Evidence of meeting #27 for Veterans Affairs in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was investigation.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:10 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Desilets Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
From what I understand, the court date has not been set, but I see that it's no later than December 12. If it's just Bruce, would you like a one-hour or two-hour meeting?
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg
We will continue with Mr. Richards and Ms. Blaney.
Mr. Richards, you have the floor.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
I'm comfortable with whatever the committee feels is appropriate, or perhaps if an hour is more helpful so that it would be possible to move on to other things, I think that would probably be sufficient for this veteran to give his testimony and provide an opportunity for questioning. I would be comfortable with that.
If there are to be two of them, we might need a little longer than an hour. I'm open to—
5:15 p.m.
NDP
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
I can't hear him. I can't hear Blake.
I don't know about other members, but I can't hear him at all.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
My apologies for that. I was probably looking away from the microphone.
All I was indicating was that I am comfortable with an hour or two hours. I'm comfortable with whatever. I didn't specify it in the motion because I didn't think it was necessary to specify a certain number of hours. If it's important to somebody that it only be an hour, if we're talking about one veteran, I would be comfortable with that personally, but I'm open to whatever the committee feels.
I just think it's important that this veteran have the opportunity to speak to his story and that we have a chance to be informed by his experiences.
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
I do support this.
It sounds like some other things happened while I was away, and I don't know if we're supposed to talk about them in this venue since it is a public venue. When we bring up things that happen in camera, I would think that we would be breaking the in camera conversation. I just want to point that out.
I also want to say that things change because issues arise that we need to deal with. Obviously, this is an issue that is incredibly important, and actually hearing from a veteran who had the experience I think will significantly help the committee.
I agree with the one hour. We should be mindful of that and perhaps offer that to the veteran. I don't want to put a veteran up for two hours and feel that we're really grilling him over something that is probably upsetting. If one hour fits and that works, then I am absolutely in support of it.
5:15 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Desilets Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
So we will allow one hour for this witness and, should Mr. Meincke accept our invitation, he could testify in the second hour. Since he was uncomfortable being here in front of us, we could offer him the possibility of testifying via videoconference. That might be another solution.
Here's the last part of my question. You put a deadline on appearances, which is December 12. If you have a deadline, wouldn't it be better if it were further away? We realized today that there would be other cases and new disclosures as a result of our previous work. If the deadline were pushed to after the holiday season, it would give people time to come forward. We might have other situations “of interest” to consider.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
For me, the deadline is simply that I'm mindful of the fact that we are approaching the time when the Parliament will rise before Christmas. That would leave this veteran wanting to have the opportunity to tell his story and leave him hanging for two months, essentially, and maybe longer.
I am mindful of the fact that he has come forward. He would like to have this opportunity, and I want to make sure he gets that opportunity without leaving him hanging for an extended period of time. I saw December 12 as the last date when we can probably assume, without a lot of question, that this committee, if we were to look at the parliamentary schedule....
It's simply for that reason, and I don't think there is anything in our schedule that would prevent it. I know that we have another study we plan to begin, and I look forward to that study as well. I hope we can commence that before Christmas too, but if that's not possible, I would much rather see that wait than leave hanging a veteran who wants to have the opportunity to tell their story. I think it's far more important that we hear from the veteran.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg
I understand that, for this motion, it's for an hour and it will be in camera.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
I don't think the examples I've cited were in camera, so the matter is then part of the official record. It's just that the witness is able to be anonymous.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg
That's perfect. Thank you.
We are voting on Blake Richards' motion.
Does anyone object to the motion?
I see that no one objects.
(Motion agreed to)
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that.
Is there time for me on the clock?
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
I apologize as well.
I have some other colleagues who would like to have opportunities, and I've taken far more than my share today. Mr. Tolmie, I know, has some questions, and I'll turn the remainder of my time to him.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Fraser Tolmie Conservative Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We have already established in this committee that in 2016 MAID came into place, and it was a conversation between a doctor and a patient. The minister stated earlier that, when vets call and ask about MAID, this is moved up from a case worker to a manager.
Earlier my colleague mentioned “we”, in a podcast reference to a court case, referenced by the National Post.
Through you, Mr. Chair, to Mr. Ledwell, why is this happening? Shouldn't a case worker, when approached about MAID, shut the conversation down and say to the vet, “This is a conversation between you and the doctor”?
5:20 p.m.
Deputy Minister, Department of Veterans Affairs
Yes, we absolutely agree with that statement. It should not be a conversation between a case manager or a veterans service agent and the veteran, unless the veteran has made the determination in consultation with his health care professional and is seeking information regarding benefits or any consequences to the benefits for that veteran or their family.
I should also indicate that we have looked into, and have had our legal staff look into, cases where this has been challenged in the courts, raised in the courts. We have not found a single case.
Where veteran Bruce, as he calls himself, as indicated on the podcast, has raised this issue and suggested that Veterans Affairs Canada was involved in this, we are completely surprised by that. We find no record of that whatsoever, not only in our case but in the courts as well.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Fraser Tolmie Conservative Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK
Okay. Thank you very much.
I ask that question because it is based on conversations where we've talked about training and the mandate for Veterans Affairs. Is Veterans Affairs allowing for a loophole to get involved in the MAID conversation, where they shouldn't be?