Proceedings of the Subcommittee on
Veterans Affairs
Issue 2 - Evidence - February 5, 2014
OTTAWA, Wednesday, February 5, 2014
The Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met this day at 12 p.m. to carry out a study on the services and benefits provided to members of the Canadian Forces; to veterans; to members and former members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and their families.
Senator Roméo Antonius Dallaire (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Today, we are hearing from Pierre Daigle, National Defence and Canadian Forces Ombudsman.
We have been looking forward to your testimony. What you do is especially important when it comes to veterans who are still serving and their transition to the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Other senators, who were also kept by their caucus business, will join us later. The floor is yours, Mr. Daigle.
Pierre Daigle, Ombudsman, National Defence and Canadian Forces Ombudsman: Good afternoon. I am joined by Alain Gauthier, my director general of operations, who will help me answer your questions.
[English]
Thank you for inviting me today. I've served as Ombudsman to the Department of National Defence and Canadian Forces for five years; in fact, my tenure comes to an end in two weeks' time. It's the last chapter in 44 years of service within the defence community, and I have been honoured to serve as ombudsman for Canada's military warriors and those who serve with and support them.
This will be my last appearance before a committee on Parliament Hill. To that end, I am pleased to be able to offer up some observations on the difficult topic of transitioning from being an ill and injured member of the Canadian Forces to "civvy street," as many who have served know it as.
The Canadian Forces is emerging from more than 20 years of continuous operations: the Balkans, naval deployments to the Persian Gulf, air force missions to Kosovo and Libya, multiple peacekeeping operations, and combat operations in Afghanistan. It's been an intense period. CF personnel and their families have paid a price, but I think that the cost has been largely invisible to Canadians.
[Translation]
I am proud to say that the ombudsman's office has been at the forefront of identifying emerging issues within the Canadian Forces over the past dozen years. Chief amongst them have been operational stress injuries and post-traumatic stress disorder. I recently released a comprehensive report on the health and well-being of military families. While these families are resilient, they are also stressed.
[English]
Military spouses experience periods of under- or unemployment, sacrifice careers and carry a disproportionate amount of parental responsibility while the service member is deployed or away on extended training. More worrisome is the impact on military children, as both their health and academic performance are negatively impacted by the deployment of a parent.
The full impact of mental health issues are often borne by families alone since they become the de facto primary caregivers as the service member struggles with whether or not to seek help. Often, this period can have a debilitating effect on the family unit, and I will touch on the reluctance to seek help shortly.
The ombudsman's office has produced five reports since 2002 on the topic of PTSD and operational stress injuries. We are about to release another one in early spring, specifically focused on the Reserve Force.
The Canadian Forces have come a long way in the past decade, but has it come far enough? That is a question for august bodies like this committee to ultimately decide.
The past week has seen a lot of emotional and political angst over the closure of Veterans Affairs Canada offices. Prior to that, we experienced a cluster of suicides in the military that rightly focused attention on mental health issues and the critical importance of getting help for those who are suffering.
[Translation]
There is no doubt that Canadians care about our men and women in uniform. I am certain that concern is universally shared across Parliament Hill. However, I sometimes wonder why it takes so much discussion, time and effort to agree to do the right thing.
My job as ombudsman is to identify issues of concern and recommend how they can best be addressed. Credit to the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces, which have largely been very receptive to much of what we have recommended in the past few years.
[English]
In terms of challenges that remain for the Canadian Forces, the big one in my opinion is getting military personnel to seek help, particularly when the injury is an injury of the mind. There are two huge hurdles a military member must overcome to seek help: the stigma and the reality of the universality of service, as well as the possibility of being forced to leave the military.
The CF has taken measures to tackle institutional stigmas, and that issue has definitely improved. But no matter how successful the CF is in increasing awareness and reducing stigmas, they are unlikely to ever completely disappear. It is difficult for a member to reconcile being a warrior with succumbing to an injury of the mind. An injury of the mind is somehow seen as weak. If anything, self-stigma is proving to be a harder impediment to tackle and remains an obstacle to many soldiers seeking help.
On the issue of universality of service, my 2012 report Fortitude Under Fatigue called for the Canadian Forces to take a modern look at the universality of service.
[Translation]
I want to talk about families. They are the foundation of the operational effectiveness of the Canadian Forces, but they are not being given enough support by either the Department of National Defence or the Department of Veterans Affairs when it comes to dealing with an ill or injured member. There are a variety of options offered through organizations like the military family resource centres, but counselling entitlement is limited and has to be linked to the treatment of members.
[English]
The CF has a family covenant but it lacks meat on the bone. I'm pleased to say that the department has largely accepted the recommendation made in my report On the Homefront.
The transition out of the CF is now more coordinated and gives a member a greater shot at returning to active duty. For those who are medically released, the transition experience can be challenging, much of it being dependent on the individual circumstances and the support, if any, from Veterans Affairs.
As the committee has already heard from the Veterans Ombudsman, many members are released from the Canadian Forces as medically unfit but do not qualify for Veterans Affairs support. One such individual described it to me as the equivalent of being pushed off a cliff. Many members feel they have to fight Veterans Affairs in order to prove their health issues are related to service, and that the benefits of the doubt are never applied to the member.
DND and Veterans Affairs have different criteria for assessing disabilities. It seems that the criteria are stricter to obtain financial support from Veterans Affairs than they are to be released from military duty. This is an area of unfairness that needs to be looked at.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, I will stop here. Thank you for your attention and for the interest you have shown in this matter. We are ready to answer your questions. Thank you.
