Veterans Affairs Committee on June 10th, 2008

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

In response, there are two points I'd make to you.

First, if we're going to start naming the committee rooms after committees.... We have none at the moment except the Railway Room, and there's no longer a railway committee. That name was given to it because that was the only committee that used it when it was built, and it stuck. It's not for any other reason. In fact, as you know, it's often referred to as Room 253-D, or whatever it is, and often notices come with that on them, and not the Railway Room. None of the other committee rooms have names that I'm aware of. If we name one, the pressure's going to be on us to name a bunch. Sooner or later, another committee is going to come forward and say, “This should be the Indian Affairs Committee Room”, or “This should be the Finance Committee Room”, and we're going to have names applied, and they're going to ask for the rooms to be set up in ways they want, that are specific to what they're doing.

That's number one, and that causes me some concern because we don't have enough committee rooms for all 20 committees we have. If we're going to choose which ones get names and which ones don't and which committees get a committee room named for them and which don't, it's going to create considerable difficulty, in my view, within the House.

The second thing is that if you designate the room as “this” committee, what happens if another committee comes in here and meets, and you can't get a meeting? You'd have to have your meeting somewhere else. This must happen from time to time. I know the procedure and House affairs committee recently had a filibuster that I came in here for. I saw that it was going on. If you were supposed to have had a meeting that day here, you wouldn't have had it. This must happen.

Designating one room for one committee has not been the practice of this House as long as I've been here, and I think for a very long time before that. Committees moved around and booked a room where there was one free and had their meeting there. Yes, it might be nice to say that one committee over all others has precedence in a particular room, but if you got that, you'd be the only one that would have that precedence. It would make it extremely difficult for scheduling purposes if you had a meeting scheduled for here and the other committee had to adjourn and get out because you take precedence.

You can see this creates a series of problems, in my view, for House administration that may seem minor compared with the impact you're seeking to have by doing this. I'm not speaking disrespectfully in any way about your suggestions or about what the veterans have done for Canada; don't misunderstand me. But it will create difficulties in administrative matters relating to committee meetings and where they take place and which committee takes precedence, and so on, which can create difficulties for us.

As I said at the outset, a number of years ago, when I chaired the procedure and House affairs committee, we held all of our meetings in this room, as I recall. I was not aware of any other committees holding their meetings here.

I thought we were the only ones who used the room, but it never occurred to me that we would name it the “Procedure Room” or designate it as a place where only we could meet, or anything like that. So I'm naturally very skeptical of a change that allows one committee to do things differently from others. For that reason, I ask you to look at it from that perspective.

Maybe you can avoid naming it. Maybe you can simply ask that the room be decorated in a way that's suitable, and that might work. If we start naming rooms or setting them up for one purpose only and not for others--because this room is used not just for committee meetings; there are other events that take place in this room, and I've been to receptions in here and so on--it's going to make it more difficult to operate, given the limited space we have available on Parliament Hill for committee work.

I ask you to bear that in mind in your considerations.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Mr. Speaker, we have more people on the list, but I'd just like to say that I don't think it was really our intention to take precedence over any other committee. I think we just wanted to decorate it appropriately for the people we normally have testifying with us.

We'll go over to Mr. Stoffer and the NDP.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Maybe Madam O'Brien can explain. How did Room 362 get its designation? It's called the War Room, and Mr. Pratt has signed a plaque on the wall. He put a certificate there, along with the artwork. I'm not saying that because they got one, we should have one. We're certainly not asking to take precedence over this room. Obviously if there's a committee here and they're going to go all day, we would have to go somewhere else.

But one of the advantages of having it as the Veterans Room is this. Our committee listens to some pretty dramatic testimony, and I only wish we could share it with all Canadians at the same time. But when other MPs come in here--I think a lot of MPs are quite jealous about the way this committee works, to be honest with you, compared to some of their committees--and see what's on the walls, they may reflect upon the fact that, as Mr. Shipley said, it's not we who gave this, it was our veterans who gave it. It would enhance the discussions, I hope.

