Veterans Affairs Committee on Feb. 28th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you so much.

I have Mr. Wilson Miao on the list. It's your turn.

[Wilson Miao, Liberal, Richmond Centre, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm glad I won't be flying back to my riding of Richmond Centre tonight. I have plenty of time to get into this.

Before I speak on the amendment—we are going to support that, of course—I understand that today is a very important day. I'd like to convey my gratitude and thank our veterans, especially those who served in the Persian Gulf region from 1990 to 1991. On this day in 1991, the Gulf War ended. More than 4,000 Canadians served in the Persian Gulf region for over a year. Even in the aftermath of this conflict, Canadians continue to serve in a peacekeeping role around the world and in an embargo enforcement role there. I sincerely regret that I couldn't make it. I understand most members here today were at the memorial, laying down wreaths for our Gulf War veterans to commemorate this occasion, which is also the 33rd anniversary of the ceasefire in the Gulf War.

I'd like to encourage all members of the committee, especially those across from us, to prioritize my motion, which was passed and tabled a couple of weeks ago. We agreed to a study right after the study we're doing on transition to civilian life. It's unfortunate that we couldn't hear from the witnesses who had arranged to speak to us today because of this. I want to encourage us to get on with the studies we have on the list.

It's especially surprising that today we received over 14 motions from the Conservative members. As a newly elected member without too much experience compared with most of you seated around the table here today, I don't understand why we have to put out so many motions. It is taking away from the important work we're doing. I was very glad that we finished our women veterans study, because that was a very important study, one that I feel has not been done in the history of Canada. I really appreciate Rachel Blaney putting that motion forward. We're also looking forward to the report. I thank the analysts, especially, for putting together the report.

Going back to the national monument to Canada's mission in Afghanistan, I recall that last year, in June, all of us—except for those who are new to this committee—attended the opening ceremony at the war museum. Really, this monument recognizes the commitment and sacrifice of Canadians—not just men, but also women—who served in Afghanistan and supported those who provide safety to Canadians here at home. I find it quite strange that we're still discussing the artists instead of the veterans who are going to be honoured with this monument.

I think there's a reason we're hearing the opposition members talking only about the artist community. The reason is that most veterans are actually content with the choice for the monument. They weren't happy with the location chosen by the previous government, and rightly so, because veterans weren't even consulted on a monument in their honour in the first place. From my understanding, that location was not as ideal as the location being picked here right now.

You know, I believe our government is here to listen to veterans and to support them. In a previous study on this, ministers appeared and said many times that Veterans Affairs Canada heard from more than 12,000 Canadians about the monument design. The majority of those who responded were veterans, their families and those who served in the mission.

Team Stimson's design best reflects their input, and when it comes to honouring the sacrifice of our veterans, I truly believe that we must listen to them. That is why I feel it's very important for us to acknowledge that this design has been set and we should really respect the voices of our veterans and their families, because the monument that is being designed and built is for them.

I understand that we are all here serving our veterans, and that's why we're here discussing this. It's important to continue hearing from our veterans and their families, who really want us to do the work we should be doing, especially in supporting them with the transition to civilian life, which we're currently studying, and at the same time supporting—

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Excuse me, Mr. Miao. I have a point of order.

Go ahead, Mr. Richards.

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

I noted that the member was indicating that he wanted to be able to get to other business and I know that many of us have been calling for a vote.

I'm just curious. On the speakers list, are there any Conservatives or NDP or Bloc members on the speakers list at present, or is it only Liberals?

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

No. We have different members on the list now.

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

I know there are no Conservatives on the list. I just want to point out that we could get to a vote if they wanted us to do that, and we could move on to other things.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

The floor is Mr. Miao's.

[Wilson Miao, Liberal, Richmond Centre, BC]

Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity again to speak. In representing the riding of Richmond Centre, I know that there are several veterans in my riding who have been living there and encountering difficulties, especially with the world we live in right now.

The thing I'm hearing from them is that they want to know how we will be able to provide the support to them so that they can have the dignity to continue after their service to Canada and sacrificing their time and effort and all of this to serve the country. It's important for us to really acknowledge that, and it continues to give us a responsibility as a government to support the veterans who have served the country. Really, we should put our focus on talking about the possible studies that could be useful for the government. Our role as parliamentarians is to represent not just the people from our ridings but Canadians across this country.

I have had the privilege of hearing stories from some of the veterans and some of those who served in Afghanistan, and what I'm hearing from them is, “Let's get this going.” Since we have broken ground, we did the opening ceremony and we acknowledged the design from Team Stimson, we should continue. Not to speak more about this, I think it's important for us to move on and vote on that amendment and then, hopefully, we can consider some of the amendments that are being brought forward by our caucus.

That's it.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you very much, Mr. Miao.

On my list is Monsieur Desilets.

Go ahead, Mr. Desilets.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's only appropriate to point out that we are using up a lot of time that could be used to discuss veterans' issues. That's what the Liberals say they want, but they are doing the exact opposite.

Mr. Miao, I want to correct something you said a moment ago. Yes, we did meet with two ministers, but we didn't get the answers we were looking for. We also tried to invite both of their predecessors, but they refused to appear.

