement what it is we mean in a way that we can also measure an outcome.
Senator Wells: Obviously, it's very important to fulfill our obligations to our veterans. It's the most important thing your department and our government, in that aspect, has to do and must do.
When we have reviewed a lot of the programs that are available, it struck me that with the number of programs, and not so much the number of veterans — we have young veterans. We have older veterans. We have service people coming out of the armed services with various levels of skill for the civilian workplace. How difficult is it to tailor a general program that can help veterans once they leave the service? There appear to be a lot of programs that seem to hit many aspects. How difficult is it to find the right mix?
Mr. Fantino: It is difficult because we have a demographic of veterans that has changed dramatically, significantly, of course. We've lost all of our World War I veterans, but some of their families are still in need and they're still here. World War II is a different issue — traditional veterans, as we call them.
When you get into some of the other wars and areas where the Canadian Armed Forces have engaged, Korea, most recently Afghanistan, some of the peacekeeping missions, we see that the demographic has changed considerably. The issues have changed considerably. So what Veterans Affairs Canada is trying to do and has been trying to do is to develop programs and services that are customized and tailored to the very specific needs of the veteran and their family regardless of where they may be. Certainly there is a demographic shift in the types of programs that are required going forward today and going forward from what was traditionally the way Veterans Affairs Canada responded to veterans.
Senator Day: Mr. Minister, thank you very much for being here. In the hour that we have, we can't possibly touch on all the points that we're inundated with, requests and special situations from veterans, but I think one of the very important aspects of your work is to say thank you to those veterans and the veterans' families, and you're doing that.
I think that it would be remiss if we didn't give you an opportunity to tell us a bit about the commemorations that are planned for the current period. It's a way of helping those veterans understand that we haven't forgotten their contribution over the years and that it was very much appreciated.
Mr. Fantino: Thank you, senator. You've hit on what I consider to be a very important aspect of our mandate, if you will, the recognition of those who have sacrificed so much on behalf of our country and the free and democratic world. To lose that recognition, that appreciation, is to forget about that sacrifice, so the commemoration piece is very important.
I know that there are different opinions on all of that, but I like to believe that if we are conscientious about recognizing, appreciating and paying tribute to those men and women who have sacrificed so much — over 110,000 that gave up their lives in just the two Great Wars, 158 in Afghanistan, probably 100,000 or more who are injured, all of that can't be forgotten. So part of the programming that we do, senator, is to not only initiate commemorations ourselves, but to help communities who want to commemorate some of the very significant passages in our history that can't be forgotten. That's why, going forward, we have the D-day commemorations coming up.
One of the things we have tried hard to do is to connect our veterans with young people, future generations, so this legacy of sacrifice and contribution is carried forward. So there are a number of commemorations.
We just did one in Cyprus with 10 of our veterans. I never served in the military per se; I served in public service. But to be in the presence of 10 of those veterans who served in that particular situation where Canada actually lost 28 of our own soldiers, to see the degree of reflection on their part about lost friends, the sacrifices they faced at that time and in that place, the emotional situation, we have to pay tribute to those folks.
Going forward, senator, we just did the Year of the Korean War Veteran last year and we have others that we are going to participate in, right up to 2017 with Vimy and so forth.
To put it bluntly, if we forget, if we don't recognize this contribution, if we don't know where we've been, chances are we're not too sure about where we are and we'll be even more confused about where we're going. These are Canadian values, Canadian people and Canadian blood. It can't be forgotten.
The other thing we're doing too, it isn't only about those types of commemoration. Part of our work is to work with the Legions across the land and other communities who either want to restore a cenotaph or find other ways of commemorating the contribution that their local people made in service to country. I just hope that gives you a sense of how important this whole thing is.
By the way, the actual budget that goes towards this is about one-and-change per cent of our total budget.
Senator Day: Thank you. I think this is critically important. I've been involved with this Veterans Affairs Committee for a good number of years. I've had the opportunity to travel with you, minister, and I have seen what you've just expressed: the appreciation and the emotion that a visit like that brings out in a veteran who hasn't been back to the location, like Korea, for 50 years. It's quite amazing.
