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?