Committees of the House  Madam Speaker, I still do not understand why the Liberal Party continues to employ this communication strategy. They are referring to a survey that is completely bogus. Are the Liberals telling us that Leger is not credible? I do not understand. I simply wanted to have my colleague's opinion on the following issue.

Committees of the House  Madam Speaker, I have trouble believing that our Liberal colleague endorses non-compliance with the law. The process was clear; the government established it. We have nothing to say about the process, which was fine. However, the government did not respect the rules. On a whim, it decided to grant the contract to a team that had not won.

Committees of the House  Madam Speaker, with all due respect for my colleague, he has 20 minutes in the House. He is not talking about the subject of the debate, namely, the commemorative monument. Can he at least tell us a little about his position? Is he okay with the survey? Is he okay with the position of the two ministers?

Committees of the House  Madam Speaker, there are two things to consider. I am repeating myself, but this is about the government's credibility. It brought in a process that was entirely appropriate, but it is absolutely not respecting it. How can we trust what the government proposes? In this case we are talking about public art.

Committees of the House  Madam Speaker, in answer to my colleague's question, I would say, obviously not. Like everyone, the soldiers and other people who were involved in the mission in Afghanistan share the values of equity, respect and solidarity. There is none of that in the government's decision.

Committees of the House  Madam Speaker, I really like my colleague's question. Let me explain why. It is because Canada went to Afghanistan to fight for democracy, yet this competition has been nothing but undemocratic.

Committees of the House  Madam Speaker, things have indeed been delayed. It has been a long process. Based on the description I tried to give, it is clear that it could have been shorter. At some point, the decision-making process broke down. I am almost positive that the two ministers and the two departments wanted the Daoust team to erect the monument.

Committees of the House  Madam Speaker, in this case, departmental officials did try to consult. However, what they call a survey was not really a survey. Leger has been very clear on that point. It is completely unusable, which is truly appalling. It would have been nice to actually hear from veterans or people who participated in that mission.

Committees of the House  Madam Speaker, it is a terrible mistake. Some are even referring to the monument as the monument to shame. That really upsets me. It is a work that is dedicated to veterans, to people who worked in Afghanistan. There is only one solution, and that is for the government to go back on its decision and give the contract to the Daoust team.

Committees of the House  Madam Speaker, I move that the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, presented on Thursday, November 9, be concurred in. I have been working on this file, the national monument to Canada's mission in Afghanistan, since September. I had the pleasure of asking my first question on the subject back in September, during our first week back in the House after Parliament resumed.

Veterans Affairs  Mr. Speaker, for months now, we have been asking who interfered in the competition for the National Monument to Canada's Mission in Afghanistan. Who overturned the jury's selection to cast aside Team Daoust for the benefit of a Toronto team? Documents obtained by the Bloc Québécois confirm that the Prime Minister's Office was involved.

Veterans Affairs  Mr. Speaker, the survey the minister is talking about is a sham. It was demolished by Léger. In any case, the jury had already taken it into consideration before ruling. Here is what really happened. The Prime Minister's Office interfered in the decision at least twice. The Department of Justice provided legal opinions on the consequences of overturning the jury's decision.

Criminal Code  Mr. Speaker, speaking of Bill C-295, I assume I am not the only one here today to be overcome by sad memories of the COVID-19 pandemic. My thoughts go out to everyone who lost friends and family during the pandemic, one of the most difficult times we ever experienced as a society.

Canada Labour Code  Mr. Speaker, we know that Quebec passed anti-scab legislation in 1977. From what I understand, the Conservatives are against passing a similar law in Canada. Can my colleague tell me whether he thinks Quebec made a mistake by passing that law in 1977?

Canada Labour Code  Mr. Speaker, my colleague is being very insistent. He is saying that this bill must pass, that it is important, that it is crucial and that it will make huge changes. However, why should it pass now, in 2023, when there have been 11 attempts over the past few years? Eleven similar bills have been introduced in the past, mainly by the Bloc Québécois.