Veterans Affairs Committee on March 10th, 2020

[Gen (Ret'd) Walter Natynczyk]

That's correct. Of the 43 projects over this past couple of years, 12 have been focused on homelessness, whether it be the Old Brewery Mission, Shepherds of Good Hope in Toronto and so on across the country. Again, it is working in partnership with the communities, because we know that homelessness in the country is not only a Government of Canada responsibility but is actually about working with partners and not-for-profits.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

As well, we talked earlier about the career transition fund or the education fund. I brought this up earlier. My understanding is that some of that funding is not available if the veteran is still on the supplementary reserve.

Can you clarify that, please?

[Gen (Ret'd) Walter Natynczyk]

Again, switching the colour of money, if I could, we were just talking about operations money before. Now we're talking about quasi-stat money.

With regard to the education and training benefit, the Government of Canada came out in 2018 with the education and training benefit. At the time, we worked in partnership with the Canadian Armed Forces to ensure that we are not incentivizing attrition. At that point, when it was rolled out, it was only for folks who had left the Canadian Forces totally.

Then there was the observation that, of those who were on the supplementary reserve—that is, folks who I will call “inactive service list”, and they can be on the supplementary reserve until the age of 60—many wanted access to the education and training benefit. Therefore, budget 2019, as of July of last summer, changed the policy so that those who are on the supplementary reserve can have access to the education and training benefit. I am just thrilled to see that we have in excess of 1,700 veterans who are either going through the education program or learning a secondary skill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Mr. Casey, you have five minutes.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

In the supplementary estimates, we have increases to grants and contributions of $2.5 million, but a decrease to operating expenditures of $4.2 million. I want to focus on that number. You did address it in your last answer, General, but I'd like to hear more about it. You can understand my concern as someone who lived through the Harper cuts, the downsizing at Veterans Affairs, and saw what that did to the people who serve our veterans, not to mention what it did to veterans, including the cutbacks to staff, the closure of offices and whatnot.

I trust you will understand that I will be very vigilant in terms of ensuring that the operating expenditures of the department, the resources available to the department, are there because of what these folks have been through. It also ties in to Mr. Ruff's question about where we are focused. Your number one priority is the backlog, yet in these estimates we see a decrease to the operating expenditures.

What is the nature of those reductions and what do you anticipate the impact will be, given the history within the department?

[Gen (Ret'd) Walter Natynczyk]

As we move forward in dealing with the backlog, and as the minister has directed the department, it is the number one priority. As I mentioned before, addressing the backlog, recognizing that the intake is beyond our control, is a multifaceted approach. One is to hire and train new staff. We're doing that as quickly as we can. It is trying to leverage technology and innovation. We're going down that path and hiring some of the finest minds in the country to assist us, as we saw with the pension for life, to digitize. It's also challenging our own teams by saying, “Can we make the process better? Why are we putting in so much red tape? Let's get rid of the red tape, but also let's work in an integrated team together with all the professionals.”

To address your specific question on the operating funds, I'll ask the chief financial officer, Sara Lantz, to address that question.

[Sara Lantz, Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Chief Financial Officer and Corporate Services Branch, Department of Veterans Affairs]

Let me very clear that we don't transfer our operating budget to our quasi-stat or grants and contribution budgets on a permanent basis. This is a temporary measure. This is a common practice within the Government of Canada. Our expenditure management system for the Government of Canada allocates an operating budget that we can't exceed. Naturally, we're always going to have some surplus budget left in that operating budget. We can carry forward 5% of that annually to maximize the use of our budget.

In this instance, with the supplementary estimates (B), we transferred $2.5 million over to some very important programs for veterans' emergencies and veterans' well-being. As we forecasted past mid-year, we are going to have a surplus there that might be left on the table that we would never get back from the operating budget, so we're maximizing each year the budgets that we're allocated. We can never transfer from the quasi-stat to the operating. That's a budget for the clients. That goes back to the clients the following year. That's a bank account for them and tightly controlled. We have a line of credit on that each year, and then we can open a new one the next year. For the operating budget, it's really good budget management that we're not leaving any extra on the table, and it's going to benefit our clients in this situation.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

One of the things that is also in the estimates that nobody has asked about yet is the additional amount of $150,000. It is being allocated to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research to look at cannabis use, its potential benefits and harms. I'd be interested to know more about that. What's the nature of the project? What's the history of the cannabis policy within the department, and how will this inform it?

