Veterans Affairs Committee on Oct. 30th, 2025

[Tatiana Auguste, Liberal, Terrebonne, QC]

Thank you very much.

You say that you are dealing with a certain generation of military members. What generation is it exactly?

[Marc-André Bernard]

In the past 10 years, I've mainly seen soldiers who went to Bosnia or Afghanistan, men between the ages of 35 and 60. I've seen fewer young soldiers between the ages of 20 and 30. If things have changed for this younger generation, since the military has evolved a bit, I'm less well placed to comment on that.

[Tatiana Auguste, Liberal, Terrebonne, QC]

Thank you very much.

My other question is about therapeutic approaches. Are you using any new approaches that you would like to share with us?

[Marc-André Bernard]

The approach I use the most is exposure to traumatic memories, narrative therapy, which is becoming increasingly popular. That's the approach I've adopted most recently. Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing, or EMDR therapy, is the main approach used in western Canada. It may be used a little less in Quebec to treat trauma, but it is still used. Many of the veterans I've treated have benefited from it, while others haven't liked it, but it's been around for a long time. From what I've seen, the approach that produces the best results in terms of emotional management is the one that involves animals.

[Tatiana Auguste, Liberal, Terrebonne, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marie-France Lalonde]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Gaudreau, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Bernard, animal therapy is very interesting.

However, I would like to understand something. What is an institution's defence mechanism when it's faced with something big, heavy, touching and restrictive, and it doesn't know, perhaps due to a lack of expertise, the specifics of each case? What can happen in an organization?

[Marc-André Bernard]

I'm not sure I understand the question.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

For public servants and politicians who don't experience these realities, what is the mechanism? What can happen?

[Marc-André Bernard]

As psychologists, we can easily see the level of helplessness and suffering that people feel, and even we, who are well trained to deal with it, can find it difficult. Public servants and politicians have even fewer tools to deal with this suffering. So, often, in response to this level of helplessness, there is a tendency to want to act quickly and to want to regulate it. Unfortunately, this creates a lot of bureaucracy, processes and assessments, and the desire to reassure ourselves by doing this causes veterans to suffer. It's as if they have to jump through hoops over and over again to finally believe that we have what we have, in order to get the treatment we need. I don't think people do it on purpose, but I think it's a process that adds to the veteran's suffering.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

From what I understand, with all the expertise we have on program implementation, when it comes to veterans, it would be appropriate to adapt to greatly improve the situation instead of creating other programs. Is that correct?

[Marc-André Bernard]

That's exactly right.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marie-France Lalonde]

Thank you very much.

Mrs. Symonds, I don't want to put you on the spot, but I saw you nodding at times, and we do have a little bit of time before I have to end this panel to go, out of respect, to our second panel.

I would really like it if you could just maybe share some thoughts, because I saw you nodding. I apologize. I don't want to put you in an awkward position, but I would really like to hear from you for a few minutes on some of the perspectives that Dr. Bernard has shared, or on questions that have been asked that you would like to reflect on.

[Samara Symonds]

Overall, I would just say that of the many times when the doctor deferred, they may not have had the best sense of expertise or experience. Maybe they were on the younger side, which I still qualify as.

On the RCMP in particular, I find the comments he made on the experience of those groups to be factual, particularly with regard to the fact that some RCMP members have a lot of trauma from the organization specifically. This might be through the discharge process or other bureaucratic or managerial things they experienced, either beside or congruent to their trauma in service.

There are definitely some who really don't want anything to do with that specific population. It's important to consider that while peer support has worked well for me as a spouse, it doesn't necessarily translate to every veteran. It's often very informal, and while that's good, because it can show up in the way veterans want it to, there has to be a way to promote and support that as well, so that those communities exist.

Flexibility is also really important. I think that's part of what the doctor is trying to get at when he says we have to hear people individually and then promote that self-determination for them to request what they need.

I really appreciated the equine therapy talk. I've heard that it's very positive for veterans as well. This is the type of thing that veterans often find and that those of us who are skilled in bureaucratic things will seek out, but we have to provide research and a rationale and we have to get a doctor, a psychologist, an occupational therapist and every possible professional imaginable to verify what we're asking for. In contrast, if I come in with prescriptions for numerous medications, those will be covered without hesitation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marie-France Lalonde]

Thank you very much for your contribution.

