Veterans Affairs Committee on Dec. 10th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Right now, the vote will be on the amendment to the motion, if there's no further debate.

Mr. Lobb.

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

I'd just like to add one point to the committee.

I think we pretty well know how each person's going to vote here. But I'd just ask the honourable members how they can propose this in a way and still go along with this new Veterans Charter and the study and make a report to the department and basically omit one of the key parts of the new Veterans Charter—which is a key piece of the wellness model—and then say, “Yes, okay, we're not going to really look at that, but that is a major piece in the new Veterans Charter, and then when we've done that, we're actually going to do another study on this issue, and then we're going to report that back to you within the new Veterans Charter”.

And I disagree with Mr. Oliphant. I don't think every single thing this committee studies relates back to the new Veterans Charter. I disagree with that wholeheartedly.

So I think we know where the vote's going to go. I just hope the members opposite realize the kind of pseudo-hypocrisy in what we're actually going to do here.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Lobb.

Seeing no further interventions, the vote is on the amendment that Mr. Kerr has submitted: "within its study on the new Veterans Charter review".

(Amendment negatived)

Now we'll move to Monsieur André's motion.

Mr. Stoffer.

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

I beg, sir, to propose a friendly amendment that after the words “former”, we include “and current”.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

You know that I restrain myself from making comment, but let me say this. As I've said in the past, there is a symbiotic relationship between Veterans Affairs and the Department of National Defence. There is no question about that. But our job is to make sure we understand the line of responsibility and stay within the purview of that.

The Standing Orders are pretty clear regarding committees, in that if we go into current members of the Canadian Forces, then we are outside the mandate of this committee. But of course I'm always at the behest of the committee.

Mr. McColeman.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

I need clarification here, because I am confused.

Mr. Stoffer, what you're proposing when you put the word “current” in there is that these are current members of the Canadian Forces and they are not veterans.

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

That is absolutely correct. The reason I say that, Mr. McColeman, is because we've had two that I'm aware of--obviously the facts don't come out--one major and another person who had taken their own lives in Afghanistan.

Also, many of the current service personnel.... Well, not many; I shouldn't say the word “many”. There are some people serving today in the military who have contemplated suicide. And as Mr. Mayes said very clearly, this is a very sensitive and serious subject and this is something you can't discuss in the open. But these are people who are still serving. They are not former members of the military.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

They are current members of the military. They are not veterans.

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

That is correct.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Sir, how do you propose that we reconcile the fact that this is outside the purview of our committee?

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

That is, of course, the dilemma we face. Any time we deal with veterans.... Don't forget that there are 980 current service personnel receiving a veteran's pension. If we were dealing with pension issues, we would be dealing with people who currently serve in the military. There is always that dichotomy. How do we rectify that situation between the veterans committee--if we're dealing on veterans issues--and those who are currently serving? This is one of those issues.

I think if we are going to discuss the issue of suicide, then we also have to touch on the aspect of prevention of suicide, and the ability to see what DND is doing in order to assist those who may be contemplating suicide as the only way out of their problems.

Either way we look at it, DND officials will be invited to discuss this issue, I assume.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Yes.

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

On a point of order, this is going to have to be an amendment. I don't think it's going to be unanimous.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

That was going to be my intervention. Thank you, Mr. Oliphant. It would have to have unanimous consent in order to be a friendly amendment.

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

I know that, yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

I don't perceive that there's a--

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

I'm not married to it.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

I have a speakers list already started here.

Mr. Mayes.

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

I've already said what I was going to say, but why do you have to have this in the motion? Why don't you just leave it? I'm sure when the discussion comes along, we'll be talking about both.

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

All right, Mr. Chairman, if I may, I could cut this conversation off right now and just withdraw it and forget I even said it.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

After I mentioned that and I didn't see any consent, I felt the debate was on the original motion anyway, sir.

Mr. Mayes, have you completed your intervention?

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

Yes, I have, thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Storseth.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The conversation has been going in all directions. I would ask Mr. Stoffer why he's not married to his amendment, because at the end of the day, if we're going to do this, you cannot do this right without having a full discussion with the Department of National Defence about its policies. We have to be able to recommend changes, not only to the policies of the Department of Veterans Affairs but to the policies of the Department of National Defence, if we're going to do this properly. I don't understand why we would take on such a large and important task as this, and at the same time tie our hands as to what we can do and recommend for changes.

As you said, under Standing Order 108(1), if we do include DND, it's outside the purview of our committee unless we recommend a joint subcommittee of the Department of National Defence and the Department of Veterans Affairs, in which case, as with listeriosis, we'd be taking extra meetings: it doesn't have to be the whole committee; it could be designated members of the committee. I agree with Mr. Mayes; it's something that would have to be kept reasonably quiet. You're going to have a lot of witnesses coming forward who would expect confidentiality. If we were going to do it, in my mind, we would have to do it properly with both DND and Veterans Affairs and we would have to undertake all the details today and make sure we draft our motions properly in the first place. We should also recognize that this is a huge undertaking, and if we were to draft a joint subcommittee of the two committees, it would require a lot of extra time in the next sitting of Parliament.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Storseth, thank you.

Just a comment on your interjection. The way the motion stands right now, I did not have any problem with ruling it in order because it does say “former members of the Canadian Forces”, but I understand your conversation is alluding to the friendly amendment, which has since been defeated, or at least not supported, so it was not in order.

Mr. André.