Again, I can appreciate the confusion it may cause in terms of who gets what in terms of precedence of the rooms, but I don't think that's our intent. If we had to go somewhere else, we would. People who come in here would know this is a veterans room and it has meaning. Maybe they will understand and conduct themselves in an appropriate manner. I know when veterans come in here, if they see.... When you see defence officials go into Room 362, they know it's a room specifically for them and they like it. So I think it would be very appropriate to have the same for veterans.

That's my opinion. I respect your view as well, but if you can answer the War Room designation, it would be great.

[Audrey O'Brien]

I'm going to have to go back into the archives to find out more about it. My understanding is that you're correct, the Minister of Defence at the time took it upon himself to decide he was going to call that room the War Room. That was never sanctioned in any way, though it does have that plaque on it.

I think one of the difficulties we run into is that there isn't a clear process for how these things get done. I think one of the problems we're facing is that the architectural history of the building is not well understood. The entire building is dedicated to veterans, not just those who died, but those who served and who served recently.

I hear what members are saying, and clearly the meetings with these very brave men and women have had a great emotional impact.

I appreciate that you want to honour veterans by having a room dedicated specifically to them. However, as the chair was saying, the problem is that no one room is reserved for the sole use of one single committee. This request came out of the blue. The fact is that the procedure committee, the Board of Internal Economy and other committees meet in this room.

On listening to you, I can understand why veterans are so at ease speaking with you. It has nothing to do with the physical space. It has everything to do with the fact that you listen to them.

I understand your wish to have a room that would be more reflective of their experience. I guess the difficulty I have is the same as the Speaker has described, which is that since no rooms are really dedicated to one committee, it seems to me to be a bit misdirected, if you will, in terms of a way of honouring the veterans.

I suspect the veterans who come before you feel they are being listened to and have found a safe place—the land, if you will—because of your openness to them. I think the surroundings are the surroundings, but I don't think that's the key element.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Now we go to Mr. Cannan.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to our witnesses.

I apologize that I missed the preamble, as I was sitting in on the ethics committee. I can guarantee you they won't have to worry about naming a room after that committee.

If we do decide to name this the Veterans Room, we need to find some room in our budget for the HVAC system and fix it as well.

But seriously, I hear your concerns and understand the predicament you're in. In line with what my honourable colleague Betty Hinton and the chair mentioned, this isn't a meeting place. When I was reflecting on our first discussion of this, I was thinking it should be the centre of the Parliament; the biggest room in this building should be named after the veterans. Without them, as was alluded to, we wouldn't have the freedom we have, the democracy, and the wonderful country that we call Canada.

Just recently, last week, I was reading a survey. It was a national poll, and it said that veterans are concerned that by the year 2035 Canadians will forget about them. That's a short 27 years away. As you know, we only have one survivor of World War I, and we need to not only honour and respect, but remember our veterans.

I appreciate the offer to decorate and I also hear what you're saying about setting that precedent. But I believe that, to use that argument, nothing would ever get accomplished. We have to look at each application on its own merits, and this would be significant, in my mind, just to recognize the vets. As we know, nothing is free; there's a cost to freedom. As Minister Thompson has said many times, nothing unites us more than our veterans. So I think this is a great opportunity to do both: to honour and respect and to remember our veterans.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

All right.

Next is Monsieur Perron of the Bloc Québécois.

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Ms. O'Brien, Mr. Speaker, I believe you have never attended a meeting of veterans, particularly of young veterans. These young veterans who have lost an arm or a leg or who have psychological problems, are no longer fit for active duty. The forces have rejected them and have no further use for them. These young people who are 20, 22 and 24 years old are fighting to receive services and they feel like they have been rejected by Veterans Affairs and by the politicians who are not doing their job.

For several years now, Betty, Roger and I have been working to make progress in certain areas and reach out to these veterans. For example, there was no talking to Louise Richard initially. However, she has started to come around and to enjoy attending meetings of the veterans affairs committee.

