Veterans Affairs Committee on April 22nd, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Marie-France Lalonde]

Good morning, everyone.

Welcome to meeting number 31 of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted on November 25, 2025, the committee is meeting as part of its study on the monitoring of the rehabilitation services contract awarded to the organization Partners in Canadian Veterans Rehabilitation Services, or PCVRS.

Before I 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 feedback incidents and to protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of witnesses and members.

Please wait until I call on you before speaking.

If you are participating in the meeting via video conference, click the microphone icon to unmute your microphone. Please mute it when you are not speaking.

To those on Zoom, at the bottom of your screen, you can select the appropriate channel for interpretation: the floor audio, English or French. Those in the room can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

Before introducing our witnesses, I would like to touch on a bit of housekeeping.

Earlier this week, a draft budget was distributed for our upcoming study on the main estimates for 2026-27.

Is it the will of the committee to adopt the budget?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marie-France Lalonde]

Thank you.

I would now like to welcome our first panel of witnesses.

From Broken Squirrel Wellness, we have Mackenzie Scharf, manager, clinic services, by video conference. From Mindspa Mental Health Centre, we have Michelle Massunken, clinical director. From the Veterans Transition Network, we have Mr. Oliver Thorne, chief executive officer, by video conference.

Each witness will have five minutes to give their opening remarks. We will then proceed to a series of questions with the members of the committee.

I would like to invite Ms. Mackenzie Scharf to go ahead.

The floor is yours for five minutes.

[Mackenzie Scharf, Manager, Clinical Services, Broken Squirrel Wellness Ltd.]

Good afternoon, everyone.

My name is Mackenzie Scharf. I'm the clinical services manager here at Broken Squirrel on Vancouver Island, where we have been providing services with a PCVRS contract to veterans in our area. My role is overseeing the clinical programming, supporting the referrals and supporting the providers and veterans as they navigate the rehab pathway.

I'd like to start by acknowledging a few aspects that, since working with PCVRS, are working well. In our experience working with the case managers, they've generally been very responsive, collaborative and open to the clinical input from our team. We have had opportunities where treatment requests are initially declined. We find that there's often a willingness to reconsider when additional rationale is provided. We believe that this demonstrate a level of flexibility and respect for the clinical judgment of our team, which is extremely important when it comes to complex care.

Additionally, in working with PCVRS, we have seen a level of adaptability in the scheduling and the service delivery. We're in a smaller area on the island with limited access to clinics that also hold the contract. They have been quite flexible in allowing us, with our interdisciplinary rehab programs and single services, to schedule in a way that meets the needs of our community and our veterans.

We really do believe that these strengths are important and worth preserving in any negotiations going forward.

At the same time, we would love to take this opportunity to share some challenges that we see at the clinical level, with the intention of contributing to ongoing improvements in the system for the veterans that we're supporting. Our intention is that by identifying these areas, we can continue to work together to reduce barriers and better support the veterans that we're here to serve.

One of the most pressing challenges we see is inconsistency and a lack of clarity in the standardized processes. There's often some confusion around workflow requirements, such as when approvals require VAC involvement versus when decisions can be made within the PCVRS level. We see that this uncertainty can create delays and administrative burden for the clinics. It can also make it difficult for the veterans to understand and navigate their own care.

We see opportunities to strengthen the communication between PCVRS, Veterans Affairs and the treatment providers. At times, when veterans are receiving updates about approvals or denials before the clinical team is informed or able to support, it can be unsettling, particularly for those receiving psychological care, as it can impact trust and leave the providers unable to support their clients in real time.

Another area of concern that we see is delays in care. The process of submitting recommendations, undergoing review, requiring VAC approval and then returning decisions through the system can sometimes take several weeks. During this time, veterans may be left without active support. In some cases, they're encouraged to use alternative benefits such as Medavie, even when those benefits are intended for maintenance rather than active rehabilitative care. From our perspective, this raises important considerations around continuity and appropriateness of care.

Particularly from our counselling team, there's concern around the reassessment process for psychological conditions. It can be demanding and, at times, counterproductive. Frequent reassessments can contribute to withdrawal from care or worsening of symptoms. Many veterans are already experiencing anxiety related to evaluation, and the repeated assessments can reinforce fears of losing support if they are perceived to be improving, which makes it challenging to celebrate the great progress that they make while under our care.

Additionally, the timelines associated with rehab and vocational programming don't always reflect the complexity of the individuals we're supporting. Many veterans present with multi-faceted physical and psychological conditions that require longer-term, flexible approaches. Rigid timelines can unintentionally increase the stress and overwhelm rather than support their recovery.

