Evidence of meeting #22 for Veterans Affairs in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was program.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

Members speaking

Before the committee

Bernard  Psychologist, Institut Alpha, As an Individual
Carter  Executive Director, Edgewood Health Network Inc.
Laidler  Executive Director, Veterans Transition Centre

11 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Marie-France Lalonde

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 22 of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.

Pursuant to the motion adopted on November 25, 2025, the committee is meeting as part of its study on monitoring of the rehabilitation services contract awarded to Partners in Canadian Veterans Rehabilitation Services, or PCVRS.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person in the room, and I know that three of our witnesses will be appearing by video conference.

Before we continue, I would ask all in-person participants to consult the guidelines written on the cards on the table. These measures are in place to help prevent audio and feedback incidents, and to protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters, whom I thank.

To ensure the meeting runs smoothly, I would like to give some instructions to the witnesses and members.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking.

For those on Zoom, at the bottom of your screen you have the choice of selecting the appropriate channel for interpretation: French, English or floor.

Finally, I have a reminder that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can. We thank participants for your patience and understanding in this regard.

I would now like to welcome our witnesses.

We are welcoming, by video conference, Marc‑André Bernard, psychologist from Institut alpha, as an individual.

We also have, from Edgewood Health Network Inc., Mr. Shawn Carter, executive director, by video conference; and from the Veterans Transition Network, Mr. Tim Laidler, executive director, by video conference.

For our witnesses, I am the clock keeper. We will provide you with five minutes for your opening remarks. If I see that you are running out of time, I may have to interrupt you. As we start the rounds of questions, I will do the same. I am apologizing in advance if I have to interrupt your comments if the time has passed.

I'd like to apologize in advance to the three witnesses in case I have to interrupt them because their time is up.

We will start the presentations with you, Mr. Bernard. You have the floor for five minutes.

Marc-André Bernard Psychologist, Institut Alpha, As an Individual

Thank you to the committee for inviting me back to speak on this issue, which is of great concern to me.

I have been helping military personnel transition out of the forces for almost 12 years. I have seen probably a hundred men and women make this sometimes difficult transition, which presents many challenges and can exacerbate their difficulties. I consider myself to be in a privileged position, as I am the only professional involved in their cases who can follow them through rehabilitation, and then into civilian life through the Department of National Defence.

As you are no doubt aware, for the past three years, the PCVRS, or rehabilitation services and vocational assistance program, has been responsible for rehabilitation. There have been significant changes in the way things are done, and I don't believe they're for the better, neither for the health nor the well-being of veterans.

I could give you numerous examples of questionable program operations that push bureaucracy to the point of absurdity, but I would summarize by saying that the program seems to exist for the sake of it, piling on administrative requirements that make the process extremely cumbersome and painful for veterans, and irritating and suffocating for professionals. It does nothing to promote continuity of care, starting from the apparent premise that veterans want to abuse the system and that professionals are incapable of being objective or ethical. The repetition of improvement measures is also counterproductive, intrusive and invasive.

By comparison, despite the fact that the pre–2023 system may have lacked oversight for some veterans, rehabilitation worked better and was less aversive. One of your witnesses, during the suicide reflection days, compared the process to parole. I think that's a perfect image. Veterans must constantly prove their injuries, justify their limitations and document their efforts, or else they are penalized.

I have never talked so much about the rehabilitation process in my therapy sessions as I do now, with veterans who are distressed, irritated, or frustrated with the program. This is not normal.

Just recently, a veteran I've been seeing for three years, who left the forces last October, chose not to go through rehabilitation for fear of exploding with anger at the demands of the rehabilitation services and vocational assistance program, the PCVRS. As a result, he currently has no services for his physical injuries and is being penalized on his income. I find this terrible. Is it the goal of the program to have veterans give up on rehabilitation?

Veterans are people from a Canadian subculture, that of the military. They have made an immense personal sacrifice for the country, regardless of what one thinks of the military or its commitments, and for some of them, this sacrifice has led to a permanent loss of health. The agreement with them, when they enlisted as recruits, was that we would take care of them at the end of their service, and making post-service care a bureaucratic and punitive maze is an insult to what they were promised.

