Veterans Affairs Committee on March 27th, 2007

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

It doesn't diminish the meaning.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

I like where you're going, sir, and that's what I'm looking for now--specific kinds of things.

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

Just for the sake of conversation, I'll propose that: that those two lines, six and seven, be combined into this: “Veterans have the right to know their well-being is the number one concern of the Department of Veterans Affairs”. Let that debate go.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

I think that's slightly long. Is somebody writing it down?

Let's consider that a discussion on lines six and seven, then.

Mr. Stoffer.

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

You can actually get rid of lines one and two; that's very straightforward. I find the one that says, “....and be sensitive to them”, is a bit condescending in a way. You can get rid of those two, because it's only—

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

I'm going to insist on numbers here. Where is “sensitive”?

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

Lines number one and number two could both be eliminated. Then down below it says, “Highly trained and professional staff”. You can actually get rid of that one as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

I'm sorry, where is “Highly trained and professional staff”?

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Chair, I think you're a little too close; you have to sit back and look at what we're doing here. We're trying to rewrite something that we should give to Michel. We trust his work. He can take these 12 points.... I don't think it's our job to give him that kind of direction. I'm sorry to interfere, but I think he can do a good job. We trust him; he does good work.

This is motherhood and apple pie. We want something with some substance. There are a lot of good points in here, but it could be written much better than this. I think the whole thing can be shortened, can be better, stronger, but I don't know that we can do it by sitting around here word-smithing back and forth.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

So we're going to allow him to be the Thomas Jefferson of the group? It's a big responsibility.

Just bear with me. Mrs. Hinton will be added to the list. Mr. Valley is next. And then Mr. Shipley should be added to the list. Oh, he's on.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

I agree with everything David said, but we have to get something here that's short and sweet.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Now it's over to Mr. Shipley.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Can we get a consensus then that we want two things?

We want two things that Michel would work on. One would be a document, not unlike what we have here, that they would keep and we would keep, and it would be bigger, have a little more detailed definitions of, when we say “well-being”, what that actually means. The second part of it is to basically take the “Veterans have the right to”, depending on how we want to put that at the top, and it just goes on a card. It would list whatever we can to shorten it down so that it can go one side of the card, and on the back we could have something. Is that what we're looking at?

I think that makes sense. If we're going to get all we want on a little card, as mentioned before, it isn't going to work. But if we could nail it down to six or seven points to go on the card and then have an overlying document that would give the definitions and a little more clarity to what it actually means, I think that would help Michel. If we agree on that in principle, then he can go back and do that for us.

I think Roger is right, we're going to start tinkering around here. If we want them all to start with verbs, then tell him to start them all with verbs, or if you want to start them with nouns, tell him you want them all starting with nouns, and let him do that work.

I would suggest, Mr. Chair, that we do this. We take those two and get some comments basically in two formats.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

It makes sense, because Jefferson said he wouldn't draft the Declaration of Independence if somebody else had to edit it. He said, let me do my thing.

Mr. St. Denis.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I know we don't have the answer now, but I'll set up what I'm going to be asking at another meeting. We don't know what the legal status is of the bill of rights. I'm concerned, because I don't really know what was in the mind of the now government when they promised a bill of rights. I think it came out with your campaign, if I'm not mistaken, and that's fair; we're in the business of politics.

I'm not sure what was in the mind of the proposer, whether it was the now Prime Minister or the platform people. If at the end of it all this has no legal basis and it's just a nice, pleasant, but otherwise wishy-washy statement of the nice things the department should do for you, which all departments ideally should be doing for all their clients--

[An hon. member]

They have a mission statement.

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

They have a mission statement, but a bill of rights versus a statement of service principles. I have to admit to being confused from the beginning on “charter of rights”, “bill of rights”, and there's reference in some of the testimony that the ombudsman could use the bill of rights in his or her work. But if it ends up being a document that has no legal basis and it's just a nice pretty statement of service principles, what has been accomplished?

I don't want to be embarrassed by presenting something to veterans and having them say, don't you do that anyway, or, isn't that what you're supposed to do? I just put that out there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

I'm hoping the parliamentary counsel will be able to help with regard to that.

I think Mr. Stoffer touched on this earlier. I seem to recall there was probably a discussion between the various parties on a trip with regard to veterans that the business germinated out of; that was the sense. We have a former minister here, and if she wants to add clarity on that, she's more than free to.

[Betty Hinton, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

That's not what he was talking about. I can clarify Mr. St. Denis' question about the bill of rights.

I happened to be the critic at the time and I wrote the Conservative Party's platform concerning veterans. The bill of rights is the result of a number of veterans over the years who have come to me and said, you know what, you may say that out loud, but I don't have anything in writing to back that up. I need something in writing that says you're going to treat me with dignity, respect, courtesy, and that I'm going to be listened to. These are the things that matter to me. I have nothing to back up my right to have this, and I want a bill of rights.

That's what the bill of rights is all about. It doesn't have to be complicated. It's something that traditional veterans have for a long time been asking for. That is what this was all about.

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

Was it envisioned as a legal document?

[Betty Hinton, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

It was envisioned as something that they actually have on paper that says, “I have the right to be treated with respect, dignity, courtesy...”, whatever the wording in here is that we've come up with. They wanted something they could hold in their hand and say, “Look, I have this right.” So that's what the bill of rights is about.

The ombudsman position obviously was something entirely different, and we've dealt with that. I'm really pleased to see the result that this committee has come up with, that we had consensus of opinion, and that it's actually going to be happening now. So the bill of rights, I think, is a little bit simpler than that, and this is coming from veterans groups, and it's coming from veterans who have spoken to me over the years and said, “I want something in writing”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

All right, Ms. Hinton, you were up next, so was this your--

[Betty Hinton, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

No. The only comment I was going to make is that you said we were operating on a consensus of opinion today, and Mr. Stoffer asked to remove lines 1 and 2. I haven't had a single problem with anything that's been said so far, so I'm okay with the consensus of opinion, but I don't agree with taking out the part about veterans' being treated with respect, dignity, and courtesy, or that they be listened to. Those are very important things, as far as I'm concerned. So if we're operating on a consensus of opinion today, I don't agree with that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

What if we had “be listened to with respect, dignity, and courtesy”?

[Betty Hinton, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

That would be fine. I don't want to take it out.