Veterans Affairs Committee on June 8th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Marie-France Lalonde]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 37 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.

Pursuant to the motion adopted on November 25, 2025, the committee is meeting on its study of the follow-up to the 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 and witnesses are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

Before introducing our witnesses, I would like to remind members of an email that was circulated on Friday. This is simply a friendly reminder that some members and employees may have sensitivities or allergies to scented products.

To ensure everyone's well-being, I invite everyone to avoid wearing heavily scented products in the committee room, such as perfume or cologne. I would also like to invite everyone to avoid smoking or vaping immediately prior to committee meetings as much as possible.

I would now like to introduce our panel of witnesses for the PCVRS study.

As an individual, we have Mr. Richard Brown. It's my understanding that you are attending by video conference. It's nice to see you.

From Lifemark Health Group, we have Dr. Steve Burton, psychologist, who's sitting in front of me.

Each of you will have five minutes to present your opening remarks. Once each witness has spoken, the rest of the hour will be dedicated to a period of questions and answers with the members of the committee.

Mr. Brown, I would like to open the floor for five minutes to you. Thank you.

[Richard Brown, As an Individual]

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, members of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, as well as to other distinguished witnesses and veterans in the crowd.

To start, I apologize for not being able to attend in person today, but my family and I have been working on helping our older daughter recover from a serious car accident that she suffered last weekend.

My name is Richard Brown. I enlisted in the Canadian Armed Forces in January 2003 at the age of 18. I served three and a half years in the Canadian navy as a TASOP and then as a sonar operator.

In May 2006, while on workups to get ready for the NATO flagship Iroquois, I suffered an injury that would eventually have me take a voluntary release from the CF. In October 2006, I was honourably discharged and relocated back to the southern Ontario riding of Niagara West.

Over the next few months, I struggled to keep employment as I tried to move on with my life, but in January and February 2007, I called Veterans Affairs for help. At the time, I had a great case manager by the name of Tracey Slade, who guided me through all the necessary steps to be diagnosed, along with Dr. Don Richardson from the London OSI.

In 2008, I decided to relocate to the Ottawa area, in Ottawa west, as well as Barrhaven. I was connected with Veterans Affairs worker Christine Filiatrault, as well as with Megan Lamarre at Billings Bridge. If I needed help, once again they were there.

In 2011, I attended the in-patient program at Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue in Montreal. At that program, I was always told that if I needed assistance, it was there. That does not exist as I was told back then. Since 2015, the services have been garbage.

I relocated back to southern Ontario after two successful diplomas with vocational rehabilitation services. Then I was assigned to a case manager who was very unreachable. I was placed on the DEC program, the diminished capacity program, because they deemed that I had exhausted all vocational rehab services, and then I lost my case manager and wasn't even assigned a veteran service agent as part of the plan.

In 2021, I was reassessed for my mental health condition. It was completed by Dr. Dee Rajska over nine hours. She came back with two additional conditions, PTSD and alcohol use. Veterans Affairs denied those reports.

I took it to the BPA, and my lawyer there, Janet Chisholm, told me we had a case. It took 18 months of waiting for a review board for a five-minute meeting, and then another eight months after that for the report to come back as favourable.

Just recently, I was able to receive a favourable decision for a knee injury. I'm awaiting a knee replacement, but just like previous witnesses, I'm ineligible because of my age, and I have a level one denial letter in my hand that says that VAC has denied me treatments and benefits.

Over the past six years, I've yet to hear from a minister or even a parliamentary secretary, including the one on this panel, who received an email from me back in February. PCVRS, if I go through them, are telling me that I have to use their personnel. In the Niagara region, there is only one occupational therapist. I've had bad dealings with him in the past, and I've chosen not to use him; therefore, I am no longer entitled to occupational therapy. That's if I can even get onto the VRS program, because I'm DEC.

It is very insulting. In my spare time, I volunteer with the Navy League of Canada as a uniformed officer. I am currently the executive officer at the corps in Niagara Falls. Before I had all of these injuries, the physical injuries, I was active. I did equestrian riding. You can tell by the picture behind me. That's my therapy, a horse. Now I can't even do that, because of cuts.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marie-France Lalonde]

Thank you very much, Mr. Brown.