They can sometimes be difficult to help, it's true. They may struggle with self-determination, which can lead to passivity or immobility. And they sometimes carry very significant psychological and physical wounds. Their rehabilitation therefore remains a challenge. Faced with this inertia and suffering, it can be tempting to impose a very rigid and strict framework, providing a lot of structure and flooding them with services. This is the approach that Lifemark and the PCVRS seem to have taken, and in my opinion, it is a mistake. Veterans are leaving a very demanding service. They need space, time, a relationship of trust, and above all, continuity.

I would recommend that continuity of care be reviewed and considered as the cornerstone of treatment, that assessments made within the forces or during the period of service be taken into account, and that veterans not be systematically re-evaluated by four different bodies—National Defence, Veterans Affairs, the PCVRS, and Manulife—not to mention assessments by professionals. Having to repeat your story ad nauseam without any real clinical justification can cause shame, humiliation and anger. I recommend that continuity of care also be applied to therapy, where veterans are currently advised to change psychologists when one is already assigned to their file.

I would like to see the non-personalized aspect of the program reviewed, as it doesn't protect the most vulnerable and suffering veterans from the forced and humiliating stages of reassessment and justification.

The program is also very aversive and discouraging for professionals, who are relegated to technical tasks and given no room for maneuver. A lot of time and energy is spent on compliance with forms and reports, and very little on clinical needs. All of my colleagues who worked with military personnel in rehabilitation have stopped collaborating with the PCVRS.

In closing, I would say that helping people is first and foremost about caring about them and wanting to understand and love them. Do Lifemark and the PCVRS really care about veterans? The current program clearly answers “no” to that question.

The Chair Liberal Marie-France Lalonde

Thank you very much, Dr. Bernard. We are always happy to welcome you here at our committee.

I will now pass the floor to Mr. Shawn Carter, executive director of the Edgewood Health Network.

You have the floor for five minutes, sir.

Shawn Carter Executive Director, Edgewood Health Network Inc.

Madam Chair and honourable members, thank you so much for allowing me to speak with you today.

My testimony is going to focus on providing a bit of context as to how veterans are treated in the environment that I support.

Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

Unfortunately, the poor sound quality doesn't allow the interpreters to adequately do their work.

The Chair Liberal Marie-France Lalonde

I will ask our witness, Mr. Carter, to say a few words about the weather, just to see if we can find a better network connectivity so we can interpret his comments here in Ottawa.

11:05 a.m.

Executive Director, Edgewood Health Network Inc.

Shawn Carter

I'd like the weather to be spring. I am tired of the snow. Today it's quite sunny, so it was a nice drive into the office. We'll be getting some poor weather over the week, at least here in Ontario.

Is that better?

The Chair Liberal Marie-France Lalonde

Yes, I have the thumbs-up. I know we did the test earlier, so I apologize. I will ask you to start from the beginning.

11:05 a.m.

Executive Director, Edgewood Health Network Inc.

Shawn Carter

Thank you again for the opportunity to speak with you today.

My name is Shawn Carter. I'm the executive director of EHN Canada and the head of one of our EHN Guardians treatment centres, which exclusively serve members of the Canadian Armed Forces, veterans and first responders. I also serve as national director of our treatment programs across the EHN Guardians network to ensure the standardization and delivery of clinical excellence in these important segments.

I'm here today on behalf of our organization and, more importantly, on behalf of the veterans we are privileged to serve through the PCVRS program.

EHN Canada is a national provider of in-patient and outpatient mental health, addiction and trauma treatment, with specialized programs delivered across the country in both English and French. Within EHN, our EHN Guardians programs are intentionally designed to provide culturally competent, trauma-informed care specifically for military members, veterans and first responders.

I hope this testimony provides a bit more information about how that's done and how that's done well. These are not modified civilian programs. They're purpose-built environments shaped by an understanding of service culture, operational trauma, moral injury and the realities of life after service.

One of the most important lessons we've learned as an organization is that how care is delivered is just as important as what care is delivered. Many veterans arrive in treatment, at least from our perspective, with prior experience in things like institutional harm or perceived institutional betrayal. When systems that are meant to protect or support instead feel unpredictable, opaque or dismissive, that experience can mirror earlier trauma and significantly undermine trust and engagement in care. This is sometimes referred to as sanctuary trauma. Preventing it requires organizational commitment, and not just at the individual clinical level or technician level.

