Veterans Affairs Committee on May 22nd, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Yes, exactly.

Give me one second.

Both of the subamendments were adopted in the last meeting.

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

Sure. However, I don't recall this amendment. I remember some amendments. There was an amendment Mr. Casey made that was asking to add a part (c) asking for Erin O'Toole to appear. I remember that. I remember there was an amendment made about correspondence for the members of the jury. I do not recall this one.

Again, can you clarify where in the original motion this is being placed? To whom is the letter being written, and we're asking for what?

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Listen, I know we were in discussion about the report on women veterans. First of all, Sean Casey can add to that. He presented the amendment to your motion saying, “That the committee invite the Hon. Erin O'Toole, former minister”—

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

Yes, I recall that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

—and “that the Department...provide the official report of the jury”.

We also have two subamendments. One is from Ms. Blaney and the other one is from Mr. Sarai. Those two amendments were adopted. That's why I said we are now discussing the amendment presented by Mr. Casey after the subamendment was adopted.

Thank you.

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

What you're saying is that the amendment to invite Erin O'Toole.... I won't read the whole thing. We all understand.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

That's what we are discussing right now.

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

That amendment was passed. Is that correct?

There was also an amendment I recall about producing the correspondence received from the members of the jury since June 2023. I believe that amendment was made, and I believe it was passed, as well. I could be mistaken. Now you're talking about a third amendment. Maybe that one was defeated. It is indicated here in my notes that this amendment was on February 12.

Chair, I'm not the only one who appears to be confused here, from what I see in the room. Perhaps we could ask you, the clerk or the analyst to read us the motion as it stands with whatever amendments have been made to it. That could indicate to us what the amendment on the floor is. There still seems to be quite a bit of confusion about what's going on here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Okay, wait a second.

To respond to Mr. Richards' point and also to clarify what we're resuming discussion on, I'll begin by reading Mr. Richards' motion as amended. I'll then read the proposed amendments.

[Wilson Miao, Liberal, Richmond Centre, BC]

Mr. Chair, is it possible to circulate that to all the members of the committee, so we have something to follow?

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Okay. Yes. The clerk is going to send it to your P9, but I'm going to read it too. It reads:

That in relation to its study on the National Monument to Canada's Mission in Afghanistan, the committee

(a) Invite the Deputy Commander of Military Personnel, Lieutenant-General Lise Bourgon; and

(b) order the production of all memoranda, briefing notes, e-mails, correspondence or any other records of conversations or communications (including text messages, Microsoft Teams messages, WhatsApp messages, Signal messages or other electronic messaging) with regard to the National Monument to Canada's Mission in Afghanistan, transmitted, since May 1, 2014, between

(i) the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Office of the Minister of Veterans Affairs,

(ii) the Department of Canadian Heritage and the Office of the Minister of Canadian Heritage,

(iii) the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Privy Council Office,

(iv) the Department of Canadian Heritage and the Privy Council Office,

(v) the Privy Council Office and the Office of the Prime Minister,

(vi) the Office of the Minister of Veterans Affairs and the Office of the Prime Minister, and

(vii) the Office of the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Office of the Prime Minister, provided that these documents shall be provided to the clerk of the committee, in both official languages and without redaction, within 21 days of the adoption of this motion.

The amendments are as follows:

(c) That the committee invite the Hon. Erin O'Toole, former minister of Veterans Affairs, to respond to questions about the selection of Richmond Landing site in 2014 for the National Monument to Canada's Mission in Afghanistan, and specifically why Veterans were not properly consulted.

d) And that the Department of Veterans Affairs Canada and the Department of Canadian Heritage provide the official report of the jury established for the selection of the firm responsible for the design of the National Monument to Canada's Mission in Afghanistan.

That is the amended motion that we are now debating.

Now, here is the last amendment that has been moved and that we are debating:

That the motion be amended by adding after paragraph (d) the following:

(e) That the committee write a letter to 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. If the response is not satisfactory to the members of the committee then the NCC officials responsible be asked to appear before the committee for no more than one meeting.

Is that clear now?

Okay.

Thank you.

We'll move to debate.

Mr. Casey.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to be clear. We've been provided with a copy of the original motion as amended. The first document we received is the original motion along with the amendments that we have adopted. Is that right? The second document is an amendment that I put forward, and there were two subamendments proposed to that amendment.

My question is whether we have completed debate and adopted those two subamendments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

That's right.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Then the debate is on the second page, with what's in red being incorporated into it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

That's it exactly, yes.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

You're welcome.

Would you like to intervene, Mr. Miao?

[Wilson Miao, Liberal, Richmond Centre, BC]

I also understand that PS Randeep Sarai also put in an amendment to that. Are we discussing that piece together with what MP Sean Casey has proposed?

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

As Sean said, the things in red are what we are discussing.

The intervention of Mr. Sarai is to be discussed. If the response is not satisfactory, we will invite the NCC to appear before us.

Ms. Hepfner, go ahead.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, I have a subamendment to Mr. Casey's motion:

That the amendment be amended by adding after the words “one meeting” the following:

That the letter that the committee sends to the NCC request the following information: (a) What is the contractually prescribed building time? (b) What is the currently estimated building time by the NCC architect and project manager? (c) The design is said to be more complex than usual for monuments in the NCR. What are the complexities of the design, and what is the impact that they estimate it will have on the construction cost and timelines? (d) What are the steps and milestones that have been planned for this construction project? (e) What is the current status of the project and concrete steps in construction? (f) What risks have been identified for this construction project?

I think these are all really important details that, if we're going to go forward with this study, we would need to be aware of.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

My understanding is that with your intervention, you would like to have those points included in the letter we're going to send to the NCC, Ms. Hepfner. Is that correct?

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Exactly.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Mr. Ste‑Marie, you have the floor.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank our honourable colleague for the subamendment he is proposing.

I understand that the amendment seeks to determine what the implementation timelines are and that the subamendment specifies what is being requested. For my part, I will repeat what I said at the beginning of the meeting: Looking at the issues of timelines and everything may be interesting, but my party's position is that the purpose of the motion is really to shed light on the process in order to understand why the rules of the competition weren't respected until the end. Even though the amendment and the subamendment may lead to an interesting investigation into the issue of timelines, for us, they are a diversion.

As I announced earlier, I will be voting against this subamendment for the reasons stated. The same goes for the amendment.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you.

Mr. Casey, and then Mr. Richards.