Evidence of meeting #35 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 pcvrs.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

Members speaking

Before the committee

Forcier  As an Individual
Peddle  As an Individual
Slingerland  Executive Director, Business Development and Strategic Partnerships, The Ottawa Hospital
Tesfamichael  As an Individual

11:05 a.m.

Conservative

The Vice-Chair Conservative Blake Richards

I call this meeting to order.

In our first hour today, we will continue our study on the PCVRS contract. In the second hour, we will resume a study that's been on hold for some time. That's the study of the experience of Black veterans.

Our witnesses are joining us online. I will remind them to ensure that they have their channel set to the language of their choice. Some members may ask questions in both official languages.

Joining us for the first hour are Natalie Forcier and Joel Peddle, who will speak about their experiences. Both are appearing as individuals.

You will each have five minutes for an opening statement. I'll try to be a bit flexible, but perhaps you could try to keep it fairly close to five minutes, so that there's time for members to ask questions.

We'll start with you, Ms. Forcier.

Natalie Forcier As an Individual

My name is Natalie Forcier. I'm a CAF veteran and former medic. I served for 14 years, including two tours in Afghanistan. I now volunteer my time as a veteran advocate to support our military men and women after service.

Today I'm speaking from my own experience in the rehab system. I started rehab with VAC in 2020 and transitioned into PCVRS in 2023. I'm still in the program today.

When I signed my PCVRS contract in 2023, the process was presented as collaborative. It stated that my RSS would use my goals to develop a rehab plan with activities, time frames and costs. It stated that I would review the draft plan with my RSS and VAC case manager, that SMART goals would be discussed together and that I would receive a final approved plan. On paper, that sounds like I'm meant to be informed, involved and empowered in my own rehab. That has not been my experience.

After years in rehab, I've had only one tangible rehab plan, and that was connected to vocational rehab. When that attempt was not successful, I was advised that I could lose my IRB and be removed from the rehab program. That changed how safe the process felt to me.

IRB is not extra support. It is stability, housing, food, medication and the ability to keep going while trying to rebuild life after service. When income support feels tied to performance, progress or compliance, it becomes harder to be honest about limitations.

My rehab focused on two specific injuries, my left knee and PTSD from Afghanistan, but those injuries do not exist in isolation. After 14 years in uniform, I was not only dealing with two diagnoses but trying to rebuild after chronic pain, mental health injury, loss of identity and years of pushing through because that is what service required.

The process often felt rushed in the short term, and there was a set timeline and an expectation that I should show a measurable improvement within that window, but 14 years of repetitive stress, joint degeneration, chronic pain and mental strain do not simply improve because the rehab plan says they should. That leaves me caught between two impossible choices. Either I try to force years of physical and mental stress into a rehab timeline that does not reflect my reality, or I admit that I cannot progress the way the program expects and risk being seen as non-compliant. If I'm seen as non-compliant, what happens to my IRB?

I also want to speak about what happens when the system treats a plateau as success. My left knee is attributed to service and has significant internal derangement. I'm too young for a knee replacement, so I'm essentially waiting until the joint deteriorates enough for surgery. In the meantime, I compensate through my hips, back and other knee, which creates more pain, more degeneration and more functional loss.

My physio reached a plateau in measurable progress, and PCVRS no longer approved continued rehab for my knee. From a program perspective, that may look like the active treatment need has ended. From my perspective, I'm still living with the injury every day. I'm still trying to preserve mobility, reduce pain, slow deterioration and prevent other joints from breaking down. I have to ask this. Is that considered a successful outcome? Maintenance is not recovery. Plateau is not wellness. Being too young for surgery but too injured to improve does not mean I no longer need support.

For chronic service-related injuries, success cannot mean only measurable improvement. Sometimes success is maintaining mobility. Sometimes it's slowing deterioration or keeping a veteran functional, independent and safe in their own life. That needs to count.

I also believe that veterans need real choice in providers. It is not empowering to force a veteran away from a trusted therapist or clinician when they finally feel safe and cared for. Having to repeat trauma, retell painful experiences and rebuild trust with someone new is not a simple administrative change. It can be destabilizing.

What I needed from rehab was clear: a real plan, shared goals, transparent timelines, provider choice, continuity of care, and support for function and prevention, not only short-term improvement. I also needed to feel that honesty about my limitations would not put my income or stability at risk.

Veterans often go years without proper treatment. We focus on the mission, push through and learn to survive by putting ourselves last.

After release, rehab should not suddenly impose a deadline to recover from injuries and trauma that took years to build. Real rehab should help me build trust, preserve function, regain stability and feel safe enough to be honest.

It should not become another system I have to fight my way through.

Thank you.

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Vice-Chair Conservative Blake Richards

Thank you, Ms. Forcier. That was pretty much bang on time, so good job there.

We also have Joel Peddle, appearing as an individual today.

Joel, I'll turn the floor over to you for the next five minutes to give your opening statement.

Joel Peddle As an Individual

Thank you. Good day.

