Veterans Affairs Committee on June 7th, 2021

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to bring Ms. MacKenzie and Ms. Forbes into the discussion here.

Ms. MacKenzie, in your opening remarks, there were a couple of things that you said that I'd like to probe a little further. First, you mentioned about a dog not being a program dog and the importance of the differentiation between owner training and self-training.

The other thing you said, and your colleague Ms. Forbes also focused on this as well, was about standards for training versus standards for outcomes. I'd like to hear you elaborate a bit more on those two points, if you would, please.

Then I'm going to go to you, Ms. Forbes.

[Laura A. MacKenzie]

I agree with Danielle and Sheila that the standards don't need to be created. They've been created for a long time. ADI has standards. IGDF, which is the International Guide Dog Federation, and the International Association of Assistance Dog Partners all have standards, and they're all fairly similar.

I think it's important to realize that I am not an ADI-accredited trainer. One of the reasons I am not is that I am not a charity. I am a non-profit, but I do have clients who are willing to pay for their dogs, so they pay for their dogs.

Right now there are a lot of trainers out there who are following the standards and doing the training. My teams have gone, they've been tested and they've passed. We have gone to court, and our dogs have won decisions. We've gone to B.C., and our dogs have passed all the accreditation. We do follow those standards.

I think it's also important to understand that standards won't stop fake or poorly trained service dogs. More important than having the standards is that they need to be enforced, and they have to be regulated by testing and licensing the team. You could open up and get more dogs available to people if you allowed other trainers within Ontario, within Canada, to be able to utilize their dogs, but there has to be some kind of testing to say that they are following the correct standards and that the outcome—the handlers, the team—are meeting that criteria. I think that's one of the most important things.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Thank you.

I'm sorry. Go ahead. Finish your thought. I thought you were done.

[Laura A. MacKenzie]

No, I think I answered your question.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Yes, I thought so too. Thank you for that.

Ms. Forbes, one of the things that Ms. MacKenzie just said that I hope you'll be able to help me with is that she is not ADI certified because she's not a charity. Based on all of the committees on which you sit, I know you know this space very well. Why is it that the ADI certification only works for charities?

[Danielle Forbes]

Sheila can speak to this as well.

Currently under ADI's situation you have to be a registered charity—whether it's in the U.S., Canada or around the world, whatever the equivalence is—in order to apply and go through the process and become a member of Assistance Dogs International. It's my understanding that the International Guide Dog Federation only requires a non-profit.

Sheila can talk to those pieces more specifically than I can, into where ADI's going in the future, making it a little bit broader, perhaps. Certainly there is room in the space.

You want to be ethical, too. There's a transparency issue. As charities our financials are transparent. We have a level of transparency that's not necessarily available if you have a private company that you're dealing with. There's a lack of transparency. Having charities and non-profits automatically builds in a level of transparency into the process.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

I think that's what you talked about in terms of being accredited by Imagine Canada.

Could I get you to react to something else, as well?

We heard something from Mr. Cousineau that I found quite troubling, that the process towards developing a national standard was sabotaged by an organization that was pursuing their own self-interests. You indicated that you're on the CGSB technical committee. What would be your reaction to that sort of news? Can you expand upon it at all?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

That's unfortunately time, but I'll allow for a brief answer, please.

[Danielle Forbes]

On that front, I'm going to leave Medric's personal take on all of that to him.

As co-chair of the committee, I can tell you that where we fell down was not in the standard in and of itself, but how it was going to be administered. The policy piece is what scared people. The standard was one thing, but they were afraid of how it was going to be built into legislation and policy, and how that would impact the lives of the users and perhaps infringe on their human rights.

It was not the CGSB's job to develop the policy pieces and the regulatory pieces. There was no direct answer to those questions, which made people even more fearful of the process moving forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you very much.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Thank you, and thanks for your indulgence, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you.

Next, we have MP Desilets for two and a half minutes, please.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is for Ms. O'Brien.

We know that training a dog is very expensive. Once they are trained, they are given or sold to veterans, depending on the country. I believe that Australia covers the entire cost.

What is the U.S. government's position on this? Does it cover the cost of the dog and all the subsequent costs?

[Sheila O'Brien]

Not at all. The U.S. does not pay for any type of service or guide dog. However, the veterans administration—if you are a veteran who was honourably discharged—does provide veterinary health benefits for the dog, if it's an ADI or IGDF accredited dog. But, no, the government does not pay for the dog.

I'm talking right now, when I brought up the PAWS Act, about some funding that is still on the House floor. If it comes to fruition we'll be very lucky. Some programs will get funding.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Okay.

Are you saying that the cost of a service dog could be reduced for veterans?

[Sheila O'Brien]

For a veteran.... It's only for a veteran, not for civilians.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Okay.

We are wondering about supply and demand in terms of dogs.

Mr. Cousineau, I would like you to provide a brief answer to my question. You told me earlier that there was a shortage of dogs. Do you think the trend is moving toward a balance between supply and demand?

Ms. MacKenzie, I would like to hear you briefly on this right after. We don't have much time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

I'll allow for a brief answer from Medric, and then I'm afraid that's time.

[Medric Cousineau]

The short answer is that we are behind and getting more behind every single day. The cases of new PTSD being diagnosed exceed the capacity for us to provide service dogs. That's a known. I really don't know how to address it, other than the fact that we just have to ramp up capacity and get on with it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you.

Up next we have MP Blaney, for two and a half minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Ms. O'Brien ended her answer to my question talking about making sure that veterans are ready for the dog. I'm just wondering if that did come up in other testimony. One of the concerns is having a service dog placed and not having the capacity within the veteran's household to care for the dog.

I'm just wondering, Ms. Forbes, if you could start, and then maybe I'll come to you, Ms. MacKenzie, to just talk about how that assessment is done and what supports are in place, not only for the veteran but for the family to support the service dog.

[Danielle Forbes]

For our part, we actually use the prescriber guidelines that were developed by Kristine Aanderson. She was also my co-chair in the CGSB committee. That is our first line of defence because that allows us to ensure that there's been a conversation with a medical professional about a state of readiness and whether it's the best fit. We often get looped into those conversations, so it doesn't happen just between our clients and their treatment professionals. It's usually a three-way conversation between National Service Dogs, the treatment professional....

Built into our policy, based on the ADI PTSD standards for military, we are required to make sure that we are engaging on that mental health piece. Emergency supports are put in place so that there are at least two other individuals in that client circle of support whom we can reach out to if they're in crisis, not only to deal with the safety of the dog but to make sure the client is safe. That is built into the ADI PTSD standards for military. We also make sure our follow-up process is intensive and that we follow up well with the clients. We made the commitment at NSD to have a mental health professional on staff, not just on standby.

I'm sorry. I probably blew through your two minutes.

[Laura A. MacKenzie]

I'll just say that, yes, we follow pretty well the same thing Danielle does. We have a lifetime membership for our members. Most of our members come back even when they're done, so we see them typically for a weekly or biweekly visit. We call it the K-9 Country Inn family. Our members just keep coming back, but we do the same things. We talk to their health providers. We have meetings with them. We talk about what tasks are going to be required of the dog, and then we have people we can call if we think the person is in crisis. It's the same type of thing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you very much.

Up next, we have MP Doherty for five minutes, please.

Medric, do you have your hand up there? Is it a technical question, or did you want to respond?

[Medric Cousineau]

If you look at the prescriber guidelines, you will find that the service dog readiness decision tree is the second of three decision trees. I think that will lay to rest a lot of these issues.