EVIDENCE

Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs NUMBER 021 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Tuesday, April 8, 2014 Le mardi 8 avril 2014 Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs CANADA [Recorded by Electronic Apparatus] EVIDENCE April 8, 2014 Committee Edited Evidence * Table of Contents * Number 021 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 021 (Official Version) Témoignages * Table des matières * Numéro 021 (Version officielle) 21 08 04 2014 2014/04/08 15:30:00 House of Commons Comité permanent des anciens combattants Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs ACVA Chair Mr. Greg Kerr 41 2

(1530) [ English ] The Chair (Mr. Greg Kerr (West Nova, CPC)) : We have a really busy

schedule this afternoon. This thing called votes, this pesky thing that goes on, interferes with the time a bit. We're going to try to get one or two of the other witnesses in early, if we can, and get started there. Thank you for being here. As you know, we're continuing the review of the enhanced new Veterans Charter, and we're very pleased to have our witnesses here today. I think the clerk has talked to you. We look for a presentation of up 10 minutes, if we could, from each of you, as I understand. I'm going as they're listed here. It's David Fascinato and Mr. Derryk Fleming. Mr.

Fascinato is here as an individual, and Derryk Fleming is here from the CBG Veterans Well Being Network. Thank you for coming. You know what we're up to here. We look forward to your presentations. If you're ready, either one of you can start. Mr. Derryk Fleming (Member, 31 CBG Veterans Well Being Network) : I would like to thank all the subcommittee members on this panel for offering the group I am here to represent, 31 Combat Brigade Veterans Well Being Network, an opportunity to present to you here today.

When the original new veterans act legislation was brought into law, it had all-party support and the blessing of the Royal Canadian Legion. I raise this point simply to draw attention to the whole issue itself. It is vital that this subcommittee find a way to look past the upcoming election in October 2015 and treat this issue as a national issue, and beyond simply a party issue.

The men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces proudly wear a Canadian flag on their uniform, and its incredibly disheartening to many when they see needs of veterans and their families unnecessarily politicized and positive changes held up for purposes other than what is required to uphold the dignity and respect that our veterans have rightfully earned. A transitioning is happening with the demographics of veterans around our country. The traditional image of the last generation was an elder veteran from either the World War II era or the Korean War.

These veterans served with great distinction in our country and our country recognized their service unequivocally. A transition is now happening amongst the citizens of this country where the image of a young veteran is now being recognized, and unlike the greatest generation before, this image is not fully understood and there are social issues now surrounding it that are a source of mental health issues confronting both veterans and active serving members of the Canadian Armed Forces.

The sacrifices made on behalf of this nation over the past generation have not been felt or borne by the general population and this has led to a serious disconnect between what we have asked of our soldiers, sailors, and airmen, and the true cost that results from being recognized as a major international nation on the world stage. Federal dollars expended by itself will not solve the primary issues that have been the result of the Canadian Forces being deployed almost without respite for over a generation now.

I would like to look at this issue for the next few minutes framing the issue from the bottom up and from there, as our elected representatives it is your decision to make, how you see the federal government living up to its commitment that took place when each of us swore the oath of service. The first issue I'd like to address is stigma. Stigma is a social issue. It's not an individual issue.

To truly improve outcomes for our soldiers and veterans, this I believe is the number one priority that needs to be addressed. 31 Combat Brigade Veterans Well Being Network was created to support a network for the much more dispersed veterans in our communities who do not have the support network in place to alleviate the isolation and alienation many of these veterans feel in their home communities. Stigma is the reason they withdraw into the isolation and begin the downward spiral.

There are excellent supports in place that provide veterans the life skills to interact fully and lead meaningful lives in their post-service years. Some of the supports include: service dogs, OSI support groups, and one program in particular that my wife Shellie and I attended was Can Praxis in Alberta. 31 Combat Brigade Veterans Well Being Network has proven exceptionally valuable in the response time it takes for a veteran or a spouse to reach out at any hour of the day, holidays included, and literally within seconds, there is a response from one of more than 700 people involved now with our group.

I can't believe there's any other support network in this country that is that responsive and it costs the federal government precisely nothing. 32 Brigade, which is in the Toronto area, has been so impressed by the group that they're now modelling it for their own area. In less than a week, they have over 500 members. The success of this has now spawned a second brigade level and the goal is for it to hopefully expand more nationally. There are five division areas in this country and all it takes is leadership in one of those areas and literally, we have a ready-made template that could be replicated.

Again, it costs nothing to the federal government. The role of these veterans well-being networks is not to provide direct services per se. It's there to support and stabilize the veterans and to make sure that they do get to the services that the federal government has provided and are in place.

(1535) Just so there's clarity, for a lot of those agencies, if you don't call during business hours, you're not going to get the help you need, but for a lot of these veterans, as long as we can touch base with them immediately, we can help build that level of trust so they can come forward and overcome that stigma. Stigma as a social issue needs to be addressed directly toward the general Canadian population. I believe a two-tier approach is necessary.

A sustained general awareness campaign over several years can have a huge impact in changing the mindset of the general population toward veterans with PTSD, OSI, or TBI. However, a general awareness campaign also requires local leadership in every municipality where veterans in need are located. Veterans Affairs Canada case managers must be empowered to directly assist a veteran in his community or place of employment, to educate and inform colleagues and employers. This is urgently needed.

The Dominion Command of the Royal Canadian Legion could be empowered to have a mandate where no local VAC service office is located, to advocate for that veteran in need. This should also be addressed. It's incredibly damaging when the mass media report an incident and the label of PTSD veteran is the lead. To be fair to Canadian media, they have been more responsible than other media that also broadcast into Canada.

The federal government does need to look at how incredibly damaging and debilitating it is for all of us to see a fearmongering label attached that ferments an outcome that divides us from the general population we served. Veterans issues are inseparable from family issues and the ultimate goal for the new Veterans Charter, as you reform it, is I believe we have to look not only at the veteran but at the veteran's family as well, because they're the ones who truly support that veteran the most.

I cannot stress enough the more you support the family as a whole unit, the better the health outcomes for the veteran in need. Spouses and children need to be reflected by more than a simple line in the equation. Much can be done in this area and a holistic approach is required to supporting these veterans and their families. On retraining and career choices, I believe much work has been done with the new Veterans Charter, but even more work can be done, providing more opportunities in the retraining and career choices of soldiers transitioning.

I fully believe that a great deal of work can be accomplished in this area. When I look back to a year ago, I looked at this issue in great despair, seeing such a waste of human potential and the incredible amount of talent being unused and unvalued in the civilian sector. I do want to give credit to the federal government; in the last year, some significant changes have been made. More could be done but at the same time at least we're seeing movement on this issue, and I applaud you for that.

On the federal hiring initiative, the Canada Company, one initiative in particular I'd like to raise is a local initiative called Delta Company and it's located in Windsor within our area of responsibilities, within 31 combat brigade. I would like to draw special attention to something I believe would be of great value that currently is not in place. Many soldiers have been attached to the joint personnel support units at various Canadian Forces bases in this country. These injured soldiers still have much to offer our nation. Some will return to their home units after they recover from their injuries.

Others will need to transition to other career paths. My civilian career after my service has been one where I teach adult learners, and I also run the original pilot program of the Canadian Forces cooperative education program. I took over the reins of this program in 2002 from its original creator who was Lieutenant-Colonel Wayne Hill of the Lincoln and Welland regiment. Since 2002 I have recruited junior and senior high school students into the Canadian Forces primary reserve. About 30 of them served most recently in combat roles as infantrymen or gunners in Afghanistan.

I recognize the post-deployment changes from some of my own experiences, and I believe we owe it to this youngest generation of veterans to do our best to reintegrate them fully. They and their families should not suffer from a lack of understanding and awareness as many veterans before them have. That used to be the norm and not the exception. Many of these soldiers in the joint personnel support units by their own choice may be better served by reintegrating them into their chosen post-service communities where they will be provided support by the local reserve unit and area.

But I want to stress it's important that the Canadian Forces regular force budget still absorb that.

(1540) A 6- to 12-month transition from being employed full time by the reserve unit initially, where their self-esteem and skills honed can be upheld and shared with less experienced soldiers, that transitions towards the end to full-time civilian employment opportunities within the private or other public sectors by the end of the transition period. In a sense, we created a program to bring civilians into the military. We could easily create a program to take soldiers and veterans and bring them out of the military back into a civilian career and retrain them.

Local relationships need to be developed between the home units, educational institutions, local employers, labour councils, and municipal governments. It needs to be flexible, and adaptable to the needs and interests of the veterans and their families. The federal government's role here is really to get out of the way and encourage local leadership to happen. Not every fix comes with a big cheque from Ottawa or the provinces involved. This is where I mention the perspective from the bottom up for the veterans most in need.

One of the reasons why I didn’t come forward for 23 years is, as any veteran knows, there’s always someone worse off than you—there always is—and you always step aside to make sure they get the services they need. That’s just part of the military ethos. The local reserve units can provide these soldiers with the social support and networking opportunities they will not have being kept on one of the main bases and shown to the gate on the final day of their contract. It is also about developing the long-term support contacts they will need that extend well beyond the end of their regular force employment contract.

This is about long-term best outcomes and not short-term fixes. I reflect on the work of several members of Parliament here and how they have helped veterans in their home communities. There are many of you, but to illustrate a point, a close friend of mine, Blair Davis, was helped by MP Peter Stoffer, in the House of Commons itself. Equally admirable was my MP, Rick Dykstra, who went above and beyond, at my request, to assist a veteran in distress neither of us has ever met, but reached out on our 31 CBG Veterans Well Being Network to identify the need.

I was able to coordinate with his office staff to assist a veteran in Alberta by contacting the appropriate member of Parliament. The reason I raise that is that I don’t think that story gets told enough about how you guys do cross party lines. This really is a national issue, not a partisan issue. Hopefully, it will not be a wedge issue in the next election. This is reflective of good governance, and no one party has a monopoly on it. We elect our representatives to stand up for us, and all too often the good work gets overlooked.

Much needs to be done, but much has been done, and I am here asking for you to look at this issue from the bottom up instead of just the top down. You will find more reasonable and prudent outcomes when you change the perspective. I have had issues of stigma myself within my own work environment, and still currently do. I do not fault any one person or agency there. Stigma can be overcome by education, awareness, and courage.

People fear what they do not understand and the Government of Canada has made a conscious decision over many governments of both parties to allow the disconnect to grow between our small professional armed forces and the primary reserves that augment them and the general population that requires their services for both internal and international commitments. If we don't close the gap on the disconnect, the issue of stigma will not be resolved, more needless lives will be lost, and more families will suffer. The federal government does have it within its ability to close this disconnect.

We need this government to tell our stories, to advocate for us when fear, ignorance, apathy, and indifference lead to stigma. No veteran should ever be left behind in this society. When you make changes to the new Veterans Charter, the hope is that is what will happen. Thank you very much for your time.

(1545) The Chair : Thank you very much, Mr. Fleming, we appreciate that. Now we'll hear from Mr. Fascinato, please. Mr. David Fascinato (As an Individual) : Good afternoon. Mr. Chair, honourable members of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, fellow witness, and guests, my name is David Fascinato, and today I will be sharing with you the story of my transition from the Canadian Forces into civilian life. I joined the Canadian Forces army reserve in the summer of 2005, just down the street at the Governor General's Foot Guards in Ottawa.

