Veterans Affairs Committee on Dec. 10th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Stoffer, you will be able to present that after we've disposed of this amendment.

I do have a speakers list, and right now I have Mr. Storseth, Mr. André, and Mr. Mayes.

Mr. Storseth.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Stoffer makes part of my point for me. Mr. Oliphant brings up Afghanistan. Those are current serving members. I do believe that the Department of National Defence is outside the purview of our committee.

There are two points to this. I do believe that this is something that should be included within our review of the charter, because it's a very important aspect of veterans. If, however, the committee felt that it truly wanted to do justice to this issue, which is a very important issue, in regard to both former and current serving members of both DND and the RCMP, then I actually think you would need to expand the scope of it and include some kind of a joint committee to look at this with the Department of National Defence, because there's no way that it is within our purview to be looking at the things within DND itself. So you would need support from the other committee as well, I believe, if you were going to do it properly. Leaving out our current serving members would do little good, I believe.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Storseth.

Mr. André.

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

Respectfully, Mr. Kerr, I also disagree with your motion. I will explain why.

The issue of suicide among armed forces personnel and veterans is distinct, and I agree with Mr. Stoffer to include it.

Increasingly we are hearing about soldiers suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder upon their return from Afghanistan or other military missions, and they experience a sense of isolation because of it.

It is fundamentally important to look into this matter because the problem of suicide is an increasing concern in the military. I do not believe we should address this problem within the context of the Veterans Charter, which deals rather with customer services and disability pensions for veterans and the military.

It is very important to examine the charter. I also went to Italy and spoke with a number of veterans. The charter does include some important issues. We have noticed it in a number of documents that have been circulated to the committee.

However, the problem of suicide has both a psychological and social dimension. How can we avoid these people experiencing this problem when they come back to the country? I do not think the charter will provide us with the answer. We need to carry out a specific study on the issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Mayes.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to echo what Mr. Storseth said. I believe that the Department of National Defence has an employee-employer relationship with Canada. It is part of their function to deal with the problems of people who are serving. I recognize that, but I support the amendment. This is a sensitive issue. If I were a member of the Canadian Forces, I wouldn't want to have it out there in public, politicized, and being covered by the media. I wouldn't want to bring any politics into it. I'd want to handle it with kid gloves.

I think we could deal with this in a full and discreet manner within the review of the new Veterans Charter. That is my feeling, and I'm going to support the amendment provided by our parliamentary secretary. We're looking at the care of these veterans, and we should be sensitive.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Mayes.

Mr. Lobb.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In considering these arguments, for and against, we need to bear in mind what the new Veterans Charter is all about. It's based on wellness—not just physical wellness but wellness in all its forms. Any assertion within the scope of this charter that doesn't address mental health issues is turning a blind eye.

Those who went to Charlottetown and paid attention to the presentations saw what is probably one of the most extensive mental health programs in the world. It's the Department of Veterans Affairs that provides this service. I think we're putting the cart before the horse. We're making assumptions about this issue without even bringing in anybody from the department to test those assumptions. We've categorized our troops and veterans without seeing the statistics that might bear out the differences, the percentages, the reasons why. Is it the transition from DND to Veterans Affairs? Is it all within DND? Is there a particular issue that is causing this? Is there a loophole? These things should fall within our study, because we're studying the new Veterans Charter. These are the things we're trying to do to make our veterans as healthy as they can be after their service.

If we did an individual study that focused only on this, would it come at the same time as this study? Would it come after this study? Is there going to be another issue that crops up? When are we going to do this study? Who will the players be within this study? Could it already be dealt with by the time the study is done? I think this is the best way to do justice to the new Veterans Charter. It is also the best way to find the solution we're looking for. If we have members of the department come in, and we're unhappy with what we hear, then we can take a different approach. Is it a subcommittee? Is it a further study? We haven't asked department members any tough questions about how this issue fits into the new Veterans Charter. Maybe this is done 100%, or maybe it's a glaring weakness. Based on the Charlottetown information, we have some good data, good programs. Maybe we should have the officials in for a few meetings as soon as the House comes back. I think we need to ask them some tough questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Lobb.

We'll go to Madam Sgro.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

When that motion was moved by Mr. André, I initially felt that it was a bit of a stretch, at least in the way I was thinking about it.

I attended a presentation earlier this week that had nothing to do with this motion and our work. It was about the level of suicide among former members, and I guess possibly current members, which is not being talked about out there in public, because none of us want to talk about it, I suppose. These men and women put their lives on the line for us and then come back with very significant problems that are sometimes not identified at all and result in suicide. I was quite concerned when I heard this presentation earlier in the week. It's for that reason that I think our review of the charter isn't going to be enough. At the end of the charter we can make recommendations and then do a study specific to this issue.

