Proceedings of the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs
Issue 9 - Evidence - December 1, 2010
OTTAWA, Wednesday, December 1, 2010
The Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met this day at 12:03 p.m. to study 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 this meeting of the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs. We continue our study of the New Veterans' Charter and its impact on members of the Canadian Forces, former members of the Canadian Forces, veterans and also members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
[English]
This morning we have from the National Institute of Disability Management and Research, Mr. Wolfgang Zimmermann, Executive Director. It is a name I expect to sometimes hear at NATO and the UN, so it is lovely to have you here, sir.
From the Workplace Safety & Insurance Board of Ontario, which is a significant player in the world of injury and compensation, Mr. Paul Gilkinson, Vice-President, Service Delivery Division, which is very much what we are looking for; and Ms. Donna Bain, Vice-President, Health Services Division, which is the treatment dimension of it.
Wolfgang Zimmermann, Executive Director, National Institute of Disability Management and Research: First, I would like to express my sincere appreciation for the opportunity to be here before you and to offer some thoughts on expected rehabilitation outcomes for disabled veterans.
My comments today are structured into four basic elements: personal experience, consideration of the disability context, what we can achieve with effective return-to-work interventions, and potential opportunities I think this committee may wish to consider going forward.
My personal experience with a permanent disabling injury dates back to June 1977 when, as a 20-year-old graduate from a polytechnic institute, I joined the workforce of MacMillan Bloedel, which was Canada's largest forest products company and British Columbia's largest employer. I was given a power saw and a pamphlet showing how to fall trees and was told "good luck." On my fifth day on the job, a 50-foot alder tree I was cutting split and came down on me. It broke my back and left me with a significant spinal cord injury.
Whether causation is a result of military service, some other industrial accident or not related to an occupational injury at all, the impact on the individual, the individual's family and the required rehabilitation measures are identical. This brings me to the overriding outcome we are trying to achieve for the individual; namely, maximizing participation of the disabled individual in all aspects of our society, economically, socially and recreationally.
I was most fortunate to have been given that opportunity. Hence, I am privileged to be here with you today.
While I understand most of the current New Veterans' Charter, my comments should not be seen as a reflection of current circumstances, although I would be most happy to comment on them. Rather, my comments should be seen as a standard for future developments you might wish to consider.
I have had the privilege of being Chair of the Premier's Council for Persons with Disabilities in British Columbia and I spent six years on the panel of administrators of the Workers' Compensation Board of BC — not dissimilar to Veterans Affairs Canada, as the occupational injury carrier for disabled veterans.
Key to my rehabilitation was my almost immediate ability to continue productive participation in the workforce as a result of the company accepting full responsibility for the accident and collaborating with the union to develop a creative opportunity for my ongoing employment relationship, even though I was in a wheelchair and there was no precedent for doing this in a logging camp of 450 workers on the West Coast of Vancouver Island. This being said, having strategies aimed at immediately maintaining the ongoing economic and social productive capacity of the disabled individual is critical for both the employer — in this case, the Government of Canada — and the disabled veteran.
There is an overabundance of national and international evidence to support the strategy, specifically if the conundrum of successfully maintaining an ongoing employment relationship is solved. Many of the associated psychosocial issues, whether they are long-term mental health concerns, dependency or other social challenges, will be largely mitigated. Hence, there needs to be a clear understanding, from our perspective, that the Government of Canada is the employer of disabled veterans and that it has an unequivocal responsibility for their continued employment.
In our opinion, there is absolutely no valid reason, given the scope and scale of government operations, for not accommodating the overwhelming majority of disabled veterans within the diverse range of government departments.
I have been employed by MacMillan Bloedel and Weyerhaeuser — which purchased MacMillan Bloedel in 1999 — for the past 34 years. I am currently on an executive secondment to the National Institute for Disability Management and Research and I can assure you that the challenge for private sector companies, even large ones such as Weyerhaeuser, is significantly greater when it comes to successful accommodation of disabled workers.
Effective return to work and disability management interventions for disabled veterans requires strict adherence to substantive adoption of three core principles: Creativity, no two situations are ever quite alike; collaboration, successful reintegration of disabled veterans requires absolute participation by all stakeholders; and commitment, leadership at all levels and full acceptance of responsibility is key. Without this being spelled out clearly, nothing will happen.
When this was made a requirement across our North American operations for Weyerhaeuser, it was due to the leadership of the chief executive officer, who said every one of our workers deserved the dignity of participating in the workforce and being a full and complete member of society. We had, at that time, 65,000 employees in North America.
Honourable senators, I would suggest that the above core principles — and for that matter, all of the presentations that you will be receiving — be measured against the overriding objective, namely, how do current policies, procedures and actions contribute toward maximizing the human and productive capacity of disabled veterans? How do they optimize their continued successful participation in all aspects of our society; and what evidence is being presented to support achievements toward this objective?
Failure to support and ultimately to achieve these objectives forces many disabled veterans, not unlike disabled individuals in general, to the margins of society economically and socially, with all the inherent tragedies, which are well documented around the world. We know, from the United Kingdom, that the suicide rate for disabled and unemployed individuals is 40 times that of the average population. Significantly lowered employment participation rates compromise personal and family circumstances and bring much higher reliance on our health care system and significant psychosocial compounding of existing physical impairments.
