Skip to content
VEAC

Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs

 

Proceedings of the Subcommittee on
Veterans Affairs

Issue 10 - Evidence - February 25, 2015


OTTAWA, Wednesday, February 25, 2015

The Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met this day, at 11:59 a.m., to continue its consideration of Bill C-27, An Act to amend the Public Service Employment Act (enhancing hiring opportunities for certain serving and former members of the Canadian Forces).

Senator Joseph A. Day (Chair) in the chair.

[Translation]

The Chair: Today, we are continuing our consideration of Bill C-27, An Act to amend the Public Service Employment Act (enhancing hiring opportunities for certain serving and former members of the Canadian Forces).

[English]

Today from the Department of Veterans Affairs, we're very pleased to welcome the Honourable Erin O'Toole, P.C., M.P., the new Minister of Veterans Affairs.

Minister, this is the first opportunity in this committee, at least in the Senate, that we have had to congratulate you on your appointment. We were very pleased to learn of your appointment and look forward to working with you.

Hon. Erin O'Toole, P.C., M.P., Minister of Veterans Affairs: Thank you very much, Senator Day.

The Chair: I will introduce the others with you, if I may: retired General W.J. Natynczyk, who is the new Deputy Minister. We are equally very proud that you were appointed to that position and look forward to working with you, General Natynczyk.

Maureen Sinnott, Director General, Finance Division, and Acting Chief Financial Officer. Ms. Sinnott, I think you and I have met before along the way. Welcome back.

And Bernard Butler, Acting Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy, Communications and Commemoration. You have more adjectives attached to your title than anyone else. There is a prize for that here. Commemorations are very important to this committee, as you're fully aware.

Minister O'Toole, I give the floor to you. We're dealing primarily with Bill C-27, but you're the minister.

Mr. O'Toole: Thank you very much, Senator Day.

[Translation]

Honourable senators, I am happy to be making my first official appearance before the committee as Minister of Veterans Affairs.

[English]

It is an honour for me to appear before this body today because, like me, you share a passion for serving the men and women who served Canada. In particular, Senator Day, it's good to see you. Between me, the deputy minister, and yourself, the Royal Military College of Canada is well represented here today. Thank you for your service both in uniform and in Canada's Parliament.

If you would indulge me, ladies and gentlemen, for a few moments, I'll tell you why this opportunity to serve as Minister of Veterans Affairs is so important to me on a personal level and as a parliamentarian. At 18, I attended RMC and joined the Canadian Armed Forces, and that was a transformative part of my life. I was very proud to have served next to exceptional men and women from across Canada during my 12 years in the military. I then transitioned out of the Canadian Armed Forces, like all veterans do. That's why the transition piece, which is essentially the focus of your Senate study, is such a critical area not only to study and understand but also to improve and to ensure there are more and more men and women having a seamless and smooth transition to civilian life after they serve, whether it's a few years or 40 years of service. The transition can often be daunting.

Like many young Canadians, I joined the military at 18 and didn't write a resumé again until I was applying for jobs as a lawyer. The longer you serve in uniform, the more detached you are from applying for a job, interviewing and these sorts of things. While we empower our men and women to serve Canada around the world with distinction and courage, often that transition can be uncomfortable because it's a change. The transition also impacts the service member's family, decisions about where to live, where to work, and of course health is at the epicenter.

My transition was a smooth one. When I established my second career, I devoted a considerable amount of time to trying to serve my comrades that were still in uniform, through my work with True Patriot Love Foundation, with the Legion, with the Royal Military College Board of Governors, with great groups of Canadians from across the country, like Wounded Warriors and BCIT. Many of the great witnesses that appeared before your committee, I had the great fortune of working with prior to becoming a parliamentarian. Reviewing your report was a great reminder to me of how many Canadians out there, whether they served or not, are promoting a hire-a-veteran culture, are helping men and women transition, and are helping some of our ill and injured veterans transition into a new life post-military. I'm really glad you heard not only from our department, which prides itself on serving veterans, but also from the groups across the country that have been doing exceptional work in this regard. To see their remarks reflected in your report was very reassuring for me as minister.

If you would indulge a few more minutes, Senator Day, I'd like to touch on a few of the important parts of your report that I appreciated in particular. The government certainly commends the report and fully agrees with the spirit of your recommendations. As you note throughout the report, many of the modernization efforts to improve the transition for people post-military were initiatives of our government, and we're committed to continuing to make that transition a smooth one for the veteran and their family.

First, I'd like to speak to the Life After Service Study, which is probably the best point for me to start off with because it was your first area of recommendation. This is an opportunity for us to continue to work on the Life After Service Study commenced in 2010, with Statistics Canada expertise to sample our veterans. It was actually a far superior approach to the old client-satisfaction survey that was in the news this week, which was rightly criticized for not doing enough data drilling down on groups that need particular attention in the transition.

What I would like to see, and I've directed the department already, is to actually expand the next Life After Service Survey to drill down on two particular groups that your committee highlighted as needing particular attention. The most important group is the ill and injured, which you highlight at page 14 of your report, which have a higher incidence of unemployment post-career in the Canadian Armed Forces. That's a group that we need to get better survey information on so that we can improve vocational rehabilitation programming.

As you know, senators, because you mentioned in your report, our government has increased the envelope of funds available for an individual veteran in the vocational rehabilitation and education space to $75,000 per veteran. So we've been increasing the opportunity for veterans to make a strong transition to a civilian career, but clearly the first group that needs more analysis on where there are challenges are those people, the 1,200 or so per year that medically release from the Canadian Armed Forces. I've asked that the Life After Service Survey do a deeper dive on that subset. So of the 5,000 or so that release each year, that 1,200 is an acute group that we need to know more about so that we can refine some of our programming for them.

