Evidence of meeting #14 for Veterans Affairs in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was know.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Anders
My automatic knee-jerk reaction to that, Mr. Stoffer, would be that we obviously want to be available for them if they want to meet with us, but given what they've gone through, I'm not sure you want to go banging down their doors.
We will be there, and maybe the clerk can make some very diplomatic....
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Anders
The clerk has raised a question about whether or not it will technically be a committee meeting or whether people will just be meeting with us. What we've had up until now really is just having people meeting with us. I think actually that's a better way to go; it's less formal, and there are no transcripts and we're left to our own devices with regard to notes. But I think people feel less intimidated; it's not in Hansard or recorded, as there are no blues. I think it's a lot more free-flowing.
I think you get better information that way, Mr. Stoffer.
Anyhow, that's just for clarification.
Mr. Valley, on the subject of motions.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Roger Valley Liberal Kenora, ON
Yes, just before we go, I apologize for getting on my soapbox and getting a little tippy there.
We talked about needing somebody from Defence to come to explain the first part that Mr. Stoffer talked about, the briefing, because this is not clear even to a lot of the people we talked to. You go if you were in-theatre for 67 days, but not if you were there for 60 days. We know there's a rationale because of what you explained, but we had asked for somebody from Defence to come to explain to us, at one of our meetings, how all of that is arrived at. We know that if you're cycled in for a two-week period because someone is sick, you may not go, but we don't understand why people who are in-theatre for 60 days aren't going. So we had asked for somebody from the defence department to come in to explain that to us.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Anders
Okay. That's an interesting subject.
I sense Michel has something to add, but I also wonder how relevant it is to the motions we're dealing with.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Anders
Whoa, horsey.
I don't sense we have anything more on the issue of travelling to Petawawa and Valcartier. Why don't we put that to bed, and then I'm going to let Michel respond. How does that sound?
All those in favour of going to Valcartier, for an amount of $30,736?
(Motion agreed to)
The next one is really cheap. Imagine this: it only costs $1,948 for the committee to travel to Petawawa. That's a steal. All those in favour?
(Motion agreed to)
Good, those are put to bed.
Now, on the subject Mr. Valley just raised, the 67 days, etc., Michel.
4:20 p.m.
Michel Rossignol Committee Researcher
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to mention that for questions seeking clarification on the number of days, and other issues of DND policy, we will probably have the same witnesses as those who appeared before the public accounts committee recently; the chief of military personnel and the surgeon general, or their representatives, will probably be the persons.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Anders
I have a follow-up question for Michel.
Because one of the subjects we potentially have to deal with here is the budgetary estimates, if we have examinations of the budgetary estimates, are those also the people who would come here?
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Anders
I tried to kill two birds with one stone, but, okay, fair enough, we have clarification on that.
So we've dealt with those two motions. That's good. We've dealt with Mr. Stoffer's motion. That's good.
Now, until that time—which is going to be coming up in April—as we all know, it's going to be a fascinating situation in the House with regard to budget votes, and all of that fun, so in the meantime, we're not wrapping up the report because we still have the two base visits. We've added some more for Michel here as grist for the mill, if you will.
One of the things that we should probably, at some point, take a stab at, because we haven't yet done this as a committee, is the parliamentary or budgetary estimates. That way you could see where all the money is and ask questions about it, and poke and prod. I'm sure Mr. Stoffer will have things to say about where he wants money spent, and he can look at where he wants to take money from, and all sorts of good issues. So I think it would probably be a good idea if we had some people in for the estimates, and we can go through those. That way, the clerk can set these things up.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
You guys support the “veterans first” motion and we'll be all right.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Anders
Maybe that's the next place we'll go.
Mr. Stoffer, could I ask you to prepare a motion with regard to Cyprus?
4:20 p.m.
NDP
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Anders
All right. Depending on how it goes, we may deal with it, and if we do get witnesses with regard to budgetary estimates, which I—
February 28th, 2008 / 4:20 p.m.
The Clerk
On Tuesday? We already have someone for Tuesday.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Anders
Oh, scratch that. So on Thursday, or whenever it is....
Just bring it forward and we'll deal with it at the meeting, or something like that.
We have somebody set up for Tuesday. Hopefully, we can get some of the people with regard to the budgetary estimates. Then, after that point, I think some people in the Legion had raised some issues with regard to frailty and what the cut-offs are for whether a veteran is frail or not frail, and so on, funding formulas, all that type of good stuff.
Then we also still have this issue to deal with in terms of some of the other witnesses. I'm just going to read down the list, if you don't mind.
So Sergeant Max Peddle, the speaker who gave....
Mr. Gaudet.
4:20 p.m.
Bloc
Roger Gaudet Bloc Montcalm, QC
I would like to know, Mr. Chair, whether the funding for these two trips, that is, Petawawa and Valcartier, will come from the budget that is tabled on March 31 or from the 2008-2009 budget.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
4:20 p.m.
The Clerk
The reason why we have to go to the Liaison Committee on this is because it is part of a new fiscal year. That means that the funding will come out of the 2008-2009 budget.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Anders
There you go. Because it's in April, that should go first. See, it's just like parliamentary budgets, just like our offices.
Going back to these, I'm just going to read these off: Sergeant Max Peddle, the speaker who gave a brief to the committee in Goose Bay, submitted by Monsieur Perron; Colleen Calvert, the executive director of the Halifax and region military family resource centre, submitted by the Liberal Party; and Mr. Dave Grossman, who is the....
Well, in a sense you're not asking for him to come. We could invite him, but we can't subpoena him.