The Chair: You were eloquent and you covered numerous points. If we should run out of time and be unable to go over all of them today, I hope we will be able to invite you back to discuss them. I yield the floor to the deputy chair of the committee, Senator Wells.
[English]
Senator Wells: Thank you, Mr. Gauthier and Mr. Daigle, for appearing before us and thank you, Mr. Daigle, for your years of service to Canada and the Canadian Forces. It's important to us and we appreciate it.
It's important that any process that we have where we deal with veterans and veterans' issues is fair, and appears to be fair. That's also important.
I note in some of the information that we received on the top complaints in 2012-13 for your section, benefits led the way by far. I also note within Veterans Affairs Canada, and I will ask you a question about this, there are five levels of appeal. That, to me, would appear to be fair. There is an initial review and if that doesn't turn out in the applicant's favour, there are five levels of review after that.
Is there anything more that can be done to appear fairer or to be fairer with that review process, considering that benefits and complaints regarding benefits is your number one issue?
Mr. Daigle: If you are talking about review levels from Veterans Affairs, I am looking after the unfairness within the Canadian Forces. Canadian Forces people can come to our office any time they want, but if they're not pleased they can definitely use all existing mechanisms, which are the Canadian Forces redress of grievance or the redress systems, and there are two levels there. They go first to an immediate authority that can probably accept their grievance and authorize the remedial action or they go to the final authority, who is the Chief of the Defence Staff.
After this level is done and the member or complainant still feels he or she was treated unfairly, they can come to us, we will review it for processes in the end. If nothing is pleasing them at the end of all this, they are told by the Canadian Forces lawyers that they can address their case to the Federal Court. This is within the Canadian Forces and the Department of National Defence, the different processes that we are looking at.
Senator Wells: So as ombudsman, do you act in an advocacy role?
Mr. Daigle: No, not at all. Every time we talk to people, we are what I call "advocates for fairness." When people come to us, I tell them all the time they should be prepared to hear two answers: Yes, you have been treated unfairly and we will look into it; or, no, you haven't been treated unfairly.
We look at the case or issue and the impact the decision or process has on people and if there is unfairness, we will tackle it. We don't take sides with the institution or the individual; we will make sure we address the issue at stake.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: Mr. Daigle, Mr. Gauthier, thank you for accepting our invitation.
I would like to begin with more general questions in order to understand your organization's tasks, duties and responsibilities. How does your office ensure the monitoring of your employees' performance quality?
Mr. Daigle: Our office is subject to what is called the Ministerial Directives, which provide me with my mandate. They also set out the rules of engagement and the tools I must use to fulfill my mission and my mandate.
We at the office of the ombudsman are completely independent from the department's chain of command and civil administration. All of our employees are members of the public service. We are independent, so we have our own legal service, financial and human resources administration, and chief of operations.
Our internal rules, benchmarks and standards impose on our staff shorter time frames for carrying out their duties and helping those who contact us. In addition, all the employees are subject to the same values and ethics code for the public service.
Senator Nolin: Given the importance of your role, what do you do to reach your clients? Your colleague from Veterans Affairs uses the term "clients." What kind of a mechanism do you have in place to enable you to reach out to your clientele?
Mr. Daigle: We have several ways to do that. Our office is recognized in the Defense Administrative Orders and Directives, or DAODs. Based on those directives, people know that the office of the ombudsman is there and can meet their needs.
We receive about 1,500 complaints a year. Those complaints come from the members of the defence community — both from serving military members and retired members — as well as serving or retired civilian personnel of the Department of National Defence and their families. People contact our office through various means, such as email or telephone. There are all kinds of ways to reach us. Through the requests, we receive the complaints we address. We inform people of existing mechanisms, or Alain transfers the file to one of his investigators, who conducts a very specific investigation for each case.
Senator Nolin: Does conducting an investigation mean meeting with your client?
Mr. Daigle: Yes, either the client comes to see us or we go see them. We get in touch with those people. That is what we do to carry out investigations and provide a personalized service to individuals who contact us.
Based on the number of complaints we receive each year and different complaint categories, I can decide whether a systemic investigation is required. If there is a problem in the system, we can identify and remedy it so as to provide a higher level of justice and fairness. So we use the different complaints submitted to determine that. We also use what we call outreach visits.
Over the past 5 years, I have visited 19 bases or wings of the Canadian Forces. There, I met with all the people who can use our services. I met with them individually or in groups, and I listened to their complaints in terms of their military service experience on the ground. Based on that, I can decide on my own, without anyone's authority, whether to conduct a systemic investigation. I determine whether an investigation should be carried out to look into an issue within the forces and make recommendations to improve the situation.
So we obtain information through the complaints and through the people who contact us. I even take things further with individuals who use our service to find out a bit about their situation.
Senator Nolin: You mentioned your retired clientele?
Mr. Daigle: Yes.
Senator Nolin: You must have a relationship with Veterans Affairs Canada?
Mr. Daigle: Absolutely.
Senator Nolin: What is the nature of that relationship?
Mr. Daigle: I do not have exact figures, but some members of the Canadian Forces are on duty. They are part of my clientele. They may be receiving a medical pension because they are injured, but they continue to serve. Some clients are served by both us and Veterans Affairs. However, once they leave the service, they become retired. At that point, they are part of my clientele and become retired military members.
