SoVote

Dec/5/23 10:30:11 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I really like my colleague's question. Let me explain why. It is because Canada went to Afghanistan to fight for democracy, yet this competition has been nothing but undemocratic.

32 words

Mr. Blake Richards (Banff—Airdrie, CPC)

Dec/5/23 10:30:39 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the member's speech. I sit on the committee as well. I share many of the concerns that he has raised here today. In particular, there are two things. First of all, this is such an important monument for those who served in Afghanistan, and it is being delayed by the bungling of the government and, most important, the fact that the PMO has gotten involved and interfered in this situation. The member indicated that in his speech. What are his thoughts and feelings around the fact that the PMO interfered and is, therefore, delaying the building of this monument? Could he indicate why the PMO interfered in this matter inappropriately?

118 words

Mr. Luc Desilets

Dec/5/23 10:31:31 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, things have indeed been delayed. It has been a long process. Based on the description I tried to give, it is clear that it could have been shorter. At some point, the decision-making process broke down. I am almost positive that the two ministers and the two departments wanted the Daoust team to erect the monument. A breakdown happened and time was being wasted, so the Prime Minister's Office unilaterally stepped in and made a decision. Nothing of the kind has ever happened before in the course of public art competitions in Canada. It will cause major fallout not only for this government's credibility, but also for everyone who might be interested in submitting a public artwork proposal someday.

124 words

Ms. Rachel Blaney (North Island—Powell River, NDP)

Dec/5/23 10:32:33 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for bringing this to the House today. He and I sit in committee together and share similar concerns with respect to these issues. My question specifically is around the fact that this is not the first time we have seen the department be very unclear in the process of communicating information. The department officials are saying they reached out to veterans, but everything was done in a way that was not measurable in order to make sure that those were in fact the veterans and those were in fact the family members. Could the member talk about methods that this department might use to actually talk to those veterans and, specifically for this, to the Afghan veterans and their loved ones?

127 words

Mr. Luc Desilets

Dec/5/23 10:33:20 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in this case, departmental officials did try to consult. However, what they call a survey was not really a survey. Leger has been very clear on that point. It is completely unusable, which is truly appalling. It would have been nice to actually hear from veterans or people who participated in that mission. I think that what is needed in the future is to simply follow the rules. If the rules call for a survey, it should be done in a scientific manner and not be such a frivolous thing.

92 words

Ms. Louise Chabot (Thérèse-De Blainville, BQ)

Dec/5/23 10:34:02 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, through you, I would like to ask a question of my colleague, who is doing a tremendous job getting to the truth on this file. An unimaginable blunder has happened here. I know my colleague did not have enough time to finish his speech. I would like to know what message he would like to convey in order to conclude his speech.

64 words

Mr. Luc Desilets

Dec/5/23 10:34:45 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is a terrible mistake. Some are even referring to the monument as the monument to shame. That really upsets me. It is a work that is dedicated to veterans, to people who worked in Afghanistan. There is only one solution, and that is for the government to go back on its decision and give the contract to the Daoust team. That is the only way out and it should be done as soon as possible. The art world in Europe and the United States is talking about Canada. We are getting calls. No one can understand how such a blunder could have happened in a democratic country like ours.

112 words

Mrs. Cathay Wagantall (Yorkton—Melville, CPC)

Dec/5/23 10:35:49 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I apologize for not being in the House in time to hear the whole speech of my colleague; however, I sit next to him in committee and am very aware of the circumstances here. I would ask the member what he sees as the ripple effect of this decision by the government with respect to impacting future procurement opportunities.

61 words

Mr. Luc Desilets

Dec/5/23 10:36:15 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there are two things to consider. I am repeating myself, but this is about the government's credibility. It brought in a process that was entirely appropriate, but it is absolutely not respecting it. How can we trust what the government proposes? In this case we are talking about public art. This government is like Teflon. It changes its mind whenever it feels like it, but nothing sticks to it. It travels abroad, gets a slap on the wrist and just does it again. That is the first thing. The other really important thing is Canada's credibility abroad when it comes to artists. Canada's arts community has mobilized around this issue. The Daoust team has collected thousands of signatures from people who are offended by the situation. This kind of thing is not done. The government is disrespecting public art. It is disrespecting architects. It is disrespecting designers.

152 words

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ)

Dec/5/23 10:37:27 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, our veterans fought not only for democracy, but also for justice, equity and equality for everyone. They fought so that rules that are not always followed would be followed, both in Canada and abroad. Does the situation described in the report and in my colleague's speech correspond with the values that our veterans defended and still defend today?

