Veterans Affairs Committee on May 3rd, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Okay, I sense that due to that intervention, it probably will be a broader consultation.

Mr. Shipley.

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

I won't take up time just to talk.

I agree with what David has said. I think an informal setting is much more conducive, likely for us as well as for them, under this circumstance. As Mr. Sweet just said, we have not spent much of our budget. If we wanted to bring one or two in from another part, I would have no objection to that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Okay.

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

I think we need to get a resource from that area who would feel comfortable about coming in. But I think that reflects, too, having someone who has worked through it and who is not in the middle of that stress disorder, someone who has come out and dealt with it. That's just a thought.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Okay, we'll now move on to Mrs. Hinton.

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

I'm not quite sure how to say this. I'm very comfortable meeting with more witnesses. I think Mr. St. Denis' suggestion that it be done in a more private setting would probably be more beneficial to the sufferers.

I also agree with what Mr. Sweet has said. I believe that if you are able to have a number of people in a room who have actually survived this and have made it through and are back on their feet, that might also encourage those who are still going through the process and wondering if there is light at the end of the tunnel. I think that would be a very positive way to go.

But this is my concern with the direction we're going as a committee. I know that PTSD is extremely important, and it is something that's near and dear to my heart. But we made a promise to veterans that we were going to do the health care review, and before that health care review can touch on things such as the VIP program and expand, we actually have to get down to the business of doing the whole health care review.

I believe we have spent--correct me if I'm wrong, clerk--six meetings on PTSD. And although that's a very important aspect of health care, it's not what is affecting today's traditional veterans. And those are the people who are involved in the VIP program. If we're going to move forward and do something for the VIP program, and if this committee wants to be part of that, we need to move forward. If we don't want to get involved in the VIP program, and the committee would prefer to pursue the post traumatic stress disorder issue, then I think we need to say that as a committee so the government can move forward on the VIP program without input from the committee, if that's the choice of the committee.

So I'm looking for some direction as to which way you want to go. If you want to go down the PTSD path, that's fine with me. We'll just make a decision here one way or the other about what we're going to accomplish as a committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

My guess is that we're probably looking at some sort of consensus whereby we have another couple of meetings on PTSD: one day with people, kind of informally, and maybe something with Monsieur Dallaire.

Go ahead, Mr. Stoffer.

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

I would tend to agree. I think that with a couple of meetings we should more or less, with the best of intentions, wrap up that particular subject. I agree with Madam Hinton that we should move on that.

But I'm still asking this question: Where is the department? The department is doing its own health care review, from my understanding. Do we have a sort of profile of where they're at now? Are they in the middle of it? Are they near the end of it? Are they beginning the process?

Finally, we heard very clearly that PTSD is not a singular issue; it affects the whole family. So no matter how we deal with PTSD, the individual going through that process brings along a spouse and children who also suffer from it. So we need to be cognizant of that fact. Even though Mr. Sweet is correct that some of the realms of this discussion may be outside our purview and under National Defence or something, we have to always keep in mind, and I'm sure the committee does, that PTSD is not a singular issue; it affects the whole family.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Your point is well made.

I just wanted to say that my guess is that the department will be very closely following and watching what the committee does with regard to these things, and it will shape some of their actions, as well, I imagine.

Go ahead, Monsieur Ouellet.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Since health matters are confidential, do we not run the risk of inviting people from the same area who may know one another and who may not be comfortable talking about private personal matters? The same thing happens when family members get together for a therapy session. When certain family members exhibit more serious problems, the other members accept the feelings of isolation that person might have.

In my view, the safer thing to do would be to invite people from different regions so that they feel comfortable talking about themselves and don't have to worry that some other veteran from their area may recognize them. Perhaps it would be wiser if the witnesses were strangers from different parts of the country.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

That's why we have these discussions--to come up with the best way to do this.

Mr. St. Denis.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I don't disagree at all with the idea of having some people from outside the area. My only reason for suggesting that we keep it local was so that it would be more efficient. We could put it together fairly quickly, if we wanted to get on it quickly, and it never precluded us from--I was just thinking of one session--expanding it to a second session. So it was more to get it together quickly, if that was our wish, and to not make it a big thing. For at least our first one, we would just keep it close, quiet. People would volunteer.

Christian, if there were any issues of people saying “I don't want somebody else to hear”-- they're going to volunteer to come as a group, in a family setting or a group setting, for that particular session.

