No.
Evidence of meeting #37 for Veterans Affairs in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was orange.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #37 for Veterans Affairs in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was orange.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:45 a.m.
Member, Widows on a Warpath
No, I can't.
But I can tell you it was a shock to me. It was unfair. I thought I had it. This is playing around with minds.
And it's very interesting as to how I got the apology we received.
There should be an inquiry into the lists of names, because there are a lot of things going on. Different names appear at different times, and multiple names are on this. How did multiple names get on these lists? How can one person receive it multiple times? This is what they're saying at the bottom of my list, multiple times...caregivers, multiple times. That's not right, when we can't even get it once. I don't know if they've changed their name, or if they've changed their places. I don't know how they got it, but some of these people worked in one specific spot.
10:45 a.m.
Liberal
Scott Andrews Liberal Avalon, NL
I can see how confusing and frustrating that would be, and that's why I asked the question.
Can anyone do any analysis of the information you have to come up with some numbers and some names? I was just curious.
10:45 a.m.
Member, Widows on a Warpath
I have not looked into it. This was Carletta's baby. She asked if she could get certain information and they sent the lists of people who had received cheques from the ex gratia payment. The last list she received said something like--
10:45 a.m.
Member, Widows on a Warpath
The “caregivers may appear on the list multiple times”. What does that mean? Did the caregivers get three cheques or four or what? We were all caregivers. but we couldn't receive the $20,000. We just couldn't--
10:45 a.m.
Member, Widows on a Warpath
She received the list with her name on it. and up at the top it says “clients who have received a favourable decision for receiving the ex gratia payment”. Her name was there in black and white, but she never got a cheque.
10:45 a.m.
Member, Widows on a Warpath
So why would her name appear? Why would it say she had received a favourable decision and her name be on the list and she never got any money? These lists need to be looked into. There is something wrong here.
10:50 a.m.
Member, Widows on a Warpath
I have a concern with the list as well. There are individuals on the list who have been proven not to have been living in the area at the time. However, they were able to get two people to sign an affidavit saying they were there, and they were successful applicants.
Another concern I have with those lists is that my name is on the list because, yes, I was successful for my condition. I am here fighting for civilians who can't fight for themselves, and for my mother and my sister-in-law. She lost everything when my brother died unnecessarily.
The issue is that the Access to Information Act is in place to protect people. The Privacy Act is there to protect names. One of the blundering slapstick items I was referring to is that the names on the list should never have been officially released. Who in their right mind would want their name out there, knowing that, yes, they did get the $20,000? That's a violation of their rights. That goes to show another area in Veterans Affairs where the grave errors continue. Each individual may decide to sue the government for giving out their name. The government went against its own Privacy Act.
That's all I want to say about that. Thank you.
10:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Madam Matheson, did you have a quick comment? We have one more questioner, and I'm hoping to have an opportunity to squeeze him in.
Go ahead, Madam Matheson.
10:50 a.m.
Member, Widows on a Warpath
The thing is that when I spoke with one person at Veterans Affairs, first they said there was a typo, then it went from that to their asking if I had sent in for an appeal. I suggested I had sent in for an appeal. They asked if I had it with me at that time. I said that I didn't, and I had to go to look for it. So I didn't give it to them. That day I went looking for my appeal, and it was a lucky thing that I did, because they told me they did not have my appeal. I had this little piece of paper that saved it all. Veterans Affairs said they did not receive an appeal. I called the ombudsman with this little piece of paper. The next day I got a call from Veterans Affairs stating point blank that they had received my appeal.
They're playing around with minds, and I was just shuffled from one person to another. One would say one thing, and one would say another. I said, “Well, she told me to call you back.” Do you know what she said to me? “Probably so.” This is the answer I got.
10:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Thank you, Madam Matheson.
Now we'll have the last questioner, Mr. McColeman, for five minutes.
10:50 a.m.
Conservative
Phil McColeman Conservative Brant, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I do want to reiterate what the other committee members have said and express our sincere appreciation both for your courage to come here and for the service your husbands provided to our country.
I have a lot of mixed directions here and feelings, because you're advocating on a very emotional level.
Madam Bartlett, I can totally identify with your situation, with your daughter having been born with disabilities. I've spent approximately half my life working with people with disabilities. My son was also born with disabilities and has suffered from cancer and has conditions that are undiagnosed in that no one is able to tell exactly why he is the way he his. Doctors are still experimenting. You're absolutely right.
