:
I call the meeting to order.
Welcome to meeting number 32 of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of Thursday, June 23, 2022. Members can attend in person, in the room, or remotely using the Zoom application, but we have everyone here in person today.
Before you speak, please wait until I recognize you by name. A reminder that all comments by members should be addressed through the chair.
Today's meeting will focus on committee business. I see that Blake Richards, the committee's first vice-chair, already has his hand up.
The floor is yours, Mr. Richards.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. As I indicated with my notice at the last meeting, I will move the motion. I can read it into the record again just for clarity's sake. I'll then give some explanation as to the rationale behind the motion, and then I would be interested in hearing the comments of my colleagues.
The motion reads:
That, Pursuant to Standing Order 108(1)(a), the committee order:
That all briefing notes, memos, emails and text or other electronic messages from Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) officials prepared for or sent to the Minister of Veterans Affairs regarding medical assistance in dying (MAiD), including related to the internal investigation into the matter, be provided to the committee within 30 days of the adoption of this motion.
That all internal memos, emails and documents distributed by Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) to veterans service agents and caseworkers regarding the department’s policy on discussing medical assistance in dying (MAiD) between January 1, 2019, and December 7, 2022, be provided to the committee within 30 days of the adoption of this motion.
That any notes, memos, emails, and documents related to the deletion or destruction of phone calls, emails, messages and client notes related to the subject of medical assistance in dying (MAiD) (providing for the redaction of names and personal information of veterans and VAC clients) between July 1, 2022, and December 7, 2022, be provided to the committee within 30 days of the adoption of this motion.
That all Assystnet requests by Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) employees to delete client notes related to medical assistance in dying (MAiD) (providing for the redaction of names and personal information of veterans and VAC clients) between July 1, 2022, and December 7, 2022, be provided to the committee within 30 days of the adoption of this motion.
I move that motion.
Let me give a bit of explanation as to what we're talking about.
I'll go point by point. The first point is fairly self-explanatory. On the briefing notes, memos, emails and other messages Veterans Affairs Canada officials have prepared for or sent to the regarding this issue, this is obviously there to ensure this committee has the benefit of the information that has been provided. It seems as though in the meetings we've had on this issue, when the minister or officials have been here, we've received a lot of different stories. The story seems to change. Even within one meeting itself, the story changed numerous times.
It's important that this committee have the benefit of understanding exactly what information Veterans Affairs officials have provided to the and in relation to the investigation itself, because even within the meeting there seemed to be questions and there seemed to be a real inability by the minister and his officials to clarify exactly what the status of the investigation is. Hopefully the documents we're asking for here will shed some light on the status of that investigation, what is happening with that investigation, what has been learned and obviously the issue itself. I won't spend a lot of time there other than to say that.
The second part of the motion is again an attempt to determine whether there has been any kind of direction given. We hear from numerous veterans. The has admitted that there are four cases, and we have heard of at least four others. Unfortunately, in the case of these veterans, they lack trust toward Veterans Affairs. Therefore, in a couple of cases the veterans are not willing to come forward publicly, and in a couple of others they are willing to come forward but are uncomfortable doing so in a place they feel is not safe for them. It's really unfortunate that that's the case, but I can understand it.
When we start to get into this matter—and we are starting to hear about as many as eight cases that we're aware of—and we look at these cases, it's very difficult to imagine that what we're being told, which is that it's confined to one caseworker, is accurate and truthful. First of all, what we're hearing from Christine Gauthier is that she was given this suggestion by two different caseworkers, one male and one female. Right there, there's no way that could be one individual.
Then, when we start to look at where these individuals are located in the country, it's very unlikely that they're all working with the same office. That would again indicate that there's not a chance this could be just one individual. It really seems unlikely that that's the case.
However, the stories we've heard, and I've heard some of them through the media and some of them through what the has told us, all have a very similar pattern to them. The conversation has gone in a very similar way. It makes one wonder how that could have been. I think it's important to see what kind of information has been given to employees.
