Veterans Affairs Committee on Nov. 27th, 2006

[Larry Gollner]

Whether he could deal with something, going back to your earlier example, sir, where you were talking about Agent Orange, which in fact is still in the working stage, that would be a different matter, but I think once the courts take over too many hands are tied.

That's the purview of a public inquiry, isn't it, or a parliamentary inquiry maybe.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Gentlemen, I think we've pretty much exhausted things at this stage.

I want to thank you very much for your presentation today. I think we have a few matters we're going to be dealing with after your presentation here.

We'll give you a few minutes to collect up your things and for the committee members to make their goodbyes, and we'll continue with the work of the committee.

[Tom Hoppe]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Hopefully we were helpful.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Absolutely, and thank you very much.

[Tom Hoppe]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Just to update you on the situation here, Mr. Perron has submitted a motion, and this is the 48-hour notice, so it will be coming up at the next committee meeting.

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

I'm sorry, Monsieur,

it's a routine motion. Forty-eight hours' notice isn't necessary for that.

Check your rules.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Excuse me. It's possible, Mr. Perron. Just bear with me a second, please.

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

I'm talking to him; I'm not talking to you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Sorry, Mr. Perron. I was under the misunderstanding that you had submitted your motion today, but actually you had submitted it under committee business previously, so that's fine.

Does everybody have a copy of Mr. Perron's motion? It reads that in its current study on the veterans ombudsman, the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs has heard a sufficient number of witnesses to begin work on a draft report on the subject. Fair enough.

I think we're all pretty much at that stage; that's fine.

I have talked about this issue with the analyst and the clerk previous to this. We only have a couple more witnesses to hear, so they can of course begin working on the draft. We've discussed that.

We have Winzenberg from Australia. We have a consideration of whether or not the Netherlands are going to send a representative. Mr. Stoffer is of Dutch ancestry, so thumbs up there.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Bring it on. Ask them to bring the Heineken.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

The Swedes have indicated that they're not particularly interested in presenting.

We have a couple of domestic witnesses who are fairly willing to present. I'm not sure of the nature of them, necessarily. It sounds as though one of them may be somebody who is interested in almost making an application or job CV kind of thing, but who knows, we might want to hear from him anyway.

That's the scenario there. I would certainly encourage all MPs to vote for it.

Is there any discussion?

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Chair, as I've introduced this motion, I'd like to have the opportunity to discuss the reasons why I've introduced it.

First, we started to discuss, or chat — because that's often what we do around this table — about creating an ombudsman position under the previous government. In response to an election promise, our friends opposite began discussing the matter. We've been talking about it for months now. Now I think it's time to act. Our discussion with the people here today is very interesting, but they've told us nothing new and are still undecided. Virtually everyone wants an ombudsman, but — and I don't blame them — they don't want to get involved by giving their definition of an ombudsman and the way they view his role.

With the evidence of Mr. Marin and of the various ombudsmen who have appeared, we have enough material to start working on a draft report that we could seriously discuss among ourselves. I propose the following timetable. From now until Christmas, we have at most one week left to hear witnesses. During the holiday period, my friend Michel will have time to get bored and can draft a report. Early next year, we'll start to say yes or no. I don't think any one of us can afford to wait five years before getting an ombudsman. If it takes five years, we'll have made a poor effort of doing our jobs as members. We have to be a little more serious and work a little harder to achieve results more quickly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

I think, Monsieur Perron, we're all sensitive to having it happen before five years.

We have invited Mr. Winzenberg to come and present. Out of courtesy, we probably do need to allow him to say what he has to say. We do probably need to make a determination as a committee if we want to hear a couple of the other people domestically who have indicated they would like to present, but I leave that to the will of the members.

Mr. St. Denis.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to express my support for Gilles' motion. We've heard from a lot of witnesses, and we could hear from one or two more.

We have the time. It would be good for us to have a draft before Christmas on which we could have a good discussion.

I think it's a good chance to discuss something concrete. There may be some issues that we need to sort out, but better to have a good draft in front of us, I think.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

All right, fair enough.

Mr. Stoffer.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Chairman, I agree with what Mr. St. Denis said. The only caveat I would add is with respect to the individuals who have expressed a willingness to appear before us: maybe we can offer them the opportunity to send whatever written reports they have to us, so we can have access to them. And we should thank and acknowledge them in writing.

In all fairness, due to time constraints prior to Christmas, I think having a draft before us also allows the parliamentary secretary to work with the minister and with her colleagues in order to see where we can go. It would sure be nice to have something in place just prior to a possible spring election. Then we could all say we've done our work appropriately.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

I agree, Mr. Stoffer.

In terms of the timeline of our analyst and clerk and what not working on this, I do agree with the idea of allowing the Christmas break, because it would be unreasonable to expect them to produce something in the next two days or so.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

I understand—

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

But certainly over the Christmas break is very reasonable.

Mr. Valley.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

That was my question to the analyst and to the clerk. How long would it take to produce this?

[Michel Rossignol, Committee Researcher]

It depends. It could take a minimum of two or three weeks just to draft, and we have to include time for translation and printing and so on. So there are a few.... If you want it before Christmas, it would be problematic. In the first weeks of the new year, the second or third week of January, translated, sent to all members of the committee, that would be possible.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

We were hoping you would work right through Christmas and New Year's.

[Michel Rossignol]

Well—