I want to say again, on behalf of this committee, thank you for your service. We wish you all the very best with the little one at home. I know it is a difficult time right now. Thank you for that courage.

Mr. Bernard, thank you very much for participating in our study.

I will suspend for a few minutes, and then we'll go to our next witnesses.

The meeting is suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marie-France Lalonde]

Before we introduce our second group of witnesses, for people who are watching, I would like to provide a trigger warning. We will be discussing experiences related to suicide and grief. This may be triggering to viewers with similar experiences.

For all witnesses and members of Parliament, it is important to recognize that these are difficult discussions. Also, for our witnesses, if you do not feel comfortable at any point, please let us know. We can pause our committee for you.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of our new witnesses. Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. To activate and turn off your microphone, press the large button on the console. If you would like to use interpretation, you can use the earpiece. There are buttons on the console that will allow you to select the language and modify the volume.

With that, I would like to welcome our second panel of witnesses.

As an individual, we have Mr. Shane Nedohin. He is described as “farmer”; I would say “person”. Thank you for being here, sir.

From the Canadian Institute for Military and Veteran Health Research, we have Dr. Nicholas Held, interim scientific director.

We will start by giving you each five minutes to present your opening remarks. After that, we will proceed to a series of questions with the members of the committee.

Mr. Nedohin, the floor is yours for five minutes.

[Shane Nedohin, Farmer, As an Individual]

Good morning, Madam Chair, committee members and fellow veterans.

I have a lot of notes written here. I realize it is way too much for the five minutes, so I'm going to try to just hit wave-tops and talk fast.

My name is Shane Nedohin. I'm a retired JTF 2 assaulter, and I have served this country on multiple combat deployments in Afghanistan, three tours in Iraq, and a bunch of international and domestic deployments other than those. I was in for just shy of 22 years, and I retired in January 2024. I was released, primarily, for PTSI and TBI, as well as a whole slew of musculoskeletal injuries.

Last year, I actually went to Parliament. I went public about a letter that VAC sent me. VAC sent me a letter ignoring the science and denying that explosions cause TBIs. The same letter was sent to many of my friends. The day I got that letter, I began to plan my own death.

Although I had been experiencing thoughts of suicide, it was VAC and its ignorance that pushed me to the planning phase. I was brought back from that edge because of my amazing family—my wife and my two beautiful daughters, who are with me here today—and also because of the Concussion Legacy Foundation, which put the full weight of its organization behind this and helped me fight back against Veterans Affairs when I had lost all hope.

The ADM of VAC later said that the letter was a mistake, that it should have never happened. I'm not sure that I believe that. It was sent to too many veterans, in my opinion, to be a mistake. There are a lot of reasons that I'll chalk it up to, but I don't have time to get into them.

The problem has since been rectified, but there are a lot that continue to persist, which is why we're here today. A lot of the issues that I'd like to bring up, like the bureaucracy of the pay coming through three different sources, the multiple organizations that vets need to deal with, and Manulife harassing vets and weaponizing pay and benefits to its advantage, etc., have already been touched on by other witnesses. However, I'd like to start by talking about PCVRS, as I believe this is a case of a well-intentioned program that does more harm than good, based on my experience and that of my fellow veterans I have spoken with.

PCVRS is a program more akin to parole than a support system, in my opinion. PCVRS holds veterans hostage by threatening to take away pay and benefits if you refuse to comply with their program. It refuses to let veterans use any care provider but a Lifemark facility—more on that in a bit.

In my opinion, PCVRS is a mostly redundant program that duplicates many benefits already available to members with Blue Cross B-line coverage and, in many cases, A-line coverage. It creates a system, through its current contract, that basically justifies itself, in my opinion, like a giant self-licking ice cream cone. The contract that was signed with Lifemark and Loblaws went against advice given by case managers, veterans, public servants and many others. Since the contract was signed, Loblaws and Lifemark stocks have soared. I challenge the MPs of this House to look into the relations and dealings that led to this contract being signed; it was rammed through, despite opposition to it. Given the fact that this government already has a track record of scandals, with SNC-Lavalin and the green slush fund, I think it's a worthy investigation. Anyway, that's an aside.