You did indicate that you felt that the House of Commons Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs is the appropriate committee to do the statutory review of the New Veterans Charter, but I wanted to assure you that this committee is ready, willing and anxious to provide support, advice and hearings. We have a long memory in this particular committee. We've dealt with a lot of veterans' matters over time, and I'm sure I'm speaking for all of my colleagues in indicating that we would be prepared in the future to get involved in any of the issues.
Since I will only have two questions I'm going to make my second one a little bit larger. I'm almost finished now, Mr. Chairman.
We've done some work with respect to the unfairness of Bomber Command, for example, and how they were treated. In relation to a lot of the calls and letters that we get, it's the old Pension Act versus the permanent disability under the New Veterans Charter. The test that's being applied of total and permanent disability seems to be unnecessarily restrictive, whereas veterans in the past have thought in terms of a percentage disability and how that is going to impact on their ability to earn a livelihood after the Armed Forces.
If the House of Commons is dealing with it, that's great. If not, I think it is one of the areas that we really have to focus in on.
Mr. Fantino: Thank you, senator. I have not restricted the mandate of the subcommittee. What I thought would be most important is for us to look at the gaps, the touch points, the aggravating issues, the misunderstanding, the lack of certain benefits that should or should not be in play and how that should be in play. It's an open field, senator. I hope that when we finally do receive the feedback from the committee that we focus on all of those issues and the perceived disparities.
I should add as well, if I may, there's also an issue with the lack of understanding and communication on some of these issues, the fact that we're trying to be better able to get information into the hands of veterans who are directly affected, or their families.
When we look at the New Veterans Charter, obviously so much has happened since then, but I believe that the inventory of benefits that are identified in there appears to be a far better solution than the previous, of course depending on your needs.
Senator, I think we can be comforted in knowing at least that these issues have not fallen on deaf ears. If you or your committee have any input they wish to make to that committee, this is not about politics or power and control. It's about creating a united front to create the best possible environment and support for our veterans and their families. So I would welcome, Mr. Chair, any input this committee could offer to the Commons standing committee. As I said earlier, it's not about politics, picking sides or one-upmanship. It's about getting our collective act together, as appears to have been done, by the way, back in 2005-06 when everyone agreed on the New Veterans Charter and moved the agenda forward.
On the other comment, senator, that you made earlier about the work of this committee, I note as well that part of your order of reference that was enacted way back when — I don't have the exact date here — you still have a couple of items there that I believe you are or will be delving into. One is commemorations as well, so we look forward to that assistance. Any help that we can get, Mr. Chair, we welcome.
The Chair: Mr. Minister, before turning to Senator Lang, I was very disappointed that you didn't give us the mandate to take a look at that charter, but I can understand. Again, I hope you will pass on to the chair of the committee in the house that there are some of us more than willing and have attempted to be witnesses in front of that committee, and I hope that might be considered. Seeing as I'm the one who squired the New Veterans Charter through the Senate in 2005, I'd be quite keen on doing that. At that time the minister in the committee stated that it's a living document and that every six months she, at the time, would come back, one way or another, to the committee to tell us how that document is living. It's an invitation that has not fallen on deaf ears, sir.
Senator Lang: Welcome to our guests and Mr. Minister.
In your opening remarks you went out of your way to state that the Department of Veterans Affairs has been given some kudos with respect to the way they're delivering some of the programs, although there are some areas of improvement. I want to report to you, from three time zones away in Yukon, I had a number of veterans approach me over the recent recess and there was some very high praise for the department and how they promptly replied to a number of requests and the service that was provided. There is some good news out there as well.
I want to go back to an area that concerns me. It was brought up a number of weeks ago in our committee here. I'm a new member of this committee, so I have a lot to learn. We were informed that, on an annual basis, the taxpayers of Canada pay $3.8 billion for Veterans Affairs on an annual basis and that 37 programs are available to veterans in one manner or another. By the time I read this, I was totally confused just exactly how I would go about applying and what I would actually receive at the end of the day.
