Evidence of meeting #25 for Veterans Affairs in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was going.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
David Sweet Conservative Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON
I just wanted to make sure that you heard my voice too, Mr. Chairman. It's necessary for us to move quickly on the bill of rights if the government is going to move quickly on an ombudsman, which, as you have said, we're all confident will happen.
The only other thing I would say is that I'm certainly in agreement with the PTSD conversation and the hearing conversation, but I would just caution that we should not get too broad and then get into a health care study that is ad infinitum.
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
Roger Valley Liberal Kenora, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm concerned, and I want to get clarification here on something. We've done the ombudsman. It's going to move forward regardless of the next step we take. Right? Am I correct on that?
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
Roger Valley Liberal Kenora, ON
Okay, good.
I don't know exactly what is going to be involved in the bill of rights, or how long it's going to take us. Mr. Perron has made a very good point about two meetings, taking one week to deal with PTSD, to look at it.
I can tell you when we get into health care after the bill of rights, health care is going to be a big issue for us. We're going to have a lot of work to do there. If it's something as important as he said, maybe we'll get that sense from the individual who comes to see us, the individual he mentioned, or maybe the clerk has some better ideas. We know we're sending people home every day who are coming back from very tough situations in Afghanistan. Maybe it's something we should consider: doing those two days, getting that part done, keeping it out of the big picture of health care as it's going to come along.
The ombudsman is not going to be tied up. We're going to get that done. With the bill of rights, whether it's one month or three months, I don't know how much work that is going to be, and it could put off these two days that he's asking for. I think maybe we should really consider doing these two days with some witnesses, whether they're those people or others, and try to find out if it's something that we need to dig into. Because when we get into the health care, the health care is going to be a much bigger picture we're looking at, and if it's something we should make a recommendation on, maybe it's something we should do more quickly.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Anders
Okay. I sense there are three options here. I think one is a health care study. That can include PTSD up front. Another option is to say PTSD right off the bat, in its own separate little way, I sense, and then another one of course is to proceed with the bill of rights. That's the way I see the options we have laid out.
I'm wondering if we can take a straw vote or something like that or whatever to determine that.
Those in favour of the bill of rights?
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
David Sweet Conservative Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON
Mr. Chairman, before we do that, in the spirit of cooperation, I think we could handle taking two specific days on PTSD as long as we had an agreement that was it and then we get to the bill of rights. I'm afraid that if we got into more delay.... The bill of rights is an essential tool for whoever is going to be hired as an ombudsman to take as a framework for his work. Certainly I don't have any problem with taking two days for a longstanding member who wants to take a look at something that's very critical. It doesn't really diminish the fact that we're saying the bill of rights is top priority. We're just taking two days out on something else that's very important as well.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Anders
I'm still trying to hold a straw vote to determine what's what. How do you feel about it?
Mr. St. Denis, do you wish to say something?
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
Brent St. Denis Liberal Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON
I was just going to say that it's not an either/or, I don't think, for any of us. If the bill of rights, as Betty suggested, was only a couple of sessions, since we have her quite a bit, then for me it would make sense to do that. If there was any tie-in between that and the ombudsman at the departmental level, well that's taken care of. Then we go into a couple of days on the post-traumatic stress disorder. That might be a greater segue into the health care. If I say bill of rights first, it's only to accommodate Betty to get that done and dispense with it so we can get into the health, starting with the post-traumatic stress disorder that Gilles has raised.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Anders
I can try to take a straw vote on this, but I sense we do have a bit of a consensus. I'll describe this for Mrs. Hinton and Mr. Perron.
I sense the consensus we have is that we quickly deal with the bill of rights and then move on to a study of health, with PTSD almost dealt with in a separate way right upfront at the get-go.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Betty Hinton Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
The order would be bill of rights, meet the ministers, start the health care review, and have PTSD on that agenda.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
David Sweet Conservative Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON
Just to clarify and to take some initiative so there's no misunderstanding down the road, Mr. St. Denis said relatively quick, a few sessions. The only way I can see that in execution would be to have large panels back here. I know we've talked about it, but I would think there are probably going to be close to as many veterans groups that want to chime in on something specific on the bill of rights as there were on the ombudsman. Are we going to do broad sweeping meetings where we have five or six representatives here and clear that through because the topic is narrower than the ombudsman?
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Anders
My sense is that as far as the next two meetings go--and we'll certainly spend some grey matter thinking about exactly how we're going to try to tie up the bill of rights as quickly as possible--we do have the minister and deputy minister, who we approached a couple of weeks ago. I think they're about ready to come. If we can get them in as soon as possible, then we move into wrapping up the bill of rights. Maybe they'll touch on that in what they have to say. Then PTSD will lead us off in terms of the health debate.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
David Sweet Conservative Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON
Mr. Shipley said that Victor Marchand is also available, coming up as well.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
David Sweet Conservative Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON
I just wanted to make sure that there was no misconception on the execution of it, that nobody had a predetermined idea it was going to be four or six meetings, and that if it was, how we are going to do it. I don't want to get us bogged down on that point.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Bev Shipley Conservative Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON
So that we can move ahead expediently on it in terms of the bill of rights, following up on Mr. Sweet's comments, do we have a list of witnesses that we would want to have here at the start of the discussions around the bill of rights? If we're going to have it, we might as well fill up the agenda.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Betty Hinton Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
We've already heard from most of them, I think.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Bev Shipley Conservative Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON
As Ms. Hinton and Mr. Sweet said, many of those are going to be the same ones we've had in terms of the discussion about the ombudsman. I think we should contact them and tell them that this is our next step and ask if they have additional information they want to bring forward for the discussion on the bill of rights.