Evidence of meeting #86 for Veterans Affairs in the 44th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was monument.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg
As I said on Monday, the meeting was suspended, so now we are back to discussing the motion.
I remind you that the motion was amended. At the request of the committee members, we will continue the discussion on the motion.
I am now ready to hear the committee members speak to the motion.
Mr. Casey, please go ahead.
Liberal
Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Welcome back, everyone.
Over the suspension, we had time to have a look at this and to hear some of the conversations taking place with the veterans at the back of the room. Partly as a result of those discussions, I wish to propose an amendment.
The amendment is as follows:
That the committee invite the National Capital Commission (NCC) in regards to their role in the construction of the National Monument to Canada’s Mission in Afghanistan to assure the committee that the project will respect established deadlines and that Afghanistan war veterans who wish to see the monument built quickly will not experience additional delays.
That's the amendment I propose. The amendment would immediately follow the last paragraph asking to invite Erin O'Toole. That amendment was, of course, passed by the committee.
If the chair finds the amendment to be in order, I'm prepared to speak about it.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg
Thank you very much.
The amendment that was proposed was written in English only. That said, since the members were wearing their headsets, they understood what we were going to debate.
Ms. Hepfner—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg
Oh, Mr. Casey still has the floor to explain why he tabled this amendment.
Please go ahead.
Liberal
Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
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. The monument will be built in Ottawa, located on the east side of Booth Street, north of the National Holocaust Monument and across the street from the Canadian War Museum.
The National Capital Commission's role in the national monument to Canada's mission in Afghanistan is similar to that of the design and construction of other monuments. The National Capital Commission participates in the site selection, offering sites for a decision by the sponsoring department, and answers as the technical support during the design process. The National Capital Commission will then manage the construction of the monument and its maintenance in the long term.
The National Capital Commission's role in the design competition of this monument was to act as the technical authority and joint contracting authority. In this role, the National Capital Commission managed the technical review of the applicants, ensuring that the designs put forward for consideration met the technical requirements of the site and federal land use, design and transaction approval.
It will be interesting to hear from them about the previous site selection chosen by the Conservative government and also on the process to build the monument.
Mr. Chair, we heard from veterans at the conclusion of the last meeting—
Bloc
Luc Desilets Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
My question is for the clerk. We don't have the text of the amendment, either in French, obviously, or in English. This is another improvised amendment that was proposed at the last minute. I understand that the member is trying to save time, but at the very least, out of respect for all the committee members, it should be translated.
Can we debate an amendment if it's not put forward in either official language without a written version?
The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Malachie Azémar
The analyst is in the process of translating the amendment, and we will distribute it as soon as we have it.
Bloc
Luc Desilets Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
So there is no problem for my anglophone colleagues who do not have a copy in English. It's not a problem for anyone.
Is that correct?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg
The analyst is in the process of doing the translation. If the committee wishes, I can suspend the meeting until the document is ready.
Bloc
Luc Desilets Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
In that case, we will listen to the committee members debate in the meantime.
If you are telling me that it is in order, I will let you continue.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg
Yes, it is in order.
You will be receiving this amendment in both official languages in your inboxes very soon.
Liberal
Randeep Sarai Liberal Surrey Centre, BC
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, we can suspend for a few minutes if they need time for this, if that's okay.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg
My understanding is that the committee members do not want to suspend the debate.
Mr. Desilets, you have the floor.
Bloc
Luc Desilets Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Mr. Chair, Mr. Casey began his remarks by saying that the Liberals had taken the time to analyze the situation in recent days and that they wanted to propose an amendment.
If you've taken the time to look at it, analyze it—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg
Mr. Desilets, that is not a point of order. I understand your comment—
Bloc
Liberal
Liberal
Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Desilets is right, and I want to apologize. I could have been more prepared to propose my amendment. I hope there will be no problem and that Mr. Desilets will receive this amendment in the language of Molière very soon. So he will have an opportunity to present his arguments against or, I hope, for the amendment I want to propose.
I completely agree with my colleague Mr. Sarai. It would be fair and equitable to suspend the meeting if Mr. Desilets needs it to better understand and analyze what has been proposed. That's not a problem. If not, I will continue.
Do I have to start over?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg
The floor is yours. You may reread the amendment or continue to explain why you want to move it.
Liberal
Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to come back to something I mentioned at the last meeting, but also something that arose at the conclusion of that meeting. There were several discussions with the veterans who were here at the meeting. They were of the mistaken impression that proceedings before this committee would cause a delay in the construction of the monument.
I just want to state on the record that this is absolutely not the case. The National Capital Commission, in their testimony before us, will assure us of that and that they are intimately involved in the processes that govern the timelines around the construction of the monument and around the content of the documents. The timing of construction and the execution of legal documents do not require the involvement, the approval, or any action of this committee.
What we are seeing here is purely an exercise in politics—quite frankly, in theatre. It has nothing to do with the contractual legal obligations between Team Stimson, the Government of Canada or the National Capital Commission. All of the aspects of the relationship that governs the construction or the documents are in a legal and not a political sphere.
We have read in the media that Team Daoust hopes to be able to resolve their dissatisfaction with the process outside the court process. The court process remains available to them.
If there were to be a court process, there would be something called discovery of documents and something called discovery of witnesses. There is a duty, under any civil proceeding, to produce all documents relevant to any issue in the action. There is a duty, in any civil proceeding, for anyone who has any testimony that is relevant to any matter to be compellable at an examination for discovery. It's an entirely different process. If there were to be a legal action launched, an interim or interlocutory measure available to the parties would be to seek an injunction.
None of those things has happened. All of those things have the potential of delaying this, but this hearing doesn't. The National Capital Commission will be able to provide testimony to that effect.
My grave concern, from the conclusion of the last meeting, is that this idea had been planted in the heads of our veterans—and they deserve better. The fact that they deserve better is the very reason the Stimson design was chosen. We listened to veterans. We haven't misinformed them and we haven't mislead them. The testimony of the National Capital Commission will ensure that our interest in putting veterans first will be borne out through the testimony before this committee.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