There is a difference between my office and the office of the Veterans Ombudsman. When someone comes to see us, I occasionally refer them to the Veterans Ombudsman, and the opposite is also true. It all depends on the nature of the issue. If the person who comes to see us is retired and a client of both services, and their issue is related to a decision made by the Canadian Forces, I would take care of them. If the issue is related to benefits or a medical pension, the case would be handled by Veterans Affairs.
[English]
Senator Lang: Once again I would like to recognize our guests. I appreciate you coming forward here. I have a couple of areas that I would like to explore for a few minutes.
First, I want to say I think you have to be commended with your presentation in that you have given a very balanced statement to us. You've indicated there are quite a number of areas where there already has been significant improvement. That's what we're looking at with respect to going forward. We're looking at what has improved and, of course, we want to look at where our weaknesses are so we can improve on those as well.
In your statement, you said:
DND and Veterans Affairs have different criteria for assessing disabilities. It seems that the criteria are stricter to obtain financial support from Veterans Affairs than they are to be released from military duty. This is an area of unfairness that needs to be looked at.
Who is examining this? Are you, or is the department and, if so, when would we expect to see recommendations that would remedy what you deem to be unfair?
Mr. Daigle: There are many aspects to this question. When people in the military are sick and they can no longer perform their military duty, they will be transferred at one point to what they call the IPSC, the Integrated Personnel Support Centre. These are areas where you have peers and a Veterans Affairs office. It is to help the individual regain his health and return to the unit or, at that stage, be released from the Canadian Forces.
A lot of people are released medically from the Canadian Forces because they do not meet with what is called the universality of the service. You have to be a soldier first, so if you cannot perform any duty anywhere the forces will send you, you're not able to remain as a soldier in the Canadian Forces. Some of those soldiers are, therefore, released from the forces. But there are some where it's very difficult at one point. They're released based on standards, but it's very difficult after that to gain the full recognition of their disability by veterans because at one point it does apply a monetary compensation to what they are. So a lot of people are leaving the forces. I'll ask Alain maybe to give you some examples where they have a statement from doctors but then Veterans Affairs uses other doctors to assert that their disability is recognized and related to military service, and this sometimes takes a lot of time and there is this a conflict of decision there.
A lot of people who are sick in the forces, if they haven't reached 10 years of service, they will not get any pension. So if you're injured, you're suffering PTSD and you have nine years of service, you will leave the forces but you will not get any benefits because you haven't reached the 10-year threshold.
This in a sense is very unfair, because the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act says that if you die in uniform and you have two years and more, and if your death is not even related to duty, it's very sad, but your survivor will get benefits. So if you have two years of service and you die, you do something in the forces not related to your duty in the forces, your survivor will get some benefits.
If you're a soldier suffering from PTSD at nine years of service, you get nothing, none of those benefits. So there are all those things that we're looking at, benefits, survivors and veterans. Maybe Alain can expand a bit more on that.
Alain Gauthier, Director General Operations, National Defence and Canadian Forces Ombudsman: The 10-year threshold is a significant issue because most of the service members who are getting close to the 10-year threshold, we're seeing they're hesitant to come forward, because if they don't meet those 10 years they will be released without many of those benefits. They will get a return of contribution for the pension, but they do not get the pension. They do not get any of the other benefits nor the ability to apply for the public service health care plan or the dental service plan, which are significant money-wise. It creates a barrier, and it could be a stigma, where they're not asking for the service; they're delaying the service, delaying going forward with the issue they have because of that barrier of 10 years.
Mr. Daigle: One other thing that is very important is, when you're not able any longer to perform your duty and you're released medically, people used to be released on a medical release item, as they call it. If you're released 4A, it means it's a voluntary release: You have to leave the forces. If you're released under item 3B it means you're medically released from the forces. So people released under this release item with the Canadian Forces are getting some kind of benefit.
Over the years, people did not want to wait too long to be released because they had some job offer somewhere, so they left the forces, and when all the paperwork was done, the forces confirmed that they were released 3B. Therefore, they changed their release item from voluntary release to medical release and that gave them benefits again.
Over the years, what we're seeing is people who leave early knowing that they will be released medically, but they want to take care of their own life, when the bureaucracy confirms that yes, your release is a medical release, all they do is they annotate their file and they don't get any benefit.
So there are all these things about the bureaucracy attached to benefits or not benefits that we need to look at.
Senator Lang: How many members of the force in any given year are we speaking of? Are we speaking on the average 30? Are we speaking of 300 or 400?
Mr. Gauthier: The rate of release on an early basis is about 6 to 6.5 per cent. It represents about 4,000 to 4,500 CF members. About 40 per cent of those, which is about 1,700, are forced release. It can be a medical release from recruiting training. A significant amount of people, 1,700, are forced to leave the CF on a yearly basis. These are the most vulnerable because it's not based on their own decision; they're essentially shown the door.
Senator Lang: As you know, in Veterans Affairs, and National Defence for that matter, there have been substantial financial commitments by the taxpayer to these organizations over the past number of years. At the same time, government has responsibility in respect to other areas as well.
When you're doing these reviews, are you simultaneously looking at where this type of unfairness in equity has to be corrected, looking at the projected costs, and looking as well internally at where perhaps some of these programs are not working to the extent that we thought they might?
The reason I raise this is, at the last meeting we had it was identified for veterans there was something like, I believe, Senator Wells, 37 various programs if you went through what's been provided in respect to what's accessible for veterans in one manner or another.
