Evidence of meeting #34 for Veterans Affairs in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was rights.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
Roger Valley Liberal Kenora, ON
Thank you. I wasn't quite finished my question when you moved on, but that's okay.
I take it from Mrs. Hinton's answer that the government was as surprised as we were when this announcement happened.
Thank you.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
Brent St. Denis Liberal Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON
Based on what I've heard--absent a compelling reason that I haven't heard yet to continue the study--I could put in a motion at the appropriate time, or we could just do it by consensus, to terminate the study on the bill of rights. At the same time, through a letter from the committee through the chair, we could ask the minister to clarify some of the outstanding legal questions on record that we were delving into relevant to our version, which I think would be equally relevant to the version on the website now.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
Bev Shipley Conservative Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
To my colleague Mr. Perron, I don't think anyone at this table would suggest—I think it was just a choice of words—that we wasted time when we were doing discussions around PTSD. In fact, I would suggest to all of us that we would all agree that what has been happening at this committee has been very fruitful and has moved along. We've made some choices. I think we've been flexible in terms of what we wanted to talk about. PTSD came along, which we recognize is an important issue. We hear about it, in fact, in the news.
So having those discussions was not wasteful, and I know Gilles knows that was not a waste of time, for certain.
We did make commitments, and I'll go to Mr. Stoffer's comments. Those commitments we need to follow up, and if we can do that through continued study on health, as Ms. Hinton has said, that's something that all of us around here want to deal with.
Mr. St. Denis is wondering whether we want to just terminate it. I would suggest that we don't, but that will be up to everyone, because as much as it has come out as a veterans bill of rights, there have been some good issues come up. We and other committees, as we know, have made changes to bills, and the minister and the Prime Minister have the right to move along with things, but I don't think that precludes us from putting recommendations in. Quite honestly, if those recommendations especially come from this committee and we can get consensus on them, then we will go to bat as a committee.
You folks also know what happens: sometimes they're accepted and sometimes they aren't. But I would suggest that if we can work in the tone in which we have worked in terms of taking stuff forward....
We have a drafter. We have a principle to work around. We've had some legal witnesses in front of us looking at different options, talking to us a bit about what could or could not be, and some of their opinions on how it might be drafted.
Even if it's another meeting or two, I think we don't want to hold back on health care. This committee has a lot of things that are important for us to deal with. We've made some choices. I'm not saying they're bad; it's just that it has become a timing issue.
Mr. St. Denis, I would leave that to discussion, but I'm not quite prepared to just drop it and say let's not put our recommendations forward on it. We have obviously some further discussions, but on the health care discussions, we want to move ahead with that. We have a lot of work that we could be doing.
Quite honestly, we could spend this whole meeting in a bit of a debate about what was wrong or what was right. I don't think that's going to be fruitful. Let's make a decision for our committee as to where our next step will be. I think that would be best, because I do not believe that any of the work we have done here has been for naught. It is all leading to something, whether it's on the VIP or on the PTSD discussions that we've had, and certainly around the bill of rights.
Those are just comments, and I'll leave it open, but I think that would be our position.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Anders
Thank you very much, Mr. Shipley. Now we're going to go back to Ms. Guarnieri.
I've just read through this copy, which I think everybody has had distributed to them, the Lynn Legault version, or whatever you want to call it, the Prime Minister's version, the website version—all right, the Veterans Affairs version—and it's almost exactly the same wording for four of the seven; and for numbers 5, 6, and 7 of our proposed draft, there are ways in which it is better. It's the first time I've had a chance to peruse it.
Ms. Guarnieri.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
Albina Guarnieri Liberal Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON
Mr. Chair, I don't think any of us are in disagreement that we want what's best for our veterans. But I think we'd all agree that we don't want to mislead them into believing they're getting something that they're not. As a mission statement, I think it's admirable, whatever words or version you choose, but it really doesn't reach the standard of rights.
For us to continue this discussion, I, for one, would like to know from the government members if they're prepared to include rights--for instance, to have a decision reached within six months or go to court. They have to give a right to something in order for this to be appropriately named a bill of rights.
If I might, in the spirit of trying to advance the discussion a little bit, at a minimum, perhaps, we could include the subheading “Veterans Affairs Service Principles” on this bill of rights. Then nobody would be misled into believing it's something that it isn't.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Anders
Thank you for that, Ms. Guarnieri.
The chair doesn't often interject here, but.... I understand where you're going with this, Ms. Guarnieri, but whether it's the draft that you want from the department, or you want to amend that or what have you, I think in the long term veterans are better served by something that gives them a little more heft. And I think the name “bill of rights” does that when they seek redress.
