Veterans Affairs Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2007

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to commend Bev for putting this forward. I think it's something that's very valid, very important, and I'm sure most members of this committee, like myself, have probably not had the opportunity to visit a base in Canada to see how things are actually happening here.

It's hard when we've had one discussion in camera and another one now in public, but one doesn't eliminate the other, and this one, I think, is close to home. It will actually enable us to not only meet with those who are being deployed, but there's an opportunity here as well to actually meet some of the family members, which I think is also very important.

We have talked at this committee about the impact on the family of deployed members, and I see this as an opportunity to expand our knowledge as a committee about what in fact happens, not only to the member who is being deployed someplace, but what the ramifications are to the family as well.

I have to be honest enough to tell you that I get very nervous when I notice that we have two people who have never sat on this committee before brought in because there is going to be a vote. That indicates to me that the opposition side is not going to support this, and I think that would be a real tragedy.

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

A point of order, Mr. Chair.

That's totally irrelevant. It's out of order. We are entitled to our complement of members here. Regardless of what motive the member opposite might impute, we are fully entitled to our complement. So it's totally irrelevant to the discussion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

I am going to take that as a point of debate. The member, Mrs. Hinton, can raise whatever she wishes.

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

I really don't have anything further to say. It wasn't intended to raise the hackles on the back of anyone over there. It's simply that as an observer and a people watcher, I find it rather unusual that people are coming in who have never had the benefit of any of the discussion that has gone on before. I think this is a very important motion and should be handled in its own context, which is a motion--no one has read it out loud yet--that says:

That the Committee on Veterans Affairs work with Veterans Affairs Canada to arrange a study tour of Canadian bases and their operations as part of our discussion on Health Care and the Veterans Independence Program.

I think it should stand on its own, and I'm obviously going to support it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Just on this matter, I'm going to comment as impartially as I can. I don't think that what was raised was necessarily a proper point of order. That being said, some of the things that were alluded to by the other member's speech, which brought on the questionable point of order, may not be helping her own case.

Anyhow, I leave it at that.

Now Mr. Valley, Monsieur Perron, and then Mr. Simms on deck.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. At some point you people are going to ban me from having this book in which I write everything down, because I like to keep notes.

I'll take us back to May 17. By the way, this is not the first time a member of this committee has put forward that we should be talking to the people who are serving currently. When we debated the issue on the 17th, a decision was taken later on, the same decision we made last week. We were told over and over again that this is not our mandate; our mandate is not to talk to people who are serving. I disagree with that totally. And I disagreed with it at that point.

We won the vote back in May. We won the vote last week. Our job is to serve veterans. All those people who are wearing uniforms right now we will serve, and I think any opportunity to speak to them is important, whether it's here in Canada or overseas.

The issue with the motion--I agree with it. I spoke to Mr. Shipley last night. I think we should be going to some of the cities where some of the veterans are. Currently, we have a lot of them right here in this city alone that we could be talking to.

I'll also take you back to a comment Mr. Shipley just made about an evening with members and families. I'll draw back everybody's attention. That was a very poignant night in all our careers. It was an amazing night, but also it was with a lot of currently serving people. They were still in uniform. So it's our job, I believe--and I've said that right at the start of this committee--that we need to talk to the people in uniform.

We have no problem with this motion as long as this motion doesn't try to undo what we decided last week. That decision has been taken twice by the committee, and we were all under the impression that it was under way. It got changed for a number of reasons that you explained. Prorogation may have moved it right off the table. The decision has been made again. I have no problem participating. I think this is what we should be doing. But in light of that, it's what we should be doing after we fulfill the obligation we took last week in the meeting.

I'll remind everybody that there are qualifications to the decision we made last week, and it's part of the national security issue you mentioned. We're fully aware of that, and if you reread the motion from last week, you'll know that we need to have cooperation of one of the departments. This is a good idea. I think we should be doing more of this, but not until after we fulfill what we agreed to last week.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Thank you, Mr. Valley.

Monsieur Perron, with Mr. Simms on deck.

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

Mr. Chairman, my opinion has not changed since last week. I like to be consistent in my way of thinking. As you may recall, I asked last week whether General Hillier, who is in charge of the Canadian Forces, was the one who didn't want to see us there. If that is the case, I would like my friends opposite to have the courage to say so. If it is not the case, I see no reason for them to oppose this trip.

That's why I am really in a bind here. Once again, I know and I understand that National Defence or the Canadian Forces may not be particularly interested in seeing a lot of MPs go over there, because it could cause them some problems. There was a very close call when the Minister of National Defence, Mr. MacKay, visited recently.

I understand the situation, but…

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Mr. Perron, I understand where you're going, but please try to keep your references with regard to the--

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

The name of the riding?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

No. I'm asking you to take into account national security considerations with regard to how much you divulge.

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

I don't think anything I said was particularly incendiary. I accept your decision, even though I do not agree with it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Monsieur Perron, I'm just saying that by the references you're making, if I was reading through Hansard, I would know what was up. And we have to keep in mind we're not the only ones who read Hansard.

I'm asking, with regard to your place references, that you be careful.

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

I maintain that it would be a good idea to show support for our people who are over there, whatever the theatre of operations.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Okay.

Mr. Simms.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

First of all, thank you for having me on short notice.

I just wanted to let you know that I'm here to replace Mr. Todd Russell. He is an MP for a large base, as you know, in Labrador. I represent the other base.

My contribution to this...I think that in arranging this...Newfoundland and Labrador, historically, has always contributed quite a few soldiers, given our lower population. So on a per capita basis we've been one of the biggest contributors in this nation.

So I'm here on his behalf. I only say that because the reference was made about a last-minute replacement. Indeed, there was nothing last minute about this, the fact that I am representing Mr. Russell, who, unfortunately, is sick and could not be here.

I would like to add that as my two cents, and hopefully I will, by the end of this meeting, add much more.

I just wanted to set the record straight.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

I don't have anybody else on the speakers list, so at this point I would probably....

Mr. Valley.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

I would ask, through you, the mover of the motion if it's clear that this is not trying to circumvent the decision we made last week. That's my question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

All right.

I'm going to allow Mr. Shipley his motion--

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

I'll speak last, so if anyone else--

[A voice]

You can answer the question.

[A voice]

Just answer the question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

No. I was turning to him to speak last as kind of the hammer on his motion. He can address that question, but does somebody else wish to speak to it before he does?

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

I'd first like a clarification on the question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

If this committee is all right with it, maybe I'll ask Mr. Shipley to speak, and he can answer that if he wishes.