It seems to me that in fairness to those who are working within the department, and I would suggest they all have good intentions in delivering programs to these veterans as expeditiously as they can, one of the responsibilities, I'm going to ask you if you do take on this responsibility, is to look at how a program is being delivered, if it's not being delivered properly; and, second, if it's not meeting its objectives, making recommendations that simultaneously we could do this and we can move this over here.
As a parliamentarian and senator, I hear so often where various departments come forward and all they want is more money. They don't look back within what they're doing to say we can do things better and do things differently. Perhaps you can comment on that.
Mr. Daigle: Thank you very much. We do not get too deep into the financial aspect of everything, but there is definitely money attached. I have a few examples. For instance, when we did our report Fortitude Under Fatigue, we found out that over the years there was improvement. And our office has been working on PTSD/OSI since 2002. The leadership took a greater role. There was the addition of many mental health clinics, Integrated Personnel Support Centres across the board. But one of our recommendations in the report we produced last fall was that it's time for the Canadian Forces to do a holistic review of all of this.
It seemed that over the years this PTSD/OSI was definitely important. It's been 12 years that people have been pushing for this, but a lot of those different services have been created here and there, but there was never a lay back and look at the holistic review of everything that's out there. We find out in our review that there was some duplication of effort of resources, so it should be rationalized better.
Even though PTSD/OSI has been a critical item, a critical challenge for the forces for many years with a lot of money put into it, there was never a performance measurement done on this whole issue. So at the end of the day a lot of things were added, but it's time to look at all of this because it's not going away.
By the way, in 2002, when we recommended that there were not enough mental health providers to support and heal the injured, the money was given to reach this 447 mental health providers in the forces. For the Canadian Forces, it was never a question of resources; they always have the money, since 2002. And even now, last year, the previous minister gave $11.4 million, 15 per cent more for mental health, and they still did not fill the positions. The money was there, but I agree with you we recommended that it is time to have a review of all of those things out there to bring better support.
We talked about IPSC, Integrated Personnel Support Centre, the JPSU. There are 30 of them across the country. Right now in all of those IPSCs, in the last data that we looked at, 1,900 people are there. They are there. They transferred them there. They're being looked after because they're sick, and they might be released. By the way, our statistics show that 5 to 10 per cent of those are returned to the unit. That is why people are scared to come forward, because 90 per cent are probably going to find themselves on the street.
What is important, too, is the clientele of those centres, it's 5,600. So those entities on the base take care of people who are sick, but also there's a lot of people that go to them to get some help, but they're not necessarily transferred to that unit at this time.
So there's a great demand there. There are 26 clinics, as you mentioned; 30 IPSCs; there are now 25 veterans' offices; but I think it's time we look at all of those things again to be more efficient and effective in doing things.
The Chair: I'm very concerned about how people are moved from DND to Veterans Canada, and although we've got the joint support units, and where Veterans Canada was supposed to put a lot of people, but they've been pulling them out, and that the efforts be better integrated. What have you been able to discern from your reports on how those two departments have been trying to integrate their capabilities so that there is no chance that an individual falls through the cracks and then has to be reconstituted and rebuilt, particularly the reserves?
As an example, are your computers talking to each other? On the medical side, why are the military documents so difficult to get sent to Veterans Canada? Why does Veterans Canada do a complete reassessment of what you've done?
There's been an assistant deputy minister level program doing this since 1998. Why are those two departments still disconnected, or to what extent do you believe they're still disconnected?
Mr. Daigle: We haven't really, since my time, anyway, looked very deeply into integration. Obviously you cannot have an ombudsman reporting to two different ministers. You cannot have two ombudsmen reporting to one minister. So obviously the integration of an ombudsman's office will require integration at a higher level, and we haven't looked at that at all.
What I can say is there is more and more collaborative work with Veterans and Canadian Forces. In the chief administration personnel office, there is an office there with a Veterans Affairs person working with the Chief of Military Personnel. There are veterans' offices in the IPSC across the country. So when people are transferred from their unit to this transition place, there are people from Veterans working there also to help them either transition or go back.
I might not be very nice in what I'm saying, but I think, within the Canadian Forces, they still need to do it better internally. So before you want to integrate somebody else, maybe you need to make sure you're running fully and well.
It's very difficult for the Canadian Forces. Well, they are never giving us an exact number on the database. You know, how many people out there are sick? If I talk to Veterans Affairs, they will tell me the same thing. There are probably 800,000 veterans out there, but they might know just a few of them because they know those who are coming forward because they have some difficulty.
There were many improvements over the years, definitely, but there's still some disconnect, as I said to Senator Lang, and it's time that the CF look into their structure, to determine how can they do better. They can integrate. When this is done properly, maybe ask the same thing on the other side, and then try to merge the two to have a seamless transition.
I don't think we're there yet, and when you talk about mental health, you talk about human beings, HR, it's always very difficult, and obviously there must be a restructure and refinancing that might be at stake which I'm not going to go there, but it's difficult. There was improvement, but they still need to do something.
There is also the Treasury Board who are also on top of some of those benefits and so on.
Senator Nolin: Why do you say this?
