Veterans Affairs Committee on Feb. 28th, 2024

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

You can't do that on a point of order, Chair.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

I'm not on a point of order. I'm recognized by the chair. Thank you, though.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Excuse me—

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

My hand was up first. I'm asking you to call the question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

We'll go to Mr. Sarai right afterward.

Yes, Mr. Richards, you have the floor.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

I don't understand what they're so scared of in these documents. I'm asking that we call the question, because I want our witnesses to have a chance to speak. We've debated this many times and I'd like us to move to a vote on that motion, please.

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

This is not proper, Mr. Chair. You cannot do that on a point of order. I'm sorry.

[An hon. member]

Yes.

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

No, you cannot.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

I'm well aware of the rules.

I hope you guys will not choose to waste time so that we can go to a vote. That's all I'm saying.

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Okay. I have Mr. Sarai and Mr. May, but in consultation, I am told that first of all we have an amendment by Mr. Desilets. We have to go back to his amendment instead of discussing your debate, because that was on the table. If we resume debate, we have to go back to the motion by Mr. Desilets.

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

First of all, Mr. Sarai—

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Okay. Go ahead on a point of order.

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, we've had this happen before when we've come back to debate. I was next on the list. You said it was a whole new list and it was whoever had their hands up on that day. I believe my colleague had his hand up. I had my hand up, and you went to Mr. Richards on a point of order. I think that if you consult the clerk, he will say that a dilatory motion cannot be moved on a point of order.

My suggestion is that we go to my colleague, who had his hand up first.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

I understand that, Mr. May, but we're not discussing any points of order now. The point of order was accepted. We had a vote on that, but it's to resume debate. To resume debate, we have to go back to Mr. Desilets' motion.

I understand that you said you had your name on the list the last time we discussed it. I'm going to verify whether we have such a list so that we can use it.

Excuse me.

Because the debate on that amendment was adjourned, we have to start a new list. That's why I ask this.

That is why I'm asking Mr. Desilets whether he wishes to resume debate on his amendment.

If so, I will ask Mr. Desilets to read the amendment for committee members.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Chair, the whole motion and amendment process has been rather complicated.

Basically, if I'm not mistaken, the Conservatives proposed the motion we're about to discuss on December 20. Do I have that right?

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Okay.

Now, though, Mr. Desilets, we are talking about the motion you moved on February 12.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Yes, but it wasn't a motion. It was an amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Sorry, you're right. It was an amendment, yes.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

That's why I was just trying to clarify things for the record.

I had put forward a motion previously that we are disregarding. I'm trying to make things clear for the purposes of the discussion.

That is why we are going to debate the amendment that was moved on February 12.

I will now read the amendment I was just referring to, which seeks to amend the motion put forward by the Conservatives on December 20. It reads as follows:

That the motion be amended by adding the following after paragraph b): “c) And that the Department of Veterans Affairs Canada and the Department of Canadian Heritage provide the official report of the jury established for the selection of the firm responsible for the design of the National Monument to Canada’s Mission in Afghanistan.

That is the amendment I am proposing to the Conservative motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Mr. Desilets.

Please raise your hand if you want to be on the speaking list.

Let me just say something to Mr. Bury: These are our procedural functions, so please excuse us. We have to deal with that. We're going to come back to you.

I'm sorry not only to you, but we also have, by video conference, Mark Meincke, retired corporal, and I'd like to apologize to him too.

Are there any interventions on that amendment?

Go ahead, Mr. Sarai.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I also want to apologize to Mr. Bury and Mr. Meincke, who have taken time out of their day to do this. Unfortunately, this motion keeps coming back and interrupting witnesses who are testifying, whether it's about violence perpetrated on them, harassment perpetrated on them, etc., or those like you yourself, who are trying to tell us about transition and how that transition should be possible.

I understand that some members have concerns and want to get more information on this decision on the monument to Afghanistan. I think most people want the monument to be done. I think we've had exhaustive discussions on this matter. We've brought in the ministers—ministers in plural—multiple times for this. We've had record requests. From the press, we've even heard from people on the jury who have come out and said that they actually support the decision. The veterans on that jury have come out and said that they support this decision.

I think that to go back and ask for an amendment to include the jury decision would be something that they have to check with their lawyers. I don't know the legalities, the disclosure requirements or what NDAs were signed. I think those would have to be checked. I think our Privy Council or others would have to vet those, to see those, and I don't think it would come out with anything more than what was done.

I think that when a jury makes a decision, it's a principle of a jury to keep the internal jury deliberations confidential. I come from a legal background. That's a paramount principle that allows the jury to keep the discussions and deliberations private—