Veterans Affairs Committee on Nov. 12th, 2020

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Today we heard some pretty telling testimony. The reality is that many veterans are going without their basic needs being met because there is a problem in the system. We can blame, and both parties deserve part of that blame. I don't feel comfortable now supporting any of these motions, because you're not recognizing the reality that veterans are struggling every day because levels of government have not done what they should have.

They cut back services during the Conservative government, and I remember that time. I remember that time from a different perspective, because the people I was serving got a ton of resources cut from their department, which meant we were suddenly put in a terrible place where we couldn't look after people.

However, this government hasn't done its job to get this work done. I'm absolutely horrified listening to the PBO today talk about his reality, listening to what this government is saying about the amazing work that his department did to uncover some of the challenges.

At this point, I hope we get our heads put on correctly. I'm sorry to say that so frankly. Just remember that our obligation is to veterans across this country. Our committee should step away from partisanship and start looking after the people who desperately need us to do so.

That's all I have to contribute.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you, MP Blaney.

On the participant sheet, I have MP Brassard.

Before I go to you, MP Brassard, just to clarify, we have an amendment to your motion on the floor. We also have the potential of another amendment coming, once we've dealt with this amendment.

Let's focus on the amendment as it is right now. Thank you.

Mr. Brassard, the floor is yours.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will also remind you that we have been at this for three and a half hours with little break, so at some point, if this is going to continue, we may need to take a break. I know I will.

I really appreciated what Rachel said, because, again, I'm really not trying to look at this on a partisan basis. I am extremely sincere in my intent, and I'm sorry this amendment has turned into having a partisan basis, even after the parliamentary secretary said that it wasn't partisan. I'm not the government. The NDP is not the government. The Bloc is not the government. The Liberals are the government.

We are hearing today, at least from those on the second panel, about a situation in which on one side the minister is saying that we're doing all these things—throwing money at the problem and throwing people at the problem—and then on the other side of that we're having witnesses come in and say that this is not going to resolve the issue, that the people and the money will not resolve the issue in its entirety, because it's the process that's the problem.

Given the lack of confidence, on one side, in the ability to deal with this situation by throwing money and people at it and, on the other side, witnesses telling us that this is not going to solve the problem, I'm just trying to ask the House of Commons to listen. This has been going on for years. I have stood up in the House of Commons, and I have accepted responsibility, as the critic for Veterans Affairs, for the inefficiencies and inadequacies in some of the things that we, as a Conservative government, did.

I know the situation was referred to our leader. I know Erin was trying to fix the problem that had gone on, but, unfortunately, he ran out of runway; the election happened, and the government got elected. They got elected on several promises.

All I'm trying to do is say to the House to listen. What's happening now.... If you want to redraw history, you have done a good job of that today. You can stand in the House and blame Conservatives all you want if this motion does get to the House. All I'm trying to say today is that whether it's Conservative, Liberal, NDP, Bloc, or whatever, what's happening is not working. It's not working for veterans. It's not working for their families. We can come up with ideas that we can push forward within the House of Commons itself, and say that these are the things we believe need to be done.

I agree with what Mrs. Wagantall said earlier, and I hope some of the members on the Liberal side would agree with me as well that we're trying to fix the problem. The people and the money are one side of it, but we're not necessarily doing anything on the process side.

That's all I'm trying to do here, Mr. Chair. If you want to play the blame game, I will stand here and accept responsibility, if that's what you want. If you want to take a chunk of meat out of me, go ahead. If you want to take a chunk of meat out of the Conservative Party, go ahead. Fill your boots.

But the issue here is not the blame game. The issue here, in my opinion, is to fix the problem, and that's what we need to do. This amendment, in my opinion, reeks of partisanship. It doesn't try in any way to fix the problem. It places blame. Okay, I accept blame. If that's what you want to do, I accept it, but let's move on, and let's get this to the House and figure it out.

I will say, Mr. Chair, on a final note, that I still think the motion that was put forward by Mr. Fillmore is out of order, regardless of what you believe. I would challenge you on that. It is completely separate from the motion that I put on the floor. It doesn't add anything to it. It's separate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

That's going to change things, sir. If you're challenging the chair, that takes us in a very different direction.

I was about to comment on the fact that I personally believe.... In five years of chairing committees, I have never been in a situation where we are in the middle of a study and we pre-empt all other witnesses who have yet to appear, we pre-empt the feedback from the analyst, we pre-empt the work of the members of this committee to come out with a report, and we move a motion to send it to the House. That, sir, reeks of partisanship, with all due respect.