The purpose of my question is to determine the expectations from your department and from yourself, as the minister. In view of the fact that the house is reviewing the New Veterans Charter, is it your expectation that these programs will be reviewed from the concept of making it simpler and easier for veterans and the department to administer so that the $3.8 billion we're spending, almost $4 billion, goes directly towards veterans and their families as opposed to the bureaucracy?
Mr. Fantino: Thank you, senator. I'm going to answer your question in a global way and then I'm going to ask the deputy to be a little more specific.
I'm absolutely allergic to red tape and unnecessary, unproductive work. This is not a criticism; it's an observation. The current application form for a veteran to enter into Veterans Affairs programming is 18 pages, keeping in mind, of course, that that veteran has already come out of a long and distinguished service in our military. One wonders, where is the disconnect? Then there are firewalls, privacy issues, et cetera.
I just want you to be assured that our focus has been and will continue to be on optimizing our resources to make sure those hard-earned Canadian dollars actually go to sustained support, programming and services to veterans and their families. That's part of our going-forward approach now, but it will be even more profound later. Obviously, we need to do some interface with the Department of National Defence to make things even more efficient. That's part of our programming.
Deputy, could you elaborate a little bit more on the actual programming?
Mary Chaput, Deputy Minister, Veterans Affairs Canada: Sure. Thank you, sir.
In fact, you're entirely correct; there is a significant amount of money associated with the benefits and services accessible for veterans. What I would say first, to give you the good news, is that of the global amount — you've cited 3.8; my numbers are slightly different, a little lower than that — 90 per cent of that flows directly from the department into the hands of veterans and their families. Ten per cent of that is the amount we use to operate the department, including the hospital at Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue, where a number of veterans continue to receive long-term care. That 10/90 per cent split is the existing ratio, but notwithstanding how tight or loose that might be from an operational point of view, there's always room for us to do better.
So what are we using or looking to from the point of view of improving how we operate? Certainly technology is going to be and has already been a big part of the solution. We're moving from a paper-based process to more electronic and online processes and services. That appeals to some veterans but not all. The call or in-person service that we maintain is very important to some of the more elderly veterans.
Other areas we can explore further and where we can generate greater efficiencies are in terms of partnerships with people in departments like National Defence. We have within government a lot of potential partnerships that we have yet to exhaust, and certainly the veterans' organizations are yet another area of partnership, as the minister was saying. Working with Royal Canadian Legion is a long tradition, but the other veterans' organizations are very active with us as well.
In response to your question of whether the parliamentary review of the NVC look at issues like this: very definitely. As the minister has said, he's asked them to focus on the most seriously injured families, as well as the efficiency and effectiveness with which the department operates. That will be a lens that will be applied as each and every issue is looked at. It may not be, as you suggested, sir, program by program, but I think by looking at those that are clustered around the seriously injured and those that are clustered around families, we're going to have a large majority and apply that efficiency lens to them.
Senator Lang: I want to follow up a little further, if I could. The programs I cited here are not strictly through Veterans Affairs Canada. There are other federal departments. When you speak about the 10 per cent, which is just under $400 million to administer the department, there are also administrative costs to all these other programs as well. I don't think we should lose sight of this. Therefore, now we're up to maybe $500 million, maybe $1 billion worth of costs to administer programs throughout the government. It seems to me we should be doing everything to simplify what we're doing.
This leads me to my next question, and that is the question of perhaps changing from a program delivery model to a universal system where the veteran applies for the benefits. Obviously, safeguards are put in place so that if they are abused, the process takes its place in that case. In other words, there's a simple way for applications to be made and a way to police it.
My understanding is that a proposal has been at least on the threshold of being brought forward with respect to changing it from a program style in some cases, where it's applicable, to a universal one, to save on the bureaucracy, to simplify the programs and to make it better for the recipient and for the department, for that matter.
Has that proposal been brought formally to the department's attention? Is it under active consideration, or is this something that the house committee would look at as well?
Ms. Chaput: I'm not aware of a specific proposal that cuts across departmental lines. It may be that that is being worked up in another department and we've not yet been consulted. Most likely that would be ESDC who would be looking at that, factoring in payments such as CPP, OAS, et cetera, along with the payments that we make. It's possible that it's still in its nascent or a further developed stage but not yet to the point we've been pulled in.
