Evidence of meeting #4 for Veterans Affairs in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A video is available from Parliament.
2:05 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
Go ahead on your point of order, sir.
I believe the amendment changes the intent of the motion and should be ruled out of order.
2:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bryan May
Thank you. I will confer with the clerk on that, if you would give me a moment.
Andy, perhaps you can read the amendment again and explain it. Is it replacing the motion entirely? Is it going at the beginning or at the end? If it is a replacement, then it is a completely separate motion. If it is going at the beginning or at the end, which is in order, you will need to indicate that, sir.
2:05 p.m.
Liberal
Andy Fillmore Liberal Halifax, NS
Okay.
It is entirely aligned with the intent of the original motion. The intent of Mr. Brassard's motion was to convey the committee's disappointment to the House about the backlog. That's exactly what this is intending to do, although in more accurate terms.
I'll read it slowly so that it can be recorded by the clerk: That the committee is disappointed with the previous government's decision to cut jobs within Veterans Affairs Canada and to close veterans services offices around the country, as far too many veterans are waiting far too long for their application to be processed, and to report this motion to the House.
As you can see that it is plainly in keeping with the spirit of the original motion.
2:10 p.m.
NDP
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
Mr. Chair, again, I need clarification. You did ask for it, Chair. Perhaps you could repeat your question: Will it be at the beginning or at the end of the motion? It does talk about reporting to the House, so I'm assuming it's in-between those parts, but it's still not clear to me.
2:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bryan May
Thank you.
MP Fillmore, maybe you can clarify it again. The motion has been read twice now. Will that be the entirety of the motion, or are you looking to add to the existing motion at some point through your amendment? If this is an addition, it's in order. If it's not an addition, if it's a replacement, then it is not in order.
It becomes dicey. I shouldn't say it's out of order, but it will be an issue throughout.
2:10 p.m.
Liberal
Andy Fillmore Liberal Halifax, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It is absolutely an amendment to the proposed motion. It continues to convey the original intent of the motion, which was to convey the displeasure of the committee with the backlog.
2:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bryan May
Is it your intent to replace the text of the motion in its entirety with this existing motion. Is that correct?
2:10 p.m.
Liberal
Andy Fillmore Liberal Halifax, NS
There is language in common. It is replacing some of the wording but keeping much of it intact.
2:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bryan May
I see what you're saying now. I would agree with that in terms of its being an amendment to this existing motion. I just wanted to be clear that it was not an issue of putting it at the beginning, the middle or the end of the existing motion.
We do need to shift gears a little bit here, folks. We do need to debate the amendment. I have a speaking order still on the amendment, but—
2:10 p.m.
Conservative
John Brassard Conservative Barrie—Innisfil, ON
Mr. Chair, on a point of order, within the context of the current study of the backlog, there was a motion put forward and approved by the committee. I think it would be helpful if we looked at what that motion said. Maybe we can call the clerk on that. As I recall, it was in the context of the backlog that is currently occurring at Veterans Affairs, not in the context of a backlog that perhaps existed five years ago when there was a change in government.
I think clarification on that would be helpful to determine whether in fact what Mr. Fillmore is proposing is actually in order.
2:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bryan May
I would agree with that, John. The question that I would also put out there, which has already been addressed I believe by MP Fillmore, is that the motion is to conduct a study that we have not completed yet.
As to your motion today, although you're correct that it is in line with the topic of the motion, I would defer to the clerk to suggest that these are two very separate things.
2:10 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
If that's the case, Mr. Chair, then the amendment that Mr. Fillmore is proposing, which is a complete replacement of Mr. Brassard's motion, is not an amendment. It is a separate motion and should be called out of order as an amendment.
2:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bryan May
As I've been instructed, that decision is up to the chair. I'm seeing that there's very similar content and similar issues. I would perceive that we can debate the amendment and vote on it before moving forward.
As I was saying before the point of order was made, we do have a speaking order. As of right now, we have MP Lalonde, MP Desilets, MP Wagantall and MP Blaney. That's the current order. We are discussing the amendment at the moment. I will cede the floor to MP Lalonde.
2:10 p.m.
Liberal
Marie-France Lalonde Liberal Orléans, ON
I want to speak to the motion, but I'm very happy to see my colleague, MP Fillmore, bringing his amendment forward.
Before entering politics in 2014, I had the privilege of working with seniors and veterans in retirement residences. I saw first-hand the significant impact of, I would say, the lack of respect by the former Conservative government for our veterans and the impact of their having to live through the financial hardship that it caused and their willingness to stay home as long as possible.
