Public Accounts Committee on March 4th, 2008

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First, there's a typo. It's October 2007, not October 2008, presumably, for the report.

I think that we're jumping the gun here. The Auditor General, as we know, always does things retrospectively, not proactively, and we have these reports or these investigations going on, as our analyst has indicated. The government is fully aware and the government is going to make some changes. The government realizes that they inherited a situation that perhaps is far from perfect and therefore has to be fixed.

I think that a couple of years from now we will want to know what has been done and what has changed to make sure that at that point in time, if we're dissatisfied, we can send in the Auditor General to ask how the situation is now. We know there is a problem. There is no point putting in the Auditor General to confirm the problem. We know there are procedures in place to fix the problem. That is outside the Auditor General's mandate. So let's wait until that happens. Therefore, I feel we should defeat the motion, Mr. Chairman.

Of course I always do respect, as Mr. Wrzesnewskyj pointed out, the bravery of our soldiers and the fact that they are standing up for Canada, freedom, and democracy around the world, and we do want to ensure the best for them, but this motion is not the appropriate way to do it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Sweet, for up to one minute.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I concur with my other colleagues in a very profound way of the value that we have for those men and women who are in uniform defending our freedoms--always. We have been involved at the veterans affairs committee with an extensive health care review and have been focused in quite a significant way on post-traumatic stress disorder to the point that we've had before us not only those who have suffered PTSD, but also clinicians as well as witnesses from the new OSISS clinics that are right across the country, and have heard testimony about a buttressing of services overseas with psychiatric personnel in theatre.

In the case of resources, I think it would be much more prudent on our part, since we are a committee of accountability, to wait until we get those reports completed. If Mr. Wrzesnewskyj then still feels that the Auditor General needs to investigate, then so be it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Christopherson, you have up to one minute.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I don't think there's anybody on this committee who is not supportive of the intent that Mr. Wrzesnewskyj has, and I'm not opposed to the arguments that Mr. Williams makes; I'm just not comfortable voting up or down. Regardless of how you look at it, it's going to boil down to if you think this is important enough to warrant asking the AG to do this. That's a way it could be framed.

I have a suggestion, through you, Chair, of a friendly amendment, or wording...

Borys, this is directly to you. It's okay, I don't expect you to hang off every word I say. But I wondered if you would consider that we send correspondence--maybe with this motion--to the AG asking her opinion on whether or not, in light of work that's being done in other committees, this is timely and whether it's the right focus, and then get her feedback. Then we can make a determination, rather than trying to guess whether the other two committees are catching.... The last thing any of us want is to duplicate things. The last thing any of us want is to leave a gap of work to be done in this area. So maybe we could ask her what would be the best way to go in terms of content of a motion, or direction to her request, and timeliness of it, and that way we can be a little more precise.

Those are just my thoughts. Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

I'm going to get a response from Mr. Wrzesnewskyj on that issue, because it is directed to him. But I will point out that procedurally, it's really not an amendment, it's a whole new motion, so it would require consensus of the crowd here.

Mr. Wrzesnewskyj is next, and then I'm going to go to Monsieur Laforest. Then we'll put the question.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

My understanding of those two particular reports is that one is much, much broader in scope and it doesn't just focus in on the troops returning from Kandahar and any particular problems, etc. So it's just a broad study. The other study, although narrower and looking at people returning from Afghanistan, is a study being done by National Defence.

I always believe that there is an important role to be done by this committee and the Auditor General, and especially in cases.... We're not talking about money here; we're talking about human lives.

Mr. Williams had stated that he seems to agree with the intent of this--I think all of us do--and he seems to feel that we should wait a couple of years. I'd just like to point out that there have been multiple rotations. This has ended for many of those soldiers, and many of those soldiers are walking wounded. I think that this is a special situation, where we should begin the process expeditiously, especially when you think of the sacrifices that are being made.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Wrzesnewskyj made reference to the fact that I said to wait a couple of years. I said the Auditor General does an analysis retrospectively. We know there's a problem. She's just going to confirm that today. I say there are things in place--Mr. Sweet from the veterans affairs committee pointed that out--to fix these problems, and if we want a detailed analysis by the AG, why don't we wait until such time as these new changes are implemented? That's what I meant about a deferral. I didn't in any way, shape, or form suggest that the issue of mental health of the troops was unimportant.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

I didn't interpret that.

Monsieur Laforest, and then we'll put the question.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Williams stated that the government is well aware of the situation. I have the impression that the government is more aware of the situation than the people who have testified before this committee and who are responsible for the health of CF members. We received very few answers to our questions. I understood that there is a database that it is not yet completed. We heard that 27% of the soldiers having served in Afghanistan have mental health problems, but I think that number might be higher. The people to whom we put our questions were not even able to answer them properly.

A detailed audit by the Auditor General is an additional tool we can use to help CF members. They have major health problems and we cannot stand idly by. On the contrary, we need to act as quickly as possible because when the Auditor General steps in, she has a great deal of credibility, and that helps us move forward. Therefore, I will be voting in favour of this motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

For clarification only, go ahead.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

If a motion like this is passed, does the Auditor General really have to take her marching orders from this committee?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

No. I'll address that, Mr. Fitzpatrick.

No one should be under any illusion that the auditor has to follow these motions. Our experience in the past is that she takes them seriously, but if she's of the opinion that it's not necessary or desirable at this time, she probably will not. That's my understanding.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

That letter will go out to the Auditor General with a copy of the motion.

We'll be back on Thursday at eleven o'clock at a different location. It's in the Wellington Building.

The meeting is adjourned.