Veterans Affairs Committee on April 13th, 2026

[Chris d'Entremont, Liberal, Acadie—Annapolis, NS]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marie-France Lalonde]

Thank you very much, Mr. Grewal.

Thank you, Mr. d'Entremont.

Ms. Gaudreau, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Witnesses, thank you for the high quality of your testimonies, which will enable us to draw a lot of recommendations.

Madam Chair, since I really don't have much time, I'd like us to now debate the motion that I put on notice on March 23. It concerns a very important matter—like this one, in fact—that we have held a number of meetings on. We have received a lot of emails.

Last Friday, I was at Ste. Anne's Hospital, where I spoke with a former EX3 from the forces who had to wait three years to receive care. He told me that he had to live in his car, even though he was married and had children. We really need to hear more to know what's going on. It's like a coin. There are three sides: the front and the back, but also the thickness, and I don't think we have gotten there yet.

I hope this doesn't turn into a partisan sparring match. This is for the good of our veterans. The goal is not to throw out the baby with the bathwater, but to shed light on this in a respectful way, to help our veterans, to be on the right track and to course correct if necessary.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marie-France Lalonde]

Ms. Gaudreau, you have 40 seconds left in the two and a half minutes you were given. You want to debate the motion, but we have three witnesses before us. Since I don't know how long that will take and there are 10 minutes left in the meeting, out of respect for the witnesses, I would like to release them before opening the debate on the motion. It's your legitimate right to ask for that, of course.

Out of respect, we will be saying goodbye to our three witnesses.

Thank you for your service. Thank you for everything you were able to contribute today. I really enjoyed listening.

With that, I will release the three of you.

Members of Parliament, we will continue to debate Madame Gaudreau's motion.

I will suspend for 30 seconds to say goodbye to Mr. Grewal.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marie-France Lalonde]

We will now continue.

Ms. Gaudreau, I don't know if you wanted to take the floor again.

Oh, it's Mr. Richards and then Mr. Casey.

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

I will keep this brief because I'm really hopeful that we'll be able to pass this motion quickly.

I'm supportive of the motion, but I have one small suggestion as an amendment. I have certainly heard a lot of concerns, both in the meetings we've had and otherwise, that need to be explored further.

I'm fully supportive of and agree with the motion put forward by Madame Gaudreau, but I will move the following amendment. In her motion is a list of types of witnesses. I would add the Union of Veterans' Affairs Employees.

Obviously, when we studied this previously when it was first brought forward, the union expressed a lot of concerns. They seem to still have some concerns. I think it is important to hear their thoughts around this, so the amendment is to add them to the list of potential witnesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marie-France Lalonde]

We will discuss the amendment proposed by Mr. Richards.

Mr. Casey, do you want to speak to the amendment by Mr. Richards?

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marie-France Lalonde]

Would anyone like to discuss the amendment proposed by Mr. Richards?

Do I have agreement on the amendment, or is it passed on division?

(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now we're on the main motion.

Mr. Casey, go ahead, please.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The motion before us today is the result of a motion tabled on November 25, 2025, by Ms. Gaudreau. That motion proposed three meetings for this study. An amendment to add the minister to the list of witnesses was also proposed by Mr. Richards on November 25 and was adopted. We are now about to begin meeting number four. I understand that the committee decided to extend this study by dedicating a fourth meeting to it, even though I have no recollection of that.

I will speak to the motion before us today. The first line of the notice of motion tabled on March 23, 2026, is important:

That, in light of the testimony heard during the course of this study…

At that point, we had heard testimony from two meetings: March 21 and March 23. This motion is apparently based on the testimony heard up to that point, namely the testimony from Mr. Carter, Mr. Laidler, Mr. Bernard and the representatives of WCG Services, Veterans Affairs Canada and Lifemark. Those are all the testimonies that form the basis of this motion.

That leads me to ask myself the following question: What was said in those testimonies, which apparently form the basis of the motion, that required us to double the time allocated to this study? In my opinion, the answer to that question is that there wasn't any justification for that. It could have been said that there was something in the tabled documents, but there weren't any before March 23.

It's now April 13 when we're debating this motion, and, of course, we have heard other testimony since the notice of motion was tabled. That includes the testimony from the ombud, who said that 2% of all the complaints her office had received over the past three and a half years had been about this. Out of those complaints, she found six examples that were unfair. All of those complaints have been resolved, and no systemic issues were found. We also heard from the minister, who said the same thing: He had received almost no complaints from committee members or from other members.

What is the basis of the motion, then? It clearly isn't the testimony we have heard in this study.

I wonder whether it's justified to retraumatize the veterans who will be invited here. We have heard, through third parties, that the veterans we received were concerned about having to repeat their stories several times. However, they will be invited here to do so again.

That's my concern. Apparently, there is no basis for this motion.

I want to put those comments on the record. We're ready to vote today, but I want to be absolutely clear that I think the motion is not justifiable, given the way it's being proposed.

As you know, when we set a schedule and come to a decision, then change the route and the implementation, I have a real problem with that. We're still here. It's mission creep.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marie-France Lalonde]

Thank you very much, Mr. Casey.

I would like to tell all the committee members that, pursuant to the motion that was adopted by the entire group before this debate, a fourth meeting has been added to the three initially scheduled meetings. That means we have two and a half hours left. I want to make sure that everyone is aware of that.

Ms. Gaudreau, you have the floor.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Chair, when a study is proposed, it's because we want to investigate. It's because there have been whistle-blowers.

In any case, this may not be the case for you, but since I was appointed as the veterans affairs critic, a lot of people have been coming and going. It's important to get to the bottom of this. If everything is going well, that's great, but if things aren't going so well, the situation has to be corrected.

I tabled the notice of motion on March 23 because we were told that things were going fine. If the organizations tell us that things are going fine, I start to have questions. The Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs is also one of the committees that the public listens to the most, because we're talking about their lives. Obviously, these people said to themselves, “Come on!”

It isn't a matter of hearing from people to retraumatize them or harm them. On the contrary, it's a matter of having professionals, union representatives and researchers contribute to the study's findings. Right now, if we were to compile all the testimony and table the draft study, I can tell you that not only has a lot happened since March 23, but it would be a serious failure to hear the truth.

For me, there were still some organizations left to meet with. If the Partners in Canadian Veterans Rehabilitation Services had come to us and said, “here are our flaws, and here's what we're going to fix”, that would have been one thing. However, that isn't quite what was said. We were instead told that, given this or that, things were going fine. However, that isn't what I'm hearing. Not a day goes by without a veteran calling me. I don't know if you get calls, but I do.

Obviously, I think that nothing in life but politics goes through major change. I have no lessons to take from my colleagues on either side. In fact, right from the start, I asked that we not engage in partisanship to try to save one side and protect another.

We want to get to the bottom of this, and we're calling for three more meetings. There are people we have not seen. We'll be able to complete the study properly so that everyone is respected and heard.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marie-France Lalonde]

Monsieur Casey, did you want to request something?

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

We're prepared to pass it on division as amended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marie-France Lalonde]

Just to make sure, I think I'm hearing that in the spirit of collaboration, members are willing—and that's not for me to preamble—to accept the motion on division. Is that agreed?

(Motion as amended agreed to on division)

With that, I will adjourn.