My name is Joel Peddle. I'm a veteran of the Canadian Armed Forces. I retired in September 2023 after eight years of service. I'm here today due to my role as a veteran support coordinator for Canada House clinics. I am also a graduate of the vocational rehabilitation program.

For two years, I have been one of two veteran support advocates who operate a monthly Q and A on the Canadian Forces subreddit on the social media platform, Reddit. This Q and A is centred around navigating Veterans Affairs and helping members with administration related to their claims. In addition to this, we also help veterans find trusted professionals for their health care needs.

Just to give you an idea of the reach the Q and A has had since it began, we've averaged over 650 comments a month in addition to over 40,000 views. This does not include the direct messages and emails I receive every day at any time. I feel the outreach I have achieved in this volunteer work gives me a unique perspective, as I reach thousands of serving members and veterans from every corner of the country, including even some OUTCAN.

It has allowed me to see hundreds of perspectives and issues besides my own that our community faces. For full transparency, my experience at PCVRS was relatively stress-free. I can safely say that I am in the minority, though. It has become readily apparent to me that there's zero trust in the veteran community in terms of how it will be treated, either by Veterans Affairs Canada or, by extension, PCVRS.

PCVRS and vocational rehab are common topics of conversation each month. The release process into retirement is already an extremely stressful event. There are such huge knowledge gaps of what to do, and what benefits they can avail themselves of, that we as veterans have turned to social media and other physical support groups to get the information we require in order to begin healing and figuring out our lives as civilians.

As has been stated by other witnesses to this committee, the words used by PCVRS instill a fear of mandatory compliance in veterans, lest they be removed from the program and their benefits cut off. This involves pivoting and abandoning their health care teams in favour of Lifemark-approved providers.

Many professionals have already told this committee how damaging this is towards the overall health and well-being of veterans. I've had veterans reporting to me that their PCVRS agents have cited policies in their company to get the veteran to comply with this directive. Veterans are conditioned to obey orders, even in retirement.

I've yet to see any policy given to these veterans in writing. Veterans in this program should have the agency to determine who is helping them heal, without fear of being punished. If these agents are not licensed practitioners on trauma care, why are they blatantly coercing them with threats to get injured veterans to comply? Furthermore, Veterans Affairs Canada has no system in place for us to lodge complaints about PCVRS. We're actively being threatened and have no recourse.

We are moving into a new era of veterans, those who have not seen war but nonetheless have debilitating service injuries that affect their day-to-day existence. It is not a requirement to have seen combat to suffer injuries due to service. Once released, veterans immediately feel they must soldier on and push forward to the next objective. The way our rehabilitation services are offered to us at this time, they seem only to punish or belittle those who are now trying to heal their minds and bodies.

Veterans are also incredibly adaptive even under this level of stress, seeking support from other veterans, as only those of us who have served can relate to this journey in retirement. Members of the Canadian Forces are unique individuals with their own stories, career paths and subsequent injuries. This does not change when they retire. We should not be trying to force a one-size-fits-all approach to their rehabilitation and health care.

In closing, I believe that for the vocational rehab program to be correctly administered to our veteran community, it must be provided so that veterans are supported in the best possible way with their own agency at the forefront. We have the right to be treated with respect regarding our benefits and how they are administered to us.

Our questions in regard to our care should not be met with threats and financial ramifications for doing so in the first place. Establishing trust with a health care team is a difficult process. Veterans should have licensed providers they trust. There should be zero expectations for them to abandon that trust without due cause.

Thank you for your time and for inviting me to speak today.

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Vice-Chair Conservative Blake Richards

Thank you, Mr. Peddle, and thank you to both of our veterans who are with us today, not just for your testimony but for your service to our country.

We also have with us Mr. Aaron Slingerland, who is here on behalf of The Ottawa Hospital. He's the executive director of business development and strategic partnerships.

The floor is now yours, Mr. Slingerland, for the next five minutes, to give your opening statement.

Aaron Slingerland Executive Director, Business Development and Strategic Partnerships, The Ottawa Hospital

Thank you, and I echo the thanks to Joel and Natalie for their service.

As you said, I'm Aaron Slingerland. I'm the executive director of business development and strategic partnerships here at the Ottawa Hospital, located in Ottawa. My role at the hospital is twofold. In my portfolio, I manage a few corporate services as well as clinical services. I believe I was brought here today as a witness to speak to our relationship with PCVRS as a provider.

In March of this year, the Ottawa Hospital entered into an affiliate agreement with Lifemark to serve veterans in the complex mental health space. We started seeing patients in March. We see one patient a week, given the complexity of our assessment. It's very time-consuming. That's the current scale we serve at. It's a comprehensive mental health assessment involving psychiatry, psychology and occupational therapy. We also serve in other complex mental health programs—with first responders from the WSIB in Ontario and with a large breadth of rehab services for the WSIB in the Ottawa community.