I was drawn to the military for a number of reasons, the most prominent being that I wanted to challenge myself and to do so in the service of others. At that time I was enrolled at the University of Ottawa, but I knew that something was missing from my life. When I joined the army, I came to understand the role I could play in helping others and to better the communities in which we served. As I completed my initial training for the army, the war in Afghanistan was heating up. The narrative was shifting, as it became evident that we, as young soldiers, were being prepared to fight in a conflict overseas.

In 2009 I was selected to join the military's psychological operations capability, a unit charged with managing the perceptions and behaviours of select foreign audiences in support of military and political objectives—or, as I like to say, we were the folks who were tasked with building consensus and alignment with local stakeholders and mission partners to ensure the delivery of governance, development, and security programs. I was deployed in 2010 for eight months to Kandahar province, Afghanistan, with Task Force 1-10, or the 1st Royal Canadian Regiment battle group.

In reality, however, I ended up working more with our American allies from the 10th Mountain Division, U.S. Army. I like to think of my time in Afghanistan with fondness, believe it or not, for it was and still is one of the most precious and inspiring experiences I will likely ever have. Working on the front line, I built and managed relationships with local leaders, along with representatives of other government agencies, to ensure that we had a meaningful and lasting impact. We did this in the face of stiff Taliban opposition, who sought to dismantle our efforts through lies, intimidation, and fear.

Despite their best attempts, I saw first-hand that hope and cooperation could triumph in the face of coercion and violence. I'm fiercely proud of our accomplishments. While there were bad days—it was a war—I count myself infinitely lucky that the good days generally eclipsed the bad days. Thirty days after stepping off that plane ride home, I was back in classes at the University of Ottawa.

The transition was shocking—not the least of which had to do with coming back to winter in Ottawa—because I had returned to a life that I had paused and left behind two years earlier, not really being certain if I was actually ever going to get the chance to press play again. I finished my studies and moved to Toronto in the spring of 2012, where I began the task of finding a job that would, technically, leverage my skills and experiences from the military.

This is where I came into contact with Treble Victor Group, commonly known as 3V, an organization that seeks to enable ex-military leaders to succeed in business, a task that is accomplished through a shared set of common values, a strong network, and a strong strategic vision. Within three months of building a professional network across multiple sectors and industries, I finally landed a job at a large public relations firm in downtown Toronto. Herein lies the mistake I made during my transition, and it's taken me about a year and a half to figure it out.

It isn't my skills or experiences that make me unique, although they of course certainly help; rather, it is the attributes and qualities I bring to any potential employer that distinguish me from many other candidates. Whether it's my approach to obstacles, my ability to solve complex problems, my flexibility to adapt to change, or my openness to continuous learning and professional growth, these qualities were honed over the course of my career in the military, to the point where they are mature and valuable aspects of who I am as a young Canadian entering today's competitive workforce.

I tried too hard to make my skills and experiences fit,

whereas I should have accepted and appreciated that I have a precious set of soft skills that enable me to adapt, overcome, and succeed in the face of adversity. After a year in public relations, I recently left and began working as an independent consultant providing advisory services to a number of clients in the greater Toronto area. I'm also currently interviewing with members of the big four consulting firms.

In addition to my work with Treble Victor Group, where I currently coordinate events and communications on their executive, in the last five months I've also become involved with Veterans Emergency Transition Services Canada, or VETS Canada. This is a non-profit organization with charitable status that connects homeless and marginalized veterans with services and support. I'm a member of the Ontario executive helping to launch that organization's footprint into the province for this spring.

I'm also a member of the Veteran Transition Advisory Council, or VTAC, where I sit on the marketing group and work with members of corporate Canada to address the challenges surrounding veteran transition and hiring. In that role, I also work with members of Canada Company on the military employment transition portal, or MET portal.

(1550) Needless to say, there are many aspects of transition that interest me greatly. One parting thought, though.... In the military, one of the first lessons we learn is to shape the environment to enable our success. Through my efforts with Treble Victor, the Veteran Transition Advisory Council, and VETS Canada, I am attempting to do just that on a number of complex planes. The second lesson we learn is to collaborate.

Therefore to succeed, it is not up to any one organization, one department, or one party; rather, it is up to all of us to work together to ensure this generation of veterans is adequately supported and enabled to achieve the success for which they yearn, whatever shape or form that takes. I know that I will continue my work in veteran transition to shape the environment by collaborating as broadly as possible, aided by all those attributes and qualities that the military helped to foster within me.

We have a generation of young veterans who have made a lasting impact with their varied and distinguished service in Afghanistan and elsewhere, and I implore the members of the committee not to forget that many of these young men and women now stand poised to make outstanding contributions in communities across this great nation. This generation of young veterans needs your support. They need to be enabled to succeed, not just because it's the right thing to do, but because it's the smart thing to do. Thank you for your time, Mr. Chair, and honourable members. I look forward to any questions.

The Chair : Thank you very much for your presentation. We will now go to questions from the committee. We start with Mr. Stoffer, please, for six minutes. Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP) : Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. To the two of you, thank you not only for your service but also for your excellent presentations today. They are very articulate and very helpful for our committee as we go forward.

Derryk, you indicated that it was 22 or 23 years before you came forward because, as you rightfully said, so many of you are so proud and know very well that there are other veterans who may be worse off than you. You talked about the family aspect as well. If you were writing the new charter aspect of it, my first question for you is—and then, David, I have one for you later—what aspect of the families would you include? It's not just spouses and children, but an awful lot of veterans, of course, are single, and they have parents who are possibly quite reliant on them as well.

Perhaps you could just elaborate a bit more on the family aspects of the charter. Thank you very much for coming. Mr. Derryk Fleming : To define the nucleus of a family, as we all know the traditional nuclear family has changed quite a bit over a while. It really is those immediate people who provide them the support, and they're doing it 24/7. They're the ones they turn to first. When they're sick, they're the ones who go to the drugstore or drive them to their appointments. To me, it doesn't necessarily have to be the tradition of the spouse and the children.

It could be parents, it could be common-law; whatever the orientation is fine. But it's those immediate people who are providing the support who should be recognized as that family unit if they're sharing a similar dwelling or they're in their lives every day. Mr. Peter Stoffer : David, I have a question for you, and thank you, as well, for coming.

One of the concerns that I have—and I've spoken to small businesses in Nova Scotia—is that although they are more than willing to hire a veteran, or someone who has served their country, one of the concerns they have—and Derryk pointed out the so-called stigma—is that many of them feel they haven't had the training. For example, when a veteran is hired at company A, company A may not understand what triggers this individual or may set them off. If the person gets hired and then has to take off a lot of sick time because of stress concerns.... You're working with corporate Canada.

What do you see as the shortfall, in many ways, of training corporate Canada or the business community to understand that some of these veterans they'll be hiring, although highly skilled and very good at what they may be able to do, may have certain psychological conditions that may need to be looked out for to understand what this person may be going through on a particular day?

(1555) Mr. David Fascinato : Interestingly enough I had the pleasure of working on the business case for why to hire a Canadian veteran, and how to craft that message and understanding to corporate Canada. One of the interesting things I found in my study there was a statistic from a recent Ipsos Reid survey published, I think, on March 30 or 31, 2014. What I basically discovered here is that there is an ambivalence that's greater than any general stigma towards veterans. You can say that's generally a good thing because it's quite different from the challenge that Americans face where there is a very strong negative stigma attached to potential veteran hires.

Whereas there is a negative perception in the United States about veterans, in Canada, from my understanding and from my research, there is actually a greater ambivalence or indifference toward veterans. The challenge therefore is to craft a strong story of the veteran who can transition, who can bring those attributes, and experiences, and skills in a positive manner to those jobs in the corporate realm—or however you like to define it—and to do so in a most effective and efficient way. That's obviously in advance of any general negative stigma that might get out there.

It's always a challenging thing to deal with, mental health issues in the workplace, and there are general campaigns, such as Bell Let's Talk and others, that have taken great strides in ensuring that those sorts of issues can be talked about in an open and safe environment with employers. I think moving forward it would be proactive to engage those sorts of campaigns in order to raise the discussion level about those very important issues. The Chair : Briefly. Mr. Peter Stoffer : Thank you. Derryk, you had talked about from the bottom up.

One of the things I think any government would have concerns about is ensuring that what are in most cases non-profit organizations—such as VETS Canada; Paws Fur Thought, Medric Cousineau's service dogs; Can Praxis— most of these volunteer groups are able to do the right thing on behalf of the veteran. And because their heart's out there, they may do the wrong thing, which in turn may hold back the veteran in some cases.

In that regard, can you explain how the bottom up would assist the government in terms of that communication and cooperation to really do what is their purpose to do, to help that veteran and their family? Mr. Derryk Fleming : When I think of the cost involved with medical care, having the mental health experts in place, having the infrastructure so that we have veterans agencies that we can go to, that's sort of the big structure. But when I referred to the bottom up, much of what's missing, honestly, is local mentorship.

The reason I say that is I've run arguably one of the most successful Canadian Forces cooperative education programs in the country since 2002. The soldiers who come through, it's almost like being an old football coach of theirs. I get them coming back again and again. I mean this is hundreds. A lot of them, what they're looking for, like I said, is mentorship. When the trust is there.... Because a big issue about PTSD is trust, it really is. It is probably the single most precious commodity that these young soldiers need.

And when the trust is there, we can help direct them to where the appropriate resources are. So as the federal government, as you expend resources, we want to make sure those resources are expended in a very accountable and effective manner, because when I mentioned about the guy— No one wants to see someone who really needs help do without. This is the whole reason I look at the bottom-up approach.

Having support groups, whether it's Veterans Canada helping the homeless or the Veterans Well Being Network, which costs nothing to the federal government, we want to bring these people to where those supports are in place. The whole idea is you don't have to necessarily replicate the resources of 50 places, but we want to make sure that those veterans are aware of what's happening. We want to make sure before any damage is done to their families or their relationships or their place of employment, we want to get them to be proactive and get them to those resources. This can be replicated nationally.

In terms of hands on, I mentioned retraining and maybe bringing some people back from the joint program support units. Again local mentorship can make all the difference in the world. The one thing the Canadian Forces had in abundance, we had some fantastic senior NCOs and junior NCOs who are still in the area. These are the ready-made mentors in your communities. So when that reg force member who comes back from Wainwright or comes back from Petawawa.... The local economy in Petawawa can't absorb that many people transitioning out of the forces.

But if they come back to their home communities at least a little sooner, we can provide that local mentorship. We can help them transition. We can help them make the connections, whether it's through educational facilities, through the public sector, the private sector. These opportunities are there and they're sustainable. This is the reason why I say this, I really think the answer to really fixing the new Veterans Charter is to take a bottom-up approach, not necessarily a top down. It's not that I want you to spend less money on veterans, far from that.

But the whole point is saying, let's make sure that those veterans who are truly in need are the ones who get the help and there are no questions asked. The more that we can support and not necessarily have to—I don't want to say discard.... But to me it's such a waste to have a 25-year-old veteran who with the right support, with the right mentorship, can have a fantastic new career ahead of him.