The other group I'd like to highlight here, which you've also highlighted in several instances throughout your report, and I appreciated the comments of Andrea Siu from the Royal Canadian Legion, was releasing women, female veterans, which also we don't have a lot of data on, even though in the last 25 years there have been more and more women serving with distinction in the Canadian Armed Forces. We need a better understanding of the transition challenges they face and a better understanding of why they have a higher incidence of unemployment than other veterans. We need more data on that so that we can make more informed public policy decisions.

Overall, it was refreshing that your report showed that veterans have a lower unemployment rate than the general population. But I would like more data on those two subsets of the veterans' population, medically released veterans and women. The Life After Service Survey is the perfect opportunity to bring the expertise of Statistics Canada and the department to bear on those specific subsets. In fact, Mr. Stoffer and others who have been critical of the client satisfaction survey in the past would find this to be a smart approach to get important data on a very important group.

Two other items, senators, I'd like to touch on, although I did find with interest everything in your report to be very thorough and helpful in our pursuit of service excellence. The second piece recognizes that the Department of National Defence and Veterans Affairs Canada, which for 50 years have operated almost as two distinct entities, have been making great strides in the last five years in collaborating. In the Veterans 20/20 mission statement I've been refining and sharing with veterans groups and stakeholders, making the department at every level and every position focused on veterans and their families, the second principle of that mission statement is that seamless transition from uniform. The very fact that your second and several other recommendations focus on that is good. The Canadian Armed Forces Transition Program, the bundling together of what is offered by the Canadian Armed Forces and by Veterans Affairs Canada, is going to be a unique area of continued focus. I think both departments have made great strides to collaborate better. Even in your report you say that more could be done to assist prior to the release of the serving member.

Senators, I hope you'd be happy to find out that that's been an area of particular focus in my first few months as minister, closing that gap. In fact, I've been very encouraged working with General Natynczyk, my deputy minister, on strengthening that continued collaboration between National Defence and Veterans Affairs. Lieutenant-General Millar, Chief of Military Personnel, has been at specific working meetings on closing this gap. I see progress, but we're striving for more. Here's why I highlighted going back to the challenge we face with medically releasing veterans: On average, a medically releasing veteran serves three to five years in uniform post-incident, post-medical issue, through to release. We've got to use that three-to-five years better, senators; and our department is already making great strides to do that. That is a core part of your recommendations. We would like to see a day when, once a career medical review board is ordered for a man or woman based on an injury, Veterans Affairs immediately becomes involved in the wellness and the planning for that serving member. The goal is recovery and return to work in the Canadian Armed Forces, and that's what anyone who has been injured in active duty wants to do. They want to get back to their comrades and their post. If they do, Veterans Affairs has started a file and has started collaborating with DND.

But if they don't return and medical release is on the horizon, let's have the disability assessment and vocational rehabilitation, which does start before release through SISIP and through Veterans Affairs. Let's have more resources in order to use that time. In recent years, our government has stood up the Joint Personnel Support Units around bases; so these injured men and women are part of a JPSU. Let's use that time when the man or woman is making 100 per cent salary, and they're in uniform and their family is on a posting in a community that they're comfortable with. That's an area of particular focus for me. I was very glad to see it in your report, and I'm very appreciative of Minister Kenney and the senior leadership of the Canadian Armed Forces for making this a priority as well.

Mr. Chair and senators, the last area I'd like to highlight briefly is another successful initiative by our government: the Veteran Transition Advisory Council, which I'm happy to say I advised on as a board member of the True Patriot Love Foundation before I became a member of Parliament. At the time, I applauded Mr. Steven Blaney, then Minister of Veterans Affairs, for reaching out to senior private sector leaders to try to generate a higher veteran culture in Canada. Your report dedicates considerable time and attention to successes in the U.S. on that front and to terrific groups in Canada working on this effort, such as Canada Company and their military employment program, Wounded Warriors and some of their work with employers, the True Patriot Love Foundation and other individual initiatives at places like the Royal Bank, McDonald's and Home Depot. That's certainly very encouraging to see. We need to foster a culture that does more of that. The Navigator survey highlighted, at page 26 of your report, the most frustrating number of those who served and then worked in corporate Canada was that statistic cited by Jaime Watt before your committee: Only 4 per cent of employers surveyed expressed an interest in developing and implementing a hire-a- veteran program in their company. We have to work on this area — Veterans Affairs Canada, the Canadian Armed Forces and the Government of Canada. We've set the tone with the proposed veterans hiring act and opening up public service priority hiring for injured veterans.

This is a place that non-profits, the private sector and the government can work together to promote a higher veteran culture, as I've said in the house countless times, to show that it's not just altruistic. It's not just a good thing to do because these men and women served us. It's a bonus to their businesses because they're getting people who are inherently loyal, as they've been in the regimental structure of the military, to the organization at a time when a huge cost to companies is the rehiring and training of people in high-turnover jobs. When businesses understand that they're getting men and women with exceptional experience, team skills, a track record of working under pressure, collaboration skills, high education and high training, they'll see that this isn't just the nice thing to do; it's a very smart business decision. I was very happy to see extensive coverage of that issue in your report. I think you'll see more of that under my watch as minister.

Thank you for your study and your report. I'm prepared to take questions.

The Chair: Mr. Minister, thank you very much for those compliments and for thoroughly reviewing our report. We had some very good witnesses, and the report is reflective of the good testimony we heard.

With respect to Bill C-27, which we'll be dealing with for the next two or three meetings and then take back to the main Senate body, last week we heard from the two ombudsmen, one for Veterans Affairs and one for the Canadian Armed Forces. They seemed to be of one mind with respect to one aspect, which maybe you could comment on. You've talked about transitioning veterans and the period of time after an injury. Before injured veterans exit and take the uniform off, the injury or the medical reason can be attributable to service — activity while serving. The two ombudsmen felt that that assessment could better be done while the individual is in that period — after the injury and before the uniform is removed — rather than as the act now provides for the attribution test to be done by Veterans Affairs. The implication was that Veterans Affairs wouldn't be doing that until after the person is out of uniform and, therefore, there would be a delay problem. Can you help us with that?

