Veterans Affairs Committee on March 18th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

I call this meeting to order.

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to meeting number 86 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. Some members are taking part using the Zoom application.

As usual, remember to avoid putting your earpiece close to your microphone when speaking. This causes feedback that can result in serious injury to the interpreters. Please take note of this.

Before starting, I would like to inform the committee members that the draft report on the experience of women veterans was sent to them today. On Wednesday, we'll continue the study on the transition from military to civilian life. The witnesses have already been informed.

I also want to let the committee members know that we need to set our work schedule. We have six studies in the queue. The motions for these studies were passed. The committee members moved at least 26 motions. When we return from our two weeks in our respective constituencies, I would like to provide instructions to the analyst and the clerk so that they can help us draw up our work plan for the remainder of the session.

In addition, we need to look at the supplementary estimates (C) 2023‑24, the main estimates and the departmental plans.

Mr. Richards, you raised your hand. You have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to see us return to where we were at the last meeting. Unfortunately, it seemed to be a bit of a filibuster on the part of the Liberals, but I would like to move the motion that I put on notice on December 20 in relation to the production of all the documents around the Prime Minister's interference in the monument to the mission in Afghanistan. I would move that motion once again so that we can carry on the debate with that, Mr. Chair.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

As this motion has already been moved, I believe the appropriate thing to do would be to move to resume debate, which would require an immediate vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Exactly. We're going to have to vote on that and come back on that motion.

I'm going to ask the clerk to take the vote.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

The motion moved by Blake Richards was passed.

I want to remind the committee members that, at the last meeting, Mr. Miao moved an amendment. Before continuing the discussion, I would like to ask Mr. Miao to read out the amendment and tell us why it should be passed.

[Wilson Miao, Liberal, Richmond Centre, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I moved and presented an amendment at the last meeting. Let me read this out for the record.

That, at the end of paragraph b), section (vii), the motion be amended by replacing the words “and without redaction” with the words “using the principles of the Access to Information Act and Privacy Act”.

The reasoning is that it's important to follow the principles of the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act and protect personal information. The long-standing approach taken by successive governments has been to reconcile the exercise of House of Commons privileges with other fundamental constitutional principles, such as the rule of law, parliamentary sovereignty, responsible government, and the separation of power.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you very much, Mr. Miao.

Mr. Richards.

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

Thank you.

Chair, it's my hope that we can.... This has been going on for months, and we're trying to get a vote on this. We think it's important. Obviously, we have veterans here in the room with us today who served in this mission. We have veterans watching from across the country who served in this mission, and they just want to get some answers. I think they feel disrespected by the fact that this has been pushed off and off, and by the fact that there's been political interference by the Prime Minister's Office. This is something that is a real slap in the face to the veterans who served in this mission, and to those family members who lost one of theirs serving in this mission. It's time we get to a vote on it.

Having said that, I do want to make a couple of comments quickly on the amendment that's been moved by the Liberal Party. You all heard the so-called rationale for that. Let me interpret that for anyone who wasn't clear on what it really means. It really means that the Prime Minister's Office told the Liberals, “I don't want to provide these documents, because I'm hiding something.” They're standing here today to cover for him. That is what this means.

The idea that you can black out a bunch of the information that's in these documents.... These are just documents that talk about what happened in this period of time. I'm not going to go on at length about this, but on November 8, 2021, the decision of the jury that was set up to decide on the design of this monument was communicated to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Somewhere in the period of time between November 8, 2021 and June 2023—almost a two-year period—there was some kind of an effort by the Prime Minister's Office to change the decision that was made by the process they set up. It was political interference, plain and simple.

These documents are just designed to try to get to the bottom of that. If anyone believes that wanting to black out and redact some of that information is anything other than trying to make sure that anything that incriminates the Prime Minister and his office is prevented from coming out to be seen by the public, and to be seen by veterans who served in this mission, they're mistaken, because that is exactly what this amendment is about.

We are firmly opposed to that amendment, but we do believe this motion needs to get passed. We need to get to the bottom of this for our veterans, and for the family members of those who served in this mission.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you.

Mr. Casey.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Chair, Mr. Richards is quite right that a significant amount of time has been spent on this. There is other business of the committee. As you indicated in your opening remarks, we have witnesses lined up on Wednesday.

I don't know how long the debate is going to be today. I wonder if we could get the unanimous consent of the committee to actually go ahead with the agenda as planned on Wednesday, and not have those two witnesses be required to stand down. That would be my request, that there be unanimous consent of the committee to proceed with hearing from witnesses this coming Wednesday.

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

Should the Liberals decide not to filibuster so we can get to a vote on this, we would have no problem doing that. However, I can't give consent until I know they're going to stop their filibuster.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Okay.

I want to say that, in the last meeting, we had witnesses there, but we had committee business. We postponed those witnesses until this Wednesday. We already invited them. They will be here next Wednesday. It's up to the committee to decide. I heard that some people are having some trauma and things like that, so we'd like to be careful on Wednesday with that.

Other—

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

I would encourage the Liberals to end the filibuster. Let's get to a vote on this. Let's not redact these documents. Let's get to the bottom of this. Then we can move on and have our witnesses on Wednesday. It's quite easy.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

I have no other interventions on that amendment, so I'm going to put it to a vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

Next up is Mr. Sarai.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I have an amendment to the motion, as well: In paragraph (b), remove item (iii), item (iv), item (v) and item (vi), and remove, under item (vii), “the Office of the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Office of the Prime Minister”.