That opportunity doesn't happen because the leadership wasn't there, the support wasn't there—whether it's the family unit, whether it's the medical system, whether it's the local community, whether it's dealing with issues of stigma, the answer is really the bottom up. This way the sacred obligation can be met because we're using our resources more efficiently.

(1600) The Chair : Thank you very much, Mr. Fleming. Mr. Dykstra, nice to have you here this afternoon and you now have six minutes, please. Mr. Rick Dykstra (St. Catharines, CPC) : Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to point out that I hope I'm not the reason that a few of my colleagues have had to step out for a couple of moments to talk. Mr. Royal Galipeau (Ottawa—Orléans, CPC) : They'll come back as soon as you're finished. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Mr. Rick Dykstra : That line doesn't surprise me at all.

I'd like to thank both of you for being here this afternoon—Derryk in particular, being from my home community. You mentioned something about 2002 and perhaps David, you could comment on this as well. I do appreciate the comments you made with respect to trying to remove partisanship with how we deal with this issue. You were looking at this system from the inside out in 2002 when you began your transition to what you're doing now. I guess my question for both of you is, when you left, did you know where to go right away in terms of beginning to deal with the transition?

And second, do you think that folks like both of you are able to, in a very meaningful way based on the organization that you represent—Derryk in particular and David as a consultant more or less—are you able to assist our young veterans now so that they're not facing the same types of issues you may have faced in 2002 when you left? Mr. Derryk Fleming : Absolutely. Not having that sort of perspective, it's almost frightening, right, because you have come from an environment that's one of the most supportive environments you can have. I read this in an

article maybe about six months ago, but it really struck a nerve with me, and it was the fact that for a lot of veterans it's actually quite shocking moving from a military environment into a civilian environment, where you don't have each other's back, right? You are that close, you are that supportive, you are that accountable to each other, and to be in a civilian environment where—I'm not knocking it, but it's a little more fend for yourself, it's a little more cover your back. You really don't have that same trust and that loyalty to each other. It's almost a very frightening scenario.

As I said, for some of the veterans, they don't make that adjustment. So for a lot of these bottom-up initiatives, that's what it's really about, to support them so they sort of get their feet under them, they get their confidence, they sort of learn how the new rules are played in this different environment, and then these individuals and their families can be successful for the next decades. This is the whole idea about being proactive and looking at it from mentorship from the bottom up. And I don't think it can necessarily be imposed by Ottawa. The support needs to be there.

The political synergy needs to be there, but a lot of this has to happen from the local level, and the federal government has to trust us, right, in the local sense. It's not asking for a blank cheque, but as I said, when I worked with Rick, it's basically give us your blessing, and if we need you to make phone calls or make discussions to help facilitate things, that's what we really need. That allows you to then focus on the big-ticket items. We can help a whole whack of veterans, but those most in need are the ones we don't want to see fall through the cracks.

(1605) Mr. Rick Dykstra : David. Mr. David Fascinato : I'll speak to transition in two different planes here. One is that initial transition when I got off the plane a few years ago, versus the career transition, which happened more recently. With regard to the first, I essentially came back from Afghanistan, as I mentioned.

Thirty days later I'm sitting at the steps of the University of Ottawa saying “okay, back to class.” There are services of support there in existence for reservists to tap into for support, to make that initial transition a little bit easier, but they're really hard to come by, and there's kind of an absence of communication, more or less, with regard to if I had an issue. I saw friends first-hand who had issues coming back and who probably needed some resources.

The services of support are there, and then the individuals over here, and there's no communication with how the individual might navigate the process in order to get the resources they need. It's a long battle for many people, and I sat with my friends through many a long night helping them navigate those issues. So there's a communication thing. That's what I wanted to emphasize. Second, I'm going to echo Derryk here with regard to the transition of the job. In my experience it comes down to grassroots organization groups like Treble Victor that I have first-hand experience with.

It's a wonderful resource to tap into a community of ex-military individuals to find that mentorship, to find that guidance and leadership to help you navigate through that next phase of transition. You have made it back from the conflict. You have made it back to just a normalized life, let's say, and now you actually want to actualize your aspirations and achieve your goals, and that usually involves getting a job in the economy. How do you do that? It's building that community, and building that network.

It has been my experience, and I'm very grateful for the experience I've had with Treble Victor in building that professional network in the GTA. I know there are chapters that are growing throughout the country, so it's an organization that will grow in time, of course. And it is absolutely indispensable. So to echo the bottom-up approach, there are groups advocating within that realm and that are ensuring there is continued support to the individual when and if they choose to make that initial leap into civilian life, as it were. The Chair : Thank you very much. We're past the six minutes, Mr. Dykstra. Ms.

Freeland, welcome this afternoon. It's nice to have you here. You're up for six minutes, please. Ms. Chrystia Freeland (Toronto Centre, Lib.) : First of all, thank you, everyone, for having me here with you. As you probably all know, Frank is at Vimy Ridge, so he has asked me to sit in. Thank you for that privilege. It's been really fascinating. Thank you, Derryk and David. I've learned a lot from listening to you. I've been really interested in particular, Derryk, in this point you have made a few times about the need for more of a bottom-up approach.

Can you speak to—and maybe, David, you will have some comments on this too—some systematic ways we could build that bottom-up approach into the whole policy? Mr. Derryk Fleming : The first concrete one, I would say, is looking at the JPSUs, where if we can transition.... Of course, only of their own free will, but for those soldiers who know they're not going to re-up and are going to be transitioning back, instead of having them, say, in Petawawa for up to two years, where there's no opportunity to network, to develop more skills....

In the army, one of the terms you never wanted to be referred to as is what we used to call a “MIR commando”. I can't believe the morale is very high for a lot of them, because they're not with their comrades in the battalion or in their unit or squadron. For those soldiers who are looking for a new opportunity and a new transition, you already have the infrastructure. You're paying for it, right? With the local armouries and the some 50-odd local reserve units, you can absorb pretty much every one of those soldiers who would choose to make that transition and you can bring them back sooner.

While they're there, they can then transition over from basically 100% of their day doing some type of administrative job at the local unit. Over time, it's almost like a reverse co-op like the one I run for the District School Board of Niagara, where they're transitioning out of the military and into a civilian career versus bringing young soldiers into the military. It can be done. The opportunity is there. The infrastructure is already paid for. This is what I'm saying. You can get more value for the dollars you're already spending if we look at how they're being spent.

The other part of a bottom-up approach, again, is the mentorship. It's one thing for them to get new education or training, or to do almost like an adult co-op type of program, but there are the social networks, both with the local soldiers, in being able to integrate with these guys who will become their buddies, who will become their support network outside of their nuclear family.... But also, at the same time, they're getting a chance to be seen in the community, and that will help close the disconnect that I referred to in my comments. The more opportunities where we see veterans out there....

If we can make the Helmets to Hardhats program more prominent or more successful.... There are a lot of opportunities whereby we can close the gap that currently exists, where we have this highly professional Canadian Armed Forces but it's small and it's out of the way. Unless it's on a news clip, for the most part the average Canadian does not see it.

(1610) Ms. Chrystia Freeland : To follow up on that, Derryk, do you think that, for example, as part of this transitioning, people should begin their job search and that sort of thing before they go? Mr. Derryk Fleming : Before they leave the military? Absolutely. I'll give you an example: the Helmets to Hardhats program.

To have them learn a new trade is awesome, but in the long term, to make this self-sustaining, what I truly believe is necessary is not only to teach them skills such as becoming an electrician or a plumber or working in HVAC, but also to teach them the business skills, because small business is the real generator of jobs. The first person who's going to hire another veteran is a veteran.

For these veterans who get into that Helmets to Hardhats program, if we can, say, over four to five years, also give them the training so they can manage their own business, the expenditure that you put into these programs now is going to pay huge dividends down the road, because it will become self-sustaining. Ms. Chrystia Freeland : David, you've done that transition very recently. Do you have any more thoughts on how we could actually act on this bottom-up approach? Mr.

David Fascinato : One point I'd like to make is that the success I've witnessed has really been centred on collaboration between various organizations within that veteran transition realm. I'm speaking to Treble Victor, VTAC, and even VETS Canada, where I think ultimately the bigger-picture effort is changing the discussion, changing the focus of the debate around veterans in business or veterans in transition. It's something that, speaking to your earlier point about stigma.... So long as we concentrate on all the negatives, we sometimes forget the potential for positives.

Unfortunately, sometimes the centre of the discussion is more divisive versus more collaborative. When there's division, as I experienced in Afghanistan.... If I had disagreed with my DFAIT colleague and my CIDA colleague, no one would have benefited from the distribution of assistance for the population. Instead, when we were more aligned and were able to come together and collaborate on those very important issues—everyone had an agenda, of course—we were able to actually have that impact at the end of the day.

Enabling those grassroots organizations, that bottom-up approach, and encouraging an environment in which organizations and people can work together towards a common goal of making sure that the generation that I'm a part of, the generation of young veterans, can succeed, that's really important. Because sometimes the barriers are ones that we put in place ourselves, but sometimes those are more easily dismantled than you might think.

(1615) The Chair : Thank you very much. Our time is up. Mr. Gill, go ahead, please, for six minutes. Mr. Parm Gill (Brampton—Springdale, CPC) : Thank you, Mr. Chair. I also want to take this opportunity to thank our witnesses for being here today and helping us with this important study. As you know, we're obviously conducting a comprehensive review of the new Veterans Charter, which was proposed by Minister Fantino . My question is for David. David, as a serving member and reservist, can you elaborate on your experience while transitioning from deployment back to a being Class A officer? Mr.

David Fascinato : Certainly. It wasn't just because of the winter that it was a shock to come back to normal life. To elaborate a bit, I came back December 5 and on January 5 I was back in class. The last day of my technical contract as a Class C reservist was, I think, January 28, and then I was back to Class A service, temporary part-time contract work with the military while concurrently pursuing my studies. It wasn't an easy one just because of the condensed timeframe, as you can imagine.

Within 35 days I went from patrolling in southern Afghanistan, which is quite different from walking to school in the middle of January. Obviously, the transition itself was ushered along by my reserve unit, the Governor General's Foot Guards at the time. Generally speaking, it was a smooth transition. However, there are always things that kind of get in the way administratively, and prolong that transition.

There were a lot of challenges with regard to medical documents, outstanding pay issues, and other things that were carried over from my time in Afghanistan, which had an impact and obviously caused a little bit of stress in my reintegration while I was just trying to get back to my life as it had been before. Within about a year or so, everything was taken care of, and I would actually define that full transition, me really getting back into my life. When you're a reservist, it's a little bit different. It's not the traditional, regular-force experience.

I did volunteer and kind of got plucked out, and then I came back and had to find an apartment, because I'd gotten rid of my apartment and sold all my furniture. That's challenging, but at the end of the day, it all came together after a little while. Mr. Parm Gill : Very nice. Can you tell us also what type of support you received from the military, even in terms of medical or mental health, if any? Mr. David Fascinato : As is the case with any other serving member, I obviously underwent a number of medical and mental health assessments on my return.

