Veterans Affairs Committee on Feb. 28th, 2024

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[An hon. member]

We have a motion—

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

I'm sorry, guys. It's only MP Randeep Sarai who has the floor.

Mr. Sarai, please go ahead.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

I'll say that again. I think the deliberations of a jury are always confidential, whatever type of jury that is. For us to go back and ask them what the jury has done, how they deliberated, what they looked at, what they didn't look at and what the opinions were.... They may have had candid comments and they may have had frustrations, but they were under the understanding, when they were doing this, that their deliberations and decisions were confidential and should be kept that way, so I think this amendment, or the actual motion itself, is a rather moot point when it's been exhaustively studied.

On June 2, 2020, the original decision was to have this Afghanistan monument tucked away under a bridge. The previous government was not doing anything with it. It's something that was, for that reason, buried for much too long.

We've been working to have a veterans monument to commemorate those who have fought for this country and for others, and to have it commemorated in the correct way, after a jury's opinion, which was not even unanimous. In fact, the veteran on that jury was actually very relieved at the decision that came out afterwards.

A very thorough and robust survey was conducted with over 10,000 people, the majority of whom were veterans, veterans' families and those associated with them. They took very strong opinions on it. They looked at both.

We wanted a monument that best reflects those veterans. I think that the decision, overwhelmingly, as the input came in, was very strong and meaningful. If you actually look at it even now, criticism might come from the proponents who might not have been successful at this, but you don't hear the veterans community coming out.

We had a veteran here just the other day. His frustration was about why it's taking so long, but his comment was not about one design over the other design. Veterans, overwhelmingly, have been supportive of this.

I think that as members of a veterans affairs committee and as parliamentarians, we have a duty to ensure that our commemorations, which are a big part of veterans affairs.... In fact, I think one of the pillars of veterans affairs is commemoration, so when we use that budget and that funding, we should commemorate veterans in the best way possible, and the best way possible is what the veterans themselves—those who have served, those women and men—find suitable.

I think the indigenous designer and the Stimson group put a lot of passion into the design. What I've seen in my short stint as parliamentary secretary to veterans, as well as someone with a veterans centre, a legion and a very robust veterans presence in my community, has been overwhelmingly positive, and veterans want us to move forward.

I think that as we keep doing this for longer and longer, what's happening is that we're frustrating the system. I think people want to see shovels in the ground and a monument being erected, commemorating veterans in the best way possible.

I urge that we stop debating this and stop dealing with this over and over again, just because of perhaps partisan positions, and actually get to the point, which is to commemorate the veterans and get on with it.

We've had more than ample time. I've been on various committees—citizenship and immigration, foreign affairs and audit—and I've never had multiple ministers come this many times to speak so candidly about the process and all the comments.

I think we should continue in a way that commemorates veterans, rather than bringing this back and losing a lot of time among witnesses who are here giving their precious time and energy to help us study this matter.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Mr. Sarai.

Now I'm going to go to Ms. Blaney. You have the floor.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you.

I was personally very excited to hear Mr. Richards say that he just wanted to get to the vote. I'm now in the unusual position of having to listen to other people, so I'm going to move—and I hope it's a proper motion—that we vote on the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Yes, but we still have people on the list, so I have to complete that.

I have Ms. Hepfner.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

I just want add that I'm new to this committee, but I think I've been frankly stunned at the extent to which we've been debating this—and from the perspective of the artists, where it seems like the concern is coming from, rather than from the perspective of the veterans. If you look at the two pieces of art and if you talk directly to the veterans, you can see why they feel the one design....

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. The members across are yelling at me while I'm trying to speak. It's a little distracting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Just one person has the floor. Please....

Go ahead, Ms. Hepfner.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thank you.

As an outsider without the experience of the members across, when I look at the renderings from the two artists, I can see why veterans tend to prefer one over the other. One is more abstract. It's very artistic; it's beautiful also. The other one actually shows soldiers. It's tangible. You can tell what it's commemorating.

I don't know if the committee has already discussed this or not, but I don't know why we can't build two monuments. Afghanistan was a huge mission for Canada. Why not build both monuments, one on either side of the country? I don't know if that's something that this committee has discussed or contemplated, but I don't think it would cost that much or be beyond the pale to go ahead and do both artists' renderings. The stories from both artists are great. They're both good ways to commemorate that mission in Afghanistan.

I don't know why we're more concerned about what the artists think than what the veterans think. From what I understand, more than 12,000 Canadian veterans have responded to have their say about this monument. Our government is listening to them, unlike the previous government, which made them angry because it didn't consult with them at all.

I'm frankly kind of stunned that we're still talking about this. This is such a big issue. I think I want to hear from the witnesses. I want to hear more about the transition to civilian life, and I don't understand why we're having these debates on and on. It makes sense to me that we choose the monument that the veterans feel most represents their time in Afghanistan.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you.

On the speaking list I have Mr. Bryan May.

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

If we go back to when we were first looking at this issue, we will see that we agreed to have one meeting on it. That was what we were supposed to do. Then it turned into two. Then we wanted the minister. Back then, I used the term “mission creep”, and that's exactly what is happening.

We recognize why we're doing this the way that we're doing it. We have offered to have committee business time. We've even offered to have a subcommittee deal with this. We recognize that every other motion that.... When I was the chair of this committee, we always would do committee business in the proper way. This has become a political stunt. It has become a political stunt by the opposition. It's a fishing exercise. There's no other way to describe it.

I'm sorry that once again the opposition has decided to do this when we have witnesses on important studies. I said when this came up at the beginning that we were in the middle of an incredibly important study on women veterans and that this was what veterans want us to focus on. They're watching this and they're shaking their heads. They want us to be studying the important aspects of what their challenges are, what their barriers are.

We agreed to bring in the minister. We agreed to bring in Daoust and to hear the story, and we've done all of this.

What are we doing? What is this? This just seems to be one more.... Every time we expand this, it becomes something else. Every time that we agree, it's like, “Well, okay; now we want to do this.” This is wasting the time of this committee. It is now wasting the time of veterans in this study.

We are seeing such disrespect for veterans that we had to collectively do sensitivity training because of this—

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Excuse me, Mr. May, but we have a vote—

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

You think it's funny, guys, that because of your actions they had to do sensitivity training? Come on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Excuse me. Please listen. I'm sorry, guys.

Members of the committee, we now have a vote. Therefore I have to ask members of the committee if I have unanimous consent to continue.

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

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

No. We don't have unanimous consent.

Mr. Paul Bury and Mr. Mark Meincke, I am so sorry, but I have to suspend the meeting until the vote is over.

The meeting is suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

We are now resuming.

Members of the committee, it is now 6:31 p.m. As you will recall, at the beginning of the meeting, I had asked for unanimous consent to meet past six o'clock. I had suspended the meeting, and we are now resuming. This time, I'm going to ask whether it is the pleasure of the committee to adjourn the meeting.

We will now vote to see whether the committee wishes to keep meeting.

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, you don't have unanimous consent to continue the meeting.

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

Chair, I ask that we continue. I think it's really important that we get to the bottom of this cover-up.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

I consulted the table earlier, and they said that if the vote says that we're not going to adjourn, then we have to continue.

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Chair, every other time we've been in this situation, the convention has always been that you've asked for unanimous consent.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

That's right.

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

I just don't understand why they're so scared of continuing. What are they hiding?