In my community of Brantford, Ontario, there's an organization called Lansdowne Children's Centre, which serves over 3,000 families that have children with disabilities ranging from mild autism right through to multiple disabilities. Without exception, every one of those parents wants to know the reasons these things happened to their child. For the most part there are no answers, so I can identify with your frustration. I can identify with your situation, and I can identify with those of you who have lost loved ones, because that is part of the culture I have been involved with for a long time.
I bring that to you as the frame of reference for my comments and my desire for you to make comments back, because I don't think I'm going to lead into any specific question.
One comment has been made here and I'd like to know exactly what it means. I'm a new parliamentarian. I was elected just over a year ago, and I was not really involved in politics much before that, by the way. The comment was “you were human first before you came into politics”. I'd just like to know what that means.
10:55 a.m.
Member, Widows on a Warpath
I said that because sometimes what we have found in dealing with bureaucracy is that they forget that they were human first, because it's all about policy, power, and ego for some. And it's like saying, “Hey, now, step back aside. You were human first before you came into a position of power.” These are issues that are a result of bad policy, but it's the human side of it that you need to look at, the tragedy, the travesty, and what can be done to prevent it.
10:55 a.m.
Conservative
Phil McColeman Conservative Brant, ON
I totally agree with you. When it comes down to just being a robot reading out of a rule book, you're absolutely right, and I totally agree with you. I just want to clarify for the record that the implication, as I took it, was that I'm somewhat less than human because I got into politics, and I'm not.
10:55 a.m.
Member, Widows on a Warpath
No, I'm not referring to that. I'm talking about the ones we had to deal with who were uncaring, who would make comments to our faces that “we only pay the living”. It's those individuals. It's not every one. It's those--and they know who they are--who were rude, who caused widows to cry because of those comments.
10:55 a.m.
Conservative
Phil McColeman Conservative Brant, ON
I'm going to continue this exchange just quickly.
There is no excuse for disrespect at any level, absolutely not. A lot of your comments today have been about the fact that you felt treated without respect, and there's no excuse for that. I can't excuse a bureaucracy that's been set up on the basis of making it complicated, showing disrespect, and such.
What we hope to do is begin to make changes, and I believe all parties believe this. I don't believe I'm just talking from our side of the table. I believe all parties do. I believe our minister, by starting a program when no government had previously, was attempting a start towards reconciliation on this issue, a start towards something. So I would just make the comment that in the years of advocacy for the groups that I've been involved with for people who've got all kinds of problems, there are different approaches that you can choose to take as a group. There are different approaches that you need to experiment with, and you've decided on your approach, and I respect it. I don't disrespect it whatsoever. I'm just suggesting to you that this role of advocacy is extremely important, and it's important for us to understand it and understand exactly where it is you want to end up here.
Today is gathering information for us.
10:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
That's your time, Mr. McColeman, and we're actually pressing very close.
I know Madam Sgro wants to talk about having the department come and respond to this.
Madam Bartlett, I have to gavel this meeting right on time because we have another committee waiting. We have only a couple of minutes left. If there's something you've missed or would like to summarize right at the end here, I can give you two minutes to do that.
Please, go ahead.
10:55 a.m.
Member, Widows on a Warpath
I just wanted to respond to your comments about you having a disabled child, and so do I. I, too, have worked, since my daughter was born, on the premier's advisory committee for the disabled when we were closing the institutions. I'm on a board now monitoring special needs homes. So I have done that all my life.
You are right, there are no answers. I feel that in my case that's not right. My husband dies of colon cancer; my son gets colon cancer at age 27, plus other health issues as well; and I have a daughter with severe disabilities, so I feel the answer lies in the fact that he was directly sprayed with agent orange or other chemicals in Camp Gagetown. I just wanted to clarify that.
11 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Thank you very much, Madam Bartlett.
We have about one minute left, Madam Sgro.
11 a.m.
Liberal
Judy Sgro Liberal York West, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And to all of our witnesses, thank you so very much for sharing this very important information.
I have a motion before the committee today that recommends that the government immediately convene a full and public judicial inquiry into the agent orange tragedy at Canadian Forces Base Gagetown.
What I'd like to suggest, Mr. Chair, is that before voting on that motion we have some other officials come before the committee when we come back at the end of January. I'm not sure if anyone else has anybody, but I think it's important for us to hear possibly both from the minister as well as the departmental officials on this issue before we vote on this particular motion.
11 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Our time is up, so I will communicate directly with all committee members and see if there's a consensus. If there's no consensus, we'll debate it when we come back in January, but if there is, then we'll call witnesses at that time.