Those started, actually, in Kandahar before I got on the plane, and I think within six months of getting back I had completed all my screening. It was at that point in time, at that part of my transition, that I exited, but I can speak to my experience with various friends and colleagues who had more prolonged experiences of that. Again, this is the challenge of being a reservist, that sometimes we get to slip through the cracks for one reason or another. Even in my own case, actually, my medical files were lost, but they surfaced eventually, of course.

Those things prolong things and cause a little bit of stress, but at the end of the day, we're all checked out. Mr. Parm Gill : Did you encounter any barriers along the way? Do you have any recommendations in terms of how we can streamline the process? Mr. David Fascinato : I raised the point earlier about communicating those services and supports that are available. It was sometimes a challenge, and I'd have to go hunting for those resources myself.

I'd really have to go out and literally spend half my day sometimes trying to nail down various appointments, just to talk to someone about a concern or an issue, and more often than not that would just be upon my own initiative. I'd ask for assistance or support from various resources. As reservists, sometimes we just get pointed in the direction and told to go.

So communicating more effectively that there are those resources available and ensuring that there is a smoother connection as opposed to one that takes a lot of effort at times would go a long way to making sure that transitioning members receive the benefits that they deserve.

(1620) Mr. Parm Gill : Are you able to give us an example of a barrier or sort of a challenge that you have faced along the way that you wish you didn't have to? Mr. David Fascinato : I'll speak to a friend's experience. He was displaying symptoms of PTSD and he was having a lot of issues just getting an appointment with a military doctor to talk about it. He had gone through the screens and there were no issues that were flagged, but after a certain point of time after the screening had been completed, issues started and symptoms started arising.

It was then difficult for him to get access to—to just simply have a conversation with someone, not even a re-assessment, but just to have a chat. It was unfortunate that it took a lot of effort and a lot of hunting on his part, and on my part as a friend to support him. We have this concept of battle buddies in the military so we look out for one another quite closely, and so I helped him get through that. It took a lot of effort, but there was a pretty massive barrier.

I could speculate that it could have been administrative, it could have been operational, it could have been systematic in terms of the actual organizational structure that we were trying to get ourselves into, but it was a challenge nonetheless. The Chair : Thank you very much. Now Mr. Chicoine, please, for six minutes. [ Translation ] Mr. Sylvain Chicoine (Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, NDP) : Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Fleming, I want to ask you a question concerning the transition period you mentioned in your opening statement.

You said it would be good that there be a 6 to 12-month transition period before the military person is released to civilian life. Afterwards you talked about the possibility of sponsorship. You also touched on a topic I find interesting, that of administration courses. Not only could this allow a veteran to offer his or her services to a business that works in the area of administrative services, but this could even allow them to start a business. I am thinking of a number of veterans who experienced some unfortunate circumstances.

They used their lump sum payment to start businesses, but may not have had a good basis in administration, and experienced total failure. In short, it would be interesting if you could go back to this matter of the administration courses. Also, do you think that the help of a guidance officer at the very beginning of that transition period could be useful so that a member of forces could be guided toward his fields of interest? [ English ] Mr. Derryk Fleming : You raise an excellent point, I'm so glad that you mentioned that. I can think of a personal example where there was young soldier who had come back.

I was his teacher. He came through the program, I recruited him. He went overseas, he was a gunner in one of the RG-31s. When he came back, he did get a lump sum, I believe it was in the realm of about $75,000. He decided to launch a business and several times I stressed, again and again, not to jump in head-first unless he had the skills and the knowledge to make that investment properly. His business has failed, so even though he got the lump sum and the federal government did provide it to him and there was an opportunity there, the money was essentially squandered because he didn't have the skill set.

For me, who has spent a good part of my life training adults or retraining adults, to see that mistake made it's like a train wreck. You see it coming, you're trying to tell them not to do this, but they still do it. That business could have succeeded. He could have created more small jobs if he had the skills and the training upfront. A lot of soldiers—and I don't think this is a surprise to many—have ADD; they tend to be very impulsive. They just do things, they're go-getters. But that sometimes doesn't work well when it comes to business because sometimes that go-getter attitude can end up causing failure.

So when we look at bringing soldiers back from the joint program support units, having that 6 to 12 months all depends on the needs of the individual. Maybe it needs to be 18 months. For other individuals, if they're really in better physical and mental health, maybe it only needs to be three months. It needs to be flexible so it's not like a prison sentence for these individuals. But I really think we need to create synergy in our local economy with our training and educational facilities.

Whether it's colleges, universities, or the local school boards through the community ed programs, we can deliver programs very effectively so that the resources that are being expended by the new Veterans Charter to help these veterans transition is money well spent. But the training and the transition and the mentorship and the support has to be in place before we cut them a big cheque. I truly believe that. There's one other thing I think we should mention too.

For those soldiers who are very young and aren't able to handle that kind of money, one idea I thought about was looking at having the CPP, since it's an infrastructure already in place.... These young soldiers don't know...for most of them, and I'm a former NCO myself.... So for a lot of them when it comes to financial planning, for the most part, this is way over their heads. So at least if it's in place....

The idea is that, yes they can access it, we're not trying to babysit them, but at the same time, have the supports in place so that those sums of money that were set aside by the new Veterans Charter aren't being squandered in the first 90 days. (1625) [ Translation ] Mr. Sylvain Chicoine : I agree with you totally. It would be good to practically force a veteran to follow those courses. I agree with you that it would be essential for someone who wanted to use all of his lump sum payment to start a business to follow some basic courses.

Would the services of guidance counsellors be necessary in that regard to assess all of that, or to direct someone towards something else if the counsellor saw that the person had no aptitude for management? [ English ] Mr. Derryk Fleming : Yes. We wouldn't even need to reinvent the wheel here, whether it's through the community colleges, the universities, or even through the local school board. Most school boards have a business education council. You also have adult ed programs or community ed. These modules are already in place for the civilian population there.

To have a veteran transition with support, we're not even reinventing the wheel here. But to have that opportunity for lifelong growth, to develop the skills so that we're making sure that we maximize their chances for success for transitioning. What it does is it creates better outcomes, it creates hope for the families, it's win-win all the way around. The Chair : We're right up against your six minutes. [ Translation ] Mr. Sylvain Chicoine : You are telling me my time is up, Mr. Chair? Mr. Fascinato, would you care to make a brief comment? [ English ] The Chair : Peter's got you well-trained, I'll tell you.

Mr. Sylvain Chicoine : I thought you said I had a few seconds. I'm sorry. The Chair : No. Thank you very much. Mr. Hawn, please, for six minutes. Hon. Laurie Hawn (Edmonton Centre, CPC) : Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you both for being here. I want to pick up on a couple of things. David, first you talked about the effectiveness of the screening. As you know, effects can be delayed for a number of years and we've experienced that throughout. Did you find your screening effective? It sounds like you did. But do you think there should be a sort of mandated screening within the first six months?

Should there be sort of a follow-up mandated screening every year for a couple of years, or some increased frequency? Mr. David Fascinato : Absolutely. I agree with that 100%, and even beyond one's technical service in the military as well. I believe there should be as much support as possible to individual members who have, for whatever reason or cause, that they went overseas.... They deserve the support at the other end.

Whether they stay in the military or leave it the next day, I believe quite firmly that support should not cease, and that sort of screening would also go a long way towards picking up, as I mentioned before, certain aspects of operational stress injuries or post-traumatic stress disorder that might appear afterwards.

(1630) Hon. Laurie Hawn : Screening as a veteran carrying on. Mr. David Fascinato : Yes. Hon. Laurie Hawn : Did either of you have any difficulty—you come from different generations—accessing your medical files, getting your medical files, or getting access to the information? Mr. Derryk Fleming : For me personally, I had a.... Our unit doctor actually gave me a copy of my medical file. He warned me back when I left that it would be a good idea if I had my own copy. That was the reason why I had it, and I wouldn't have thought of it myself. Hon. Laurie Hawn : Was that SOP or was he just doing it with you? Mr.

Derryk Fleming : No, he was doing it because he knew my history. He said it would be a good idea that I had this if I ever needed it. I can't comment for the average. Hon. Laurie Hawn : David. Mr. David Fascinato : In my experience, as I mentioned, my files were lost. They reappeared after a certain period of time, thank heavens. But it would be great to have access to those especially when and if I formally leave the military. It would be great to have access to those so that my family doctor could even access that stuff.

Right now there's a massive disconnect when I talk about back pain, and it's hard to describe that to a normal doctor sometimes. Hon. Laurie Hawn : I'll say listen up tomorrow. You don't know what that means, and that's okay. We heard from Sergeant Bjarne Nielson. I don't know if either one of you know him. His is a great story of recovery from very serious injuries: loss of a leg, basically an elbow, and so on. He said something I thought maybe goes to the bottom-up idea.

He said that, of the 100% that needs to be brought to bear to whatever situation, 49% comes from the government programs and benefits, whatever. But 51% is what he brings, the hard skills and soft skills attitude more than anything else. If you met this guy, you'd understand; you'd understand attitude. Derryk, is that the kind of thing that's sort of writ large when we're talking about bottom up? Mr. Derryk Fleming : This brings in what I mentioned about mentorship and support.

When I raise the point about stigma for the average person, if they're not informed, their image is either the movie Rambo or it's news media on CNN. Yet we have what we call vet-togethers. I attended one last Saturday. There were probably about 14 or 15 of us. So of those 14 or 15, 12 of us have PTSD. We have spouses; we have children. The whole thing is, it's not an issue when you get it. When I say get it, I mean you understand it. We pick up on everything in the room. I read people's body language very well. If there's no sort of apprehension, there's no issue at all.

Really one of the best ways for someone with PTSD to integrate is to have good manners. Hon. Laurie Hawn : I want to talk about stigma a bit more, and you brought it up, Derryk. The stigma, external stigma, is what the attitude is out there. That gets obviously internalized by the individual and they feel the impact, the personal impact of that stigma. Mr. Derryk Fleming : Yes. Hon. Laurie Hawn : I'm going to ask you if we as a society and the media people have gone overboard with this. I've had a number of veterans come to me and say, “I'm having a hard time even getting an interview for a job”.

They tell me that they think it's because—and I've seen this too—there's getting to be an attitude that, if you were a combat veteran, you must be damaged for some reason, because that's what we hear all the time. It's not to say the stories aren't important to be told and so on, but it becomes so much the narrative that a lot of people are looking at anybody who was in uniform as somehow damaged. How do we fix that? Mr. Derryk Fleming : Part of it is.... I think it's a multifaceted one. We need to celebrate the veteran transitions in the communities.

If you're at a base like Petawawa, you can't help but see that this is a military town. But for a lot of people in my home community of St. Catherine's, the Lake Street Armoury was built in 1906. For most people, they just see it as the castle. They have no idea what goes on there, and yet in that unit, you have at least 40 members who are veterans. Their stories aren't told, or once in a while, maybe on Remembrance Day. For the most part, that's what I mean by the disconnect. If we can reconnect, that will take care of 49% of the problem right there. The other

part is in terms of sensitivity training. Stigma comes from the population at large. I know myself, I attended camp practices with my wife, and I learned quite a bit. I really can see now.... My voice never gets louder than this, but at 6 '5” and 280 pounds, if I look the wrong way, I could probably frighten someone. I had to learn that. Because with self-observation, I would say I wasn't upset, but the person beside me might take it the wrong way. We feel everything. That's the best way to describe it, that 90% of communication is body language. And in terms of language, there's cadence, tone, and volume.

