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.