I have ruled that both motions are in order. If you are challenging the chair, we can move to that proceeding right now.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

I will recognize MP Casey in a moment.

I'll get the clerk to identify whether I have to deal with the fact that the chair has been challenged before I move to another point of order.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

My point of order is in connection with the challenging of the chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Okay. Then go ahead, please.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

One, I would ask the clerk for advice as to whether the motion to challenge the chair is in order, given the delay between the ruling you made and the challenge—that's the first thing—and whether the motion to challenge the chair is appropriate after a lengthy intervention. I understand that the entire speaking slot should be used only to challenge the chair and not to engage in debate, so I think it is flawed on two counts.

I would ask for a ruling on that before we proceed with a vote on whether the chair's ruling should stand.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

The clerk is conferring with her colleagues at this time. We'll just give them a moment.

The clerk could address the committee when she has an answer, please.

[The Clerk]

Thank you.

Mr. Brassard's challenging of the chair's decision is in order, so at this point we could move the question that the chair's decision be sustained and go to a recorded division.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

I'm looking to Mr. Brassard. Could you comment on whether in fact you wish to challenge the chair?

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Chair, respectfully, I'm going to ask that we suspend for five minutes, if that's okay. First and foremost, I do have to take a break. If that's okay with you, then we can come back to it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

I can confer with the clerk. I know that we have all been at this for three hours-plus, but so has the team that put all of this together. I just want to make sure that we don't have a hard stop coming up sometime soon, but I agree that possibly a suspension would allow us to move forward.

Are we good? Okay.

We will suspend and come back in five minutes. Is that enough, Monsieur Brassard? Okay.

We are suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

I will bring the committee back to order. We're back from suspension.

MP Lalonde, you have your hand raised.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Okay.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

In the spirit of collaboration, as I think we can all agree that this committee had been moving forward quite consistently in our approach to finding solutions, I'm wondering if we could possibly create a friendly amendment. I'm not sure if my colleague MP Fillmore would agree, but certainly, before we start playing committee games, I would entertain the idea of presenting to all of you the idea of a friendly amendment to the motion of Mr. Brassard.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

I appreciate that intervention, MP Lalonde.

To follow the order that's in front of us right now, I do need to go back to MP Brassard to—

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Chair, I withdraw the challenge, by the way. We can move on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Okay.

MP Lalonde, you do have the floor. You are next in line.

As a housekeeping issue, you can't propose a motion on a point of order. Just coincidentally, you are next in the speaking order here. It sounds like we may have some compromise here, so I'll allow you to have the floor.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'm sorry about this.

Mr. Brassard, I want to reflect back on your motion and tell you what I want to strike out and everything. Let's try to find a good compromise.

Mr. Brassard's motion begins with “That this committee is disappointed with the lack of progress shown by the government”. I would like to propose to the committee that we say this: “That the committee is disappointed in the backlog of applications and reports this to the House, and that the government respond.”

You know, Mr. Brassard, we were saying that we were trying to...and I agree. I was trying to be maybe a little over-partisan on the history behind everything. I think we can all collectively agree that we do have a serious issue on our hands. We agree on that. By striking “with the lack of progress shown by the government”, I believe we're removing a little bit of the partisan approach to that motion and striking a more collaborative approach that hopefully all my colleagues can agree on.

I'll read it again for the clerk, if I may, Mr. Chair. I'll speak very slowly for translation and for Mr. Desilets—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

I want my clerk to be happy with me here, so I want to make sure we are following the procedure.

We will come back to you, MP Lalonde, to do that, but we do have an amendment that we have to address. If we have unanimous consent to remove that amendment, we can then proceed. Really, in committee there is technically no such thing as a friendly amendment, but I understand what you are trying to do here.

Before we move to that, I would have to ask MP Fillmore to ask for unanimous consent to remove his amendment.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to ask for unanimous consent to withdraw my previous amendment, but I would add that it's on the basis of what MP Lalonde said. If we go in that direction, we'll all be happy. If we go in a different, surprise direction, I think we would reserve the right for another amendment. However, I like where this is going.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you.

Does MP Fillmore have unanimous consent to remove his amendment?

I'm seeing thumbs-up and yeses all around. Excellent.

(Amendment withdrawn)

Is this a point of order, Mr. Brassard?