You manipulate one of the three, and it changes the message. For us, that hyper vigilance, we can set other people off, but they set us off. So for a lot of it, when I mention about having a Veterans Affairs caseworker being able to advocate for you— whether it's in the workplace or whether it's with housing—we need someone at the local level who can help that transition and support when we're dealing with people who think they know, but really don't.

(1635) The Chair : Thank you very much. Mr. Lizon now please, for six minutes. Mr. Wladyslaw Lizon (Mississauga East—Cooksville, CPC) : Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. You're very generous. Welcome to both of you here, and thank you for your service. Welcome to all the guests and the veterans here with us this afternoon. I would like to go back to the communications issue that both of you mentioned. I was just wondering if you would have any suggestions as to how to address it and the best way to fix it.

If any of us decided to build a house and decided to be his or her own general contractor, I think once we approached the land and started getting the required paperwork, it probably would take us three times as long, or longer, as the person who does this on a daily basis. What is the problem, from your experience, David? Is it that the people who are providing services do not understand your needs or don't understand the way? Would it be possible to create some kind of personalized manual that you can follow?

I am so-and-so, I did this, I have these problems, this is what I have to do, and it's clear in front of me in the proper order. Is this something that is possible or even partially possible? It's not possible? Is it a problem with people at service centres? Is it something else? How would you suggest we fix it? Mr. David Fascinato : One thing that I would jump on is the concept of the battle buddy that I mentioned earlier. If you have someone who has done it before and can, to Derryk's point, be a mentor.... I'm talking about the initial transitions: stepping off the plane, the first six months or a year.

I think it would help if there was a one-on-one touchpoint to help that individual navigate all of the overwhelming things that they're going to be dealing with. They have no idea that they will be dealing with it. That's even assuming that they're not bringing their own issues to the table. The hill before you is that much steeper when you have other challenges confronting it. Having someone there to help so that you're not alone when you're calling up the mental health service line and trying to explain how you feel.

Having someone there with you, not just on the other end of the line, can help the individual get through that journey and be more adequately supported. The other benefit there is that's ensuring more than adequate communication of the services and support that are available. To the point about mentorship and your earlier point about communication, you just have to ensure that it's there. Right now, that's something that's generally lacking in my experience. I should caveat that with, I know what I went through in the ninth year of the war in 2010-2011 when I came back.

It was probably far better than what it was in 2002 or 2003. I'm very grateful that there were incremental improvements, but that doesn't mean we should forget about what we've learned and not think about how we can improve moving forward.

(1640) Mr. Derryk Fleming : It's important, when we look at the issue, to see if we can create a pamphlet or a template that will fix it. PTSD comes in many flavours. I'll give you one example, The general consensus in the public is, well, they must have seen their friend get blown up. But anyone who's served in a battalion will know that, for example, the company clerk is the person who ends up having to collect and send their effects home. Or even a UAV operator who's looking at the thermal image screen or the night vision screen of when a UAV hits a target.

There's a whole bunch of different ways that PTSD can be created, so really, one size doesn't fit all and you cannot take away the human aspect. When I mention having a pamphlet, you're right, if it was someone who's completely untrained, absolutely. Having solid mentorship or a solid battle buddy, the role of that is to stabilize a veteran 24-7, so that they can reach out and they're not alone. But it can't replace the actual human aspect of trained experts and we don't cross that line. For example, for us 31 CBG, we cost the government nothing.

We cover an area that's roughly one-third of the province of Ontario, but has one-eighth of the country's population living within it, yet we don't provide medical services per se. We'll stabilize a veteran emotionally and then we will get them to the next level of critical care. Whether that's an OSISS group, whether that's to a hospital, whether that's to an actual psychologist, or whatever is needed, that's what happens. Sometimes it's also quite simple. You have a veteran who is really withdrawn and they have no food in the fridge, like literally.

It happens almost every week, you'll hear two to three times whether someone can drive someone because they have no one to look after them and they haven't had any food in their fridge for a day or two. This is what I mean from the bottom up. We want to standardize everything because we tend to do that, but a lot of this is really local stuff. What will work in the Niagara region might not necessarily work in the Kitchener-Waterloo region. It might not work in the Kingston area. We have to tailor it. It's like building a house somewhat; it's custom or it's semi-custom.

What we really require from the government is that clarity and that synergy of thought to help the provincial government to see what they could do and what the municipal government could do. When everyone takes a vested interest in our veterans, that's one of the biggest things that we sort of feel we get left out of. We feel like we're forgotten other than the two minutes on Remembrance Day. Yet, for a lot of veterans who are amputees or have the silent scars, we live with this every day. So in some ways Remembrance Day is a little bittersweet because it doesn't translate into our everyday lives.

It doesn't have to be a massive budget expenditure. This is what I meant by the bottom up. If we look at all three levels of government, we look at the private sector, the public sector, and there's local leadership and where there isn't, you can mentor it from another region. We can basically coach all those main centres. We'll find where the veterans are, we'll make sure that their families are assisted. If you have a big infrastructure and you're paying for it 24-7, it's going to be utilized properly, but what it takes is organization and leadership. The Chair : Mr. Rafferty, for six minutes. Mr.

John Rafferty (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, NDP) : Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you both for being here today. It's interesting that we started off this session talking about transitions, and continued to. It's interesting because almost every witness we've talked to has talked about the transition, particularly from regular forces to Veterans Affairs. It really seems to be a key part of improving the Veterans Charter, and almost everybody has talked, as you have, about family support and those sorts of issues. And I liked what you said, Mr.

Fleming, about accessing the strengths and abilities of people, because I'm not sure that happens right now. Some of the things people have talked about are things like caseworker continuity, for example. You leave the regular forces and suddenly you lose this caseworker you've had. You have somebody new; and you may have three or four, as people move and shift around. And that kind of thing is critical.

The other thing that was mentioned—and it seems to me to be a fairly easy thing to do—is ensuring that the day someone leaves, that he or she is automatically part of Veterans Affairs and given that number, because, as you know, many people.... For example, Mr. Fascinato, you may not really access Veterans Affairs for 20 to 30 more years, when you need something different that you don't need now, because you're a young man. So the question is for both of you. How might that transition be improved? Second, there are some things I've talked about, but there are some things you might like to mention.

The other part of that is, how do you think that should appear in the Veterans Charter to make sure that happens? Because that's just words. Someone still has to make that happen, but what would it look like in the Veterans Charter if we were to make sure that happened? In Thunder Bay we have quite a large garrison, not regular. Some regular forces are there, but not many. The treatment of those two groups of soldiers is quite a bit different, whether you're reserve or whether you're regular. So I wonder if you could both make comments about those things. Maybe Mr. Fleming, if you're ready?

(1645) Mr. Derryk Fleming : The idea of having the soldier transition once he's transferred out of service and automatically having a VAC case file opened doesn't mean he's accessing services. But it could be as simple as sending them a questionnaire every six months or once a year. I'm going to give my supervisor at work credit. He's calls it “the steady drip”. If they need the services, it's better to have...prompt and proactively before it becomes a crisis. So, I think that idea is an excellent suggestion. Right off the bat, they have a caseworker. It doesn't mean they're costing lots of money.

There's a second thing I want to point out, because I haven't heard it in the discussion we had today. In Great Britain, they actually look at some of the issues with their reservists versus their regular force members. They actually peg it at 1.5 times more than the regular force. The reason for it is that on the regular force bases, they do have those big support centres there. But when you think of the soldiers who served in Afghanistan, one-fifth of all the combat personnel—and most of these people were the ones outside the wire—were actually reservists.

But when they come back, only two or three of them in that unit go back to their hometowns, and they don't have those multi-million dollar services like they have in Petawawa, Valcartier, and Edmonton. So there is a disconnect between the reservists, who took the same risks as the regular force personnel, versus the regular force personnel, and they are still back with most of their comrades who served, at least for a time before that transition happens. When you think of the veterans who are the reservists, please don't overlook them in that new Veterans Charter.

I honestly think they're some of the most at risk. I talk about the disconnect. They go back to these home communities and people don't necessarily recognize them. It's not like one VP just came back to Edmonton, or one RCR just came back to Petawawa, and the whole city knows or the whole town knows. But for Corporal Smith or Master Corporal Jones who just went back to Guelph, not everyone knows that. They can get lost in the system very easily.

So, somehow in the new Veterans Charter, please do not allow a discrepancy between the regular force members and the reserve force members, because they took the same risks. Mr. John Rafferty : A veteran is a veteran is a veteran. Mr. Derryk Fleming : A veteran is a veteran. One standard, yes, please. Mr. David Fascinato : Yes. I was going to add, or Corporal Fascinato. Mr. John Rafferty : Yes. Okay. Mr. David Fascinato : Actually, I'm from Guelph, ironically enough. I'm not really sure how that happened. I didn't plan that.

Honestly, I'm going to sound like an echo here, but it is a convoluted process for reservists, speaking to my own experiences. There is an issue that you fall back into a sphere of anonymity after you have just came back from doing something pretty intensive, something that you have a tremendous amount of pride in, and then you're suddenly cut back into a society that is, generally speaking, ambivalent towards you and your accomplishments.

Or you're just generally misunderstood because not only does no one really understand what you did, but the debate and discussion at all the various levels is radically different from what you experienced in your service overseas. With regard to the new Veterans Charter ensuring that veterans from within the reserve do have a voice and their issues can be addressed....

For example, when I chatted about a friend who couldn't access mental health services, or even the fact that my medical charts were lost for almost eight months and it's because I was a reservist I was told, those sorts of things deserve more attention. The debate and discussion is rightly focused on members of the regular force, but when the focus is only on one aspect of serving members who went overseas.... Definitely there's a different set of challenges, and a unique set of challenges, for the reservists when they reintegrate into society. They're not going back to Petawawa with all their battle buddies.

My battle buddies went back to London, Toronto, and elsewhere, while I went back to Ottawa. That's a challenge in and of itself. It's a reality that we had to face, and we got through it, of course, we're quite tenacious in our approach to ensure that we support each other, but it's not without challenge.

(1650) The Chair : Thank you very much, Mr. Rafferty. Mr. Galipeau, please, for six minutes. Mr. Royal Galipeau : Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much for inviting these guests today. You're both reservists. Mr. Derryk Fleming : Correct. Mr. Royal Galipeau : You both served our country. You both have the same initials. You've both agreed to share your experiences with us, and we are grateful. I've written about 10 questions I want to ask you. My first question is of a personal nature. I'm concerned about your medical files, Mr. Fascinato. I'm glad they were recovered.

Do you know if their confidentiality was breached? Mr. David Fascinato : Not to my knowledge. I believe, to clarify, they were just misplaced. There was no risk to the information. Mr. Royal Galipeau : Okay. I don't want to take too much time about it because I've got 10 other questions and I only have six minutes. Last week I got to ask one question. The guy took seven minutes to answer. The Chair : We're down to five minutes now. Voices: Oh, oh! Mr. Royal Galipeau : Mr. Fleming, your experience is obviously different. You're of a different generation. Can you elaborate on how the process has changed over time?

