Veterans Affairs Committee on March 18th, 2024

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was coming to an end. I did want to conclude by simply saying that the fear I had when we started this process many months ago has in fact materialized. This committee has become stymied on this issue.

I would very much like to see us get to the motions that are in front of this committee and do the work that veterans want us to do. The veterans I speak to want the monument built, period. They want to get to the point where they can stand in front of that monument and honour the fallen soldiers they served beside. I've read only two of them, but if I'm not mistaken, Mr. Chair—you can check with the analyst—I believe there are six motions that are in front of us, including motions that the Conservatives themselves have tabled and apparently have just decided are not as important as this.

I just want to identify these motions that are in front of us, and I want to identify the fact that the opposition has decided that what we're debating today is more important to them. I can tell you that, for the veterans I've spoken to, this is not the case. This debate in the last hour and a half has not been important to veterans, but the motions that we have all agreed upon are. The sooner we can get back to those motions, the sooner we can move forward with recommendations to the government and actually effect change that will support veterans in this country.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you very much, Mr. May.

Mr. Richards, please go ahead.

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

Thanks, Chair.

I want us to deal with this. I know that all the other members—other than the Liberal members—want to deal with this. I've asked for some indication of whether they would allow this to get to a vote today.

I think it's clear to everybody who's watching this what's going on here. There are attempts to delay and deny, just like veterans see every day with their ability to get benefits. Let's get to a vote on this.

Chair, I'll just ask for unanimous consent that we continue the meeting until 2 p.m., or until we have a vote on this motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

First of all, I want to make sure that we have the technical staff to be able to go to two o'clock. Yes, we do.

We're going to go to a vote on that. I'd like to know if I have unanimous consent to go until two o'clock.

[Some hon. members]

No.

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

Chair, I'm just wondering, then, if the Liberals could give us an indication as to why they're not willing to go until 2 p.m. Is it simply that they want to continue this cover-up and they don't want to have a vote on this?

We just heard from a Liberal member that they want to get to other matters that the committee wants to deal with. I certainly want to see that happen as well. I think all of us want to see that happen. I know the veterans in the room and those watching online all want to see that as well. By going until 2 p.m., we can get this motion dealt with and we can deal with those things, which is what we should all want to do.

Could the Liberals give us an indication as to why they're refusing to give veterans their due?

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Mr. Richards.

Mr. Casey, you have the floor.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I believe that, in his presentation, Mr. May suggested an adjournment of debate. I'm not sure whether that was a motion to adjourn debate, or whether he was putting it out there for discussion. If it is a motion to adjourn debate, we have to proceed directly to a vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

I know, but I didn't hear clearly from Mr. May that he wanted to adjourn debate on the amendment.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Okay, thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to come back to a couple of things that have been mentioned in the course of the debate.

First of all, Mr. Ruff, allow me to add my thanks to you for your service.

One of the things Mr. Ruff said is that he knows what veterans want, and so do we. It was reflected in the survey, and it has guided the decisions that have been made in connection with this matter. It has been referenced on numerous occasions by the minister that this was the paramount consideration, because this is, or should be, about veterans.

Ms. Blaney talked about Veterans Affairs having a more veteran-centric communications strategy. I would suggest that this is being respected in the manner in which the survey was utilized in the decision-making process.

I would also like to say that I agree entirely with what she said when she indicated in her intervention that she'd like to get on with witnesses on Wednesday. That's the reason I sought unanimous consent at the outset of the meeting, so we're certainly on the same page in that regard.

Mr. Chair, the minister has come before this committee three times since October, and every time, regardless of the topic that she was here to discuss—and it wasn't exclusively the Afghanistan monument—including estimates, the conversation quickly turned to the Afghanistan monument, and on each of the three occasions when she came before this committee, she clearly indicated that Veterans Affairs chose to listen to veterans, and that it was Veterans Affairs Canada that made the decision.

As for the conspiracy theories about alleged political interference by the Prime Minister, there is absolutely nothing to substantiate that. There is nothing to justify going way beyond what every other standing committee has done with respect to any probe they might be involved in to take the extraordinary measures that are being proposed by the motion.

Mr. Chair, teams of professional artists, landscape architects, architects and other urban design professionals were invited to submit their credentials and examples of their prior work on similar projects as part of the request for qualifications that closed on February 27, 2020. Five teams were shortlisted by a jury of experts in the fields of art and urban design, as well as representatives from key stakeholder groups, to develop design concepts for this monument. The design concepts were evaluated by the same jury made up of experts in the fields of visual art and urban design and representatives from key stakeholder groups, including a veteran of Canada's mission in Afghanistan, a representative of the families of the fallen, a non-veteran representative of the mission in Afghanistan, and a military historian.

Those individuals included Dr. Stephen Borys, director and CEO of the Winnipeg Art Gallery; Virginia Burt, landscape architect and principal at Virginia Burt Designs; Master Warrant Officer Steve Chagnon, veteran of Canada's mission in Afghanistan; Reine Samson Dawe, representing the families of the fallen and 2019 national memorial silver cross mother; Arif Lalani, Canada's ambassador to the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan during the height of Canada's military and civilian mission; Talbot Sweetapple, architect and partner at MacKay-Lyons Sweetapple Architects; and Dr. Lee Windsor, deputy director of the Gregg Centre for the Study of War and Society at the University of New Brunswick in Fredericton, named for Brigadier Milton Gregg, VC.