At EHN Guardians, trauma-informed principles are embedded at a systemic level from intake to treatment to discharge and beyond. This includes predictable expectations of the care process, clear communication, transparency about decisions and respect for autonomy and veterans' voices. Veterans are actively involved in their care planning, and feedback mechanisms are built into programs so that concerns can be raised safely, without fear of negative consequences.

Consistency and transparency are particularly critical with the veterans we serve. Veterans are understandably sensitive to sudden changes in rules, staffing assignments or treatment plans. When change is unavoidable, we prioritize clear explanations and dialogue. When mistakes occur, as they inevitably will in any system, we focus on and acknowledge the impact. We take responsibility and make meaningful corrections.

Equally important is how we support our staff. Sanctuary trauma is far more likely to occur in environments where staff are burned out or unsupported by the system. We invest in the recruitment of culturally competent clinicians and in ongoing training in trauma- and veteran-informed care, and have reflective supervision structures that allow staff to manage the ethical and emotional weight of this work. We really do believe that healthy systems create safer care.

Our partnership with PCVRS reflects these same values from our perspective. We do not see ourselves as owning a veteran's journey. Instead, we see our role as one part of a broader continuum of care. Marc-André spoke to this being really important. We see this happening in collaboration with Veterans Affairs Canada, community providers and families.

That collaboration is operationalized through structured touchpoints within treatments, including introductory calls, medical assessments, midpoint progress reports, discharge planning conferences and discharge summaries. These processes help ensure continuity, accountability and a shared understanding.

We also believe strongly in continuous improvement. When something isn't working as well as it should, we course-correct. One example is the recent collaboration that was initiated with PCVRS to strengthen step-down and transition supports, recognizing that a particularly vulnerable time for many veterans is when people are discharging out of intensive treatment. Another is the enhancement of our EHN Guardians family program, developed in response to the clear need to better support families, who are often carrying a significant and unseen burden alongside their loved one.

From a service delivery perspective, the veterans we support through PCVRS present with complex and overlapping needs. A significant proportion experience concurrent trauma and addiction, requiring integration and specialized care. Others require targeted trauma therapy and processing, addiction-focused treatment or structured outpatient interventions. The PCVRS program and the care we deliver are important in meeting these diverse needs across in-patient and outpatient settings.

In closing, I want to emphasize this: Veterans do not need perfection from the systems that serve them, but they do need consistency, transparency, respect and genuine partnership. Programs like PCVRS, when paired with providers that are committed to trauma-informed, culturally competent and accountable care, play a vital role in restoring trust and supporting recovery. We are grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this work, and we remain committed to learning, adapting and constantly evolving to better serve our Canadian veteran population.

Thank you for your time and for your continued attention to the mental health and well-being of Canada's veterans and their families.

The Chair Liberal Marie-France Lalonde

Thank you very much, Mr. Carter.

Our last presenter, from the Veterans Transition Network, is Mr. Tim Laidler, executive director, by video conference.

Tim Laidler Executive Director, Veterans Transition Centre

Hello, everyone. Thanks for having me.

I have a small correction. I'm actually with the veterans transition centre. I was part of the Veterans Transition Network's founding team. Oliver Thorne may have presented, or will be presenting, for the network. He is still a good friend of mine and doing very good work.

Coming here, my perspective is twofold. One is as a veteran. I served in Afghanistan in 2008. I went back to school and got a master's degree in counselling psychology, so I'm now a trained counsellor. I'm working with veterans on their journey back to civilian life and overcoming trauma.

I wanted to give a very veteran take on this. What we're talking about today is a contract that PCVRS received. I have the numbers: It's $600 million that the Canadian government has given to PCVRS. From the veterans I've worked with and from my own experience.... We had one case manager at Veterans Affairs before this contract, and that was somebody you could go to to help you access your benefits. When you were applying for things, they helped you navigate the system. We now have two case managers. One is from Veterans Affairs and one is from PCVRS.

If that's not enough bureaucracy, because of privacy concerns, we're told that we're not allowed to be emailed by either of these groups, so we have to get a separate log-in for email communication with Veterans Affairs through the My VAC account. There is one password and email you have to remember and check frequently. You then get a second one from PCVRS, so you have a separate log-in and email there. Now you have two emails you have to remember passwords for and regularly check to make sure you're not missing any important information.