Mr. Derryk Fleming : I'm actually grateful in that we acknowledge it now. When I joined the military initially in 1987, it was before you had mixed genders in the combat arms, and it was a very different military. I'm not saying one's better than the other. The Canadian Forces today certainly has a lot better equipment than we had, but at least there's an awareness and more of an acceptance. Really quick, something that really touched me was a video clip I saw on Rick Mercer's show, and the CDS was on there. Honestly, that's huge. A year ago I was very despondent about the fact that I was always one of the guys.

I held up a lot of people around me. That's my reputation. I've been that way for decades now, 24 years. I hold up a lot of people. When I saw lots of people dropping, and I felt like I had no one else to help me hold them up, it just crushed me. At least what I see now, when I see MPs stand up in the House and defend my brothers, and when I see this government has taken actually really solid steps, where the hiring initiative for the federal government is going to give families hope, you guys are making a difference. If you'd asked me a year ago, I would have said you don't get it. I think you get it now.

I think it just has to work its way through and we have to improve upon it, but you get it now. So it's happening.

(1655) Mr. Royal Galipeau : What type of support did you receive from the military in terms of medical, mental health, or...? Mr. Derryk Fleming : There was nothing when I came out. Officially I came out in 1994, and— Mr. Royal Galipeau : Did you encounter any barriers, and if so, do they still exist? Mr. Derryk Fleming : I didn't actually reach out until the spring of last year. I can't say enough about my initial case manager and my current case manager. It was Kerry Wilkinson out of the Hamilton office. They were fantastic, absolutely fantastic. They were knowledgeable. They had expertise and compassion.

But you need that human element. I'm not trying to be partisan in any way, but you need the human element there. I have a smart app on my phone, and it's not the same as dealing with someone who gets it. How you deliver that, I'm not questioning; but you need that human element there. You need someone to talk to when you need them. Mr. Royal Galipeau : You've answered the next two questions already. Thank you. We hear about complaints about the Department of Veterans Affairs. What complaints would you focus on, if you were sharing them with us? Mr. Derryk Fleming : It's the ability to talk to a case manager— Mr.

Royal Galipeau : I'm talking about the delivery of service. Mr. Derryk Fleming : Oh. It's the ability to get past the initial phone call trying to get in. Once I talked to a case manager and she got it, wow, the services were there. It was fantastic. The difficulty is that it's almost like there's a filter that is very hard to get past. Once you get past it, the quality of the personnel who are handling you and the dignity they provide you with are absolutely first class. But it's getting to them. In some ways I almost have to apologize to my colleagues at work.

I was very depressed for more than a year and a half, and I had my hand up for a year and a half. I would call every four weeks or so, “Can I talk to someone?” I was told to fill out a form, and get this and get that. To me, it felt like it took forever. But once I was in, once I had a case manager assigned to me.... I have no complaints now. It's just getting to them; that's the thing that I think you need to fix first. Mr. Royal Galipeau : Mr. Fleming, you sound like— The Chair : You're past the six minutes. It's fascinating how fast it goes.

Just before we suspend and before I thank everyone, we did have a piece of business. I understand there is perhaps a desire to do it on Thursday. I'm telling you that we're really squeezed for time on Thursday, so it means you would almost have to come in a little early before the meeting to do it. This is just to get the analysts lining things up, while we're away for two weeks, in order to get the study under way. Mr. Peter Stoffer : We could do it now. The Chair : You want to get it done now? Mr. Peter Stoffer : Sure. If it takes five minutes, we could do it now.

We're basically giving direction to the analysts, right? The Chair : Well, I don't want to debate it now for 10 minutes. I want to know whether we're going to deal with it now or deal with it— Mr. Parm Gill : I'd prefer that we deal with it on Thursday, but.... The Chair : We'd have to come in just a bit early. Mr. Peter Stoffer : We're okay. The Chair : Okay: then you'll be instructed that we'll do the business thing early. Sorry about that. I do want to thank you very much. It was very helpful today. We look forward to incorporating your thoughts into the study as we go forward. Voices: Hear, hear!

The Chair: We'll suspend for a few minutes, and then we'll start again. (1655)

(1700) The Chair : Thank you to everybody who's here. We'll get into detail later. We have this difficulty that happens on Tuesday nights. We are into longer committee meetings but we have votes that we have to go to and the bells go at 5:15. We're going to start the presentations, we'll stay here until 5:30, maybe slightly beyond that, and then we have to go upstairs. We'll break, we'll come back down after the votes, we'll reconvene, and then we'll do the rounds with the committee. So thank you for your indulgence and I just want to make sure...we changed the process a bit, so we're going to have Mr.

Donald Leonardo, founder and national president of Veterans of Canada. We're also going to have Robert Thibeau, president of the Aboriginal Veterans Autochtones. We'll start with you, Mr. Leonardo, and then we'll go to Mr. Thibeau, and probably by that time we'll have to suspend for the votes. So thank you for coming.

(1705) Mr. Donald Leonardo (Founder and National President, Veterans of Canada) : Thank you, Mr. Chair. Hi, I'm Don Leonardo, I'm with veteranscanada.ca which is a social networking web site for those who have served in uniform, and it's a veteran community. We have over 7,400 members registered in our veteran community. It's a place where they can meet old friends, make new ones, post blogs, comment on the blogs, and keep up-to-date on current events having to do with the veteran community. We had one member who reconnected after 50 years with somebody they went through boot camp with.

So this is a big deal for them, to be able to hook up with old friends, and they can do it through our veteran community that has been up and running for over four years now. So with that I'm going to continue our subject today, and that's a review of the new Veterans Charter. The first thing I want to talk about is the fact that I am one of the members of the stakeholders that sit with Veterans Affairs. About four years ago, we came together as one group and decided that we were going to support each other.

That support was that we wanted to go forward with the previous studies that Veterans Affairs paid for through the new Veterans Charter advisory group and their report, the special needs advisory committee and their report, and the gerontology report. So we wrote a letter to the minister saying that we wanted to see these...what was the number? Mr. Sean Bruyea (Retired Captain (Air Force), Advocate and Journalist, As an Individual) : There were over 300 recommendations. Mr. Donald Leonardo : It was 300 recommendations to fix the new Veterans Charter. We were told that this was going to be a living charter.

I don't know who the doctor is who is going to give CPR to this charter, if it is living; we've had one change in ten years. You may say it's not ten years, but even if you come out with a bill tomorrow, it is still going to take a year and a half to implement, just as Bill C-55 did, That's one change in ten years—for a living document. Why is the veteran community so upset? It's because we're sitting here and we have to do study after study, when the studies have already been done.

You've spent millions of dollars having veterans come to sit in these committee meetings and talk about the problems in the new Veterans Charter. You've spent millions of dollars going through the problems within the veteran community and discussing how we can support the veteran better. You spent millions of dollars, but we're still not providing support for families or for the wife of an injured veteran when she has to quite her job to look after her husband. A veteran is losing, even if he gets the earnings loss benefit; he gets a 25% pay deduction, after being injured.

I'd like to know which member of Parliament here would take a 25% pay cut, along with all the bureaucrats and all the government employees. They were injured in the line of duty and have to take a 25% pay cut while they go through treatment, rehabilitation, and so on. I've been through the new Veterans Charter from the start to the end of it. I'm now totally and permanently impaired, so I've gone through the whole charter. I can attest to it. Why should an injured veteran take a 25% pay cut and then his wife have to take a 100% cut while she looks after him?

We need to start listening to these recommendations from veterans organizations such as the stakeholder committee, the Legion-hosted veteran consultation group, and so on. I support the three priorities that have been said over and over again by the Legion, by the National Council of Veterans Associations, and by the other stakeholders. I support the three priorities that the Veterans Ombudsman has brought forward over and over again. I think it's time to make a change. We need it done quickly this time. Recently, when I was told that I was going to come to Ottawa and speak before you....

Actually, before I go on with that, there is one thing that I forgot to mention; Sean just pointed this out. The other thing is that in 1972, a sergeant who retired from the military got a pension when he turned 60, and it was indexed. He got a pension of about $1000 a month. A sergeant who retired yesterday with the same amount of time and same rank will get $3000 a month. If there is a cost of living or CPI increase every year, why is there such a difference between the sergeant who got out in 1972 and the sergeant who gets out in 2012? Can you tell me why?

The reason is that there were top-ups in the early 1980s and 1990s that topped up the National Defence salaries and left the veterans behind. Increases for the veterans have been under 2% per year. That's why they're falling behind. That's why they can't even afford to go into extended living, because even that costs more with Chartwell Retirement Residences.

We need to increase the amount of money that they get from even their own superannuation, and with the injured veterans we need to ensure that there's normal career progression, because they should not be penalized because they were injured in the line of duty. As I was saying, I polled the 7,400 members of Veterans of Canada, and the immediate response was that the fact is that everybody is stalled at the gate before they even start the new Veterans Charter. A year and a half ago you had the study on VRAB, but it's time to fix the problem. The solutions that were put forward have not changed a single thing.

(1710) This is the entry into the new Veterans Charter, so I have a solution to the problem. I've passed out a handout. The solution is a new way to process and approve injury claims for veterans. In embarking on the road less travelled, Veterans of Canada has canvassed its more than 7,400 members. The majority of our members want to see a better and fairer system put in place that reduces time and wait periods, a system that is proven and that gives the benefit of the doubt, as the Veterans Ombudsman stated previously.

Over the past several years there have been requests to have more veterans employed within the Government of Canada, even to the point that we have now put forward a bill that I feel is very good—I've been pushing for this for years—which provides for priority hiring for veterans. Let's now offer some other jobs. Let's start the Bureau of Pensions Advocates up again so that we can hire veterans as claims processors. Making the initial claim is a stumbling block for veterans.

They fill out the paperwork, but they never have the right documents, and then it is kicked back and we have a problem, because then they have to go through appeals. If we went back to the pre-1996 Bureau of Pensions Advocates system and hired some claims processors to be with the Bureau of Pensions Advocates, we could have a checklist that indicates that the medical documents from National Defence are attached, the medical documents from Veterans Affairs are attached, and the medical documents from the civilian doctor are attached.

This is an opportunity to have a proper claim submitted so that it can be properly adjudicated, and without haste. The next thing is to get rid of VRAB and get rid of the current system of adjudicating and bring in an evidence-based system. Right now, with National Defence there is a medical review board, and it has been that way for years. It actually works. Why not just mirror that National Defence board with Veterans Affairs?

Hire ex-doctors and ex-nurses, ex-doctors' assistants, 6A and 6B medical people who served in the military—giving more jobs to veterans within the system—but have them adjudicate, because they're the people who treated us. They know the injuries we've had, they see the records, and they understand the x-rays—they were the ones who were doing this. The only time they would actually see the claim is if someone had been out of the military for a while.

The ones coming over from the military have already been adjudicated by the medical review board, so send it to the Veterans Affairs medical officer and he can sign off on it and just pass it to whoever puts numbers to it from the table of disabilities. This is a simple system. Next, if they happened to turn down a claim, then the appeal process is this. In the U.S. they've started veterans' courts. And yes, they are for criminal cases, but we can have a veterans' court in each province, and either a retired or a sitting judge could sit in each province.

