Veterans Affairs Committee on June 10th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Marie-France Lalonde]

I call this meeting to order.

Members, since the bells are ringing, I would like to propose, with your permission, that we listen to our witnesses, suspend to vote and then we will come back. I would need unanimous consent for that.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marie-France Lalonde]

That's perfect.

Welcome to meeting number 38 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.

Pursuant to the motion adopted on November 25 2025, the committee is meeting to study the monitoring of the rehabilitation services 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 can attend in person or remotely using the Zoom application.

To ensure an orderly meeting, I'd like to outline a few rules for witnesses and members: Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name; if you're participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your microphone; and please mute yourself when you're not speaking.

We have our panel of witnesses for the PCVRS study.

We have Eric Vila, as an individual, by video conference. We have, from the Union of Veterans' Affairs Employees, Toufic El-Daher, national president, and Martha Josephian, case manager and alternate vice-president.

The bells are ringing, so we will give you five minutes each, and then we will suspend, go vote and come back for the rounds of questions.

Go ahead, Mr. Vila, for five minutes, please.

[Eric Vila, Kinesiologist, As an Individual]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good day to my fellow witnesses and members of the committee.

My name is Eric Vila. I'm a kinesiologist with Lifemark Health Group. I have nearly 10 years of experience in the health and fitness industry, specializing in functional training, strength and conditioning and high performance. I am accredited with the British Columbia Association of Kinesiologists and certified as a WorkWell functional capacity evaluation evaluator.

Additionally, I currently serve as a reservist in the CAF with the 5th Field Artillery Regiment. This experience has offered me an opportunity for a greater understanding of the challenges faced by veterans and members of the armed forces, both during their service and while seeking rehabilitation services.

In my role as a kinesiologist, I provide exercise-based services aimed at improving my clients' function. Some participants undergo a kinesiologist-led assessment to evaluate their current functional capabilities and limitations, which allows us to develop an appropriate rehabilitation plan. Given the unique circumstances that may bring a veteran into this program, the care that I provide is tailored to each participant, focusing on functional rehabilitation through guided movement and exercise. I address movement-related injuries and conditions within my clinical scope of practice, while clinical diagnoses are for the appropriate treating professionals to make.

I collaborate with an interprofessional rehabilitation team that includes physiotherapists, psychologists, occupational therapists and registered clinical counsellors. Kinesiology plays an essential role in this therapeutic alliance.

It's important for the committee to understand that our focus within the rehabilitation program is on providing function-based rehabilitation. This approach often differs from the more traditional diagnostic rehabilitation or assessments veterans may have experienced previously. Function-based rehabilitation for veterans aims to restore or improve independent functioning to the extent possible in the roles at home, in the community and at work.

As clinicians, we always have a duty to assess the participants' current functional state. This ensures we understand them holistically, tailor assessments and treatments appropriately and avoid treatments that could potentially cause further harm. In order to limit the number of new assessments veterans have to experience and build upon existing information, we always encourage participants to share previous assessment reports with us should they consent to do so.

To provide context, when veterans are referred to the rehabilitation program, their VAC case manager identifies their eligible health problems. These are the specific areas we as clinicians are authorized to assess and address within their approved rehabilitation plan.

While VAC's rehabilitation program is focused on these eligible conditions, we strongly encourage participants to continue receiving services from their existing providers for any non-eligible health problems. Those services would be outside of the rehabilitation program and covered by their Medavie Blue Cross benefits. This ensures comprehensive care while maintaining the program's specific mandate for functional rehabilitation.

As an active reservist, I have the opportunity to serve my country. As a kinesiologist, I have an opportunity to support those who have served by providing critical services through their rehabilitation journey. I've had the privilege of working alongside many wonderful and amazing veterans and have witnessed first-hand the benefits of this program.

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

[The Chair, Liberal, Marie-France Lalonde]

Thank you very much, Mr. Vila, and thank you for your service to Canada.

I would like to invite Mr. El-Daher for his five minutes.

[Toufic El-Daher, National President, Union of Veterans' Affairs Employees]

Chairperson and members of the committee, when we talk about the PCVRS contract, we are not simply talking about a service delivery model. This is a matter of trust, expertise and responsibility toward our veterans.

Since the implementation of the PCVRS contract, we have witnessed a fundamental and troubling shift in how rehabilitation services are delivered to our veterans. This shift comes at the expense of those who know these veterans best: the case managers at Veterans Affairs Canada.

These professionals are not interchangeable. They possess unique expertise developed over years at the very heart of the public system. They understand invisible injuries, trauma and military realities. They do not simply manage files. They support lives.

