Veterans Affairs Committee on Feb. 2nd, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

There is a back-and-forth, so now I would like to listen to the arguments of Mrs. Wagantall, please.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

I think the lesson to be learned here is that when a motion is put forward and there's some ambiguity, it needs to be taken back to the person who presented the motion, to ask, “What was the intent here?”, because I feel that in this circumstance it was taken advantage of. I'm being really honest here.

The reality is that we need to make an adjustment here, because it didn't go through the proper process, I believe. Let's simply change it to sound appropriate. The truth of the matter is that there was no date. There was no date, so, “Give all the information you have,” would be my interpretation of that. There was a change. I would encourage us to do that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

I will respond to that, but now I would like to invite Ms. Blaney to speak about it.

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

I just want to note, as a person who always keeps time, that we're at 12 and a half minutes now, and I'm a little frustrated that we have somebody who's a witness here, and she gets to watch us do our work. Maybe we could find another way to be more respectful to our witnesses. I want to put that on the record.

I also want to thank the clerk for trying to figure out what we wanted and her hard work to try to clarify that. I think we should always remember that people are always patiently working behind us without any partisan views, just doing their work. I want to acknowledge that.

I have no problem with changing the tone. I hope we can get this through and out the door, so we can get on to other business that is really important.

I know there are members of this committee who have been waiting a long time for this study to get done, so let's get on with it.

I would recommend, if there's a change in tone wanted by Mr. Samson, that he give us something, so that we can get on with this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Ms. Blaney.

Sean, before you go, just to let you know, in the motion we have in front of us, like I said, at the first paragraph we are talking about “all briefing notes, memos, emails” and text or electronics being given to the committee “within 45 days”.

The minister asked, “How long would you like me to go back?”, and so forth. That was the discussion. Maybe if we didn't tell them to keep the second date, between January and December, maybe we will receive anything.... It's about the same thing. If we look at this motion right now, in paragraph (b) we ask for “briefing notes, memos” and everything, and “within seven calendar days”, but they have to have that information and it has to be translated, so even though here...maybe they will come back to us and ask, “Seven days to give that, is it reasonable?” That's why we are discussing the motion.

Go ahead, Mr. Casey.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have an amendment to propose to the motion that I think will get us all to the place where we want to be, but before I introduce the amendment I will say that there's a presumption here that Veterans Affairs has not produced all the documents. Mr. Richards indicates that it's likely that there are very few documents that fall outside the date range. I would suggest that it's also possible that there are none, and that they have produced all the documents. On the suggestion that they haven't produced all of them, maybe it's true and maybe it's not, but it shouldn't be taken as true. That's one of the problems I have with the tone.

The amendment I would propose is that the motion, starting with the word “Recognize” and ending at “December 12”—those are the first two lines before the quote—be deleted and replaced with the following: “Whereas Veterans Affairs had reason to believe that the entire request for documents made by the committee in its motion of December 12, 2022 was subject to the date range contained in paragraph (b) of the motion, specifically January 1, 2019 to December 7, 2022”.

I also propose that the motion be further amended by deleting everything inside the quotes and going right to paragraph (b), and that the word “demand” be replaced with the word “order”.

If the amendment is accepted, the motion would read:

Whereas Veterans Affairs Canada had reason to believe that the entire request for documents made by the committee in its motion of December 12, 2022 was subject to the date range contained in paragraph (b) of the motion, specifically January 1, 2019 to December 7, 2022; that the committee order that all briefing notes, memos, emails, text or other electronic messages from Veterans Affairs Canada officials prepared for or sent to the Minister of Veterans Affairs regarding medical assistance in dying, or MAID, including related to the internal investigation into the matter, be provided to the committee within seven calendar days of the adoption of the motion.

I think this takes account of the possibility that there are no documents, and it takes some of the rocks out of the snowball.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Mr. Casey. It's a very long one, so let's see....

