Veterans Affairs Committee on March 18th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you very much, Mr. Richards.

Now let's go to Ms. Blaney.

You have the floor.

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

Thank you, Chair.

This has been a frustrating process. I know that I brought forward a notice of motion putting everybody's wishes in it so that we could try to get this done. I heard a lot of backlash, especially from the Conservatives, so I'm letting it go in trying to get this done. I was clear the last time we were here that I was hoping we would get this finished. It feels like we're just going in circles. You know, what's sad is that I'm listening to the Conservatives blame the Liberals, and the Liberals blame the Conservatives—it's just a lot.

I also know—and I want to thank the analyst so much for his tremendous work—that we've just finished a monumental study on veterans who are women. The report is sitting there. Sadly, in the last couple of weeks, I've been getting messages from veterans who are women and who are very concerned that this won't get done, the piece of documentation they wanted to finally be represented in Parliament—because it has never been done before—so it will be there to give a baseline for the women who served our country and continue to serve our country. I'm just really sad to see this continue on.

I will say that I am also frustrated, because we know.... I keep hearing that there is this great veterans survey and “the veterans said”, but we still have nothing in the process that clearly states that it was veterans. There is no way of knowing that. Now, I trust veterans. I believe that if they knew there was a survey, they would totally participate, but when I hear that it's going to people's VAC accounts.... I have to tell you that I talk to veterans multiple times a week who are calling into those systems or using those systems and they are traumatized and they don't go on them anymore, so I don't think that it is a really strong statement. The thing that's frustrating is that there's nothing here to quantify. If we want to make sure that this monument gets done.... It needs to get done. There's a long history there that we need to acknowledge. We also have to acknowledge that it needs to be done well and that communication with veterans continues to be a concern.

I find it very interesting to listen to the Conservatives talk about it like they did it well. I remember when they were serving, and there's nothing great to say about the Liberals either. Everybody can shake or nod their heads, but the reality is that veterans are struggling across this country in profound ways, and here we are debating this.

I guess I have a couple of questions.

The first one is for Mr. Richards. I'm hearing from the Liberals now that many motions like this are being made in multiple committees. I'm assuming that there's a strategy there that is more political than based on veterans, if I hear that it's happening in other places. I'm wondering, with the Liberals, if we can at least keep (v) and (vi), because we need to figure out what happened. Let's talk about that. I'd like to offer that up.

If I could, I'd ask the clerk about a timeline. What I'm hearing is that this is happening in other committees, asking for a huge amount of information. Does that mean that, if we pass this, we'll just be waiting for months and months to get that information to our committee so we can do the work? That really concerns me.

If we could get some answers, I think that would help me make a decision.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Ms. Blaney.

Excuse me, Mr. Richards, but I already have Mr. Desilets, who would like to intervene.

I'll now give the floor to Mr. Desilets. If he wants you to respond, he can let me know.

Mr. Desilets, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Obviously, I'm against the amendment moved by the Liberals. It takes away from the essence of the motion. We're looking for information to confirm or explain what happened in this sad situation involving the National Monument to Canada's Mission in Afghanistan. The Prime Minister's Office refused to award the contract to the Daoust team, which was the winning team chosen by the jury. I must reiterate that the jury was made up of professional and competent people. The Prime Minister's Office can't act as a jury or art expert.

I'm opposed to the removal of these documents. However, I'm obviously eager to wrap this up. The Conservative motion was moved on December 20, 2023. In a democracy, it makes sense for the Liberals to do this. I understand that. At other times, the Conservatives will do the same. However, the Bloc Québécois rarely acts this way. I don't know why.

In my opinion, the Liberals are holding the veterans hostage in two ways. First, they're making the veterans bear the burden of responsibility for changing the winning firm. The Liberals are relying on a survey that has been repeatedly described as lacking in credibility. The Liberals are all bright enough to know this.

The Liberals are holding the veterans hostage by blaming them for wanting this monument and saying that the government must go ahead with it. It's undemocratic. The government set up criteria and didn't stick to them.

The second way of holding the veterans hostage is quite funny. The Liberals say that they can't wait for us to move on so that we can hear from the veterans. However, by filibustering, they're holding the veterans hostage. I can't wait for the motion to get passed so that we can move on and hear from the veterans.