Incidentally, these issues are not limited to disabled veterans, but apply broadly to people with disabilities generally in Canada and around the world. That is why I am very pleased that Canada recently ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
Going forward, my specific suggestions are: Recognition by the Government of Canada of its employer responsibilities for disabled veterans; commitment toward implementation of best practice return to work and disability management programs, using internationally recognized and adopted optimum practice standards; and optimizing holistic rehabilitation outcomes when internal accommodation may not be possible through creative partnerships. Some examples of the latter could be working with the Canadian Council of Chief Executives for the hiring of disabled veterans and raising the issue of disabled veterans by working with the Canadian Labour Congress to allow them to understand the issues faced by disabled veterans in trying to re-establish themselves. Other creative partnerships could include using the resources of departments of provincial workers' compensation boards, whose staff have intimate jurisdictional knowledge of all relevant issues relating to optimizing successful rehabilitation potential for disabled workers.
In summary, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak. I encourage you to take all necessary steps in ensuring that for those individuals who have suffered a disabling condition while serving our country, this unfortunate stroke of fate does not relegate them to the margins of our society in perpetuity.
Paul Gilkinson, Vice-President, Service Delivery Division, Workplace Safety & Insurance Board of Ontario: My name is Paul Gilkinson, vice-president of service delivery at Ontario's Workplace Safety & Insurance Board, the WSIB. It is my privilege to provide an overview of the benefits and services that our agency provides to injured workers in Ontario.
With me today, and in the theme that Mr. Zimmermann talked about in terms of collaboration, I have the vice- president of our health services area, Donna Bain, as well as Judy Geary, the vice-president of our work reintegration area, which is our vocational rehabilitation focus.
As an organization, we have a responsibility to protect workers, provide value for employers and run a system that is fair and financially sustainable. The WSIB is among the largest group insurers in North America. Every working day, 1,100 claims are registered at the Workplace Safety & Insurance Board of Ontario, and annually we receive an average of 250,000 new claims in addition to the 210,000 workers who are on long-term or permanent benefits.
I can provide you with the details of how our benefit packages work, but it is important to remember that each claim represents a worker who depends on us to make decisions that will affect his or her life and the lives of his or her family. Simply stated, WSIB insurance replaces lost earnings, covers health care costs and helps get workers back to the job safely.
However, we are more than a simple insurance company. We are committed to doing everything in our power to reduce the financial and human impact of workplace injuries. One of the best ways for injured workers to move forward with their lives in dignity is to get back on the job as soon as it is safe for them to do so. We have just launched and made considerable investment in a new Work Reintegration Program to support workers in their return to decent, safe and sustainable employment.
Another key to supporting return to work is to ensure that workers can manage their pain while performing work that is suited to their physical abilities. We found that workers might be physically able to return to modified work, but were unable to do so because of the impact of narcotic medication. We have done considerable research on the subject and I am sure you will have some questions about our approach to managing workers' use of long-acting narcotic drugs.
For workers who have suffered serious injuries, occupational diseases or other special requirements, we offer specialty programs including clinics that focus on amputations, burn injuries, post-traumatic stress disorders, head and neurological injuries, and some occupational diseases.
Our Serious Injury Program provides severely injured workers with specialized treatment and equipment and services they need to maximize their recovery and quality of life. Our program is quite comprehensive, and I can give more details about that should you have questions.
At the WSIB, we also recognize the unique circumstances that apply to some worker groups in Ontario. Special legislation presumes entitlement for firefighters who are diagnosed with certain heart injuries or occupational diseases. There is also an increasing awareness of stress as a workplace health and safety issue. The WSIB has a policy in place for adjudicating claims for traumatic mental stress — TMS — and post-traumatic stress disorder — PTSD claims.
A key barrier in overcoming mental health issues like PTSD is the social stigma associated with mental illness and with workplace injuries in general. That is why we are taking action to educate our staff and raise awareness about the profound impact that negative attitudes can have on injured workers. Ms. Judy Geary has led much of that work in our organization.
Our focus on injured workers' stigma is part of our overall approach to improving customer service. Our customers' expectations of the WSIB continue to rise. They want service levels that equal or exceed customer service standards in the private sector. We are committed to meeting those expectations.
All of these programs and services come at a cost, however, which is borne by Ontario's employers. Those costs have increased significantly. In October this year, we launched a funding review to seek input on how we can create a financially secure system for the future. We want to ensure that we continue to be able to fund the resources that provide workers with the best in programs and services.
Thank you again for inviting us here today. My colleagues and I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
The Chair: Thank you, sir, very much for being succinct and opening up all kinds of venues. I would like to mention why we are so keen on you being here. Recently, we heard from representatives from the Public Service Commission of Canada, which employs hundreds of thousands of public servants. As we were discussing non-military cases — those not recognized as veterans of the forces, a comment was made that they did not need a veterans department because their programs were better than those available from Veterans Affairs Canada for the troops. Therefore, we are quite keen to know how people are being handled on the civilian and industrial side.