61 words

Mr. Luc Desilets

Dec/5/23 10:38:08 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in answer to my colleague's question, I would say, obviously not. Like everyone, the soldiers and other people who were involved in the mission in Afghanistan share the values of equity, respect and solidarity. There is none of that in the government's decision. I would like to add something. I have gotten a lot of calls, and I am sure my committee colleagues likely have as well. Veterans are calling us and telling us that, on top of all this, they are being used. They are being used with this bogus survey. It is as though the government wants to make them say that this is the monument that they want, regardless of which monument we are talking about. I am not even criticizing the monument. A decision was made by experts. The government is not an expert in public art and neither am I, but this jury was made up of experts in public art.

160 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Dec/5/23 10:39:20 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-56

Madam Speaker, I will just pick up on the member's concluding thoughts in terms of the government's not necessarily being an expert. I think it is safe to say that is, in fact, the situation. The government is very much consulting with Canadians on the whole issue of the monument and its conceptual design. It is important to recognize that we are talking not about hundreds of people but thousands of people who provided input. The ones we need to be very sensitive to are, in fact, the veterans and family members of the veterans. I believe that the decision that was made was weighted in their favour. I think that is an important aspect to recognize. Before I go into more of the details, I would like to put things into proper perspective. It would be wrong for me not to recognize that I do not necessarily agree with the timing of the debate itself and the decision of the Bloc to use a concurrence motion in order to raise the issue, given that there are only days left in the session and there is so much that still needs to be done under the government agenda. For example, many members who would have come to the House today would have been thinking about the affordability legislation, Bill C-56, I think, that was supposed to be debated at this point in time. I know that members, at least on the government benches, very much want to hear debates and discussions on those issues, because they are the ones Canadians are facing today. Canadians are looking to the government and responsible opposition parties to recognize the issues of affordability. The legislation that we were supposed to be debating today, I would suggest, should have been allowed to continue to debate. I am a little bit disappointed and somewhat surprised that the Bloc used this particular opportunity to raise this specific issue, when the Bloc does have other opportunities to do it. Even given the discretion that is often used with respect to relevance to legislation, the member could have raised the issue he is raising right now in the fall economic statement, not to mention even during this legislation. He probably could have found a way to raise it, to suggest a take-note debate or to wait until there is an opposition day opportunity. In other words, I would suggest that there would have been other ways. However, that is not to underestimate the importance of the issue. I will give a bit of a background. Prior to getting involved in politics, I served in the Canadian Forces. I had the privilege to march side by side with World War II veterans. I had the opportunity of visiting the legions with many veterans, especially when I was a member of the Canadian Forces, serving in Alberta and doing my training in Ontario and a portion of it in Nova Scotia. I gained a very genuine appreciation of the horrors of war when I saw people at the legions who had the odd drink, if I can put it that way, and would, in tears, try to get through Remembrance Day. There have been many different awkward moments when discussions have become very emotional. Even though the actions of the war were decades prior, to talk about it and relive it would bring tears, along with a wide spectrum of emotions. It was not necessarily from those who fought on the front lines; I could see it at times even with family members. I appreciated every opportunity I had, especially while I was in the military, to have those talks and express my gratitude and appreciation to those who returned from war abroad. I understand and value the importance of war monuments. It is important that we never ever forget. Like members across the way, on November 11, I too participate in recognizing the sacrifices that have been made in order for us to be here. I recall an occasion when veterans were present in the Manitoba legislature. I remember very distinctly being in a chamber of democracy where I could turn my chair around and touch the knees of war veterans. That is profound, much like when veterans sit in the gallery of this chamber. It is very touching because it speaks volumes about the sacrifices that have been made so we can do the things we do and can have a society based on freedom and liberty, and that operates on the rule of law. We have been blessed by the many men and women who have served our country and served in the allied forces, who have ensured that we have the benefits today as a direct result of their efforts and sacrifices. It is important we recognize that. It is one of the reasons I find it difficult to say we could have had this debate at another time. I still believe, having said what I have said, that we could have, because of where we are in the session. There is a lot more we could be doing and saying in dealing with our veterans. As a member of Parliament, I have been aware of many issues in the veterans file. When Liberals were in opposition, we opposed, for example, the number of veterans offices being shut down across the country. Many members at the time raised questions on the issue and challenged the government of the day as to why it would close down offices. There have been concerns with regard to how services are provided to our veterans in a very real and tangible way. Over the last number of years, a great deal of attention has been focused on Canadian veterans, whether it was the reopening of veterans offices that were shut down by the previous government or the reinvesting and topping off of hundreds of millions of dollars to support veterans. We do that in different ways, whether through direct financial compensation in overall budget increases or through the services provided. We also recognize, as previous governments have, that we need to do what we can to support veterans when they come home, particularly veterans who have experienced the horrors of war. We need to support those who have returned because of the impact that has on them. I think of Lieutenant-General Dallaire, a former senator, who highlighted many things for Canadians—

