Evidence of meeting #37 for Veterans Affairs in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was employment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Cathay Wagantall Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK
I would like clarity on the amendment. When we say “medical information”, what medical information would identify a veteran, a specific veteran? I can't imagine any diagnosis or anything like that directly identifying a veteran.
What exactly are you referring to there, Mr. Casey?
Liberal
Darrell Samson Liberal Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS
Most of the time, it's not the medication but the number of veterans involved. If there are a small number, they can be linked.
Conservative
Liberal
Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE
The wording I've proposed indicates that any personal medical information should be removed from the transcript, so whatever is personal to the veteran should not be for public consumption.
Conservative
Cathay Wagantall Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK
To clarify, what veterans have a problem with is not information about medical conditions being released but their name being released along with it, exposing their condition, which this motion clearly does not do.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg
I can answer Mr. Casey's comments.
I am told that once the redacted documents are received, it is up to the committee to decide whether too much information has been removed from a document. However, if the committee decides that the document has to be reviewed and other information added, we can ask the law clerk and parliamentary counsel of the House of Commons to do this job so we can be given a proper document.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
Can I ask Mr. Casey, through you, Chair, to repeat the amendment? I think I share the same sentiment that Mrs. Wagantall just indicated. I think medical information that would identify someone should, of course, be redacted, but if it's simply an indication of some kind of medical information that would not identify someone, I don't know that it's necessarily something that needs to be redacted.
Maybe you could repeat it and we could see if we could come to something that works for everybody here.
Liberal
Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE
The amendment is to delete all the words contained in parentheses and to add the following at the end of the motion: “furthermore, that Veterans Affairs Canada redact from the transcript any personal identifiable information of the veteran or Veterans Affairs Canada employees, and any personal medical information.”
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg
Are there any other interventions?
We have Mr. Richards and then Mrs. Wagantall.
Mr. Richards, go ahead, please.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
I think if we were to add words at the end of that along the lines of “and any personal medical information that would identify a veteran”, I think that would probably be within the spirit of what Mr. Casey's trying to suggest, and I think it would certainly make me feel more comfortable that we would not get a document that was so redacted that it wouldn't be useful to the committee.
That would be my suggestion, as a subamendment, I suppose, unless it's considered a friendly amendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg
Before I go to Mr. Casey for the friendly amendment, I have Mrs. Wagantall.
February 13th, 2023 / 5:30 p.m.
Conservative
Cathay Wagantall Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
At this point in time, I would agree with my colleague. Unless you can give me some idea of what that would be, it seems irrelevant here, because we are obviously talking about veterans who have gone for assistance because of needing programs and services based on their medical conditions. I don't see how this would identify them, but I would certainly agree with adding “information that would identify a veteran”. Then, hopefully, those who are doing the research.... We all want to see something positive come out of this for the sake of our veterans.
Liberal
Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE
I really have nothing to add. There's no such thing as a friendly amendment. If my friend wants to offer a subamendment, it's within his power to do so. However, that's the amendment I've tabled; that's the amendment I would like us to vote on.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
I'm just indicating that I am, then, in fact, moving it as a subamendment.
Liberal
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
Yes.
It would simply be to add at the end of the amendment “that would identify a veteran”.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg
Okay.
We have a subamendment on the floor.
Ms. Blaney, the floor is yours.
NDP
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
Thank you.
We're at 18 minutes. I think this is very interesting; I just think it's time to call the vote.
I move to call the vote. How's that?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg
That's perfect.
We'll vote, first of all, on the subamendment.
(Subamendment agreed to)
(Amendment as amended agreed to)
(Motion as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg
Ladies and gentlemen, please forgive this hold‑up.
We were doing a six-minute round of questions. Given the time, we are going to offer only four minutes of speaking time for each speaker. Blake Richards had the floor.
Mr. Richards, you have already taken one minute of speaking time. You therefore have three minutes left to ask your questions.
Please go ahead.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
Thank you.
I do apologize, again, for interrupting some of the time you would have been provided. We'll move as quickly as we can and get into some questions, so that we can get as much information from you as we can. I appreciate your presentations.
Probably the big thing I would like to touch on with both of you is that we heard a lot in the last few meetings about the challenges that some veterans—for example, those who are medically released, sometimes those who've had a longer time in service, even the ones with very short terms of service, things like that—face over others. There can be some barriers that don't exist, necessarily, for every veteran.
I wonder if you could speak a bit about those and about what services and supports are needed to help those veterans. What I'm talking about is that, before they even get to employment services, there are often other services, rehab services, etc. What's needed there? What are the gaps in what's provided now by Veterans Affairs, and what can be done better and differently to make sure we get veterans to a place where they can get to post-military service more quickly and more successfully?
I'm not sure who wants to start, but it's for either one of you if you'd like.
President, Challenge Factory
It really touches on the intersectional nature of employment. Everybody comes at employment from different perspectives and has different capacities and challenges in order to be able to engage in their work.
The research is clear that there are groups that struggle more after release, but it also aligns with areas in the general Canadian population where we see challenges with employment and career transition. That's where general frameworks and strategies that recognize there are different groups that need to be treated differently should be a part of the strategy from the very beginning.
In terms of the service they receive, they need to start early and focus on how it's going to feel when they can no longer put their uniform on and introduce themselves with their rank and title. That focus on who they are is the very beginning part. That recognizes all the different pieces of their identity, including their family status, where they want to live, what part of the country they're in, and all those kinds of things, in addition to gender, number of years of service and medical status.