Evidence of meeting #14 for Veterans Affairs in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was families.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE
I would be interested to hear from the mover on that first, please.
Bloc
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
On the subamendment, it is perfectly reasonable for the minister to appear based on her schedule. That would give her an opportunity to update us on what has been done since she took on this portfolio, how the work is progressing, and perhaps even what changes are being made to service delivery. We'll look into the date after we get back from the winter break, but it could be a good opportunity for us and the minister, so I agree.
This would also enable us to further investigate the issue of service delivery. Indeed, every testimony confirms that this is the crux of the matter. That will lead us to make recommendations regarding new care options for veterans, and the department will be able to make choices and decide whether it wants to improve service delivery. We will then have done our job.
In short, I am in favour of the subamendment. Unless someone tells me otherwise, I think it's appropriate for the minister to visit us as part of this study.
Liberal
Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE
I'm not sure I agree with the rationale for inviting the minister, but I'm not stupid; I can count the votes.
Let me offer a couple of observations. First, she's going to be here next week. We'll have her here for an hour, if people want to ask about this. I expect there will be pretty wide latitude extended by the chair.
Liberal
Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE
I'm sorry, Mr. Richards. I have the floor. If you want to put your hand up, you'll get a chance to speak next.
That's the first thing. The second thing is that I don't see in the motion any indication of the timing of this study. I know we have an agreement that the next study will be entrepreneurship. Obviously, her attendance would be subject to her availability.
I'll just put that on the record. If Madame Gaudreau is going to vote for it, there's not much point in belabouring it.
Bloc
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Madam Chair, first of all, I admit that I wasn't aware of the minister's visit. Unless someone says otherwise, we can indeed ask her certain questions. Since she's listening to us right now, she'll surely come prepared to answer questions about service delivery. We can therefore assume that it is nearly done.
That said, in terms of the schedule, I must say that it's often useful to conduct studies simultaneously. I've experienced this on a number of occasions. The study we have committed to conducting is very important. We were just talking about the importance of post-service care, but service delivery is also important. We've heard that as well. We must not forget the importance of the basics.
Based on good recommendations made by the clerk and by you, Madam Chair, I would suggest that we can do these studies either one after the other or at the same time. Since we have two meetings per week, we could do both studies practically simultaneously.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Marie-France Lalonde
I welcome any comments.
Let's start by seeing whether we're going to begin the study on entrepreneurship before the end of 2025. Once this motion is adopted, it will certainly be taken into consideration.
Is the committee in agreement with Mr. Richards' amendment to Ms. Gaudreau's motion?
(Amendment agreed to on division)
Liberal
Liberal
Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE
I have another amendment. I would ask that the motion be amended by deleting all of the words after Mr. Richards's amendment. As I understand it, Mr. Richards's amendment has the effect of adding a fourth bullet in the list of witnesses. I ask that there be a period after that and that the last sentence be deleted. The last sentence is "That the Committee report its findings and recommendations to the House.”
The rationale for that is the likelihood that three or more hours of House time will be tied up in a concurrence motion. This is legitimately before the committee, but I would ask that we not put ourselves in a position where we tie up three hours of debate with the entire House, along with a vote. We can achieve what we need to achieve simply by doing this report and having the information in front of us.
Bloc
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
I just want to be assured of one thing. If the wording means that there will be a debate in the House, the main thing, as with all committees, is that once we've produced a report, we correct it and then make recommendations. Then we table the report in the House. That's the minimum requirement.
What do we need to add to indicate that the committee is tabling the report in the House? I propose a friendly amendment, that's not a problem. However, there has to be an official tabling.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Marie-France Lalonde
Please excuse me. I just want to be assured of one thing. We're going to suspend for a few minutes so I can consult with the clerk.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Marie-France Lalonde
I call the meeting back to order.
Mr. Casey, the floor is yours.
Liberal
Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE
Thank you, Madam Chair, for granting that suspension so we had a chance to talk about this.
It appears that the amendment is highly unlikely to pass, and therefore, I would request the agreement of the committee to withdraw it.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Marie-France Lalonde
Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion with the amendment moved by Mr. Richards?
(Motion as amended agreed to)
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Airdrie—Cochrane, AB
Since we're into the idea of motions, I'll move the one I have on notice. We get very few opportunities. Hopefully, it can go even more smoothly than this one did.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Airdrie—Cochrane, AB
I would hope that this won't require negotiation.
We've heard a number of times from veterans who've appeared before the committee about the situation with the monument Presence in Absence, the memorial. It has been brought up by a number of veterans.
I note that a couple of weeks ago, I think it was, the Ontario legislature passed a motion about this as well, and I want to bring it to this committee. It's been on notice. I will move the following:
That the committee concur with the Ontario Legislature and Canadian veterans that the Government of Canada should assume responsibility for mistakes on the “Presence in Absence” memorial and apologize to the living veterans who were wrongly identified as fallen soldiers and to the families of deceased soldiers whose names were left off the monument; and that this be reported to the House.
It's pretty straightforward.
Obviously, this has caused great pain to a number of veterans and to families of the fallen, and I would hope that we can all just acknowledge it was a mistake that should be fixed.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Marie-France Lalonde
Thank you.
I will suspend for a minute to ask for advice from the clerk.