We also observe some variability in the level of support veterans receive from their case managers. While many provide excellent guidance and advocacy, the differences in approach can lead to inconsistent experiences for the veterans, with some feeling well supported and others feeling uncertain about the next steps.

The administrative complexity can be an ongoing challenge, with many veterans experiencing difficulty navigating paperwork and processes independently due to cognitive or mental health concerns. Without adequate support, this can delay care, interrupt the continuity and increase their feelings of isolation. Greater clarity around the available supports for these administrative requirements would be beneficial in helping the veterans remain focused on their recovery.

Streamlining our communication pathways, reducing delays in approval processes and clarifying the rules are some areas of improvement that we would love to see happen going forward with PCVRS.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marie-France Lalonde]

Thank you very much, Ms. Scharf.

We'll go to Mr. Thorne for five minutes.

[Oliver Thorne, Chief Executive Officer, Veterans Transition Network]

Hello, and thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

I apologize. My testimony today will be in English only, due to time and language constraints.

My name is Oliver. I am chief executive officer of the Veterans Transition Network, a charity that provides group counselling programs for veterans of the Canadian Armed Forces and RCMP.

For over 25 years, our programs have helped men and women in uniform address the challenges of service-related mental health and the transition to civilian life. Today, we offer these programs across Canada in English and French for men and women, always free of charge.

As Canada refocuses on recruitment, supporting veterans' well-being and successful reintegration, services like ours will be more important than ever in providing trusted, community-based support where it's needed most.

We have been a registered service provider to Veterans Affairs since 2012. This means that Veterans Affairs Canada will cover the cost of eligible clients who attend our program. Historically, this eligibility and funding approval process has been complicated and inconsistent, meaning we often serve Veterans Affairs clients without Veterans Affairs funding, so when it was announced that Partners in Canadian Veterans Rehabilitation Services would take over this program administration, we were optimistic that the problem might improve. My testimony today will focus on why it did not and why that matters for veterans' care more broadly.

When PCVRS was contracted to administer the vocational rehabilitation program, we were instructed by Veterans Affairs to register with them as a service provider. We initiated that process in February 2023, and it took two years and four months to complete. Over that period, we sent 16 messages to PCVRS, 14 of which received no response. Our point of contact changed five times, and with each change, no information was handed off, meaning that we essentially restarted the process every time.

When we were finally given the option to register, a year into the process, we were told that we could do so either as an affiliate provider or as an out-of-network provider. The affiliate status came with administrative requirements that we were not confident we could meet, as a charity with a small team, and still maintain our client-centred focus. We chose to register as an out-of-network provider.

Another year later, in June 2025, we were informed that the registration was complete, but that as an out-of-network provider, PCVRS was unable to refer any veteran clients to us. This was never disclosed during the registration process.

In total, it took 28 months for PCVRS to inform our charity that they would not refer any veterans to our evidence-informed program, which has been serving veterans successfully for over 25 years.

The flaws in this process are not just administrative inconveniences. They have real consequences for two important issues related to veterans' care in Canada.

The first is accessibility. We've appeared before this committee many times, and our message is always consistent: Veterans are a unique population, and supporting them requires programs that are specialized, culturally competent and accessible. Based on all of our conversations with veterans and other service providers, PCVRS has significantly narrowed veterans' freedom of choice and their access to available programs. Instead, they favour lengthy assessments and a structure that funnels veterans toward their preferred affiliate providers. We would be interested to know if there's any reason PCVRS has favoured or streamlined the process for some providers and not others, and whether that's a previous relationship, formal partnership or terms and conditions that weren't clearly communicated to all.

The second reason this matters is preparedness. Canada is significantly increasing defence spending, and the Canadian Armed Forces is expanding recruitment and operational activities domestically and overseas. The downstream consequence of this is predictable: More Canadians will come home from service needing effective and accessible supports.

This challenge is not new. We have seen it before. Following Afghanistan, tens of thousands of men and women came home to a system that was not fully prepared to meet their unique needs. That gap was a driving force behind the creation of our charity.

This challenge is not theoretical—it is happening now. We are already working with veterans who served on Operation Unifier and Operation Reassurance—men and women with exposure to trauma and moral injury from those operations.

As a national service provider, we're preparing now for a future with greater demand, and the broader system of veterans' care in Canada needs to be prepared too. That means removing barriers to care, not building them.

This committee has an opportunity to correct a serious structural problem before it compounds, so I ask the committee to do three things. First, investigate if there are previous professional or financial relationships among PCVRS's affiliate providers and its parent companies.