Further to that, it would be important to see what kind of information has been given to employees since this became public. Even asking for something as simple as information about what the standard operating procedures are at Veterans Affairs for the recording of calls yielded something that was far less than what we asked for. It was almost as though it were something that someone just typed up in a Word document to explain to the committee why they didn't want to give us what we were asking for.
It just seems odd. I think it's important that we have the information that is available that wasn't provided to the committee through our previous requests.
In relation to the last couple of points, talking about the deletion or destruction of phone calls and messages related to the incident request, we are talking about a much shorter period of time. The reason for this is that when this became public—I believe it was early August—there had been some rumblings about it prior to that, in my understanding. Therefore, I have chosen the date of July 1 just for that reason, to include that period of time when it was sort of being rumbled about publicly. One could easily imagine why someone might want to modify a file, had they made a similar suggestion to a veteran.
No one here is looking to have the personal information of veterans. I want to make that very clear right now. I have made that clear in the motion by indicating “providing for the redaction of names and personal information of veterans and VAC clients”. Nobody needs to have the personal information of a veteran who has had this offer made to them. I want to make that very clear. That is not what anyone is seeking here. This is simply to try to determine whether these kinds of requests have been made.
If that hasn't happened, and one hopes it hasn't—we all would hope that hasn't happened—then there really isn't going to be much here for Veterans Affairs to provide. Let's hope that's the case. Let's hope there's nothing they need to provide here and that nobody has tried to cover their tracks, so to speak. However, if someone has in fact done that, I think it's important that this committee know about it.
We're clearly not getting all the information here from the or his officials at the present time, and we've had them come before our committee about what is transpiring here.
I'm not suggesting that any of this has occurred, but simply that we should know if it has. It may be that there is nothing that needs to be provided here, but if there is something, well, it's important that this committee be aware of it. It feels to me that if we're going to get to the bottom of this and what has happened, this committee's going to have to be a part of making that happen.
That's what's being requested here, that information.
Perhaps I'll leave it at that right now and see what others have to say. I may want to speak some more to it based on what I hear. I will move the motion and leave it open for discussion.
:
Wow. Let me think of all of the things I've always wanted to say. I think today is the day.
I will not do that, because I know that at the end of the day, what we really care about is protecting veterans and making sure they feel safe and heard.
I have no problem supporting this. I don't know that it will be the answer that will give us a solution, but I think it's a step along the way. In the long term, we just have to find a way to get this done and cleared up, and make sure that veterans feel safe. That may take a little time. I think the committee is part of it but may not be the whole solution. I'm definitely putting some time into thinking about that.
At this point I think it's fine. I guess one question I would have, not so much for Blake but maybe through you to the clerk, Chair, is this. Do the dates make sense? I think 30 days seems fairly reasonable, but I acknowledge that we won't be back in the House until the end of January. It might behoove us if we could hear from the clerk if those dates make sense or if we want to maybe look at having them be just before we get to committee, a week before. I want to clarify those dates.
Thank you.
I also, obviously, support our going forward with this. I have a great deal of concern around how our veterans are feeling in regard to this issue—either those who have come forward saying that they have been approached or those who are now considering something they should not even be considering.
It's important that we get as much information as we can as a committee to assist us in bringing this issue to an end for our veterans. The level of sanctuary trauma that they were experiencing prior to the breakout of this news and this circumstance is just that much greater. It's always tougher, too, going into the Christmas season.
I think it would be important to them to know that we're on this and we are doing our best to get the details, so that we know what's happened.
I also want to say something in regard to case managers and service managers. We've had some come and testify here who clearly showed a great deal of commitment to veterans on a very personal level, as well as a huge commitment to their responsibilities and what they do. I think it's important, too, that we find out the dynamics around these circumstances, because many of them, I'm sure, are apprehensive about either coming forward or being considered as party to something that for many of them, I hope and feel, is not the case.