Let me ask a simple question: Why was this internal expertise pushed aside in favour of a privatized model?

What we see on the ground today is clear. We see veterans lost in a fragmented system. We see inconsistent rehabilitation pathways. We see delays, duplication and, far too often, a loss of trust.

Meanwhile, case managers—the real experts—are relegated to administrative coordination rather than professional intervention. This is a step backward, not progress.

We were promised efficiency. We were promised improved accessibility. What our members are seeing is increased complexity, diluted responsibility and a loss of coherence in care. Let's be honest: When services are fragmented, the veterans pay the price.

I also want to highlight a reality that we cannot ignore. The employees of Veterans Affairs Canada are still there every day trying to make this model work. They absorb the problems. They compensate for the gaps. They strive to maintain the level of service our veterans deserve, despite the obstacles, but they should not have to fix a system that was poorly designed.

This committee must ask fundamental questions. Is this model truly putting veterans at the centre of decision-making? Are we fully using the expertise that already exists within VAC? Most importantly, is this system actually better than the one we had before? Today, everything indicates that the answer is no.

Let me be clear. We are not here to defend the status quo. We are here to defend a fundamental principle: Veterans deserve the best possible service, not an administrative experiment.

What we are asking for is reasonable but urgent. Restore a central role for our case managers at Veterans Affairs Canada, seriously consider not renewing the PCVRS contract, end the fragmentation of services and, above all, listen to those at the front lines: the employees of VAC and the veterans themselves.

Right now, we risk losing something precious: a system built on expertise, human connection and trust. Once that trust is broken, it is very difficult to rebuild.

In conclusion, veterans deserve a system that is coherent, humane and effective, and the employees of Veterans Affairs Canada are ready and able to be the foundation of such a system. This is why we are calling for the non-renewal of the current private contract and for the repatriation of rehabilitation services back into VAC, as they were before.

The expertise already exists with Veterans Affairs Canada, and it must be fully utilized rather than outsourced. I therefore invite the ACVA committee to seriously consider the issues raised today and to work with us to improve this system in the best interests of those who have served our country.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marie-France Lalonde]

Thank you very much.

I will now suspend.

We'll see you shortly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marie-France Lalonde]

I call the meeting back to order.

We will start with our first round of questions. Each member will have six minutes.

We will start with Mr. Richards for six minutes.

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

Thank you.

I appreciate your testimony today.

I have several questions for you. I'll start with this. This committee, about four years ago, just before the implementation of this, did a study and made a lot of recommendations about the concerns we were hearing at that time, including from the union and, of course, from veterans and their families and others as well. My sense is that essentially that report and the recommendations it made were just ignored.

I'd like to ask you a few questions about some of the specific recommendations and get your sense as to whether that's the case and whether there's still some work that needs to be done to improve that.

I think the first one is just around confusion. During that study, there was a lot of talk about the confusion about what the roles were. You addressed it a bit today. I think you're unhappy with how it all shook out. There seemed to be, at the time, a lot of confusion about what the roles would be.

I would say that what we've heard during this study from veterans is that there still seems to be a lot of confusion. They say they used to be able to just talk to a case manager, and they could solve their issues for them or at least try. They feel that's no longer the case. Would you agree? Would you agree that there's still a lot of confusion about what the roles are and what the roles should be?

[Toufic El-Daher]

Yes, absolutely.

The problem is veterans feel lost and don't know where to turn. Do they have to call Veterans Affairs Canada, their case manager, Lifemark or PCVRS, Partners in Canadian Veterans Rehabilitation Services?

The system is really too big; veterans need stability and support. They shouldn't have to repeat their stories three to five times; it makes them relive their trauma.

That's why I say there's definitely a problem. Honestly. We propose solutions to senior management, the deputy minister and the assistant deputy ministers, but they don't seem to understand the reality on the ground. Unfortunately, there's a complete disconnect.

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

You say you've sent some solutions. What are those solutions?

[Toufic El-Daher]

One of the solutions is to give case managers a key role once again. Right now, yes, they have a role, but I say that with air quotes, because, quite often, they feel pressured to sign a rehabilitation program with Lifemark. Case managers have studied in health, they have a university education; there's a code of ethics behind that. They feel trapped and forced to accept these programs. That's why I say one of the solutions is to give back this essential role to Veterans Affairs case managers and stop doing business with a third party.

We propose these kinds of solutions, but the employer refuses. The employer is really relying on PCVRS, and, unfortunately, I don't think our employees and our members feel supported. They feel abandoned by the employer. Unfortunately, it seems the employer relies more on PCVRS employees and rehabilitation service specialists than on our case managers.

