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.
1 p.m.
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Can we find out, then, if that's the case, because if he already has to report back on the recommendations, then what we would be doing would be redundant.
1 p.m.
Conservative
1 p.m.
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
I'm not trying to delay anything, Cheryl, okay? I just want to know before I vote on something.
Is this redundant? Are they asking for something that he's already going to do anyway?
1 p.m.
NDP
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
Then it would just have to come to the committee officially, right? If he has to do the report, this amendment will just mean that it officially has to come to the committee.
1 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Stephen Fuhr
First of all, formally, with unanimous consent, we're going to wind this thing backwards to the amendment, correct?
1 p.m.
Liberal
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
The amendment that I put forward will now read:
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; and that the Government respond to the Committee on this motion.
I understand Mr. Bezan would like me to add that last statement. Is that correct?
1 p.m.
Conservative
1 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Ms. Romanado mentioned that as a parent of a Canadian Forces.... It very well could be that the children of serving members of Parliament, especially with government, would be able to have a seamless release from the military and then to Veterans Affairs, but the average everyday person who's being medically released from the military does not have that advantage.
What the ombudsman has done is set out a way that they won't have to be medically released for a service-related reason and then go to Veterans Affairs and fight for the coverage and the benefits to take care of the very reason they were released medically from the forces in the first place.
All we're doing, by being less forceful, is delaying this time and causing further pain and suffering for our serving members.
1 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Stephen Fuhr
I appreciate what you said, but I want to move forward with this, because we might have some agreement here. This is a two-step process. First we have the amendment, and then the motion.
Go ahead, Mr. Gerretsen
1 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
I'm okay with the way we changed the amendment unanimously, but if this committee wants to study a particular issue about the transition to civilian life, then we should do that and make recommendations from that point. However, for us to just grab the ombudsman's report and then try to shove that down the pipeline through our committee without having studied it is, I think, quite honestly, being disingenuous to the quality of the report and the quality of attention that it deserves.
Everybody around this table feels passionately about this issue and believes in doing the right thing. It's just a matter of how we go about that and how we approach it. I'm happy that we've come to a conclusion on including Mr. Bezan's point in it and I'm happy to vote on it, but I will say that I'm reluctant when we start to go down this path because we're not giving it the service that it deserves, in terms of properly studying the issue before putting the stamp of this committee on it. When this committee puts its stamp of approval on something, I like to think that we've done the work to be able to fully and honestly provide that stamp.
Thank you.
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
Mr. Chairman, I'm disappointed that Mr. Gerretsen has called into question the capabilities of the ombudsman's office and of the ombudsman himself, Gary Walbourne. He has not only served as the defence ombudsman but also as the deputy ombudsman in Veterans Affairs Canada. I don't think there's any person in Canada who better understands the transition difficulties that members are experiencing. He is someone who has been on both sides of this fence and has been shepherding our veterans and our members of the Canadian Armed Forces through this process.
There are four very straightforward recommendations, and I would have hoped that when these were tabled back in September that all of us would have taken the time to look at the recommendations in those reports. It was very well done. I know that the ombudsman tried to meet with each and every one of us to further discuss his report. I know that many of us engaged him on that. We know full well what's in that report. We are as informed as we can be on these reports.
We know from the history of this committee that our agenda is quite full and that every time we try to add things to the agenda, they get kicked back down the road, so we never get around to it, in my opinion. This is nice, clean, and simple, so let's get this report looked at by the government and have it report back to this committee.
I'd just like to go back to Darren's question about government reports. Committees have to make that request, based on Standing Order 109, and it's also on page 1074 in the book. Then they have 120 days, if we request it. That's why it's important that we put this in the motion.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
Jean Rioux Liberal Saint-Jean, QC
I think the subject we're addressing is important. I'm a member of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. You are all no doubt aware that the committee will be tabling a report that analyses the transition. That's probably the starting point. As my colleague Mr. Gerretsen has noted, if that's the case, it will have to be examined more carefully. The report, once tabled by the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, could be a starting point.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Mr. Chair, I just want to make sure that I had the opportunity to put it on the record that in no way were my comments meant to impugn the motive or the great work of the ombudsman. My rationale for my remarks had more to do with the inner politics of this particular committee.
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
I know that Mr. Rioux is fairly new to Parliament and in an ideal world, it would work that way, Mr. Chair. However, from the outset, we've requested that the chief of the defence staff appear before this committee to be a witness and to supply briefings on the current deployments, so there is nothing secretive. If there were things that were sensitive, we'd agree to have them in camera.
We've also passed a motion on force protection. We're concerned about the recruitment centres and our land and naval bases and wings in terms of our personnel being properly protected. We still haven't had that study, so I'm concerned that, as Mr. Bezan said, the issue will just get kicked further down the road.
These are people's lives we're dealing with, people who are going to be medically released and will have no doctor, let alone a benefit plan in place to take care of any procedures or care that they're going to need.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
Jean Rioux Liberal Saint-Jean, QC
That's what the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs will do when they hold hearings. The matter has not fallen by the wayside. Based on the testimony we heard, from the armed forces and Veterans Affairs Canada alike, the government is very much attuned to the problem, and wants to act soon.