Veterans Affairs Committee on March 18th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Ms. Hepfner.

We have Mr. Casey and Mr. Sarai.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

We've heard today that this is all about veterans. There is what I would call “Trudeau derangement syndrome”, where individuals who have another agenda, an agenda that isn't aligned with veterans and that is purely political, seek to smear the Prime Minister without foundation and without reason. I think that's what we're dealing with.

Mr. Chair, I'll refer to some of the evidence from the meeting on October 19, 2023. It supports the position that I just described. It concerns a discussion between Mr. Desilets and the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Mr. Desilets accused the minister of dodging questions put to her. Mr. Desilets said:

I'll come back to the issue of veterans. As you know, for the past four years, I've been working very hard for veterans. But this issue isn't about veterans…

It's quite clear, and it helps explain the current situation. This isn't about veterans. It's about politics. This explains the lack of acceptance. That's why we'll be voting against the amendment regarding the documents relating to discussions between the Prime Minister's Office and the Privy Council. That's really why we're here.

I find it absurd that the opposition members refused to provide the documents that would have helped us obtain the jury's correspondence. Now they want something specific concerning the jury.

I would like to give my opposition colleagues the benefit of the doubt. However, it seems that they want only the documents that align with the narrative that they're trying to build. They don't want to hear from veterans or any opinions that support the final choice, meaning the Stimson team concept. Yet this is a monument to veterans.

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 Canadians. The monument will also reflect Canada's deep gratitude for the sacrifices made by the people who served in Afghanistan, including those who lost their lives or who were physically or psychologically injured.

The monument will provide a public space to serve as a perpetual reminder of Canadians' selfless service to our country. It will give future generations the opportunity to learn more about this particular period in the history of our armed forces.

As we know, the jury's decision wasn't unanimous, contrary to what my colleague told the House. The jury did an incredible job selecting the five concepts that made the final list. We all agree on that. As project leader, Veterans Affairs Canada's role was to listen to veterans. Even though Mr. Desilets said otherwise, this is really about veterans. We must listen to them.

Veterans Affairs Canada received feedback from over 12,000 Canadians on the concepts considered for this monument. Veterans, their families and other people who participated in the mission were the main contributors.

The Stimson team's concept best reflects the feedback provided by veterans, their families and other mission participants during public consultations. The veterans' choice must be taken into account.

Mr. Chair, I'll close with this. What we have here is a political smear campaign that has far exceeded the partisan attacks and the partisan manoeuvres we have seen in this place in other committees.

In order to get to other committee business, in order to be able to do the things that are important to people, and in order to be able to do the things that are for veterans.... For example, in other committees we have seen similar motions seeking the production of documents from the Prime Minister's Office and the Privy Council Office, but the following committees have actually adopted motions without the inclusion of PMO and PCO. The ethics committee had several motions about Chinese interference that included the PMO, from which the committee agreed to remove the PMO. There were also the foreign affairs committee, the public accounts committee, the citizenship and immigration committee, and the health committee.

There is a way to resolution of this impasse, and I would encourage everyone, in the interest of veterans—which seems to be a bit of a novel concept—to put some water in their wine and to try to get through this impasse in a reasonable fashion.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Mr. Casey.

On my list I have Mr. Sarai and Mr. Desilets.

Mr. Sarai, go ahead, please.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I thank my colleague Mr. Casey for shedding light on this.

Look, when we do a process and we don't consult veterans and we don't consult the stakeholders in it, the product you get might be artistically great, but it won't be something that people want. The previous government and the previous minister for veterans decided to put a monument under a bridge and tuck it away where only cyclists could possibly drive by and wave to it. The opposite was done when, as an article said, “The victims of communism get a huge, glorious spot on Wellington Street—for the whole world to see—and those who served or died in Afghanistan get a spot below the Portage Bridge for cyclists to wave at.” Veterans were in an uproar. They said they didn't get it; they didn't get it at all.

But this was done, and if you look at who was conversed with, at who knew, they said it was virtually no one.

We checked with several veterans’ groups and none said they were consulted about this spot as an appropriate location to honour the 158 Canadian Forces members killed and the 40,000 who served during the 12-year mission.

The Royal Canadian Legion said it didn’t know a thing about it, except that Dow’s Lake was once a candidate.

Bruce Moncur, president of the year-old Afghanistan Veterans Association of Canada, said his group was not contacted. He’s not entirely sold on the site, because it appears to be tucked away.

