Veterans Affairs Committee on March 18th, 2024

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

Thank you, Chair.

I know we're debating the subamendment; however, I just want to mention that I had asked a question on the change by Mr. Casey to the motion. I asked him specifically, because we're discussing something on the basis of an inference that feedback came to Mr. Casey directly from veterans. We had those conversations with them as well, so I'm just asking if he would please share with this room who the people were he spoke with so we have clarity on who he received this information from.

It sounds a lot like an unscientific poll determined that veterans made a certain decision, and I would like to know who those people were, please, so we have clarity, transparency and the following of rules, as our veterans love to see us operating in this place in the same way we expect them to when they serve us overseas and here at home in Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Mrs. Wagantall, for your intervention.

I invite Ms. Blaney to take the floor.

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

I call the vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Well, I still have people on the list, so—

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

They can talk, but I'm ready to vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Great. Thanks.

Mr. Desilets wants to speak.

Mr. Desilets, you have the floor.

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

No, I'll pass.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you.

Is there any further discussion on the subamendment proposed by Ms. Blaney?

Seeing none, we'll go to a vote.

Is there unanimous consent to adopt it? I heard a no earlier. It's better to go to a vote, then, because of Ms. Hepfner's comments.

Let's vote on Ms. Blaney's subamendment.

(Subamendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

We are back to the amendment moved by Mr. Casey, as amended by Ms. Blaney.

Mr. Casey, the floor is yours.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

What we have before us now is an subamendment requesting a letter from the National Capital Commission, but no witness. My concern, as I expressed earlier, is that if the letter raises questions, we will be no further ahead, and I think we're putting ourselves at a disadvantage. I think the letter is of some value but certainly not the value of having someone here to take our questions. I think it's unfortunate. I hope that the answers we want from the National Capital Commission can form the basis of questions in the request we make.

If the letter sent to the National Capital Commission sets forth the concerns that have been raised here in committee with respect to their role and with respect to the questions that are evident in the representations from Mrs. Wagantall and from Ms. Blaney—the perception that this committee has some authority to delay the proceedings, the question of what's out there in the veterans community and the demand for people to be named.... There certainly wasn't such a demand when we were talking about the counselling of Veterans Affairs employees towards some veterans, that's for sure.

Those would be my concerns over the amended motion. It's watered down, and I think the only way to save it is by a pretty detailed request to the National Capital Commission. What needs to be in the letter is what we need to know. I'm very concerned that the letter is going to raise more questions than answers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you very much, Mr. Casey.

Mr. Sarai.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to my colleague Mr. Casey for highlighting some of the concerns.

I think with this amendment, the problem we're going to have is that we'll only get a written submission. We won't be able to ask questions. It may be a simply one-pager that might not outline much more than that they are proceeding with things. We need to know how far they are and if there is a holdup.

Sometimes some of these projects are, material-wise, unique. I think I was reading on the Stimson design that it has “elements of healing” and it's “the concept of the Medicine Wheel”. Its “design takes the form of a circular, sacred space of safety, a ‘home base’ of reflection, memory, and contemplation.” He has four portals. It's designed with corten steel walls that surround and protect those places. These are things that veterans, others and people like us would want to know.

Are they being formulated? Are they being worked on as we speak? Is the artist already commissioned and doing their artistic work? A lot of what would be put in place is structural in nature.

I think it is imperative that we have them here. When we have a letter only, it might fall short of what we require. Others will think of that and ask how long it's going to take. There's also a doubt raised, as my colleague said, as to whether or not they are moving forward with this and whether or not this study is delaying it. I think we would like to have clarity. My understanding is that it's not being delayed by this study; it's moving forward.

If anything, I think what we needed with this study was to figure out the process. The process has been given pretty clearly by the department. Yes, it did deviate, but that deviation was stated and a decision was made. I think everybody is aware of that. There's no secret about it; there's no deception on this. I think it's very clear. The reasons for it are also very clear and I think that's been stated.

I think an update showing how far the procurement process is.... We've seen with the House of Commons construction that certain trades are probably in high use, like stonemasonry and others. That trade would be a tough one to procure at this time. I believe there are only a handful of stonemasons in the country, and basically they're all working on this. I don't know if this particular design is using anything along those lines.

There's also a lot of bronze work, with four bronze flak jackets. Usually the artist has to do the moulds first and test the moulds. Then, subsequently, they will be made into bronze.