If the Liberals want to play this game, we'll play it. However, this doesn't amount to listening to the veterans. The veterans should be at the next meeting, and this motion should have been passed a long time ago.

Mr. Chair, thank you for your attention.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Mr. Desilets.

Mr. Richards, you now have the floor.

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

Thanks, Chair.

Ms. Blaney asked a question and indicated that it was to me specifically. It was related to motions in other committees or something, and I'll just say that I'm not aware of what these motions are. I don't know what's happening in these other committees she's referring to. What I can tell her is that this motion was something I brought forward about four months ago, to begin with, simply to try to get to the bottom of this, to find out for veterans what exactly happened with this interference. It was motivated purely, 100%, by the desire to make sure we got to the bottom of this on behalf of veterans and their families, and nothing more. There's no political nature to this. This is about veterans.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Mr. Richards.

Ms. Blaney, I spoke to the clerk, and he said he's not able to answer your question because it's the offices that have to work on that, so we can't give you a timeline for how long it's going to take to get those documents.

Are there any other interventions?

Mr. Sarai, go ahead.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

I think it would be helpful if the clerk could find out, in regard to Ms. Blaney's question, what the typical timelines have been on these productions of documents. Has it been weeks, months, etc.? I think that would help Ms. Blaney.

I thank her for her intervention in respect of items (v) and (vi). I think adding them back in would not be acceptable to us, but we could add any communication between the office of the Minister of Veterans Affairs and the office of Heritage Canada, if that would be important to her. I think that's probably one of the few things that have not been done for the two ministers before. If that's something that might help Ms. Blaney understand or see the process that's been used, I think we'd be pretty comfortable with that. I wanted to add that, in case that was something she would be interested in.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you.

I would like to remind the committee that the motion states that, within 21 days of the adoption of the motion, they must submit the documents.

Does anyone else want to comment on the amendment moved by Randeep Sarai?

Since no one seems to want to speak, we'll now vote on the amendment.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Mr. Casey, you have the floor.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

I wish to propose another amendment to add after paragraph (b).

Mr. Chair, I think you recognized me. When Conservative members had the floor, we afforded them the courtesy of silence while they had the floor. I'd appreciate if I had the same.

The amendment that I'd like to propose is to add, after paragraph (b)(vii), the following: “(c) that the committee invite the Hon. Erin O'Toole, former minister of Veterans Affairs, to respond to questions about the selection of the Richmond Landing site in 2014 for the National Monument to Canada's Mission in Afghanistan, and specifically why Veterans were not properly consulted.”

Mr. Chair, I understand that in my absence the committee has adopted one amendment, at least, to Mr. Richards' motion, which is to expand the time period for the production of documents back to 2014, which I think was an excellent thing to do if we are to, as Mr. Richards says, get to the bottom of this.

Given that we're reaching back to 2014, the person calling the shots at that time was the then minister of veterans affairs. In the interest of transparency and in the interest of being comprehensive, I do believe that Mr. O'Toole would have relevant testimony to bring to the issue and he should be included in the witness list.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you very much, Mr. Casey.

We have an amendment on the table.

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

Can we just get the amendment read back, Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Mr. Casey, could you please read it again for us?

Thank you.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

It's that we add after paragraph (b)(vii) the following: “(c) that the committee invite the Hon. Erin O'Toole, former minister of Veterans Affairs, to respond to questions about the selection of the Richmond Landing site in 2014 for the National Monument to Canada's Mission in Afghanistan, and specifically why Veterans were not properly consulted.”

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Mr. Casey.

Is there debate or interventions?

Mr. Sarai, go ahead, please.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

I just want to say that I think what Mr. Casey is proposing in the amendment is very important. This process started long before this government came in. I think it's very important to find out the process, and lack of it, that was done before. That will probably give a perspective on why the minister had to make the decision that he made later on.

I think it's imperative that we listen to and hear Mr. O'Toole, who was the minister with this file, about how they debated this or talked about this, how they came up with that decision, why that decision was the way it was, what the veterans' opinion of that decision was and why, subsequently, that location and the whole decision had to be changed.

The unfortunate part is that the previous government neglected to have a monument for these veterans. The location was not the one they wanted either.