Mr. Sarai, a jury's decision doesn't have to be unanimous. It simply has to have the support of the majority, and that was absolutely the case. You brought up the much-talked-about survey. How many times do we have to say it? Ten thousand people supposedly responded, but that's nothing. It's nothing from a statistical and scientific standpoint. Léger, Canada's biggest polling firm, made that clear in writing in a fine report that you received.

You are defending the indefensible under the pretense of standing up for veterans. A four-letter word comes to mind.

I appreciated Mr. May's point about following the rules, but he, himself, is not following the process. Does he know why we are fighting for this? The reason is that his government set up a process with clear rules, which I completely agree with. The government has to either accept the jury's choice or hold another competition. The government randomly went with door number three, opting to reject the design and choose another one, as all my fellow committee members know.

Ms. Hepfner came up with a solution: building two monuments. What a great idea. Canada is big enough to accommodate two monuments. In fact, the idea is being floated quite a bit on the Liberal side.

Good heavens, take responsibility and sit down with the Minister of Finance to find the money for a second monument. You'll make veterans happy, and they will no longer come before the committee to say that the monument has been tarnished in their eyes.

At one point, people began referring to the monument as the monument to shame—strong language, indeed. I'm looking at the Conservatives, but I, myself, said it. Something very shameful happened here, and veterans shouldn't be associated with that. You heard what they said last week. The process is tainted. They aren't crazy. They saw how this went down.

Yet again, you are trying to defend the indefensible. Defend it to your government. You have an excellent Minister of Veterans Affairs, very sensible. I don't think she would have ever made a decision like this, but she got stuck with the hot potato.

As I see it, your government's reputation is plenty tainted as it is by countless questionable episodes, so don't make it worse. Let's do what you say you want and talk about veteran's issues. Let's discuss your motions. You have great motions, honourable members. I look forward to debating them.

Is there anyone else on the list after me, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Yes.

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

That means I can't ask for the vote.

Let's say everyone around the table is in favour of the amendment, I request a vote and the committee gives unanimous consent to hold the vote. Would we have a vote in that case?

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

No, because I still have people on the list.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you for your comments, Mr. Desilets.

I have two more people on the list.

I have Mr. Sarai and Ms. Hepfner.

Go ahead, Mr. Sarai.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Actually, I will agree to putting it to a vote, if we want to move on Monsieur Desilets' amendment. We're in favour of voting on it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

First I have to give the floor to Ms. Hepfner, if she wants to intervene on that discussion.

Go ahead, Ms. Hepfner.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

I think it's a good amendment, and I will support it. It's important to respect the jury's decision.

The government didn't make the decision; veterans did.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you.

I don't think I have anyone else on the speaking list.

We will now vote on Mr. Desilets's amendment.

Do I have unanimous consent to adopt Mr. Desilets's amendment?

Thank you.

(Amendment agreed to)

Great.

Go ahead, Randeep.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I'm grateful we got past that and Mr. Desilets' amendment, though I had some reservations that it was a jury decision—sometimes, I still believe that—but in concert with my colleagues, I've agreed to it.

I would like to propose an amendment to Mr. Richards' motion. I propose that in paragraph b), we remove “November 8th, 2021” and replace it with “May 1st, 2014”.

The reasoning is that we're doing a study on the national monument to Canada's mission in Afghanistan, and I believe that to fully understand all the elements, we need to go back in time. We have to go back to the process that was originally run to select the monument site back in 2014. The national monument to Canada's mission in Afghanistan was announced in May 2014. That's why I think it would be relevant to have the documents since that date. This would allow us not only to compare the consultations that were made with the veterans then but also to understand the whole process in its entirety, how it has unfolded and how we have got to this point.

When I look back—obviously, I've had to look at this—I see that it's been a very interesting journey. There seemed to be a rush to have the memorial for those who fought against the Communists put up ahead of the monument for those who sacrificed their lives in the Afghan mission. This was not prioritized at the time, so I think that we need to understand what that process was and how it got to where it is.

I would ask that we discuss that amendment or we move on that amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Mr. Sarai, but on the list, I have Mr. May and Mr. Richards.

Before I go to Mr. May, because we don't have a copy of the amendment, could you please read it again slowly so that the interpreters will have it?

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

No problem. I will read it again.

In paragraph b), remove “November 8th, 2021” and replace it with “May 1st, 2014”. We're replacing “November 8th, 2021” with “May 1st, 2014”. It's a very simple amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Very good.

Thank you, Mr. Sarai.

We now go to Bryan May.

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Thank you. I'll be brief.

I think this is an important amendment. If we are going to pursue this study, I think we should do it right and start from the beginning of this process. I imagine there will be significantly more information on how we got to where we are if we expand the date, but I think it's important to recognize that and understand it.

I promised I would be brief, Mr. Chair. I know there are further amendments that we would like to bring forward and I want to make sure that we make time for those. I believe Mr. Richards wants to speak specifically to this amendment. I will admit that when I put my hand up, I was just hoping to make sure that you recognized me once this amendment has been determined.

Thank you.