Evidence of meeting #26 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.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Marie-France Lalonde
We will now invite Madame Gaudreau.
You have two and a half minutes.
Bloc
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
What I heard from the witnesses is that they lack some things to improve services or to properly identify their needs. That's what I took away.
If we don't know these things, we won't be able to do anything. We need to hear about the cases. We're happy when things are going well, but what concerns us is what's not working as well. I heard my colleague ask if the meetings were sufficient. Since you need testimony to make a 180‑degree shift, perhaps, in the end, what's needed is funding or recognition.
Madam Chair, I would like to give notice of the following motion:
That, in light of the testimony heard during the course of this study and the need for the committee to hear additional witnesses, including health professionals, researchers and veterans, regarding the Partners in Canadian Veterans Rehabilitation Services program, the committee add at least three additional two-hour meetings in order to continue its study on Monitoring of the Rehabilitation Services Contract Awarded to PCVRS.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Marie-France Lalonde
Thank you very much, Ms. Gaudreau.
I just want to know something. We had already added a meeting. You're suggesting three more meetings, right?
Bloc
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
I'm proposing at least three meetings. Obviously, we'll proceed based on the responses we receive. I've received too many responses. We're all politicians, and I've received responses from politicians. We need to go a little further to provide what's necessary so that people can knock on the right door. Veterans are suffering, and some are dying.
Bloc
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
I'd like to tell the witnesses that I'm very grateful for their work and for what they are trying to achieve. As for me, I have a duty to speak on behalf of the people who elected me. I know that compassion fatigue can sometimes hit us hard.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Marie-France Lalonde
Thank you very much, Ms. Gaudreau.
We now go to Mrs. Wagantall for five minutes.
Conservative
Cathay Wagantall Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK
Thank you so much, Chair.
Thank you for persevering with us today.
It was commented that we're in the early days of this program. I think that for some of you, it's been a shorter amount of time. This contract is set to expire or be reconsidered in December 2026. In 2021, in the years preceding its start with PCVRS, there were 14,377 participants in the VAC rehabilitation program. As of March 31, 2024, that dropped to 12,554. That's a drop of 1,823 veterans. I'd like to think it's because everything was good.
Can you very briefly tell me why? For the number of individuals who dropped out, did they lose their income replacement benefit?
President, Lifemark Health Group
When the program started—you mentioned 2021—we had a two-year implementation period when we were getting all our processes in. We actually had to build a net new IT system to govern and shape this. There were 10,000 veterans waiting the day we turned the program on. Right now, we're seeing about 300 veterans a month entering the program.
It's natural that we would have had a large number of veterans enter the program at one point. It's now at a steady state. If you think about it, with 300 a month, we should see the numbers come down in roughly 12 to 18 months.
Conservative
Cathay Wagantall Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK
What happened to the 1,823 who were no longer part of the program at that time? Did they opt out? Did they not get their income replacement benefit?
President, Lifemark Health Group
I can hand it over to Mr. Deschamps to explain.
Conservative
Cathay Wagantall Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK
Perhaps you could just briefly clarify it for me.
Vice-President, Veterans Health and PCVRS Contract Manager, Partners in Canadian Veterans Rehabilitation Services
Most likely, rehabilitation potential was identified but no rehabilitation was further required, and the participant would have moved. That's when we would recommend file closure. That's when they would move to another VAC program, like DEC.
Conservative
Cathay Wagantall Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK
It's been two years now since that drop. How many veterans are currently enrolled in the rehabilitation program?
Conservative
Cathay Wagantall Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK
Are they all receiving the care they need at this point in time? Have they been processed through VAC to PCVRS, and are they now seeing providers?
President, Lifemark Health Group
They would all be at different stages of their rehabilitation journey. Some may be currently in the assessment phase and some may be in the treatment phase. Some may be in graduation.
Conservative
Cathay Wagantall Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK
Do you have an idea of how many are in each of those phases?
Conservative
Cathay Wagantall Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK
If you could provide that for me, I would really appreciate it.
Conservative
Cathay Wagantall Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK
Thank you.
We talk about “rehab specialists”. What I hear from veterans who have received care previously is that they see the people who have been serving them as specialists. I'm sensing that there are the experts and then there are the providers. I struggle a little bit with what that means. Really, it's the providers who have that relationship ability and all those things already in place.
Do you try hard to keep those who were previously part of the service providers? How many of them actually chose, because of the complications of the process, to drop out? Can you tell me how many quit?
President, Lifemark Health Group
I can't tell you that precise number, but maybe I can give a little bit more nuance on how it works.
The spirit of the program is that you are now transitioning into a specialist program. You can think of it like going from a general program into a specialist program. The continuum of care.... It hurts me when I hear that the providers they currently have were not consulted and that no one from PCVRS reached out to them. That is not how the program was designed. We can share more about that, if you're interested.
The idea is that we're now moving to a specialist, based on function and based on rehab. We're actually just looking at function in this program and improving function for veterans. It should be an “and” situation, not an “or” situation. Somehow, I'm feeling that we've created an “or” situation here, where you can't continue to receive maintenance care and you can't continue getting the treatment you wish. It needs to be “and”.