Veterans Affairs Committee on Nov. 19th, 2009

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

They're 30-minute bells.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

They're 30-minute bells. Thank you.

Mr. Ethell most of the testimony that we've heard before the committee has been that most veterans would want to stay in their home, but you looked like there might be something suspect around that. I just wondered if you had some specific evidence or had some specific input around the fact that may not universally be the case.

[Col Donald S. Ethell]

No, and I don't want to create the impression that there's a large number of people out there who would prefer to go into a facility. It depends on which facility you're talking about, to be quite frank. There are some facilities that are top-notch, and they provide all sorts of services. It's very beneficial for them to be in there. Conversely, there are others that, because of the differences from province to province, if not from city to city, it's less than desirable to go into that facility.

I go back to the point that the Department of Veterans Affairs is making a conscious effort to try to treat the individual in his or her home, and that's the bottom line. If I created the impression that there was a whole whack of people out there that don't want that service, I didn't mean to mislead you, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

No, that's why I asked the question. That's great.

Finally, you alluded to the fact that you did have a positive relationship with Veterans Affairs Canada. And I appreciate the fact that you had mentioned on several occasions that the government had very clearly said it wanted to hear the good, the bad, the ugly, whatever your findings are. So that's good. But you did mention again, Mr. Ethell, a concern about the crossover of chairs. Is there a concern, or were you concerned that there might be?

[Col Donald S. Ethell]

No. I think it's natural for our bureaucracy to be suspicious when they haven't thought of it. We thought of it, okay? And it's been very well received. Senior management sits in on three of the four committees. They don't sit on the mental health advisory committee yet, but we're working on that, and the other chairs will be there.

I think there was some hesitation on the part of VAC. When you've been a bureaucrat for 25, 30 years, and somebody comes up with an idea that's different, and he or she hasn't thought of it, then it could be suspect. And I won't name the individual.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

I know that in the corporate world there's a syndrome that they often call the “not made here” syndrome, so I think there's some similarity between those.

I would like to say, and I think it's very safe to say on behalf of all the committee members, that this was an extraordinary session with high-quality evidence. I just wanted to thank you for your testimony and thank you for your time coming here. Great information.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

And now Mr. Andrews has some business and he wishes that I allow the witnesses to be excused. I would ask you to do that expeditiously, because we have a vote. That's not so much for the witnesses, but let's not have a lot of members running up and shaking hands.

We need to get back to order. We have to finish our meeting on time, because we have a vote in the House.

Scott, you might want to go ahead or the time will vaporize.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a point arising out of our last meeting. I know this committee usually works fairly well and fairly collegially, but I'm very disappointed and I've got to put it on the record.

After the meeting earlier this week, Mr. Stoffer went out there and accused that members of the Liberal Party voted against his motion or abstained from his motion. The record will show that this member of the Liberal Party supported Mr. Stoffer's motion.

I found it very disheartening getting e-mails and contacts that I, as a member, abstained from the motion. As the record will show, I did support Mr. Stoffer's motion.

I'm very, very disappointed about the politics that have been played here with this particular motion, and I would like an apology.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Andrews.

Mr. Stoffer and then Madam Sgro.

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

Yes, and actually when I was sitting right here, I didn't see Mr. Andrews' hand go up. So when I mentioned the fact that Bill C-201 effectively died, I had indicated to the three people who originated the bill that the Liberals had abstained. But Mr. Andrews then pointed out to me, the other day actually, that he indeed did support it, although we didn't have a recorded vote of whose names were there.

So effective this morning, Mr. Andrews, I've already sent out a notice saying that you indeed did vote for it. That has gone out to all the people who've had this already.

I do apologize for that.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Stoffer.

On the same point, Madam Sgro.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Yes, just to put it on the record, I supported Mr. Stoffer's bill coming to committee so that it could be fully aired and everyone would fully understand those difficulties on that issue, which continue to be used in a variety of circumstances. I abstained specifically because I view the work that we're going to do on this charter as our legitimate avenue to have something we can make some serious recommendations on, to make changes for the future that may be required, and Bill C-201 wasn't the vehicle to do that.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Okay. I seldom put in any input, but I feel compelled to. I think one of the things that I have enjoyed about these almost four years of service on this committee is that we have all had an understanding that we--and I've said this publicly, by the way, at events--may disagree on policy, but everybody in this committee is dedicated to the fact that there will never be enough money and there will never be enough that we could do for veterans.

I would like to hope that this spirit will abide in this room and outside the room, and that although we may not agree on specific policy, everybody's intention is to do the best we can. We know, as Mr. Stoffer said earlier about unlimited liability, that these women and men go into the battlefield ready to give the greatest love, because no one has any greater love than to lay down their life for their friends and for us. I think we should go on in that spirit and make sure that we restrain ourselves in that way in our behaviour during and after committee.

I have one brief thing before we go. I don't think there will be any objection, so I'm not going to go in camera. I had a brief discussion yesterday with the Canadian occupational therapists group. I think they have a substantially good addition to bring to the committee as far as our report is concerned. I hope you don't mind if we just add them to the witness list. They have some great expertise as far as some things go, things that they feel need to be changed at Veterans Affairs Canada.

Madam Sgro and then Monsieur André.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

As we're going through this process and hearing ideas and thoughts, I don't know who would be appropriate, but on how they handle the CPP issue that we discussed briefly today, who would it be who could come here and give us more information? If that's an area where we see a need for change, who would come before the committee? Maybe we can just leave that with the clerk.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

I was going to say, Madam Sgro, that probably there will be a number of other issues that we want to point out, and that maybe in our last meeting on a review, regardless, it will be the officials again. We'll probably have a list of these things we want to clarify, things that we've heard testimony on but for which we want to make sure that we know what the department is doing about them or what it has done.

Monsieur André.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

As for the Ste. Anne's Hospital study, which is set to come out on December 10, I gave the clerk a list of suggested witnesses. They are union officials. We talked about meeting with executives from Ste. Anne's Hospital. I am not sure whether we could meet with the union officials during the same meeting. The witnesses could all appear at the same meeting. It would give us a chance to hear different points of view and thus get a better overall sense of what is happening at Ste. Anne's Hospital.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. André.

The meeting is adjourned.