With respect to the contracting of PCVRS, it forces veterans to use Lifemark—and only Lifemark—facilities, even if they don't exist in the veterans' communities. I was forced to do my occupational therapy physio assessment virtually by standing in front of my laptop, raising my arms and moving around while the guy on the other end tried to see my range of motion through a grainy video. This was despite the fact that I am currently seeing a physiotherapist through my Blue Cross benefits, and I had literally done a proper assessment the week prior. They wouldn't take that, because it was unacceptable to have an assessment that was done through a non-Lifemark facility.

I brought up these points with the ADM and the head of PCVRS, Danica Arseneault. I questioned the ADM as to why I am forced to use Lifemark. I asked if it was for adherence to a contract, and he said that, yes, it was a contractual obligation, that I had to use Lifemark. I asked if that was so even though Lifemark couldn't provide services in my area. There's one in Grande Prairie, which—it's a long story—I can't use, and they won't allow me to use any other provider. This, in my opinion, is just one of the examples of things that are leading to difficulties for veterans.

I think that's my time, in about five seconds, so I'll just leave it there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marie-France Lalonde]

Mr. Nedohin, thank you very much, and thank you for your service, sir.

Dr. Held, you have five minutes.

[Dr. Nicholas Held, Interim Scientific Director, Canadian Institute for Military and Veteran Health Research]

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and honourable members of the committee. It is an honour to be here speaking with you today.

My name is Dr. Nicholas Held. I serve as the interim scientific director of the Canadian Institute for Military and Veteran Health Research, otherwise known as CIMVHR.

CIMVHR exists to enhance the lives of Canadian military personnel, veterans and their families by harnessing the national capacity for research and mobilizing this evidence into care, policy and practice. We were established by Veterans Affairs Canada as an arm's-length, expert knowledge mobilization centre that facilitates research to address the unique demands of military and veteran health.

Since 2010, CIMVHR has built a network of 50 Canadian universities and colleges, in addition to global partners, which have agreed to work together to address the health research requirements of the military, veterans and families.

For the sake of time, I will just highlight a couple of things but will try to skip through some of this.

We lead competitive calls for research and conduct independent peer review. We also have a large scientific conference known as the CIMVHR forum. It was in Ottawa a couple of weeks ago. We had about 800 people come in from Canada and all across the world. I want to highlight that suicide risk and support continues to be an area of work at these conferences. This year, there were eight dedicated presentations and a suicide theme to understand the impact on military and veteran health.

We also founded the Journal of Military, Veteran and Family Health, which is a peer-reviewed academic journal. It's through these avenues that we connect the research, care and policy systems so that evidence moves into clinical practice, policy and community practice. The journal itself has published a body of work related to suicide risk and prevention across serving members, veterans and families.

A search of the journal will yield over 160 items that mention suicide. A quick summary of those, since I don't think anyone has probably read all 160, is that key areas of focus might be the military-to-civilian transition, complex comorbidities of other health-related challenges, the impact and support of families, improving the cultural competency of our health care providers and improving data linkages to larger datasets that we need available in this country. There needs to be continued investment into this population data so that we can understand the health needs and outcomes of service members throughout their service, across various conflict cohorts and in the years of life after service.

Suicide among veterans continues to be a persistent challenge that deserves considerable attention. It has been reported that male veterans are 1.4 times more likely to die by suicide compared to civilian men, and female veterans are 1.9 times more likely to die by suicide compared to civilian females. Further research suggests that when that occurrence of suicide might happen is at a different time point. Male veterans die by suicide, roughly—on average—three years after transitioning from service, while females, on average, die by suicide 20 years after service. This is one example of a critical point.

These differences point to two important areas of understanding. First, exploring veteran suicide as an entire group is not enough, as we need to understand that diverse experiences in service can relate to ideation, attempts and death by suicide. Second, there needs to be a continued investment in suicide prevention that does not consider suicide as a single point in time but as a long-term approach to understanding and managing risk.