Mr. Daigle: One of our reports last year, when we did reserve care, that was care to reservists, but not on mental health issues, but on a medical issues, our office had been looking at that for years; but when we published this report, then we said it is absolutely unimaginable that if you are working side by side with reservists, and you have flooding in Winnipeg, or whatever, and you have an accident and both lose a leg, the regular force was getting 250,000 for his leg, and the reservist was getting 40,000 for his leg. So this was under the accidental dismemberment insurance plan and so when we pushed for this and we did produce a report, the minister took a look at it, and within two weeks the Treasury Board changed their policy and they are both receiving the same thing.
So there are some discrepancies. When people leave the forces on medical grounds, we're looking at it now and saying maybe they should be able to be given their medical file, so when they move from one place and they go to Veterans they bring their medical file, which is not done. So by the time they leave, and Veterans has their own doctors and CF has their own doctors, it takes time to get this document changed. In the meantime, there's an individual who left the forces and tried to seek help and support.
There is a lot of work that was done, but there's still a lot of work, but I would say each organization internally, it's probably a time for them to reassess the way they're doing business and try to take that into account, and eventually people will move from one side to the other, but at the end of the day it is to recognize what they've done for their country.
Senator Wells: In your role as ombudsman, and in your role in charge of the ombudsman's office, and your reporting is to the minister, on a day-to-day basis, or on a regular basis, when you're hearing all these cases of benefits, released from military service, medical issues, postings, recruitment, harassment, redress of grievances, when you hear all those, is your day-to-day process to go through the bureaucracy, towards the minister? Does it go directly to the minister or the minister's office, or does it go via some sort of an annual report or a regular reporting system? Can you tell me about the process of your reporting, to whom you report?
Mr. Daigle: Yes, I will. I've got to be careful not to brag too much, but I think the attitude of an ombudsman has a lot to do with it. What we've done in our office in the past few years, we restructured a bit.
Every time we do something, obviously Alain's staff, you have investigators, senior investigator, director of investigation, and it reaches his level. Every time we have a case that needs to be looked after, it will be escalated within the system. So his investigator will talk with the proper desk officer in the Canadian Forces, and so on, until a point that the DG Ops is meeting with level one of the Canadian Forces. And now we have instituted, every quarterly now, Alain is meeting with the Chief of Military Personnel. We do not hide anything. You know, we share everything.
My function is special adviser to the Minister of National Defence, so we advise on things that should be done better; so we don't hide anything. We show what we do. Every time we're about to produce a systemic report, we give it a month ahead of time to the Chief of Defence Staff for his stakeholder review. That doesn't mean he's going to influence us in changing a report, but it's for him to say do we have it right, like the Auditor General does, like CRS within the forces do and so on.
When it comes back from the CDS, either we adjust or we do not. Then I send it to the minister. I give the minister 28 days — that's based on my ministerial directive — before I'm free to publish. What we've been instituting more often, when I give the report to the minister, we brief the minister at the same time. We give him the report, give him a presentation with a summary and then we leave the report with him. A month later, we publish it.
I can call a press conference, do whatever I want on my own, but at the end of the day, everybody wants to do something good for the people, so we have to work together rather than be adversarial. We share everything.
You heard the Chief of the Defence Staff announce that he's going to use a tiger team to review all the outstanding boards of inquiry. While we are finishing up our review on the boards of inquiry, Alain has already briefed the Chief of Military Personnel, the CMP, we briefed the Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff on what is coming up. We'll publish that report in April.
At the end of the day, when we publish something, if everything is fixed, that's fine. I mean, we don't have any pride of ownership here. If at the end of the day, the result is something concrete happening that can help people, we've achieved the aim, and that's what we try to do.
Senator Wells: Thank you for that. In your experience, is there something more that can be done to get the results that you would like to see?
Mr. Daigle: That might be a sensitive issue, but sometimes we have a bit of difficulty accessing documentation.
Senator Wells: Within the department?
Mr. Daigle: Yes. As soon as someone says this is a confidential cabinet document, we're completely blocked. My approach to that, it depends again on how you view an ombudsman. I'm bound by the same law as everyone; I cannot just go out there and repeat everything I hear.
If I'm the special adviser to the Minister of National Defence to be a third-party, independent voice of what's going on, how could I provide good advice to the minister if I don't have access to the same document that the Canadian Forces worked on, while at the end of the day, what we recommend will bring some kind of result?
This is what we're a bit worried about, that we don't have access to all documentation. Again, no one should hide things, in case they get ambushed in a public forum. We share everything, but at the end of the day, it's to make the right recommendations to improve the system. For that, we need to have access to everybody, which we do, but documentation is sometimes more difficult to obtain.
Senator Wells: That would be on policy issues, would it?
Mr. Daigle: Or anything. We had a case in Post Living Deferential, PLD, or the Integrated Relocation Program, when people move across the country. There are recommendations we've made. The Canadian Forces are working on that, but when we ask, "Where are you going with this," we don't have access to anything until they produce that to Treasury Board and the ministers to approve. If we can interject in the process and have some input, maybe the two of us can do something proper and it will serve us better. We've been struggling for some time with this.
Senator Wells: Thank you. That was helpful.
The Chair: It is an enormous complexity that the minute the department indicates that this needs either an outside authority or a ministerial authority, they lock down the information. That, in fact, creates enormous vacuums in being able to be timely in looking at a problem. They're working on a problem, he's working on a problem, and there's a disconnect that happens. I think it makes them more ineffective and hits on the credibility of them being able to respond to what people need.
It's a pretty sensitive area in the bureaucracy, with the political goals and transparency that we're looking for.
