Veterans Affairs Committee on May 14th, 2015

[The Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Good morning, and welcome to the 49th meeting of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.

Members, I want to thank all of you for your cooperation at our 48th meeting. We had two rounds of questioning and we were able to get quite a bit of information from the witnesses.

I want to pay a special tribute to Bryan Hayes who, as usual, was the only one who had an internal clock that kept him strictly to the time that he was supposed to use, others not so much, and some managed to punch in three questions in 30 seconds, which of course causes some trauma.

As a result, I was not the perfect chair that I'd like to have been at the last meeting, and there was a vote I wanted to take that I wasn't able to because we ran out of time, so we're going to have that vote right now.

The Chair calls vote 1 under Veterans Affairs.

Shall votes 1 and 5 under Veterans Affairs carry?

VETERANS AFFAIRS

Vote 1—Operating expenditures..........$855,502,774

Vote 5—Grants and contributions..........$2,639,248,000

(Votes 1 and 5 agreed to)

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Are we having a recorded vote?

[The Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

This vote was not asked to be recorded, so it's carried.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Can we have a recorded vote?

[The Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The Chair calls vote 1 under Veterans Review and Appeal Board.

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

The amount, which I think is more than $9 million, for the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, that particular one we would be voting against.

[The Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Right now I am calling for the vote on vote 1 under Veterans Review and Appeal Board.

VETERANS REVIEW AND APPEAL BOARD

Vote 1—Program expenditures..........$9,460,756

(Vote 1 agreed to on division)

Shall the Chair report to the House votes 1 and 5 under Veterans Affairs and vote 1 under Veterans Review and Appeal Board, less the amounts granted in interim supply?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

No. On division.

[The Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

I have received notice that the parliamentary secretary wants to make a comment.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Yes. Thank you, Chair.

We're done with the votes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

We're done with the votes. The votes have carried.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Right. What I wanted to discuss briefly was, of course, the budget implementation act with the veterans clauses that are coming to committee. I believe that the finance committee referred those clauses earlier this week, on Tuesday.

I think, as we discussed at previous meetings, that type of legislation takes priority over other work and other studies. I believe that there are two meetings that we would be able to schedule, two regular meetings is what I'll say, within that timeframe on the normal Tuesday and the Thursday before we have to report it back.

What I'd like to offer to the committee, of course, is that we have a few extra meetings, if members are in agreement. If they would like more time to study the clauses of the budget implementation act that are coming from the finance committee, then I want to make that offer that we're certainly open to do them.

I would propose two additional meetings, but it could be one, as well. That's the offer I would make, Chair. I think it would give us more opportunity to study the clauses.

[The Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Do you want this discussed now or while we are discussing the business of the committee a little later in camera?

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

We can discuss it now.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Sure.

[The Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

If the committee agrees with him, we'll discuss it now.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Mr. Stoffer, you're first.

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

Thank you very much for that.

We would just bring the whole bill here and we can discuss the entire thing. Obviously, it's not necessarily for us; it's for the people this bill is going to affect.

First of all, I'd like to see the ombudsman and at least the Royal Canadian Legion here, and then at least some caregivers. Those would be the three witnesses I'd like to have. I know you can't have every witness out there, because it would bog this down and it wouldn't get done, but we could have those three witnesses in one day if we really wanted to. It's a matter of time in regard to getting the bill through. At least we could have some semblance of oversight from people outside of ourselves: the ombudsman, the Legion, and, say, a group of caregivers.

[The Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

That would be the Royal Canadian Legion.

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

Yes, you are correct, sir, the Royal Canadian Legion.

There's no reason that we can't have a three-hour meeting and have them all in one day if time is of the essence in that regard. If we were to have that, then at least we could say that we had some oversight, that there was some discussion, and you can link that with previous discussions. Then we could at least show to the veterans community out there that there was some sort of discussion on it. It might not be as thorough as you would like, but it's at least something.

[The Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

With the committee's assent, I'll get the parliamentary secretary to respond right now.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

That's fine.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Chair, all I was going to say was that I think we definitely would have witnesses come in. These measures would have an impact on veterans, their families, and also serving Canadian Armed Forces members. I think it is important to have witnesses.

We have a normal process whereby the opposition parties and we as the government submit names of witnesses to the chair, and the chair arranges them for meetings. I think that's a fine process, and I recommend that we continue to follow it.

I think a three-hour meeting probably would be problematic, because what I have experienced before is that the MPs around the table end up having other committee meetings, and they just can't stay an extra hour. If we can get the work done.... If you're proposing that we get the work done in the two regular meetings, I have no problem with that at all, if that's the will of MPs around this table.

If we feel that we need additional meetings, that was my offer; we'd gladly have additional meetings. My proposal would be, based on previous experience, that those additional meetings be held at night after votes, maybe in the window between 6:30 and 8:30, because generally then it doesn't conflict with all of the other things that we have already planned in our schedules, and the commitments that we can't necessarily get out of—