Mr. O'Toole: I certainly can, senator. Thank you for the question. I was hoping that question would be raised.

We're in a great position in that we have passionate advocates in both the National Defence ombudsman and the Veterans Affairs ombudsman, Mr. Parent, whom I work with closely. The DND ombudsman came from the Veterans Affairs ombudsman's office. This is an area where both share a need to improve in this space.

You'll notice, Senator Day, I highlighted this as the second point of my presentation to you based on your report. I sincerely hope that the need for the suggestion of the National Defence ombudsman here will be eliminated by our changes on making better use of collaboration in that three- to five-year span for medically releasing a veteran.

I see why he made that suggestion. He's saying that you're injured in uniform, let's let DND take care of that. The issue is we at Veterans Affairs have that expertise, and now that we're going to be collaborating far earlier in the Canadian Forces life of that future veteran, we will eliminate the delay and frustration that the ombudsman highlighted.

I see why he made his suggestion, but why would we create a second parallel review-type body when that expertise is resonant within Veterans Affairs? The problem has been really not using that time when the serving member is at the Joint Personnel Support Unit. They've had their injury, they're recovering — and we all hope, as I said, they recover or redeploy and go back to their unit. But if they don't and if Veterans Affairs is activated after the injury or before the career medical review board, we can use that time when they're still in uniform, still in the Canadian Armed Forces, to assess the injury, to start both medical and vocational rehabilitation and provide supports to the family so that by the time they hang up their uniform, all of those questions are resolved. That's my commitment.

The Chair: Thank you very much. I think that's very important to have that on the record.

I'll begin with Honourable Senator Stewart Olsen from New Brunswick, deputy chair.

Senator Stewart Olsen: Thank you. I'm very pleased that this is helping with our veterans during their transition period. That's one of the most important parts. Years ago the ombudsman raised that with me, and this is an ongoing problem that we need to work on. This particular bill does a lot in that way.

We had the public service people with us at the last meeting. The Public Service Employment Act covers what you're trying to do in this bill. Are you considering perhaps extending the Veterans Hiring Bill to Crown corporations and other agencies that are not covered by that particular act but that would offer a wider spectrum of employment opportunities for our veterans?

Mr. O'Toole: Thank you, Senator Stewart Olsen, for that question. You and I have spoken on a number of occasions. I know how passionate you are on these issues, and I appreciate that.

With Bill C-27 and the culture, we're creating, both in the private sector and within government, a tremendous first start. With the Public Service Employment Act, we've made available a potential pool of thousands of jobs for priority hiring. I'm also very careful to say not every opportunity that comes up will be suitable for a medically releasing veteran. We still want to make sure that people have the right set of skills and qualifications, but there are also geographic issues. The serving member may be in Ontario when they leave the military, but they may decide to go back to Atlantic Canada or Western Canada where they enrolled. Therefore family supports, geographic consideration and all these things factor in to see whether there's going to be a fit.

What we have to do as a government, which we've been doing, is expand the wider pool of potential employment opportunities. The good thing is this is a big first start with this bill. There have been basic-level communications with other departments and with Crown agencies about adopting the spirit of this bill. As you see this roll out over time, and as we take up some of the recommendations of your committee to try to make sure that there's more coordination of these opportunities, both in the public sector and in the private sector, to the veterans community, you'll see more organizations and more departments orienting their recruiting and programming to veterans.

The survey conducted by the Veteran Transition Advisory Council, which I looked at because I was an early supporter of VTAC, the human resource departments at a lot of Canadian companies, for instance, didn't even understand military training. I used to use the example some companies out there don't know the difference between a corporal and a colonel, or a light blue uniform and a green uniform. So one of the last things I did as part of the True Patriot Love Foundation before running for Parliament was to set up a conference called From Battlefield to Boardroom with Wounded Warriors, with another group of veterans called Treble Victor, with a number of groups in this sector, and it wasn't just to get companies in the door to showcase our exceptional men and women and to educate them; we wanted HR leaders.

It was more important for that conference to have a vice-president of human resources than it was to have the president of the company because the people from the HR department are the ones who could make sure they're considering military experience as being just as valuable as some experience in a rival industry.

Fostering a higher veteran culture in Canada is something I've long been passionate about. The Public Service Employment Act is a great first start and a great pool of thousands of potential opportunities for that fit. I think you'll see it continue as we have better success with that start.

Senator White: Thank you very much for being here, folks. I really appreciate your finding the time.

When I look at the Veterans Hiring Bill, one of the aspects I appreciate the most is the fact that these veterans will be able to move to the front of the line. I think it's helpful to them and even helpful to us.

However, having worked in government agencies that aren't controlled under the Public Service Employment Act, I'm just trying to figure out how the RCMP and others fit. I think there are great opportunities for these veterans having potential employment opportunities in those other agencies. I'm trying to figure out how we reach out to those organizations, particularly the RCMP. They're in 800 communities across Canada, many of which will have veterans returning that may not have access to other public sector employment opportunities.

Mr. O'Toole: Thank you, Senator White. I do have to remark, Mr. Chair, that before Ottawa was finally served by the senator as chief of police he was stolen from the Durham region of Ontario, which is the area I have the good fortune to represent. I was very glad to become his colleague as an MP.

That's a really good question. I think our intention over time is to make sure the ill and injured from our national police force and their families can access the same opportunities. That's one thing I try and talk about in some of my round tables as minister. While I'm Minister of Veterans Affairs, I also administer programs for members of the RCMP that Veterans Affairs does for the force, and that's certainly a very important part of my role.