The depth that we've gone into here is significant, but it's necessary. I believe it's the best thing we could possibly do for our veterans so that we get clarity and an end to this unfortunate and frightening circumstance that they find themselves in.
Thank you, Chair.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Let me start by saying I'll be supporting the motion, but some of the comments made by Mr. Richards cannot go unchallenged.
He stated that the department has changed its story several times. That is not true. The department officials changed their testimony when new evidence came to light after the original testimony was given.
He said that the status of the investigation is unclear. It isn't. The officials have testified unequivocally with respect to the status of the investigation.
He indicated that there are numerous veterans—at least four others. Well, if there are, that has not been presented to the committee. Maybe there are. Maybe there are people talking to Mr. Richards who have chosen not to come before the committee, or who have chosen not to come before the committee and provide anything to corroborate what they've said. That may be so but, to quote the minister, we can deal only in facts.
He says we're starting to hear about at least eight other cases. Maybe he's starting to hear about eight other cases, but the committee isn't. He says he's connecting stories through what the has told us and through what the media have told us. The minister has also been unequivocal with respect to having to deal in facts. He's been unequivocal in saying that what has happened is entirely unacceptable. To enter into the realm of speculation and then to repeat it so many times as to make it sound like fact is completely unfair.
The motion is reasonable. The motion is one that deserves to be supported. The narrative and the speculation that are being produced without substantiation can't be allowed to stand untested.
There was a suggestion that one could imagine why someone might alter a file. Wow.
Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but they're not entitled to their own facts. In my view, they're not entitled to do a drive-by smear of the people who work at Veterans Affairs. That can't go unchallenged.
As I said, I'll be supporting the motion. I will be quite interested in hearing—
:
The comment to which I am responding was that one could imagine why someone might alter a file. Is that fair?
The last thing I want to say is this, and it is more in the form of a question to you, Mr. Chair, the clerk or Mr. Richards.
A motion was adopted by this committee to have the veteran known as “Bruce” come before the committee before December 14 and be allowed to testify in public in a manner that protected his identity. Could someone inform us of the status of that request, now that we are almost at December 14?
Christine Gauthier testified that she was offered medical assistance in dying in writing by Veterans Affairs. Mr. Richards asked that the letter be produced. Has it been produced?
Ms. Gauthier also indicated that she had complained about this in writing to the and to the . Have we asked for and have we received those things?
This is all consistent with, to quote Mr. Richards, trying to stick to the facts and what's before the committee.
I'll be supporting the motion, but I think the justification for the motion, as elucidated by Mr. Richards, contains a lot of things that shouldn't go unchallenged. That's the sole purpose of my intervention. I'll still be voting for the motion.
Thank you.
:
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 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 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.
:
I just want to make sure. I thought I had clarified this last meeting, but it was in camera. Now we get a chance to do it publicly. I'm sorry about that.
What I understand is this. The testimony from Ms. Gauthier was translated into English, and there was a bit of a miscommunication. I understand that she said in French—I will leave it to the clerk to tell me if I am correct—that she had received from somebody working with her through Veterans Affairs the offer of MAID, and that she had written a letter. She did not actually receive a letter from the department, but she had been offered it verbally. She then wrote a letter to the , talking about that.
I just want to make sure that's clear. Mr. Casey talked about a letter from the department. I thought that was the case as well, from listening to the interpretation, but I was told later on that it was not the case. I think it is important that we have that officially on the record.
The second thing is around this veteran called Bruce, for very important reasons. If there's a motion that Blake is planning to bring forward to increase the time for the testimony, and maybe a different process, I welcome it. I would be happy to look at supporting something like that to make this a more friendly environment for a veteran to come forward in.
:
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.
:
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.
:
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 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.
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.
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.
:
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?
After discussing it with the clerk, I'd like to provide some clarity.
Mr. Desilets, here's the available option. You can move an amendment to remove the last two paragraphs of the motion, and then, the committee will vote on it. Then, you can move an amendment to change the “30 days” to “45 days” in the first two paragraphs and to remove the parts of the first paragraph you want to do away with.