Certainly, though, we have charted, sir, as you're saying, all government benefits to try to get a handle ourselves and our sightlines more clear on precisely what is going on here in terms of the broad range of benefits. Where are the overlaps? Where are the disconnects in terms of administration? Where are the opportunities to smooth this out, save money for the taxpayer, but at the same time ensure that those we are serving are afforded the appropriate combination of programs and supports?
The Chair: Thank you. Obviously we're open for more information to come, so thank you for the question.
Senator White: Thank you very much, minister and deputy minister, for being here today. My question will focus on the proposed priority hiring for injured veterans act. I wonder if you could speak briefly about it. I'm a believer in what gets targeted gets done, whether or not we have any expectations from a targeted hiring perspective, and whether all the agencies within the Government of Canada — for example, the RCMP, CBSA and others — are also included in that legislation, as a number of those organizations will be doing increased hiring over the next couple of years.
Mr. Fantino: Senator, thank you for the question. I see the amount of uptake that is evident with corporate Canada — the private sector, if you will — and the programs that are being championed by some organizations to create opportunities of employment for veterans once they transition out of active service and how much they are in fact sought because of their skill sets, experience, work ethic and problem-solving capabilities. I've talked to quite a number of employers, major employers, who are actually actively recruiting veterans now because of their experience, the type of work they do and the kinds of services they provide, as value-added employees to be recruited into their services and employee cadre.
With that said, I feel that the federal government should lead by example. I feel that we in the federal government should be more focused, or at least as focused in terms of what we see in the corporate private sector to provide opportunities for veterans to qualify for those jobs for which they are obviously capable and competent to achieve.
The piece of legislation going forward now has two tracks. One is that the veteran who is injured, as I call it, in the line of duty will be moved to the front of the line for any federal public service job, and those who are honourably discharged otherwise will also have a window of opportunity that will be extended up to five years in the federal service. That's basically what the bill is intended to do.
Of course, we hope that there will be a buy-in by all branches of the federal government to actually create an outcome that is helpful to veterans, especially those who have been injured or who have otherwise been incapable of continuing their military service because of an injury incurred on duty. That's basically what we're trying to do.
I want to underscore the fact that this is not throwing a bone at veterans. This is taking advantage of their sacrifice and their contribution made on behalf of Canada and Canadians and recognizing full well that they are very competent, capable people to whom we should be looking as quality employees.
Senator White: I wonder if the deputy minister, leaning forward, had any ideas of targets or if there are agencies that might be excluded in the proposed legislation?
Ms. Chaput: You are correct in wondering because the Public Service Employment Act and the Public Service Commission Regulations do not apply to separate employers. Those separate employers include the Canada Revenue Agency, Parks Canada and CFIA, all of which are potential employers for veterans because they have, in some cases, a large operational mandate and a huge geographic footprint that would match where veterans may be located.
As we prepared the materials to put the bill forward, we specifically canvassed those departments at the level of the deputy and the ministers responsible and received strong endorsement. Each one of them said that notwithstanding the fact that they are not covered by the legislation, they are on board and they appreciate the value of veterans as a talent pool, somewhat untapped at this stage but available to us for the betterment of each of these organizations.
In terms of tracking — you asked about what gets counted gets managed — the Public Service Commission maintains the priority list that you've probably heard of. They are able to provide us with what they call a pulse report that shows us movements on and off the priorities list. They share that with departments on a regular basis. From that, we can see who has arrived on the priority list as a new, potential recruit to one of these jobs and who has come off — not by name but in numbers — so we can see if we're moving in the right direction or in the wrong direction.
When this is shared, it's shared with a whole committee of deputy ministers, so every department on the committee has this on their radar screen. I go to the committee and I remind them that we are in this together and that no one department can accommodate or even appeal to all the veterans out there who might be interested in public service employment, that it's probably a whole range of public service opportunities that are actually going to take best advantage and be of most interest to veterans.
Senator White: Thanks to all of you for your response.
The Chair: If the chair can intervene, we will finish at quarter past and I've got a couple of other senators who want on the second round.