The good thing about that is that some of the learnings the Department of National Defence and Veterans Affairs are having on issues like operational stress injuries are also germane to the RCMP and to police forces and uniformed service more generally. Certainly, our intention is to make sure that there are opportunities for people who have served in uniform both in the military and the RCMP.

Senator White: Thanks, minister. I don't think I was clear, though. My concern is veterans who don't have opportunities to work in those agencies that aren't covered by the Public Service Employment Act. I gave the RCMP as one of those examples. My other question was going to surround how RCMP would be served. I appreciate your knowing what my second question was going to be.

I am concerned about these agencies set out there. I don't think CBSA is covered either, if I'm correct.

There are a number of those Crown corporations and agencies that I think have great opportunities for veterans who are going to provinces and territories that have those agencies operating and who may not be served. Are we going to include those agencies and Crown corporations, because they sit outside of the act and of this legislation?

General (Ret'd) W. J. Natynczyk, Deputy Minister, Veterans Affairs Canada: My understanding is that the three key organizations that are outside of the Public Service Employment Act are the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Parks Canada and the CRA. My understanding is that all three of those organizations have indicated that they will follow the spirit of the veterans employment act, even though they are outside of the Public Service Employment Act. I have contacted my counterparts in each of those three organizations recently, and they've confirmed, when this whole legislation is being discussed, that they would be bound by the act. So they will follow the spirit, which is important because a lot of those veterans are outside of the national capital, as you know, and those three organizations have a significant number of employees who are coast to coast. For those young soldiers, sailors and airmen and women across the country, there will be a lot of opportunity with those other organizations.

Senator White: Mr. Chair, only because he answered two questions and I only asked one, could I ask a second question if that's possible?

The Chair: Is it related?

Senator White: Absolutely. It's almost identical, actually.

Thank you for that, general. The next question I have — and I asked it last week as well — is this: As you know, a lot of our veterans are returning to Old Crow in Yukon, or New Waterford on Cape Breton Island, where there may not be the same opportunities. Have we considered reaching out to provinces and territories and asking them to adopt what we're doing here or mirror legislation in the provinces, as we saw after World War II, to ensure that we have as much opportunity as possible for the men and women who will be looking for that employment?

Mr. O'Toole: Thank you, senator. That's a good point to make. I'm happy to say that while I'm not familiar specifically with provincial responses that are similar to Bill C-27 — and I will let my team answer that — it has been refreshing, in the last five to ten years, to see other provincial ministries or officials, parliamentarians, provincial parliamentarians, creating an office of military affairs. I know Nova Scotia and New Brunswick and I believe Alberta had an elected official who had a responsibility for the military community. Even though the military, of course, is a federal department, an area of federal jurisdiction, it recognized the important role that those families play in the community, not just as employers and with the employment impact of the Department of National Defence, but also the fact that communities like Fredericton, like Edmonton, like Winnipeg have very large military family populations and also large veteran populations, because many will stay near the place of their final posting.

The provinces have been working on these general initiatives. We could report back to the committee on whether there is similar provincial priority hiring or if my officials know of a specific province that has an act. I think we could see some in the future.

Bernard Butler, Acting Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy, Communications and Commemoration, Veterans Affairs Canada: Thank you, minister. Yes, it's an excellent point, and I can tell you that, to date, as part of the initiatives that the minister has identified in terms of the three pillars of service excellence, veteran-centric initiatives and closing the seam, the issue around reaching out to the provinces on issues like employment, as it relates to transition, has certainly been contemplated. In the past, we have not done that on a formal basis, but there certainly have been some discussions in the context of Bill C-27, federally, for the Government of Canada and the example that it sets. We certainly have that on our to-do list, if you will, to reach out to map what the provinces are doing and where there may be opportunities for us to exploit in this regard. That's really where it is at the moment, but it's a very important point that you raised, senator.

Senator Lang: I, too, want to welcome Minister O'Toole to his new responsibilities. I have to say that after listening to you for over 10 minutes, no one will ever be able to say that you don't know your file, which we appreciate. I very much appreciate the fact that you obviously took the time not only to read but also to study the report that this committee brought forward because, as the chair said, we spent a lot of time and effort listening to witnesses and coming up with what I thought were some pretty realistic recommendations.

I would like to pursue two elements, if I could. First is the question by Senator White and Senator Stewart Olsen regarding expansion within the federal government's responsibilities for the purposes of the hiring of the veterans, whether they be injured or otherwise, with respect to the priority that they're given for positions. It's not just the three organizations that General Natynczyk referred to. There are corporations as well, a significant number of corporations, and I would strongly recommend that they be, one way or the other, legislatively put under this umbrella. It's fine to say they're under the spirit and intend to follow it. That doesn't mean they're going to.

Second, with respect to the provinces, Senator Mitchell and I have both served at the provincial-territorial level. I think you would find it unanimous across this country that, if asked, all provincial governments, no matter what their political stripe, would be happy to initiate legislatively something similar to what is being proposed in this bill. That gives that many more opportunities to those veterans who choose to go back to the Yukon or go to New Brunswick or Newfoundland, because the provinces, we know, have more responsibilities directly within the communities than the federal government does, and it would be a good working relationship with the Government of Canada. So I would strongly recommend that.

Going back further to what you stated in your opening remarks about the rehabilitation and the education aspect and the skill levels, that's another tool that we should be utilizing in our provinces and universities. Once again, it's the provinces and territories that have that responsibility. If we take the steps forward, we can help pool our resources federally, provincially and territorially so that we can help those individuals that need that updating of their skill sets. That's another area that I would strongly recommend. If we reach out at the federal level, I don't think there is a province or territory that would say no to somehow coming to some agreements and working with those individual veterans in order to ensure that they can have those opportunities that we'd like them to have.

