My name is Paul Hook, Managing Director of the Canadian Institute for Military and Veteran Health Research. I wanted to begin by thanking Mr. Clinton for the work he is doing. Accountability is a hallmark of a successful country and government openness and transparency are paramount to its effectiveness. I recently had a chat with Mr. Clinton to discuss this post and thank you for highlighting some of what the public sees which could be different from what our organization knows. This furthered a useful chat on what we do, how we do it, and some ways in which we could better tell our story in regards to what the annual $2.5m funding goes toward. Suffice to say, CIMVHR is set up for research facilitation in that the organization receives funding from other sources: philanthopic, private sector, and government and operates as an arm's length institute to ensure that research for the military, Veterans, and families populations is rigorous, transparent, and has impact.
Approximately 80% of our annual operating funds cover pay and compensation as well as funds that go to Queen's for (HR, building, legal, research accounting, etc). The rest of the operating funds are for: the Journal of Military Veteran and Family Health (JMVFH), events that CIMVHR hosts (highlighting research), producing documents, videos, podcasts from the research so that the communities can access the information. For instance, our Journal articles were downloaded over 150,000 times in 2023/2024. Funds are also used to host a website - https://www.fiveeyesmhric.org/, to fund some travel for staff to meet with interested parties, to collaborate on work in the sector, and for professional development. We also host webinars, we have information sessions, and we support the next generation of researchers through a Student and Post-Doctoral Engagement Community (SPEC).
We financially report quarterly and annually to Veterans Affairs Canada and through Queen's University monthly. We report metrics (similar to the departmental results framework) quarterly and annually to VAC and we have an advisory Board of Directors that oversees some of the strategic guidance for our organization.
We collaborate with Atlas and the Chronic Pain Centre of Excellence. We have a wide network of universities, global institutes and Canadian research centres to ensure that Canadian military members, Veterans and their families have the most up-to-date research on health and well-being.
We are more than happy to share our story and commit to finding a better way to ensuring that our financial information is more easily understood by the Canadian public.
This Veteran thanks you for shining a light on VAC. It is refreshing to learn that, apparently, the money allocated to the department is being generally well used in the manner for which it is intended.
There definitely does seem to be good work happening. But I guess one small thing we can do for you veterans is to keep an eye on the process to keep the government honest.
As a general comment, we are aware of the monstrous [my arbitrarily "impartial" adjective] in both the public service head count/compensation and in monies paid to "consultants" during the life if this dying (one can hope) government.
Now, as to specifics. From your description of matters it seems to me that the monies that are channeled as you have laid out would be accounted for as "program" spending? That is a question and, if my understanding is correct, could one reasonably argue that spending on consultants is actually much higher - assuming, of course, that this method of operating is widespread? Or, perhaps, this "program" spending is allocated to the category of salaries? Somehow, I don't think so.
Indeed. Categorizing government spending can be deeply ambiguous. These programs are definitely not officially marked as outsourced contracts. But, at the same time, practically speaking, that's really what they are.
Having said that, I guess university researchers are the people most qualified to do this kind of work, so there is a logic to the process. I certainly wouldn't want MPs and senators publishing papers on this stuff!
My name is Paul Hook, Managing Director of the Canadian Institute for Military and Veteran Health Research. I wanted to begin by thanking Mr. Clinton for the work he is doing. Accountability is a hallmark of a successful country and government openness and transparency are paramount to its effectiveness. I recently had a chat with Mr. Clinton to discuss this post and thank you for highlighting some of what the public sees which could be different from what our organization knows. This furthered a useful chat on what we do, how we do it, and some ways in which we could better tell our story in regards to what the annual $2.5m funding goes toward. Suffice to say, CIMVHR is set up for research facilitation in that the organization receives funding from other sources: philanthopic, private sector, and government and operates as an arm's length institute to ensure that research for the military, Veterans, and families populations is rigorous, transparent, and has impact.
Approximately 80% of our annual operating funds cover pay and compensation as well as funds that go to Queen's for (HR, building, legal, research accounting, etc). The rest of the operating funds are for: the Journal of Military Veteran and Family Health (JMVFH), events that CIMVHR hosts (highlighting research), producing documents, videos, podcasts from the research so that the communities can access the information. For instance, our Journal articles were downloaded over 150,000 times in 2023/2024. Funds are also used to host a website - https://www.fiveeyesmhric.org/, to fund some travel for staff to meet with interested parties, to collaborate on work in the sector, and for professional development. We also host webinars, we have information sessions, and we support the next generation of researchers through a Student and Post-Doctoral Engagement Community (SPEC).
We financially report quarterly and annually to Veterans Affairs Canada and through Queen's University monthly. We report metrics (similar to the departmental results framework) quarterly and annually to VAC and we have an advisory Board of Directors that oversees some of the strategic guidance for our organization.
We collaborate with Atlas and the Chronic Pain Centre of Excellence. We have a wide network of universities, global institutes and Canadian research centres to ensure that Canadian military members, Veterans and their families have the most up-to-date research on health and well-being.
We are more than happy to share our story and commit to finding a better way to ensuring that our financial information is more easily understood by the Canadian public.
(Maj ret'd) Paul Hook
Managing Director
CIMVHR
www.cimvhr.ca
paul.hook@queensu.ca
Thanks for this comment. I've updated the post itself to reflect your numbers.
This Veteran thanks you for shining a light on VAC. It is refreshing to learn that, apparently, the money allocated to the department is being generally well used in the manner for which it is intended.
There definitely does seem to be good work happening. But I guess one small thing we can do for you veterans is to keep an eye on the process to keep the government honest.
Your column is, as always, enlightening.
As a general comment, we are aware of the monstrous [my arbitrarily "impartial" adjective] in both the public service head count/compensation and in monies paid to "consultants" during the life if this dying (one can hope) government.
Now, as to specifics. From your description of matters it seems to me that the monies that are channeled as you have laid out would be accounted for as "program" spending? That is a question and, if my understanding is correct, could one reasonably argue that spending on consultants is actually much higher - assuming, of course, that this method of operating is widespread? Or, perhaps, this "program" spending is allocated to the category of salaries? Somehow, I don't think so.
Indeed. Categorizing government spending can be deeply ambiguous. These programs are definitely not officially marked as outsourced contracts. But, at the same time, practically speaking, that's really what they are.
Having said that, I guess university researchers are the people most qualified to do this kind of work, so there is a logic to the process. I certainly wouldn't want MPs and senators publishing papers on this stuff!