The literature pinpoints many different factors that increase the risk of suicide, such as traumatic brain injury, chronic pain and depression, to name a few, but it's critical that we consider suicide from a whole health and whole life course perspective.

In 2018, CIMVHR co-led a round table with Veterans Affairs Canada and the Canadian Armed Forces to engage a whole-of-community approach to suicide prevention. A lot of this was based on Dr. Jitender Sareen's work and funded by CIMVHR. Recommendations that came from this round table—and again, this was 2018—were that we need to provide education, training and information for practitioners; improve support for transition across the life course; provide support for identity challenges across transition; promote whole-of-community communication, collaboration and knowledge sharing; explore policy considerations for suicide prevention; evolve whole-of-community approaches to care for the suicidal person; and reduce barriers to services. At that time, seven years ago, it was highlighted that we need more information in several areas. That includes people who need the care, the role of families, understanding gender differences, developing methods for improving the listening skills of our health care providers and finding ways to effectively turn research into action.

More recently, we co-lead the Five Eyes mental health research and innovation collaboration with Phoenix Australia, aligning research priorities and bringing policy-facing synthesis to ministers across Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the U.K. and the United States. In 2024, the collaboration published a concise Five Eyes view on suicide in military and veteran populations. The report highlighted that, while numerous risks have been identified, it remains challenging to determine who will attempt suicide. After decades of investigation, understanding of the causes, prediction and prevention of suicide among military personnel and veterans are still limited. The report highlighted risk factors. They include the presence of mental and physical health problems, cumulative trauma exposure and medical or involuntary discharge from the military.

The report did highlight recommended next steps during service, which might include early identification of mental health problems and suicidality, starting from enlistment with interventions throughout the career and life cycle; easy access to evidence-based personalized care; reducing stigma and other barriers to help-seeking; and education for the individuals, peers, families and communities.

Following service, similar prevention strategies have been recommended, including providing support during and after the transition from military to civilian life; considering the specific circumstances and environments that veterans are transitioning into; and strengthening our support system for families, equipping them with knowledge and skills to aid in this transition.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marie-France Lalonde]

Thank you very much, Dr. Held.

I'm sure there will be lots of questions regarding the testimony we just heard.

For six minutes, we have Mr. Richards.

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

Thanks.

Shane, I want to ask you a little about the Lifemark stuff, but let me ask you about a couple of other things first.

Can I ask you to describe...? Those of you who've had to go and fight for our country then come back and have to fight with the government in order to get the help and support that you need. What does that do to a veteran? Speak from your own experience or that of your friends.

[Shane Nedohin]

It's just frustrating, because you think they're supposed to be on your.... Honestly, I think it's well intentioned. I understand that bureaucracy is required to run the government—it's necessary—but I think we put up lots of barriers, and we've seen a lot of institutional abandonment. It degrades our trust, our belief.

To back up, why does a person join the military? They want to fight for their country. I believed in Canada. Then you come back, and it erodes what you believed in. Every time a vet has an incident with VAC, like my incident, for example, it slowly erodes trust in the system. Then it breaks down that belief in your country and what you fought for. It makes you lose hope in your country.

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

It saddens me to hear that. I understand it, from your perspective and from many veterans' perspectives, but it shouldn't be that way.

You mentioned the experience you had, which led you to have some thoughts about ending it all. I'm sure you have friends who, unfortunately, weren't able to battle through it like you were, and did do that. Every veteran we meet seems to have friends who have done that.

Do you think those losses, at least in many cases, were preventable, if our government didn't treat our veterans the way they do?

[Shane Nedohin]

Yes and no. Suicide could be caused by any number of things. Yes, maybe some are preventable; some are maybe inevitable. I don't know the answer to that question.

I can tell you that contributing factors that have been brought up during this committee certainly have pushed many vets to the edge. Well, if you have a vet who is already on the edge, who then gets a kick in the teeth from VAC, it further provides him, in his own mind, with the evidence he's searching for to end it all—yes, nobody cares, nobody wants to look out for the vet, so whatever.

Again, well-intentioned programs sometimes do the opposite of what they're trying to achieve, in my opinion.