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.