First, though, I'm going to give the floor to Mr. Richards.
:
On a point of order, I would just to get some advice from our clerks on this. It seems as though.... I think 30 days would be reasonable, and I think it remains reasonable, but there does seem to be some support for the 45-day portion.
However, the last two points are fairly important, and I think they need to remain. It seems as though there has been some comfort provided to members of the committee who had some concern about it, namely Mr. Desilets.
Now we're put in a position by a government member's choosing not to provide unanimous consent for Mr. Desilets to remove his previous amendment and to move the new one to allow us to have the 45-day time frame. We're put in an awkward position now, because people want to support 45 days, but they would have to support removing the two bullets, which I think are important.
Can I ask the advice of the clerk on this? Is there a way, in a subamendment, whereby one could move to keep the last two bullet points so that the rest of his amendment could be voted on without having to take out something we don't want to take out?
[Translation]
After discussing it with the clerk, I'll explain what's happening. If Mr. Desilets's amendment is defeated, it won't be possible to move a similar amendment, specifically one that seeks to change the deadline to 45 days or remove the last two paragraphs.
Therefore, the best solution is to suggest that Mr. Desilets split his amendment in two. First, the committee would vote on the 45‑day deadline, either for or against. Then, the committee would vote on removing the last two paragraphs. That way, we could keep going.
I see that committee members are talking and a consensus seems to be emerging. We have to follow the rules, so the best option would be to have Mr. Desilets split his amendment in two. That means two votes, one on the 45 days, and the other on the last two paragraphs.
You have a point of order, Mr. Samson.
I understand all that, but as has been pointed out, what matters to the committee is working on behalf of veterans. We want to come to an agreement amongst ourselves.
I want to make clear that some members are in favour of deleting the last two paragraphs and most members are in favour of the 45‑day deadline. Yes, we could go ahead and vote on the amendment, as proposed. What that would mean, though, is that, if the amendment were defeated, the committee could not then vote on the 45‑day deadline or the removal of the last two paragraphs.
Go ahead, Mr. Richards.
:
I will ask the clerk to proceed with the recorded division.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We are now back on debate of the amended motion. The first two paragraphs would be kept, and the last two would be removed.
Seeing no further comments, I'll call for the vote on the motion as amended.
(Motion as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: The motion as amended having been adopted, we will proceed accordingly.
Do the committee members wish to discuss something else or move any other motions?
Go ahead, Mr. Desilets.
:
I apologize. I can't recall if this was already on notice and if members have it or not, but if not, we can make sure it's sent and distributed here.
I move:
That Veterans Affairs Canada provide the committee with the training materials and training modules that were distributed to Veterans Affairs employees to clarify the department’s policy on discussing medical assistance in dying (MAiD).
Simply, it had been indicated to us that there was going to be training provided to all Veterans Affairs employees to clarify the department's policy. Obviously, it would be helpful for the committee to know what that training consisted of.
If we are going to make suggestions or recommendations following our study, it would be helpful for us to know what types of materials or training modules were provided to Veterans Affairs employees, to determine whether they were adequate to ensure what I think we all want to ensure, which is that no veteran ever has this kind of a suggestion made to them again. If we're going to do that, we need to be able to assess them. That's the rationale for asking for the materials.
:
Thank you, Mr. Richards, and I think that motion was on notice, so we can discuss it and adopt it or not. It's up to the committee.
Is there any intervention on that motion from Mr. Blake Richards?
[Translation]
Seeing no further comments, I will call the vote on Mr. Richards' motion.
(Motion agreed to)
The Chair: Now that the motion has been adopted, we are back on committee business.
I was going to say that we were supposed to have witnesses today, but those requests were still on hold because they related to Mr. Casey's employability study. I would like to know whether the committee wants the clerk to follow up on those requests, so the committee can meet with two or three witnesses at our meeting Thursday afternoon.
Go ahead, Mr. Samson.