Veterans Affairs Committee on April 17th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Okay.

Ms. Guarnieri.

[Albina Guarnieri, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Chair, I'm going to be ever so brief. You took a bit of poetic licence when you referred to my comments. What I suggested was not to rewrite—

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Draft the words—

[Albina Guarnieri, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

You interrupt me, Mr. Chair. I have the floor right now. You do that continually to me, I've noticed.

Mr. Chair, all I recommended, in the spirit of cooperation, was that in order not to mislead veterans.... The words were admirable, as presented by the committee. Even the words on the website are admirable, but it doesn't reach the standard of rights; that was my point.

What I had suggested, in the spirit of cooperation, was to have a subheading that would better reflect exactly what it would mean to the veterans, what it would actually give the veterans. And the subheading that I had recommended was “Veterans Affairs Service Principles”.

You misrepresented my comments, and I encourage you not to keep doing that to me.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Ms. Guarnieri, the references I was making were not specifically to you. You may take them that way, but there were several others—

[Albina Guarnieri, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

You referred to me.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

—who raised that point, Ms. Guarnieri. I was not making specific reference to you.

Mr. Sweet.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As for the number of questions around the table about the legality of the statement, this committee took the initiative and had counsel here the last time. We heard clear testimony about the strength of the legislation, regulatory aspects, and civil conflicts as well. I don't think it would be appropriate for us to send a letter and ask the minister about the legal standing of it. At some point in time, I think we should do the work we began and make a recommendation regarding the bill of rights. We had a fulsome conversation. In fact it was, I thought, one of the best committee meetings we had with the two counsel here, discussing some of the avenues of how we could make a recommendation to the minister regarding that.

The other thing, too, is that I'm a little puzzled at some people's concern that subsequent recommendations would not be as powerful as pre-emptive recommendations on the path of a department or legislation by a minister, or whatever. Frankly, everything we do here is subsequent in some way, shape or form; it's either dealing with the way things have been for years or, in this case, it will be the way things have been for weeks or months. So the key thing is going to be prioritizing, if we want to go back to the bill of rights and continue with the health review and submit it.

As for Mr. Stoffer's concerns about something coming out beforehand, as I said, I think subsequent recommendations are just as powerful as pre-emptive ones, in the sense that I think the department will take it seriously. I believe the work we do here is serious, and it's always been taken that way.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

You raise an interesting point, Mr. Sweet. I ask the committee to consider it.

We, of course, can have a motion or letter. Actually, I see there are four options here. One is that we could have the wording of a motion as laid out, say, for example, by Mr. St. Denis. We could have a letter come from the chair. We could have witnesses appear before us with regard to the legal implications of all of these things. The other option is Mr. Sweet's intriguing idea, where he talks about pre-emptive recommendations. The committee can certainly recommend what they wish to see with regard to the timelines or questions that are arising from this.

Anyhow, I see there are four potential options. Right now, though, the only thing we have before us, or will have before us, is the draft of Mr. St. Denis' motion.

Now, I don't have anybody else on the speaking list for this. Is there anybody else who wishes to have their name added to it?

Okay, what I think will probably suffice, then, is that I'll probably wait for the wording of the motion to be dealt with at the next committee meeting by Mr. St. Denis.

Oh, we have a motion by Mr. Stoffer, but he's not here. He's gone to a press conference. Okay, fair enough.

We can have a bit of a break and I'll leave this with you. I know Mr. Stoffer's motion will be up, and hopefully he'll have a chance to return and speak to that.

The other thing is what we will do in subsequent meetings. Obviously in a subsequent meeting we'll be dealing with the motion, I would assume, from Mr. St. Denis, and then I'm thinking, based on what I hear around here—and after dealing with Mr. Stoffer's motion—we'll probably carry forward with our health care review. And then maybe we'll await the response, if we get one, to Mr. St. Denis' motion, or what have you, and consider what we do, if anything further, on the veterans bill of rights.

So let's take a break then.

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

Are we expecting Mr. Stoffer back?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

The break is contingent upon Mr. Stoffer returning to talk to his motion.

Let's take a quick look.

[A hon. member]

Five minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Okay, let's break for five minutes. All right, fair enough.

[A hon. member]

So if he's not back, we're out of here?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

I think so. We'll ascertain that after the five minutes. The clerk will determine the whereabouts of Mr. Stoffer.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

We are back and back at it.

Mr. Stoffer has returned, and we now have his motion: “That the Committee report to the House recommending that Room 112-N of the Centre Block be named the Veterans' Room and that the room be decorated accordingly.”

Mr. Stoffer, do you wish to speak to your motion?

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

Yes, sir. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The reason I bring this up is that when I was on the standing committee on defence and veterans affairs--I believe Madam Hinton was there as well at the time, and Mr. Anders and a few others--we had a motion that Room 362 of the East Block be dedicated as the defence room, or the war room, for lack of a better term. Mr. Pratt was the chair at that time. It worked out very nicely. They put some beautiful art work up in the room, and now everyone knows that's where the defence committee meets, more or less, when they get a chance.

I thought this room was bland in a way, and that since we meet here on a regular basis and are now a full standing committee--thanks to the government for that--it would be recognized that this room would be the veterans affairs committee room, and that if possible we could have some art work of veterans and that kind of thing in this room to give it more of an ambiance. That way when people sit on this committee in the future, this will be the room where they can get that work done. Of course it would be up to the Speaker, and so on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Well, Mr. Stoffer, I don't think we have anybody else yet to speak to it, but I like the idea, even if, heaven forbid, the committee were to change its composition of smokers and decided to move someplace else at some later date or something like that, or people took up Nicorettes or whatever.

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

That's called discrimination.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Even if that were to happen, sir--and I'm not advocating it, by the way; I'm just laying it out as a potential possibility, and I'm very much in favour of smokers' rights--I think the room would look a lot better for your suggestion. Regardless of whoever uses Room 362 in the East Block, I think it does look a lot better for that motion and the work that was done to it, so I think that's a noble idea.

Do we have any other people who wish to speak to the idea?

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

I sense unanimous consent.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

I sense happiness. I think I probably do need to at least put it to a vote, though.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

All right. It is a unanimous decision on behalf of the committee to make this the official, in a sense, committee room and to decorate it accordingly.

Mr. Shipley, please go ahead.

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

What is the next step? What's the process now?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

I'll ask the clerk what he has to say about that.