One other thing, to conclude, Mr. Chair, is that one of the areas that I have raised since I've been on this committee is the fact that we're well over $4 billion, getting close to $5 billion a year, towards the taxpayers' contribution to Veterans Affairs. So the taxpayer is making a significant contribution to ensuring that the veterans are taken care of. At the same time, there has been criticism, some of it justified, perhaps some of it not. Looking forward, I think it was 37 programs that were under the auspices, one way or the other, of Veterans Affairs. Frankly, when I looked at it, I got confused. When I got from number 10 to 11, I didn't figure where he or she would fit in. I wanted to make that observation, going forward, from your point of view and the department.

Mr. O'Toole: Thank you, senator. There are three specific parts. You said two questions, but then you snuck one in. So there are three there. They're effective like that, Mr. Chair.

The first one was expansion of priority hiring. I should add that just in the last week I exchanged correspondence with Premier McNeil in Nova Scotia. That's why I highlighted Nova Scotia as one of the provinces that does designate an MLA in that case to be responsible for military affairs within the province, seeking to expand what they've created at the provincial level, and I look forward to working with his government on that. His brother was a former chief of police in the Halifax region, so I think his family knows uniformed service well.

One part of the question you asked was should we legislate private sector employment levels. I don't agree with that. I will get to where I think we can fit that in better.

Canada has not had a hire-a-veteran culture in large part because, unlike our friends to the south and my colleague Secretary McDonald, who serves 22 million veterans, we have a population of approximately 700,000. There has been less history of programs within corporations of using the military population as a great recruiting ground. The American military has a lot of short-engagement people and turnover, where we have about 5,000 releasing per year, with about 1,200 being medically released from the Canadian Armed Forces. So a smaller population, but probably an even better educated population with more training.

We have to build that culture in, because it didn't exist 25 years ago. I think Senator Day would agree with that. When he was leaving the Canadian Armed Forces, there weren't the recruiting programs at Royal Bank and at other companies that there are now. We are making great progress.

There is a lot more work we can do with the provinces, not just on priority hiring but on the training piece you identified. Alberta, in particular, which has experienced labour shortages, has had companies like TransCanada Pipelines and others indicate a sincere willingness to hire more veterans and seeing the value of hiring veterans.

CN, which participated in the Veteran Transition Advisory Council and appeared before your committee, has committed to hiring veterans. BCIT, which appeared before your committee, has been doing this in British Columbia.

Recommendation 8 of your report is a good one, because I think where the government has a role of some sort is coordinating all the efforts, provincial efforts, federal government efforts led by Bill C-27 and our focus on this area, but also complementing what Canada Company, Wounded Warriors, Treble Victor and all these non-profit groups are doing.

Can we coordinate that better so that a veteran who starts looking at post-Canadian Armed Forces employment can find all of this in front of them instead of having to search it out? General Millar, Chief of Military Personnel for the Canadian Armed Forces, understands this, as does General Natynczyk.

Men or women leaving the Canadian Armed Forces don't wait until their last 30 days in uniform to start thinking about transition. They may say, "Is this my last posting? Is this my last three years? I'm going to end up in Ottawa at National Defence headquarters, or I'm going to Shilo. Will I do a posting after this?" They're constantly saying, "What's best for my family? Is my career rewarding?"

We have to have tools out there so that when they're contemplating this, usually a year or two before ever leaving, whether they're injured or not injured, because if they're injured, they're still in uniform for three to five years, we have to have a better way to organize the goodwill that is out there now that it's popping up in the private sector, within government at the provincial level.

The final thing I will say on your third issue about budget and investment is that as a department, we're spending on average $700 million more than the last government. As I've said in many of my round tables, we're spending it in different areas and ways, because post-Afghanistan, where we had between 30,000 and 40,000 people serve for 12 years, we have an environment where we have traditional war veterans in their nineties, who are remarkable. Mr. Côté, here in Ottawa, is 101. He would still likely beat me in an arm wrestle. We also have veterans in their late twenties with serious injuries from combat who may need different services, but they will certainly want to draw their services in different ways.

Even with employment programs, we have to recognize that opportunities shift and change. So we're spending more, but we have to spend it in new ways. We have to spend it smartly to meet the needs of this new cohort of veterans from the Gulf War and Afghanistan who have different expectations in how to draw services from Veterans Affairs.

Senator Lang: I want to clarify the record if I misspoke. I do not think the private sector should be legislated. I was talking about the provincial and territorial governments recognizing that we have to work with the private sector, but I certainly would not support legislating them, either.

Senator Mitchell: Thank you, minister, for an excellent presentation and for the passion you show for your job.

It is nice to see the general here again. I would like to note his great service to the country over many, many years.

I'm interested in some specifics. One is that clearly, a medical reason would encompass PTSD. Is there any kind of priority, and there shouldn't be, but between PTSD because of the deployment to Afghanistan and PTSD because of a situation in Canada, or is everyone treated equally? If they have PTSD, they have PTSD no matter what the reason.

Mr. O'Toole: Great question. Whenever I speak about our medically released or injured, and when I meet with groups, I always speak about physical and mental injuries from service. This is something we're getting better at as a country, but it is an area of rising need.

Your own report showed that 13 per cent from the Afghanistan mission have an operational stress injury of some sort. Eight per cent PTSD, which is a psychiatric diagnosis, but there can be anxiety, depression, a range of operational stress injuries. That type of injury as a result of service makes that veteran eligible for these programs.

As some of your witnesses have described, we have to work on not just the stigma for people to put their hand up to get support, because if they do, there is tremendous support out there for them, but we also have to break down the stigma that exists somewhat in the private sector, that if someone had an operational stress injury, they might not be suitable for employment in the future. Men and women can recover, can redeploy or manage their symptoms very well.