Thank you for your service and your continuing services, sir.

I will now invite Dr. Burton to the floor for five minutes.

[Steve Burton, Psychologist, Lifemark Health Group]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, everyone, for allowing me to be here today in person.

My name is Dr. Steve Burton. I am a psychologist with Lifemark Health Group, where I have the privilege of providing services to Canadian veterans enrolled in Veterans Affairs Canada's rehabilitation services and vocational assistance program—the RSVP program we know about.

My professional background includes over 25 years of experience in forensic and clinical psychology. I work extensively in the areas of trauma, rehabilitation and psychological assessment. I'm accredited with the colleges of psychologists of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. I'm a proud member of the Gitxsan nation in British Columbia. I was a police officer in Alberta for 25 years. This experience has given me a deep understanding of the unique mental health and rehabilitation needs of the veteran population.

One of the foundational principles of effective rehabilitation is to thoroughly assess a veteran's current functional state. This is paramount, because to develop the most effective and personalized rehabilitation plans, a comprehensive assessment is essential. While respecting the veteran's privacy and confidentiality, this assessment allows us to gain the specific, up-to-date, functional details and nuances required to accurately understand their current challenges and strengths.

It's also crucial to understand that the definition of rehabilitation within VAC's program is distinct from what many clinicians might traditionally associate with long-term, diagnostic-focused care. In the VAC rehabilitation program, our approach is explicitly time-limited and function-based. We target specific impairments directly linked to a veteran's eligible health problems, with the overarching goal of restoring functional independence and improving quality of life. This differs from a primary focus on diagnosis alone, as our interventions are geared towards measurable improvements in daily functioning.

The rehabilitation program strives for an optimal balance. We recognize the importance of effective and targeted assessments to inform the treatment plans while also being mindful of avoiding over-assessment. This can burden veterans, obviously, with their diagnoses. Our goal is to conduct the necessary evaluations that yield actionable insights, ensuring that every assessment serves a clear purpose in advancing the veteran's rehabilitation journey.

This leads directly to the importance of outcome measures. These are not merely administrative tools. They are vital for demonstrating growth, allowing us to reanalyze and adapt a veteran's rehabilitation plan to best fit their evolving functional state. By systematically measuring progress, we ensure accountability, validate the effectiveness of interventions and can make adjustments to optimize the outcomes for each veteran.

A common area of inquiry that I receive involves the distinction between rehabilitation services within the VAC rehabilitation program and those available through general community services, such as those provided by Medavie Blue Cross providers. It's important to clarify that veterans can absolutely continue with their existing health care providers in parallel with the treatment that they receive in the VAC rehabilitation program. We are not aiming to remove established therapeutic relationships. Instead, the program ensures that the assessments and treatments delivered within VAC's rehabilitation program are specifically function-based and are provided by clinicians who have received the VAC specialized training relevant to veteran care and the program's framework.

At the core of our work are rehabilitation best practices. These include adhering to evidence-based approaches, fostering interdisciplinary care where various professionals collaborate around the veteran, setting clear and achievable functional goals, and maintaining a truly client-centred model. This holistic approach ensures rehabilitation that respects the veteran's unique needs and aspirations.

From my professional experience, the principles of clear communication, consistent functional goal setting and a collaborative approach with the veteran at the centre are paramount. The challenges often lie in navigating complex needs and ensuring integration of services, which we continually strive to improve.

Thank you for your time and for this opportunity to share my insights into the work being done to support our veterans.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marie-France Lalonde]

Thank you very much, Dr. Burton.

Now, we will proceed with the first round of questions. Each individual will have up to six minutes.

As I mentioned, Mr. Brown is online.

I am also the clock keeper, as I have the pleasure of chairing this committee. I apologize in advance. I always say, please look. If you see me doing this, that means that we have to end the round.

We will now start with Mr. Tolmie, for six minutes.

