Veterans Affairs Committee on Dec. 12th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Ms. Blaney.

The clerk will give an answer.

[The Clerk]

To address Ms. Blaney's point, I can say that, as a francophone, I understood the same thing from Ms. Gauthier as Ms. Blaney just explained.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

We will now go to the second vice-chair, Mr. Desilets.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

I wanted to provide some more information, but Ms. Blaney summarized the situation rather well.

A letter was written, but it wasn't from the department or the Prime Minister. Ms. Gauthier wrote the letter to complain about the situation. I received a copy, but I didn't even bother to share it with the committee members because it didn't add anything to the debate. In her letter, she complained about how long she was having to wait for services, mainly the elevator she needed because of her disability, and she asked whether they wanted her to submit a MAID request. No one offered her such assistance.

When she was here, with her big case, I asked her whether she had any of her own notes that she could share for the purposes of our discussion, because she writes everything down. She could have written down that she had received a phone call when she had been offered something, for instance. It's been about 10 days since we met with her. We've followed up twice, but we haven't received anything. That's where we are with Ms. Gauthier, and we were in close contact with her.

Now I'd like to turn to the motion on the table. I read it with my assistant on the weekend. We went over it with a fine-tooth comb. To be perfectly frank, I was completely against the motion at first, but sometimes I can be sensible. I opened a bottle of wine, and after one glass, we put together an amendment of sorts.

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

I should remind the member that this meeting is public.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

I'll put the member's mind at ease.

We drafted an amendment, a compromise, if you will.

We heard of four cases in which veterans were offered medical assistance in dying, but again, we don't have anything concrete. That is not to minimize the situation whatsoever. I really don't want to cast aspersions on the four individuals who raised the issue, but we have nothing concrete. We couldn't have the courts hear any of these cases, so that's why I'm a bit in the middle.

The committee has a host of topics to examine. At a certain point, we have to prioritize some issues and drop others. That is not to minimize the four—potentially eight—cases, but we don't have anything concrete at this time.

We asked for an extension, and if anyone wants to come forward, the door is wide open. I think people understand that the committee can discuss these issues in camera, so that their names are not revealed, if they want to stay anonymous. There are definitely ways of doing things to keep all of this strictly confidential. That is why we are spending longer on this study than initially planned, and we may be surprised, but so far, nothing.

I have an amendment to propose. I assume you and the clerk received it, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

You have to move the amendment first, and then, the clerk will send it out.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

My amendment is very simple. I'd like to get to the truth, without exhausting the committee's bandwidth or that of department staff.

The holidays are around the corner, and it's obvious that the deadline Mr. Richards is proposing in his motion isn't reasonable. I discussed it with the Conservative member. I would suggest February 1, 2023, to give staff a bit of breathing room.

In a nutshell, I would keep the first paragraph of the member's motion, but remove two parts: “or sent to” and “regarding Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD), including related to the internal investigation into the matter,”. Why? Because the internal investigation is entirely confidential. We put questions to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and his deputy ministers, but we won't get a response because the investigation is confidential. It's in the hands of the RCMP.

I think removing those two portions of the paragraph may give the motion a bit more credibility, instead of the committee asking for information it may or may not get.

In addition, I would propose a deadline of 45 days, instead of 30. In the second paragraph of Mr. Richards' motion, I would put “within 45 days”, which would give the department until February 1, 2023.

Lastly, I would remove the third and fourth paragraphs of the motion. Why? Perhaps it's naive, but something seems wrong to me. It doesn't quite make sense that an agent or case manager who wrote incorrect information in their notes and then deleted it would make a note somewhere that they deleted the information. I really don't agree with the third and fourth paragraphs of the motion because they are based on an assumption that doesn't make sense.

Let's be honest. Like anyone, a public servant wants to cover themselves, but they wouldn't destroy their notes. They would keep them in case a problem came up later and they needed to justify their actions. Getting rid of information is a pretty serious thing, and I don't really think that happens in the public service, including in this situation. Again, I may be naive, here, but we would have to go through a ton of boxes and redacted documents.

I'll summarize my amendment. I propose keeping the first and second paragraphs of Mr. Richards' motion, with the couple of minor changes I mentioned, and removing the third and fourth paragraphs.

Again, if we really had evidence to back up a request for more information from the department, I would be all for it. However, we are talking about four cases that are hard to prove, even though we shouldn't disregard them.

That's what I'm proposing in my amendment. We will also have a very simple motion to put forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

All right.

Your amendment is now up for debate, Mr. Desilets. I gather that you want to remove the third and fourth paragraphs of Mr. Richards' motion and that, in the second paragraph, you want to replace “30 days” with “45 days”.

As for your changes to the first paragraph, would you mind reading it in full, from the beginning, without the portions you're removing?

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

I didn't want to take up too much time.

The first paragraph, as amended, would read as follows:

That all briefing notes, memos, emails, and text or other electronic messages from Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) officials prepared for the Minister of Veterans Affairs be provided to the Committee within 45 days of the adoption of this motion (February 1, 2023).

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Great. Thank you.

Mr. Desilet's amendment is now up for debate.

We'll go to Fraser Tolmie now.

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this.

I've sat on this committee for over a year now. Two things I've recognized across the aisle are that this committee has a responsibility to do its due diligence. Further, this committee has prided itself on addressing and dealing with some issues that may be messy.

I have to say that I will not be supporting the amendments here, because I think that it would be half a job. I think we would be letting veterans down. As I've said, it might be a bit messy, but we have to find out where the problems lie and where they stem from.

