Veterans Affairs Committee on Nov. 24th, 2022

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

Thank you, Chair. I appreciate that.

My first question will be for Mr. Harris.

This is from my understanding. Is it true that some case managers have actually been disciplined because they've given out their direct phone line to the veteran so that the veteran doesn't have to go through the call centre, and that often their reason for giving them the number is to avoid the veterans being triggered and having to retell their story to an agent at the call centre?

I'm just trying to clarify whether there's disciplinary action and why that's the case when case managers give out their direct desk phone line to veterans.

[Steven Harris]

I'm not aware of any disciplinary action. Our guidance that's issued to case managers and others is that staff members are permitted to share their VAC assigned numbers with their clients and their representatives when it's appropriate. That decision should be made on a case-by-case basis and involve their manager.

The issue is.... We want to ensure that if a veteran reaches in, if they're using a personal phone number, such as an assigned work phone number, for a Veterans Affairs agent, be that a case manager or a veterans service agent, that veteran gets their call answered. It's possible that they could call a direct line to a case manager, as an example, and that case manager is away or on leave in some way, shape or form. If that is not updated appropriately, as opposed to voice mail or what have you, that veteran's call could just go into a voice mailbox and may not be responded to immediately.

That's why we try to direct people through the contact centre. It's to make sure that whatever their need might be on that particular day, they will get responded to in an answer.

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

Am I to understand, then, that if a member goes on leave for whatever reason, their voice mail wouldn't regularly be checked in their absence?

[Steven Harris]

It may not always be checked, so what we ask is that our case managers or others who go on leave say in their voice mail who they would be directed to follow up with. There are other contact numbers. That may include calling to our 1-800 NCCN number if they're going to be away for a period of time. It is possible that somebody who leaves unexpectedly and is away for a couple of days is not able to update it.

It certainly is, of course, our guidance and our training that people update their out-of-office information, be that email, phone or otherwise, to indicate who should be contacted in their absence.

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

Thank you.

Since recordings are not currently used, which, again, I think is a massive concern, when you call and it does say that it's going to be recorded, it often says that this is for “quality assurance”. If calls are not recorded for some sort of internal quality assurance control, what is the process?

What I'm hearing right now is that the only quality assurance that's done is through the calls that come into the call centre. How do you know that services are being delivered in the best way if there's no recording?

[Steven Harris]

We do quality assurance on the calls that come into our national contact centre network. That was indicated before. We do review those calls and work with our frontline agents to respond to those—

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

I understand that. I'm talking about the case managers.

[Steven Harris]

For the case managers and others, the distinction is that in terms of recording those calls, you don't necessarily record your phone calls with your doctor. You don't necessarily record your phone calls with your lawyer. Some of these are similar types of conversations.

The second part is that we don't record in-person meetings. We don't record transition interviews. We don't record a whole host of other interactions. Recording only phone calls would be only one way of looking at it.

I could speak to the quality assurance, if you'd like—

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

I think I got it.

Thank you, Mr. Harris. I appreciate that. I understand that.

Thank you to the chair for his patience with me.

My next question is, how does quality assurance happen? I'm going to switch that up a little bit. How does the department, in terms of quality assurance, measure the training that is self-directed, that you do individually online? How do you measure whether that information has been absorbed by the member or the case manager? How does the department know that the person has understood it and is taking that training?

I remember that on October 20, I asked specifically about training for people dealing with members of the public who have experienced trauma. Trauma-informed services are really important, especially for veterans. Quite frankly, from what we're hearing, somebody really fell off and was not doing what they should have been doing.

How does the department know that the information from this training...? Let's look at it. How long is this training on suicide? It's an hour and a half. How do we know that it's been absorbed and is being used when there is no form of quality assurance that occurred, even if it's once in a while recorded?

The second part of that is, is there any way for a veteran to say, “I want this conversation recorded”?

[Steven Harris]

My reply would be lengthy. We probably don't have time to go through all of it.

What I would say is that we do quality reviews and quality assurance on client notes. We compile lists of people who have completed that self-directed training. We ensure that, even if it's self-directed, somebody fills out that they've completed that self-directed training. We do regular performance reviews with individual employees and others as well. There are a number of regular check-ins to make sure that training is being completed and that training is being absorbed and applied in the appropriate way, in the way in which they would interact with veterans, including things such as client notes and others along the way.

That's a very short answer to what otherwise would be a long one.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Ms. Blaney. Thank you so much.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Mr. Harris.

