Evidence of meeting #15 for Veterans Affairs in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was street.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Medric Cousineau  Captain (Retired), As an Individual
Barry Yhard  National Executive Director, National Executive Board of Directors, Veterans Emergency Transition Services

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Greg Kerr

Folks, we'll get under way. I want to welcome everybody here today.

We're continuing our study on the statutory review of the Enhanced New Veterans Charter Act.

We are pleased to have the quality of witnesses we have today to give their views. I would like to welcome both Captain Medric Cousineau and also Barry Yhard from Veterans Emergency Transition Services.

Just to remind everybody, what we do is hear from the witnesses, giving them each ten minutes to make sure that they have time to present their points of view. Then we go to the various committee members for a round of six minutes each for questioning.

Welcome to both of you.

I don't have one witness listed before the other, though I mentioned Captain Cousineau first.

Were you planning to go first? Do you want to flip a coin?

3:30 p.m.

Medric Cousineau Captain (Retired), As an Individual

Barry, do you want a coin toss? Are you ready?

3:30 p.m.

Barry Yhard National Executive Director, National Executive Board of Directors, Veterans Emergency Transition Services

You go ahead.

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Greg Kerr

Thank you very much.

3:30 p.m.

Captain (Retired), As an Individual

Medric Cousineau

Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, thank you for giving me the opportunity to address the committee and to address an issue that hopefully you may have no experience with and that I, sadly, have decades of dealing with.

I'm going to discuss a form of trauma that is devastating in its impact on veterans: institutional betrayal and the way the new Veterans Charter and VRAB are leading to a situation in which suicide has a 45% greater prevalence in the veterans community than it has in the general population. That number comes from a document that you have in the Library of Parliament.

I am Captain (Retired) Medric Cousineau, and I wear Canada's second highest award for bravery, the Star of Courage, which is awarded for an act of conspicuous courage in circumstances of great peril. It is what ended my military career and led me to being here today.

Let me put this into context for you.

I joined the military in 1979 and by 1983 had graduated from the Royal Military College of Canada. I went on to receive my air navigator's wings and joined HS 443 Squadron. In October of 1986, while a member of HMCS Nipigon's HELAIRDET, I was involved in a dramatic air-sea rescue that resulted in my being awarded the Star of Courage.

Sadly, those events changed my life forever. Within weeks the words post-traumatic neurosis and ultimately post-traumatic stress disorder would appear in my medical documents.

What I want to talk about is the institutional betrayal. The single largest wound that I received happened as a result of the actions of a department of the government of a country that I would clearly and demonstrably have died for. Institutional betrayal can be defined as the wrongdoings perpetuated by an institution upon individuals dependent upon that institution, including failure to prevent or to respond supportively to instances such as traumatic exposures committed within the context of the institution. Please keep this in mind as my story unfolds.

In 1991 I left the forces on a voluntary release, struggling with issues and addictions, knowing I had problems but unaware of what they were. In 1996 I found myself in the emergency assessment unit of the Nova Scotia psychiatric hospital. Clearly, you do not wind up there because you're having banner mental health days.

Subsequent to my release, I was taken by an old salt to visit the Department of Veterans Affairs. Subsequently I applied for and received my medical documents. Perhaps the single most devastating day was to read that my diagnosis from the Nova Scotia psychiatric hospital had been in my out-routine medical documents and had never been actioned or disclosed to me. The institutional betrayal shattered me. I would have died for Canada and I had been betrayed. The “we will take care of you” ethos that we in the military believed in was clearly not there.

But I wish it had ended there. Sadly, it gets worse, much worse.

Eventually VAC ruled that I was pensionable at a five-fifths entitlement, since my injuries were clearly connected to my rescue. But the issue of assessment is a whole different story. The VAC doctors assessed me at 70%, and I was awarded 30%. I appealed and went through another entire poke-and-prod process. This process alone is nothing but an exacerbation of the trauma. This set of doctors stated a minimum of 50%, the board noted the 70%, and I was awarded 40%.