Go ahead, Mr. Desilets.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The clock is ticking and our witness is still waiting. It doesn't seem like we'll be able to finish questioning the witnesses. We are dealing with a motion, and a second one is coming. I will have comments.

Would it be possible to let Ms. Hughes take her leave and thank her? We could bring the meeting to an end.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

I quite agree, Mr. Desilets. Let's conclude this panel.

Ms. Hughes, thank you for appearing before the committee. As a reminder, you are the director of veterans services at the Royal Canadian Legion, national headquarters.

I imagine Mr. Gordon MacEachern is still on the line. What I would suggest is that he send us his opening remarks. We will translate them, but I will ask members to table a motion if they want to have the opening remarks...if they want the analysts to take consideration of the opening remarks. We can do it next week, you know. We'll discuss that too.

Ms. Hughes, thank you so much.

We will continue with our members here and see you next time. Thank you so much.

[Carolyn Hughes]

Thank you very much for having me here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Its our pleasure.

Mr. Richards, I know that we don't have a copy of the motion presented by Sean Casey, so how would you like—

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

I'm comfortable going to a vote on the amendment, and I'm willing to accept it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Okay. That's perfect.

Would anyone like to discuss the motion?

Seeing no further comments, I'm going to call the vote on the amendment. The clerk still hasn't received a copy of the motion, but it will be handed out later.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Now we are voting on the motion as amended.

(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Go ahead, Mr. Richards.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

We indicated that we needed a motion to be able to have the briefing be considered testimony, so I move the motion that we allow the brief of—

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Gordon MacEachern to be taken as testimony.

Do we all agree?

(Motion agreed to)

Do you see the time?

I'd like to tell you that for next week, on Monday, we have two witnesses in the afternoon and no one yet...because the three that we have are unavailable. That's why, for the last hour of our meeting next week, we can have what you want in committee business.

Go ahead, Mr. Richards.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Thank you.

I mentioned this earlier, and I know there are other members of the committee on both sides who believe this would be a good witness for the study. I think it's called the National Association of Career Colleges. They have some good information about programs they have in place for veterans.

However, the unique and interesting thing they have—which I haven't heard from anybody else that we've heard from yet, and it is a new and fairly novel thing to me—is programs to assist with training for veterans' spouses as well. This is recognizing that they face a lot of the same challenges that veterans do, being moved around the country, having employment interrupted and things....

I think they would be a very good witness to have, if we don't have anybody. They told me they could come on very short notice, so perhaps we can invite them for the second hour of the meeting.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

We would agree as well. I visited the college last year. It's an exceptional story. I meant to invite them, but we missed the deadlines.

Absolutely, let's bring them in.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Okay. That's great.

We will deal with that. If not, maybe we will have an hour for committee business on Monday, because we have to plan our workload.

Thank you to the interpreters and all the technicians, as well as the analysts and clerks.

The floor is yours, Mr. Desilets.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I always feel terrible when we argue amongst ourselves like that. It wasn't improper or uncivilized, but instead of doing it in front of a witness, we could go in camera for the discussion, or perhaps the motion could be put forward once we've finished with the witnesses. Isn't there some procedure that would allow for that?

Procedure isn't my strong suit, but Mr. Casey may have an answer for us.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Mr. Desilets, I was going to ask the clerk about that.

It's not a matter of procedure. The committee can do what it likes. Members can make all sorts of comments, just as they can move to adjourn debate in the middle of a discussion. As long as the motion was put on notice 24 or 48 hours prior, as procedure dictates, it's fine. Members have the right to—

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

If I want to propose a motion that the committee will want to discuss, as was the case today, can I do it at the end of my turn?

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Yes, but procedurally, if you put a motion on notice, you have to wait until the next meeting to debate it.

If a motion has already been put on notice, however, it can be debated at any time. That doesn't prevent a member from putting forward a motion to adjourn debate in order to carry on the discussion with the witnesses.

We'll discuss it.

Thank you everyone. The meeting is adjourned.