On the appeal, your BPA lawyer sits with you and a Veterans Affairs lawyer sits on the other side and argues the benefit of the doubt, just as in a criminal case, beyond the shadow of a doubt. This is a fair system, allowing for a judge who has spent his whole career on the bench to weigh the evidence presented and then make a decision. This is an evidence-based system that I am proposing. Lastly, we now have some research that has been done in Kingston, and there is research that has been done all around the world, on veterans' injuries and problems.

If that research team happens to find new information or evidence that shows that some of the claims they had turned down are actually legitimate, then we can have a database—this is the age of technology—so that instead of going through the whole process again, the medical doctor in charge of the Veterans Affairs medical review board will just ask them to take all the similar cases out and approve them because new medical evidence has been shown.

(1715) This is a very simple system that I'm putting forward. I think this would make the flow to the new Veterans Charter much quicker instead of having people wait four or five months for the first adjudication. Then it goes to the first appeal for another four, five, or six months. Some of these cases go on for six, eight, ten, or twelve years. Recently I was shown one from 1998. We need to speed this up based on medical evidence. That's the way to go. The consensus in the veteran community is that it would be a better process. I thank you for letting me come and attend today.

I hope I provided some solutions instead of just saying this is bad and that is bad. I hope I have provided you with some thought and some solutions, and I hope we can move forward helping those who are seriously in need of help. I thank you. The Chair : Thank you very much, Mr. Leonardo. I'm sure we will get to the questioning after the votes, as I see the bells are starting to go now. We thank you for that. We'll now go to Mr. Thibeau. As I say, we have about 10 minutes or just a bit more, so keep that in mind, please. Mr. Robert Thibeau (President, Aboriginal Veterans Autochtones) : Mr.

Chairman, honourable members of this Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, fellow veterans, ladies, and gentlemen, I acknowledge the fact that we meet here tonight on unceded Algonquin territory and I thank the Algonquin people. I also thank the creator for the opportunity for me to address the concerns of not only aboriginal veterans, but all veterans. My name is Robert Thibeau. I am the president of the Aboriginal Veterans Autochtones, an organization which represents aboriginals from across Canada, as well as North America. I also represent tonight the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami.

I received an email today sanctioning what I have to say today and they are in agreement with the majority, if not everything that I have said, especially as it deals with some of the issues that I will speak on. I also by memorandum of understanding with first nations veterans of Canada, the Assembly of First Nations veterans, and the veterans of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples.... This is my second appearance in front of this committee and I must say that once again, it's a privilege to be here and I thank you for that privilege.

Before I speak in regards to the issues on the new Veterans Charter, I believe it is important that I speak on issues surrounding aboriginal veterans. The historical military contributions made by aboriginals since the period of contact are well-documented and certainly have a major impact on how we view Canada today as a free and prosperous country.

Aboriginal alliances and their contributions were instrumental in the failure of the Americans to gain any ground occupied inside Upper and Lower Canada during the War of 1812 and contributions after Confederation saw large numbers of aboriginals enlist to fight for Canada in both world wars as well as Korea. These contributions today to Canada continue.

What has not been totally recognized is the discriminatory practices against aboriginals, more so against veterans of first nations, regarding both the Soldier Settlement Act and Veterans’ Land Act, which not only affected the veteran but also impacted the families as well. You may be surprised that both acts did not apply to status Indians unless they enfranchised, in other words relinquished their identity as Indians. Income benefits for spouses of those serving overseas...in a majority of cases did not receive those benefits or they were lowered by the Indian agent.

The office of Indian Affairs had made a plea to Veterans Affairs that returning aboriginal veterans should be the responsibility of Indian Affairs and not Veterans Affairs Canada. What I have just presented to you can be found in a paper authored by Dr. Sheffield entitled, “A Search for Equity.” This paper studied the treatment of first nations veterans and dependants of World Wars I and II, and Korea. I'd like to read an excerpt from an email I received from one of our veterans after I placed an email regarding my appearance here today. “Thank you for the information hereunder.

I am familiar with the new Veterans Charter, having been a member of the Royal Canadian Legion branch 96 for the past 60 years and speaking personally as a WWII war service-related disability pensioner and as a warrior Métis, I have absolutely no complaints whatsoever.” He is not talking about our new Veterans Charter, he is in fact talking about his treatment when he got out of the war in 1945. The only comparison I might make would be the differences now between the present charter and the post-World War II excellent method of treating World War II veterans.

Moreover, that refers to the veterans post-war processing on one zone 1945 discharge and the wonderful benefits derived thereof, namely the war service gratuity and the re-establishment credit. This statement outlines the discrepancies all too evident in the new Veterans Charter today. There have been significant changes with the charter with respect to aboriginal veterans and how they are treated. The new Veterans Charter is now a hot topic of discussion, which includes all veterans and we are now included in that process.

There are some issues which mirror veterans across Canada but there are others which are distinct to aboriginal veterans.

(1720) Now I would like to read some excerpts from the Prime Minister 's announcement of the new Veterans Charter in 2006: I would like to take this opportunity once again to thank these men and women for their efforts and to let them know that Canadians are proudly standing behind them and their mission.... In future, when our servicemen and women...leave our military family, they can rest assured the Government will help them and their families' transition to civilian life. Our troops’ commitment and service to Canada entitle them to the very best treatment possible.

Regarding the earnings loss benefit, currently the benefit provides 75% of pre-release salary, terminated at age 65 for a totally and permanently impaired veteran. The Aboriginal Veterans Autochtones and its partners view this as unacceptable. Those who have suffered and are classed as permanently impaired should never be concerned that they will lose any financial stability, especially beyond the age of 65. In addition, we, along with all our other veterans groups, believe that the ELB should be 100% and continue beyond age 65.

As has been said, an appropriate table must be developed in a fair and just manner to ensure veterans with permanent impairments are looked after by a grateful nation. As has also been mentioned, it is the approach utilized by the Canadian courts in assessing the concept of future loss of income specifically addressing the projected lifetime earnings loss in a personal injury claim. So if this is applied to civilian workers who are not deliberately placed in harm's way by their employer, why should this concept not be applied equally as well towards all permanently incapacitated Canadian Armed Forces members?

The ombudsman's report of 2013 addressed the issues of the ELB, and his report is quite thorough. He addressed the PIA and the supplement, and, as noted, the average financial payments to those who qualify. Neither Veterans Affairs Canada nor the ombudsman provides any explanation about the discriminatory factors that mean of the 1,428 totally and permanently incapacitated veterans, only 274 will receive all benefits, some will receive ELB only, and others will receive nothing. There appears to be a wide

interpretation of the term “totally and permanently incapacitated”. The disparity in numbers between those who receive both the permanent impairment allowance and supplement and those who do not make the benefits appears to be window dressing. With regard to reserves, the policy awarding smaller benefits to a reservist is based on the deemed standard monthly salary of a reservist, whatever that amount may be. This policy may provide soldiers for hire on the cheap, but it places a higher value on a regular force soldier involved in the same incident with identical injuries than it does on a reservist.

Both regular and reserve force individuals with like injuries will suffer the same incapacitation throughout their lives and should receive the same salary considerations and minimum rates of the recommended table payable to a totally, permanently incapacitated veteran. The charter must be changed to provide equal and appropriate benefits to all totally and permanently incapacitated veterans.

With regard to veterans who are over age 65, some, but not all, disabled veterans will have a CFSA pension benefit and will also have accumulated credits towards their CPP benefit that should enable them to sustain themselves after the age of 65 when ELB benefits are cut off. That is for some. About 274 totally and permanently incapacitated veterans receive both the permanent impairment allowance and supplement until aged 65. These individuals may or may not be able to prepare themselves for post-65 financial requirements.

However, a totally and permanently incapacitated veteran who did not receive the permanent impairment allowance or its supplement and also has a CFSA pension and insufficient credits towards the CPP is placed in a financially precarious position. Once again we strongly argue the case for those permanently impaired veterans and the responsibility of the government and Canadians to honour the social contract that has finally been acknowledged to some extent by the current minister. The ombudsman has completed a great deal of work in consultation with veterans, and his report should be closely scrutinized.

With regard to the disability award, this benefit is generally misunderstood and is awarded for pain and suffering only. The fact that it can be paid in a lump sum or increments is irrelevant. It must not be seen as an income replacement benefit, because it is not.

(1725) The ombudsman has pointed out that the value of the maximum benefit has not kept pace with awards of Canadian courts to civilians who were not placed in harm's way, as were Canadian Armed Forces members. It is unfortunate that this anomaly was not corrected in 2011 with the other amendments of Bill C-55 ; however, there is no reason why this cannot be done now, and this must be a priority of the government. It is also our view that the Equitas lawsuit is a negative blemish on this current government.

It is our view that this should be withdrawn instead of wasting funds to pay for unnecessary court costs at the expense of those who have sacrificed a great deal for this country, and who also saw Afghanistan as a mission in which we very much had to be involved. Now it's time to step up and look after them in the fairest and most equitable way. I know I'm going a little over the time. Please bear with me. Communications to remote and rural communities are concerns that will impact those affected by the recent closures of the Veterans Affairs offices.

How do we ensure that information regarding benefits is delivered to our veterans on reserves or those living in remote areas? Remote reserves in B.C. are only one example where, as a result of those office closures, aboriginal veterans, as well as other veterans in northern B.C., will now have to travel upwards of 16 hours to seek information from VAC. I do not believe that Service Canada is an alternative. We must also consider the Canadian Rangers, who will in all likelihood become clients of Veterans Affairs in the future.

As a look ahead, and without the creation of another bureaucracy, we should look at the resources that may be effective and are already there. The army chain of command operates in the remote regions in northern Canada, and therefore they are in direct contact with those soldiers. It may well be possible to utilize military trainers who are attached to those soldiers as a capable resource to deliver and possibly to provide brief presentations on Veterans Affairs and the benefits those soldiers may be entitled to.

For those communities that do not have high-tech computers or communications capabilities—and there are many—maybe we could be using the Canadian Forces recruiters to provide information to veterans as a secondary duty in order to ensure that information makes its way to veterans, both aboriginal and non-aboriginal. With regard to veterans health services, there has been talk in recent years, and now Health Canada and the provincial government of B.C. are in the process of transferring health funding directly to first nations in B.C.

The issue here is that we cannot allow the historical negative practices of the past to affect aboriginal veterans and the responsibility that Veterans Affairs has to those veterans. Steps must be taken to ensure that the health problem of an aboriginal veteran does not take any of the money that has been given in a health funding envelope to reserves.

To resolve this issue, consultation across Canada must identify veterans who are under Veterans Affairs care and entitled to benefits, or who will be future clients of Veterans Affairs, and must ensure that interdepartmental communications lead to concrete agreements in the interests of veterans and not at the expense of community funding. Finally, some of our Canadian aboriginal veterans have completed service with the United States armed forces. They have served in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Their entitlements and benefits provided are under the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, or DVA.