In good conscience, after hearing the presentation earlier this week, I think it would be a disservice to not deal with it as a separate issue. How we do it, with whom we do it, whether it's a subcommittee--the technicalities of how we do it--are issues we can discuss at another time. I think we are talking here about suicide, and there is an alarming increase in the numbers. I think when we ask the questions, we would find out that there is a lot more of it than we're aware of. It's very sad to say that. I think we have an obligation to look at it and the seriousness of it. We can look at it within the confines of our charter, but I think it is a bigger issue.

We already know about it, and I think trying to keep it within those confines is a disservice. For me to know that I'm doing my job, I would want us to spend some time specifically on the issue of what we know is happening.

I will support Mr. André's motion and vote against Mr. Kerr.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Go ahead, Mr. McColeman.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

I tend to think that it is a serious issue, and I think the seriousness of it is dealt with best within the study of the charter. It seems to me that there is an implication in the discussion that we'll do a less than fulsome study of suicide if we move it into the charter. I don't think that's what is proposed here at all. I don't think because we take it outside the study of the charter we'll do more of a job than if we studied it inside the charter. It's not bigger or smaller in any regard, in my mind, whether we study it inside or outside the charter.

The reason I would like to study it inside the charter study is because it really addresses the core we can address if we study it fulsomely within the charter. As Mr. Lobb has said, within the wellness model, it has to do with mental health. Suicide has to do with mental health, and we will be looking at it when we study the charter. We will be looking at the mental health services provided by Veterans Affairs. When we get into that category of study, I believe that this is where this fits.

It doesn't mean that we have to spend less time or call fewer witnesses. Unless I'm mistaken, the parliamentary secretary isn't proposing something like a gloss-over by studying it. In my mind, that's not intended. I think we actually can do a better job by studying it within the context of the charter, realizing that we're going to put emphasis on it when we come to it. We will take a very thorough look at the core reasons behind suicide and why it occurs--which really amounts to a mental health issue--and how we provide services through Veterans Affairs for mental health.

The implication I'm sensing from the comments is that one is going to be bigger, and the other is going to be smaller. I see them as equal. I think we can do just as good a job—in fact, a better job—within the study of the charter while putting an emphasis on it. It is important, and it is serious.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. McColeman.

Now I'm on to Mr. Kerr.

[Greg Kerr, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Yes, Mr. Chair.

The way I look at it—and I've been around this business a long time—I think we're all trying to say the same thing. I think we want this study done; I really do. What I'd rather do is see our amendment disappear, and maybe Mr. André and I sit down and talk about wording that satisfies what we are insisting has to happen. This has to somehow link back into the charter review, whether it's a separate study that somehow reports to it or is considered by it. I don't want to leave out the players who have been doing a lot of work on our behalf out there, all those veterans organizations. I do know that the modern vets are very much part of what our concern is today. That's a consideration.

If Mr. André is in agreement, perhaps what we could do is withdraw it. I'd like to see the amendment disappear, but also see that we can cover off what we really believe has to be covered off. Maybe we can look at the wording and add to the wording of his motion words that say “as the study finishes up”. It is going to go beyond our committee. It's going to have to involve DND—there's no question—which is one of my concerns.

Rather than rush it, can we come back and say this would cover it off, this would cover off the study itself, but make sure the charter review is not left out of the piece, that somehow we're off doing this and it's separate from the other? There are a lot of other players out there we are obligated to, and I just want to make sure we're covering it.

If he's comfortable, I'd like us to find a way to make the amendment disappear and come up with wording that addresses the whole issue. If he's comfortable, I would be comfortable.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Monsieur André.

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

Mr. Chairman, members have spoken on the motion. I would call for a vote on Mr. Kerr's amendment and on the motion. We have witnesses here, and another motion is being introduced by Ms. Sgro.

I would call for the vote on Mr. Kerr's motion and on mine.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. André.

There's really no time limit on debate, so Mr. Oliphant is next on the speakers list.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

My expression is still against the amendment, in support of the motion. But following up on what Mr. Kerr said, I think absolutely everything this committee will do over the next couple of years is related to the new Veterans Charter. Nothing we're going to do isn't related, so everything that could be suggested could be put into this review. It's all there. So I think what we're trying to do is find a way to highlight a study on this issue.

I'm actually agreeing with Mr. Kerr about finding a way to do that. I think it's best to do it outside the current review of the charter, but it has to be linked, too, because everything links to it. But we could end up doing five years of work and saying we have to keep putting it in, and then we would never finish the review of the new charter.

I'm going to trust that when we get to working as a committee to do this new study, we will link it to the study of the new Veterans Charter, but not formally.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Monsieur André.

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

Mr. Chairman, I think we can call for the vote on the motion, if most of us agree. We are calling for the vote on the amendment and then we can move to the vote on the motion.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Storseth.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, under the guidelines under the new—I'm used to Marleau and Montpetit—O'Brien and Bosc, you can't call for a vote.

Secondly, this is Mr. André's third time talking about it. So if we could, I do believe we should get to the vote on the motion, if Mr. Kerr is not withdrawing his motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Okay. Well, that's just kind of interesting, Mr. Storseth.

Monsieur André, continue, please.

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

Is Mr. Kerr prepared to withdraw his amendment?