I think we should have them. I think it would be very important to get an update. I would probably have gone further and maybe asked that the architects, the visual artist and the coordinators—MBTW Group, Adrian Stimson and LeuWebb Projects—all come and appear. They'll have the real update based on what they've been consulted on and what they've been doing.

That would be my opinion. I think this is going to end up falling short.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Mr. Sarai.

Now let's go to Ms. Hepfner.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank my colleagues for raising concerns.

I have similar concerns. If we're sending a letter asking the National Capital Commission for details, I think it has to be a very detailed letter. Perhaps this committee could collaborate on what exactly we're asking for. However, I think—

[Terry Dowdall, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

It's going to take all 16 weeks.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

I'm sorry. I'm being interrupted by the other side.

Do you want to take the floor, Terry?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Okay, please.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Are you done?

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Ms. Hepfner, you have the floor. Please continue.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thank you.

I think it's very important how we word this letter and the details we ask for from the National Capital Commission. I think we should consult as a committee on what exactly is in that letter. I would prefer, like my colleagues, to have a witness we can question back and forth to make sure that all of our questions are answered.

Those are my remarks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Casey.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Chair, I have a few suggestions on what might be included in the letter.

First of all, let's have a clear statement of the purpose of the monument. As the committee is well aware, it is to recognize the commitment and sacrifice of Canadians who served in Afghanistan and the support provided to them at home.

Let's get some details on the location, how the location was chosen and the National Capital Commission's jurisdiction over that location across the street from the war museum, near the National Holocaust Monument.

Let's get some description by the commission of their role. My understanding is that their role is to design and construct monuments. Their experience in the design and construction of other monuments will be brought to bear in connection with this particular one, with perhaps some indication, from similar projects, of lessons learned, their role in the coordination of government departments and the technical support they provide during the design process. Let's get some sense of what they envision in terms of their management of the construction of the monument.

Let's ask for the timeline for construction. It's my understanding that it is to be ready for public viewing in 2027, but a clearer timeline for this committee would be of some assistance. It's also my understanding that the National Capital Commission is charged with the maintenance of the site in the long term, so let's ask for some particulars around that.

The National Capital Commission had a role in the design competition. It is the design competition that is the subject of this motion, so let's get a description of their role in the design competition, specifically because their role was a technical one and they are a joint contracting authority. Let's ask for a bit more information on what is involved in being the technical authority and joint contracting authority. “Joint contracting authority” clearly implies some level of collaboration or co-operation, or a joint effort with other parties. It would be good to know who has which roles.

Let's ask how exactly they managed the technical review of the applicants. We know there were five applications. We know the jury arrived at a decision. Then, after broad consultation with the veterans community, there was a decision taken not to accept the jury's recommendation. Let's ask about the role, from a technical perspective, of the National Capital Commission in all of that, if any. If none, let's see exactly what their role was in the technical review of the applicants. We know the review to seek feedback on, if you will, an emotional or a symbolic level was undertaken by government. Clearly, the technical elements of the decision are where you might expect the National Capital Commission to be involved.

Then, let's ask about the various approval processes. There would be technical requirements at the site. There would be technical requirements associated with the use of federal lands, the design and the transaction. They clearly had a detailed role. I think all of those things are pertinent to the committee's examination. As much as there is some controversy and disagreement around the selection of the company or proponent to design the monument, there was also some controversy around the site selection. The National Capital Commission was by necessity intimately involved in the site selection. That is, in fact, their role as the authority for federal lands in the national capital region, so let's get a synopsis from them around the site selection and the process to build the monument.

I'm just trying to paint a picture of the level of detail I think we should be able to expect from someone if they were sitting here and subject to questions from all of us. I hope that sort of information at that level of detail is something we could reasonably expect in a letter coming from them.

I offer those suggestions on the mandate that we put forward to the National Capital Commission for the letter we're seeking.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Mr. Casey.

Let me be clear. The subamendment presented by Ms. Blaney said to have “the committee write a letter”. The clerk or the analyst, if the motion passes, can propose a letter, but it's the committee that has the final word on that letter. The decision on all of the things you would like to put in that letter belongs to the committee.

Let's move on to Ms. Hepfner.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Based on your previous comments, Chair, I would like to know the process for how we are writing the letter. I thought Mr. Casey had some excellent suggestions—