Further, the content of the overall motion that was brought forward has two components to it. There's the freedom of information that the public should be entitled to, but there's also the protection of privacy. I think that the motion that was first presented protects individual rights. We have to recognize that. Protecting names and understanding that as a government is also a responsibility. Quite often, people in the public forget about that. They think it's just the freedom of information.

I think what my colleague Mr. Richards has brought forward is something that is well rounded. It is quite large and encompassing, but it is the responsibility of this committee to protect veterans. Unfortunately, sometimes there are things that are missed. I believe that Mr. Desilets' amendments would be adding missing key components to find out what's going on within this department.

I cannot support it. I appreciate his intervention. I think that we really need to have a full understanding of what is going on from start to finish, so I will not be supporting his amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Mr. Tolmie.

Now we have Mrs. Wagantall.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Yes, I have concerns, Mr. Desilets, about deleting those last two, because I heard a lot of confusion around the issues as to whether or not phone calls were recorded in the first place. I also heard from a veteran who tried to reach out to get information about what was in that phone call. They said that it was recorded, but is now deleted because they don't keep them forever.

There are issues around communications with veterans where they are, I think, trying to find the right routes to make sure that what they're saying is corroborated and backed up, but it seems very difficult, so I think it is important that we take a look and see what has happened there.

I agree with you. I have trouble believing anything truly gets deleted in this government. It's there somewhere, most likely. I don't know. As for communications, they are deleted or they are destroyed. To a certain level, I don't question that, because we can't keep everything forever. At the same time, this is something our veterans are depending on to be able to confirm. As Mr. Casey mentioned, we need that proof. We need actual facts, and it's very difficult for them.

I can't help but think that if I was in their place—I don't know why I say that because I wouldn't have a clue—and going through what they are going through with illness, with trying to get help and with PTSD and then, in the midst of all that, being offered MAID.... I don't think my mind would be in that moment thinking that I needed to be able to corroborate, to be recording this or have all the information to be able to confirm this.

This is our way, as a committee, of possibly enabling them to get some of that information.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you so much, Mrs. Wagantall.

Yes, go ahead, Mrs. Valdez.

[Rechie Valdez, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Thank you, Chair. I'm listening to the discussion. I just want some clarity. I hear what Monsieur Desilets is saying. In the third and fourth paragraphs, there's a line in brackets that says “providing for the redaction of names and personal information of veterans and VAC clients”. I was wondering if you would be comfortable with—and this is more of a compromise—moving up that bracketed section, which protects our vets, to paragraphs 1 and 2. I am just offering that as a compromise between what I've been hearing and what we're debating.

The second point I want to make is that right now we have an investigation going on and so a lot of resources are being pulled to investigate these cases, and we all want to get to a resolution. I am comfortable overall with this motion, but it's going to take time and effort away from the actual investigation happening. As a committee, we should be mindful of the resources that we're pulling from the investigation. Second, between what Monsieur Desilets is saying and what we ultimately want with this motion, I just feel we should move what's in the third and fourth paragraphs up to paragraphs 1 and 2.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Right now we are discussing the amendment. I understand this is not an amendment or a friendly amendment but just a suggestion.

Mrs. Wagantall.

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

I appreciate the member's comments there. I agree that there are a lot of moving parts here. I believe Mr. Desilets mentioned moving it up to 45 days' time to be able to complete this. I agree that we need to give some more time in light of the break and also their workload.

However, I would mention that the fact they are doing an internal investigation would actually make this easier to complete, because these are things they would be including as part of the process of trying to prepare internally for that investigation. Therefore, as far as competing with our time goes, I think we would actually be well served by the time they're using right now for that internal investigation, but I would say that I support moving it to a 45-day window.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Mrs. Wagantall.

We have to deal with this amendment first. If we don't have any change or any friendly amendment, we are going to have to go to a vote on the amendment presented by Mr. Desilets.

Ms. Blaney.

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

It sounds as though there is some interest in exploring the 45-day component and not the other one, so I'm just wondering if there's a way we could separate those two things. In a vote, I would be in support of extending from 30 to 45 days. I am in support of that part, and I've heard other people say they are in support of that.

The other part, I am not in support of, so I just want to see if we could do that. I'll leave that to you, Chair. I just wanted to ask.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you.

Yes, on the same point, go ahead, Mr. Richards.

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

If I can, on that same point, it sounds as though there is some feeling among some committee members to go with 45 days. I thought 30 was reasonable, but 45 is not going to change the world, and I don't see a major issue with that. However, as I think I'm hearing from others, I have some concern about removing the last couple of items that Mr. Desilets is suggesting removing.

I want to make it really clear at this point that it seems as though there might be some misunderstanding that a request is being made here for the actual client files or notes, and that's not what's being asked for. It's internal exchanges about the idea of deleting. One would hope that there are none of those and that there haven't been any of those. If there have, I think it's important that this committee know about it. That's all we're seeking here.

To clarify what Ms. Blaney was asking, it would be my understanding that the simple way to handle that, if there are people who want to see a 45-day window but not delete the last couple of items, which I feel and it sounds as though many others on the committee here feel are important to keep in, would be to simply defeat this amendment. Then someone would move an amendment to increase the deadline to 45 days subsequent to that. Would that not be the way it would be handled?

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

It's up to the committee, but right now we have an amendment, so we have to vote on this amendment, and we will go back to the original motion—

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

That's what I meant, that if we were to defeat the amendment, could someone then move for a 45-day deadline, and make that suggestion by itself as an amendment?

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Okay, let's take a short break. I'm going to consult with the clerk and I'll get back to you.