Senator Plett: Mr. Zimmermann, concerning your accident that you had so many years ago, you were very complimentary of your employer for accepting full responsibility; that is great. Obviously you went through rehabilitation before you could get back to productive work. Did workers compensation pay for your time, or was it a private insurance company?
Mr. Zimmermann: It was workers compensation. The company accepted the responsibility and, together with the union, made accommodations. I was able to go back to work on a part-time basis. I also undertook a training program as an accountant, which was funded through the Workers' Compensation Board of British Columbia known as WorkSafeBC. The accounting role was seen as providing the best long-term potential for me to return to full-time work, while continuing to rise within the organization. At the time, MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. had about 25,000 employees.
Senator Plett: Was that not something that workers compensation would normally do? Did they treat you in a special way? Was it a normal compensation package?
Mr. Zimmermann: It was a normal package in terms of payment for retraining. The difference was that the company accepted responsibility as some organizations do. This happened 33 years ago so to accommodate someone who suffered a severe disability in the logging industry in those days was unheard of. Fortunately, today many more organizations accommodate disabled individuals regardless of costs. We have the duty to accommodate as a federal requirement, but the key in this case was quite unusual in terms of the company making the accommodation.
The benefit from workers' compensation board with respect to paying for the retraining was a matter of it being a benefit provided to everyone.
Senator Plett: Had the company not been cooperative and said that the accident was your fault because you should not have been out there with your chain saw without proper precautions; would you have been eligible for compensation in any event?
Mr. Zimmermann: I would have been eligible for retraining and compensation. The challenge is that once an individual has acquired a disability, he is out of the workforce for a certain period of time. We know that when an individual has been out of the workforce for about six months, although the data varies, there is a 50 per cent to 70 per cent likelihood that the individual will never work again.
There is also the likelihood that by the time you have been out of the workforce and completely disassociated with that work, you have the psychosocial aspect compounding the physical injury. After two years, there is less than a 10 per cent chance that you will ever work again. Unfortunately I have been at this for way too long so I will be candid and say that the truth is: We do not hire individuals with disabilities as a general rule unless there is a tremendous effort being made.
There are only two ways that we can increase employment for disabled. This is all about disabled veterans being able to participate in society, so either we try to maintain their attachment to the workforce so they do not end up on the social security system or we try to maximize their return to work opportunities. That is infinitely more challenging. Currently, we have 320,000 individuals with disabilities in Canada receiving Canada Pension Plan Disability Benefits. As of 2008, the annual outflow rate from the system is 0.75 per cent. That means individuals leave our CPP disability system once they retire or they die.
In answer to your question, if I had not had the opportunity to maintain the attachment to the workforce, there is likely that although I was entitled to the benefits and retraining through the WCB, I would not have gone back into the workforce.
Senator Plett: You said that the Canadian government is responsible for the veterans, as the employer and I think we all agree. Did you suggest the possibility of the federal government working together with the provincial workers' compensation programs?
Mr. Zimmermann: That is correct. Many times there are challenges. Although the government has 220,000 employment positions, sometimes there is no suitable position in a community and a person is not prepared to move. I am suggesting, as a creative solution, that the federal government work with provincial workers' compensation boards in identifying employment options for these disabled veterans.
Senator Plett: I agreed with your presentation and everything that you said about policies, procedures, objectives and so on. I support the New Veterans' Charter. I have studied it and I think it has made great strides in finding job placements for injured Canadian Forces people, et cetera.
In your opinion, what does the veterans' charter not address and what is lacking in the government's efforts to support our disabled veterans?
Mr. Zimmermann: I have been privileged to have been involved with the New Veterans' Charter advisory committee, and I can say that we are not seeing interface between DND and Veterans Affairs to support an optimum return-to-work outcome. In other words, individuals are being kept at DND for much too long before an active effort is made to ensure that there is a speedy return-to-work outcome.
Senator Plett: Is that because it is a new program? Is that a growing pain?
Mr. Zimmermann: I cannot answer to that level of detail. I do not know whether that is a function of the New Veterans' Charter or whether it is a systemic issue that existed before. However, it is a significant challenge that disabled veterans face in trying to achieve better return-to-work outcomes.
Senator Plett: Mr. Gilkinson, how well would it work if the Canadian Forces worked with workers' compensation?
Mr. Gilkinson: We are always searching for opportunities to get our workers back to work. We have a lot of boots on the ground doing that.
Senator Plett: You said that you get 1,000-plus claims every day and are trying to get those people back to work. This would be an added workload.
Judy Geary, Vice-President, Work Reintegration, Workplace Safety & Insurance Board of Ontario: The WSIB already handles federal government claims for federal employees of all kinds who work in the province of Ontario.
In terms of Veterans Affairs, it would require a transformational change for the workers' compensation boards across the country to take over the management of these cases, and it would take a lot of time. However, we have lots of experience in dealing with catastrophic injuries, occupational diseases and mental stress cases. We have policies that work very well for us. We have many programs and lots of expertise.