Senator Wells: I suspect, chair, that issues like that are government wide —
The Chair: Oh, absolutely.
Senator Wells: — not just departmental wide. I also expect they've been going on since 1867.
The Chair: Although, we want to have transparency and accountability. I've heard that before.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: In your answer to Senator Lang, you mentioned that a budget set aside for hiring medical personnel was not entirely spent. Can you elaborate on that before I ask my question?
Mr. Daigle: In 2000-02, the Canadian Forces decided, along with Health Canada, that 447 mental health service providers were needed in the Canadian Forces. There has been an increase since. People are saying that the number has doubled, and it did go from 229 to 380.
Senator Nolin: And that was 15 years ago.
Mr. Daigle: It has been frozen since 2009. Since 2009, the figures have 15 per cent to 20 per cent below what the Canadian Forces had determined was needed in 2002 — 447 service providers. We should keep in mind that this figure was set before the war in Afghanistan. So the need is probably much greater today. The Canadian Forces received the budget needed to hire those mental health professionals at the time, in 2005. They received all the money and have had it all along, but they have not filled those positions.
Senator Nolin: Is that because the staff is not available? Are there not enough Canadians available to fill those positions?
Mr. Daigle: We have always said that we thought it was unacceptable that staff is still lacking all these years later, and we are always being told that the demand is the same in the civilian world.
Last year, when we published our fifth report on operational stress, we once again mentioned that the figures have not been reached. The minister released $11.4 million in funding to hire the remaining 70 individuals. That was in September 2012. We are now following up on the situation, and we have realized that those individuals have not yet been hired. The figures are constantly changing. There are apparently 72 people in an existing pool, and at some point, there were 61 or 54 individuals in that pool.
The people are there, but they are not joining the forces. I am hearing that we are competing with the civilian sector, but that is no longer true, since the 60 individuals are already available. All they are waiting for is their uniform — they will have the rank of captain — so that they can join the forces. Recently, in order to apply pressure, the minister asked the leaders or heads to ensure that those people are enlisted.
Once again, when they reach that figure of 447, the data will probably still be completely off.
Senator Nolin: It will not be enough.
Mr. Daigle: Exactly.
Senator Nolin: I want to come back to my original question, and I apologize in advance if my question may seem simplistic, but I am not very familiar with all the complexities and subtleties of the two departments. That is especially true when the Treasury Board gets involved, as that further complicates matters.
Could suicides have been prevented if more staff were available? I understand that I am not asking you an easy question, but some Canadians are wondering about this. I am thinking of the families of the suicide victims. This has to do with mental health and mental health experts. Could this staff shortage have been filled to help prevent suicides?
Mr. Daigle: It is very difficult to speculate on suicides.
Senator Nolin: That is why I said that my question may be simplistic, but some people are wondering about that.
Mr. Daigle: When I took office in 2009, the media were asking certain questions. We were being asked how many suicides there were in the Canadian Forces. Even our office was trying to determine the number of suicides. When I arrived, I did not agree with that. I thought that was not a good question. As you said, if it is not known how many people have mental health issues in the Canadian Forces, how can those people potentially be prevented from committing suicide? That is where efforts need to be made to minimize the risk on the other side. We cannot establish a direct link between post-traumatic stress disorder and suicide cases.
Senator Nolin: I understand that this is not a simple case of mathematics.
Mr. Daigle: Exactly. For 12 years, we have been asking the Canadian Forces to try to establish an accurate database to keep track of how many people are ill, so that they can be provided with care. There is a lot of work to be done in that area. When it comes to figures provided on suicides in the forces, I will frankly tell you that, depending on whom you speak to, you will be given different figures. The figures vary, as they are compiled over different periods. Some people are saying that our suicide level is lower than it is in the civilian world. I think that these are bad questions.
The statistics provided by the Canadian Forces are based on the number of men who commit suicide.
Women are not included because it is said that there are not enough of them, and that those figures would not influence the data correctly. Reservists are not included, and neither are those who committed suicide while they were serving in the forces.
So if someone is suffering from mental health issues and that person is ignored and not provided with care, they go through the release system, end up in the civilian population — like someone in Chibougamau — and they commit suicide, they are not included in the statistics. That is why we are currently conducting a study on the mental health of reservists. We will publish it in the spring. Those people participate in operations with regular members, they strengthen their unit and they are covered the same as regular members while they are in Afghanistan. Once they come back and return to their class A status — a temporary reservist status — they receive care provided by provincial medical systems, and they do not necessarily have access to the forces' medical care. When they stop parading and coming to the unit, they drop off the radar, and if anything happens, they are not included in the statistics.
Our position, then, is that it is always absolutely necessary to focus on mental health, remove the stigma, talk a bit more about reintegration, indeed the universal nature of service, and that needs to be considered from a modern perspective.
People will not identify themselves as being sick because they are afraid. They will be out of work and end up jobless. They have families to feed, so they will not speak up. They will not speak up and they will suffer. They will suffer, and their immediate support is their family. It eventually affects their family, which does not receive the assistance it needs to help a member of the military who is sick; that has a snowball effect and a huge impact.
Senator Nolin: One last little question that is quite technical. In terms of the much talked-about 10 years, if a member of the military commits suicide after 10 years, does the fact that they died by suicide affect their benefits or not?
Mr. Daigle: No, it does not change a thing.
Senator Nolin: Because it could have. There is the whole post-mortem reality, and we have seen it before in our legislation. That is why I was asking.