“I believe accessibility is everything,” he said this week. “If it is too far off the beaten track, pretty soon you can see the dandelions creeping in and skateboarders doing tricks off it, and the jogger running by and not looking at it twice. It might be like the war itself, another forgotten war.”

These were the comments that the Veterans Affairs office and the public heard after the previous decision was made. The main problem they had was that they were not consulted. They were not consulted on the final product, on the commemoration of the sacrifices or on the location.

That's why, in May 2021, the Government of Canada posted a survey. They asked veterans, families of those who participated in the mission, Canadian Armed Forces members, other stakeholders and the Canadian public to share their thoughts on the design concepts proposed by the following five finalists: team Daoust, team Hapa Collaborative, team Lashley MacDonald, team PFS Studio and team Stimson.

In terms of results, 12,048 valid surveys were analyzed, 10,829 in English and 1,219 in French. In cases where multiple surveys were submitted from the same IP address and were deemed to be overly similar, all but one survey was removed. We can say that it was a fairly free vote and no manipulation occurred in that regard.

The questions were pretty thorough. The first question was on “monument theme”. Each respondent could select more than one answer. As a result, percentages may have added up to more than 100%, but you got to see how people felt about each. The monument had several related themes. You were asked which designs you thought most effectively expressed those themes. You were able to select the theme appropriate for you.

On the theme “To express Canada’s deep gratitude for the sacrifices made by Canadians who served in Afghanistan, including those Canadian Armed Forces members and civilians who lost their lives or were injured”, there were 11,807 respondents. Team Daoust got 26.5%. The people surveyed thought that reflected it well. Team Hapa Collaborative got 13%. Team Lashley MacDonald got 20.5%. Team PFS Studio got 16.8%. Team Stimson got 63.9%, or 64%, more than double that for the closest, team Daoust at 26.5%. It was two and a half times the response.

The next question that was asked with respect to the teams was, “To recognize the strong support offered by families, friends and communities at home during the mission.” Again, of the 11,299 people who responded, 27% thought team Daoust had the best in that regard, 15.5% thought it was team Hapa Collaborative, 17% thought it was team Lashley MacDonald and 14% thought it was team PFS Studio. Team Stimson got 52%, which was double the amount of the closest one to reflect on that.

When we go to “To acknowledge the efforts of Canadians in standing together with the Afghan people to help rebuild their country and encourage understanding of the significance and scope of Canada’s mission in Afghanistan”, again, of 11,500 people—these are pretty comprehensive surveys, I might add, with a very strong response—31% were for team Daoust, 13% were for Hapa Collaborative, and team Stimson was at 56%, which, again, virtually doubled the second-highest amount.

The second thing, besides commemoration, is how many people will see it and what the visitor experience is. There were questions with respect to which design “effectively performs the following Visitor Experience functions”. Again, over 11,500 responded. Team Daoust got a good response of 37%. Others were 19%, 19.5% and 22%, but team Stimson got 54% of the response in favour of it giving the best visitor experience when one came to see it.

The other question was about encouraging visitors to learn more about the mission. For museums and commemoration, an important thing to do is raise the inquisitiveness of a visitor to learn about what has happened and what is being commemorated. Again, out of the 11,334, team Daoust got 22.8%. I won't go into the other ones, but they range between 12% and 18%. Team Stimson got 65%. There were 65% who thought it gave more of a visitor experience.

There's the setting, which provides for gatherings and ceremonies. That's a very important part. Team Daoust got a good response of 40%. Others were 12%, 27% and 13%, but again, team Stimson stood out with 51.9%.

These effectively show that the effect of the design by team Stimson on the visitors, location and commemoration had an overwhelming impact. It wasn't even close when we look at the others.

The other questions were on impressions of the proposed monument design. Was one more cold, more peaceful or more solemn? Again, team Stimson's design showed a very high result in that regard.

When we look at the French results—I assume that a particularly high majority would have come from Quebec to reflect those—the results were not any different from those that came from anglophone Canadians and other parts of Canada. I think this clearly reflects that these were neutral designs. They were great designs. However, some attested to people's feelings, affections and responses more. That was always the team Stimson design.

Even finding out how many of these were from the national capital region—because sometimes people from my neck of the woods will say it's a little biased—I think only 2,700 responses came from this region. That's obviously still a high veteran population. The Ontario and Quebec population also would have had a strong government, bureaucratic and military presence. That was about 25%.