1076 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Dec/5/23 10:50:05 a.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Rivière‑des‑Mille‑Îles on a point of order.

19 words

Rivi
Mille

Mr. Luc Desilets

Dec/5/23 10:50:11 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, with all due respect for my colleague, he has 20 minutes in the House. He is not talking about the subject of the debate, namely, the commemorative monument. Can he at least tell us a little about his position? Is he okay with the survey? Is he okay with the position of the two ministers? Should his government—

62 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Dec/5/23 10:50:33 a.m.
Watch

That is a question for the questions and comments period. As the hon. member knows very well, there is some flexibility during speeches. I would like to remind all members that while they are making their speeches, even though there is some flexibility, they must also speak to the matter that is before the House, in this case, the motion to concur in the report. I am sure the hon. parliamentary secretary will refer to the motion in his speech. I invite him to continue.

85 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Dec/5/23 10:51:13 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, at the beginning of my comments, I made reference to monuments and said I was going to be giving some background as to the importance of monuments. I am going to be talking about monuments. Even in the question I asked the member, I highlighted that, when we talked about monuments, what we are talking about, I believe, is something that is well worth the expenditures that the government is making toward it, and I was providing the background information as to why it is so important that we support our veterans. I do not understand why the member from the Bloc would not recognize the relevance to everything that I have said. It is a bit offensive that the member would not recognize that. At the end of the day, as a government, we need to appreciate and value the sacrifices of many that have enabled us to have the privileges that we have today. I have been listing that off. If I circle back to the very beginning of my comments, it is in regard to monuments. Monuments take place in many ways. The member makes reference in the report to the Afghanistan monument. There is no doubt that we are going to have a monument. As I said earlier in my comments, it is important that we take into consideration the fact that thousands of people were consulted on this. The people we have to listen to the most are veterans and their family members. I then explained why it is important that we listen to them. That is what has taken place. The member raised a question earlier this month and received a response from the minister. Back on December 4, he posed a question and the minister responded: The creation of a national monument to Canada's mission in Afghanistan will at last recognize the commitment of the Canadians who served in that mission. The Department of Veterans Affairs conducted a survey or questionnaire. More than 12,000 Canadians, most of whom were veterans, responded to the survey. The Stimson concept was chosen because we were told that it better reflected the sacrifice, bravery and loss of our veterans. The member was told that. He chooses not to believe it. Now, I am attempting to explain why it is so important that we listen to what the minister explained to the member across the way. He might disagree with the minister. Ultimately that would be a dispute between the member and the minister. I am providing more background about how important it is that we recognize and listen to what veterans are saying. That is what my entire speech has been about. I might sound a bit offended because, as I said, I like to think that I have listened to many veterans over the years. I am now giving a clear indication as to what I believe the veterans of today want. That is why the opposition does not have a clue. The member for Abbotsford— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

510 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Dec/5/23 10:56:01 a.m.
Watch

Order. I would remind members that, if they want to make comments or have questions, they are to wait until the appropriate time. There should be no heckling while another member has the floor. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

38 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Dec/5/23 10:56:19 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member for Abbotsford said that I do not have any clue as to what veterans want. Let me remind him that, when he was in Stephen Harper's government, sitting at the cabinet table, he shut down nine veterans offices across Canada, yet he says that I do not have a clue. I would suggest to him that members of the Conservative caucus do not have a clue as to what veterans want. This is a government— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

86 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Dec/5/23 10:56:51 a.m.
Watch

Order. There are still some individuals who seem to want to contribute to the discussion. I would ask them to please wait. There will be an opportunity for questions and comments. Rising on a point of order, the hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.

47 words

Mr. Alex Ruff

Dec/5/23 10:57:10 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary is entitled to attack political parties, but when he attacks all members in the House, including those within my party who are actually Afghanistan veterans, I take that personally.

34 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 262