Mr. Daigle: The 10-year period, though, is an issue, and I am glad you brought it up. We are going to examine it. Why 10 years? Where does that number come from?
Senator Nolin: It came from actuaries.
Mr. Daigle: It is in the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act.
You realize that there are people who do not want to say that they are ill, so their families do not receive any support.
Senator Nolin: They want to reach the 10-year mark.
Mr. Daigle: That is to be expected.
Senator Nolin: Thank you.
The Chair: You are right to say that the rationale behind the number comes from actuaries who make it possible to manage the system.
Senator Nolin: It was determined that it would cost too much. Not enough money was collected to cover a more extensive benefit program. It is as simple as that.
[English]
Senator Lang: I would just like to turn our attention to the Reserves. I understand that your office is undertaking a study of how Reserve Force members are supported by the Canadian Forces mental health care and social support system when they're experiencing mental health issues related to operations. The study is expected to conclude early this year.
Mr. Daigle: Yes.
Senator Lang: Perhaps you could give us an update on the progress of the study and an overview from your point of view. Unfortunately, your tenure is, I understand, coming to an end in a couple of weeks; is that correct?
Mr. Daigle: When we published our first report on PTSD/OSI for the Regular Force, we found out that the reservists were never looked after. When we did a follow-up report that had to do with reservists, not on mental health but on normal injuries of Canadian reservists, we again found that they were not looked after.
Mr. Gauthier's team started an investigation on Operational Stress Injury, OSI, and PTSD for reservists, which will be a companion to what we have done so far but strictly focusing on the reservists. We have found out so far the key headings in our investigation. Our report will probably be sent to the minister for review around March and ready for publication in April 2014. What we have found out is, in many cases, entitlement. The reservists do not know what they are entitled to, so we need to make sure that the entitlement is known across the board.
Same for awareness. Reservists don't know, but some of the medical people also don't. I went to a base one day, and I asked a doctor if he knew what he was supposed to provide in terms of medical support to a reservist showing up at his door. He didn't know exactly where they fit. We need to look at that.
There are impediments for reservists. We are looking at the same impediments as in the Regular Force, such as stigma. Some reservists are living from contract to contract. If they come forward and say they are sick, they are not going to get the contracts. Therefore, their livelihood is affected. It is the same concern.
We need to look at processes, The Joint Personnel Support Unit, Reserve Force compensation. Because you are a reservist, you will get the GECA, like Workers' Compensation. Because you are a reservist, you are a part-time soldier. You have compensation from a civilian organization before you have access to benefits. This is a complex issue also.
Resources are the same. The resources that we don't have for the Regular Force apply to the reservists. If you are missing 20 per cent of your mental health care providers, it affects reservists showing up to the unit also. Those are the major things that we are finding out, which are very similar to what we have found for the Regular Force. But we need to take care of reservists because, as I said, while they are supporting the Regular Force in Afghanistan, they have the same status and get the same compensation or benefit. When they revert to their part-time role, a lot of people say, "You are taken care of by provincial jurisdiction. Go back and see the civilian doctor; don't come to us.
The Chair: The chair would like an opportunity to query on two points.
You produced an outstanding report in November, On the Homefront: Assessing Well-being in Canada's Military Families in the New Millennium. Although the Chief of Military Personnel said that he acknowledged all of the recommendations, you did articulate something called the "Family Covenant." This is something significant because this is more than a social contract. Could you give us a few more words on the family side of the house and whether you agree that, if the forces are deploying a member, they're deploying the family also? The families are no more divorced from the theatre of operations because they live the missions through the media and communications revolution. With that, there is an angle, and that is SISIP. Have you seen SISIP as a positive complement to assisting the injured between DND and Veterans Canada programs? Is SISIP an effective tool? Is SISIP the peace-time tool that maybe should be reviewed and maybe even eliminated in the process?
Mr. Daigle: Mr. Chair, maybe Mr. Gauthier can comment, but I don't remember too much detail about SISIP except that our office did support the complaint arising from the veterans that there was some clawback when they were getting the SISIP when they left the forces. This has been taken care of recently. Because they were getting money from SISIP, they had to pay the money back. That were two different issues of revenue and compensation.
We started that; we supported that. So SISIP is still there, but I assume that, now, with the changes over the past year, it will better benefit our veterans.
In 2008, the Canadian Forces did publish the Family Covenant. It is kind of a moral recognition contract that families are important and so on. We said that it is time that they put bit of meat on that bone. This is a covenant, yes, but, at the end of the day, when we did 14, 15 months of investigation to produce this report on families, we found out that there were a lot of words but not enough action.
When I talk to people, I say that families are a national entity in the sense that you cannot dissociate the family member from the serving member. One is federal. The other one is under provincial jurisdiction, but, as a whole, they are a national entity because families don't have a choice where they go and what they do because they are part of a military organization.
We have found that a lot of families contribute to the operational effectiveness of the Canadian Forces. When you are in operation in Afghanistan and are not sure if your wife, kids, spouse or whoever back home are having problems, it takes away your focus from the mission and does affect your operational performance.
Military life has an impact on families. We produced a report that I don't think was done during your time but a long time ago. There were recommendations to support quality of life, specifically family. I think this one is different. Everybody agrees with our report. It's welcome everywhere and is a good reference for people to use moving forward to sensitize the issue at provincial levels too because obviously families are part of that society.
