Veterans Affairs Committee on Dec. 12th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 32 of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of Thursday, June 23, 2022. Members can attend in person, in the room, or remotely using the Zoom application, but we have everyone here in person today.

Before you speak, please wait until I recognize you by name. A reminder that all comments by members should be addressed through the chair.

Today's meeting will focus on committee business. I see that Blake Richards, the committee's first vice-chair, already has his hand up.

The floor is yours, Mr. Richards.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. As I indicated with my notice at the last meeting, I will move the motion. I can read it into the record again just for clarity's sake. I'll then give some explanation as to the rationale behind the motion, and then I would be interested in hearing the comments of my colleagues.

The motion reads:

That, Pursuant to Standing Order 108(1)(a), the committee order:

That all briefing notes, memos, emails and text or other electronic messages from Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) officials prepared for or sent to the Minister of Veterans Affairs regarding medical assistance in dying (MAiD), including related to the internal investigation into the matter, be provided to the committee within 30 days of the adoption of this motion.

That all internal memos, emails and documents distributed by Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) to veterans service agents and caseworkers regarding the department’s policy on discussing medical assistance in dying (MAiD) between January 1, 2019, and December 7, 2022, be provided to the committee within 30 days of the adoption of this motion.

That any notes, memos, emails, and documents related to the deletion or destruction of phone calls, emails, messages and client notes related to the subject of medical assistance in dying (MAiD) (providing for the redaction of names and personal information of veterans and VAC clients) between July 1, 2022, and December 7, 2022, be provided to the committee within 30 days of the adoption of this motion.

That all Assystnet requests by Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) employees to delete client notes related to medical assistance in dying (MAiD) (providing for the redaction of names and personal information of veterans and VAC clients) between July 1, 2022, and December 7, 2022, be provided to the committee within 30 days of the adoption of this motion.

I move that motion.

Let me give a bit of explanation as to what we're talking about.

I'll go point by point. The first point is fairly self-explanatory. On the briefing notes, memos, emails and other messages Veterans Affairs Canada officials have prepared for or sent to the Minister of Veterans Affairs regarding this issue, this is obviously there to ensure this committee has the benefit of the information that has been provided. It seems as though in the meetings we've had on this issue, when the minister or officials have been here, we've received a lot of different stories. The story seems to change. Even within one meeting itself, the story changed numerous times.

It's important that this committee have the benefit of understanding exactly what information Veterans Affairs officials have provided to the minister and in relation to the investigation itself, because even within the meeting there seemed to be questions and there seemed to be a real inability by the minister and his officials to clarify exactly what the status of the investigation is. Hopefully the documents we're asking for here will shed some light on the status of that investigation, what is happening with that investigation, what has been learned and obviously the issue itself. I won't spend a lot of time there other than to say that.

The second part of the motion is again an attempt to determine whether there has been any kind of direction given. We hear from numerous veterans. The minister has admitted that there are four cases, and we have heard of at least four others. Unfortunately, in the case of these veterans, they lack trust toward Veterans Affairs. Therefore, in a couple of cases the veterans are not willing to come forward publicly, and in a couple of others they are willing to come forward but are uncomfortable doing so in a place they feel is not safe for them. It's really unfortunate that that's the case, but I can understand it.

When we start to get into this matter—and we are starting to hear about as many as eight cases that we're aware of—and we look at these cases, it's very difficult to imagine that what we're being told, which is that it's confined to one caseworker, is accurate and truthful. First of all, what we're hearing from Christine Gauthier is that she was given this suggestion by two different caseworkers, one male and one female. Right there, there's no way that could be one individual.

Then, when we start to look at where these individuals are located in the country, it's very unlikely that they're all working with the same office. That would again indicate that there's not a chance this could be just one individual. It really seems unlikely that that's the case.

However, the stories we've heard, and I've heard some of them through the media and some of them through what the minister has told us, all have a very similar pattern to them. The conversation has gone in a very similar way. It makes one wonder how that could have been. I think it's important to see what kind of information has been given to employees.