I am not sure whether that exists in Veterans Affairs and DND, but we could certainly collaborate on identifying best practices to support not only mental and physical recovery but also return-to-work reintegration.
Senator Plett: If someone is injured overseas, what level takes over the responsibility?
Mr. Gilkinson: If you are talking about an injured worker, the home province has accountability. However, if a worker is overseas for a long time, the employer must let us know, as we have a special arrangement in those cases.
The Chair: There is an administrative procedure for military members overseas. Thank you for raising that.
Ms. Geary, you said that you are already involved with assisting members of the public service of Canada with finding employment and with rehabilitation. Is that correct?
Ms. Geary: Yes.
The Chair: However, you are not involved in doing that with Veterans Affairs?
Ms. Geary: That is right.
The Chair: That is absolutely incredible. This goes back to something I said in my opening statement. People from the public service have told us that they have no interest in joining Veterans Affairs Canada for overseas employment because they get better service through the public service than they would through Veterans Affairs. That is a significant statement.
Senator Wallin: We are talking about a provincially-based workman's compensation scheme. How does this compare to the other nine provinces and territories? Do they have consistent programs?
Mr. Gilkinson: The various jurisdictions get together regularly. Programs arise from provincial legislation, so they vary to some degree. However, the basic principles are consistent across the country. The principle that gave rise to the compensation concept is that the worker gives up the right to sue for benefits, but the benefits are to be provided in a timely way, and the benefit suite increases based on legislative and policy issues.
Senator Wallin: The basic philosophy is consistent, but the details may be quite different from province to province?
Mr. Gilkinson: That is correct.
Senator Wallin: To clarify, do you think it would be a good idea for the federal government, in this case, to off-load this to the provinces? I can imagine that some would complain about the cost of having to provide for injured veterans when the federal government is the employer. What is your view on that?
Mr. Gilkinson: Part of the issue is money. We would have to have the required revenue to do the work. Economies of scale can come into play with existing programs, but we will not do it for free.
Senator Wallin: The issue is not that this would be a cost saving; this would just be a different way to administer.
Mr. Gilkinson: I do not want to speak for Mr. Zimmermann, but his pitch to you is that the most important thing is to get people back to work. Our organization and others have had a lot of experience in it. We do a good job and we are trying to do a better job.
How do you leverage that to get better outcomes for the veterans? It is like anything else. As Ms. Geary said, you want to go to best practices. What is working in Ontario? Every province is pushing the same issue. When we get together with all of our peers, it is all about recovery and return-to-work practices. That is why Ms. Bain is here and that is why I said, at the beginning, that it is about collaboration. That is, how do we work the health system? How do we work employers, as Mr. Zimmermann said, to get people back to work, to use legislation effectively, and, at the end, to get the right training to get the right positions?
Ms. Geary can talk about this better than I can, but getting people the correct and appropriate training to get them back to work is the key aspect, not just training.
Mr. Zimmermann: Mr. Gilkinson had it right, but I was not really suggesting that Veterans Affairs off-load the responsibility to provincial workers' compensation boards. I was looking at a collaborative relationship where Veterans Affairs is unable to place someone within the federal government context. We have a workforce of 220,000 for the federal government, but no two circumstances are alike. Where someone will not be able to be placed within the federal context, because the provincial workers' compensation boards already look after the Government Employees' Compensation Act, a collaborative relationship would be in the best interest of the individual. That is what I was suggesting.
Senator Wallin: Again, this may be a more philosophical question — and we will come back to some of the testimony we heard from the Public Service Commission. The JPSUs, the Joint Personnel Support Units that are developing across the country; and the people that you talked to there, the members of the CF who have landed in one of these support units; are doing everything in their power to stay inside the CF. That has been my experience, namely, that they want to be there. They are not workers like other workers. You do not sign up for the military because it is the same thing in your mind as working at the local Safeway store, or whatever it is. It is a different psychology, a different level of commitment and a whole different approach.
Yet, you are saying that if you do not move on the retraining and the placement within two years, then you will lose your access to this, or it is not likely, in your words, ever going to happen. However, you are then going against the wishes of the soldiers themselves who are saying, "At least give me my three years," which is what they have now, "because if there is any way I can, I will stay in." I am wondering if we are being benevolent in a way that they will not appreciate.
Mr. Gilkinson: It is somewhat of a dilemma. You could absolutely appreciate that someone who has given and committed to such an important organization wants to stay. I have been in my company for 34 years, and if I were injured I would do anything to stay. It is completely natural.
I think what Mr. Zimmermann would tell you is that creativity is the key to unleashing the potential of those individuals staying within that organization. Perhaps that needs to be part of the focus. Maybe that is where the provincial agencies who have been working this issue for as long as I have been working, trying to come up with that magic formula to get that person back into the workplace where they were injured, can leverage that, as Ms. Geary mentioned.
Senator Wallin: I think being more creative inside the CF is what the JPSUs are. If a person cannot actually go to war and fight, the military is doing its best to find them. I met a pilot who lost her hearing. She cannot fly, but she can make flight plans because that is a job on the ground. However, it is not always so clear, and the injuries are not easily resolvable, for example, if you have lost arms and legs or if you are suffering from PTSD or some combination of them both. It does not really matter when the training kicks in if there is not an actual job that could accommodate that person.