It is extremely important, Madam, to dedicate a room to veterans, for their welfare, their healing and their reintegration into society. The committee heard from some psychologists who told us that it was critically important to reach out to veterans. This is one way for us to do that. I never thought that I would need to argue my point so strongly, but I believe in this initiative and I feel very deeply for these young veterans.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Now we go over to Mr. St. Denis.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I don't think any of us wants, although it might appear so, to put you in a bad spot.

Just to clarify, leaving aside for the moment the official naming part of it, if the request came from the committee via the chair to borrow some art pieces to decorate the room, and just that for now, and if the room was—basically unofficially and by us, if nobody else—nicknamed the Veterans Room, but there was nothing official about the naming part, yet in informal practice it became that; and if over time it stuck, well, so be it. If over time it didn't stick, so be it. The only decision on your part, Mr. Speaker, would be to consider whether some appropriate art pieces could be put in here.

That's an attempt to slice the onion a little thinner. I don't mean to get ahead or behind any of my colleagues here, but sensing a bit of where this is going, I'm just wondering about that.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I don't see any problem with putting artwork up in here. That happens in rooms around the chamber, as you know. Given the expressed interest, I think the custodian can come up with things that are in storage and hang them in here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Mr. Sweet.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The nature of the conversation has prompted me to make a request. When Speaker Milliken was making his point on logistics, which is of course one of the concerns he has in the parliamentary precinct, he felt compelled to couch his words in the fact that he did not want to have his words characterized as derogatory to veterans in any way, shape, or form. It brought to mind that sometimes we debate some very emotional, heartfelt things at this committee.

It should almost be that at the beginning of every meeting you, the chair, would have a preamble to state that everybody has honourable and solemn intentions no matter what the tenor of the debate is, because I think that to try to play in intentions because someone agrees or disagrees with you, particularly here at the veterans affairs committee.... All of us are here primarily because we have a deep, heartfelt dedication and great honour and respect for the veterans who have served and continue to serve now.

I just want to make sure I put that out there for any future debate. As I said, I would even hope we would consider having you give a preamble at the beginning of every meeting to say that all debate is for the benefit of veterans, no matter how we may disagree in practice or process.

I would like to express to the committee what I have expressed to this committee before. I have some concerns about traditions that started many years ago that are very valuable. In fact, they go down to the very foundations of the recognition of this country. It should be a warning to us. The concerns Mr. Cannan mentioned about veterans' being concerned are, to a degree, because some of the traditions we have valued have been diminished.

Madam O'Brien just mentioned the lack of clarity many people have on the architecture of this building, that they are unaware that the entire building is pretty much a memorial to those who have either laid down their lives or decided they would make that sacrifice. In fact, on the previous building the tower was called the Victoria Tower, not the Peace Tower. It was named after Queen Victoria. It was only after this country sent 10% of its male population into World War I, and 10% of that population never came home, and with the reconstruction of the Centre Block as a free-standing structure--the Peace Tower is a separate piece of architecture--that they said this tower would be dedicated to those who fight for peace. The entire structure was erected in that memory. Of course, the Memorial Chamber is the apex, the focal point, of that structure, with all the books of remembrance to all those who paid the ultimate sacrifice--no greater love has any man than to lay down his life for his friends. In these days, that would be any man or woman who would lay down their life for their friends or fellow citizens.

So with the list that the Speaker mentioned of great memorials that are here, I would not want to have any practice of this committee diminish them. Before Madam O'Brien mentioned it, I wrote these words as a note to myself. I'll read them verbatim, so you'll understand that I had this thought prior: “Accommodation and hope that veterans feel and the safe place that they need will be more determined by our attitude, work, and behaviour than any room.”

I think one of the reasons we've had the meetings we've had and heard some of the extraordinary testimony is that people have come in here and felt a unity of purpose, although there are different partisan stripes here. I think they found a place where they feel there's absolute trust in their testimony when they give it. I think that is the kind of solemn bond we should have here to make sure that every day when we come to this door we're prepared to check our partisan intentions and attitudes and make sure that every practice we have, whether we agree or not, is for the great and best outcome and benefit of our veterans--and of course, as Mr. Stoffer often reminds us, their families. We want all our work to create for them the best outcome that will do some justice to the sacrifice that all Canadians feel they have made.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that I feel emotional and strong about this issue. At the same time, I would not want to have this room named and have a meeting that couldn't take place, or have even one witness come here on our account and say we had a veterans room but they couldn't testify in it. Logistically, that will happen. We're not the only new committee. The subcommittee for human rights wants to be a stand-alone committee, and that will create another complexity in meeting rooms. This is a brand new committee. It used to be a defence subcommittee. Who knows what the amount will be later?

