Evidence of meeting #38 for Veterans Affairs in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was study.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:20 a.m.
Bloc
Guy André Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Mr. Storseth was discussing a motion that Mr. Stoffer had withdrawn. We could simply vote on the original motion and then move to Ms. Sgro's motion.
10:20 a.m.
Conservative
10:20 a.m.
Conservative
Greg Kerr Conservative West Nova, NS
Mr. Chair, I guess I'm a little disappointed in Mr. André's stance, because I would like to see us all carry on with this study. But it's so rigid in the wording, and if we're not going to get any comfort that it's going to be opened up to address the other problems that have been raised, I think it's a very selfish and very narrow view of what this important problem is about. I say that because the only reason I added the amendment way back was that this was simply an exercise that was going to report to the House; it didn't deal with all these other issues and complexities.
If we're just voting on the motion, we'd probably have to avoid even voting, because you haven't satisfied us that you have any interest in this being reported back to the charter review or any interest in looking at these other issues, which would require other committee involvement. At this point I just think it's an unsatisfactory motion that's way too narrow and it's not going to satisfy the problems.
10:20 a.m.
Conservative
Phil McColeman Conservative Brant, ON
Further to Mr. Kerr's comments, I would invite Mr. André to explain to us how this motion was crafted. If the issue Mr. Kerr just brought up is valid, this does not accomplish where it needs to go. What is your aspiration for it? If we can't put this plan into action, how are we going to deal with it?
10:20 a.m.
Bloc
Guy André Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
I can give both you and Mr. Kerr a brief answer. We have called witnesses to appear here today, and I would like to be able to meet with them.
As I mentioned earlier, we want to study the issue of suicide and understand this phenomenon. But we mainly want to study suicide prevention for veterans. This is a very important concern. If we were to study it in the context of the charter, I would fear that we would not carry out an in-depth study and it would go by too quickly.
We have heard from witnesses. There was the case of Frédéric Couture, an armed forces member from Quebec, who attempted suicide in Afghanistan and then later became a veteran. He went home to Granby for a year and then proceeded to take his own life. There have been other similar situations. I would like to meet with witnesses, specialists who have studied the question and have written on the matter. They could present a number of alternatives and provides us with suicide prevention information. It is an essential question.
I sense that people are reacting to this, and that there are some concerns that this could become political. The purpose of my motion is not to make it a great political issue, but simply to understand the situation. It is essential. In my own riding, a former military force member who had gone to Kosovo committed suicide. We have all experienced this. I think we need to study the matter.
I would like us to now vote on the motion.
10:25 a.m.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
—in terms of our day.
I have a concern. We have an order of the day on another motion, and I am not convinced this is a fruitful discussion at this point.
10:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
I understand that, Mr. Oliphant, but when we get into business, I cannot limit debate. If it's the wish of the committee to postpone this and deal with it at another meeting, I can, and we can move to the witnesses. But I can't really limit debate on a motion.
10:25 a.m.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Could I appeal to the committee to deal with the motion and if it's passed that we have a meeting to do the terms of reference for the study? That's not abnormal. We could then discuss the terms of reference, the witnesses, and the scope of the study.
10:25 a.m.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. I understand what Mr. Oliphant is talking about, and I understand the haste with which he'd like to move this forward, but the terms of reference need to happen within the motion itself. If Mr. Oliphant wants to put a motion forth to table this, which means we will discuss it at another time, I would be okay with that.
10:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Okay, Mr. Oliphant.
Mr. Lobb is next on the speakers list, and then Mr. McColeman.
10:25 a.m.
Conservative
Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
I echo the same feelings Mr. Oliphant has, to get down to the other business we have today, but I just have one thing that keeps picking away at me. It wasn't too long ago that I came from the business community, and I can tell you that in the business world, far removed from the world of politics up here, I must say, this whole notion that we're taking here is so bizarre that you would probably get fired if you were in the business world. What we're saying here, if I can put it in business terms, is that we think we have a problem--and let's not make light of this, we think there is a problem, and there have been articles put forward--but let's hire a whole pile of consultants to study this before we know for sure exactly where all the problems lie.
As I said to my colleagues—and I said this almost half an hour ago—why wouldn't we have people from within the department, whether it's from Veterans Affairs or DND, come to the very next meeting we have and explain to us how they see the issues today so that at least we have some understanding? If they put forward a comprehensive plan from the day you start with the military until the day you retire, I think we would come from a much better position.
Today we're basing this decision on discussions that happened in Italy and what we've read in the newspaper. Let's hear it from the department and hear what they have.
I was in Charlottetown. You were in Charlottetown. You witnessed the most comprehensive plan around mental health and post-traumatic stress syndrome and OSI clinics and peer support groups—every possible step. So if there is an issue, the department has to have had it recognized. I think everybody has made their decision, as I said before, but I would just plead with my colleagues to let some department officials come before this committee and report what they see within the confines of the new Veterans Charter. If we find that it's unsatisfactory, then move forward.
But I'll go back to the business world. This is a bizarre approach to how to fix a problem. This would be something you'd see from a company that would be filing for chapter 11. This is something we've seen before in the boardroom of General Motors, perhaps, but certainly not within a normal company.
So I'll leave it at that.
10:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
There's a speakers list here, and I have three other speakers.
But just to be clear about your intervention, Mr. Lobb, what in simplicity you're asking for is this to be tabled and for us to hear from both departments first—is that what you're saying?
10:30 a.m.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
You have to make it a motion being placed. That's how parliamentary procedure works.
10:30 a.m.
Liberal
10:30 a.m.
Liberal
10:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Yes, I just wanted to be clear on what he was saying, because I wasn't clear.
10:30 a.m.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
But I would be hoping that the chair would rule any discussion that's not on the substance of the motion to be out of order. So if people want to make a motion or make an amendment they can do that, but we will not work unless we actually stay on the motion.