British Columbia received 1,084 responses. That's 13.64%. I think that is quite reflective of our population with respect to the rest of the Canada, so it seems like the diversity and the demographics of Canada were respected well. Alberta had 1,200, which was 15%. In fact, I'd say that's a bit overly representative. When you go across the spectrum, including Atlantic Canada, I think it was fairly [Technical difficulty—Editor], so all provinces, all jurisdictions and all demographics were respected.

Lastly, I would like to say that, when it came to the category of.... There's a lot of debate and there are a lot of questions that this committee has looked at in terms of how many were veterans and whatnot. When people were asked whether they participated in Canada's government mission in Afghanistan, as a Canadian Armed Forces member, police officer, public servant or civilian, 28% or 3,000 of the respondents stated they did. When they were asked whether they were a “family member of an individual who participated in Canada's whole-of-government mission”, which included CAF members, police officers, public servants or civilians, there was another 12.5%, or 1,300 members. The third-highest category was for veterans of Canada's military—again, people who have served: 26%, or 2,800, stated they were. Asked if they were current members of the Canadian Armed Forces, 2,500 or 23% were serving Canadian Armed Forces members. About 300 were current or former Canadian police officers, whom we respect like veterans. The general public was about a third, 3,876.

I think this gives you the perspective that this was not a small consultation. It was not a small poll. This was a very comprehensive study.

I think we should move on with the wishes of the veterans and get to the real work, which is building this monument.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Mr. Sarai.

I remind the committee that we are still discussing the amendment by Mr. Casey.

On my list, I have Mr. Desilets, Mr. Ruff and Ms. Hepfner.

I want to welcome MP Alex Ruff to the committee. We also have Jacques Maziade, who is here to help our clerk.

Welcome to both of you.

Mr. Desilets, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll try to be brief. I want to avoid playing into the Liberals' hands and obviously helping them ensure that the committee meeting ends without us finally passing or voting down the motion.

I'm speaking to the Liberals.

I'm really very empathetic to your situation. You're working quite hard to filibuster. It can't be easy. I say this because I know some of you. I know that this approach doesn't reflect your values. I'm sure that you aren't really like that. You held a wonderful caucus where you were briefed on the monument situation. In addition, many Liberal members didn't support the government's position. They were uncomfortable with the government's choice.

You spoke about veterans. Some of them are here. Take the time to ask them after the meeting if they agree with how the government chose who should build this monument. You're pinning everything on them. However, take the time to go and see them later.

Mr. Casey, I said that the issue wasn't about veterans. I told you three, four or five times. Thank you for repeating my comments. The only problem is that you failed to put them in context.

You're using the veterans again. In a way, this isn't any of the veterans' business. If you really wanted to make it their business, my goodness, you would have actually put it in your selection criteria. That wasn't done. The government did nothing but conduct a survey. It was a bogus survey, Mr. Sarai, and you know it. The largest survey company in Canada criticized it from top to bottom.

Please, stop using the veterans.

Look around at your colleagues. You'll see how little pride some of them take in the fact that this government makes decisions in this manner. It's absurd.

You spoke about political smear campaigns. All that we and the Conservatives—even though I rarely agree with them—want is transparency on this issue.

Once again, you have taken two hours to avoid letting us address the real issues. All that we need to do, if you have nothing to hide, is simply pass this motion. Let's pass this motion. It's quite simple.

Mr. Casey, I agree that the jury's decision wasn't unanimous. As you know, I have gone back on this position. You can use it as often as you like. The jury had to reach a decision by a majority vote. The jury chose the Daoust team by a majority vote. That's all.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Mr. Desilets.

MP Ruff, the floor is yours.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I'm finding this very frustrating. I am one of the veterans in this room. I spent over a year of my life in Afghanistan and left six of my soldiers there, whom this monument is going to commemorate. There were 158 Canadian Armed Forces members who did not come home.

I can't speak for all Afghanistan veterans, but I do know what they want. They want a monument. They want transparency. They want a decision, and they want this to get passed so that we can move on. Right now they don't have a place to commemorate at the national level.

The Liberals have talked about consultation. Ms. Blaney brought up the challenges with the consultation and the data and My VAC. I just spent 20 minutes trying to log in to My VAC Account. I can't get in. I'm a fairly educated person with a background in IT, and I can't even log in to My VAC Account right now without making a phone call and talking to somebody on the other end, and who knows how long that wait is going to be?

I'll tell you what veterans don't want. They don't want political interference in anything. When they were in uniform, they served whatever government was in power. I served proudly. The Liberal government was in power when I first joined the forces in 1993. I served the Conservative government when they were in power for over a decade, and I served under this current Liberal government. There are no issues there. Veterans will serve whatever government is in power. That's their job.