We've been trying to move ahead and we've been trying to listen to veterans. Although I can agree with Ms. Blaney that the process was not perfect and the survey was not absolutely perfect, the data that's been given by Veterans Affairs, its bureaucrats and civil servants has been pretty comprehensive in showing that an overwhelming majority of those respondents were veterans or members of veterans' families.

I think we trust Canadians, when they do a survey, to give fairly accurate information. We're a country that usually honours people's opinions, and when they say who they are, we respect it, unless challenged otherwise. I think out of everything we've heard here today, nobody has challenged the validity and said, “Oh, I know 12 people, five people, or x number of people who misstated that they were veterans.” I think when they said they're veterans, they're veterans, and we have to honour that and respect that. I highly doubt that any Canadian would mis-characterize themselves in a survey and say they're a veteran.

At the same time, I think it's very important to see the process, or lack of it, in the previous government. That's why we ask that Mr. O'Toole come before this committee and answer questions in that regard.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Mr. Sarai.

On my list, I have Mr. Richards and Ms. Hepfner.

Mr. Richards.

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

Well, I would just say this, Chair. The period of time that we're concerned with here, as a committee, is obviously from November 8, 2021, through to the time the decision was changed, when there was interference by the Prime Minister's Office. I assume Mr. O'Toole would have nothing in terms of information that could contribute to this for that period of time.

Having said that, unlike when we tried to invite the previous minister of veterans affairs and the previous minister of Canadian heritage, who actually had responsibility for these files during that period of time, and they refused to come to this committee, Conservatives are transparent, so I have no issue at all. If Mr. O'Toole would like to come and try to contribute, let's have him come, but it would sure be wonderful if the ministers who were actually responsible during this period of time also had the same accountability and showed up as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Mr. Richards.

Now let's go to Ms. Hepfner.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I wanted to point out that the National Monument to Canada's Mission in Afghanistan will recognize the commitment and sacrifice of Canadians who served in Afghanistan, and the support provided to them at home by their families, peers and communities. I find it odd that we're hearing more about artists than veterans in connection with this monument. After all, it's a monument to veterans.

I think that we're hearing opposition members talk about the arts community for a reason. The reason is that most veterans finally feel satisfied with the government's choice. We know that the veterans weren't happy when the Conservative government decided to place the monument under a bridge. They expressed their dissatisfaction with this decision. This wasn't surprising. The veterans weren't even consulted on the choice of location for the monument. As a result, when we came to power in 2015, we revisited that decision and consulted with veterans. Our government will always listen to and support veterans.

As the Minister of Veterans Affairs has said a number of times, Veterans Affairs Canada received feedback from over 12,000 Canadians regarding the monument concept. Veterans, their families and other stakeholders who participated in this mission were the main contributors. The Stimson team's concept best reflects the feedback from veterans and their families, along with the feedback from other mission participants. When it comes to honouring the sacrifices of our veterans, we must listen to what they have to say.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you for your comments.

Mr. Miao, you have the floor.

[Wilson Miao, Liberal, Richmond Centre, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We appreciate and respect the work of the jury members who evaluated the final design concepts; however, it is clear that the team Stimson design was the one that veterans of the missions and their families felt best represented the bravery, sacrifices and loss of those who served in Afghanistan. The results of the consultation, which are also public, are clear. It's important that we listen to our veterans.

All the documents we've received show the reason the government chose to go with the team Stimson design. The reason is clear. In fact, the minister told us about that in previous meetings a few times and talked about it for almost an hour.

I'll repeat the reason. Veterans Affairs Canada heard from more than 12,000 Canadians about the monument designs. The majority of those who responded were veterans, their families and others who served on the missions, and team Stimson's design best reflected their input. We choose to honour that choice. When it comes to honouring the sacrifice of our veterans, we must listen to them.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Mr. Miao.

We have Ms. Hepfner.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to point out again that it comes as no surprise that the Conservative Party is asking us to ignore the voices of veterans on this issue. That's exactly what the Conservative Party did when it was in power. In 2014, it announced the location of this monument with a press release, without even taking the time to consult with veterans. Not surprisingly, the veterans weren't happy. The Conservatives chose a location often blocked by snow in the winter and subject to flooding in the spring.

We overturned that decision, listened to what the veterans had to say and chose a suitable location. We'll continue to listen to veterans.