I have no objections to opening it up, if that's the consensus. I was only thinking maybe for the first one, let's just, fairly quickly, put together something locally, because we do know that there are some people on both sides of the river who are victims. I'm not concerned either way how you do it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Understood.

Monsieur Perron.

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

Not to disagree with you, but I'd like to focus on a problem that Ms. Hinton raised, namely the care of our traditional veterans. I don't disagree that young persons suffering from PTSD are also veterans. Unfortunately for them, they are only 30 years old. They may have to deal with this problem for the next 50, 60 or 70 years.

Also, with the experience we've gained working on this committee, it is my fervent wish that was can save other young members of Canada's military from PTSD. I hope that we can manage to accomplish that feat.

I also have a suggestion for the clerk, Alexandre Roger. Since I like the idea of making this an evening get-together and working session with PTSD sufferers and since we are looking for potential witnesses, why not get in touch with officials at Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue Hospital and ask them if they have any patients, both male and female, who are either on the road to recovery, have recovered or are healthy enough to testify before our committee? Surely they could recommend to us the names of one, two, three or four individuals.

By the way, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to take this opportunity to inform you that I won't be able to make next Tuesday's meeting. On Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of next week, I'll be in Montreal attending the second international conference on PTSD hosted by Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue Hospital. I'll be attending the conference for my own personal enlightenment and, if you like, I can report back to you on the issues discussed.

If you like, I can speak to Mr. Lalonde, who testified before the committee, about recommending some names to us. If you don't like the idea, then I won't speak to him.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Does the clerk wish to respond?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Alexandre Roger]

Yes, by all means. The committee can decide to invite whomever it wants. That decision is not up to me.

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

It was a suggestion.

[The Clerk]

Yes, of course. The committee decides what it wants to do and my job is to extend an invitation to prospective witnesses. The committee has the final say on the witness list, not me.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Okay.

Mr. Shipley.

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

I want to follow up on how we select those individuals. I don't have a preferred selection, but I think Mr. Perron has a good suggestion: those who have knowledge of it.

I think in some respects we're trying to get some recognition across the country for those who may come. I agree with Mr. Ouellet that sometimes it's better to have some distance. They may feel more comfortable because it's not someone they know.

And I think we can have them all. We can have it all in one evening or afternoon, or whenever we select to do it. I don't think we need to stretch this out. We can get some volunteers and we can invite them in. Let's just get it done so we can start to move on to the second phase of the health care. We can't continue to be chastised about not moving ahead, and yet we're the ones responsible if we're not moving ahead.

We've had great dialogue and great witnesses on this, and I think this is that final chapter. Unless there's a good reason to have them in two different sessions, I suggest we instruct the clerk to move ahead and try to set up the witnesses in one meeting.

We've kind of agreed on an informal setting, where it's good for them. We've agreed that it would be better if we can get some disbursement across the country. That may not be as wide as across the country, but we could try to do that.

Now, Mr. Perron is away. Is our next meeting on Tuesday morning?

[A voice]

I think so.

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

We have to decide when we want to have these witnesses, but I don't think we should lose a meeting on Tuesday if they aren't coming until a week or so from now. I think we need to set our plan for the next meeting so we spend our two hours being productive in moving ahead on the health care.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Mrs. Hinton.

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

I would like to address a couple of comments that have been made.

This committee controls its own destiny; it always has. At the beginning we made a decision on three things that we were going to pursue: the ombudsman, the bill of rights, and the VIP program. I agree that PTSD is definitely a health care issue, and I found the witnesses most informative. If nothing else, I learned very clearly that there's a shortage of professionals who can handle the PTSD issue. That's something that's going to have to be addressed. There's no question about that, at all. I'm happy to listen to more witnesses, if that is what this committee wants to do, but we agreed, as a committee, to pursue the VIP program. That VIP program deals with traditional veterans, not modern-day veterans. My concern is that there are a number of traditional veterans out there who are waiting for some answers.

In answer to Mr. Stoffer's question, the department is in the process of trying to deal with this. It's also trying to do some costing. It can't complete that work unless the committee says we're not going to deal with this and go ahead and do it on your own. But if we're going to pursue the VIP process, we need to have witnesses. We need to hear from people as to what the actual needs are. As a government, how do you make improvements to a VIP program if you don't know what the needs are?

I'm happy to go whichever way you want. If you want to pursue the PTSD, I think the committee needs to say that clearly and allow the government to do the VIP program, without input from the committee. I'm just asking for a decision.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Mr. Sweet.