Veterans Affairs Committee on Sept. 20th, 2006

Evidence of meeting #9 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 see.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

Committee Business

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Michel Rossignol Committee Researcher

4:15 p.m.

NDP

Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS

If I may.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Rob Anders

All right, Mr. Stoffer is moving the motion, seconded by Mr. Sweet. Any debate on that? No.

All those in favour of a “thank you” to the past president and “welcome” to the new president of the Royal Canadian Legion and an invitation from the committee?

(Motion agreed to)

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Rob Anders

Do we have any other interventions? Seeing none, good; I think we've got an agenda of sorts set here and we've got our feet wet again now that school is back in session.

If there are other people you'd like to add to the list, please let us know the names. We already have a list here, and we've got even more that we haven't formally added on yet.

Monsieur Gaudet.

4:15 p.m.

Bloc

Roger Gaudet Bloc Montcalm, QC

My question is simple. I do not speak often, but generally when I have something to say, I say it.

I would like our meetings to be carefully planned, because the last time we met with certain people, they kept repeating the same thing. I agree that we should meet once or twice a week, but I want to achieve concrete results. The way things are going, we're taking one step forward and one step backward at the same time.

We should have a good meeting. If we have only one a week, it should be complete and well organized. I think that would better for all veterans and for the committee and Parliament. We should not bring in witnesses who all repeat the same thing that others have said before.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Rob Anders

I understand, Monsieur Gaudet. We have people who wish to speak to us, and we can choose to turn them down. If those people who want to speak to us repeat themselves, that's their choice. We can choose to direct some of their comments, possibly toward areas we think are more meaningful.

4:15 p.m.

Bloc

Roger Gaudet Bloc Montcalm, QC

I agree with you, Mr. Chairman. However, if a person is supposed to be here for an hour, and if after twenty minutes we have no further questions to ask him, I wonder who is more dissatisfied after the meeting. Often, our witnesses did not use all of the time available to them, and we had no further questions to ask them to make up the rest of the time. In cases like that, they were perhaps dissatisfied when they left. That is what worries me.

People who come to meet with us should leave feeling happy that they had an opportunity to say what they had to say. We need a well-structured meeting, so be it, but we should not bring people in from across the country and have a situation where after twenty minutes, we have no further questions to ask them. We should be in a position to ask the witnesses questions. Otherwise, we ask them to come here for nothing. That is just my opinion, I am not moving a motion. I am simply stating what happens.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Rob Anders

Just to let you know, Monsieur Gaudet, the way it operates is that we allow witnesses to speak for 20 minutes, and then it's opened up to questions. The people we have on our list, of which we will provide a copy en français at the next meeting, are people who do want to speak to the committee.

4:15 p.m.

Bloc

Roger Gaudet Bloc Montcalm, QC

I do not have a problem with that.

4:15 p.m.

Bloc