Second, review whether the out-of-network designation is excluding proven, independent service providers, and if so, why?

Third and finally, act on that information and ensure that the system governing veterans' care allows access to specialized, culturally competent supports without unnecessary barriers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marie-France Lalonde]

Thank you very much, Mr. Thorne.

Now, for five minutes, we will go to Ms. Massunken.

[Michelle Massunken, Clinical Director, Mindspa Mental Health Centre Corp.]

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the invitation to be here today.

To briefly situate my perspective, I am a trauma therapist who has been working with veterans, CAF members and RCMP members for the past 17 years. I'm also clinic director at Mindspa Mental Health Centre, an affiliate within the PCVRS network.

Since joining the network, we have supported nearly 100 veterans across Quebec, Ontario and parts of Atlantic Canada, both virtually and in person, with services being offered in French and English. Our virtual model has also expanded access to veterans in rural and remote communities, who might otherwise face barriers to care.

Over the course of my career, I have seen the rehabilitation program evolve from a system that was coordinated directly by case managers, to the current PCVRS model. Today, I'd like to offer a balanced perspective of what's working well and where there are clear opportunities to improve.

To start with strengths, I have seen improved access to care, particularly for veterans in remote regions. Many are now able to connect with appropriate providers more quickly, without having to navigate the system on their own. This has reduced barriers and allowed veterans to engage in treatment sooner.

For example, I recently worked with a VAC case manager to coordinate care for a veteran who was not yet in the rehab program. Scheduling that initial appointment took several weeks. In contrast, under the PCVRS model, once a rehabilitation specialist is involved, appointments can often be arranged within days. That difference in timeliness is significant, particularly for veterans who are in acute need of support.

We also saw this early in one of our first PCVRS participants, a veteran who was incarcerated and who would typically face significant barriers accessing care. Through the program he was able to engage in treatment while serving his sentence, and we saw clear, measurable improvements in his mood and his overall functioning.

When the model is working well, I have seen strong multidisciplinary collaborations with coordinated care across providers. I also see standardized reporting practices and the use of outcome measures to track progress and to inform the care.

That said, one of the most significant challenges I experienced early on, and one that continues to be echoed throughout the committee and in some of the testimony we heard today, is a lack of clarity and education around the nuances of the program. This lack of clarity, if left unresolved, has real clinical consequences. In response to that, I have made it a priority to maintain open lines of communication between our team and the PCVRS team, including Peter Adams and Karen, and Dr. Bourgeois. We have received support when clarification is needed.

Closely tied to this is a fear among veterans of being cut off from the program or losing access to services. While the structured, time-limited nature of rehabilitation is intentional and important, it's not always clearly communicated. As a result, some veterans experience the program as rigid and high stakes.

I want to emphasize that the system can work well when flexibility and clinical judgment are applied. For example, I worked with a veteran medically released for PTSD, who had already completed a comprehensive assessment. A reassessment was not clinically indicated, as it could have risked destabilizing her. Through collaboration with her VAC case manager, we readjusted the plan and moved directly towards a determination of diminished earning capacity.

This is an example of the system working as intended, but it required advocacy and a level of clarity that isn't always made available to veterans or providers.

At its core, what I'm observing is a model with strong foundations and clear impact, with opportunities to enhance how it's actually experienced on the ground. The program is already working for many veterans, so the opportunity now is to build to that success and ensure that it works consistently for all.

In closing, PCVRS represents an important evolution in how rehabilitation services are delivered. It has improved access and introduced greater structure and coordination. For it to reach its full potential, it must be clear, consistent and well understood. When those elements are in place, the program has the capacity to be truly transformative for the veterans it serves.

Thank you for your time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marie-France Lalonde]

Thank you very much.

We will now start our first round. Each of our members will have six minutes.

As I said to those online, I apologize in advance if I have to interrupt you. I'm going to be very strict on the six minutes for each of our members of Parliament.

We will start with Mr. Richards, for six minutes.

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

Thank you.

First of all, I'm looking for a yes or no response on this.

I'll start with you, Ms. Massunken, and work on to those on the screen.

Prior to the contract with PCVRS, did you or your organization provide rehabilitation services to veterans? Provide just a yes or no on that, please.

[Michelle Massunken]

No.

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

Okay.

Ms. Scharf?

[Mackenzie Scharf]

Yes.

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

Mr. Thorne?

[Oliver Thorne]

Yes, the majority of our Veterans Affairs clients are in the vocational rehab program.

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

I'm having trouble hearing them.

Okay. The next question I have is for you, Mr. Thorne.

