Evidence of meeting #37 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 lifemark.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Cathay Wagantall Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK
They don't, in my mind, get to make those kinds of decisions. It's coming from somewhere else.
Psychologist, Lifemark Health Group
I'm making a decision, obviously, that they need to continue on with treatment, and then whoever approves it.... I don't know that process.
Conservative
Cathay Wagantall Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK
That's something we need to know and that the veteran needs to know very clearly, because I hear often as well that they go into these situations and are told that it's interdisciplinary and it's collaborative, and they don't find it that way at all. They're told, “This is it. This is what you need to do, and no, you can't use your previous provider if you want to get your IRB.” This is what we face.
Psychologist, Lifemark Health Group
Yes, and this is again, I think, coming back to the communication and transparency, yes.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Marie-France Lalonde
Thank you very much.
Our next speaker—and our last one for this round—is Mrs. Hirtle for five minutes.
Liberal
Alana Hirtle Liberal Cumberland—Colchester, NS
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Good afternoon, gentlemen. It's nice to have you both here.
Mr. Brown, I'm relatively new to the committee, and I'm trying to understand all of these terminologies and how it all works. You mentioned, I believe, that you had been approved for diminished earning capacity. Is that correct?
As an Individual
Yes, ma'am, I was. That was in 2018, I believe. It was offered to me because VAC pretty much deemed that I was not worth taking more time with.
It was just a level of care. They were like, “Yeah, you should take this, because it's going to be harder if you don't take it. If you don't do it now, the wait times...and we've exhausted all of your options. You've received your four years of post-secondary, one with an honours diploma in legal office administration.” They said, “Well, yeah, there's the door. See you later.”
There were promises made in 2014. I believe it was in Kingston. Mr. Trudeau was there with Ms. McCrimmon and Mr. Lehoux from Petawawa. All of them were there. They promised changes within Veterans Affairs: reopening the offices. Okay—big deal—they reopened them, but they didn't bring back case managers. They brought back veterans service agents, and veterans service agents cannot approve funding.
When I went to VTN, I had to wiggle, wiggle, wiggle. When I call VAC now and say, “I would like to talk to somebody in my Hamilton district office,” which is 45 minutes from me, I never get to talk to anyone there. I can't even go in person, because they do not have anybody working in person. I'm talking to people in Trenton. I'm talking to people in North Bay. I'm talking to people in Windsor. They don't help. When I did ask to speak to somebody, I was told I wasn't allowed to, because it's a conflict of interest. I voted for a caseworker's husband in the last municipal election, and that's considered a conflict of interest. Wow.
That's what I mean. It's bullying. You get bullied. If a veteran like me stands up, eventually they do say, “Do you know what? We're going to cut you off. That's enough. We're doing this.” I get it; they have pressures. The case managers, God love them, take so much brunt. I can't even verbally express my anger at times, because if I swear.... It's not aggressive; it's just the way military people speak, because we're expressing an emotion, and now we're being told no, we're not allowed to do that.
Yeah, the DEC is nice, but once you get on DEC, you're a dead veteran. That's the way I feel, and my wife jokes about it too. She says, “Make sure you don't die before you're 65,” because if that happens, she gets next to nothing.
Liberal
Alana Hirtle Liberal Cumberland—Colchester, NS
Okay, thank you for that clarification. I appreciate that.
In my remaining time, I will switch to ask Dr. Burton a question.
From your experience, what elements of the program would you say are working and should be strengthened?
Psychologist, Lifemark Health Group
From the treatment perspective of getting the veterans in, the actual on-the-ground work is working. It's the other pieces in getting to that point that need work. Again, the reduction may be in delays from the point that they are admitted into the program to the point when they are actually getting treatment. Usually, it's about 30 days, but I would like to see it happen sooner.
Resourcing, of course, from an RSS perspective—like, the people who are doing those intakes and some of those preliminary sorts of assessments of the needs before they come to me for the full psychological assessment.... That, I think, would be much more beneficial, but those are the things I think are working well.
It's the other parts that I think are more important that can be addressed through more education, more training and making people more aware. We do have the training for military culture, but I think we can do a lot more. When I'm talking to a veteran who has gone through just horrible things organizationally and also out in the field, I can relate to that. I can relate to the smells and everything, but others can't. I think that's where we need to really focus some of our energies.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Marie-France Lalonde
Thank you very much, everyone. This will conclude our round of questions.
Mr. Richards, I understand you have your hand up, but please bear with me.
I want to say thank you to Dr. Burton for joining us.
Mr. Brown, thank you very much for participating. I understand this is not only from a personal perspective, but you also have a family dynamic that prevented you, and you still took the time. Sir, I wish you the very best for your daughter and her recovery, and I hope that things are okay. Thank you for spending the last hours with us, and thank you for your service again, sir.
This has concluded our round of questions. Just from a logistical point of view, we will have our next meeting on Wednesday, June 10. For the first hour, we will have witnesses to complete our motion for the first hour of our study on PCVRS, and for the second hour, we will go in camera, as prescribed in the motion that was adopted by our committee, for the instructions on the redaction of the report of PCVRS and our Black veterans' experience.
Mr. Richards, I have a minute left, and then I will ask for adjournment. How can I help you, sir?
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Airdrie—Cochrane, AB
I move:
That the committee invite the Minister of Veterans Affairs to appear before the committee for no fewer than two hours on the supplementary estimates (A) 2026-27, on or before June 17, 2026.
Liberal
Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'd like to propose an amendment to the motion to change two hours to one, and to delete everything after the comma. That would be something that the Liberal side would be able to support. The rationale for it is this.
First, the supplementary estimates (A) are going to be approved by the House of Commons tonight, so there's no urgency.
Second, the amount in the supplementary estimates with respect to Veterans Affairs is less than $2 million, which is relatively minor when looking at the full amount in the supplementary estimates and the full budget of Veterans Affairs.
Third, a timeline of nine days for the minister is not something that she can do, and she would be able to make time to speak to this before the committee in the fall.
For all those reasons, I propose that amendment to the motion, and if that's agreeable to everyone, then we can support it.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Marie-France Lalonde
Do I have...? As I say, I know I have an important meeting on June 10, and everyone wants to see those witnesses.
We have about 45 seconds left, so I just want to make sure we can agree.
Briefly, Madame Gaudreau.
Bloc
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
I would like a recap. Even though we have 40 minutes left, we should reread the amendment. I want to know whether it allows us to meet with the minister before the end of our work.
Liberal
Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE
The amendment seeks to remove the deadline for completing the work, the reason being that the minister can't make it before the summer break. However, she's willing to come in the fall, in September or October.
Bloc
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Then let's say as soon as we come back in September, since we know that she's not available before the work is completed.
It will be postponed indefinitely, let's face it.
Liberal
Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE
We have to respect the minister's obligations and her schedule. I have no problem with the end of October, which is six weeks after Parliament resumes.
I simply suggested removing the deadline. However, if you want something more specific, that's not a problem.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Marie-France Lalonde
If I understand this, there was an amendment and possibly a subamendment to, hopefully, finalize a friendly way of addressing the motion of Mr. Richards asking the minister to appear. I understand she's been quite good about appearing in front of this committee, and I have to say thanks to the minister and her team.
At the same time, we would be open to prior to October, if I understood—just for everyone to understand—or in the first six weeks....
Mr. Casey, I just need language.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Marie-France Lalonde
Okay, so it's before the end of October. I see some nodding. Are we comfortable?
Conservative