Further to that, it would be important to see what kind of information has been given to employees since this became public. Even asking for something as simple as information about what the standard operating procedures are at Veterans Affairs for the recording of calls yielded something that was far less than what we asked for. It was almost as though it were something that someone just typed up in a Word document to explain to the committee why they didn't want to give us what we were asking for.

It just seems odd. I think it's important that we have the information that is available that wasn't provided to the committee through our previous requests.

In relation to the last couple of points, talking about the deletion or destruction of phone calls and messages related to the incident request, we are talking about a much shorter period of time. The reason for this is that when this became public—I believe it was early August—there had been some rumblings about it prior to that, in my understanding. Therefore, I have chosen the date of July 1 just for that reason, to include that period of time when it was sort of being rumbled about publicly. One could easily imagine why someone might want to modify a file, had they made a similar suggestion to a veteran.

No one here is looking to have the personal information of veterans. I want to make that very clear right now. I have made that clear in the motion by indicating “providing for the redaction of names and personal information of veterans and VAC clients”. Nobody needs to have the personal information of a veteran who has had this offer made to them. I want to make that very clear. That is not what anyone is seeking here. This is simply to try to determine whether these kinds of requests have been made.

If that hasn't happened, and one hopes it hasn't—we all would hope that hasn't happened—then there really isn't going to be much here for Veterans Affairs to provide. Let's hope that's the case. Let's hope there's nothing they need to provide here and that nobody has tried to cover their tracks, so to speak. However, if someone has in fact done that, I think it's important that this committee know about it.

We're clearly not getting all the information here from the minister or his officials at the present time, and we've had them come before our committee about what is transpiring here.

I'm not suggesting that any of this has occurred, but simply that we should know if it has. It may be that there is nothing that needs to be provided here, but if there is something, well, it's important that this committee be aware of it. It feels to me that if we're going to get to the bottom of this and what has happened, this committee's going to have to be a part of making that happen.

That's what's being requested here, that information.

Perhaps I'll leave it at that right now and see what others have to say. I may want to speak some more to it based on what I hear. I will move the motion and leave it open for discussion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Mr. Richards.

Before I go to Ms. Blaney, in the third and fourth paragraphs of that motion you are asking about the deletion or destruction of documents, and things like that. Can you give us some explanation? Do you think that the minister has backup? If that information and those documents were deleted, how will they be able to provide those notes, memos and emails? Can you give us a bit of an explanation about what you're looking for, please?

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

What we'd be talking about here, obviously, is that if something has been deleted, there would have to have been some communication about that happening. My understanding of the process, for example, for either a service agent or a case manager to remove something from a client's file is that there has to be a request. There has to be an email sent requesting it, and there would be confirmation that would come back. If that request has been made, there would be some kind of backup documentation, whether it be an email or otherwise, that the request was made. It would indicate that the information had been deleted.

That would then indicate that there may be more that we aren't aware of that has occurred here. I hope there will be nothing that will come from either of these two things. If there is, it would indicate to this committee that there's a bigger scope to this than we believe.

It's quite important to have that information. It's not to get the clients' or the veterans' personal information or to even see the contents of their files. It's to simply know whether requests have been made to delete from a file something about medical assistance in dying.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

That's great. Thanks.

Now I'd like to go to Ms. Blaney.

You have no limited time. The floor is yours.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Wow. Let me think of all of the things I've always wanted to say. I think today is the day.

I will not do that, because I know that at the end of the day, what we really care about is protecting veterans and making sure they feel safe and heard.

I have no problem supporting this. I don't know that it will be the answer that will give us a solution, but I think it's a step along the way. In the long term, we just have to find a way to get this done and cleared up, and make sure that veterans feel safe. That may take a little time. I think the committee is part of it but may not be the whole solution. I'm definitely putting some time into thinking about that.

