Evidence of meeting #24 for National Defence in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was terms.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:45 p.m.
VAdm Ron Lloyd
And some of those frigates will be in maintenance.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
It's 10 frigates, then. Is that a fair characterization?
12:45 p.m.
VAdm Ron Lloyd
Yes, that's probably a fair characterization.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Stephen Fuhr
There's some time left, Ms. Blaney, if you'd like, or I can move on to Ms. Gallant.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
We know that the Danes, for example, are using modular ships as part of the NATO Smart Defence policy, and it's just like smartphones, having one device but having it do multiple functions.
Have we implemented the modular aspect into any of our current naval procurements?
12:45 p.m.
Cmdre C.P. Donovan
We have not, and it's because we do our best, in terms of how we define the navy's requirement, not to prescribe a solution to industry. As much as possible, we have a performance requirement specifying that the ship must be capable of doing this, to this extent, and to this success level. If an industry bidder believes the solution to deliver that is something that involves modularity, then they can pitch that as their solution, and it competes against other solutions that deliver it some other way.
We do our best not to tell industry how to deliver our requirement. We just state the requirement.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
The chairman mentioned at the outset of the meeting that he didn't see you on Navy Appreciation Day, but in that spirit, we are all thankful for what you do, and what the air force and the army do as well.
In that spirit, I'd like to move a motion that was adjourned by the government the other day. The motion reads:
That the Committee accept all recommendations in the two reports of the National Defence and Canadian Forces Ombudsman tabled in September 2016; that the Government implement all of these recommendations as the best way forward to support Canadian Armed Forces members and veterans, particularly those in transition; and that the Government respond to the Committee on this motion.
This is so moved.
I think we've heard lots of testimony and had a chance to talk about it in the past. I'm hoping, while we have our representatives of Her Majesty's Royal Canadian Navy here, that we could maybe pass that motion.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
Just for clarification for committee members on the recommendations that are in from the two reports by the ombudsman, I'd like to read them.
There are four of them, from the two reports. The first three come from “Simplifying the Service Delivery Model for Medically Releasing Members of the Canadian Armed Forces”. The recommendations are:
1. It is recommended that the Canadian Armed Forces retain medically releasing members until such time as all the benefits and services from the Canadian Armed Forces, Veterans Affairs Canada, and Service Income Security Insurance Plan have been confirmed and are put in place. 2. It is recommended that the Canadian Armed Forces establish a Concierge Service for all medically releasing members. This service would serve as a focal point to assist members and their families for all administrative matters regarding their transition.... 3. It is recommended that the Canadian Armed Forces leads, through a phased approach, the development of a secure web portal. The portal would contain information for all Canadian Armed Forces, Veterans Affairs Canada, and Service Income Security Insurance Plan programs and services. The portal would also enable members to input their information just once, and the portal would automatically apply for all services and benefits that would be consistent with the member’s needs.
The final recommendation comes from the Defence Ombudsman's report, “Determination of Attribution to Service: For medically releasing members”. That recommendation is:
We recommend that the CAF determine whether an illness or injury is caused or aggravated by that member’s military service and that the CAF’s determination be presumed by VAC to be sufficient evidence to support an application for benefits.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
I'm glad we have a chance to debate this motion. At the last meeting, when it was presented, we had the ombudsman himself there, so we wanted to make sure we had an opportunity to get as much testimony as possible from the ombudsman on the great work that he and his team do. I'm glad that we have the chance to talk about it today.
From what I understand, this report has been submitted to the minister, and it is being looked at.
I would like to move an amendment to the motion. I'd like to read it out, if that would be possible. I know it's being handed out. I will read the suggested amendment to the motion:
That the Committee acknowledge the recommendations in the two reports of the National Defence and Canadian Forces Ombudsman tabled in September 2016; that the Government continue to work with the Ombudsman to build upon this foundation to find the best way forward to support our Canadian Armed Forces members and veterans, particularly those in transition.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
That the Committee acknowledge the recommendations in the two reports of the National Defence and Canadian Forces Ombudsman tabled in September 2016; that the Government continue to work with the Ombudsman to build upon this foundation to find the best way forward to support our Canadian Armed Forces members and veterans, particularly those in transition
Very much in the spirit of what you are suggesting, Madam Gallant, I agree with you that we need to make sure.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
I think it significantly changes the intent, Mr. Chair. It doesn't require a response back from the government, which is in the original motion. It's not accepting; it's just making a recommendation. I think that it is out of order.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Stephen Fuhr
With regard to the amendment, according to the advice of the clerk, it is in order. He is the expert here. We want to debate that amendment, and that's what we are going to do.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Your ruling on the point of order is that it is in order.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Stephen Fuhr
Yes, according to the procedure, it is in order. Now there is debate on the amendment.
Where do you guys want to go with this amendment? If you are not happy with it, you're happy to make a point on that issue. That's where we are.
Go ahead.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
The amendment replaces the whole motion. The intent of the motion was to accept the recommendations so that they can move forward as encouragement to the minister to accept these recommendations and start implementing them as soon as possible.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Vote against the amendment if you don't like it. He's already ruled that it's in order. If you want to challenge the chair, then challenge the chair.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Stephen Fuhr
That's the last thing on the table, so if you don't like it and you're not in agreement with it, then we can solve that problem.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
I'll just debate the amendment, then.
I do think this is more ambiguous than what we're putting out there in asking to make sure the recommendations are accepted. First, the committee accepts those recommendations, and we ask the government to implement those recommendations.
One thing I'm disappointed in is that you're removing the need to have the government report back to committee. I think it's one of our prerogatives, as committee members, to ask the government for feedback. You're removing that completely from this motion, so the amendment is, in my opinion, watering this down and not at all serving the interests of members who are transitioning right now and who are being medically released. I think this is a disservice to all those who serve in uniform.