They don't want obstruction. They don't want political interference. They want transparency. One thing that they absolute detest is wasting time. I suggest that you read the body language of the veterans who are in the room, who are finding this very frustrating, in particular because this is an amendment that has been moved that we are debating now, and the Conservatives have already indicated that they are going to vote for it, so why are we talking about it?

It's going to pass. Let's just get to the vote.

Thanks, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you very much.

Now I have Ms. Hepfner.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Ruff, thank you for your service, and thank you for your words today.

I think it is important to talk about how this decision was made by veterans. More than 10,000 people responded to that survey. I'm reading from a story from CTV last year when that decision was made:

They overwhelmingly preferred a design put forward by Team Stimson: a circular space inspired by an Indigenous medicine wheel, sectioned into four parts, with an inner sanctuary featuring four bronze flak jackets hanging from crosses.

Artist Adrian Stimson, a member of Siksika First Nation in Alberta, is perhaps uniquely qualified to create such a monument.

A former member of the Armed Forces, Stimson joined the Canadian Forces Artists Program as a civilian in 2010 and spent time in Afghanistan, observing how the troops lived and interacted with their surroundings.

“While I was there, I became interested in the physical materiality of the bases, the industrial nature of embedding troops into the theatre of war.... Mimicking this, the monument is a place to be discovered and to be revealed. The monument enlivens as you approach on a meandering pathway, revealing itself slowly, with purpose.”

Three quadrants of the monument will include the names of the 158 Canadian military members who were killed in the conflict. The fourth...is meant to honour Canada's relationship with the Afghan people.

I think it's important that we recognize that it wasn't political interference; it was the government listening to veterans themselves. I think we should keep that in mind. The veterans do want us to move on to other issues. They want us to build this monument and move on to talking about many of the other issues that Mr. Ruff brought up, which are important as well.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you very much.

Now I turn to Ms. Blaney.

Ms. Blaney, the floor is yours, please.

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

I'm really struggling with this, because there's a lot we need to get done in this committee, and here we are having this repeat and repeat. My curiosity here is.... One of the things that I've talked a lot about is having VAC have a more veteran-centric communication strategy and also, I would say, a greater level of trauma-informed training, because what we hear again and again from veterans, of course, sadly, is that they're often retraumatized. It's called “sanctuary trauma”.

Here we are.... I'm getting frustrated. I would like to see Wednesday happen. We've already turned away all of those people. They came, and one of them is a veteran who has shared with me her frustration about having that happen. I think we just need to do Wednesday. I want to be clear about that, because I just feel that I don't want to be talking to the same veteran again about why she was turned away from having her voice heard.

I want to get answers, too, but what I can't handle here is that there continues to be this discussion, oddly enough, that veterans were consulted, and I don't believe that's the case. I asked questions when the ministers were here, and I don't believe it. I hear that the Liberals believe it. I just want to get this done.

I've talked to Afghanistan veterans, who just want a place to be remembered. There was a fear that their service would not be recognized. We've not only lost them in Afghanistan; we've lost them in our own country, when they took their own lives. I don't care, really, which monument is put up. Personally, I don't care. It's not my job to make that decision. That is really up to veterans, and I agree with that, but we need a better process.

I hope we can get this done, and I hope we can get it done quickly. I hope we can focus on serving veterans, and the way we have been put in this position to serve them is to be here and to do our work.

I'm skimming through this study on the women veterans again. This is amazing, what's in here, and there's so much more that we need to do. I really want to get to the study around the Persian Gulf veterans. I know that the Persian Gulf veterans are going through some significant challenges right now. We need to acknowledge them and give them support through this committee with the work we do. I don't want to turn away veterans who are trying to come.

I hope that we can just vote on this. Can we call the vote so that we can at least get this part done?

Then, if they're going to continue to filibuster, I think that collectively we need to start thinking about how we can get information that may not be able to come through the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Ms. Blaney.

I have Mr. May, who would like to intervene, but thank you for raising the issue for this Wednesday, because we are in a position, as you say, where we have already invited those witnesses. At the end of this meeting, I'd like to know clearly what the committee wants to do. If not, I'm going to instruct the clerk to cancel those witnesses, because I don't want them to come back again and not be able to talk.

I'll come back to you. Now, I'd like to hear from Mr. May.

First, on a point of order, we have Mr. Richards.

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

Thanks, Chair.

I think your question is an important one, but the more important question before we get to that question is this: Do the Liberals plan to filibuster through the rest of this meeting, or will they let this come to a vote today? I think it's important that we have that happen. Everybody else on this committee has expressed that they want to see that happen.