Mr. Sweet.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
David Sweet Conservative Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON
I just wanted to make it abundantly clear--Mr. Shipley already mentioned it--that the idea that I inferred in any way, shape, or form that there was a waste of time is erroneous. We have a lot of priorities that are here, including, by the way, Mr. St. Denis' private member's bill. We constantly have to make those decisions about what the priorities are. So the notion that when I was inferring that we change our schedule I meant it was a waste of time is absolutely incorrect. I was simply pointing out the facts.
9:30 a.m.
Bloc
Gilles-A. Perron Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. When will we be receiving the French version?
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Anders
Mr. Perron, you're very lucky in the sense that there's nobody else on the agenda.
9:30 a.m.
Bloc
Gilles-A. Perron Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
It's a point of order.
When will be getting the French version?
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Anders
I believe I heard and see BlackBerrys working on getting you that tout de suite--so very quickly, sir.
Mr. St. Denis.
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
Brent St. Denis Liberal Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON
Actually, without realizing it, Mr. Chair, you supported the point I was making about not pursuing this. To me, the only open questions have to do with the legality, along with points that my colleague is making about the proper title of this series of statements.
I think it would be incumbent.... If the government members feel we should continue this, I would expect that the minister would at least ask us to continue it. It's out there, and if the minister doesn't ask us to look at what's on the website, then it is a fait accompli, and we should essentially move on, except for the questions about what you call it, what its proper title is, and what the legalities are around the so-called rights that are being provided.
I'm still where I was. I feel we should terminate this except for a letter to the minister. You might want to include, if colleagues agree, asking the minister, “Do you want us to look at this? Are you serious about us actually...? Are you interested in actually hearing our views?”
I doubt the minister will be interested, quite frankly, because it's on the website now. I don't think it says “draft” on the website, and with great respect to the Prime Minister, I don't remember his saying that this is a proposal to be considered by anybody. It was laid out there. I'm not sure if I agree exactly with.... I didn't feel insulted; I felt that this is politics. It was a very political statement.
Maybe it's within the Prime Minister's right to do whatever he wants in a certain area, but it's our job to respond appropriately. And it's my view that we need to be responsible to our veterans and make sure they know what it is they're getting.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Anders
Thank you, Mr. St. Denis.
I wonder if continuing with the study requires the minister to ask us to do that. It also begs the question as to whether our renaming it requires the minister to ask us to do that.
Go ahead, Ms. Hinton.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
Betty Hinton Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
It's hard to know how to phrase this without sounding negative or condescending. I think the members of this committee have worked very hard on behalf of veterans, so if I say anything that sounds that way, please forgive me.
I don't see anything in the copy we have been given from the Veterans Affairs web page that contradicts any of the things we've talked about as a committee. In fact, I think they're all contained in that. The gist of where we were going is encompassed in this piece of writing on the web page, which tells you what the bill of rights is. I don't understand the hang-up with semantics. I have difficulty with that.
I have worked with many of the people in this room for many years. Your hearts are all in the right place. We all want to move forward with the veterans issue. I guess there are some stung feelings in here, and I can understand that, but we need to look at the really important part we have in front of us that we can make changes through, and that's the health care review, which will do exactly what Mr. Stoffer raised earlier this morning. This is something that is going to be a benefit to all those veterans and all those widows of veterans who have been waiting for some sort of response. We could spend the next six meetings, if you want to, going over old ground, because the committee makes its own destiny, or we can move forward on new ground. That choice is entirely in the hands of the committee.
I personally want to make certain that we do everything we possibly can with the health care review to get the answers veterans have been asking for for a long time. I recognize that if this committee doesn't want to go that way, there's nothing anyone can do to force it, but I can tell you without a second's hesitation that the government is going to move forward. If you'd like to have input as a committee, and I believe it is very important that we do, then we have to move on with this. Otherwise, we're going to be here arguing about something that's already dealt with, and we're going to miss that opportunity as a committee to deal with something that means a great deal to veterans, and that's the health care review .
My recommendation is that we move forward. And I will abide by whatever decision this committee makes.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Anders
I'm going to recognize Mr. Stoffer next, but while people have been speaking, I've actually been going ahead and comparing line for line.
As I said, the only ones that were slightly different were five, six, and seven, and on one of them, actually, the wording is less vague and is better in the department's version. The other one deals with the whole idea of free legal representation and the huge conundrum that this would involve in terms of cost to the government over the long term. At least in two of those three, we have superlative wording.
