COUNTING AIR: How VAC and UVAE are measuring psychological risk at VAC
By: Edwin MacDonald, UVAE Mental Health Champion
How do you count air?
We can measure wind speed and direction, but that tells us how air moves, not what it is. We can track pollen counts or smog levels, but those measure only specific particles. We can even measure the concentration of oxygen, nitrogen, and other gases, yet that still does not fully capture the nature of air as a complete system.
Measuring psychological risk at Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) has been much the same. We know the risk exists. We see its effects. We have statistics that show where conditions have improved and where they have worsened. Yet, until recently, we had no reliable way to measure and quantify the actual psychological risk exposure faced by VAC employees.
Now we do.
The 2020 PA Collective Agreement included a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between PSAC and the Treasury Board to assess mental health mechanisms within the federal public service. Four organizations were initially included: the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, the Parole Board of Canada, the RCMP, and VAC. These organizations were selected because their employees are routinely exposed, through the course of their duties, to disturbing material, threatening situations, or other circumstances that can significantly affect mental health. The study was originally intended to last six months and conclude in June 2021.
Instead, the work evolved into a much larger undertaking. By the time the final report was submitted to Treasury Board and PSAC in October 2025, the committee had expanded to include 12 departments and agencies, with years of working groups, consultations, and monthly meetings contributing to the final recommendations.
At VAC, UVAE and departmental management established an ad hoc committee to assess existing mental health resources and identify gaps in support for employees. It was within those gaps that we uncovered a significant challenge. While providing mental health support to Veterans is central to VAC’s mission, we found it surprisingly difficult to identify and define the psychological risks faced by employees. The reason was simple: we had no effective way to measure them.
After the Deputy Minister reviewed the Joint Committee’s report and recommendations in December 2025, the issue was brought to the National Occupational Health and Safety Policy Committee. The Committee assigned the work to the Mental Wellness Working Group, co-chaired by UVAE Mental Health Champion Edwin MacDonald, RVP Atlantic, and Simon Villeneuve-Legros, Director, Learning, Talent, Wellness & Analytics.
For months, the group wrestled with a series of difficult questions.
How do we measure risk when exposure varies dramatically from one job to another?
Which positions should be assessed?
Should the assessment focus only on represented employees, or should it include everyone?
How could we gather meaningful information when surveys often produce low response rates?
A breakthrough came from Tanya Mullen, Workplace Wellness Advisor, who provided staff support for the Committee’s work. Drawing on the Department’s existing health and safety risk assessment framework, she developed a simplified model consisting of five categories, each with five levels of exposure frequency and weighted numerical values. Employees and subject matter experts with direct experience in the positions were then able to assess exposure using a standardized approach.
The results spoke for themselves.
By the end of June 2026, approximately 70 percent of departmental positions had been assessed. The remaining positions, often unique to specific units, were assigned to managers for evaluation.
Some findings confirmed expectations. Case managers, veterans service agents, and veterans service team managers ranked among the highest-risk positions. Other results were more surprising. ATIP officers ranked fifth overall, while Labour Relations advisors also appeared among the top ten highest-risk positions. The assessment also revealed an imbalance in support strategies: while considerable resources were dedicated to resilience training, there were comparatively few supports focused on incident response and long-term follow-up.
This work is still in its early stages.
The data now provides something VAC has never had before: a department-wide picture of psychological risk exposure. The next challenge is turning that information into action.
The goal is not to eliminate psychological risk altogether. VAC employees work every day with individuals who have experienced trauma, loss, and significant challenges. That reality will always carry some degree of psychological impact. However, we can move beyond a one-size-fits-all approach to mental health support.
Instead of relying solely on generalized resilience initiatives, we can begin tailoring resources based on assessed levels of risk. We can identify where additional supports are needed, develop targeted training, and make better use of available resources by bringing together work groups that face similar types of exposure and challenges.
The important point is that we can now measure what was previously difficult to define.
As Winston Churchill said after the victory at El Alamein: “This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”
There is still much work ahead. The risk of psychological harm within VAC remains significant. But for the first time, both the Union and the Employer have objective data that clearly demonstrates the scope of the challenge. Those numbers provide a foundation for informed decision-making, meaningful accountability, and targeted investment in employee well-being.
We may never eliminate psychological risk entirely, but we can ensure that employees receive the right support, at the right time, and in the right places. Most importantly, we can stop treating psychological harm as an invisible problem and start addressing it with the same seriousness and evidence-based approach that we apply to every other workplace health and safety issue.
