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.
7:45 p.m.
Conservative
Cathay Wagantall Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK
I'm discussing procedure at this committee. We were told in the past, when we wanted to do that, that it was not an option.
7:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg
As I said, there is a mandatory motion, so we have to go right now to a vote. We will come back if it's possible.
7:45 p.m.
Conservative
Cathay Wagantall Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK
Okay. That's fine.
(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)
7:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg
The request to go in camera was denied. We will now resume the meeting.
Mr. Desilets.
7:45 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Desilets Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I don't think Ms. Blaney has to choose between veterans and the current situation. In my opinion, veterans would agree that we should get to the bottom of this. They have really been used throughout this whole process, which is completely biased.
I was pleased to hear what Mr. Sarai had to say. This is the first time that a Liberal around this table has admitted that there were shortcomings in this process. If I understand you correctly, the process was not followed, and the shortcomings were considerable. You said yourself that you need a clear process. I don't know if it was you, Mr. Sarai, who said that or someone else. The process was clear, but it was not followed. That's the problem.
I would like to say—and I look at Ms. Blaney as I do so—that I make this a question of honour and value. Respect for the democratic process in which we operate is also at issue here. You all have a game to play, obviously, but I can't believe that you are in favour of this whole situation—that is to say what is being said at the Prime Minister's Office, that it won't be this monument, but another one.
I was very pleased earlier to hear you talk about engineering, architecture and project management. Needless to say, these topics do not concern us and they do not concern you. There are people who take care of all that.
Moreover, there are probably people around you who have made representations to the National Capital Commission. I have done that myself. So you know full well that we won't get anything out of it. The commission's power is minimal. It only covers the implementation.
7:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg
Excuse me, Mr. Desilets.
I will give the floor back to you, but as it is 7:50 p.m., I have to ask the members of the committee if there is unanimous consent to adjourn the meeting. As I mentioned at the beginning of the meeting, resources are available to us until 8:30 p.m.
There doesn't seem to be unanimous consent. So we will continue.
Mr. Desilets, you have the floor.
7:50 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Desilets Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
The agreement is that we will continue the discussion until 8:30 p.m.
Is that correct?
7:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg
Next on the list is Blake Richards.
Mr. Richards, the floor is yours.
March 20th, 2024 / 7:50 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
I can see that we are in a situation where there is a bit of an impasse. It comes down to this. We're firmly of the belief that the government needs to be accountable for whatever happened in the period of time between November 8, 2021, and—I forget the exact date—June 2023 when the monument was announced with the changes that were insisted upon by the Prime Minister's Office. Obviously, that delayed this monument from being built, beyond all the delays that were already there prior to that.
I understand. I can see there's no doubt that the Liberal Party wants to avoid documents from the Prime Minister's Office being released. We won't accept that. That's not acceptable. The Prime Minister's Office should be accountable and transparent. We believe that firmly. There's no way we'll back down from that.
It seems as though we have a pretty clear indication that the Liberals will go to quite great lengths to avoid that happening. That's clear. We're seeing a filibuster. We're seeing amendments and we're seeing things to try to muddy the waters. We're seeing arguments that try to distract from the issue at hand.
I certainly agree with what I heard from Ms. Blaney, which is that there are things that need to be dealt with. I had really hoped, as I think many of us had hoped, that perhaps dedicating a couple of meetings would at the very least break down the resolve of the Liberal members or maybe they would decide that enough was enough. They could just let us have the documents that are needed to find out what transpired here.
It doesn't seem as though that's the case. This has dragged on for months now. We're certainly not prepared to back down, but I do understand the sentiment. We had a groundbreaking study that involved a lot of this committee's time. It would be a shame to see that not resolved in a report. I share that concern with Ms. Blaney.
I also share the concern about the witnesses who have been postponed twice now. I've heard from one or two of them. They're wanting to know some sense of when this will happen. We can't give them that because we don't know how long the Liberals want to continue to filibuster this situation. Maybe there's a way we can make sure those things that need to be dealt with, which Ms. Blaney has indicated, get dealt with, yet still return to this.
After consulting with our clerks to get some sense of what was possible to make this happen, I would like to move that the debate on this motion be adjourned until we have completed the review of the report on the women's study and have had the one meeting with the witnesses who had to be postponed, and that the committee agree to then immediately return to debate on this motion.
7:55 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE
In all of my time at this committee, that is the most sensible and best intervention I have ever heard from Mr. Richards. I am fully in support.
7:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg
I have that motion on the table.
Members of the committee, do I have unanimous consent on the motion of Mr. Richards?
(Motion agreed to)
Great.
Mr. May.
7:55 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
7:55 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
7:55 p.m.
Conservative
7:55 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
I have to point out that that was my first intervention of the evening and it was pretty successful.
7:55 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
7:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg
It seems we have unanimous consent to adjourn the meeting.
(Motion agreed to)
Thank you to our interpreters, technicians, clerk and analyst.
The meeting is adjourned.