I think that in the last 10 years Canadian society has come to grips with talking more rationally about mental health issues broadly. This is an area where I think the Canadian Forces has been leading the discussion to try to break down the barriers of talking about mental injuries from service.

If you will indulge me, senator, I speak about my predecessor quite regularly in the house and in my speeches. A hundred years ago, he was the MP for the area of Ontario that I represent. He died as a result of service in World War I. He was re-elected in 1917 while fighting in France, yet we only have one statue in Centre Block — to George Baker, who died in World War I, and the official history said he was the only serving MP that died. No, there were two. The other one, Sam Sharpe, took his life. He represented my area a hundred years ago.

Why I use this story is to show we have come a long way from Sam Sharpe's time when one of these significant figures in the country was not talked about because of his a sad and tragic death.

We now have a network of, by the end of the year, 26 to 27 operational stress injury clinics. We're investing money, but most importantly, with the Road to Mental Readiness Program, the Canadian Armed Forces is running, with the awareness of General Lawson and others within the Canadian Armed Forces in terms of encouraging a culture for people to get support, we're starting to tackle these issues better. I look forward to continuing to work with your former colleague retired Senator Dallaire and others to continue to break down these stigmas. That will help employers recognize that someone may have had an operational stress injury but they sought treatment and would be a great addition to your company. We have to break down those barriers.

Gen. Natynczyk: I want to reinforce what the minister said and add a few things. What's key is that men and women in the Canadian Forces are coming forward, unlike past generations, if they've had or suffered a mental health injury. The challenge we have is assessing whether that was a pre-existing condition or whether that mental health injury is as a result of service, and that is in answer to your question.

What is terrific is that the dialogue happening now in Canada is encouraging those who have kept their situation to themselves, and they're finally coming forward. This is addressing the stigma. It's vital that we do it. It's a leadership issue, not a medical issue.

When I visit our Veterans Affairs offices, I am thrilled to hear that for the first time, veterans of World War II, Korea, the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s are coming forward and asking for help. The research we have at Veterans Affairs is interesting in that basically over 50 per cent of those coming for help come to us from the second year after they release out through to 60 or 70 years after they've released. For the most part, it is those with mental health injuries. It is a smaller proportion of those still in uniform. The larger proportion comes after the fact.

Senator Mitchell: Maybe we should put a plaque for Sam Sharpe beside that —

Mr. O'Toole: That's my project. I'm glad I have a new ally.

Senator Mitchell: I encourage it. The general mentioned leadership, and I don't mean to be critical, but Mr. Minister you listed a great list of characteristics and traits that members of the Armed Forces bring to an employer, and one that I think you neglected to mention is leadership qualities. It is one of the few places where you really learn leadership. The leadership training in the Armed Forces is outstanding, and I have always been impressed by it. We need that in business and in government.

My second question goes back to what Senator White talked about, which is the RCMP. From my observation, I believe that the military has made great strides in a way that the RCMP hasn't yet with PTSD. I think they're trying, but it's not the same. I noticed that the RCMP members who were released are a priority 4 release for medical reasons — I may have that wrong — and they're not a priority 1.

I am wondering, Mr. Minister and general, whether you and your staff are in direct contact with Commissioner Paulson and the RCMP about the three to five years before some of their members leave for medical reasons and PTSD. These are not insignificant matters in the RCMP. I wonder whether you can apply or are applying the kind of methodology and approach that you use in the Armed Forces, if you can see that applied in the RCMP.

Mr. O'Toole: I will pass it over to General Natynczyk in a moment because I think he can speak to this. He's uniquely suited to speak to this. I understand the RCMP has been looking at the Road to Mental Readiness approach that the Canadian Armed Forces has adopted, and some of the mental health expertise within the Canadian Armed Forces. That is smart, and some of the large police forces across the country are also looking or should look at the approach the Canadian Forces has taken on this because it is seen as operational readiness, making sure that the mental health needs of your men and women are addressed.

Often, if these issues are caught early, people can have training and education prior to deployment, or to that trigger or crisis. Even over the course of 12 years in Afghanistan, the Canadian Armed Forces was always refining their pre- deployment training on mental health and operational stress, and their post-deployment and decompression training, so that you were equipping men and women before, supporting them after and creating an environment where you're encouraged to come forward and get help, just like if you had a serious leg or physical injury.

The general can speak to this far better than I could.

Gen. Natynczyk: Thank you very much for the question.

It's always interesting. We two are the new folks, and the wisdom of Bernard Butler and Maureen Sinnott will chime in here if I go too far off track.

The act under which the minister and the department operate is focused on the Canadian Forces, and Veterans Affairs is a service provider for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. You'll know better than I do that several years ago, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police decided to stay with the Pension Act and not move with the New Veterans Charter. We include them in our strategic planning and policy discussions, trying to give them the options to move forward. I've met with the Commissioner of the RCMP, had his senior human resources assistant commissioner participate in all of our planning, saying we're there to provide services as they wish. But it's up to the leadership of the RCMP, under the means of how they act, to determine what kind of services we can provide them.

With regard to the RCMP, my concern when I was Chief of Defence was that they were poaching all of our great guys, especially my military police. I would hear from the RCMP, as well as the OPP and the Quebec forces, about the quality of the people and wishing to offer them employment. When it comes to providing support to the RCMP, they have the initiative.

Senator Mitchell: Are they taking that initiative? I know that in the past the offer was extended, several years ago, under Lieutenant-Colonel Stéphane Grenier's program of mentoring to the RCMP and it was never taken up. Apparently they would say they would, and then wouldn't.

Gen. Natynczyk: I can say that the RCMP is using our operational stress injury clinics. We are providing those services to them. Our Veterans Affairs offices are providing the full suite of services to them.