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, and will be a permanent place for Canadians to reflect on their service. The monument will ensure that future generations have the opportunity to learn more about the mission and Canada's efforts in helping to rebuild Afghanistan.

We all appreciate and respect the work done by jury members in evaluating the design concepts, their professionalism and their personal experience.

The process to reach this stage of the project was lengthy and included jury deliberations on several design concepts, as well as public opinion research that generated over 10,000 responses, including from the Canadian Forces and mission veterans and their families. All of those things factored into the decision ultimately arrived at by Veterans Affairs Canada.

The team Stimson design was the one that veterans of the mission and their families felt best represented the bravery, sacrifices and losses of those who served there. The results of the consultation, which are public, are clear.

Mr. Chair, it is our responsibility, as it was the minister's responsibility, to listen to veterans. That is at the heart of where we should be focused.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you very much, Mr. Casey.

We have Mr. Sarai, please.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

I think we've studied this topic, the design selection process. We've had the minister here. We've had the Minister of Canadian Heritage here. We've had department officials here. I just want to remind members that we've had veterans who have come before us.

I've never heard any veteran, either coming to my office or calling, or in this committee—in this study or others—say that the selection that the government has finally made with regard to the team Stimson design has been incorrect. We've heard of process problems that have been there, especially from the artistic community, but we have not heard from others in regard to that, from the actual people we're trying to see—people who have served. I have not heard anything of significance from that, or any uproar. I spent three days at a veterans summit, which my colleague Mr. Desilets also attended, the national stakeholder summit in Montreal. Again, people wanted the monument to move forward, but I did not hear any objection to the design selected.

I think the amendment my colleague has proposed is very valid, and we should move forward with that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Mr. Sarai.

I'll now give the floor to Mr. Desilets.

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

As I understand it, the Liberals do not intend to vote on the motion today.

Mr. Chair, you will tell me how to proceed, but as vice-chair, I think we can plan our work. I'm saddened by this situation. I think the next meeting should be on the issue at hand, until it is resolved. That's just a suggestion. If the Liberals decide to filibuster, that's their prerogative. In a democracy, that's inappropriate, but it happens.

I would just like to come back to one point. Mr. Sarai, you didn't hear what the veterans had to say. It's not their style to raise their hand and say that they are not in favour of a monument.

Mr. Casey, you are such a smart man, yet you're going back to the survey again. The government itself recognized that the survey had no value. You continue to say that it has value, that 10,000 people participated in the survey. If you don't believe the people at Leger, who completely demolished it, that's not a problem for me.

I am going to talk to you about a Veterans Affairs Canada document from Amanda Kelly, a manager we all know, who, in an email dated November 17, 2021, raised a point about the survey.

Look me in the eye, Mr. Casey.

She pointed out that the survey did not ask respondents to rank their choice and that, depending on the respondents' interpretation of the question, they may or may not have chosen more than one model. There is no way of knowing which one they preferred or to what extent they preferred one over the other.

After all, it is someone from the department, a manager in an important position, who is telling us that in black and white. This email is part of the documents that were sent in. So you see the relevance of asking for documents to be able to see things clearly, as the process is really not clear. So there is someone at Veterans Affairs Canada who is going against the survey you are defending so staunchly.

At a previous meeting, I asked the minister if she could show me that at least one female veteran had responded to the survey. You remember as well as I do, since you listen to the minister a lot, that she said she was unable to do so. In fact, there was nothing that distinguished gender from the other data or values.

Earlier, you alluded to the fact that people from the national capital had been approached. Statistically, that doesn't make sense, either. They don't account for 25% of the population.

You talked about francophones. Although they represent 22% of the population, they accounted for 12% of the survey respondents. I would rather call it a pseudo-survey. You can't even call it a survey.

You don't believe what I'm saying. What the opposition is asking for in terms of documents is not relevant. You want to drag out the work, you don't want to hear from veterans in the short term. That's your choice.

Once again, someone from the department, someone in a senior position, is telling us that this makes no sense, but go ahead, continue to defend your survey.

That's all, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Mr. Desilets.

Ms. Hepfner, you have the floor.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I feel like this is a conversation we should be having at my previous committee, the heritage committee, because it feels like a debate about artist communities and artists, rather than about veterans.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

We have a point of order from Mr. Tolmie.

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Chair, the gallery is full of Afghan vets, and not once have my Liberal colleagues here acknowledged them in the room or apologized for filibustering and delaying this for two hours—

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Mr. Tolmie, I listened to you, but your point of order is not a point of order.

We are talking about the motion, so let's keep talking about the motion tabled by Mr. Casey, please.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Chair, I would like to move that we adjourn the debate on this motion, so that we can get back to talking about the things that veterans really want us to talk about.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Okay.

Ms. Hepfner has moved to adjourn debate on this motion. We'll go to a vote then.

(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

We will continue the debate.

Mrs. Wagantall, you have the floor.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

I would move a motion that we vote on the amendment before us on the floor.

We've heard from these members multiple times, reading what's already in the record. Out of respect for the veterans who are in this room and who are watching, who are calling for action, I think they agree and we should vote on the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

I have a point of order.

I think as long as there's a speaking list, you can't move to put it to a vote.