First, though, we have a transition study that is now in its final stages which will be touching upon this aspect of employment. A dimension of it is whether the military or veterans will be trained to be competitive in the employment area. It's one thing when you walk in as a mechanic, but it's another thing when you walk in as an infantryman. Will they get fair preparation, either within DND or Veterans Affairs, to make them retrained in these new functions? Or will the ministry be held accountable to retrain them to do that? That's what we're looking at. I hope that will be around the legislation, just like the first refusal of commissionaires and things of that nature.
My question is the following: There is an incredible requirement for voice from the troops. Within the military, the troops do have a voice. Although it's an autocratic and not a democratic outfit, they do have a voice. Veterans want a voice also. Now there are I don't know how many veterans outfits out there that sometimes might be competing with one another let alone reinforcing their hand.
There is the idea of going back to what was created 10 years ago, namely, a multidisciplinary advisory board to the minister that included other departments, such as the military, academics, veterans, and the like, to provide that voice and to provide certain guidance at the strategic level — and this is not nuts and bolts stuff; this is strategic policy. Have you been able to move from those who are involved — and I forget the term you use — to actually going more to an advisory body of that nature?
Mr. Fantino: On your earlier comments about their training and the commitment to help veterans, there are funds available for them — in some cases for their family as well — if they don't use those funds for retraining, "upscaling" or enhancing their capability for these jobs; I think it's $7,500 per plan for an injured veteran. We are conscious of that. We need to help them get into the competitiveness of the workforce as well.
That said, one of the things that I've always believed is that the most important aspect of finding your way through a maze of what often is criticism, hype, misinformation, miscommunication — all of that — is going to the people who are most affected by the kinds of things that we are either mandated to deal with or the noise we hear around these issues. I have been, either formally or informally, spending a lot of time touching base with people that are directly affected by Veterans Affairs Canada's mandate and by the other environment about which we hear so much. We're doing that.
I'm going to ask the general to speak to that very issue because I'm not the lone ranger here. We have a lot of people spending a lot of time networking and connecting with those most affected.
[Translation]
Lieutenant-General Walter Semianiw, Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy, Communications and Commemoration, Veterans Affairs Canada: That is a good question for me. It is a challenge.
[English]
As the Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy, Communications and Commemoration, I have an obligation to ensure that the veterans' voice is heard as we move ahead to develop new policies. It's not just an obligation; it has to be that way.
As we know within the department — we've talked about it — the veteran needs to be at the centre of what we develop. That's not in dispute. The challenge I have is what you said, Mr. Chair. Right now, we have maybe as many as 18 different groups who represent different numbers and types of veterans. I can't tell you here today who they represent exactly, be it modern-day veterans or traditional veterans; I can only assume that. However, we do work with the 18 groups and we have annual stakeholder meetings to sit and listen to their voices. Nevertheless, it is difficult because there is a second dimension separate from talking to the 18 groups, namely, the comments made by individual veterans who have concerns that may not be voiced another way, which brings it back full circle to agree that the veteran's voice is the most important.
I would say it's an idea that should be explored — an idea of perhaps an advisory council with credible experts that may include veterans, family members, maybe some spouses and those who know these issues inside and out. They could provide advice to either the minister or the department as one of the voices as we move ahead. To be fair, I think it's an idea that should be explored because right now there are many different voices that do represent the issues of their constituents and we do listen, but it's difficult at times to figure out what's up and what's down.
They did come together and told the department what their three priorities were. This occurred about a year ago and I was at the meeting. The group agreed that the focus should be on the most seriously injured veterans. It's interesting because the minister asked the committee to focus on the most seriously injured, so we were listening. They also mentioned families and reservists. The minister has asked the committee to look at those areas. But, to be fair, we could sit here and lay out a thousand areas. We need some focus.
To come back to your question, it is an idea that should be explored to perhaps get a deeper sense from all of those voices of where we should be focused.
The Chair: There is a tool that was brought in, even against the medical people, called "peer support" in DND. We have noticed that you've introduced peer support for families in Veterans Affairs Canada. One of the elements of peer support is a way for Veterans Affairs Canada to track veterans locally and getting that information up to you, including those who commit suicide, the attempts and so on, and being your foot soldiers in the field.
