NDDN Committee Meeting
Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
CANADA
Standing Committee on National Defence
|
l |
|
l |
|
EVIDENCE
Thursday, February 28, 2008
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
[English]
Order, please.
The clerk has the wording of the motion that Mr. Hawn is proposing. I'd like him to read it for us.
[Translation]
I do not want to quibble, Mr. Chair, but my amendment updates the motion so that it makes sense. Ms. Black's motion says that the witnesses are going to appear today, February 28. That is impossible. It makes more sense if we put “as soon as possible” instead of “at the regularly scheduled meeting to be held on February 28, 2008”.
[English]
Just for clarification, the amendment by Mr. Bachand to the motion by Ms. Black is to strike the words “to be held on February 28th, 2008” and replace them with “as soon as possible”.
(Amendment agreed to)
The amended motion is that as part of the committee’s study of health services provided to Canadian Forces personnel with an emphasis on post-traumatic stress disorder, the committee invite Ms. Cindy Smith-MacDonald and Ann le Clair to appear before the Standing Committee on National Defence at a regularly scheduled meeting as soon as possible.
Is there any discussion?
All those in favour? Four in favour, four opposed.... Oh, don't do this. Are the rest of you going to vote or is that it? Are you abstaining?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Chair: Let's do that one more time, please. All those in favour, please signify....
I have a question first, Mr. Chair. Just for clarification, does that mean your two names will be the two of the other motion?
All those in favour? And this is the last time I'm asking.
(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 6; nays 4)
The motion is that during two in camera meetings, the committee receive testimony from individual soldiers and families regarding its study of Canadian Forces health services, with an emphasis on PTSD, and that committee members propose a maximum of 16 names--eight individual soldiers and eight family members--to the clerk.
[Translation]
The motion mentions soldiers, but veterans suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder too. Are they eligible to come to the committee?
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
It reads as follows:
Que, lors de deux (2) séances à huis clos, le Comité entende les témoignages de soldats à titre individuel et des membres de leurs familles dans le cadre de son étude sur les Services de santé offerts au personnel des Forces canadiennes, en particulier dans le cas des troubles de stress post-traumatique; et que les membres du Comité présentent les noms d’au plus seize (16) soldats à titre individuel et des membres de leurs familles au greffier.
[English]
[Translation]
I have a question on the motion. If I understand it correctly, the two people in the previous motion are part of this list. Is that correct?
[English]
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
I'm not sure if it's a point of order or clarification, but I want to make it very clear on the record that we on this side voted against Ms. Black's motion with the understanding that those two people covered by her motion would be covered by the following motion we proposed, which was passed unanimously. It was not an effort to exclude those women from--
Let me make it clear, because if it comes up in the House I will have something to say.
We voted against your motion with the understanding that by passing the second motion those two women would be included in that process. It was not in any way to exclude those two women from the process of coming before the committee. Is that clear?
Laurie, if you're both talking at once, neither one of you is going to get on the record. Do you understand it's impossible for that to happen?
I think we fully understand both sides of the story here, and if it comes up in the House you will both have to defend what you're doing. But two people talking at one time does not help the interpreters, it does not get on the record, and it causes trouble at the committee. So please bear with me here.
A couple of names have been provided by individuals already—Ms. Gallant, I think you're one—so go back over your lists and make sure that's exactly what you want to do.
Thank you.
Now we have a complete list of witnesses before the committee who have been suggested by our researchers. It's very lengthy and we have the next four meetings already set up. We've already heard from some of them, and they're highlighted. But is there any comment on that? Does anybody want to talk about it now, or have you had enough for one day?
I have a point of order. Before we go in camera, Mr. Chairman, I'd point out that I thought we had agreed we were going to keep the identities of the soldiers confidential. In reading that motion, I do not think that what we agreed upon was respected.
There was a notice of motion.
Does the committee want to go back into committee of the whole, or have you had enough for one day, and we can do this another time?
I just want to know what the timeframe is to provide those names. Do you want that for the next meeting?