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

Thank you to the witnesses for joining us today.

Thank you, Mr. Brown. I'm sorry to hear about what you're going through with your daughter. I think this committee understands that you have to be there for your kids.

Mr. Brown, I'd like to start off with you. Thank you for your service. It looks like we signed up at about the same time. January 2003 was when I was taken in. We're of a very similar vintage in our service.

I'd like to talk to you and ask you about the nine hours of assessments that you had to go through. Can you share more about what you experienced and how that made you feel?

[Richard Brown]

Yes, sir. It was probably one of the best assessments I've ever had. It was with Dr. Rajska. I'm sure the committee and former committees have heard of her. She took the time. She has that experience. We actually had to cut one meeting short, because she knew she was hitting hard and didn't want to stress me out. It was all based on what I was feeling—not on her agenda or on her timelines. If it took us 12 hours to do it, great. If it took us four hours to do it, great. There was no timeline, whereas when you go to the operational stress injury places, like in London, they give you only two and a half hours. That's it. They're coming up with an assessment on that. When I was at Homewood for the alcohol use reduction, it was the same thing. They have psychiatrists there coming up with a diagnosis within an hour. I'm sorry, but that's not proper medicine.

Dr. Rajka had everything from day one until the day of my release, and my feelings.... The report was something like 20 pages. VAC did not even want to accept it right off the bat. It was very good to go through Dr. Rajka, somebody who was outside of the VAC connection.

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

To be clear, you're saying you had a very good experience, although it was lengthy. You were able to share and they were able to come up with a proper diagnosis, but VAC rejected it. Is that what you're saying?

[Richard Brown]

That's exactly what happened. We put it in. I was supposed to get a decision. It went from step three to complete in 48 hours. I got notice. I was up at the Glen House for the Veterans Transition Network. I know they testified at committee. I was going on the five-day retreat up there when I got a letter saying it was denied. I was not too impressed about that. For something to be opened and closed in 48 hours.... Did anybody even read that report, or was it just, like, stamped? I waited a long time for it to go from step two to step three.

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

I recently had some meetings with veterans in my office. One of the things they've shared with me is that they have an assessment or they have a meeting with VAC and then they don't hear anything, or they have to wait on a decision by VAC, whether it's through the PCVRS or.... In that delay, they experience fear, trauma and numerous other feelings. It seems to be that the period of waiting does just as much damage as what has happened to them in service.

Can you share that? Is that something you've experienced?

[Richard Brown]

I have, sir. I'm not going to lie right now. I was admitted not once but twice for suicidal ideation. Once was when I lived up in Ottawa. I was admitted to the Queensway Carleton. Probably in 2021, I was admitted in St. Catherines at Niagara Health System on Fourth Avenue for suicidal ideation.

It is that deny, delay, die. It is the worst feeling I've ever experienced. I use the wine barrel version, being from the Niagara region. There are all these wine barrels. It's like sitting at the bottom of the barrel, and you have that lid on top. It is on top so tight, and you're just going deeper and deeper. It's like the mouse trying to get out of the bucket with butter or whatever that one is. It's the exact same situation.

When you call VAC, they're like, “We can't help you. Call the IRO.” IRO calls you back and says, “Oh, yeah. Call the ombuds. We can't do much for you.”

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

I'm going to switch over for a minute here.

Mr. Burton, we've had someone come before us and testify about the code of ethics that the psychotherapy association has to adhere to and say that it's unethical for an organization to come in and force someone to break a relationship they've already established with a psychotherapist.

Do you agree with that?

[Steve Burton]

I would agree. My practice and everything that I've ever adhered to has been that, when the relationship is established with a therapist already, and it's a positive relationship, obviously you maintain that relationship. That is part of the assessment I conduct, and it is a big question. We're looking at all the providers they've had throughout their service and post release. If they are currently seeing someone and benefiting, and if they enjoy that relationship and feel that it's very productive, I recommend that they maintain that relationship.

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

Okay, because it seems to be that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Marie-France Lalonde]

Thank you very much, Dr. Burton.