How does this happen? The numbers and the facts do not lie. I was nothing more than a file, and every award of less than my entitlement and assessment was just a cost-saving measure.

In 1999 I applied to the military and had my release item reviewed. It was determined that I should have been a 3(b) medical release. When I applied to VAC to have my benefits reinstated to my release date, I was told, basically, “Too bad, so sad, you never contacted us until 1996.” But had my release been handled properly, I would have been treated in 1991 and would have seen VAC. I was damaged by the errors of others.

It was not until 2006, after I had a full psychotic break, that my assessment was finally moved to 70%, after 10 years of fights, denials, appeals, and abuse by a system put in place by a government department of a country I would have died for.

By then, my doctors had pegged me at 90% to 100% disabled and were documenting major depressive disorders. I was done, shattered, ruined, and I no longer trusted anyone or anything. Why would I? I was withdrawn and I lived in isolation from my family, because the anger management problems were so severe that I was afraid I was going to hurt them in a fit of rage. I battled depression, anxiety, panic, suicidal ideation, addiction, and suffered from dissociative episodes, cut off from family, friends, and society.

In 2007, while heavily medicated, I had a visit from somebody from VAC. I don't remember what happened or even who I met with, and it was my last contact with the department until September of 2012. By then a friend had made me aware that there were things called case managers and benefits and programs that I should have been entitled to and involved with. By late October of 2012, I finally had a case manager who, I must state, is the best thing to happen in my recovery as far as my dealings with VAC go.

I went from some time in 2007 until I contacted the department five years later with no follow-up and no help. I was not entered into the rehab program at that time, but it took my case manager very little time to enrol me in the program. It was very clear where I should have been. The five-year hiatus with no contact is documented in my case file and was discussed with me by my case manager.

But even this would not have happened without my service dog, who then helped train me with my PTSD and improve my social functioning. Sadly, my service dog is yet one more example of the institutional betrayal that permeates my case file. If I was blind and Thai was a guide dog, I would receive an allowance for her care and upkeep. Even though she was acquired with resources outside of VAC, she is to assist me in my daily living, and my medical care team is thrilled with the impact she has had on my life. So I applied for that same care and upkeep allowance since she is for my pensioned condition. It was denied with a statement that there was no evidence supporting her efficacy in rehabilitation outcomes. I was going to appeal, so I requested a definition of rehabilitation outcomes. I was subsequently told there is no definition and that rehab program outcomes are handled on a case-by-case basis.

So I was denied a benefit for standards she supposedly cannot meet for something that VAC cannot define for me. I truly think that the department was going to say no just one more time.

I will carry the scars of what happened that night in the middle of the north Atlantic to my grave. There are things you do not unsee, unsmell, unhear, and untaste. There are things that can be so deeply imprinted on your psyche that no amount of treatment will ever completely deal with them. However, I have several specialists who have noted two very important points.

One, my long-term recovery was put in jeopardy by lack of early intervention and adequate treatment. The period of abandonment from 1991 to 1996 is evidence of this.

Two, the injuries that resulted from my institutional betrayal are going to be a huge if not insurmountable obstacle in my long-term recovery. VRAB—political appointees making decisions based on legal, medical, and military service who clearly do not have the adequate qualifications to deal fairly with veterans who appear before them—has ensured that I will never ever trust the government of a country that I would have died for. Look at the woeful record, which the OVO points out, at Federal Court after appeals have been exhausted at VRAB.

My wife is very quick to point out that had I not been pensionable under the Pension Act, my family would have been destroyed. The lump sum award under the new Veterans Charter would have been gone in the war I fought battling addictions as I tried to deal with the much damaged reality that I perceive.

So, ladies and gentlemen, if I were going to change just three things, what would they be?

One, the lump sum award would be abolished and replaced with a lifetime income that the ill and injured could not outlive. Their injuries last their lifetime as a result of their service to their country. So too should the government's obligation to care for them.

