Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to make a few comments on the motion as amended.
I find it absurd that the opposition members opposed a request for production of documents that would have given us access to jury correspondence, and now they want something specific about the jury.
I want to give them the benefit of the doubt, but it seems that my opposition colleagues only want to have the documents that they think will support the narrative they're trying to fabricate. They don't want to hear about the veterans or even about the opinions that were in favour of the final choice—Team Stimson's design concept. And yet this is a monument that honours veterans.
The National Memorial to Canada's Mission in Afghanistan will recognize the commitment and sacrifice of Canadians who fought in Afghanistan, as well as the support provided to them by Canadians at home. The monument will also reflect Canada's deep gratitude for the sacrifices made by those who fought in Afghanistan, including those who lost their lives or were injured physically or psychologically.
The monument will serve as a public space to perpetually remember Canadians' selfless service to our country and will give future generations an opportunity to learn more about this particular moment of our military's history.
We know that the jury's decision was not unanimous, contrary to what my colleague said in the House. The jury did an incredible job in selecting the five design concepts on the final list. We all agree on that.
The role of Veterans Affairs Canada, as project leader, is to listen to veterans, and that is what was done. Veterans Affairs Canada received feedback from over 10,000 Canadians on the design concepts considered for this monument. The veterans, their families and others who took part in this mission were mainly the ones who shared their feedback.
Team Stimson's design concept best reflects the feedback received from veterans, their families, and other participants in that mission during our public consultation. Listening to veterans and honouring their choice is essential.
As a final comment before I cede the floor, Mr. Chair, I spent 17 years of my professional life practising law, primarily in the area of civil litigation. It is inevitable that this particular dispute is headed to the courts, and perhaps that's rightly where it should be. This exercise, in an attempt to go on a fishing expedition to try to pin it on the Prime Minister, is a further example of the Trudeau derangement syndrome. To the extent that this is to be prosecuted—the weaknesses in the procedure and the allegations of a failure to follow the rules—these are truly legal matters that are rightly dealt with in a court of law.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.