Veterans Affairs Committee on March 18th, 2024

[An hon. member]

He just told us.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Please don't—

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

It's interesting that you're only interrupting her.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Exactly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Come on, guys.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Members of the committee, please stop interrupting your colleagues. Ms. Hepfner has the floor. We can listen, and after that, it will be your turn.

You also have to think about our interpreters. There will be a cacophony. They won't be able to translate anything.

Please do not interrupt each other.

Ms. Hepfner.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thank you for that, Chair.

I was also concerned about how this letter was being put together. I liked a lot of what Mr. Casey was saying, and I was hoping that the analyst or someone else was collecting that information so we could talk about it more as we come to a decision.

It's a committee letter, as you said, but how do we come to an agreement on how that letter is worded? When is that going to happen? What's that process?

Can we include that very fulsome list of suggestions Mr. Casey just went over? I think they are excellent, and I hope we have them documented somewhere.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

I can explain the process.

First of all, you can add anything you want to in that letter as a member of the committee, to be accepted by the committee.

As to the process right now, is we just voted on the subamendment by Ms. Blaney, so now we are back to the amendment by Mr. Casey, as duly amended. We are discussing that. We have to vote on it.

If that amendment and the motion passes, we will have to discuss the letter. We can say when and how we will prepare that letter, but we'll have to think about a work plan, as I said at the beginning.

I'm open to hearing other arguments on the amendment as amended.

Mr. Sarai, the floor is yours.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

I would like to propose a subamendment to this amendment. If the response from the National Capital Commission requires the committee to get further information, members of the NCC responsible for the monument should be asked to come before this committee.

The subamendment would read, “If the response is not satisfactory to the members of the committee then the NCC officials responsible be asked to appear before the Committee for no more than 1 meeting.”

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Okay.

I'll suspend for a few seconds to consult with the clerk on that amendment. It won't be long.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

I call the meeting back to order.

After consultation, I confirm that Mr. Sarai's subamendment is in order.

Mr. Sarai, please explain the purpose of this subamendment.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Thank you.

I think the goal from Mr. Casey originally was to make sure that they appear, but in light of the committee's vote, and I guess Ms. Blaney's concern for time allocated toward a meeting, I think it would be imperative that, if we're not satisfied with the letter, we have the ability to call those officials. The officials can come in and give an update.

Some who have a construction background would like to have a fulsome update, and others just want to know that it's being built. I think most veterans probably want to know that it's being built, not that there's a shovel in the ground and a 12-month wait for the steel or some other item or material required to build the monument. In some cases, further studies sometimes come with these kinds of construction projects, including geotechnical or environmental assessments, or in some cases archeological checks to make sure that no pre-existing habitat or artifacts might be there.

I think it's important to have that update. It's important to have the ability to get that information when and if it's necessary. We've all been through many committees before where we make a request of a department, the National Capital Commission or another governmental agency and we don't get a clear answer. We get a diplomatic or bureaucratic answer when our expectation was something else.

To ensure we don't, we like having officials come before us live to answer questions. Just as many opposition members wish to have a minister, departmental officials or past ministers appear before committee, others like to have officials who are responsible for the projects at hand. We should have them before us.

Again, I want to reiterate that more than 12,000 Canadians who were surveyed want this—

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Excuse me, Mr. Sarai. We have a point of order.

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

I'm wondering if Mr. Sarai would apply that principle to the two former ministers who have already—

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

That's not a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Mr. Richards, that is not a point of order.

Mr. Sean Casey, do you have a point of order?

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

It's on the same point of order, Mr. Chair.

I would point out that Mr. Richards wanting to interrupt someone does not constitute a point of order. I don't think you'll find it anywhere in the Standing Orders. This happens repeatedly. It's entirely unfair and disrespectful to his colleagues here on the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Mr. Casey, I understand that, but—

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

I just wanted to know—

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Excuse me.

As soon as a member says they have a point of order, I have to listen to the first few seconds to make sure it is a point of order. That's why he had the floor.

Members, once again, please try not to interrupt. Try not to bully colleagues here. It's really important. We are not in camera. We have a lot of veterans and other people watching us.

Please, let's continue.

Mr. Sarai, you have the floor.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

What you were just delving into is very important. I think a colleague should not interrupt other colleagues. It's becoming a pattern. In fact, you as chair have been interrupted. Just moments ago, you were interrupted.

We've had witnesses who have flown from far and wide to give their very deep and emotional stories of how they were treated and what they went through. They have been interrupted by the members who just interrupted here, and they made a point of that. They've complained and written about it. It was deeply upsetting for them, despite our having done training to understand them.

I think people on committees owe respect to each other. We all have our allotted times based on the parties' standings. Everybody gets their turn, and everybody's hands are taken. If anything, Mr. Chair, your liberty is very generous and your impartiality is without question. If anything, we might sometimes complain that you are too generous with your allotments. I think respect from colleagues across the aisle is very important.

Going back to the subamendment, I think when we call witnesses or ask them to write in, we always have to have the opportunity and liberty, if we have further questions, to ask them. It's no different from when we have witnesses who have 10 minutes or five minutes to speak and then have a round of questions. Sometimes they still feel they were not able to give all of their information. Usually you as chair have been very liberal in always reminding them that they're more than welcome to give written submissions.

Sometimes witnesses have given a page or two, and sometimes they've given dozens and maybe even up to 100 pages. That's the beauty of our Parliament: We afford everyone the opportunity to contribute. Our Westminster model of Parliament thrives on the examination of one another and getting answers. We have a responsibility to taxpayers and Canadian citizens to do the most responsible thing at all given times.

We have to have that onus in the event that we're not satisfied with it. We're here for our constituents and, in this particular case, veterans and constituents, to commemorate them. The last thing I would want to tell them is that we got a letter but weren't able to ask anything because we never tried.

That is an important thing. I'm not saying that it's going take any extra time. If it's voted for—and I urge my colleagues to vote for it—it will only be done if inevitably the response we get from the National Capital Commission is unsatisfactory. At that point in time, we would decide as a committee if we feel like we need to call them.

I think it's a reasonable amendment, so I urge my colleagues to vote for it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Mr. Sarai.

I have now Mr. Casey.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I thank my colleague for this subamendment.

It will probably come as no great surprise to you, Mr. Chair, that I found his reasoning to be very compelling, and I'll be supporting the subamendment, due primarily to the fact that it gives us an option or an insurance policy.

The level of detail that I think the committee deserves from the National Capital Commission doesn't lend itself well to a letter, so I think it's entirely possible that, after receiving the letter, there will be some additional questions. Maybe I'm wrong.

Ms. Blaney was absolutely within her rights to move the subamendment she did to substitute the letter. I expect the motivation behind the subamendment was one of efficiency, which is also admirable. However, with something that has taken on the character that this discussion has, it strikes me that, if we're going there, we should leave no stone unturned, and this will ensure that this happens. It gives us an option that we don't have to use if the letter is as comprehensive as we require. I'll be supporting it.