Veterans Affairs Committee on Nov. 24th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 27 of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted on Monday, October 3, 2022, the committee is resuming its study of allegations that medical assistance in dying was offered to a veteran unprompted by a Veterans Affairs Canada employee.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of Thursday, June 23, 2022. Members are free to attend in person. When you are not speaking, I ask that you please keep your microphone on mute, which will help make the interpreters' job easier.

A reminder that all comments by members and witnesses should be addressed through the chair.

Pursuant to our routine motion, I confirm that all witnesses have completed the required login tests prior to the meeting.

I would now like to welcome our witnesses.

First, we have the Honourable Lawrence MacAulay, Minister of Veterans Affairs. We have Steven Harris, assistant deputy minister, service delivery branch; and Paul Ledwell, deputy minister.

Minister MacAulay, you have five minutes or less for your opening remarks.

Please go ahead.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

First of all, thank you very much for the invitation to appear before you once again to further discuss the deeply regrettable and horrific situation that came to our attention over the summer when medical assistance in dying was discussed with a veteran.

I have said it before and I'll say it once again: What happened was totally unacceptable. There is no way to justify it, and I will not try to do that today, or ever. As all of you know, I've directed my deputy to conduct a full and thorough investigation into the matter and to do everything possible to ensure this never happens again.

Our investigation into the situation is ongoing, as is the labour process, but this week my deputy updated me that through the course of the investigation two subsequent cases with the same veterans service agent have been confirmed, bringing the total number of cases from the employee to four.

We expect all Veterans Affairs Canada employees to interact with veterans with care, compassion and respect, and the actions of this one employee are simply disgusting. I condemn this behaviour in the strongest terms.

I have instructed the deputy to examine all options in this investigation, including referring the matter to the police for investigation if necessary. I can confirm that the RCMP have been contacted, and the department is taking steps to formally refer the case.

Through the investigation, we have looked through hundreds and thousands of files from all of the frontline staff who deal with veterans, and we remain confident that this is all related to one single employee and is not a widespread or systemic issue, but in light of these findings, I have also instructed the deputy to expand the investigation to look at the management of the employee, the department's quality control and how this disgusting behaviour was able to happen four times before it was finally brought forward to the attention of department management.

Colleagues, it is deeply troubling that this behaviour was allowed to continue as long as it did, and we're going to get to the bottom of how this happened. However, this is not a reflection of the hundreds of case managers and veterans service agents who interact with the utmost care, compassion and respect with veterans every single day. This is one employee.

I know the members of this committee will have questions about these new cases, so I'd like to provide some information before we get into it.

The incident on July 21 is what began this investigation. Here, I should point out that as soon as this issue came to light, the employee's manager called the veteran to apologize. The second known time, on December 9, 2021, which my deputy informed the committee about back in October, involved a veteran asking questions about MAID. The third known time occurred in 2019, when a veteran called the department for information and was directed to the employee. MAID was inappropriately raised, and this was the only time they spoke. The fourth known time occurred in May 2022, when the employee provided information on MAID to another veteran.

If any of the veterans in question are watching or listening right now, I am sorry. I am sorry that you had to endure these appalling interactions, and we are doing everything we can to ensure this never happens again. We understand that incidents like this can create sanctuary trauma, and the department provides frontline staff with a variety of training to ensure they're sensitive to the unique needs of veterans and their families. The department is reviewing our frontline training to address this.

Thank you very much. Now I will take your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you so much, Minister.

Now, for the first round of six-minute questions, I'd like to invite the first VP of the committee, Mr. Blake Richards, to please go ahead.

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

Thank you for the statement and the update, Minister.

You indicated that since you were last at the committee, on October 20, you've found two more cases. If I understand correctly, there's a total of four, all confined, you say, to this one employee. If I understand correctly, the first one would be the one from the media report that was put out in August and discussed at the last meeting. In that one, the veteran was pressured. It was brought up, unprompted, and the veteran was pressured.

In the second instance we're talking about, which is the one that was brought up at the last meeting by your officials, there was a veteran...it was prompted, but there was a discussion about MAID. That veteran, according to reports that we hear, has completed MAID and is no longer with us.

There are two other cases that you've brought up today. One meeting was in 2019 when, again, it was raised unprompted and inappropriately by the employee in question. The fourth one you mentioned was from May 2022. Again, that was one when information was provided after being asked for by the veteran.

Do I understand that correctly? Are those the four cases?

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

That is correct.

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

Okay.

I'm sure you're aware of the case that was reported in the media today, where a veteran came forward on a podcast last night indicating that he also was pressured by a Veterans Affairs employee inappropriately to consider taking assisted suicide.

Is that one of these four cases?

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

No.

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

Okay. I suspected it probably wasn't, because my understanding of that case is that it occurred in November 2021.

Have you had a chance to read these media reports or hear the podcast yourself, Minister?

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Thank you very much.

The first thing I would do is ask Bruce—that's the name he used—as we have very little information on this, to please contact us—if he wishes to contact me personally, or contact the Department of Veterans Affairs—and just indicate who he is. I can assure that veteran, if he wants to speak personally, in private, to myself or the deputy minister or anybody in the department, we will make sure that number is provided.

We just want to make sure that veteran comes forward and gets the appropriate treatment.

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

Thank you for that, Minister.

I know that veteran has indicated he does prefer to remain anonymous. He's likely watching today. If he's looking to take you up on that, certainly I will do everything I can to help facilitate that as well.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

I know you would.

I'd just like to say there's the ombudsperson, too, if he wishes to contact them.

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

I appreciate that, Minister.

Having said that, that means we now have a fifth case. This is a fifth case. We do not know if this case is confined to this single employee or not.

What can you tell us that you will undertake to do to investigate this? My question would be this: Have you completed going through the files of the employee in question whom you found in regard to the four cases? Has that investigation been completed?

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

We have completed a large number of investigations and we have scanned hundreds of thousands of files, and to this point—

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

Sorry, Minister, just to be very precise on what I'm asking, for the employee in question, the one you have now referred to the RCMP for potential charges, has your department completed the investigation of all of that employee's files? Are you confident these four are the only four related to this employee?

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Of course, as you indicated, there is another one. Bruce, or whatever his name is, is possibly a fifth. There is a fifth, and we have to make sure that person is dealt with—

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

Minister, sorry to interrupt, but I only have so much time.

I'm trying to get some certainty here, some clarity.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Yes.

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

Have you finished going through her files or not?

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Yes. We have finished going through the files.

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

Okay. In that case, either something was missed in this investigation, or there is another employee involved. Now it's a matter of determining which of those two things it is. In either case, that's concerning. Obviously, in the one case it means your investigation is not nearly thorough enough. That might mean there's a need for an outside investigation, frankly, if that's the case, an external investigation, because, clearly, your department would have failed in the investigation in that instance.

Would you agree with that?

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

I would agree that what we need to have—and I think you're fully aware of this—is the information from this veteran. What we want to do is find out exactly what happened, what difficulties he had. That's why I appreciate your bringing this up to make sure he contacts any of us or the department and gets the appropriate treatment.

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

Okay. Understood.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

But I cannot tell you what employee it is.

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

No problem.

There's obviously more work that needs to be done here in terms of the investigation. I will endeavour to do my part to make sure you get all the information you need.

There is another matter here. This veteran indicated he was told there was another veteran—and I'm assuming it's the one who was referred to in your previous testimony—who had gone through with MAID at the suggestion of Veterans Affairs. It was indicated to him that we won litigation to assist this member with MAID, and then, in a further part of the conversation, that we helped a member win a case in court to get assistance.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you.