Two, VRAB in its current form would be dismantled and would be replaced with a system that is geared to dealing with section 39 of the act, which says that, barring evidence to the contrary, the board is to rule in favour of the veterans. Clearly, given the number of appeals, this is not happening.

Three, in the war on PTSD, suicide and homelessness are two outcomes that, along with destroyed families, impact on society financially, and most importantly, morally. We cannot let this happen. These need to be dealt with immediately.

Given what has happened to me personally, I would say that it's not out of the question to ask for a full ministerial inquiry into my file at VAC. There are so many issues that, sadly, have impacted not just me. My wife and children have borne the brunt of that institutional betrayal. If it is not owed to me, then it certainly is to them, for they never signed up, and they deserve better from this country.

Sadly, I am one of many heroes and veterans who have been institutionally betrayed by the departments of the government for which veterans would have died. These wrongs must be righted. For if they're not, we will not know peace, and if they cannot find peace, many may make terminally irreversible decisions.

The institutional betrayal is a national disgrace.

Thank you.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Greg Kerr

Thank you, Captain Cousineau.

Now, we'll go to Mr. Yhard for 10 minutes, please.

3:40 p.m.

National Executive Director, National Executive Board of Directors, Veterans Emergency Transition Services

Barry Yhard

First off, I'd like to thank everybody for inviting VETS Canada to the committee. I'm going to talk a little bit about myself, and then jump into what it is that we do as an organization, which will subsequently illustrate why I'm here.

With 32 years of service, I, too, have PTSD in my medical file. I'm a veteran of the Afghanistan task force. About 18 months ago, I was approached by Jim Lowther to assist the organization, and since that time I've gone on to become their executive director.

At VETS Canada, Veterans Emergency Transition Services Canada, we are the only ones that go out into street and the shelters, we find homeless and at-risk veterans, and we help facilitate their transition back into a safe and normal lifestyle. I would like to tell you that I'm not busy, but that would be a lie.

I'd like to talk about three of our clients in a very general format, which will lead me into my final statement. The first one was a man in his 50s; he had PTSD. He received the lump sum, did all the right things—spent it on his home and bills—and got himself financially secure. He's a good news story. He actually got married, and he now volunteers with VETS Canada. That's where the good news story stops.

The second story is of a younger man with PTSD. Again, he received a lump-sum payment. He tried to do the right thing—he spent it on bills, on getting himself out of debt—but unfortunately, he had a marital breakup and he's now left with absolutely nothing.

The third story, again, is of a younger client. This gentleman had some significant addiction issues. He was also a recipient of a lump sum payment. He reached out for help. We tracked him down, and we provided that help. We got him into an addictions program, and it looked like he was straightening out and heading in the right direction. He had a relapse, so he was back on the street. He actually had two relapses and he's currently on the street right now with no money.

The issue of a lump sum payment needs to be re-examined from our perspective. I say that because it's giving large quantities of money to people who are suffering from PTSD. As I'm sure you all know, PTSD can have a significant impact on your mental ability to make conscious decisions properly. By giving out a lump sum payment, you run the risk of that particular individual making the wrong decisions. I understand it's a personal decision, but try to remember that they're not making accurate decisions because of their PTSD. So they make decisions that are probably not the best ones to make, and they wind up on the street with no money—again, these are clients of ours.

What would be good, and what would probably go a long way towards solving the problem of homelessness among our veterans, is to go back to a monthly payment versus a lump sum payment. That way, if something happens in the individual's life, he hasn't spent all his lump sum, and he actually has a monthly income coming in.

That's all I have.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Greg Kerr

Thank you very much, Mr. Yhard. I'm sure there will be lots of conversation once the questions start.

Thank you, both, for your presentations.

We'll now go to the members of the committee, and we'll start with Mr. Stoffer for six minutes, please.

3:45 p.m.