The Chair: I have two senators who have indicated an interest in engaging in round two, which has the short snappy questions and answers, as we all know.

Senator Stewart Olsen: I have a quick question: Do the RCMP have access to the specialized clinics that we have set up across the country for the military?

Mr. O'Toole: Yes, the general indicated that the operational stress injury clinics, including the satellite clinics and some of the ones we have been expanding, are accessible. Our hope on that strategy, in terms of the network of clinics, is to have geographic dispersion across the country, working alongside the Canadian Armed Forces, which operates some, and Veterans Affairs to ensure that for populations with high numbers of Canadian Forces families and veterans. But it is also to have geographic dispersion so that we cover those families, as I indicated earlier in my remarks, that move back home after service. Our goal is that we get to a point where almost 80 per cent of the Canadian population is within an hour's drive or so from those locations.

Remember, the first operational stress injury clinic opened in my last year in the Canadian Armed Forces, 2002. Even these front-facing mental health support clinics are relatively new for Canada, and we've been expanding rapidly. Like the general said, as we're making some headway on the stigma issue, more people are coming forward, and not just immediately after release.

The general is right; I'm amazed in encountering Korean War veterans who have been struggling in silence for decades but now feel there is an environment and now they know there are resources out there. That's a good thing, because we hate to think of those people continuing to struggle as a result of repressing some of their challenges.

The Chair: Your question was short and succinct. Thank you, Senator Stewart Olsen.

Senator White: You expect the same from me.

General, I appreciate your comments in relation to the RCMP. I'm a retiree from the RCMP. There is still a difficult connection, I have to say, in the relationship between the RCMP, Veterans Affairs and the retiree. When this bill first came in, I had close to a hundred emails from retired RCMP officers saying, "Are we finally going to be taken care of by Veterans Affairs, because we're not exactly sure?" There really isn't an RCMP representative that we could contact if I had issues. In fact, after I retired, if I had tried to figure out if I had an operational stress injury, I don't know what I would have done, to be fair. This isn't actually sitting on the commissioner's desk or yours, deputy. It's I think maybe sitting on the desk of the department trying to figure out where do we go to be clear.

Today there are 30,000 RCMP employees, of which 22,000 would be eligible for Veterans Affairs afterwards. What is the step for them? I think it's clear for the military. I think the military understands the steps. I'm not so clear. I have a card I was looking for that told me who to contact at Veterans Affairs, but I've called that number post-retirement and I can tell you their answer was, "We're not actually sure what support we would offer you. You should contact the local division of the RCMP," who would say, "We have no idea what they're talking about."

I do think we have to have a discussion going forward outside of this. This legislation for me is very helpful for what we want to do. I think a further discussion around the connectivity between RCMP retirees and Veterans Affairs would be helpful to the veterans of the RCMP themselves and to Veterans Affairs.

Thank you for coming today. I hope you enjoy your day. I have to form this into a question.

The Chair: What do you think about that?

Senator White: Yes, what do you think about that?

Gen. Natynczyk: Can I just make a comment? Mr. Chair, senator, when in doubt, call the great staff sergeant of the RCMP who's on my staff in Charlottetown. I have a permanent liaison officer inside the organization. When we had our strategic gathering on December 5, in came the assistant commissioner for HR, Dan Dubeau, participating. Coast to coast, RCMP officers, both serving and retired, are walking into our Veterans Affairs offices and getting a full suite of services.

I've met with the leadership of the RCMP Veterans' Association and said to them that we're there to support them. The door is open, and I've met with the commissioner and provided the same information. I was speaking to Mr. Guy Parent, our ombudsman. He has engaged with the senior leadership of the RCMP as well. We're going in a full envelopment, saying that the door is open; whatever they require, we're there to serve.

The Chair: Bringing you back briefly to Bill C-27, since we will be required to vote on that in the not-too-distant future, a couple of issues were brought up by the ombudsman and others. One of them is going back to this question of attribution to service, the reason for the release and the injury. We've already talked about for attribution that you're hoping to have better collaboration with National Defence, so while the person is still in uniform we can start doing some of this assessment. Is same process available to assess financial benefits and to assess eligibility to public service? Are there also assessment processes that can take place when the person is still in uniform?

Mr. O'Toole: Great question. The answer is yes, that is our goal. So within that period I mentioned in the remarks, the three to five years on average that a medically releasing member of the Canadian Armed Forces remains in uniform and remains receiving their Canadian Forces salary waiting for recovery or determination with respect to their military occupation, it is our sincere goal to have the disability claim and assessment done, but also plugging in the client relationship with Veterans Affairs earlier, where all of these things can be explored, such as eligibility for priority hiring, which retraining and rehabilitation options are there as we've expanded the amount of re-education and retraining that's available. Start accessing that while the person is at the JPSU, while they're in uniform.

One of the important things we moved on very quickly after the House of Commons Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs report on the New Veterans Charter, which I think was their first recommendation and their most important, it's now the policy of the federal government that no one will be released from the Canadian Armed Forces until their medical situation has stabilized and until Veterans Affairs case management has connected with them and begun that process. Our goal in working in collaboration, very quickly, with the Canadian Armed Forces and the Chief of Military Personnel is to make sure that happens quite early after a service-related injury so that we can use that time to work with the man or woman on their transition plan.

I say in my remarks quite regularly that there are three successes — and it's also in your report but I'm distilling it into the three I like to use. There are prongs of success for somebody transitioning out of the Canadian Armed Forces: health — and we're making sure they are medically stable and all that stuff is taken care of; family wellness; and career transition. If any one of those three doesn't go well, it affects the other two. If there is a challenge with career transition, that can affect stresses on the family. The same with health. We've had cases in the past where people were leaving before the full extent of their injury may have been known. That doesn't allow us to set them up in the right health and vocational rehabilitation plan if the extent of their injury is not understood.