I want to try to highlight for the committee the experience of a veteran and the stress of going through this new program with PCVRS. When you are going through the program, you are told that participation is mandatory. It's not a voluntary program, you're told. It's mandatory if you want to receive your income replacement benefit.

Put yourself in the shoes of a veteran. Maybe you've had a response to some traumatic event. You've found your coping mechanisms, you're out of the military and you're looking for a new career. You are now thinking, “Okay, I'm getting government support through this income replacement benefit, but I'm also being told that I have to go to counselling a certain number of times and have to go to physiotherapy. What if there's a snowstorm and I can't make it to my session? If I miss this physiotherapy [Technical difficulty—Editor]”—

The Chair Liberal Marie-France Lalonde

Mr. Laidler, I'll have to interrupt you, as we're having some connection issues this morning.

I apologize to our interpreters.

Maybe go back to a few of the sentences you had shared with us.

11:15 a.m.

Executive Director, Veterans Transition Centre

Tim Laidler

I would like to highlight for the committee the experience of the veterans going through this new PCVRS program and the stress of potentially losing their income replacement benefits. These are the monthly benefits you receive while taking part in the vocational rehabilitation program that's now administered by PCVRS.

There is also the fear of missing an email from your VAC case manager. You're checking one email. You're missing the email from your PCVRS case manager. There was a snowstorm in Edmonton the other week, and a bunch of clients had to miss physio appointments. They were all worried that they were going to lose their monthly payments because they're being told by PCVRS case managers that participation is mandatory, that it's not voluntary. It's really hammered into the veterans: You have to go to all of your treatment programs or you're going to lose your benefits.

I'll also take a step back and talk a bit about trauma and PTSD. I've done a master's in counselling psychology at the University of British Columbia under Dr. Marv Westwood, who has done decades of work with veteran trauma.

The way PTSD is approved for benefits is that it has to have some sort of negative impact on your daily life. A veteran who has gone through a high-stress career, has good support mechanisms, is maybe having nightmares, is having hypervigilance, is avoiding things that remind them of military exposure to trauma.... These things can all exist, but if they're coping, if they have a job and if things are not getting in the way of their daily life on paper, they're not entitled to benefits and support.

As counsellors, we're trying to work in those supports and get people to overcome their traumas. That's part of the goal of trauma therapy. However, with the Veterans Affairs program, if you get healthy in the PCVRS journey and go back to your case manager and say, “Oh my gosh, I think I'm doing really well. I'm feeling really good. I had some great counselling sessions. I'm feeling confident again. Things are starting to look up”, they will say, “Fantastic. You're now employable, and you're also kicked off the program.” There's a negative incentive for veterans to worry about reporting being healthy for fear they're going to lose their monthly benefits.

There are lots of solutions we could put forward here. We're counselling veterans and trying to get them to feel positive about the future. We're trying to get them into career training. They're always concerned about their financial health and stability, because there's no clear, certain point you hit to go off your benefits. It is always this unknown area and this fear that triggers PTSD, and it keeps veterans suppressed. It's not a good system. We need to change it.

The last and most important piece I want to focus on is in terms of the retraining itself. There's a policy that PCVRS has—and I don't know if it's coming from Veterans Affairs—that is potentially the most detrimental policy we have in the system, wherein you're only allowed to be retrained back to the salary you had when you released from the military.

The Chair Liberal Marie-France Lalonde

Mr. Laidler, you were cut off from our connection. I have to apologize, but you're taking a bit of extra time. I had allowed about 30 seconds. I will have to interrupt you. I'm sure that some of our colleagues will come back to you during questioning.

I hope we're able to get a proper connection with Mr. Laidler.

Thank you very much, sir, and thank you for your service.

During this round...the three of you are here by video conference.

It's important to respect the speaking time.

For our first round, each member will have six minutes. I will interrupt if you exceed that. I want to be very candid this morning and say that we'll be very respectful of our time.

Mr. Tolmie, you have six minutes.

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

Fraser Tolmie Conservative Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK

Thank you, witnesses, for your testimony. It was very enlightening, and it was very disappointing to hear some of the things you brought forward.