NDP

Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much

To Barry and Medric, thank you both very, very much for coming here. I personally want to thank both of you.

Medric, thank you for your Paws Fur Thought, and the tremendous work your organization and you have done in getting service dogs for veterans across the country, because as you so rightfully claim, for every single person who receives a service dog the suicide number is zero.

To Barry, and especially to Jim Lowther and the boys down in Nova Scotia, it's a tremendous job you do, on a shoestring, looking for the homeless veterans and assisting them to reintegrate into some form of normalcy as they try to get on with their lives.

My question to you is on the lump sum itself. In 2005, when these were all discussed, the lump sum payment was for pain and suffering at a certain amount which was to be determined by either VRAB or the government in that particular regard. It was to determine the extent of the injury you had, either mental or physical, or a combination of both, and to give you enough moneys in that regard as compared to a workmen's compensation benefit, or something on a provincial level, or basically on an insurance level.

The key to it, though, the selling point of this, was that this wasn't the only payment they were supposed to receive. If they were permanently impaired or had ongoing issues, they could apply, or their family could apply, for a permanent impairment allowance and an earnings loss benefit. But what we have found, unfortunately, is to apply for those additional benefits and to receive those additional benefits over and above the lump sum was very difficult to achieve.

Now, you're correct. A 21-year-old getting $200,000 would be a mistake in my personal view, but a 58-year-old receiving that amount of money may be something they want to look at. What we've been arguing for is making the lump sum possibly optional, but to ensure the fact that if there are additional payments to the veterans, they should be followed for immediately upon consultation and furtherance with the doctors, and with the individual in that case.

I'd like you to elaborate just a bit more on the additional payments, because bear in mind the previous payment was just a certain amount of money per month, and that was it. It was found in many cases that it was nowhere near enough to look after the veteran and their family in terms of what they received.

I'd like you to follow up on that just a bit more and I thank you both very much for coming here today.

3:50 p.m.

National Executive Director, National Executive Board of Directors, Veterans Emergency Transition Services

Barry Yhard

I'd like to stress the reason I'm here, and the only reason I'm here is not to talk about amounts, and it's not to talk about whatever department administers the fund. I'm here to explain to everybody that post-traumatic stress—I live the dream every day—has a significant impact on the way you make adult decisions.

Regardless of the amount of money you're going to give someone, and regardless of their age, I'm urging caution because often, more times than not, that particular individual isn't really prepared to make the decisions he needs to make with that lump sum or that amount of money that's being given to him.

I'm sorry, I don't want to go into where you're going with the other benefits. I just want to stress to everybody—and I'll say this all afternoon—PTSD affects the way you think. There's no way around it. We have to be careful how we help the people financially because often they end up on the street. We have hundreds of cases we can show that prove that.

Medric.

3:50 p.m.

Captain (Retired), As an Individual

Medric Cousineau

The enhanced new Veterans Charter, the full suite of benefits, if they were made available in a uniform process such that somebody who was entitled to the earnings loss benefit was to receive it, as well as his lump sum, and for those who are unable to work, the PIA.... There's a huge disconnect.

Where the disconnect happens is, the assessment levels that the military uses to determine you are no longer fit for service should be immediately translated into the benefit level they receive at VAC. For example, if the government says your universality of service is no longer there because of the following points, bing, bang, and boom, then they translate immediately across VAC, and that's the award they receive. That would be, in my mind, fair, but that is not what happens.

When you receive your assessment and your medical employment limitations, and then ultimately your 3(b) medical release, you then have to go before VAC, which will ultimately wind up with your being at VRAB. It's a 100% certainty. You will go through multiple appeals, and those same documents they used to terminate your military career will then be turned against you to minimize the amount of the award you're going to receive while you're at VAC.

So how can you use the same piece of paper, against the same individual, in two different contexts, and say on one hand it's good enough to terminate your military career, and on the other hand it's good enough for us to mitigate the amount of money we're going to pay for you.

I'm sorry. That double standard has to stop.