To what extent would you want to push the idea of going on a much larger scale of peer support for both members and families to be your front-line foot soldiers in that regard?
Mr. Fantino: Look, Mr. Chair, we'll take whatever help we can get that will help us achieve the optimum outcome, always focused on the benefit for veterans and their families. Obviously there is quite a bit of discussion going on, as you know, concerning that whole mental health issue, which I think also includes peer support involvement. We're collaborating with the Department of National Defence because I don't know that you can turn the tap off here and the next day turn it on there. You have a different kind of scenario.
We're also looking at the work now being done by Dr. Aiken, who is a veteran. She is working with approximately 31 universities across Canada that are focused on dynamics associated with the mental health, post-traumatic stress disorder, operational stress issues and all of that.
In that reality, we're also looking at what is happening with other countries, such as the kind of things being done in some places that are innovative. They think we're doing some very innovative things here as well.
But I think everything is on the table, Mr. Chair. I don't know that we can implement an absolutely perfect scenario going forward because, as Senator White will know, there are similar issues in policing that are floating around and so we're not estrange to this.
What I would like to see happen is for us to create a continuum of focus and care on mental health issues from beginning to end of a serving member's career into the veteran's world. We're looking widely for support systems and innovative things we can do. Obviously peer support is one of them. I know it's something that works very well.
The Chair: Thank you very much for being so upfront with the acceptance of considering all these options.
Senator Day: I would like to take you back to the issue of employment and transition into the private sector or the public sector from the Armed Forces.
Madam Deputy Minister, you talked about the Public Service Commission and the new legislation that is in the House of Commons now. You'll know that there was and there is a program that gave priority to injured veterans. The Public Service Commissioner did a survey of how the priority list worked, and it wasn't working well. You're expanding the base, but I hope you're taking that fact into consideration to make sure we do not repeat the problem.
From the private sector point of view, I agree with you wholeheartedly that there is a lot of talent in retiring Armed Forces personnel, but it seems to still be a bit of a challenge to connect that retiring person with the potential out there. We see, as Senator Lang has pointed out, there are many different volunteer organizations trying to fill the gaps.
Have you thought about the U.S. situation of "military.com" that tries to do that using Amazon.com as bringing together the talents? I'm looking for something that's like an umbrella, such as Dr. Aiken's work at Queen's University that has brought all of the groups together, which is absolutely the right way to go instead of working in silos.
Mr. Fantino: I agree with you that we have to find ways to make these initiatives actually work. You need to have something similar to what is done at Service Canada. When you go to a Service Canada office, they will tell you what jobs are available and make that connection with those who are pursuing job opportunities. We obviously have to do some of that work, but there is a committee in place that tries to make that connection and promotes veterans and personnel coming out of the Armed Forces to the industry. As you indicated, we need to do something far more formal and more focused on how we can make that link better.
Ms. Chaput: I can elaborate a little bit. Indeed, the minister works with something we call the Veterans Transition Advisory Council, where there is an opportunity to speak to groups of CEOs in corporate Canada who have indicated that they are willing, as individuals and as representing their corporations, to get the word out, spread the message both to employers and veterans, of corporate Canada's interest in this matchmaking process that we're trying to establish. As well, we are working on establishing a one-stop electronic shopping spot, where employers who are interested in recruiting veterans can self-identify and veterans can also go and post their availability for certain types of jobs.
That's working. It's in its very early stages. It can work better than it is working right now. One of the missing ingredients is what we call a "skills translator," where the perhaps very complex and hard-to-understand skills of the military specialist are translated into a more civilian application. With that in mind, we're working closely with the Department of Employment and Skills Development, which is in the throes of developing this translator that will then allow us to really begin to market this one-stop shop and veterans themselves as highly employable resources.
Mr. Fantino: It goes to fundamental things like how to develop a proper CV that will appeal to the private sector, for instance. That's some of the homework being done.