I'd like to start off with you, Mr. Carter.

Mr. Carter, PCVRS claims that veterans have access to a broader network, but VAC's April 2023 bulletin says that new referrals will not go out to PCVRS providers. In some areas, there's only one PCVRS clinic.

How does limiting veterans' choice to essentially one provider improve access, in your opinion?

11:20 a.m.

Executive Director, Edgewood Health Network Inc.

Shawn Carter

That's a great question. Thank you.

I'm speaking from our perspective as the provider. We have access to services across the country with a lot of different in-patient treatment centres and outpatient treatment. When people are referred to our organization, we are able to direct them to the place that makes the most sense. Sometimes it makes the most sense that it's geographical, and sometimes, perhaps, a veteran doesn't want to be treated in the community they live in. Providing that flexibility is really important.

I understand your point in terms of when someone has limited options, but from our perspective, we are able to offer flexibility. I absolutely acknowledge that in some cases, this wouldn't be the case and it would leave the veteran with not many choices or no choice over where they receive the care they're looking to receive.

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

Fraser Tolmie Conservative Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK

Thank you.

Mr. Laidler, in your testimony, you mentioned the $600-million contract. From the people who have reached out to me and my office, we're hearing they have to continually go in and are having numerous appointments. This has been brought up in each testimony.

Do you think the contract with PCVRS is trying to validate their contract with the government by showing the number of appointments, as opposed to the proper care that should be provided to veterans?

11:20 a.m.

Executive Director, Veterans Transition Centre

Tim Laidler

Yes, I do, absolutely.

The number of assessments that veterans are put through is astronomical. The vocational rehabilitation assessment is three hours. The psychological assessment can be another three-hour assessment, including a questionnaire that has over 300 questions about trauma. It's 300 questions online with a therapist, going through them one by one. It is so excessive.

I have a background in mental health. No counsellor would ever put their patient or their client through this sort of assessment, and there's no follow-up right afterward from the therapist. There's no lining up to make sure the veteran is not retraumatized. Quite often they're done on Zoom, and the veteran is sent right back into their family unit after being activated.

I don't know the motivation, but it seems highly suspicious that there are so many assessments being done. I'm very curious about how much money is being spent on a veteran just to assess them. I would compare how much is actually going toward treatment with what's going toward all of these assessments.

Fraser Tolmie Conservative Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK

That's actually what I was looking for in your answer, so I appreciate that.

You mentioned consistency. I think that's important, but I also think competency is important. There seems to be a lack of competency in any care that's being provided to veterans who are struggling. I heard that in Mr. Bernard's testimony.

Mr. Bernard, you touched on institutional harm, and then Mr. Carter touched on it. We've been dealing with sanctuary trauma in Veterans Affairs testimonies for the four and a half years that I've been here. Now we're not only putting veterans through sanctuary trauma through VAC; we're actually contracting it out through PCVRS. I'd like to hear more of your thoughts on that.

11:25 a.m.

Psychologist, Institut Alpha, As an Individual

Marc-André Bernard

Are you talking to me?

11:25 a.m.

Conservative

Fraser Tolmie Conservative Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK

Yes. That sounds like a movie line: “Are you talking to me?”

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

11:25 a.m.

Psychologist, Institut Alpha, As an Individual

Marc-André Bernard

I agree that with the way things are being handled now, we are sometimes doing way more harm to veterans than we are helping them. I have a few recent examples of people who deteriorated during the program because of the incessant assessments by new people they didn't know. It touched on the absurd.

People have been known for years that they could have avoided a lot of steps. They were forced to be assessed by someone new who assessed something completely different from what I would have assessed, and the PCVRS has had to hire me again to assess them a second time because they could not go through the system with the recommendations of the new psychologist.

I feel it is borderline absurd to put people through this. I absolutely agree with everything Mr. Laidler said. I think those assessments have an administrative goal to them, certainly not a clinical one.

11:25 a.m.

Conservative

Fraser Tolmie Conservative Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK

With just a short answer, would you agree that the PCVRS contract is just to get points rather than to provide care?

11:25 a.m.

Psychologist, Institut Alpha, As an Individual

Marc-André Bernard

It does appear so.