If you let me, Senator Day, two of the stats I had hoped to have in my remarks I had written down but couldn't find in my marked-up copy of your report, when I spoke about the Life After Service Study and the focus on women. The statistic that I was struck by in your report was that women veterans experience a 30 per cent decline in income in their first three years following release. That shows why we need to drill down further on medically released who have higher unemployment and then some of our female veterans who don't have the outcomes we'd like to see.

The Chair: Thank you. A couple of other points were brought up that I think it would be helpful for us to have your comment on. One of them was the survivor of a veteran. That definition wasn't changed. The veteran in that particular instance is a veteran of the Korean War or the Second World War. The survivor is the wife, and the wife is likely to be in excess of 70 years of age now, yet we're still in the act giving a priority or preference for hiring for that person but not for the survivor of other veterans. The term "veteran," the priority is given to other veterans with the change here in Bill C-27 to three years and honourably discharged or honourably released. Was that an oversight not to change the definition with respect to the survivor of the veteran, or am I misinterpreting the legislation?

Mr. O'Toole: I'll say something quickly on that before passing to Mr. Butler specifically. One thing that the New Veterans Charter has done better and has been a focus of our government has been the veteran's family. I speak about that regularly. You'll notice your own study indicates in some detail that vocational rehabilitation training and re- education can be transferred to the survivor. Those sorts of inherent recognition are there to make sure that the transition is available for a family under the vocational rehab or some of the benefits.

The family has been more of an active participant. Our change is to make sure that family have had a massive increase in the amount of psychological counselling available because we do know that an operational stress injury of a serving member causes repercussions for the family. In that three-pronged approach to transition, if the family wellness isn't there, it won't help the veteran's transition.

In terms of the time frames selected for the act, the five-year time frame for Bill C-27 was selected based on the five- year period of time allowed for vocational rehabilitation to be part of that transition so that the member could take advantage of re-education, retraining to qualify for a federal government opportunity. We wanted the same general approach to be there for the survivor as well. It's specific on that.

The Chair: Would you be open to an amendment to make sure that the survivor of the veteran is a modern-day veteran as well?

Mr. O'Toole: One thing we would add is that the goal of this hiring program is to plug someone with the exceptional skills and services they gained in the Canadian Armed Forces into another part of the job. We wanted to extend that as well to the family somewhat, but the priority still remains on the serving member because of that inherent service and training they've gained in the Canadian Armed Forces. I can only suggest that that's possibly the reason why there was a slight difference.

The focus really is on that serving member, recognizing they've served the federal government in perhaps the highest form of service, which is the unlimited liability that's inherent in donning a uniform. I would suggest that's likely why there was a slightly different threshold for a survivor who has not served in the military.

The Chair: Mr. Butler, were you going to add something there?

Mr. Butler: No, I would simply confirm what the minister is suggesting. Certainly I would not suggest that it was an oversight at the time.

The Chair: It might be better to take out the provision giving preference to the survivor. When you know the survivor is over 80 years of age, it doesn't make good drafting sense to have it in there. But that's a comment that has been made by others as well, and I just wanted to pass it on to you so you could think about that one.

Going back to the five years to determine whether the veteran is eligible for employment in the public service, after he or she is determined to be eligible, there's another five-year period provided for in the legislation. There's some question as to why that is capped at five years. Was that because the Public Service Commission wanted some sort of a finite top-out to that? Why is the second five years in there at all? Why could it not be that once they're ready for employment, there's no limit on time?

Mr. O'Toole: Thank you, senator. I wasn't minister at the time this was being drafted, but I spoke probably more than any other MP in the house on the bill. What I can say is this: The five-year period, as I indicated, was selected to try to make sure they could take advantage of the rehabilitation and re-education opportunities provided for a veteran. I think the goal of transition written all through your report, and the goal of the New Veterans Charter, really, is to help with that transition piece.

The extended period I think comes from the fact that, as the veteran is engaged in vocational rehabilitation and training and potential post-secondary education, all these sorts of things, they may then determine after the education piece that they want to work within the Department of Finance. They may find that the rehabilitation process itself leads to a new career path. We want to encourage a quick and seamless transition because the more success in your first few years out of uniform, the more likelihood overall wellness is achieved. The goal was to always encourage that transitional piece up front, and then the expanded time I think just recognizes the fact that that training may lead to a new career opportunity, and we want to make sure that priority hiring is still available.

Is there anything to add specifically?

Gen. Natynczyk: I just wanted to make a couple of remarks to reinforce what the minister had indicated. Anecdotally, from knowing many of the soldiers who had some of the most serious injuries, what was really tough is they didn't want to leave their units for years. We tried to encourage them to go to school, tried to encourage them on a number of paths, and it was so important for them to be part of their regimental squadron, ship, family; they didn't want to leave. It's tough to actually encourage them to go when they've sacrificed so much.

I'm thrilled at having seen some of them over the past couple of years, after about five years since their injury, in the mindset that they're ready to move on. Many of their peers have moved on and are doing other things, and they're ready to move on. As I'm being briefed on this five years, I'm comfortable based upon what I'm hearing.

Also that second window of five years, you want them to get into something, whether public service or industry, because it's so important to their health. If they're unable because of their personal injuries, whether physical or mental, to handle it, then it's so important for their partners and spouses to have that opportunity to contribute to the family. That's why I'm very comfortable with what's being laid out here.

The Chair: Five years and five years. Thank you very much. You hear the bell ringing.

Mr. Minister, thank you very much for being with us. This was a very good discussion and very helpful to us. Mr. Natynczyk, thank you, and good luck to both of you. I'm sure that Ms. Sinnott and Mr. Butler will keep a close eye on both of you.

The meeting is now concluded. Thank you.

(The committee adjourned.)


Back to top