Now let's go to MP Blake Richards for five minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I appreciated the minister being forthcoming with the fact that they have found two additional cases since his last appearance here on October 20. Obviously, I also appreciated his concern when I mentioned to him a fifth case, which I'm sure we all have heard about. It's been reported in the media pretty thoroughly today.

Regarding the fifth case that we're talking about now, just quoting from the podcast itself, this veteran was referred to as “Bruce”, so I'll call him Bruce.

Bruce said, “I had been suffering from PTSD and recently had a lot of suicidal thoughts. I was kinda hoping they would help me with my transition out of the military, help me find new doctors”, etc. This is what he got instead. He said, “I wasn't expecting them to let me know 'Hey, we had recently won litigation to assist members with MAID (medical assistance in dying), and you know that's always an option'”. He insisted he wasn't interested in that, and they went on to pressure him and told him to just remember that it's an option and it's something that's still available to him—very much like what we heard from the veteran who was first reported in the media back in August.

This occurred back in November 2021. The minister indicated that there was one case as far back as 2019.

This particular individual, Bruce, reached out to me personally today and has indicated that he really would like the opportunity to have his story told. He really believes it will help—and I agree with him—to ensure that this doesn't happen to anybody else. He wants to be able to do so anonymously. I don't think he's comfortable with the idea of speaking to the minister or the department for that very reason. He wants to be able to stay anonymous, so I'm going to move the following motion:

That the committee invite the individual referred to as “Bruce” during Episode #258 of the Operation Tango Romeo, the Trauma Recovery Podcast to testify before the committee on or before December 12th, 2022, and that he be given the opportunity to testify in a way that would preserve his anonymity.

I'll speak to this briefly, because I'd like to see if we can deal with this quickly and agree to have the individual appear so that he can tell his story in the hopes of making sure others don't go through what he went through. I think it would be very informative, obviously, for the committee to be able to hear from him and ask him questions about his experience. I hope we can deal with it quickly and in return give opportunities for questions to any of my colleagues who still have them.

I will point out quickly, just in argument for the motion, that there is precedent for this type of situation. There have been at least two instances that I know of where this has occurred. In October 2018, there was a witness who appeared before the citizenship and immigration committee in this way. In February 2021, there were two witnesses who appeared before the information and ethics committee in such a fashion.

There is precedent for it, and I would hope that this committee would give this veteran the opportunity to tell his story as he wishes to, but to do so anonymously. I'll make that motion, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Mr. Richards.

I know that we can have the committee in camera, but I'd like to know how the clerk will be able to contact Bruce.

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

Sure. As I have said, he has been in contact with me. He reached out to me, so I have a manner of contacting him. I can make sure we do that in a way that preserves his anonymity but ensures the clerk has the ability to reach out as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you so much.

Mr. Casey, go ahead, please.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I, for one, am quite interested to hear from Bruce. I think that if we can put the precautions in place for that to happen, we should. I know that when we had another veteran here—I think it was Mr. Meincke—he had a conversation with a veteran involved in the first case who was concerned about the disclosure of his identity, and that was preventing him from coming before the committee. I would suggest that he be invited under the same terms and circumstances to the same meeting.

I would also point out that we have already set aside one more meeting to hear from veterans. These two people are veterans. This in camera special session should be the second meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Mr. Richards, go ahead.

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

I have a point of order on that. We're obviously dealing with two different studies. The study that was referred to, which veterans have been invited to appear on, is the rehab contract. This is obviously a different matter. I would suggest that it not take up the matter of the other study.

Is anybody on the speaking list?

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

No.

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

Since I have the floor, I'll just move from a point of order into the speaking list, then.

I certainly appreciate the suggestion, and I would be happy to accept a friendly amendment to invite the other veteran. However, I will point out that I have heard from individuals who have spoken to him, including Mr. Meincke, who say that he wouldn't be comfortable in appearing. However, if the committee would like to invite him, I certainly think that would be fine. I suspect he would decline.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Mr. Casey, go ahead.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

I'm back to the same concern I raised at the last meeting, which prompted my resignation from the subcommittee, and that is that this constitutes a further violation of the compromise that was made in camera with respect to the scheduling.

While I do think it's important to hear from this witness in the circumstances that have been provided, I do think that when people make commitments in camera they should keep them, and that's a problem.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you.

Ms. Blaney on the web and Mr. Desilets, do not hesitate to intervene in this discussion.

Mr. Desilets, go ahead.