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.