At this point I think it's fine. I guess one question I would have, not so much for Blake but maybe through you to the clerk, Chair, is this. Do the dates make sense? I think 30 days seems fairly reasonable, but I acknowledge that we won't be back in the House until the end of January. It might behoove us if we could hear from the clerk if those dates make sense or if we want to maybe look at having them be just before we get to committee, a week before. I want to clarify those dates.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you.

I just looked at the clerk. They said that it's up to the committee to make the request. We'll live with that.

I'd like to go to Mrs. Cathay Wagantall.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

I also, obviously, support our going forward with this. I have a great deal of concern around how our veterans are feeling in regard to this issue—either those who have come forward saying that they have been approached or those who are now considering something they should not even be considering.

It's important that we get as much information as we can as a committee to assist us in bringing this issue to an end for our veterans. The level of sanctuary trauma that they were experiencing prior to the breakout of this news and this circumstance is just that much greater. It's always tougher, too, going into the Christmas season.

I think it would be important to them to know that we're on this and we are doing our best to get the details, so that we know what's happened.

I also want to say something in regard to case managers and service managers. We've had some come and testify here who clearly showed a great deal of commitment to veterans on a very personal level, as well as a huge commitment to their responsibilities and what they do. I think it's important, too, that we find out the dynamics around these circumstances, because many of them, I'm sure, are apprehensive about either coming forward or being considered as party to something that for many of them, I hope and feel, is not the case.

The depth that we've gone into here is significant, but it's necessary. I believe it's the best thing we could possibly do for our veterans so that we get clarity and an end to this unfortunate and frightening circumstance that they find themselves in.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Mrs. Wagantall.

Who else would like to debate this motion?

Mr. Sean Casey.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Let me start by saying I'll be supporting the motion, but some of the comments made by Mr. Richards cannot go unchallenged.

He stated that the department has changed its story several times. That is not true. The department officials changed their testimony when new evidence came to light after the original testimony was given.

He said that the status of the investigation is unclear. It isn't. The officials have testified unequivocally with respect to the status of the investigation.

He indicated that there are numerous veterans—at least four others. Well, if there are, that has not been presented to the committee. Maybe there are. Maybe there are people talking to Mr. Richards who have chosen not to come before the committee, or who have chosen not to come before the committee and provide anything to corroborate what they've said. That may be so but, to quote the minister, we can deal only in facts.

He says we're starting to hear about at least eight other cases. Maybe he's starting to hear about eight other cases, but the committee isn't. He says he's connecting stories through what the minister has told us and through what the media have told us. The minister has also been unequivocal with respect to having to deal in facts. He's been unequivocal in saying that what has happened is entirely unacceptable. To enter into the realm of speculation and then to repeat it so many times as to make it sound like fact is completely unfair.

The motion is reasonable. The motion is one that deserves to be supported. The narrative and the speculation that are being produced without substantiation can't be allowed to stand untested.

There was a suggestion that one could imagine why someone might alter a file. Wow.

Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but they're not entitled to their own facts. In my view, they're not entitled to do a drive-by smear of the people who work at Veterans Affairs. That can't go unchallenged.

As I said, I'll be supporting the motion. I will be quite interested in hearing—

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Excuse me.

On a point of order, I have Mr. Richards.

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

I have a point of order, because it's important, much like Mr. Casey is trying to suggest here, that we stick to the facts. I want to make it clear that what we're talking about is not an insinuation that something has occurred, or any kind of—

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

That's not a point of order. That's a point of argument.

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

It's important that we remain factual. What I'm indicating is that no one was indicating that there was any belief that Veterans Affairs employees had done this, but that it was only a matter of determining if it had happened. It was very clear that everyone here, including me, would hope it's not true—

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Chair, it's not a point of order. Mr. Casey had the floor, so I think you should respect that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Mr. Richards, you will have time to respond to Mr. Casey, but now I'd like to go back to—

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

The comment to which I am responding was that one could imagine why someone might alter a file. Is that fair?

The last thing I want to say is this, and it is more in the form of a question to you, Mr. Chair, the clerk or Mr. Richards.