Mr. Zimmermann: From the time I have spent, I understand the whole concept of the importance of the military family. However, as Mr. Gilkinson said, we all have that attachment. I was extremely fortunate because I wanted to stay within the organization. The crass reality, unfortunately, is that psychosocial compounding of a disabling condition is something — and I have experienced and lived with it — is insidious. All of a sudden, we do not recognize it and it creeps up on you. After a certain amount of time, you are no longer participating in the workforce; your entire life starts to revolve around the disability. To the extent the CF can accommodate, it should. However, it does not have the capacity to accommodate all these individuals who need to be accommodated.
You spoke earlier about a benign approach is probably correct. One must be candid because, as an individual, we do not see it and realize this because it is insidious. All of a sudden, beyond a certain point, you have reached a point of no return. That is simply what happens. That is where we then get our greatest challenges.
Senator Wallin: That is what we heard from Ms. Barrados. There is preferential hiring in the federal government for former CF members who are released, but they do not want to go work at the Heritage Department. They want to work for DND because that is their approach to life.
You are saying that they should be dealt with first inside the CF. Do you think had the three-year prior to release time frame is too long?
Mr. Zimmermann: Absolutely.
Senator Wallin: They would then go into the preferential hiring route and see if there is anything in the federal public service. If that did not suit them, they would keep going down the road to the provincial level. I am trying to get how you see this working without yanking the soldier out of the CF system earlier because they do not appear to want to do that.
Mr. Zimmermann: I have experienced some frustration in terms of looking at the opportunities that exist within the public service. You gave the example in terms of Heritage Canada. Of course you would not want to take someone who has been on the front lines in Afghanistan and put them into phase 4, where they have an office job. Why not look at potential opportunities in Fisheries and Oceans, or the Coast Guard, or within our parks system, or within our Canadian forest service system, or within Industry Canada, or with health and safety inspectors for the labour program at HRSDC. There are 200 some odd health and safety officers across the country.
This is where we look at trying to create a match in terms of an opportunity with the individual. That should be presented to the individual coming off the front line as opposed to the spectre of, "My God, I will be stuck with a desk job," because I do not think that needs to be the case the all.
The Chair: Mr. Gilkinson, the federal public service does not dump all its problem scenarios on the provincial systems. However, those who require capabilities that they do not have, they go to the provinces and pay for those services; is that correct?
Ms. Geary: If the injury is an occupational injury, if it happens in the employment of the federal government, they are obligated to report it to the provincial workers' compensation board. We adjudicate the matter and manage it if they need our help managing it. The federal public service does have capability. They have a lot of smart people and a lot of opportunities, so we do not interfere if they have the ability within the first few weeks to manage the situation on their own. In our system in Ontario, if the person has not returned to work by 12 weeks, we get involved.
Senator Wallin: This applies to soldiers?
Ms. Geary: No, not to soldiers.
We start with telephone conversations much earlier than that, but if by 12 weeks the person is not at work, we actually go to the work site, have a meeting with the supervisor and the individual, and start helping them with discussions about return to work planning.
If it is a non-occupational injury, then the federal government would have a different disability benefit provider. There is a distinction between how the non-occupational cases and the occupational cases are managed.
The Chair: Mr. Zimmermann, you are on the advisory board. When you look at the New Veterans' Charter and this initiative of rehabilitation and reintegration at Veterans Affairs Canada, the impression that is left is that we are sort of starting from scratch on that capability. Do you think there is enough in that charter to give confidence to the troops? Do you think there is enough that if they are handled by Veterans Affairs Canada — which is isolated from all the others, as we have just found out — that they would want to move there? Should Veterans Affairs create the atmosphere of confidence that in fact all options will be made open for them?
Mr. Zimmermann: To answer your first question, I think the opportunity exists at this point in the New Veterans' Charter. The real challenge is in the implementation.
From my understanding, two major structural issues need to be addressed. The first issue is the one I alluded to earlier, which is the interface between DND and Veterans Affairs. The second issue is the barriers being thrown up against individuals who are medically discharged from actually being able to exercise the right of first choice in terms of a government job.
These are issues that we have been advised of, which is why I raised this earlier. Individuals are required to have a minimum of an undergraduate degree. Some of us said that we need to be creative in addressing those issues in terms of matching individual skills with the different opportunities that exist within a number of departments that I mentioned earlier, whether it is Fisheries, the Coast Guard, et cetera. The opportunities are there, but a number of artificial barriers, in my view, have blocked the implementation of those opportunities.
The Chair: That includes not necessarily opening the door with the provincial capabilities to learn from them or actually link in with the provincial systems; correct.
Mr. Zimmermann: That is not something that has been discussed at this point.
The Chair: I want to go back to your data, because you expressed extraordinary loyalty to your company, and the company responded by finding you employment. From the day they enter the military, we demand that our soldiers shift their loyalty to the military; in fact, we nearly desensitize them to certain other loyalties. Then all of a sudden, by reason of injury, they find themselves in this quandary.