The problem is that in order to access these benefits they need to be inside U.S. borders. I would ask that efforts be made between VAC and the DVA to work out some form of an agreement that addresses the issue of travel for access to those benefits. I'm not asking VAC to take over the responsibility, but in consultation with DVA, please see if there's a way we can address that. The new Veterans Charter, when introduced, was unanimously accepted by all political parties, as well as the military chain of command.

(1730) At first glance, it appeared to address the needs of veterans and their families but over the years it was discovered to be deficient in some areas. One can appreciate that nothing is perfect, and the NVC must remain a living and working document. We must come together as one, both veterans and politicians, to reach a consensus on how best we can look after the needs of those who have sacrificed for this country. Public support for this military and its veterans is at its highest level since the end of the Second World War.

A new generation of Canadians has looked upon our soldiers, sailors, airmen and women with pride and with honour. Veterans deserve to have the government answer, as best it can, the needs of its veterans and not forget the families. While financial compensation is only one part of the issue, health care is also a concern, and we must ensure that those benefits are available. In addition, the families of those who have deployed around the globe have also suffered from the ghosts of war. They have stood shoulder to shoulder with loved ones who have deployed to areas where human life has not been kind.

We must look at these family members as well, and we must reach out and touch the families the same way we're asking you to touch those veterans. In closing, I would like to acknowledge the excellent work that has been completed by our Veterans Ombudsman, as well as recognize the Royal Canadian Legion Dominion Command for their continued hard work in addressing concerns on behalf of veterans.

History has not necessarily been kind to our aboriginal veterans and their families, but I see hope in the future, hope that as a veterans community, all issues of concern for all veterans of Canada will be equitable and just. I must insist that this committee disregard partisan politics and address veterans issues and concerns with one voice. I challenge everyone on this committee to look at the issues and not party platforms. All Canadians have acknowledged the sacrifice of all veterans of all conflicts and peace missions of the 20th and 21st centuries.

I thank the chairman and all members of this committee for this opportunity to speak on behalf of the aboriginal veterans, their families, as well as all the other veterans. Meegwetch , merci , qujannamiik , and all my respect.

(1735) The Chair : Thank you very much, Mr. Thibeau. Believe me, we weren't going to leave until you were finished. I'd rather see us all have to run upstairs than miss your presentation. I appreciate your patience. We're going to suspend. We'll go back and vote. You guys can entertain yourselves, and we will be back as soon as the votes are over. The meeting is suspended. Thank you. (1735)

(1815) The Chair : I'd ask committee members to take their seats. I'd also ask the witnesses to take their chairs, please. We are under a tight time parameter. Okay, folks, as we said before the break, we have two more presentations and then we'll do our questions. We're hoping to get this in basically by 7:30. We'll do our best to do that. At this point we welcome—not for the first time at the committee—Sean Bruyea as an individual. Also we have Harold Leduc back. It's good to see you both. I know you're going to be presenting us with all kinds of very thoughtful information, so I'm pleased. Mr.

Bruyea, you're going to go first, are you? Mr. Sean Bruyea : Yes, Harold has thrown me to the dogs first. Thank you, Harold. Thank you most sincerely, everyone here, for the invitation to speak today. It's a privilege. Nine years ago Parliament passed the legislation we now know as the new Veterans Charter, or NVC. The elected members of the House of Commons never debated any of its clauses. They have yet to give serious independent and binding consideration to the dramatic changes that the NVC made to the relationship between Canada and those who were and are prepared to lay down their lives in her service.

In good faith, and I really emphasize in good faith, far too many people accepted the shoddy construction of the NVC because government promised to keep the renovations going. Near stagnant incrementalism, a dirty word in the first 50 years of veterans benefits in Canada, has become the sad new social contract between Canada and our veterans and their families. As the unaddressed recommendations accumulate, will the NVC become increasingly unfit to provide adequate shelter for our veterans and their families in the coming years? Veterans Affairs made pretenses to the glory of post-World War II veterans benefits.

The originally aptly named Veterans Charter provided a host of programs for all veterans, whether they were injured or not. In 2005 and in 2011, I testified to numerous parliamentary committees, providing evidence that the new Veterans Charter was not a charter at all, but a cynical repackaging of already existing programs with but a few limited additions. As for consultation, Treasury Board is unequivocal that consultation must be “clear, open, and transparent”. As well as incorporating input from the stakeholders, consultation must also clearly justify in detail why input is rejected in any final drafts.

Such two-way exchanges have never occurred in anything called consultation carried out by Veterans Affairs Canada. Perhaps it is no surprise then that VAC in its latest senior management brief considers project code PC-20, titled “Expand Outreach, Consultation, and Engagement of NVC Programs” closed. I was first to publicly raise concerns regarding the NVC along with Louise Richard, shortly followed by Harold Leduc. The bureaucracy's outrageous attempts to discredit me are on the public record, thanks in large part to media attention and legal proceedings.

What is not on the public record is the bureaucracy's motivation. They were hoping to silence me and intimidate my colleagues. A genuine debate on the merits of the new Veterans Charter is not in the interests of Veterans Affairs Canada. Canadians go to war. They fight, die, lose limbs, minds, and families at your orders for our values, for our nation. They sacrifice to care for all of us. We do not do all this for bureaucrats, even though they may think differently. Then why is it that Parliament either through inaction or inability has failed to stand up to the bureaucracy?

Senator Dallaire has put on the record that the minister in 2005 promised biennial reviews in committee. However, it took four years before the committee wrote its first report with 18 recommendations. Four years later, we are at it yet again with witnesses fighting to have implemented many of the same recommendations you included in your 2010 report. Bureaucrats claim to have fully implemented and addressed 10 of your recommendations. However, I am unaware of any announcements of appropriate compensation for family members who take care of severely disabled veterans.

Similarly, I am waiting for proof that VAC implemented “...as soon as possible the 16 framework recommendations made by the New Veterans Charter Advisory Group...including those entailing legislative and regulatory amendments”. One component of those recommendations: 100% earnings loss tracking career progression and typical career earnings. But this is just a small sampling of the 160 recommendations that the deputy minister and her office claim they implemented.

The DM certainly has the resources to creatively devise such claims as her staff has increased 500% in the past few years while veterans witness the closure of district offices and the removal of trusted front-line worker positions at those that remain. While veterans lose their trusted VAC workers, suicides continue, families fall apart through VAC inaction, veterans languish waiting for or being denied programs, Deputy Minister Mary Chaput has received her performance pay every year since her arrival at VAC three years ago. Is it any wonder veterans are angry?

Why are Parliament and the Prime Minister allowing bureaucrats to receive their performance pay while these senior bureaucrats fail to implement Parliament's recommendations? You're the bosses.

(1820) There are greater problems with the NVC than just the empty and specious rhetoric coming from Charlottetown. I have tabled 30 recommendations to consider for this comprehensive review in my report titled, “Severely Injured Veterans and their Families: Improving Accessibility to Veterans Affairs Programs for a Better Transition.” As both sides of the committee table have clearly observed, a VAC availability of programs does not equate to accessibility. Why, for instance, should widows or spouses of incapacitated veterans be time limited on any programs?

In the Pension Act, all programs are payable effectively on the date of application. Why, then, is the earnings loss benefit payable when “the Minister determines that a rehabilitation plan or a vocational assistance plan should be developed”? Why are deductions for ELB increased annually when SISIP long-term disability, the public service disability plans, and many workers compensation plans freeze these deductions on the date the income replacement begins? Such pettiness is endemic in the new Veterans Charter.

Government is quick to march out the hypothetical, 24-year-old corporal from the Veterans Ombudsman's report who is projected to receive from VAC $2 million over his lifetime, ignoring that $350,000 of that must be repaid in taxes when none of the Pension Act benefits are taxable. The sad reality is that this corporal does not represent the norm. As of September 2013, of the 76,000 Canadian Forces veterans who were clients of VAC, just 941 received the permanent impairment allowance.

One can only receive this allowance if one is declared totally and permanently incapacitated, or TPI, the most seriously disabled veterans. Of this TPI population, only 38% have a disability assessment as high as this hypothetical corporal. Of those, only 22% are under the age of 45. This corporal represents fewer than 77 individuals or 0.1% of new Veterans Charter clients. The ombudsman noted that of all the recipients of the permanent incapacity allowance, only one receives the highest grade of $1,724.65 monthly.

As for the highly controversial lump sum, which now stands at $301,275.26, only 148 or 4.35%, of all lump sum recipients have been awarded this amount in eight years. It's interesting to note that these actuarial comparisons assume that VAC adjudicates similar injuries under the NVC at the same level as the Pension Act. However, nothing could be further from the truth. The average award given out by VAC prior to 1995 for World War II veterans was 40%. After adjudication guidelines changed in 1995, the average award for all veterans sank to 25%.

Since the introduction of the new Veterans Charter in the middle of the harshest and most violent combat to which we've exposed our military service since Korea, the average award is sitting at now just over 15%. Not only is a disability award inadequate, but access to this benefit is heartlessly stingy. Yes, there are other programs, certainly. Currently only 14% of lump sum recipients are receiving additional benefits, and only 2% have any long-term economic assistance. Of all those totally and permanently incapacitated, none are allowed to access career transition or vocational services.

We already dehumanize those who most suffer from their service to Canada, the TPI veterans, by freezing their economic potential at a fraction of often artificially low military salaries at release. By preventing access to education and job assistance as a nation, we are in effect saying to them that we believe that our most disabled veterans do not deserve to benefit from lifelong learning and vocational experiences, all proven to lower health care usage and increase well-being incomes on all levels.

Contrary to the claim that the NVC offers opportunity with security, the reality shows something completely different. Canada Pension Plan disability, once accused of being insensitive and lacking compassion, now allows disabled recipients to receive $5,100 annually without reporting it to CPP if they're employed. Even if a TPI veteran were to have CPP overlook these earnings, the VAC income loss program would deduct every single penny. Contrary to claims by VAC officials, veterans are not focused on disability, nor were they under the Pension Act.

Even with these onerous deductions, 35% of TPI veterans have a salary over $5,000, indicating to us that they would rather work and have their hard work mean little or nothing at all economically than not work at all.

(1825) Section 35 of the Pension Act states: “No deduction shall be made from the pension of any member of the forces because the member undertook work or perfected themself in some form of industry.” The Pension Act offered much security for the veteran to explore as many opportunities as they wished. Sadly, the NVC incarcerates our most suffering veterans in a psychological and financial prison of frozen human potential for the rest of their lives. As for families, the legislated mandate of the department defines both veteran and family as equals.

However, families while the veteran is still alive cannot access programs independently, and the NVC only pays for family treatment insofar as it supports the veteran in his or her rehabilitation program. We say we care about the career and health sacrifices of veterans' spouses who do much to care for our seriously disabled veterans. In spite of repeated calls we do not provide these spouses with any attendant allowance whatsoever. In 2005 the bureaucracy promised case management and psychosocial rehabilitation as part of a slick sales job to sell the NVC to an unsuspecting Parliament and population.

However, psychosocial rehabilitation does not exist in Canada in any measurable, consistent, and accessible format as we speak today. VAC did not have a viable definition until 2009, the same year the department was searching for a definition of “case management” in one of its own research reports. Arguably Canada had the world's best rehabilitation programs for veterans returning from Worl