Veterans Affairs Committee on Dec. 1st, 2022

[Scott Maxwell]

No.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

You've never spoken with anyone on that front?

[Scott Maxwell]

No.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Do you believe that veterans were receiving good services from the former contract, which had two parts to it, as you referred to earlier? One, of course, was the medical and psychosocial rehabilitation. The second one was offered by Medavie. Do you believe they were receiving good services?

[Scott Maxwell]

If you'll give me 30 seconds, I'll tell you that the veterans who come into our programs and our care usually are referred from a health care provider who is usually under the VAC contract. Of those conversations we're having with those members who are coming to us by way of a health care provider under the VAC contract, I would say, yes, the relationship in that referral-based network is improving.

In the current framework under which we're working as a service-providing organization, the answer in reply to that question is “yes”.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Mr. Maxwell.

The two last interventions will be really quick. Each MP will have two and a half minutes.

Mr. Luc Desilets, I invite you take the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Maxwell, I know you don't know much about this new service structure, but do you see anything positive in it?

[Scott Maxwell]

I was thinking about that today. It's a great question.

I guess the only thing I could offer that would be a positive would be to answer “if things change”. It's impossible to say that something would be positive that just took effect. That would be irresponsible. But I would suggest that if change comes, that reduces the backlog in the system as a whole. It improves timely access to care. If it improves the cultural competency of the delivery of the care, then maybe we will have something to talk about when I'm invited, hopefully, to the next round of these sessions.

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

Can any service provider claim to be a veterans service provider or does it require some expertise? If it does require some expertise, are we talking one year, five years, 10 years?

[Scott Maxwell]

It unequivocally requires an expertise. The cultural competency, the occupational awareness, the experience in working with this population—those are fundamental to care. That's our specialty. That's what drives our success. The best-laid plan is on paper, but if that interaction does not compute, does not engage, we often get one chance with this population; if it doesn't—

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

I see.

I feel your staff is well trained and competent. That's the impression we all get.

Do you feel that a new structure like this will provide services of comparable quality to the services you provide?

[Scott Maxwell]

Absolutely. I just think it needs to be integrated. It needs to be collaborative. It needs to be part of a process where the system is bringing in subject matter experts in the field to help improve care, whether that's the old system, which wasn't doing that very effectively, I would add, or the new system. It's the system, not just who the provider is, that's been the problem.

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

Thank you, Mr. Maxwell.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Mr. Desilets.

I'd like to invite Ms. Rachel Blaney to go ahead for two and a half minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Perhaps I can begin with you, Mr. Maxwell. You know, I always err on the side of caution and listen to the voices of the people who do the work and to the people who receive the service. That's the workers and the veterans in this case. We have heard very clear testimony that this new structure will cost 25% more than the current structure we have in place.

We also know that VAC has had continuous challenges because they've been hiring people temporarily instead of permanently. Of course, that means higher levels of turnover, with new people coming in and getting trained. It takes a lot of time, as you said, to train people to work with veterans. I really appreciated what you said just moments ago, that we have “one chance” with this population. I think that has to be absolutely our perspective and our main focus.

I'm wondering if you have any thoughts on whether it would be beneficial to take some of that 25% more that's going to be added into this and that's going to cost that much more and invest in staff to be permanent and have that cultural training that you were speaking of earlier.

[Scott Maxwell]

With respect to the current cost increasing, I can't add if that's necessary or not, but I would agree one hundred per cent with you that programs exist. Help is out there. Subject matter experts all across the country are working with us to do this work and provide the care. I find that often we're not consulted and investments can be made in programs that are already happening, care that already exists and help that is already available.

Maybe from a cost redundancy perspective, if that was how the system was being looked at, or if the department was looking at it versus creating something brand new and adding even a dollar more to what already is available, I would take a step back and ask if we have done a sector analysis: Have we done a check on what's current that we can invest in? That's our perspective as a service provider. We could do a lot more if we had more and, to that end, we could help a lot more people.

That's how I would answer that question.

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

Thank you so much. I really appreciate that. That was a great answer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

We've now reached the end of the discussion with the first panel of witnesses.

On behalf of the committee members and the entire team, I thank the witnesses for participating in our study on the impact of the new rehabilitation contract. I'd like to thank Patricia Morand, occupational therapist and clinical care manager, who appeared as an individual; Carolyn Hughes, acting director, veterans services, at the national headquarters of the Royal Canadian Legion; and Scott Maxwell, executive director of Wounded Warriors Canada.

We will suspend for a few minutes to welcome our next panel.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

We can now proceed to the second panel of this meeting.

I have a quick reminder for our witnesses. Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name.

I would now like to welcome to hear from this panel, first of all, one of our colleagues, MP Rachael Thomas.

We are also welcoming our witnesses: Mr. Christopher Banks, sergeant, retired; Ms. Christine Gauthier, corporal, retired; and Mr. Bruce Moncur, corporal, retired, by video conference.

I'd like to start with you, Mr. Banks. You have five minutes or less for your opening remarks. Please go ahead.

[Christopher Banks, Sergeant (Retired), As an Individual]

Thank you.