You argue that by trying to accommodate them during the three years, it is injurious to their future in the long term. I would agree that staying in for three years, not being able to be promoted, not necessarily having a steady job, being bounced around and not even being in the hands of VAC, is not very positive.
However, the data you cite says that if they do not get a steady job or an orientation to a job within two years, only 10 per cent of them will ever go back to work. You said that within six months about 50 per cent of them will do that.
I would like to know where your data comes from, if could you provide that to us. Second, do you not feel that the Canadian Forces, in itself, should try to find an innovative way of keeping its injured members employed? Should the CF adapt elements of the Canadian Forces to be able to handle that situation?
Mr. Zimmermann: The national business council in the United States initially developed the data in the 1990s, principally because of initiatives by self-insured, big American employers. In other words, they did not use a workers' compensation system, but they were self-insured. These employers had a vested financial interest in reducing individuals' time away from gainful employment, and this has been confirmed now through many international studies.
In terms of your second question, yes, if CF could play a greater facilitating role, if I understood your question correctly, and facilitate the provision of support to disabled veterans and help them to get jobs within other departments that would be a tremendous opportunity. That would provide a much higher trust level for the individuals, as opposed to having them handed off to another department. There is no question about that.
As you correctly indicated, there is a tremendous amount of loyalty, an expectation of that loyalty, and an inherent trust relationship between members and the service. If the CF could facilitate that, it would be a huge step in the right direction. It is a terrific idea.
Senator Day: Thank you very much. This has been a very interesting discussion. This brings back some matters I worked on at one time in the past but have not worked on for some time, so it ties in quite nicely with the study we are doing now.
To clarify matters, Mr. Gilkinson, in order to be eligible to fit into all the various services that are available, does one have to have been injured in the workplace situation?
Mr. Gilkinson: Absolutely. Our adjudicators decide that threshold test, hopefully within about two weeks of getting the accident report from the employer. The employer is obligated by law to report the accident to us within three days of the injury being reported to them by the worker. That is the threshold.
Senator Day: You indicate that the philosophy or the theory is that companies can avoid a lawsuit by being part of this program; the individual will not sue in the civil court system for this injury but will get proper attention through the Workplace Safety & Insurance Board.
Mr. Gilkinson: Exactly.
Senator Day: Is it optional or mandatory that all employees and all companies in Ontario are in this system?
Mr. Gilkinson: We have coverage. Again this is a legislative piece where there are certain companies and organizations mandatorily covered. Approximately 70 per cent of workers in Ontario are covered through this scheme, so yes; those who are covered have no option on suing. That agreement exists. If they are not covered under our scheme then they are under a general private insurance scheme. A good example of that is bank employees are not covered in Ontario. Those employees have a general insurance scheme, and anything is wide open for them to happen in terms of that kind of arrangement.
Senator Day: That is a policy decision of the provincial government.
Mr. Gilkinson: Correct. That is something we look at all the time because, to Senator Wallin's comment, in British Columbia, I think, almost 95 per cent of workers are covered mandatorily through their workplace insurance system.
Senator Day: Those in the private insurance side or an individual worker who would normally be covered but did not have a workplace injury — he was out playing football or soccer with his daughter or son and hurt his back or broke his leg — where does he or she fit in to a rehabilitation scheme? Should I ask you or Mr. Zimmermann?
Mr. Gilkinson: It will be dependent on the extra personal insurance that you have. Some people have personal or company short-term disability coverage. Maybe Ms. Bain can talk a little bit about some of the options for people like that.
Donna Bain, Vice-President, Health Services Division, Workplace Safety & Insurance Board of Ontario: If you are covered through an employer insurance plan because you are in an industry not covered by our legislation, you would get the benefit package of whatever is in your employment relationship. There are other payer streams for insurance benefits and rehabilitation benefits such as motor vehicle insurance programs.
Senator Day: I would like to focus on the rehabilitation side.
Ms. Bain: That would be covered in both systems. It would be covered either through your employer plan depending on who the insurer was for that particular individual.
Senator Day: Does Canada Pension Plan Disability Benefit have a rehabilitation aspect to it?
Mr. Gilkinson: Yes, they actually do. We met with them several years ago, and one of the things they were looking at ways to reconnect with some workers who were on Canada disability to see if there are vocational options that they may have missed with particular workers. To Mr. Zimmermann's point, if you have been on benefit for a long time, it takes a heck of a program, as people will tell you, to get those individuals employed.
Senator Day: We are dealing with Armed Forces personnel here and trying to figure out the best system, and it seems a shame that we have so many silos, provincially and federally, when the objective should be to look after the injured worker and get that injured worker back to a productive lifestyle again as quickly as possible. One of the areas we have been worried and concerned about are reservists. They come back and are not in an area like Petawawa or Base Gagetown. They do not have the large infrastructure support where there are a lot of regular force personnel. They might be way off in a small town somewhere. I presume that they are on some sort of leave of absence from their work in Ontario. They are serving the Government of Canada, they come back injured, and they would not fit into your program.