Can the Liberals give us an indication? Are they going to allow a vote, or are they not?

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

I don't think that's a point of order, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

I heard you.

Mr. May, you have the floor.

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I apologize for my absence today. I am a bit under the weather, but I do want to jump in.

I agree with MP Blaney that we need to get to the women's study. We need to get to the pressing issues that are in front of this committee now and that have been for quite some time.

I will remind this committee that I warned this committee many months ago that this discussion, the motion that was originally brought forward by MP Desilets, was going to result in mission creep. That's exactly what's happened. We're seeing an attempt by the opposition, specifically the Conservatives now, to make this into something it is not.

I also want to thank MP Ruff for his service, and I agree with him that, quite frankly, this is exactly what frustrates veterans. The veterans I've spoken to at length don't want us to be sniping back and forth in attempts to embarrass the government. They want us to deal with the issues of the day. They want us to deal in very speedy fashion with the motions that are in front of us.

I think it's important to remind the committee and those who are watching what, in fact, the committee has agreed to study and to get to. It's not just the women's study. So far, I have gone through a first pass of it. It is excellent, and I thank the analysts for the work they've done on this. I look forward to getting back to that and getting that tabled in the House of Commons as quickly as possible.

However, there's more than just that study. We have a motion that was tabled by my colleague MP Sarai on the effects on Canadian veterans of exposure to burn pits. I'll read it, because it's been a while since we discussed it, just to remind everybody what that is.

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Committee undertake a study on the effects of exposure to burn pits on Canadian Veterans, including but not limited to, during the mission in Afghanistan, as well as the potential long-term effects on the health and well-being of Veterans. That the Committee hold a minimum of 4 meetings to hear from witnesses; that the Committee report its findings and recommendations to the House; and that, pursuant to Standing Order 109—

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Excuse me, Mr. May. There's a point of order.

Mr. Ruff, go ahead, please.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

I am just trying to understand the relevance. We're talking about the amendment about calling the honourable Erin O'Toole to be part of this motion. Mr. May is speaking about a different study that's been proposed. Can we have a ruling on relevance there, Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you.

Mr. May, we have an amendment on the floor, so can you talk about this amendment tabled by Mr. Casey, please?

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

I think it is relevant, Mr. Chair. I apologize to the members who don't necessarily want me to remind folks of what in fact we should be working on and talking about. I recognize that we have an amendment on the floor that we need to discuss. However, as this is my time, I think it's important. I would like to get back to finishing my discussion on this.

It's important to remind veterans and the committee about what it is we should be working on in terms of the time we have. The time we have is limited. We're here twice a week. During the sitting weeks, we have a very short calendar to get some of this stuff done.

Another such study that we should be in the middle of right now is the one MP Wilson Miao tabled. I will remind this committee of that study, as well:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a comprehensive study reviewing (a) the definition of “War”, “Wartime Service”, and “Special Duty Service”; and (b) the difference, the process of determining, and criteria for Veteran's benefits in respect of “Wartime Service” and “Special Duty Service”; that the committee hold a minimum of 4 meetings on this study; and that the committee report its comprehensive findings and recommendations to the House, the Department of National Defence, and the Department of Veterans Affairs.

I can tell you that I had a conversation, Mr. Chair, about that study this past week with some local veterans in my riding who have been asking for recognition of special service for an incredibly long time.

These are the ways we can move forward. These are just two of the studies. I haven't even discussed the motion I tabled not that long ago, back in November, that we study the experience of indigenous and Black veterans. These are compelling studies that should draw our attention. Instead, the Conservatives want to play games. They want to stymie not just the committee but also the work being done at the PMO. They want to call for a deep-sea fishing exercise to try to waste the time of this committee and the PMO.

Mr. Chair, I think it is incredibly important that we consider adjourning this debate. I will let others make that decision. However, in the half-hour we have left here, we should be getting to the business of what this committee will be doing when we come back. We haven't even discussed that. What is next on the docket? Hopefully, we'll have witnesses on Wednesday. I think it's—

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Mr. May, wait one minute, please. I have a point of order.

Mr. Richards.

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

I note that the Liberal member talks about wanting to try to end the debate. There is an easy way for us to get to some of the other topics. We could simply have a vote on this motion, which everybody else—

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Chair, that's not a point of order. A point of order is not a way to interrupt someone's intervention.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

I'm sorry. Please don't interrupt the one who has the mike. It's not a point of order.

Mr. May, please go on.