Go ahead, Mr. Stoffer.
9:35 a.m.
NDP
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
I don't want to belabour the point, but I will. Madam Hinton said that if we wanted to have input into something, we should move on. That's what I thought we were trying to do, have input on the bill of rights, and once we made our recommendations, the government would look at our recommendations and make their own parameters around them. They never did; they just did it anyway, so we really didn't have access to it or a way to say that.
Second, what I'd like to know from the government is whether this bill of rights that has been announced by VAC is a mission statement. Or does it have any legal standing?
The problem that bothers me, and I was assured that most veterans do this.... As I said before, we deal with a lot of hearing problems among veterans who can't get hearing aids or pensions because of their hearing concerns, because when they left the war in 1946, 1947, or 1954 after Korea, they didn't get a hearing test. So they get one now, and of course there's no sign of progressive loss. So they don't get it.
In here it says: “Receive benefits and services as set out in our published service standards”. Many veterans have problems with that. That's the crux of the matter. If VAC officials are going by the legislative letter of the law that says that you didn't do this, so you don't qualify for benefits, so too bad, so sad, you appeal, you get the same answer, and you take it to the Federal Court of Appeal--that's some of the problem.
What I'd like to know is whether this has any legal standing, or is it just a nice mission statement that makes members of Veterans Affairs and the RCMP folks feel better about themselves? That's what we asked the lawyers from before. If we do something, what kind of legal standing would this have: “Be treated with respect, dignity, fairness, and courtesy”? If a veteran felt that he wasn't treated with fairness, could he sue the government? I don't know. That's something lawyers would have to answer.
In conclusion, I'd like to ask whether this has any legal issues, or is it just a nice mission statement?
9:35 a.m.
Bloc
Gilles-A. Perron Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
I'd just like to comment briefly on Betty's remarks. On the Prime Minister's website, or on the Veterans Affairs website, an effort is made to use the word “military”, not “war”. On line 1, we find the expression “Veterans with war service”. We're talking then about veterans having served in wartime.
Are we excluding soldiers who took part in peacekeeping missions? Are we excluding victims of Agent Orange or of Agent Purple tested at CFB Gagetown? Are we excluding members of UN and NATO missions? Are we excluding all of the young soldiers who are returning home with physical and mental problems?
The term “war service” gets my ire up.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Anders
Okay, I think it's probably addressed in the next line, Monsieur Perron, because I think that's more inclusive, the second line.
Mr. Shipley.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
Bev Shipley Conservative Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON
I think, Mr. Perron, that if we just read one line at a time without taking into the context...with war services there are also veterans and service members of the Canadian Forces, regular, reserve, former RCMP, spouses, partners, survivors, primary caregivers, other eligible dependants.... I think it's trying to be as inclusive as it can be. I wouldn't just take one line at a time.
So I'll just leave it at that, Chair.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
Betty Hinton Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
In regard to comments Mr. Stoffer made, I just hope he doesn't actually believe that the minister, or the Prime Minister, or members of this committee have not thoroughly discussed what this committee has been moving forward with on the bill of rights with Veterans Affairs, as well as with the Prime Minister, as well as with the minister himself. Obviously we take back the commentary that's made at this committee level. That's the whole idea behind having the committee. So all of the thoughts and the concerns, etc., that have come from committee members have been relayed to the proper people. This bill of rights, as I've said a hundred times, is meant to be a complement. The heavy hammer is the ombudsman.
I know that Mr. Stoffer has worked as hard as I have on trying to bring this forward. You've been very cooperative at the committee level and I know how you feel about veterans. The ombudsman is the part that really mattered. The bill of rights is a complement to the ombudsman and shouldn't be considered as anything more heavy duty than that.
I also think it would be fair to say that Mr. Stoffer would feel the same as I do about delaying this. These veterans are aging very quickly, and we need to make certain that we take care of them now, not after the fact. For those of you who happened to have the privilege of going to Vimy, did anyone ever notice any veteran who was unhappy with the announcement from the Prime Minister? Was there any hesitation? My understanding is that there were tears rolling down the cheeks of veterans who thought to themselves, it's about time.
So the ombudsman is in place. The bill of rights is in place. Now we have a decision to make as a committee. Are we going to do something with the health care review, or are we going to sit here for another few meetings and discuss something that's already been dealt with? It's the choice of the committee.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
Albina Guarnieri Liberal Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON
Exactly. I refuse to answer the question. We dealt with it.