Senator Lang: Mr. Minister, I would like to bring another issue to your attention, which I believe was brought to your attention a number of weeks ago. We had witnesses from the ombudsman's office. They talked about a number of veterans, I believe just over 400, who were identified as totally and permanently incapacitated and who, at the age of 65, may well lose benefits because of the transition. Have you had time to review that particular issue and if we should to expect an announcement as far as that's concerned?
Ms. Chaput: I can speak to that, sir. We certainly have the ombudsman's report on the top of our desk. Yes, he's very concerned about veterans over 65, as are we. We're currently examining how our programs apply and continue to apply when an individual reaches the age of 65. Recognizing as you did earlier that a number of other government programs kick in at that time, the questions are: As some of our programs may cease and these other Government of Canada programs kick in, where does that leave the veteran and is he in good shape at that stage of the game?
We're establishing that it depends a little on the specific circumstances of each individual. Globally, I can tell you that we have programs where financial support continues beyond the age of 65. For example, our Earnings Loss Benefit program continues beyond 65; but the analysis needs to continue.
The ombudsman is onto something here; we just have to figure out precisely the cause of that gap. Is it a flaw in the design of some of our programs that we can fix through eligibility criteria that need to be tweaked; or is it a calculation of a certain benefit that needs to be adjusted to ensure that at age 65 a person doesn't fall of a cliff, from a Government of Canada point of view?
Senator Lang: I want to pursue this because it is important. Perhaps I should clarify my use of the number 400. It's not as if 400 vets tomorrow are turning 65. My understanding is that we may be dealing with 10 to 20 vets progressively as we move along.
Ms. Chaput: That is right.
Senator Lang: To those 2 or 5 or 10 or 20 veterans, it's of the utmost importance. It concerns me. We're going to continue to study this and it would seem to be a simple test, if the ombudsman has done his job in respect of identifying the problem, to determine what is needed to rectify the problem. I have no doubt that your intentions are to rectify the problem so that these individuals are not put in that situation for a month or a year while it is studied. Can you give me some assurance that there will be a time line on this so that a decision can be taken in respect of these situations?
Mr. Fantino: Mr. Chair, one thing I can assure the committee of is that this issue is on the radar of the parliamentary committee. They have been into this already. We hope that some recommendation will come forward. We appreciate the ombudsman's identification of the issue. It's now being dealt with by the committee and we'll see what comes out.
One thing I don't want to happen is for us to go off on one-offs. We will not get a chance to do this on an ongoing basis, so we want to get all of these issues addressed as best we can and then look at what we need to do from the point of view of implementation.
Other work has been done in years gone by, and I have read some of it where a committee has come out with 255 recommendations. Try to implement that. We want practical, doable and attainable outcomes that address the most critical issues. We can't be all things to all people, but we can be focused on certain issues — the seriously injured, mental health issues, families and those kinds of things. It's there, senator, and we're working on it.
The Chair: Mr. Minister, I will bring a concluding comment to the table, if I may.
The New Veterans Charter is eight years old. It was stated as a living document. The philosophy behind it was to give the minister as much room as he or she needed to make changes in the rules and regulations without new legislation. Bill C-55 became legislation but half of the stuff in Bill C-55 did not need to be legislated, and it only touched the surface. I hope you and your colleagues are considering, when you get those recommendations, that as minister you're going to be given the room — apart from what Treasury Board does — to be able to make significant changes to that document without having to go to legislation and get approval from your colleagues to do that.
Mr. Fantino: Mr. Chair, I can absolutely assure you, members of the committee and veterans that we are committed to moving things forward and doing what can be done and should be done. We didn't have to do a comprehensive review of the New Veterans Charter. We could have done that dust-up, as very often is the case, but I felt sincerely that given some of the advice and discussions we've had, we needed a comprehensive review. There will probably be things we can do right away with the stroke of a pen, things that will require a little bit more work, and things we cannot do now but can put on the radar screen for the future. This is an exercise in getting things done.
The Chair: We very much look forward to our colleagues in the House of Commons doing a comprehensive piece of work.
You have been very generous with your time, as have the deputy minister and the ADMs here today. Thank you for that and for speaking to us clearly, succinctly and bluntly, which we like.
Mr. Fantino: Thank you for the opportunity.
(The committee adjourned.)