Veterans Affairs Committee on Feb. 23rd, 2026

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marie-France Lalonde]

Thank you very much.

Now, for six minutes, we'll go to Monsieur d'Entremont.

[Chris d'Entremont, Liberal, Acadie—Annapolis, NS]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

First of all, I just want to say it would have been great to have PCVRS here so we could have received some data from them prior to opening up the discussion, because now we're doing this a little backwards.

The presentations we're having right now are very good. They give us an idea of how the veterans accessing the program are experiencing it. It's important for us to understand how the 12,000 individuals accessing the program are actually seeing it.

Mr. Bernard, can you give us more details about the bureaucratic burden in the system and tell us how often you have had to conduct assessments and manage waiting lists?

[Marc-André Bernard]

Every eight sessions, I have to fill out a form on the patient's progress. It's a form created by PCVRS, and it has nothing to do with the kind of progress report I would normally write.

The form is often sent back to me several times for terminology and compliance issues. I end up spending an enormous amount of time on these forms, which serve no purpose. I also systematically refuse to have my patients fill out progress questionnaires, even though PCVRS requires them to, because Veterans Affairs Canada already has PCVRS get veterans to fill out questionnaires every time they speak with them.

I can give you an example. I know someone who works with veterans and is very concerned about suicide risk among them. Every time he sees them, he asks the same questions about suicidality, substance use and fear of violence.

After being asked the same questions, what do you think veterans are going to do? They're going to end up lying because they won't want to answer that kind of questionnaire again. Constantly reassessing a veteran's progress by making them fill out questionnaires that make no sense is going to end up giving PCVRS false positives, because veterans don't want their benefits reduced and they're tired of answering the same questions.

I think it's this form of bureaucracy that complicates everything and doesn't give a true picture of what veterans are experiencing.

[Chris d'Entremont, Liberal, Acadie—Annapolis, NS]

Do you find that PCVRS provides bilingual or francophone veterans in Quebec or other regions of Canada with the French-language services they need?

[Marc-André Bernard]

No, because they absolutely want the services to be given by approved providers of their program. To be a provider, you have to jump through all kinds of administrative hoops.

A veteran I know—I was seeing him at the Department of National Defence—wanted to receive in-person follow-up in Quebec City. PCVRS refused, but they were never able to find him a service provider.

In the end, the veteran was sent back to me; I have to see him remotely, because they aren't able to find anyone to see him in person.

[Chris d'Entremont, Liberal, Acadie—Annapolis, NS]

Thank you for that.

I want to go quickly to Mr. Laidler. He was talking about the issue of being retrained only to the level they were paid in service.

I want to give you 30 seconds or more to flesh that one out before we move on.

[Tim Laidler]

Thank you. I appreciate it.

It's a problem, and it's a major difference between the U.S. and Canadian programs. In the U.S., they see their military as a tool of social mobility. They encourage people to join the military, and there are robust education and training programs available to them through the GI Bill after service.

In Canada, if you're injured, they will pay for you to get retrained, but only back to the salary level at which you left the military. Let's say you have some PTSD symptoms, you overcome them and you pay to do your own schooling. If five or 10 years after your release you have some issues, lose your job and go back to the government for support, PCVRS will not pay for you to be trained, because they'll say you're already employable to a level beyond what you were making in the military.

This is that moral betrayal. You think, “The government is going to be there to help me, and Veterans Affairs is there to help me”, but there is no help, because you've managed to cope on your own and get your own training.

[Chris d'Entremont, Liberal, Acadie—Annapolis, NS]

In your presentation, you talked about the bureaucratic issues of having to have two systems when you're signing on to VAC and PCVRS. You have to have two sign-ups.

This leads me to a bigger question. We seem to lump all veterans into just being veterans, but there are veterans in rural Canada versus veterans in urban Canada, and veterans in the east versus veterans in the west. They all have different requirements and treatment programs.

I'm wondering if you can talk about those two issues.

[Tim Laidler]

As has been said, these assessments, especially, are very long. Not everybody has a room in their home they can go to. Not everybody knows how to use Zoom and video conferencing. These are all administrative issues that add stress and aren't necessary.

Phone calls with clients could be easier, but when they're so long, it is punitive to people living outside major urban centres, who maybe don't have the same Internet speeds or the same connections. They're all being forced to relentlessly check these email systems and log in. Heaven forbid you forget your email password and you have to go through IT.

Especially for veterans who are in their senior years and are losing their jobs in their sixties because of service-related injuries, it's very difficult to manage this system.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marie-France Lalonde]

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Mr. d'Entremont.

We're now going to turn it over to Ms. Gaudreau.

For those on video conference who are anglophones, Madame Gaudreau will be addressing you in French, so make sure your little button has the right option.

Ms. Gaudreau, you have the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Again, not only am I learning a lot, but I'm also hearing a lot about this, because veterans talk to me. I hear the word “absurdity”. I hear that people are afraid of losing their income replacement benefits. I hear that they have to redo everything they've already done once every time, which is unnecessary.

Honestly, I'm starting to wonder why we're here.

First, we have to raise the problem.

Then, we have to act.

I'm very disappointed. I'm not pessimistic, but I think there's a heartfelt cry here. Can we, once and for all, focus on veterans, and use statistics and data to make a serious change for the sake of our veterans? I truly hope we're going to take action.