I want to start off by telling my story.

I joined the army at 16 in 2003. I was deployed to Bosnia as a peacekeeper. In 2008, I deployed to Kandahar as part of the battle group. When I returned home, I knew something was wrong and I sought out help. Over the next 10 years, I battled PTSD until I became suicidal in 2018, which led to a medical release in 2019.

Throughout the pandemic, I completed vocational rehabilitation through SISIP, which, by comparison, was very smooth and stress-free. I was able to complete a university certificate program in public policy in 2021. I left that program feeling confident about my recovery, although my psychologist and I were both keenly aware that my recovery was very fragile, and a serious setback could derail my progress. I continued to seek out further rehabilitation.

This year, I hoped to begin the application process for vocational rehabilitation, and applied to the program run by Canadian Veterans Vocational Rehabilitation Services. I went through the physical and cognitive assessments. Throughout the process, I made it clear to the case manager I was assigned to that I struggled with online learning during COVID and would like in-class learning. My psychologist had assessed that I would do better with part-time learning as opposed to full-time learning. I made it clear that my family had recently purchased a new house and would be moving from Brampton to Ottawa in the summer, and I requested a September start. I also requested to continue studies in public policy at the University of Ottawa or at Carleton, which I was assured would be considered. I scored very highly on the cognitive test, and there were a large number of public policy positions within the public service that appealed to me.

In April I was contacted by the CVVRS case manager, who blindsided me when she told me that the program I would be approved for was office administration at Algonquin College, full time, online and starting immediately.

Every request I had made for accommodation and every request my psychologist had made for accommodation was ignored. I was told that market research indicated that there were no policy positions available in Ottawa—if you can believe it—and that their decision was to formally recognize skills I already possessed, which would meet their policy of making me employable at 90% of my previous pay. They had no intention of supporting any more than that. She further informed me that if I did not agree to this program, I would be stripped of all of my benefits, including my medical pension, which I require to survive.

I had an immediate panic attack and had to end the phone call.

Over the next couple of days, I called and emailed the CVVRS case manager and my Veterans Affairs case manager, trying to figure out what my options were and to learn more about the policy and whether they knew what this situation was doing to my mental health.

My Veterans Affairs case manager broke the news to me that the policy, indeed, stated that if I refused to participate in the recommendation, I would be deemed as not participating in the rehab program and would be removed. This included my removal from the IRB. She told me that if I left the vocational program, I would likely not be accepted a second time if I applied.

I reached out for help and advice in one of the veterans' Facebook groups for medically released veterans. I told my story. I asked if anyone had gone through the process. I asked if they had any advice. I received over 40 comments, most of which were telling me to strap in, because it was about to get worse.

Other veterans expressed that the follow-ups, once they were enrolled in the program, caused a huge amount of stress, and that once they graduated, the priority became to get them employed and out the door.

I enrolled in the Algonquin program, because my hands were tied. Honestly, I didn't have anything against going to college; I was just not keen on being put in a position that would degrade my health.

I became suicidal again. I initiated appeals through Veterans Affairs, but I was told the process would take 12 weeks. I initiated another request for intervention through the veterans ombudsman. Thankfully, the ombudsman stepped in for an intervention, because the appeal reply I received from Veterans Affairs deemed suicide not an appropriate risk to remove me from the program.

Since then, I completed the move for my family. I have recovered again, and now working on further resilience training with my psychologist, so I can finally move on.

I initiated and received an access to information request, and received the reply this summer, which indeed showed that VAC had received the recommendations from my psychologist, and ignored them. I had asked my psychologist if she had any information on this new provider. In a call with my case manager from Veterans Affairs last month, she told me about the new contract, and that her role in my rehabilitation would be lessened.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Excuse me, Mr. Banks, it's way over five minutes. I'm so sorry to interrupt you.

You're telling us a very touching story here.

Mr. Richards, would you like to say something?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

I understand that the witness is over his time, but he's trying to tell us his story. Maybe we could give him another minute or two just to wrap-up. He has half a page. I think he's telling his story, and we should let him.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

I agree. We did not receive a brief, but if members of the committee agree, along with me, I would like to give you a few more seconds to complete your opening remarks.

Please go ahead, Mr. Banks.

[Christopher Banks]

I would like to thank the committee. I promise I'll be as quick as I can.

I had asked my psychologist if she had any information about the new program provider, as she had a lot of experience with other veterans going through what I am going through. She told me she had already attempted to contact the PCVRS for another client, had left voice mails and emails, and had received no reply to her queries.

Last week, I received a letter from the PCVRS telling me that I am being enrolled. I went out for information myself, and all I could find was what limited information was put on the website, but every bit of information I'm hearing says it's going to be more of the same, maybe a little worse.

I want to leave it at this. I'm scared. I'm scared I'm going to be forced into another program that will not help me succeed, and will only put me at new risk. The obscurity in this new contract, and the gradual removal of case managers from the process who, in my experience, have been the only people who truly care about us, leads me to believe that this is just another predatory company taking advantage of a vulnerable group in order to make a profit at the expense of veterans.

Thank you.