I was struck by your testimony regarding your efforts to become a provider or to continue to be a provider: that it was two years and four months, 16 messages—14 of them unanswered—and five changes in your point of contact, and that, at the end of all of that, essentially what you found out was that what you were applying to become was meaningless because you couldn't actually serve veterans as a result.

I guess what I'd like to ask—and maybe I'll ask Ms. Scharf as well, to follow up following this—is this: What kind of effect does it have on veterans when they've worked with someone, a trusted provider, and then are told, “Do you know what? We're going to have to change you to someone else”? Obviously, this process that you had to go through, Mr. Thorne, is so difficult to navigate for these service providers. In some cases, no matter what they do, they're not even able to get approved, as you've experienced.

Let me actually ask this first: If it was that tough for you as a pretty significant veterans services organization—you guys are pretty significant—what is it going to be like for a small clinic somewhere to try to go through that process? It has to be even more difficult for them. It took you two years and four months. That's the first question.

The second one is this: What kind of an impact does it have on a veteran when they're told that they're going to have to switch providers just because this program doesn't seem to have a process to enable the provider they had before?

[Oliver Thorne]

There are a couple of points there to address. I think the first is what it is like for a small clinic.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marie-France Lalonde]

Stop the time.

Mr. Thorne, I'm just going to ask you to hold for a second. We are having some technical problems hearing you, unfortunately. We're just going to see....

What you didn't hear is that Mrs. Gaudreau is getting great sound, unlike some of us who are listening to you in English, unfortunately. We're having a lot of.... Maybe tell us a little bit about the weather where you are, please.

[Oliver Thorne]

Sure.

We started off the day with sunny skies and decent temperatures, but it's getting cooler. I'm told there's rain coming later on in the day.

How's that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Marie-France Lalonde]

Okay, that's a bit better.

I apologize for having to interrupt you. Maybe start your answer as Mr. Richards was asking you the question.

[Oliver Thorne]

Okay. Thank you very much.

Maybe I'll address three points: the impact on us, the impact on small organizations and the impact on veterans.

First, I should be clear that this does not mean that we can no longer receive Veterans Affairs funding. We still can apply for that approval process through Veterans Affairs and Medavie directly. It remains challenging and inconsistent. Our hope was that the involvement of PCVRS as the organization managing the administration of vocational rehabilitation—and the majority of the Veterans Affairs clients we serve are on the vocational rehab program—would streamline.... It has not. It's been difficult, if not often impossible, to speak to them. The majority of that period of two years and four months is just extended periods of silence where they were not responding to any of our messages. Over that period of time where PCVRS took over the contract, I can say that our approval rate for Veterans Affairs clients dropped by 30%, even though we continued to see the same number of Veterans Affairs clients.

The impact on the veterans for our organization, in a sense, is minimal, because we will never turn them away if they are not funded by government funding. We will draw upon the generous donations that we receive from Canadians, foundations and charitable institutions to make sure that the program stays accessible. However, the result is that we can run fewer of these programs, because the systems that the government has in place are not sending the money to us for the government clients we treat. We'll never turn them away, because we know that two-thirds of the folks coming to our programs have considered suicide very recently.

The impact, then, on small organizations, particularly the impact on mission-driven organizations like ours, which spends only 15% of every dollar on administration.... We don't have a large administrative team that can focus on a two-year application process and going back and forth with these folks. We spend 85¢ of every dollar we have on veterans' care, because that's what our donors expect and that's what, as a charity, we should be doing, but we are then not able to contend with this massive process of administration that some other providers may be better able to contend with. As a mission-driven organization that has to keep a lean overhead, we cannot. I believe that would be the same impact on other charities, non-profits and mission-driven organizations.

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

Before I go to Ms. Scharf with that same question, can you, Oliver, give us a sense of what the fix would be? How do we fix this?

[Oliver Thorne]

It seems to me that this is perhaps an extension of the problem that we have seen in Veterans Affairs as well, that the systems are not well established to recognize a wide variety of different types of service providers. They're pretty astute at recognizing what a counselling clinic looks like. However, with a national organization that is registered in eight or 10 different provinces, with various colleges, and all of the differences that come with that—the fact that we deliver an in-patient program that doesn't occur on a weekly basis—this is where it seems to be challenging for us to be integrated into the existing system. They're good at recognizing clinics; they are bad at recognizing specialized services like ours. That is my admittedly limited take, because we have received so little information from PCVRS. That's about it.

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

Thank you.

Ms. Scharf, what's been your experience in terms of the difference—

[The Chair, Liberal, Marie-France Lalonde]

I'm so sorry. I was just reminded that you're 15 seconds over time already. You'll have to get to it in the next round.