Mr. Gilkinson: You are absolutely correct, and it would really then be upon the employer, as in Mr. Zimmermann's example, to say "I am totally committed to Paul. I will try and do something." However, there are no legislative challenges. We have a re-employment obligation within our legislation that says if you are injured, they have a two- year obligation. They have no such obligation in that circumstance.
Senator Day: Presumably the employer might want that person back in the same condition he or she was in before the injury, but the employer would have had some signoff on that when a person is off on a leave of absence. They would not maintain their responsibility to that individual, so I am assuming the responsibility would be with the federal government, but the problem is they do not have the facilities nearby to provide quick rehabilitation for that reservist.
Mr. Zimmermann: That would be an example where a collaborative relationship with the workers' compensation board might come in handy. You have hit it right on the head. That would be a classic example of the type of situation where you would want to tap into provincial resources.
Senator Day: I was leading there and you anticipated because I think you are absolutely right on that point.
The only other area I would like you to talk about, perhaps Ms. Geary's area, is you make the point — and I agree with you wholeheartedly — the most important point is to get the injured worker back to work. Various back-to-work programs exist with companies, and the WSIB would have these programs I would assume, where the individual can go back. The company will say, "Look, I want that person back; I want to help out, so rather than letting her stay home for the next six months and do nothing I will give her another job. I will find light work for her, but at least I will get her coming back here on a regular basis and be disciplined on that."
Is there financial incentive for the companies to do that kind of thing, and how is that working when we talk about people who are injured in the Armed Forces for three years sort of losing respect for themselves because they are not doing their former job? However, in the private sector that system seems to work to some degree. Is it because the companies have some financial incentives to try and bring them back and the individual who is loyal to the company wants to get back? How does that work?
Ms. Geary: With an organization like the federal government, the financial incentive would be, if the person is not at work, they are receiving salary, presumably, for some period of time and the work they are normally doing is either not getting done or a second person has to be brought in with a second salary being paid for what is essentially one job.
Some companies and I think this is the federal government for workers' compensation cases, have a kind of self- insurance approach where they pay the salary of the disabled person for a period of time. Other companies have a more direct insurance type of approach where they keep track of the cost they are paying out on behalf of the worker — their health care benefits, rehabilitation, vocational training, loss of earnings, earnings replacement — and it affects the premiums the employee has to pay to the company. There are definitely financial incentives for them, particularly large employers, to focus on return to work.
Senator Day: Do you have any history that you can share with us here of those individuals who are returning to work but not in their normal job because they are not capable of doing so but at least they are doing some work. How does that seem to work and what history do you have with those individuals getting ultimately back to full employment?
Mr. Zimmermann: The earlier point you made in terms of individuals bouncing around for say three years, and that concept used to be described as "light duty." That does not happen anymore. Individuals and the whole concept of light duty, in terms of finding a job for an individual where they are being paid to come in has really gone out the window and did so a long time ago for competitive reasons. Today, modified duties are being used extensively where the individual can participate in a productive role. Those are also extremely limited from a time point of view. You would not find a whole lot of modified duty work beyond three to four months.
Senator Plett: Mr. Zimmermann, you said that you are on the advisory board of the New Veterans' Charter. Do you have influence there to move some of the things you have suggested? What is your influence on the advisory board?
Mr. Zimmermann: It is to provide advice. I am sure all of you have seen that earlier this year we concluded a major report that provided a series of guidelines on the implementation of the New Veterans' Charter, some criteria, processes and policies that need to be put in place in order for the New Veterans' Charter to work. My role was as part of the rehabilitation committee.
Senator Plett: Did you advise them to do some of the things you suggest?
Mr. Zimmermann: Absolutely.
Senator Plett: You suggested that some of the disabled veterans are not going back to work because they are not getting the work that they want, or whatever the case may be. You said that we should not just put them into offices.
Well, I do not think putting them into offices is just putting them into offices. There are some very productive people in offices. Most of us are working in offices, and I would like to believe that we are occasionally productive.
When a person comes back from Afghanistan and he has had an eye injury or both eyes injured, we will not put him behind the wheel of a truck. When people are injured, whether it is in the Canadian Forces or anyone else in a regular job, they may not be able to continue with that type of work and may have to accept something that they do not like. That is just the fact of the matter.
I am not sure where you were coming from when you said that maybe we can get them something with DFO as opposed to Heritage Canada. That was tried.
Mr. Zimmermann: That is where I was going with that. One needs to be creative in looking at the optimum opportunities in terms of a match between the residual impairment of the individual and the jobs out there.
On the second point, in terms of being forced into an office job, I can relate to that because I had no choice other than to be retrained as an accountant, and I hated every minute of it. However, those were the options.
Senator Plett: Returning to the subject of working with workers' compensation, you have with you today people from the Ontario workers' compensation. Presumably, you have collaborated to some extent before you came here, or maybe you have not; I am not sure. Have other provinces been consulted? I am from Manitoba. Have you consulted the Workers Compensation Board of Manitoba? Would they sign on to a program like this, if that were even feasible? I am from Missouri, I guess. I am skeptical as to how this would work. Compensation boards are overextended, as it is. They certainly are in Manitoba, and you have shared with us today that they are.