The Ottawa Hospital, or TOH, is Ottawa's tertiary academic health centre. We have in-patient mental health capacity and a broad spectrum of services related to complex and acute mental health services and physical rehab. If you are in the Ottawa area, there's a chance that you have sought services at TOH in the past, or that one of your loved ones has.

I don't have anything else to add to my opening statement. I'm just happy to be here today to answer any questions the committee may have for me.

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

The Vice-Chair Conservative Blake Richards

Thank you for your opening statement.

We'll now turn to questions from members of Parliament on the committee today. In the first round, each party will get six minutes to ask questions.

We'll start with the Conservative opposition and Mr. Fraser Tolmie for six minutes.

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

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

Thank you to the witnesses for joining us today. Thank you for your testimonies and for your service. I appreciate that you're going to be taking some questions from us.

After hearing each testimony, I feel I could spend a couple of hours with each person to get more information. Unfortunately, we're limited in time and I'm cutting into it by talking.

Ms. Forcier, you talked about a collaborative program that was offered to you. Then you talked about the pressures of being non-compliant.

Do you feel the program is collaborative?

11:15 a.m.

As an Individual

Natalie Forcier

When I talked about the collaborative piece, it was regarding the initial contract I was sent by PCVRS, outlining what it was going to look like. That was not what I found had happened in the end. It wasn't collaborative. I wasn't afforded a treatment plan, an understanding of what it was going to look like, or their perspective of what was expected of me.

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

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

I understand you have a medical background in the military. Could you please restate this for me? You were considered non-compliant with PCVRS because your rehab wasn't working. Is that correct? Could you clarify that for me?

Natalie Forcier

Basically, my knee had reached a plateau for healing. Due to the internal derangement and the amount of damage, only a limited amount of physio could support me. I completed the rehab for my knee. Then I just had to focus on my PTSD.

It wasn't non-compliance. I was just explaining that, somehow, my knee was no longer entitled to rehab, and it was just for the PTSD.

I work with veterans on a daily basis. It is a huge source of stress for them. They are threatened: If they're not compliant or miss one appointment, they will lose their IRB.

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

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

That seems to be a very veiled threat. A lot of people are coming forward. They feel pressured by it. I'm glad you touched on this—that you work with veterans. You're a vet.

Could you tell me about accessing providers? I believe you're in northern Saskatchewan. Is that correct?

11:20 a.m.

As an Individual

Natalie Forcier

No. I'm in Alberta. I'm in the Edmonton area.

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

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

That's not Saskatchewan at all. We have some geography issues here.

I'm going to ask a question of Mr. Peddle.

You've been very transparent in your opinions. How do you feel about how you're being treated by Veterans Affairs right now?

11:20 a.m.

As an Individual

Joel Peddle

I've actually been treated very well. I'm trying to speak more for all the people I deal with on a day-to-day basis than I am for myself. I really feel that being retired in Newfoundland and having access to east coast personalities have helped my retirement.

The further west I go with the people I help, the more confrontational it seems to get. Every RSS and VAC case manager I've had has been a Newfie or a Nova Scotian. They've been more than helpful. They're very nice and easygoing.

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

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

You're very well connected, and you're still not in Saskatchewan.

With the groups you're talking with, are you concerned about the funding cuts that were announced recently?

11:20 a.m.

As an Individual

Joel Peddle

That comes up a lot, but the main thing that seems to come up, which doesn't get talked about, is the bureau of pensions advocates. Their contracts weren't renewed back in March, and they have, I believe, a success rate in their appeals of 89%. For the majority of veterans...no one can understand how someone who's so successful at their job can be punished by being fired.

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

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

Right. I would take it as a yes, and you're concerned.

11:20 a.m.

As an Individual

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

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

Do you think that's something we should be studying at this committee?

11:20 a.m.

As an Individual

Joel Peddle

It definitely couldn't hurt.

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

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

Okay.

Mr. Peddle, what is it that you see? I hear veterans say, “I've been treated okay, but I have buddies who need help.” That is the beauty of dealing with veterans themselves. They're always there to help their comrades.

Can you share a bit more about some of the things you weren't able to touch on in your testimony?

11:20 a.m.

As an Individual

Joel Peddle

I think the big one, which Natalie touched on, is the providers. When it comes to mental health, they're all accredited professionals, so it's ridiculous to me....

There's one veteran I'm helping in P.E.I. These mental health professionals come from the OSI clinic in Ontario, and they do all of their work through telehealth, but he's not allowed to use them with PCVRS. They're demanding that he goes to someone in P.E.I., whom he's already had experience with and doesn't trust. His care hasn't even started yet, and it's already on the back foot because he's dealing with all this admin when he has people he trusts. There's no excuse.

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

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

We had a witness in the last meeting who said it's unethical. Do you feel that?

11:20 a.m.

As an Individual

Joel Peddle

Absolutely.

I've been keeping up with a lot of the meetings that have gone on, and the mental health professionals who speak do a better job than I could ever do. It is clearly terrible and a step back in everyone's care if veterans are not allowed to pick their own mental health professional, in my opinion.