Evidence of meeting #68 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 survey.
A video is available from Parliament.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg
Thank you very much, Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Paul‑Hus.
Mr. Casey, you have the floor for six minutes.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to welcome the two ministers and their teams.
All my questions will be for Ms. Petitpas Taylor. I'd like to begin with the process, for a better understanding of why we are here. You said that a jury had chosen a winner from among the five finalists, but that further to a consultation launched by the minister, the veterans chose a different design.
I understand the criticisms from Mr. Paul‑Hus and Mr. Desilets with respect to the survey, but I believe that our purpose here on the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs is to move important matters forward on behalf of veterans, and that doubtless is precisely your role too, Ms. Petitpas Taylor.
On the other hand, the most vociferous criticisms came from Quebec. I want to understand why only the jury's point of view was being considered, and not the veterans' point of view. Can you help me understand that?
More precisely, Minister, can you discuss the results of the survey carried out by your department, solely for the province of Quebec? What did people in Quebec think about it?
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
Ginette Petitpas Taylor Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
Thank you for your question, Mr. Casey.
I think it has to be acknowledged that it's only to be expected, when the Department of Veterans Affairs is planning for a new monument, that it should establish a jury. As the project proponent, the department also has to always plan for a consultation period. You can call it a survey, a questionnaire, or a consultation, but we wanted to hear what veterans thought about it. A jury was selected and we thanked its members for the work they did. They worked tirelessly. At the outset, 25 groups submitted different designs. The jury worked hard on winnowing down the number of applicants to eventually come up with a list of five finalists, which is what we had asked them for.
We then began the survey process. We wanted to hear what veterans, and Canadians from coast to coast, thought about it. We also wanted to have proper representation from veterans, both women and men, as well as from the families of those who had served on this mission. To do so, the Department of Veterans Affairs sent out messages through My VAC Account. As members of this committee, you are no doubt fully aware of that. We did it to make sure that people knew there was a survey.
We also contacted families who had lost a loved one during the Afghanistan mission. We sent a message to a group of facilitators who were working with veterans to make sure that the message would get out. To our great surprise, as I said, we received twice as many responses as usual for survey questionnaires of this kind. More than 10,000 people responded. A jury combined with a survey is the normal practice. What was unusual in this specific case was that the survey and the jury went in opposite directions. When we looked at the survey results, we found that between 52% and 62% of respondents chose the Stimson submission, while only 23% to 40% preferred the one selected by the jury, the Daoust team design.
To answer your question about Quebec, it's important to point out that the vast majority of Quebeckers who responded to the survey also supported the Stimson design. Veterans told us that this design provided a better depiction of bravery, sacrifice, loss, and the role of the family.
As the Minister of Veterans Affairs, I felt it was very important to make sure that we were going to listen to veterans. We really wanted to factor in the needs and opinions of veterans in creating the national monument to Canada's mission in Afghanistan. That's why we made this decision.
As Canada's Minister of Veterans Affairs, I take full responsibility for my decision to listen to our veterans. That's my priority. That then is precisely what we did and why we did it.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE
Thank you, Minister.
I'm watching the timer and can see that I have less than 20 seconds left. That's probably not enough time to ask you another question and get an answer to it. Thank you.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg
Thank you, Mr. Casey.
Next up is Mr. Luc Desilets, who has 10 minutes.
5:35 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Desilets Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to thank our guests for coming.
Ms. St‑Onge, you have been seriously downplaying your role in all of this. But you are responsible too. You set up the jury. You chose the experts. You had control over the survey. Let's start with that.
Do you acknowledge, Ms. St‑Onge, that your minister asked the Department of Justice of Canada for a legal opinion in connection with rejecting the Daoust firm's design?
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
Pascale St-Onge Liberal Brome—Missisquoi, QC
Thank you, dear colleague.
I'd like to begin by reminding you that it was a joint process. So we helped—
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
Pascale St-Onge Liberal Brome—Missisquoi, QC
—with the backing of the Department of Veterans Affairs Canada, but it was responsible for the project.
I'll ask my deputy minister to answer the other part of your question.
5:40 p.m.
Isabelle Mondou Deputy Minister, Department of Canadian Heritage
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.
We request legal opinions for nearly all of our projects. It's just the usual process.
5:40 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Desilets Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
All right.
An opinion prepared by your department in November 2021 says that after informing the Minister of Veteran Affairs Canada and the Minister of Canadian Heritage of the jury's decision, the Department of Canadian Heritage would get into direct contact with the Daoust team to move on to the next phase of building the monument.
Are you aware of that?
5:40 p.m.
Deputy Minister, Department of Canadian Heritage
Veterans Affairs Canada and Canadian Heritage contacted members of the Daoust team to advise them of the decision and to request a meeting with them.
5:40 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Desilets Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
However, the opinion says that its purpose was to move on to the next phase of building the monument.
Ms. St‑Onge, if the ministers simply wanted to be informed of the jury's decision, and not be responsible for deciding on its behalf, it's because someone else made the decision.
Are we to conclude that the Prime Minister's Office made the decision?
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
Pascale St-Onge Liberal Brome—Missisquoi, QC
The decision was supported by the government, and I'm in agreement with it.
5:40 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Desilets Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
What's the government? Does it mean your department or the Prime Minister's Office?
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
Ginette Petitpas Taylor Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
As I said last week, Mr. Desilets, the decision was made by the government, at the recommendation of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
5:40 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Desilets Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Okay.
Ms. St‑Onge, can you confirm that nowhere is it written, either in the jury members' contracts or the competition rules, that the survey questionnaire mattered more than the jury of experts?
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
5:40 p.m.
Deputy Minister, Department of Canadian Heritage
I'll pass that question on to my colleague from Veterans Affairs Canada.
5:40 p.m.
Paul Ledwell Deputy Minister, Department of Veterans Affairs
Several things can explain the decision-making process, including the criteria that were to be assessed by the jury. Frankly, it's set out in detail and it's clear. The issues of vision and representation by—