If we do have flaws in the charter and in what we are doing with the veterans, my preference would be to improve that as opposed to joining forces with another organization that is already overworked. In order for them to accommodate this, they would simply need to create a bigger department. I am of the feeling that we should create our own department to deal with this, which I think we already have.
What other provinces signed on? Have you discussed this at all with other provinces' workers' compensation boards?
Mr. Gilkinson: No, we have not had any intimate negotiations around this subject. As I said, these people have risked their lives for our freedom. You know what? We are citizens like anybody else, so if we can help and provide knowledge, as Ms. Geary talked about, to make a good program, why not?
Senator Plett: You did say you were not a mission. You will be charging for this.
Mr. Gilkinson: It is not free. Absolutely, I agree with you. However, where we can help, we would absolutely sign on to help, but to do the work, we will need some dollars to do that.
The Chair: Just to confirm, though, VAC has not approached anybody. Have they?
Mr. Gilkinson: No, we have not been approached.
The Chair: I want to go back to the reservists because you left something open there. The reservist is in the company that has signed up to your compensation program, he gets injured and he comes back. When he comes back, he is not followed up by you even though that company was part of your compensation program; is that correct?
Mr. Gilkinson: That is correct.
The Chair: Did he sign a document saying that would not happen?
Mr. Gilkinson: I am not sure what documentation the reservists are required to sign, but from our perspective, it would be like someone going on vacation to Mexico, being injured there and coming back.
The Chair: Thank you for that clarification.
Senator Peterson: I take it that the WSIB is a provincial entity. Is it funded totally by employers?
Mr. Gilkinson: Yes, it is.
Senator Peterson: You have many employers with many different categories, and if resources drop, I take it you up the rates.
Mr. Gilkinson: Well, that is what we are doing right now, and, certainly, they are very thoughtful and give us feedback whenever we decide to raise the rates.
Senator Peterson: With the Canadian Forces, you will have one employer with some very difficult categories, and for you to come in, you would have to try to assess it. I think you would immediately get into problems. Would you think that it would be best for the Canadian Forces to use your template with you being an advisor to them on a fee-for- service basis? Otherwise, you would almost have to segregate them if you were to do military with employers.
Mr. Gilkinson: Whenever you get into the funding issues and challenges, many things are at play, but I agree with what you have indicated. There are options, as Ms. Geary talked about, to take best practices and build them into whatever programs you have.
I will go back to question of Senator Day because it was a great one. Let us talk about that reservist who came back to an employer who has no obligation to do anything but wants Mr. Zimmermann back.
In our system, we will provide some accommodations. We will pay for the workplace to be accommodated, on occasion, in the right circumstance, to allow that occur. I am not sure if that exists within your portfolio, but it may be an option that could be a best practice.
The Chair: I may be slow, but I did not understand that nuance. You just told me that the guy is not on the program, but someone who injures himself outside of duty would be accommodated.
Mr. Gilkinson: If it was a worker who was injured on the job, not a reservist, we could, in the right circumstance, help accommodate the workplace so that if they had some kind of catastrophic injury, for instance, put an elevator in if they needed to get somewhere.
The Chair: My last point is on the mental health side, which Ms. Geary is involved in moving. How are you implementing that culture change in regard to the stigma and to the recognition of those who are suffering from operational stress or TMS?
Ms. Geary: We have specialized teams that have gained a lot of expertise in deciding whether it is TMS and in accessing treatment. They are very compassionate, caring and very expert.
About five years ago, we chose to create case management teams who deal with those types of cases only. They have been quite successful in improving the satisfaction levels of the injured workers who suffer from those types of injuries and illnesses.
With respect to stigma, we set up a collaborative effort with a group of researchers, academics, community activists and injured workers. We work together to unearth how stigma demonstrates itself within the workers' compensation system.
We created a series of small initiatives to begin to address it. We have created a brochure that identifies the stigmatizing myths that are generated about injured workers and then the reality. It was modeled after some work done in the mental health field. We have created learning programs that all of our staff have access to that directly educate them about myths and stigma and about how some of the things they do inadvertently stigmatize injured workers. We have created tools that the staff can use to detect whether the language they are using might be hurtful to injured workers.
We have also created a recruitment screen, so that people who are seeking to come and work with us are asked specific, probing questions that get at their attitudes toward disabled people and injured workers. If they do not answer it the way we want to hear, they do not get the job.
We have done a lot of just talking with our staff. I have been out personally meeting with hundreds of our employees and talking with them about it, the harm that it causes, how it is demonstrated and what we can do to begin to change some of our behaviours.
The Chair: I would be interested in knowing what your program. However, we are over time. A member of the committee had a point, I believe.
Senator Day: I have a small point, Mr. Chair.
If someone loses a leg in a workplace accident, do you have a lump-sum payment as well as a loss-of-earnings potential?
Mr. Gilkinson: Yes, we do.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
I am afraid the time is up. Thank you enormously for very insightful responses to our queries and for your presentations.
(The committee adjourned.)