Mr. Clarke.
Evidence of meeting #18 for Veterans Affairs in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was way.
Evidence of meeting #18 for Veterans Affairs in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was way.
7:20 p.m.
Conservative
Alupa Clarke Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Madam Northey, the last five minutes were really interesting because, for a few weeks on this committee, we talked about the fact that before it took one year, and now it takes 16 weeks. You said that weeks are important in the waiting time for the approval or disapproval of benefits. You said it's important to calculate the outcomes and the expectations of results, but it's not necessarily what should be looked at first. That's very interesting, because it's like we're stepping out of the paradigm right now.
You said that the most important thing is to see if the expectations of the veterans—in this case it's veterans—are satisfied. But again I feel that's not the goal of the ministry, and maybe it should be looking at what's going on right now. I don't think they're trying to satisfy the expectations of veterans, but trying to satisfy the way the state wants to deal with veterans.
That was just an aside.
About the Legion, sir, I was at the 46th congress of the Legion in Newfoundland this weekend. I was talking to a lot of commanders in the province and everything. They are also getting sick and tired of civilians in the Legion. They say good things about that, of course, but they feel that civilians have turned the Legion into a social club to fill in times when they're bored, more than an organization for getting together and talking about problems that are realized and things of that sort.
I simply want to tell you that some officials in the Legion feel the same way as you do about the Legion.
7:25 p.m.
As an Individual
That would be the “get the grump out” policy that they're trying to implement. I'm very well aware of that when I state that the Legion has no real place for me.
Some Legions and some people in the Legion do work wonders. I want to throw that caveat in there, but by and large we've not felt wanted, to such a degree that, well, why would we ever go back? If you touch a hot pan once and burn yourself, you're not going to do it again. To do it again and again and again and again, I think that's a definition of insanity. It's probably too late for the Legion to capture a lot of us, because of the experiences so many of us have had.
7:25 p.m.
Conservative
Alupa Clarke Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC
The only problem is that the common force of veterans is weakened as a result of the fact there are so many groups going their own way, but that's the reality.
You talk about denial by design. I would like you to maybe talk about that a little bit.
7:25 p.m.
As an Individual
Effectively what I mean by denial by design.... I'm sorry, my tongue is getting tied in knots. I've dissociated several times already because of all this.
By denial by design, what I mean is that the very system itself is operating in a manner that is purposely trying to find any and every reason to deny benefits, to deny applications, to not grant the benefits, the claims, or the treatment. They're trying to use any possible reason.
Instead of the giving the benefit of the doubt, which is how Veterans Affairs is supposed to work, all things being equal—well, things are never actually equal—if there's any doubt at all, we should be believing the veteran. If there's any problem at all, if there's any question that can't be easily resolved, we should be believing the veteran. Instead, the moment any doubt or unanswered question comes up, that becomes the thing that gets targeted, the thing that Veterans Affairs drives into the wall to say, “Sorry, you're not getting your claim approved. You're not getting this benefit. You're not getting this treatment.”
That's what I mean by denial by design. It is an insurance-minded scheme that is purposely meant to limit financial liability and to not actually pay out.
Veterans affairs should not be operating as an insurance company. The moment we start doing that, there goes the sacred obligation, the words that I know all of you have heard before. The moment you act as an insurance company or under insurance company principles, boom, the sacred obligation, the social obligation, is the first thing that's dropped on the floor and scrounged into the dog poop.
7:25 p.m.
Conservative
Alupa Clarke Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC
So if the system is designed to find any possible way to deny the benefits, that means there is an unofficial rule, implicitly. Is that what you're suggesting?
7:30 p.m.
Conservative
Alupa Clarke Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Also, you talk about the disgusting practice like there being no stamp. I agree with you. I would be very, very mad if I had to add a stamp to send my information to the government, even more in the case of a veteran. Could you share with us other practices that you find disgusting?
7:30 p.m.
Conservative
Alupa Clarke Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC
The most common ones that you see often. There's the stamp.
