Veterans Affairs Committee on June 12th, 2019

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

You did answer it and I appreciate that. Now I'd like to continue.

On Monday, we met with the ombudsman, as you're aware. My colleague Mr. Chen described the ombudsman's report card, which he presented to us, as a failing report card, with the number of items that were not completed in the past year. Some of them—I'll just read a couple of them—were triage applications upon receipt based on health and financial need; ensure that all VAC benefits are in place at time of release; upon receipt, immediately return applications if required documents are missing; provide each applicant with an individualized, expected turnaround time for their application, and inform them if the decision will be delayed and why.

Why has this government not implemented these easy fixes? They're easy fixes. No wonder we're seeing a backlog, and no wonder we're getting that report card from the ombudsman.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Go ahead, Walt.

[Gen (Ret'd) Walter Natynczyk]

First of all, I just want to say how much we appreciate the ombudsman's work.

Much of the minister's mandate that came out in 2015 we've been working on as a result of the ombudsman's report of June 2013, so we have worked on each one these things and we're continuing going forward.

Some of the items that you just mentioned, sir, are really part of closing the seam that, again, we've just received funding for through the budget, and we're working through that now. Is done yet? No, but at least we have the funding and we're working along that line.

This notion of being able to provide the veteran's tracking of exactly where his or her claim is, that is an evolution of this pension for life digital system that we're trying to get to. We've been able to implement it in terms of an initial operating capability. As part of a full operating capability, we're trying to put in that kind of information so that the veteran using the My VAC Account can go online and find exactly where his or her claim is in going forward.

The last clarity I'd like to provide is that the 40,000 claims are all those claims that are in the hopper, whether they are within the service standard of 16 weeks, or outside it.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

I received some correspondence from a veteran who states that he was forced to surrender in Bosnia and was held captive for 15 days, but because he was only.... The ruling is that you need to be held captive for 30 days or longer. Now as far as I'm concerned, if you're a prisoner of war, whether it's one day, 30 days or 300 days, who knows what the outcome will be?

Ultimately the decision on these 30 days comes down to the minister, so my question to you is this: Where are we standing on this and why are we taking something like this—and whether it's this gentleman or others who have been subjected to this—and determining that 30 days is the set time versus 15 or two? Regardless, you're held captive. Who knows how veterans handle this stress? What might happen for some is that it may roll off their backs, but to others, it may be extremely stressful.

Where are you on this, and if you're not, will you get on it?

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

You'll have to make it quick. We're out of time.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

You've kind of answered it. For some, it can be different from others. It's impossible to answer an individual case here, quite simply. If you have a veteran who has a difficulty with this, I wish you would make sure that I'm given the information and I will deal with it, I will assure you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

Thank you, Minister.

Ms. Blaney, you have three minutes.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

I get a second round, Minister.

One of the things that I found very compelling when we had the ombudsman here was that he talked about children and families and their access to mental health support and that it is an ongoing issue that they're not able to access those services. I'm just wondering if you could speak to that because the concern that he shared with us is the impact it's having on the families. When they don't have that individual support to deal with the issues that their loved one is going through, it has devastating impacts on the family.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Are you talking about caregivers?

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

What I'm talking about is that, in the report card from the ombudsman, what we saw really clearly was health care and supports got overall a failing grade. I think eight out of 10 were not met at all.

One of those specifically was children and families having access to the mental health supports that they desperately need, and he just identified that as one of the most significant concerns.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

It's definitely an issue that needs to be addressed. I'll let the deputy expand on it, but it's vitally important, as I said when I spoke, that the veteran and the family are fully involved.

[Gen (Ret'd) Walter Natynczyk]

Again, as the minister indicated, when a veteran serves, the family serves too, but the minister's accountability and responsibility is the health and well-being of the veteran. We know that, in the case where the veteran has a mental health injury, often it is compounded when a family member is also suffering, and there's a collateral issue in terms of mental health injury when the family is dealing with the veteran.

Again, the minister's responsibility and accountability under the Veterans Well-being Act is very much focused on the veteran, so our authority is to provide access—

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

I'm not understanding then. This is something that Veterans Affairs was graded on. I'm confused. Are you saying that the care of the veteran's family and children is not the purview of Veterans Affairs? I just want clarity.

