Veterans Affairs Committee on Nov. 5th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

No, there are no more witnesses here. This was the full complement.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

I'd like to have some of the departmental people come back. I still have questions on it, and I'd like to once and for all look at what's being done today, and is it that much better for today and the future. Then we go back to the fact that we've got 50,000 veterans in that category who still feel they were not treated well.

I'd like to have another meeting on this issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Hang on for a second, hold it. I have Mr. André and then Mr. Kerr and then Mr. Oliphant.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Please, please. Mr. Oliphant on a point of order.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

I would like to hold this discussion until we're in camera. I think it's appropriate to have this discussion after the witnesses leave. That's my only concern.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Is there a consensus, then, that the witnesses be excused?

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Chairman, I only wanted to have half a minute to say one thing to witnesses.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

On this point.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

In camera, absolutely.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Okay.

Monsieur André, are you okay if we excuse the witnesses?

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

I thought our meeting was to last until 11 o'clock, so we could hear our witnesses. I would like to understand more about what it is, concerning this motion. We invited these people. I might like to ask them another question.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Monsieur André, I understand that. I'm at the disposal of the committee, and that's why I asked if we had consensus.

Mr. Kerr put a motion forward to dispose of the bill and get to the point of reporting it back to the House. We have limited time to do that and we're going to be in our constituencies next week. We have no other witnesses scheduled, so that was the process I was going to follow. But like everything else in committee, it's debatable. But we have to handle the business at some point.

Yes, Mr. Kerr.

[Greg Kerr, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Let's be clear, Mr. Chair, that this is understood if it gets to this point. I'm not trying to rush the witnesses out. If we take the extra time, we can extend the committee time and stay and discuss. The point is that we made a commitment to get this bill back to the House. We have a time limit to put the bill back to the House. We're not here next week. When I did discuss this with Mr. Stoffer, my recommendation was that it go back to the House unamended, for the House to deal with it.

Mr. Stoffer has a specific issue to deal with that. We need time to discuss it. If the committee is not ready to dispose of the bill, that's fine. But we have an obligation to get this back to the House. I'm simply doing my duty by raising it this morning and saying we have to do it by motion at some point. I don't want to get caught in a discussion about whether we're hurrying the witnesses off, because that is absolutely incorrect.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Excuse me for a moment, because I want to ask Mr. Stoffer this: are you in agreement with Mr. Kerr's comment?

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

That is correct. I thank the parliamentary secretary for coming to me on this issue. I only need to confer with a couple of individuals, and when we get back on the Tuesday morning, at the crack of dawn.... In fact, Mr. Kerr will know the response beforehand. I can't see a problem, but I do need to discuss it with a couple of folks. On Tuesday morning we can have this thing done fairly quickly.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Just to let other committee members know, what Mr. Stoffer is saying is that he has to check with a source and then he's prepared to go to business first thing in the next meeting. Is that correct?

[Greg Kerr, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Chair, the agreement would have been that I'd make the motion. Mr. Stoffer will make his comments. We're going to defer it to business at the next meeting, to make sure it's on record to be dealt with. It will have to be dealt with at the next meeting so we can get the bill back to the House.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Kerr.

Madam Sgro.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

I would like to have departmental staff come back to our next meeting and answer some additional questions that I have. At that point we can then deal with this. I don't see why the rush. I know we have a certain time limit to deal with things, but if we're trying to deal with it, we can't have only two meetings and because we have no more witnesses.... That's why I'd like to have departmental staff come to our next meeting, further to this, before we start dealing with pushing it back into the House at this point.

[Greg Kerr, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Could I ask which departmental staff you want?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. André, did you have a comment?

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Okay, I'm sorry, Mr. Kerr. Go right ahead.

[Greg Kerr, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Chair, we have no problem if the agreement is to come back for another meeting, but let's be clear about which departmental staff you would be talking about.