Now, for six minutes, we have Mr. Casey.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to both of our witnesses for being here.

I'm going to start with you, Dr. Burton.

I think in your opening statement you indicated that you served as a police officer for 25 years before becoming a registered psychologist.

[Steve Burton]

I was a psychologist while I was a police officer.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

How did your experience as a police officer inform your practice?

[Steve Burton]

Well, the trauma informed it, really. I went through a number of experiences during my service, and I think that is the piece that.... I think, when I hear these issues, obviously the experiences that a lot of the veterans have, they are real. They have happened. This is not to come in and diminish anything like that. I experienced it as well. We didn't have VAC in those days; it was WCB, so I went through the same thing.

There are institutional traumas, and there are sanctuary traumas, which I'm sure the committee is well familiar with. With all these things that, again, Mr. Brown has just spoken of, the waiting, the anxiety, the self-doubt, self-worth... You feel as though you've been thrown away by the organization, by the CAF. Then you are feeling discarded or dismissed when you're trying to get this assistance and help. I think there are things within my practice that make me more sensitive to these issues because I have been through them myself.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Thank you.

One thing that you said in your opening statement was that the way you work now under PCVRS or Lifemark is in a manner to avoid overassessment. We've heard a lot about overassessment and administrative burden. I'd like you to expand a bit on what you mean or what you're doing in your work specifically to avoid overassessment.

[Steve Burton]

With the assessment itself, there's obviously the requirement to determine progress within the treatment protocols. How are they doing? How are they after three or four months of treatment? Are we on the right path? It's evaluating symptoms and determining if we need to change things up. Do we have to go in a different direction?

It can fluctuate even day to day, but ideally we're not assessing constantly. It's over three or four months that we would reassess with some of the outcome measures. They're not large psychological tests themselves but outcome measures that are just one page. They depict symptoms and other things that are part of day-to-day functioning for the veterans. The overall full assessment, as we'd probably call it, is done once, and then that's pretty much it. We continue to use outcome measures to monitor progress or decline.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

You indicated that veterans can continue with their own provider even if that provider isn't within the PCVRS or Lifemark network. We've heard conflicting testimony on that, so could you clarify what you meant by that? Then I'm probably going to ask for Mr. Brown's view of it as well.

[Steve Burton]

Once again, I really have to reiterate that what the veterans have experienced is real. That's not in dispute.

From my perspective, again, this is something that I haven't personally done, because I know the value of that relationship. For me, it's never been an issue of saying, as an example, “You have either this or some other provider, but you can't have your own.” That's not something I've ever done, and I've never received that push-back from PCVRS.

The idea of having a provider outside of PCVRS would be, I would say, in parallel to potential treatment or a therapist within PCVRS. I am referring to Lifemark primarily because that's where I operate, but that's the difference. Again, at least from my experience, there is nothing that is written or pushed back in regard to another provider not being able to be involved, and maybe that's a communication issue.

In all these programs.... From policing, I know that it was never perfect, but in this instance, communication would definitely be a big thing. Whenever they come in, whether they're veterans for OSI or already seeing psychiatrists and psychologists at the OSI clinic, the recommendation is for them to just maintain that relationship. I don't get involved unless they want a change or they want to see me. Often we end up connecting. Just due to the experiences, we end up connecting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marie-France Lalonde]

I'm very sorry, but the time is up. I apologize, Mr. Casey.

Now we will go to Madame Gaudreau.

Mr. Brown and Mr. Burton, please note that Ms. Gaudreau will be speaking to you in French. If you can hear me right now, it means that the interpretation is working properly.

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

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

This is our last study. Thank you to the witnesses for being here. I would like us to start by going back.

A large proportion of the people who appeared here and wrote to us talked about a lack of trust. It has nothing to do with jurisdiction. Maybe it's about communication, but veterans seem to have a problem with the program. The people who are victims of it are the whistle-blowers.

In your opinion, what are the main factors that lead to a lack of trust? Is it a matter of transparency?

Could it be the delays? Is there anything else?