[Gen (Ret'd) Walter Natynczyk]

The service to family members and the service we are providing today to family members—to those who are supporting that veteran—is focused on the well-being of the veteran. Moreover, again, by policy we are not able to duplicate any other services that are provided by any other service, like a child support service and those kinds of things.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

How is the department going to move from having a failing grade to a passing grade on this?

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

We're out of time, so could you make that about a 30-second answer, please?

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

I would just add that being sure to have the programs in place for the veterans, certainly, is an asset to the family, and that's what we have to do, but our focus is on the veteran.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

That's interesting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

That ends our time for the minister today. I'd like to, on behalf of the committee, thank the minister and the deputy minister for appearing.

We will recess and break for a minute, and then get our next panel in front of us.

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

We will get started. There are no presentations, so we're gong to start with four-minute rounds and try to get as many people in as possible.

We'll start with Mr. McColeman. I'm sorry, you'll just have to introduce yourselves. We're going to ask questions. We're tight for time.

Mr. McColeman.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I believe all of you were in the room when you heard my questioning of the minister regarding Christopher Garnier, who is receiving benefits, is not a veteran and is a convicted murderer. I'm sure that somewhere along the line this was not the intention of the program, because if it was we're in big trouble.

I think there's probably a good answer in the process of what happened, or at least I hope there's a good answer about what happened in terms of this decision. I want to ask each of you, as individuals who are in the management team of Veterans Affairs, to describe to this committee and to me the process—in particular, if you can comment on it and if you're familiar with the Garnier application for benefits for PTSD suffered by him in the act of murdering Catherine Campbell. It was witnessed in the courtroom as the reason he would receive these benefits.

To correct the record, quite clearly, the minister—and I've had a follow-up conversation with him after his testimony—was not absolutely clear in terms of what had happened when the government voted on the motion that was before them. I'm sure you're familiar with it because you carry out the policies of the government.

The policy on the day of the debate changed. It changed in that every individual, from that point forward, who makes an application, who is a convicted murderer or convicted of a serious crime and is put into a penitentiary, would no longer qualify for such benefits even though he or she was a family member of a veteran, so that it would never happen again.

Again, this reinforces my contention to you—and I'd like your response individually, one or more—as to the process. It confirms the contention that somewhere a mistake was made along the line. Lead me through, if you can, as the top management team, from the time the application arrived, who evaluated it, who saw it and who made the final decision whether this murderer got benefits, because he has them. This government decided to maintain them. To this day they maintain them and this minister is unaware, so please answer.

[Michel Doiron, Assistant Deputy Minister, Service Delivery, Department of Veterans Affairs]

I am quite aware, given that this falls under my responsibility—not the policy but the operation.

As you well know, I cannot discuss the case of an individual. I can talk to you about an individual who would have been in that type of context, but I cannot talk about this individual. I just want to be very clear that it's privacy and I can't get into that.

In a case such as this, as the deputy minister was alluding to, the benefits to an individual are always through the veteran, not in the individual's own right. If the parent was a veteran and the parent was dealing with mental health issues and it was recommended by a mental health professional that—for the parent, not the individual, and again, I can't talk about the case—supporting the family would be beneficial for the well-being of the individual, then a decision would be made to support that individual, because as the deputy said, when a veteran serves, everybody serves.

That decision is made by the case manager, if that person has a case manager, with a recommendation from the mental health professional the veteran is dealing with.

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

Mr. Samson, you have four minutes.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I feel good today.

Thank you all for being here today. I apologize that our time is going to be short, so I guess I'd better be quick.

Can you expand on where we are going with marriage after 60. What needs to be...? When I read it in the budget pages, it says we're going to work with the community to identify the individuals that would have reached.... Are we going backwards to make sure we capture everybody? How is it going to unfold? Can you share what you've done so far in that area?

Thank you.

[Steven Harris, Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy and Commemoration, Department of Veterans Affairs]

I'm Steven Harris. I'm the assistant deputy minister of strategic policy and commemoration.

I can't really expand very much on what is included in the budget now. As you would appreciate, we are in the process of reviewing how best to administer the fund that has been identified through the budget. We're working on that in consultation with partners, not only government partners but others as well, to make sure it could be the most effective. You can appreciate we want to hit the right target as it's intended.

At the moment, the most I can share is that the information is available in the budget, with more details to follow as we move forward.