To the veterans listening, I want to say that the committee doesn't disagree that changes need to be made. Unfortunately, your presence is required for that, and I thank you for it.

I'll start with a question for Dr. Bernard.

I was talking about the fear of losing income replacement benefits. Is that apparent in your hundreds of meetings with veterans?

[Marc-André Bernard]

Absolutely.

This has become one of the most obvious issues in recent years since Partners in Canadian Veterans Rehabilitation Services, or PCVRS, took over. Not only does this fear exist, but it's also a reality.

I can give you a very concrete recent example.

One veteran found a culinary trades course. He was asked to work full time. It gave him a sense of camaraderie, kept him from using substances and allowed him to reinvest in his family.

However, since it prevented him from meeting with his case manager and going to physiotherapy, PCVRS asked him to choose between his course and rehabilitation. I find that kind of request absurd. In other words, if you don't meet the program's requirements, even if the purpose of the program is to send veterans to a vocational course, they tell them to do something else, which ends up reducing their income.

Veterans are very afraid of this transition. It's not just about mental health; it's about the transition to civilian life. It's very difficult, and it requires a lot of adjustment. It seems as though PCVRS isn't very aware of what this means for veterans in terms of the burden of self-determination.

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

What I'm seeing is that not only is it a matter of willingness…. I'm just looking at Quebec. I worked for people in semi-skilled training. They were never subjected to cuts in the support provided to them.

You could say that there aren't enough people equipped to provide the services. Honestly, if we fixed 80% of the red tape problems, do you think we would have made huge progress? I'd like an answer from each of you in the two and a half minutes I have left.

Please begin, Mr. Bernard.

[Marc-André Bernard]

I think a lot of the suffering caused by the process would certainly be resolved.

As Mr. Carter said, services must be provided by people who know veterans well and are tailored to veterans.

However, I believe that the bureaucratic process makes veterans regress, even those who had reached a much better level of functioning in therapy through defence rather than through the rehabilitation process.

Yes, I think the bureaucracy causes a huge loss of trust and retraumatization because of the system.

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

I'm hearing the word “traumatization”.

I'd like to hear from Mr. Carter.

[Shawn Carter]

I think everything being mentioned is absolutely fair. Again, I'm speaking from this very narrow window in the veteran's journey, when they're the folks who need the highest level of care for the most intense symptoms they may be struggling with.

Some of the feedback that's been shared is about the confusion on their part of who is PCVRS and who is VAC at that point. They're struggling with an immense level of symptomology, whether it's from an addiction standpoint, a trauma standpoint or a depression standpoint—or comorbidly all of those. There's a lot of confusion about what is the role of VAC versus that of PCVRS. Some of the feedback we get as well—

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

Madam Chair, the connection isn't good. I did hear Mr. Carter, but I'd like it checked for the remainder.

Since I have a few seconds left, I would also like to hear Mr. Laidler's response.

[Tim Laidler]

Picking up on what Shawn was saying there, he asked who PCVRS is. I've thought about that before, so I googled it. It's a joint venture—and this maybe goes to the motivation—between Lifemark Health Group, which is owned by Loblaw, and another company, WCG International Consultants, which is owned by an Australian firm. It seems that this Australian firm was just acquired on the stock market in 2024. I don't know. Maybe getting a $600-million contract helped this Australian company with this acquisition or something. I'm not an expert in this sort of field, but Loblaw is a big company.

I think somebody said that PCVRS is going to come present some data after. I'm sure it's going to be a very impressive, very well-researched and well-funded presentation. The three of us here are volunteering our time and putting things together the best we can. I know that other committee members are doing the same.

If you really wanted to compare things, I think some sort of funded review of PCVRS's contract is going to get you better answers than what we're trying to do here today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marie-France Lalonde]

Thank you very much to the three of you.

We'll go on to our second round. We'll probably have about 12 and a half minutes, or maybe a bit more. I'll see.

For five minutes, we have Ms. Wagantall.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Thank you, Chair. I thought you were giving me 12 and a half minutes.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

First of all, Mr. Laidler, I'd like to ask you a couple of questions. On our sheet, it says that your organization is Veterans Emergency Transition Services. Is the word “emergency” in your name?

[Tim Laidler]

No, that's a different organization, VETS Canada. They do work with homeless veterans.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

That's exactly what I thought.

Going back, that particular organization helps veterans in an emergency. It is interesting that when the government put out a $1-million emergency fund for VETS Canada, it was taking two weeks to a month to get this emergency funding out to veterans. They came to the realization that they needed to cut around their own bureaucracy and just simply give it to VETS Canada, which got it out to veterans across the country in a matter of 24 hours.

I look at what's happening here. We're talking about bureaucracy and about the fear created by PCVRS before anything ever gets to those of you who are providing services. I will say that we are doing the right thing by having you here today, first of all. Our veterans, I'm sure, appreciate that as well, because they don't trust the system.

Would it be your analysis that we are basically creating a huge bureaucracy, when you as service providers could write up something about who you are, we could put it in a catalogue and distribute it to our veterans, and they could find someone nearby who does what they need and provides the service in a timely manner? What's your perspective on that, Mr. Laidler?