My reasoning is this: Before we look to request even more documents from the government, let's look at the facts of what came out of the documents we have already received. The documents have shown that the government deviated from the established procurement process against the advice of Canadian Heritage officials. They showed the department pushing to listen to the feedback of veterans at every stage—

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Excuse me, Mr. Sarai.

Mr. Richards has a point of order.

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

I'm sorry.

First, I'm a little unclear on what the amendment actually is. I know it's an attempt to try to remove some of the documents that would be produced. Obviously, all of these documents are incredibly important, but I don't understand which ones the Liberals are trying to hide the most vociferously here. Maybe Mr. Sarai could indicate what exactly his amendment is. I'm still unclear.

Second, I wonder if they could indicate how many more amendments they have in trying to delay this even further.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Mr. Sarai, could you please read this amendment again?

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

The amendment is that, in paragraph (b) of Mr. Richards' motion, we remove item (iii), item (iv), item (v) and item (vi), and remove, in item (vii), “the Office of the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Office of the Prime Minister”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Can you explain the rationale?

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

I was about to do so.

First, I want to know if the clerk is clear on what I want to remove. Under paragraph (b), remove item (iii), item (iv), item (v) and item (vi), and remove, under item (vii), “the Office of the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Office of the Prime Minister”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Okay, good.

Now we'll have the rationale. After that, I have Mr. Richards on the list.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Sure.

Look, they showed that the department was pushing to listen to the feedback of veterans from a very early stage. The Minister of Veterans Affairs took the decision to listen to the voices of veterans based on the overwhelming response received in the survey and a strong desire to put the feedback of veterans first.

These documents show that the PMO and the PCO were informed of those decisions, which makes sense, frankly, given the fact that the department was looking to deviate in a significant way from an established procurement process. The last document request from this committee included PMO correspondence, which the opposition neglects to mention came back as a “nil” response, so this has been asked before. I have a hard time seeing how that would justify such an expansive motion on producing documents.

It is possible to disagree with the government's decision on the matter, as some have expressed. However, the government was transparent with team Daoust regarding the decision and how it was made. The government informed them of their options for recourse. At the same time, the government made it clear that, based on the clear feedback it received through the online questionnaire regarding the five finalists' designs, the veterans and their families had a very clear preference.

It wasn't just veterans, actually. The Stimson design was preferred with majority support across all questions. Team Daoust was presented with the options for legal recourse in this matter through the trade tribunal, among others. They appear to have chosen not to go down those roads, and that is their right.

The fact that the government continues to move forward with the project now shows.... To some, this may not come as a surprise, since veterans continue to say that they want this monument completed as soon as possible without more delays. Even if Mr. Richards had spoken to this previously, we should move on with this.

The production of documents from the PCO, Mr. Chair, has been demanded by the opposition Conservatives in the ethics committee, where it was voted down to produce documents from the PCO and the PMO. A similar production of documents was demanded in a multitude of committees: the ethics committee, the foreign affairs committee, the public accounts committee, and the citizenship and immigration committee. All demanded the production of these vast numbers of documents, which frustrates the system. Our minister has appeared here. Multiple meetings have been held. The department came and has agreed to a production of documents. The process was given. Reasons for the decisions were given.

It's quite clear. Yes, there was a jury. It made a recommendation, but a comprehensive survey of veterans was done. It expressed a different perspective, particularly that of the veterans and their families. The minister decided to respond to the opinion of the veterans, full stop. That's the end of this.

That's the rationale. I think it's futile to keep going on this. We have a lot of very important studies that we wish to move on. Some of those are from the opposition parties. Everyone, I think, should move on this, in the interest of veterans.

Therefore, I move this amendment so that we can speed up this study and move on to topics that really affect the lives of veterans—such as their day-to-day transition from the CAF to VAC and their medical and other needs that need to be studied—as well as complete the many studies that we have done, including the women's study, which need to be put into text and formally submitted to the House.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Mr. Sarai.

Next on my list I have Mr. Richards, and then Ms. Blaney.

Mr. Richards.

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

Thanks, Chair.

I'll keep this brief as well, now that the Liberal member has finished reading the talking points he received from the Prime Minister's Office about why this Prime Minister, who was once all about openness and transparency, is trying to cover up this political interference.

I want to make sure that what this amendment does is clear. Essentially, what it does is remove all of the documents that get at the whole heart of the question here, which is, what was the Prime Minister's Office interfering in this for? Why did they interfere?

Despite the claims made by the Liberal member, the documents we previously received indicate to us that there were meetings that took place in the two-year period after this decision was communicated to the two ministers involved, where the Prime Minister's Office and the Privy Council Office were involved in meetings and where they seem to be driving a process to make changes to this. Nobody knows what the reason for that interference was, and that's what these documents are seeking to produce. Removing all of the documents that relate either to the Prime Minister's Office or to the Privy Council Office removes the ability for this committee to get to the bottom of what actually happened and why there was political interference. It's quite clear that what this is attempting to do is to just cover up for the Prime Minister once again.

I certainly would agree with the Liberal member that there are a lot of very important things that this committee needs to get to that relate to changes that need to be made in how veterans are treated and dealt with by their government and by this department and how we constantly see delays and denials in the basic services and supports that veterans need.

We need to get to that as well, but we need to get this passed. We need to keep all the documents included in this so that we can actually find out why the Prime Minister's Office was interfering in this. If you remove all the documents that relate to the Prime Minister's Office, clearly you're making sure that this can't happen.

The Liberal Party has been given its marching orders by the Prime Minister's Office to help him cover it up. Hopefully, other members of the committee will see that and we can vote this down quickly. Then we can move on to a vote and get this motion passed.