Evidence of meeting #5 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 programs.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
On a point of order, Madam Chair, what is the motion we're voting on?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Marie-France Lalonde
The motion Mr. Casey is proposing is that we adjourn the motion of Mr. Richards and proceed with our witnesses, since they are here today—and we thank them very much for that.
(Motion negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)
Go ahead, Mr. Casey.
Bloc
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I am very sorry for the witnesses, but we will still have time for discussion.
I just want to say one thing about the motion. It is true that we may wonder why we should decide now. I take some offence to that. The motion isn't necessarily premature, in the sense that we may need more meetings. However, can we give ourselves a few more meetings before we decide?
I'll say it right away: I'll be voting against the motion.
In addition, during the break week, I will be communicating with the witnesses I would like to hear from in committee because, if we realize that we will need more meetings, those people need predictability.
I don't want to propose an amendment, but seriously, we could agree to talk about it again not at the end of the sixth meeting, but at the fifth meeting. I'm ready to vote and to decide when we'll talk about it again, but I'm convinced that we'll need more meetings.
I would like to hear what the witnesses have to say.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Marie-France Lalonde
Ms. Gaudreau, I just want to clarify something with you. You're saying you're ready to vote. Are you calling for a vote at this point?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Marie-France Lalonde
She's asking for a vote, but we'll continue.
Go ahead, Mr. Richards.
Liberal
Conservative
Cathay Wagantall Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK
Thank you, Chair.
I have been on this committee since 2016, when the Liberals came into government. I have been through many, many meetings. We took the trauma training specifically for this reason. We have witnesses who want to come here. I can tell the member who is new and very passionate about this that the other witnesses are beside themselves with anxiety and concern over the fact that they don't know for sure if they're coming, or that, if they do come, they have five minutes. We went through all this with trauma training to make sure that our witnesses have the opportunity they need to present here.
We can say to wait until we're done those six meetings, but in the time between now and the end of those six meetings, there is no reason to cause them that kind of grief. There are so many who want to comment here. We had multiple women—and I thank God for that—who came here for the women's study and shared incredibly difficult things in this room. We should be offering that same opportunity to these people, who have had to deal with suicide by either family members or whomever.
I do not agree with waiting until the end of these six meetings to let those other witnesses know whether or not they are going to have that opportunity. We've all invited them to come. They want to come. We should be giving them the opportunity to be at this table with us. They should be able to know that now.
That's my perspective: It's dangerous.
Bloc
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Madam Chair, I have additional information. I am not familiar with the witness list, but if we have 60 witnesses and they are people we need to hear from, then I will say yes, absolutely. If we already know that there are additional elements to consider, I will agree.
I'm ready to vote.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Marie-France Lalonde
Just before I let Mr. Tolmie speak, I want to say exactly what our motion stipulates. It's a minimum of six. We never said that we would stop after six.
Mr. Tolmie, you have the floor.
Conservative
Fraser Tolmie Conservative Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK
I'm asking this committee what kind of message we are sending to those struggling with suicide and to veterans. I'm disappointed that we're having this debate. I apologize to our guests. I hope that we take this subject seriously. I hope that we give those who are watching this committee the courage to come forward, because we do need more meetings.
Thank you.
Liberal
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
I think Madam Gaudreau asked you a question about how many witnesses were on the list. I thought we discussed this at the last meeting. I thought it was 55 or 57. Is it higher than that?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Marie-France Lalonde
Fifty-six organizations and individuals have been shared as witnesses. As good practice, there's an allocation for each party.
Ms. Gaudreau, we will give you a bit more time to submit your witness suggestions.
Yes, there are a number of witnesses.
As I've always said, I don't think we're limited to six meetings. The motion mentioned a minimum of six meetings.
Is there any further discussion?
Go ahead, Mr. Casey.
Liberal
Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE
I'm a bit troubled that Mr. Richards chose to disclose a conversation that happened in camera, but it seems to me that it is the objective of this exercise to try to paint, in front of the cameras, the other side as not wanting to hear from witnesses. I find it somewhat surprising that once we get witnesses in front of us for an hour, all of a sudden we have some information we didn't have when we, as a committee, made a decision to set a six-meeting minimum, so here we are.
I stand by my previous comments. What's happening here right now is pretty ugly. It's pretty ugly to paint, in front of the cameras, the other side as not wanting to hear evidence, when in fact this is 100% pure and utter gamesmanship. We shouldn't stand for it.
Liberal
Braedon Clark Liberal Sackville—Bedford—Preston, NS
The only point I would make is that, as members of the committee, we should all strive to be reasonable in how we conduct ourselves. Mr. Richards was willing to have this motion typed up and prepared, and I wish it had been shared ahead of time. We could have had a chance to build consensus and work on it.
I would ask Mr. Richards why that was not done. I think it is a reasonable thing for us to do, given the circumstances and given what we're talking about. None of us are sitting here saying that we don't want to let witnesses speak to this really important topic. What I am saying is that if he had a motion, it could have been shared ahead of time. Why was it not? That is my only question.
Bloc
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
As it happens quite often, I am the only one here who is not looking for power, is not trying to protect their government and is not trying to take back their place in government.
First, I find it pretty typical for us to be surprised by such a motion when we are in the presence of such valuable witnesses.
Second, if it turns out that we need 10 meetings, then we'll all agree, of course.
I think the show has gone on long enough. Can we actually get back to the witnesses, please? Otherwise, it would be unhealthy.