3:50 p.m.

NDP

Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS

Thank you.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Greg Kerr

Thank you very much.

Mr. Gill, please, you have six minutes.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

Parm Gill Conservative Brampton—Springdale, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I also want to thank our witnesses for appearing before the committee and also thank you for your service towards our country and helping us in this important study review that the committee has been tasked with conducting.

My question is for Barry. The committee has been asked by Minister Fantino to conduct a comprehensive review of the Veterans Charter, as it has evolved and as it is prescribed today. Are you able to share with the committee the Veterans Emergency Transition Services's position on the current state of how the Veterans Charter operates?

3:50 p.m.

National Executive Director, National Executive Board of Directors, Veterans Emergency Transition Services

Barry Yhard

Again, I'm going to stress that we're not here to talk about what we think is right or wrong about the charter. We're here to explain to everybody that the charter, the way it works today, because of people's decisions, is putting veterans on the street or at risk.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

Parm Gill Conservative Brampton—Springdale, ON

Did VETS Canada call for a comprehensive review?

3:50 p.m.

National Executive Director, National Executive Board of Directors, Veterans Emergency Transition Services

Barry Yhard

No, not in the 18 months that I've been involved with it.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

Parm Gill Conservative Brampton—Springdale, ON

Okay. Can you help us understand, then, how your clients—veterans who are seeking help from you—view the current charter?

3:50 p.m.

National Executive Director, National Executive Board of Directors, Veterans Emergency Transition Services

Barry Yhard

Well, most of them live on the street, so they have a pretty negative view of the current charter. Whether it's right or wrong is really not important; the fact that they live on the street is what is important.

When they get to the street, the way it works, normally, is that they've gone through their family, through all their friends, through the social support networks that they had. That's all gone. Their money's all gone. There's nowhere else to go but to the street.

I don't think you'd find a homeless person who had anything other than issues with the charter, but I can't speak for them, I'm only speaking to what I think they would be doing.

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

Parm Gill Conservative Brampton—Springdale, ON

Thank you.

I'm very happy to hear the kind of work your organization is doing. I think it's wonderful. I'm wondering if you're able to tell us how many veterans you've been able to locate in shelters, who are at risk, who are homeless, and provide with assistance.

3:55 p.m.

National Executive Director, National Executive Board of Directors, Veterans Emergency Transition Services

Barry Yhard

In the timeframe that I've been with the organization, there are 175 veterans who we've assisted. Now, the form of assistance can be very varied. Sometimes it just requires an extra tank of oil to get through the winter, sometimes it's just sitting down and talking with them to help them fill out forms, and other times they're at risk or on the street and it's helping them get back in the lifestyle.

When we say that we have a client, it covers a very broad spectrum of issues.

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

Parm Gill Conservative Brampton—Springdale, ON

Do you have a number of ongoing clients who your organization assists on a regular basis, who it maintains contact with?

3:55 p.m.

National Executive Director, National Executive Board of Directors, Veterans Emergency Transition Services

Barry Yhard

We're very non-judgmental. With a homeless person who makes it back into a secure lifestyle, oftentimes they have relapses and we'll help them again. To answer your question, we usually have a model of care that goes from 24 to 48 hours up to and including 18 months. Normally after 18 months they're in a pretty stable lifestyle and are able to go off on their own. If they're not, we provide assistance to them until such time that they're ready to live on their own.

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

Parm Gill Conservative Brampton—Springdale, ON

How many different individuals are involved in the organization in terms of assisting the veterans or helping locate homeless or at-risk veterans?

3:55 p.m.

National Executive Director, National Executive Board of Directors, Veterans Emergency Transition Services

Barry Yhard

We have volunteers across the country. We rely heavily on social media. Our Facebook page and our website have 100,000-plus followers, all like-minded individuals.

While I won't tell you how many volunteers I actually have, I can say that we can reach anywhere in Canada at any time within six hours and provide assistance.