Evidence of meeting #86 for Veterans Affairs in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was monument.
A recording is available from Parliament.
6:30 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE
Mr. Chair, I found your remarks very compelling, and I will close my comments at this point. Thank you.
6:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg
Thank you very much.
Now I have Mr. Sarai and then Ms. Hepfner.
Go ahead, Mr. Sarai.
6:30 p.m.
Liberal
6:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg
When we have a meeting of two hours, we have two hours. This meeting started on Monday, so we basically have two hours. However, I consulted the clerk, and if the committee agrees, we can go until 7:50. Someone can say they have other engagements, so we'll have to vote if we continue, because it's now later than 6:30.
Mr. Sarai, you have the floor.
6:35 p.m.
Liberal
6:35 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
Chair, my understanding is a little different from what you just indicated. I understood that, for tonight's meeting, there was an understanding well ahead of time that there were quite likely going to be some interruptions with votes. My understanding is that it's been agreed by the whips that we would have two hours of meeting time at minimum available to us. We've used 24 minutes at this point, so if I look at the math, I think that takes us later than what you've indicated. I also understand that there are resources available for one committee to do two further hours, so I think we could go longer than that.
I have a desire; I would like to see this resolved. I think many of the members around the table would like this resolved. I believe we should use all the resources available to this committee to ensure that we get a resolution to this. As you just said, Chair, very wisely, we need to get to some of the other things we're dealing with, so let's do that. Let's get this motion dealt with. Let's use all the resources available to us this evening and use the time we have until 8:30.
6:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg
Before I go back to Mr. Sarai, let me say that we started the meeting at 5:15, so the clerk has already made the calculations, taking note of the vote. We said that we could go until 7:15. If the committee would like to go further, we're going to have to—
6:35 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
Chair, my understanding is different from that. My understanding is that we were told we were allowed two hours of actual meeting time, not two hours from the start of the meeting, which means we have an hour and 36 minutes remaining. Plus, we have the availability of resources beyond that.
I believe we have until 8:30. Correct me if I'm wrong. I know we have one of the witnesses in the room.
6:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg
Yes, but what I'm saying is that we're not going back to Monday to make the calculation. Today we started at 5:15. Taking care of the two votes, we can—for this meeting, for those two hours—go until 7:50. However, if committee members want it to go further, we're going to make sure we have enough resources to go further than 7:50.
On the list now, just to remind you, is Mr. Sarai, Ms. Hepfner, Mrs. Wagantall, Ms. Blaney and Mr. Desilets.
Mr. Sarai, go ahead.
6:35 p.m.
Liberal
Randeep Sarai Liberal Surrey Centre, BC
I want to be clear. I think my colleague might have misled us. I don't believe the whips have any agreement in regard to extending this beyond 6:30. I don't know of any other whip's office that has had that agreement, but I can certainly tell you that our whip's office has not agreed to that.
I've heard from other members—I won't say who—who have other things to do. I don't see that we have agreement on extending this time past 6:30.
6:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg
Wait just a second, please.
Mr. Sarai, it's now after 6:30, but I'd like to know if members of the committee would like to go past 6:30. We need to vote in order to go to 7:50, or maybe longer, if we have resources available until 8:30.
You have to be clear on what your intervention is, please.
6:40 p.m.
Liberal
Randeep Sarai Liberal Surrey Centre, BC
I was asking for clarity.
Do you need unanimous consent to go further?
6:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg
No, I don't need unanimous consent. We just have to vote if we want to continue until 7:50 or not.
6:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg
First, let's ask members, before we take the vote. Do we have unanimous consent to adjourn the meeting?
6:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg
Then we're going to have to vote on that. To be clear, it's to adjourn the meeting.
So it is defeated.
(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)
6:40 p.m.
Liberal
6:40 p.m.
Liberal
Randeep Sarai Liberal Surrey Centre, BC
Thank you, Chair.
Are we on Ms. Blaney's subamendment or the amendment Mr. Casey had?
6:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg
We have the subamendment from Ms. Blaney on the floor to discuss.
6:40 p.m.
Liberal
Randeep Sarai Liberal Surrey Centre, BC
As my colleague Mr. Casey spoke to.... I was at a three-day forum of veterans run by Veterans Affairs Canada and a two-day forum on women veterans in Canada, which was in Montreal. I had the opportunity to speak to dozens of veterans and listen to their testimony and their panels.
The one thing that consistently came up is that they want it done. They want to know what the progress is. They don't like watching this. They do not want to know the debate on the location or the design anymore. They just want it done.
In the dozens of conversations that I had, not once did I have somebody oppose the selected design or say otherwise. There were very loud, vocal proponents who said that the time has been enough and that we need a monument.
I think what Mr. Casey is saying is a reflection of the testimony. People want to know what the progress is. They want to know if the location is firm, what the National Capital Commission is doing, what Veterans Affairs is doing, how the procurement process is going, what the timelines are and what the architectural consultants and other consultants are stating.
I think it's important that we call them before us and bring them forward on this. I think it would be good to get their written submission as well. I think Mr. Casey is saying that we need the National Capital Commission and other officials from VAC or otherwise to come here and give an update so that all the veterans who watch us, pay attention to this and read journals and any other blogs or news sources get an update as to what is happening with this.
We've all heard in testimony from the department and the minister that there is process by which the design panellists who weren't successful can adjudicate the decision. They can appeal the decision. I think some of that time period has passed, so my assumption is that they've accepted it, but I'm sure there are other judicial means by which they could do it. That's something the department would have to deal with. I think compensation is something that VAC officials have said they're prepared to offer because they felt that our veteran population is important and the choice they want should be reflected.
As we've stated earlier, that was in the survey with over 11,000 people, the majority of whom are veterans, serving members or family members of veterans. It's fairly broad. No survey of any type that we've ever seen—and we all come from different political parties—or any polls or data we have is ever perfect. They all have margins of error. However, I think when you have a majority where two-thirds or more are indicating an appreciation that one commemorates and reflects this better than the others, that gives you insight as to what people want.
I think it's time that we carry on. If there is a conclusion to this chapter, I think it would be to get an update on when this monument is being built, when it's starting, when shovels are in the ground, when veterans can pay homage to it and when the Canadian public, our students and visitors alike, can see the sacrifices that our veterans have made for not only our country, but the freedom of others who are oceans away.
Thank you.
6:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg
Thank you very much, Mr. Sarai.
Now let's go to Lisa Hepfner, please.
6:45 p.m.
Liberal
Lisa Hepfner Liberal Hamilton Mountain, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
On the subamendment, I want to say that I appreciate the reasons why Ms. Blaney brought it forward. I think that we need to move on from this study and get to some more substantive work. However, like my colleague Mr. Casey said, I don't know that a letter is going to be sufficient. I think we really need to hear from witnesses from the National Capital Commission and ask them questions to make sure the dialogue is fulsome and that we get all the answers we're looking for.
I will not be supporting the subamendment.
6:45 p.m.
Liberal