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.