It does affect the employment of spouses. Members move frequently, from one province to another. It has an impact on spousal employment, and some are unemployed. It has an impact on medical care as some spouses wait to get a family doctor, which many of us don't have anymore. By the time they reach the top of the waiting list, they are posted to another province; so it starts over again.
Education hasn't been done much in the past, but there is a serious impact on kids when a family member is sick, and we talked about PTSD and OSI. More and more research should be done on the impact on teenagers and children. We see behavioral and disciplinary problems with kids at school. They don't see one of their parents often, and when they come back suffering from PTSD, it affects the family synergy and so on. It is extraordinary: I talked to a spouse who was asking for a divorce, not because she did not love her husband but because he was so sick and couldn't go forward. It started to affect the family as a whole. She would rather give some comfort to the kids in a stable environment than to try to fight it. They separated because of that. Obviously, when we say we want to do more for families, we need to put more action with our words.
Senator Day: I have a comment first and a question. I apologize to my colleagues and our witnesses for being late getting here. There are many interesting things happening on the Hill at all times. This was the most interesting, but I couldn't get here until now; and I apologize. I will have the opportunity to review the transcript so that I know everything that was asked by my honourable colleagues.
I serve on the Finance Committee as well as this committee. Members of the Armed Forces have the Service Income Security Insurance Plan, SISIP. Somebody was on a disability pension as a result of injury and it was to be clawed back as soon as they were able to draw other regular government pensions. The matter had to go to court to be sorted out.
Mr. Daigle: Yes.
Senator Day: My understanding is that the government has decided not to appeal that decision. I'd like you to confirm that the government is acting on this.
As well, we had voted, as parliamentarians, for an amount to help meet that obligation and pay back the money that, as the court declared, had been incorrectly taken from members. However, National Defence hasn't paid that back. More than half the amount that had been clawed back still hasn't been paid back to those entitled to it. I can't understand when Parliament has spoken and the courts have spoken, what the delay could possibly be in not getting that money back to those whose money it is. Can you help us with that?
Mr. Daigle: Unfortunately, not very much. You had most of the data, but maybe Alain has more. As I said before, we complained about that a long time before I arrived in the office. We were following that closely. It was probably debated more under the veterans' ombudsman. We published on our website that we were happy about the decision because the clawback made no sense as it affected their pension. I don't remember but I think there's no appeal. The decision has been taken to go forward.
Mr. Gauthier: This is the first time I've heard about it. Going back, we received many individual complaints about that specific issue. Perhaps based on what you have said, we will go back to our constituents and ask the question to confirm if they have received payment.
Senator Day: We know that a lot of members have not received it. The money that was set aside — voted by Parliament — has not been paid out by DND.
Mr. Daigle: It is very frustrating if that is the case because we live at a different scale. When the minister says he's giving $11.4 million more for mental health providers, what else do you want? The minister tells DND and the Canadian Forces that he's giving $11 million to the people but a year and a half later, it is still not happening. We hear that in the bureaucracy, because of the freeze in hiring, you cannot exceed the number of people. If you are giving a pot of money to our people, then you hire people and put them at the top of your structure. I don't know. Sometimes it's probably better to go back to the people with the money and ask why it doesn't move. We are facing a similar thing on a different scale.
Senator Day: We would appreciate it if you could give us some information on that.
Mr. Daigle: We could provide the answer back to the committee.
The Chair: We are in the last few moments. Thank you very much for your service.
[Translation]
Mr. Daigle, I know that you brought in reforms and made changes. You have been the ombudsman for five years now. I would imagine you could have received another term, but that decision is a political one. The whole issue of whether the ombudsman should be a former member of the military was the subject of debate. The exercise was certainly very useful.
One more thing and I will end there: I believe that the principle of universal human rights is fundamental. Human rights laws require departments to hire people who have a disability or dysfunction. The universality of human rights is in a precarious position. That is an issue that needs revisiting.
[English]
Senator Lang: I want to echo those sentiments and thank you for your service. I'm new to this committee, but I can see that it's the result of a lot of your work as well as your office, obviously, and the assistance that you get to do that work. I'm a new member of this committee and as I become more and more involved in the specifics of what's being provided to veterans and to members of our Armed Forces, I have to say that I think Canadians can be very proud of how we are supporting the efforts of our Armed Forces, the men and women in uniform, as well as the people that you represent in respect of those who are in need. Although I think there are areas that perhaps have to be remedied, Canadians can be very proud of what they have invested and are investing because it is substantial. I appreciate your report, as I said earlier; and as you pointed out, many positive advancements have been made.
Senator Day: Other than to repeat the comment that you made, Mr. Ombudsman, about the book your office produced, as the chairman has already mentioned it's going to be a very good reference book. It's a job well done. We in this committee have been focusing on families as well. I'm glad you mentioned the possibility of a study on the impact on younger people in the family because that's an area we may want to take a very close look at. Thank you for your service.
Senator Wells: I want to repeat my earlier comment about your service to Canada and to say that it's appreciated. Your comments today and those of Mr. Gauthier have been helpful.
[Translation]
The Chair: I just want to wrap up by saying that we have been meeting face to face for a number of years now, for various reasons, of course, and I am sorry that this is the last time we will see you in an official capacity. We look forward to the next time our paths cross, Mr. Daigle. My very best wishes to you, as well as a genuine thank you to you and your staff. Your successor has big shoes to fill.
Mr. Daigle: Thank you kindly.
(The committee adjourned)