7:30 p.m.
As an Individual
The stamp is a really small, trivial one that is disgusting because it is so banal.
7:30 p.m.
Conservative
7:30 p.m.
As an Individual
To me, ultimately, the worst one is the denial by design, which is why I focused on that in my statement. There were so many other aspects I could go after.
One that does occur, and I have given conference papers on this, is the way we use some of the language on operational stress injuries. This is associated with the stigma as well. When we refer to it as “mental illness“ or “diseases of the brain”, this itself is a stigmatizing form of language that ignores what has actually happened, which is that we have been hit with an injury.
Fundamentally, what is the difference between someone who has had a limb blown off and someone whose sense of self has been so fractured that their life seems like it is coming to an end? This is my challenge toward the very way that psychiatry, and the industry of providing support and care, has become dehumanized in a way that, through its biomedical drive and through the principles it uses, dehumanizes the patient, dehumanizes the person who is injured, and in a way almost blames them, or that is how it is perceived by many of us with operational stress injuries. We are being blamed as not being worthy enough.
“Oh look, you caught the flu of the mind”, is almost what it feels like. “Hey, it's okay. Just take some time. You'll get over it.” It is this idea of illness instead of an injury. We can learn to cope. We can learn to come back. We can find new ways of being with these injuries. When we talk mental illness, it immediately implies a cure. When those cures don't happen, that strikes us even harder. When we come in expecting that CBT will help us, it is only good or takes 6, 10, 12, 20 weeks take effect, and yet three years later we are still scratching the surface. It is not a cure. It is a way of coping.
The very language that we use—that Veterans Affairs and psychiatry use—turning around and implying mental illness, creates a situation of expectations of “outcomes”, to use the wording that Brenda used. Those outcomes can never actually be met. That cascades further. When we keep having those dark, demonic moments, we are not able to come out of them.
We end up blaming ourselves, but then we end up wondering, is it really real? Then other people turn and go, “Oh, you are not better yet. Are you really that sick? Are you faking it?” Then you add in the pharmacotherapy, which is the first line. When those don't work.... I also referred to the way you end up on one drug and you need another drug to treat the symptoms of the first one. It is the Pfizer wheel of death. You need drug after drug after drug just to handle the side effects, and it just keeps getting worse and worse and worse, with the expectation that we are going to be cured.
Even if the medications are working immediately on the symptoms, it is not curing. All it is doing is masking the distress that is happening. It zombifies us. It does not actually help.
You can tell that is one of my really passionate areas of....
7:30 p.m.
Conservative
Alupa Clarke Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC
I have the stamp, denial by design, language use, and stigmatization from this language. Are there any other practices you have in mind that you want to share today, right now?
7:35 p.m.
As an Individual
Off the top of my head, no. My brain feels like Jell-O right now, after going into that last one.
7:35 p.m.
Conservative
Alupa Clarke Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC
I have one last comment for you. I don't know if, in your research, you have looked at autochthone Canadian veterans. We have had some of those groups at our committee. They have a whole other way of dealing with those mental issues, through their communities. I don't know if you saw that in your research, if you looked at it.
7:35 p.m.
As an Individual
Being an anthropologist, I am quite aware of the cultural methods, the cultural usages, the different ways of understanding what is happening and how to handle it. There are some very positive things going on there. I don't want to get into too much detail on that, because I'm not so much of an expert on that aspect. There are a number of professors who would actually probably be even better suited to comment on the benefit.
The issue is the very way of understanding what's going on, of understanding who we are as people. There are differences that occur there. This is also something that goes right into other committees and to the truth and reconciliation, which I don't want to speak too much on because it's not my area of expertise. There are ways of being and thinking that work, but there's a cultural relativity at play whenever you're dealing with any form of the mind, of the self, of society. This is also why I refuse to put down any group or any organization or any treatment modality, because you never know what's going to work from one person to the next.
So how about we approve everything, and let the individual have a say in what they would actually like to try instead of forcing pills down their mouth as a first resort?
7:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Neil Ellis
Walter, I want to go back to a question or a statement that you made, and maybe Mr. Argue can also comment on this.
Both of you have had many caseworkers. They seem to have changed their attitudes as we've gone through. You mention how your first caseworker was this.
When did we see that fundamental shift? Has that fundamental shift been with all your colleagues also? Maybe I'm reading between the lines, Walter. You said your first caseworker went beyond, maybe bent the rules, maybe stretched the rules. It doesn't seem as though that's happening now. I'm just trying to wrap this around.
Does that statement apply to all caseworkers or just to some in particular, or was there something five years, three years, or two years ago that all of a sudden through your groups—and you would know this through the Internet and so on—that everybody saw a switch overnight with caseworkers and how they dealt with you, or is it just something that's happened to you both individually?
7:35 p.m.
As an Individual
There wasn't really a switch overnight across the board.
The motivations and personal drive of each caseworker seem to very much tailor how they respond. Some are more than willing to go beyond or more than willing to take on the heavier caseload and still find a way. Others weren't ready or able to do it. The level of training may differ among them. Even the reasons they're doing that work may be different.
That being said, there did seem to be a moment when a sudden cutback in staff at VAC occurred, when a whole bunch of front-line workers were canned, and that may have actually affected the number of case managers who were there. That may have also caused them a bit of anxiety about whether or not their jobs were secure. I'm doing a lot of speculating, but there did seem to be a moment when, with the mass layoffs that occurred under the previous government, there did seem to be a shift. There were still good caseworkers who were going out of their way despite everything and even with the increased load.
7:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Neil Ellis
There's a second part to this question: were you at one time allowed to email or contact your caseworker directly? Has it always been the case that you've gone to the 1-800 number, or has that just shifted in the last...?
7:40 p.m.
As an Individual
I think my first case manager was bending to the point of snapping the actual rules. My understanding was that we were never supposed to be able to directly email our case managers, but that worked so much better. It was an unofficial twist. She probably did get reprimanded for it. That may be part of the reason why she took a transfer or was transferred. I've never really found out.
Neither of my case managers after that have been willing to do email. The first one also turned around and—I'm pretty sure this was breaking the rules—gave me her direct phone number—not her personal cell number, but her work cell number—so that I could contact her. If I missed a call from her, I could call her back and there was no problem.
My second case manager accidentally gave that to me. He forgot to block the number when he was making an outgoing call. I so rarely had any emergency while working with him, I think I only called him twice and it was completely fine. With the third one, there was absolutely no way was she going to do that. There was a barrier there. It's a barrier that's right in the system itself, that they're not supposed to have that level of immediate contact.
7:40 p.m.
As an Individual
I want to quickly go back to the conversation Walter had with Mr. Clarke.
One problem I've seen is over-medication of veterans. I am a living example of what can happen. I was so over-medicated that my liver started shutting down on me. I don't take any medication at all at this time, even for the pain and all the rest. One thing I'd like Veterans Affairs to look into is to make sure, with the medication, that there are no serious side effects before they start prescribing stuff.
Getting back to this question of the caseworkers, yes, I've gone through a lot of caseworkers. In Vancouver there was an awful lot of turnover. I started in 2007 right up until, basically, the beginning of 2012, when we moved to Ontario. We moved to Niagara Falls first, and then we moved to Toronto in fall 2012.
However, when we moved to Hamilton, and basically from the beginning of 2012 right up until we moved to Toronto, one problem was that the caseworkers weren't really willing to work with me or other veterans.
Then, here in Toronto, I found that one caseworker I was finally given, Sonya Wakefield, went out of her way to do stuff for me. I've heard of so many other veterans that she's helped. To me the turning point would be 2012, when I finally got put in contact with Sonya Wakefield here in Toronto.
My experience with the office they have in Toronto is very good. I've never been able to directly talk to the caseworker. I've always had to phone the 1-866 number and do it that way, or go into their office, and then basically talk to whoever is on duty at that time.