[Gen (Ret'd) Walter Natynczyk]

It was at the Canadian Institute for Military and Veteran Health Research conference in, I believe, November 2016, when the previous minister, Minister Hehr, laid out the policy, which was that—again, in response to a physician writing a prescription for a veteran if they believed that cannabis for medical purposes would be helpful to the veteran—the maximum would be three grams. Only in response to the recommendation of a specialist, be it a psychiatrist or an oncologist, would we go beyond the three grams. He also highlighted the need for more research in this area.

Therefore, this transfer of $150,000 is in partnership with the Canadian Institute for Military and Veteran Health Research, which is working together with the Canadian Institutes of Health Research—CIHR—and the Canadian Armed Forces, to move forward on a multi-year plan to have a much more comprehensive understanding of cannabis. Recognizing that we're providing financial support to in the order of 12,000 veterans across the country, we need to ensure that we have the rigour of evidence in support of the medical community, who are responsible for the provision of treatment to our veterans.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you.

We now go to MP Wagantall, please.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

As the minister in our previous dialogue indicated that the reinterpretation of the existing rules for mental health care for family members was brought about by the bureaucracy, he's acquiescing to you, so I hope that you're able to give me some very clear—in about 30 seconds—answers to four questions.

First of all, was the policy review triggered by the fiscal costs associated with family members accessing psychological services? Was fiscal cost the reason for that review, yes or no?

[Gen (Ret'd) Walter Natynczyk]

We are not constrained by fiscal pressure. What is terrific about the quasi-stat, as the minister indicated, is that whether 10 veterans present or 10,000 veterans present, it is a statutory obligation.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Money wasn't an issue.

[Gen (Ret'd) Walter Natynczyk]

In this case, as always, it's about the well-being of the veteran.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Thank you, sir.

Who instructed the regional area offices about the review and the results?

[Gen (Ret'd) Walter Natynczyk]

In terms of the overall direction, we knew, given the direction that came from the minister in, I think, September 2017 to do a review—

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Did it come from the minister to do the review? The impression I got from him was that it was the bureaucracy that instigated the review.

[Gen (Ret'd) Walter Natynczyk]

The direction we had was that the minister undertook to do a review of the policy. My understanding is that it came back to the House of Commons and that no family member who was in a federal institution was to receive treatment and that—

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

I understand that, yet Garnier was receiving that, which was an impetus to part of this. Clearly it's gone well beyond that.

What were the instructions that were provided to case managers and other front-line staff regarding the family therapy policy? What were they told to tell veterans and spouses and care providers when this issue came to the forefront?

[Gen (Ret'd) Walter Natynczyk]

The notion was that we were going to implement the policy as stated. With regard to that, the treatment is for the benefit of the veteran, and if treating the family assists the veteran, then we would include the family.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

They received actual directives on how to deal with this as case managers.

[Gen (Ret'd) Walter Natynczyk]

I'll ask Rick Christopher to wade in here, but again, the policy has not changed. What we have done is ensured that in the interpretation of “short term”—because that's what the policy says—we've been as flexible and compassionate as we can be.

Rick, do you want to add?

[Rick Christopher]

Yes. The authority of the department is that we cannot provide psychological treatment to someone in their own right. What we did was make sure that people understood that we have to be consistent about this. That would have been the directive that went out.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Thank you.

I know that the ombudsman has indicated as well that they really feel the approach needs to change for the well-being of all of the family members who are impacted by what has happened to the veteran during their service. That of course impacts the veteran as well, when they see their family suffering because of what they've gone through.

I don't understand with this issue—and it's specifically in relation to the mandate that the minister has given to be transparent about these issues—why the department was spreading information on social media and the website about its commitments to veterans and their families at the same time they were restricting and tightening and reducing those policies and not providing clarity to veterans and their families through that website or through the My VAC Account. Even the response I got from the minister to my question in the House was not clear. It was semantics. It was not creating improved transparency for our veterans.

[Gen (Ret'd) Walter Natynczyk]

The challenge always is that each veteran's family's situation is unique and it is difficult to establish consistency when, again, from a privacy standpoint, we cannot get in between that practitioner and the veteran, his or her circumstance, or the impact of the family around supporting that veteran.

I would also say, in zooming out, that whether it be veterans or whether it be serving members, the challenge is always that they are under federal responsibility, but health care, in a lot of cases, is under provincial jurisdiction. There's always friction in that regard.