Certainly, I have the utmost appreciation for our veterans. What we're experiencing right now, as Mr. Scott's testimony today reflected, has been the case since 2008. Many of our witnesses did speak about the fact the backlog has been part of our system for far too long. I agree with all of you that we are disappointed by that, but we have to put into context that this is not something that has just arrived upon us. I want to reiterate the fact that the issue we are seeing also goes two ways. Because we've invested billions of dollars into the system since 2015, repairing the damage caused by the previous Conservative government—and, I have to say, by the former minister for veterans, Mr. O'Toole—this is a situation where at this point we need to collaborate, and this study right now is bringing that perspective. I agree that the process needs to be conveyed.
I'm also very happy to see there is an acknowledgement within the department that this is unacceptable. The minister, the deputy minister and many officials came forward to share this with us, so I think MP Fillmore's amendment to the motion is extremely relevant to the case we are speaking of today. Mr. Brassard's motion originally was almost out of order, because in my view we are studying the backlog currently.
Thank you to my colleague.
2:15 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Desilets Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Although I don't have a ton of parliamentary experience, having been elected just over a year ago, I think it's rather inconceivable that the committee is discussing the backlog non-stop and preparing to keep that discussion going into next year. It's going to take a hammer-like approach to fix the problem.
I fully agree with Mr. Brassard's motion. Throwing neither money nor staff at the problem will fix it; the problem is structural. It is the way the system works. My understanding is that the system needs to change but can't right now.
When people say the backlog has been around since 1920 or what have you, that is not an acceptable reason in my eyes. We are talking about human beings here, people who fought for Quebec and Canada. Does this mean Veterans Week is really over? We have sung veterans' praises at every turn this past week, but now, we are talking about the backlog again and we are continuing to accept the unacceptable.
What I take from this is that I would think twice before enlisting, because if I were to enlist, I would have to be careful not to become injured. If I did suffer an injury, the government—the country on whose behalf I had gone abroad to fight—would do an about-face on my return and cause me nothing but headaches.
Accumulating a backlog of this size is unacceptable and sends a lousy message. When your attempt to resolve the problem is in vain, you need to change your approach.
That said, the amendment that was proposed a few minutes ago strikes me as an altogether different motion. I really don't see the connection. I think it will be up to the chair and the clerk to decide.
I have a short amendment to Mr. Brassard's motion. It's pretty straightforward. Should I move it now or later? I'm not sure what I am supposed to do.
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bryan May
Just for clarity, sir, are you moving an amendment to Mr. Brassard's motion, or are you moving an amendment to Mr. Fillmore's amendment?
2:20 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Desilets Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
We are discussing Mr. Brassard's motion, and the amendment that was put forward is not at all relevant, unfortunately. That is how I see it, but I am not the clerk. She can tell us.
I can read you my short amendment now if you like. I sent it to the clerk in both official languages. It reads as follows: and that the committee urge the government to follow the Parliamentary Budget Officer's recommendations.
That strengthens the motion, which I think is important, while giving our Liberal friends a good bit of flexibility.
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bryan May
Thank you. If it's an amendment to Mr. Brassard's motion, we'll have to come back to it. We have to deal with the amendment that is currently in front of the committee.
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bryan May
We have noted it. It has been read. We will come back to you, sir.
I have MP Wagantall up next.
2:20 p.m.
Conservative
Cathay Wagantall Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First, I would like to reiterate what I'm hearing over and over again, what we've learned again today after solid testimony from so many individuals from all aspects of this issue, and what we've heard over and over again for the past four years: There is a need for this committee to do the right thing.
Mr. Chair, I challenge, if I'm able to do that, your interpretation of this as an amendment from MP Fillmore. This is not an amendment; this is a full change of a motion. I would encourage you to talk with the clerk further about that.
The fact is that, as we hear over and over again, it's not about the money. I keep hearing about $10 billion that this government has put forward for veterans. If they can't access it the way it's supposed to be accessed, it means nothing to them, because the proper processes are not in place. Over and over again Veterans Affairs is failing, and it needs to be changed so that things are different for the future and this can be handled in a very expedient way.
For those on the other side of the floor who are frustrated with the motion that John has put forward, I would encourage you to look inward and realize that the most important thing you can do as Liberal members of Parliament, or whoever, is to go to the House and say strongly, along with this entire committee, that we are not satisfied with the direction in which the government is going. It is baby steps; it is band-aids, and it is not working. We have heard over and over again from capable people—the PBO, the previous ombudsman, people who are employers, part of the employment process for our public service and, most importantly, veterans—that the approach we continue to take in government is not effective.
If we are truly saying that it's about the veterans, that it's about the people, then we have to take a look at this and do what should have been done in the first place: say to the House of Commons that we are not satisfied and there is much more that could be done. It would be radical, and this government likes radical change. This is a change, and I don't understand why they are not prepared to take that radical move.
I would encourage the chair to realize that the first motion is the one that should be on the floor, as well as my colleague Mr. Desilets' recommendation for an amendment. I would say it's part of the process of what we need to do to move forward as a committee and to encourage the changes that need to be taking place because of the motion that John has put forward on the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.