Veterans Affairs Committee on Dec. 10th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Oliphant, we may have a disagreement about whether that was germane to the motion.

Mr. McColeman, and then Madam Sgro, Mr. Storseth, and then Mr. André.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Again, I direct my comments to Monsieur André.

I want to clear up, sir, the fact that, at least from my point of view, in your last intervention you mentioned that you sensed a fear in us with regard to doing a fulsome study here, and that we certainly didn't want any witnesses. That is definitely not the case.

I'd like to have a study that treats this with all the seriousness and fulsomeness that it requires. I'd also like to see action items roll out as a result of the study. I do not want to do a study and then say that it was nice to learn all that, but we don't know what to do with it or the direction it should go.

Judging by Mr. Kerr's comments earlier, his assessment is that the way the motion is written it will not allow us to do that properly and to take items for forward action. I totally agree, and I think our side agrees. Let's do a full study and analysis of this issue. It's a very serious issue.

Sir, I just want to dispel any impression you might have that I personally do not want to do that. I want to do a fulsome study. When we complete the study, I want to be sure that anything that rolls out in the form of recommendations and items for action is directed so that it can be acted on.

What Mr. Kerr was saying earlier would indicate that he has some difficulty with the way this is worded. I'd like you to deal with that, sir, if you would, so that I can learn and determine how I'm going to vote on this.

Right at this point I'm having a very difficult time personally determining how I'm going to vote on this. There's no sense, as far as I am concerned, in doing a study—and, sir, I agree that we should do it in full completeness—if we don't have something to move forward on and we don't have the right direction for this with regard to where it's going in the end. That's what the parliamentary secretary said. That's where I need your help to clarify.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. McColeman.

I have a speakers list. We're going to go to Madam Sgro right now, and as the others have spoken multiple times, I will then go directly to Mr. Asselin, because he hasn't had an opportunity for an intervention in this case.

Madam Sgro.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Chair, I'm concerned with what's going on this morning. What are we doing here? We know this issue is important. This motion has been on the table for two or three weeks now. It's been here. I'm disappointed that there weren't discussions going on about possible amendments that would have achieved what everybody wants to achieve. Are we trying to deny it's a problem?

Let's get on with it. We know this is a problem. At the end of the day, we could do it in two years as part of the Veterans Charter and at the end of the Veterans Charter decide that we need a special study on this because it's a very important issue. We know it already. We don't need to wait another year to do more work to find out that it is.

As for the details on how we do it and the terms, I've been on this committee for more than a year or two. When we go forward to do a study, we don't have to have the terms of reference. It's the intent of this group to do this study and to report back to the House. It's pure and simple in front of us. Either we're supportive of it or we're not.

I'm concerned that the clock is running out. We have another motion that was put here that we didn't get to deal with, and we should have last week. I think we should deal with it. We have witnesses who are waiting to give us additional information on other things.

I think we should just get on with the vote. Either we're going to support this and then deal with the details at a subsequent meeting of a subcommittee, or not. I think to continue on we are not accomplishing anything more.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Madam Sgro.

Mr. Asselin.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I see, and you mentioned it yourself, that everyone has had an opportunity to speak at least once on this issue. This is why you've given me the floor. The names that you have on the list would be speaking for the second or third time. This seems to me to be a Conservative Party strategy to buy some time, or quite simply to delay the motion.

I would respectfully ask you, as chairman of the committee, to immediately proceed to the vote. If you are unable to make this decision, I would ask you to consult committee members one by one to see who would be prepared to proceed to a vote immediately. You can ask for help from the clerk, I have no objection to that.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Merci, Monsieur Asselin.

I have two more speakers on the list, but I will look to see if there's consensus on going ahead to a vote.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

There's no consensus.

Mr. Storseth.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Chairman, if there is no consensus, I would ask you to ask committee members, one by one whether they are ready. We have a majority. If committee members want to hear those two, we will choose. At this point I would ask you to consult committee members one by one to know whether they want to move to a vote immediately or not.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Asselin, there's no consent to go that way. I have a speakers list, and I have a mandate not to limit debate. Whether you like the debate or not--

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Not only do you not need to ask for consensus, Mr. Chairman, but it would be a violation of the rules for you do to so. And you must respect that. Everyone has had an opportunity to speak. By asking for consensus, Mr. Chairman, you are in violation of the rules.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

I will check with the clerk once more, just to be sure, but I believe I've investigated this on several occasions. If you'll excuse me for a minute, I'll just consult with the clerk.

Okay, Mr. Storseth.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

To Ms. Sgro's comments, I disagree with you. First of all, this motion excludes current members of the Canadian armed forces. I can't vote for a study on suicide that excludes the current members of the Canadian armed forces and the RCMP, because it is very important that if we do this, we do it right. Our committee doesn't have the purview to review that unless it's a joint subcommittee. If that were the motion, I would vote for it.

I agree with you; we don't need to wait for this. If we go with this, the committee has already said we're studying the charter until fall. But we're not going to even start looking at this motion until the fall. So I think we should be looking at a different motion that has better terms of reference and actually gets us to do something right away.

Ms. Sgro tabled a motion the other day. I believe we should get to it. I believe we as a committee have more work to do. I don't think there's disagreement to study this. I think the disagreement on this side is that if we're going to do it, let's do it right and let's do it more quickly.

So I would actually put a motion forward that we table this motion as a committee, so that we can get on to Ms. Sgro's motion and hopefully get some resolution of that.

I would put a motion forward that we as a committee table this and bring it back at our next meeting to flesh out the details at that point in time.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

There has been a motion to table it, and that means we will go to a vote on that. It's my understanding that it's a simple majority to have that pass, or of course fail.

(Motion negatived)

Monsieur André.

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

I'm simply calling for the vote. No one is to be recognized, we vote on the motion and we move to something else.

I would call for the vote on my motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Seeing no more interventions, we'll go to the vote on Monsieur André's motion.

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Did you note, Mr. Chairman, that it was passed unanimously?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

No, it wasn't unanimous.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

When you asked who was opposed, no hands were raised.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Kerr.

[Greg Kerr, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Chair, I want to make it clear that we indicated before that because of the principle that we want to see it work somehow, we're abstaining. We think it's a poorly worded and poorly thought-out motion that's totally incomplete and doesn't cover it off. We look forward to the discussions that take place later on.

So it's not unanimous. Don't get that mistaken thought.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you.

We'll move on to the motion by Madam Sgro.

I believe you had some kind of modification you wanted. Do you want to move this motion now?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

I want to move the motion.

I want to amend it. Where it says, “the Agent Orange tragedy”, I want to change that to read:

That the committee recommends that the government immediately convene a full and public judicial inquiry into the chemical spraying of substances such as Agent Orange between 1956 and 1984 at Canadian Forces Base Gagetown.

I'll just speak to the reason for that change in wording. I think that would widen it a bit, rather than be specific to the Agent Orange issue that we know has created specifically an enormous amount of concern.

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

I'm sorry to interrupt you, Ms. Sgro. It's my understanding that motions in their entirety need to be presented to the committee 48 hours—