A motion was adopted by this committee to have the veteran known as “Bruce” come before the committee before December 14 and be allowed to testify in public in a manner that protected his identity. Could someone inform us of the status of that request, now that we are almost at December 14?

Christine Gauthier testified that she was offered medical assistance in dying in writing by Veterans Affairs. Mr. Richards asked that the letter be produced. Has it been produced?

Ms. Gauthier also indicated that she had complained about this in writing to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Have we asked for and have we received those things?

This is all consistent with, to quote Mr. Richards, trying to stick to the facts and what's before the committee.

I'll be supporting the motion, but I think the justification for the motion, as elucidated by Mr. Richards, contains a lot of things that shouldn't go unchallenged. That's the sole purpose of my intervention. I'll still be voting for the motion.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Mr. Casey.

To answer your questions, first of all, I remember that the motion regarding the veteran “Bruce” was for today, until December 12. We are here today and I think this motion.... Just a second.

For the second one, maybe you're going to answer it, so I'm going to start with Mr. Richards and then go to Ms. Blaney.

Go ahead, Mr. Richards.

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

First of all, I thank Mr. Casey for his support for the motion.

I want to be clear that in no way was I trying to cast aspersions on the department, the minister or anyone else. I was simply indicating that it's important that we have all the information. That was really what I was getting at.

There certainly was confusion—I know it was not just in my mind—about what the story actually was, especially the first time the minister was here. I don't think—I'm not even indicating that someone was trying to not give us the whole story, but I felt like there was a lot of confusion that was left, and I think getting this information will help to clear up some of that confusion.

I apologize if my remarks seemed to suggest otherwise.

With regard to the question, I don't know that I can provide much assistance in terms of Ms. Gauthier and what she has provided and not provided. That might be something that is better answered by the clerk.

However, I can provide some more information about the motion and about the veteran who was referred to as Bruce.

He reached out to me personally and indicated that he wanted to have the opportunity to tell his story here. Following the adoption of the motion, I think he has had some concerns about the effect on his mental health. I brought it up at the last meeting that the five-minute thing is something I know many veterans have expressed concern about, for example. Perhaps if he was offered the opportunity to testify for longer, he might potentially reconsider, but he is in a place right now where he just isn't sure that it would be a good thing for his mental health to come before the committee.

That may change in the future. It's hard to say. If it does, I'm sure he'll inform us, and I'm sure the committee would indulge him and provide him that opportunity. However, at this point, I don't expect it to happen before December 14.

Hopefully, that gives a bit more clarity on that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you.

Yes, Mr. Samson.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

On a point of order, Chair, my colleague asked the clerk to give us feedback on the request, as did Mr. Richards. We'd like to hear from the clerk.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Yes. Exactly. That's what I'm going to do.

I will invite the clerk to say a few words about Mrs. Gauthier, please.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Audrée Dallaire]

We didn't hear back from Ms. Gauthier. I would be glad to follow up with her, if the committee wishes, but I haven't received a call or an email from her since she appeared before the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you.

Ms. Blaney will be first, and then it will be Mr. Desilets.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

I just want to make sure. I thought I had clarified this last meeting, but it was in camera. Now we get a chance to do it publicly. I'm sorry about that.

What I understand is this. The testimony from Ms. Gauthier was translated into English, and there was a bit of a miscommunication. I understand that she said in French—I will leave it to the clerk to tell me if I am correct—that she had received from somebody working with her through Veterans Affairs the offer of MAID, and that she had written a letter. She did not actually receive a letter from the department, but she had been offered it verbally. She then wrote a letter to the Prime Minister, talking about that.

I just want to make sure that's clear. Mr. Casey talked about a letter from the department. I thought that was the case as well, from listening to the interpretation, but I was told later on that it was not the case. I think it is important that we have that officially on the record.

The second thing is around this veteran called Bruce, for very important reasons. If there's a motion that Blake is planning to bring forward to increase the time for the testimony, and maybe a different process, I welcome it. I would be happy to look at supporting something like that to make this a more friendly environment for a veteran to come forward in.