I think a heartfelt dedication by all of us to do the best, greatest, most dedicated work for veterans would be far greater than any room we name for them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Mrs. Hinton.

[Betty Hinton, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

I think that my colleague said whatever I was about to say. I was going to ask you if there had ever been a problem with having other meetings in the Railway Room once it was no longer used for the railways. But I think that's redundant right now.

I trust your judgment, and I have for quite a long time. I will leave you with the thoughts of this committee and let you make a decision and get back to us.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

We're quite happy to look at this. I am going to see if we can come up with some things from our collection. I know the House has a fair bit of material in storage that is not on display, and I know this from decorating my office.

I would be more than happy to come up with some suggestions for things that might be useful for the purpose you have in mind for this room. I think I'm safe in saying that I can't see the other committees objecting to having some art hanging on the walls. It would make it a room that more suits your purposes, which I'm keen to do.

It's been suggested that you apply names to it. If names start sticking for some reason, fine. But who knows how that would play out?

This happened, in my view, with the Railway Room, and that's all I've been able to find out in reviewing the history of it. Many of the other rooms were named specifically. There is the Commonwealth Room, for example. The Reading Room was a reading room, of course, and it was that when I first came here. The New Zealand Room in the restaurant was given that name because the Parliament in New Zealand donated the wood panelling, which was originally intended for the Prime Minister's Office but, because there wasn't enough, wound up in the New Zealand Room.

I guess we're on the record, and I can't tell that other story.

The Confederation Room, Room 200, was changed around 1964. The Speaker pushed for a change and got agreement to carry through and to give it a name. It was previously just Room 200. It was fixed up in the early 1960s, and when it was finished, the room was renamed. You notice it's not named as a committee room, but it is occasionally used as one.

[Audrey O'Brien]

It's known as Room 200 much more than it is known as the Confederation Room. I discovered it was called the Confederation Room when I was reading briefing notes.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

If we can go with something like that, we'll come back to you with some suggestions for art. We'll give it a try, and once it's in here we'll see what happens.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

I think it's a good step in the right direction.

I believe Mr. Shipley had something he wanted to add.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

I want to thank you.

And I also want to thank my colleague, who often strikes a sense of commonality and of reality, which I appreciate very much. And I think quite honestly the issue is more that if we have something when we're here that reflects something of our past and our present and our future; it's a great tribute. So I, for one, would very much appreciate that consideration before the naming of it.

There are some realities that come about. We do have to remember that this is a changing world and we're a part of that change. Some of the deep history my colleague has relayed to us is not likely well known by the majority of people. And maybe that is something, in another venue and not because of this discussion, that somehow needs to be relayed more. You can pick up all the pamphlets, which I did today because I have a friend from South Africa who has a deep interest, but I can tell you that I don't think any of that history is in them. I'll take a peek at it.

We likely should, because thousands upon thousands of people go through every day and pick those things up. I think it would be a worthwhile thought to consider.

So I do appreciate your time. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

With that, committee members, unless there is somebody else who wishes to add anything, I would like to extend, on behalf of our committee, a thank you to you for your appearance today, sir. We may have some other things to deal with, but I humbly thank you for your time with us and for your consideration and for the consideration of art.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

There are a couple of things I would like to apprise you of.

First, I mentioned at the beginning of the meeting--but not everybody was here so I'm just saying it again--that our motion to travel has been held up along with other motions to travel and there is a negotiation going on. We hope to hear word about that.

If we don't get the motion to travel approved, there is nothing stopping us from going, but we'll just need to make private arrangements in order to get to the cemetery.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Would 500 be too much?