National Defence Committee on Oct. 25th, 2016

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Chair, I thank Mr. Garrison for bringing this motion forward. I know it's an issue that is near and dear to him personally. I'm well prepared to support this motion. I think that obviously throughout our past, as a society we've done some things that we come to realize weren't appropriate at the time. Therefore, I think this is one way to try to investigate some of those, what I at least see as wrongs. I'm very happy to support his motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Does anybody else wish to speak?

(Motion agreed to)

You had a bit more time, Mr. Garrison. Did you want to continue?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

No, it's okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Are there any more questions from your side, Ms. Gallant?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Not from me.

Mr. Paul-Hus?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Ms. Romanado.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

It's not every day that we have someone here with the experience that Mr. Walbourne has, having sat on both sides of the Veterans Affairs and Canadian Armed Forces file.

I just have a quick question.

Yesterday, General Roméo Dallaire came out in the public and made a recommendation that the Department of National Defence and the Department of Veterans Affairs merge. I'd like to get your thoughts on that, if you would be willing to share your thoughts.

[Gary Walbourne]

I think, at the end of the day, it doesn't matter the construct of the entity that's handling the issues. I think it's the process and procedures we'll put in place.

To collapse both departments...are we going to create a monolith that no one can handle? I think no matter what we do, there must be clear lines of responsibility, easy to understand interpretive policy, and process that is member focused.

We build processes today to catch people doing things wrong. I think we need to get out of that mentality and start building programs that meet the 99% rule. It doesn't matter how big the entity is, who manages the entity, or how it's configured, but I think the role of this office will always be to ensure that anything we put in place is both efficient and ultimately effective. I do believe there are synergies in that line of thinking. There is opportunity, but there's also danger.

Let's make sure we know what we're talking about doing before we go ahead and just blindly do it.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

On that note, I do like your comment about it being member-centric, and if you don't mind, I'd like to use that more often.

Thank you very much. That's all I have, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

There's still another minute or two left on that side before I give the floor back over here. Does anybody else have something they want to add? No?

Mr. Bezan.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

I don't think I'll need five minutes either, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Walbourne, for coming here and presenting your recommendations on the report. When Conservatives were doing the consultations on defence policy review, we heard loud and clear over and over again from veterans, concerned members, academics, and the public at large that the heart and soul of the Canadian Armed Forces and its biggest asset and resource are the people who serve this nation in uniform. I do appreciate everything that you're doing in supporting those who have run into difficulty in service and transitioning out of service.

You heard the motion that my colleague brought forward on accepting all of your recommendations in your two reports that you tabled in September. If the government follows through on implementing those recommendations, as has been suggested by our side of the table, do you feel that the transition out of service will be much more amicable to those who are leaving and that the transition time and the adjudication time would be dramatically reduced?

[Gary Walbourne]

I think the recommendations we put forward will do exactly that. The recommendations are, the wording and the phraseology I just used, member-centric. The member has a malady. They have reached universality of service, and are about to release. Well, here's their comrade. This person is going to guide them through to the point where they are taking off the uniform, but before they take off the uniform, this person will tell them what their financial situation looks like, where their medical care is coming from, and what other options may be available for them and their family. That's what I'm talking about. That's member-centric.

I do believe these recommendations can start us down that path.

You talked a bit about the personnel of this organization. When I submitted our document on defence policy review, I made it very clear that I don't talk about theatres of war, and I don't talk about procurement of aircraft, or navy, or ships, or whatever that might look like. I firmly believe that if we're not taking care of the personnel, you can buy all the planes and ships you like, but I believe the heart and soul of this organization are its people.

I've heard the chief of the defence staff say “people first”. I'm very encouraged when I hear that type of conversation. I believe if we don't do things right on the ground...and they are minor niggling things that we've caused. I think if we don't remove them, we'll be having a different conversation about national security at some point in the future. I think the opportunity is here upon us. It's going to take a will and a desire to change what we currently do and look at something different.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Is there anybody else who wishes to speak?

Mr. Walbourne, thank you very much for coming today and for your work on this very important file.

A motion to adjourn.