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

The other area we heard a lot about at the time and which there were several recommendations in that report about centred around communication and consultation and the lack thereof. Whether it be with the union, with veterans and their families, with Veterans Affairs employees or service providers, we are continuing to hear those issues four and a half years later.

Would you agree that lack of consultation and communication is still a problem? I think I asked that in light of the cuts that were made to the bureau of pensions advocates. I know that some of the concerns that you raised were about not being consulted or communicated with about those changes. I want your thoughts on that consultation and communication piece, how important it is and whether you think it's still something that's lacking in Veterans Affairs right now.

[Toufic El-Daher]

If we're consulted? Frankly and honestly: No. They meet us. I have monthly meetings with the acting assistant deputy minister, Ms. Jane Hicks. I can also meet with her whenever there's an emergency. She's really very open.

With respect to the PCVRS contract, I have monthly meetings with her replacement, Ms. Pamela Harrison. The problem is when we tell the employer there's a problem with the contract, they ask us for specific cases and names of veterans, but the issue isn't case-specific; the issue is with the structure. We can't always cite specific cases. There's a structural problem with this company, which means it won't get resolved. To solve the problem, the employer wants us to give it names or specific cases, otherwise, it won't move forward. Unfortunately, they don't understand that there's a structural problem behind this contract.

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

Thank you very much. I appreciate your frankness and time today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marie-France Lalonde]

Thank you very much, Mr. Richards.

Go ahead, Mr. Casey, for six minutes.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here today.

I'm going to stay with the union and Mr. El-Daher.

Sir, I can tell you that at the national headquarters of Veterans Affairs, there was much joy upon your election, as you know.

Can you describe for me what the state of communication and co-operation is between you, as a newly elected president, and management, as well as between you and the union members at the national headquarters?

[Toufic El-Daher]

Thank you for the question. I appreciate that.

Since my election in October 2023, I've had a certain style of leadership. I'm a very positive person. I like to collaborate and participate. That's how I work. I'll be very honest with you, I have a very good relationship with the employer. We communicate very well, whether it's the HR director or the new deputy minister, Ms. Nancy Gardiner. We get along well. Although we don't always agree on the contract-related issues, that doesn't mean we don't get along.

I'm talking today about the problems we're having with the contract, but I'll be transparent and honest: Communication with senior management at Veterans Affairs Canada is very good, because we're honest with each other. We're transparent, and we can be truthful with each other. Is the issue being resolved? Unfortunately not. It's very political for them as well. When you ask for money, for example, for the Bureau of Pensions Advocates, that's political. They'd have to ask for money at the national level or whatever. All that to say communication is good, but the department could do more.

I think that answers your question.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Thank you for that. Frankly, it's encouraging.

You're against the role of a third-party service provider, am I correct?

[Toufic El-Daher]

Basically, what we're asking is to go back to what it was. Veterans used to get rehab programs prepared by case managers, and they were getting paid by the Blue Cross.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Okay.

[Toufic El-Daher]

It was perfect. Now, case managers don't know where to turn. They don't know what their responsibilities are anymore. They're confused. Their role isn't fully defined in this contract. They're scared. I'll be honest with you: They're afraid that, within a year or the next few years, they'll be replaced by rehabilitation service specialists, who do the same job and have a very similar role. That's a major fear.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

In your solution, we would have Blue Cross back in the picture playing the role they did before. We would switch from one third party provider to the one that was there before PCVRS.

Is that what I'm to understand?

[Toufic El-Daher]

I've been with Veterans Affairs Canada since 2003. We had a treatment authorization centre for those who were there back then. It was responsible for Veterans Affairs Canada's 15 care programs. Unfortunately, it was privatized and taken away from Blue Cross, as you know.

What I'm proposing is to terminate the PCVRS contract in partnership with Lifemark and give it back to Blue Cross, allowing veterans to choose which service supplier they want. Unfortunately, that's not the case at the moment. The company imposes suppliers on veterans, pressuring them to choose one of their suppliers and preventing them from continuing with their own suppliers.

My ideal solution is to go back to the way it was when Veterans Affairs Canada had its authorization centre in Charlottetown that ran the pharmacy unit and the dental unit. Everything was there, but unfortunately, it was privatized.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Aren't you concerned about a disruption in the continuity of services for veterans who now use the program?

Before you answer, I should mention that, in 2021, there were 600 clinics. Now, there are 1,200 clinics. Your solution is to terminate the contract, which means finding a place for the 23,000 veterans who have been receiving services since 2023 and replacing the 1,200 clinics or finding another solution. Is it really possible to terminate the contract in a short time frame without interrupting the continuity of services for everyone?