SoVote

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

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Dec/5/23 10:57:26 a.m.
Watch

This is a point of debate and not a point of order. The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor.

19 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Dec/5/23 10:57:32 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I did not participate in Afghanistan, but we have members on the Liberal government side who have participated, including the former minister of defence, who reinstated the veterans offices that were closed down by the member for Abbotsford in the Stephen Harper government. At the time I opposed— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

56 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Dec/5/23 10:57:55 a.m.
Watch

Order. There are a couple of members who have been repeatedly interrupting the hon. parliamentary secretary. I will ask them to please wait until it is time for questions and comments, which is the appropriate time to contribute to the discussion. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

45 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Dec/5/23 10:58:15 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as my time is running out, I will try to keep this as brief as I can. It is important to recognize that monuments play a very important role for our entire society. Recognizing that, it takes time to do the consultations and to work with people to ensure we get the right monument, which is what we are seeing with respect to Afghanistan. I believe that, once it is complete, all of us will be proud of that monument. I support the government's initiatives we have taken to date to support our veterans. As someone who served in the Canadian Forces for over three years and marched alongside World War II veterans and others, I always take the time to have a personal experience of reflection on November 11. A couple of years ago, I was in the city of Manila with Mayor Honey visiting a special monument honouring Canadian soldiers who were part of the allied forces. They were not technically Canadian soldiers, but rather Canadians who participated in the allied forces. Whether it is there, in my home city of Winnipeg at the Brookside Cemetery, at the armouries, in the churches or here in Ottawa with the Peace Tower and the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, there are many monuments scattered throughout. I am a big fan of being able to take the time to reflect and value, through those monuments, the sacrifices that have taken place. They justify those monuments being put into place, and I support us as a government, or any government, in recognizing the contributions of veterans. That is why I believe the monument being proposed and constructed for the people who served in Afghanistan is the appropriate one. Ultimately, I look forward to its completion and dedication.

298 words

Mr. Alex Ruff (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC)

Dec/5/23 11:01:27 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, when it comes to veterans affairs and recognizing the ultimate sacrifice that many of our veterans and Canadian Forces personnel have made, particularly in Afghanistan, when we left 158 Canadian Armed Forces members behind, it should be non-partisan. This process about recognizing the incredible contribution that these veterans have made to our country and to freedom in Afghanistan should be non-partisan. However, the government took eight years to come up with this so-called design. Again, I am not criticizing the design that was selected. I am criticizing how the government messed up the process and interfered in it. This motion is all about veterans being penalized once again and not being respected. In the member's view, does he not think it should be proper to make this as non-political as possible and to recognize the incredible contributions that our veterans have made?

149 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Dec/5/23 11:02:47 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it would be a wonderful thing to see it being done in an apolitical fashion. The problem I have is that the member is pointing to the government, saying the government is messing up. That is just not the case. Opposition parties, and I will not say which one, also play a role. If one has not noticed, over the last number of years, it has been a minority government. Where is the official opposition on this file? The member gives the impression that he supports the one that the government has accepted, but he did not give a clear indication on whether he supports it or not. He served himself, and I appreciate and value his contributions to Afghanistan on behalf of Canadians, but he never did give his personal opinion.

134 words

Mr. Luc Desilets (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ)

Dec/5/23 11:03:57 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have trouble believing that our Liberal colleague endorses non-compliance with the law. The process was clear; the government established it. We have nothing to say about the process, which was fine. However, the government did not respect the rules. On a whim, it decided to grant the contract to a team that had not won. The government fancies itself a jury of artists. That is what my colleague is endorsing. He is endorsing a survey that was completely demolished by the biggest polling company in Canada. My colleague is endorsing the fact that the government made a political decision that goes against everything that may exist in the field of art. Once again he is using the promotion of veterans as a pretext. I find that sad.

131 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Dec/5/23 11:05:02 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, what I am supporting is the statement minister made, and she has made this statement to the member across the way, that the Department of Veterans Affairs conducted a survey, or a questionnaire, to which more than 12,000 Canadians, most of whom were veterans, responded. She said that the Stimson concept was chosen because they were told it better reflected the sacrifice, bravery and loss of our veterans. That is the reason why the decision was made.

80 words

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

Dec/5/23 11:05:39 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do agree with my friend from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound that this should be a non-partisan issue. With regard to the people who sacrificed their lives for us in Afghanistan, we know that not only did we lose them there, we lost them when they came home. This really matters. When the minister was at the committee, I asked her how they verified that the people who answered the surveys were veterans and what the process was for doing that. I trust veterans, but perception matters. We hope that it was the veterans and their families that made these voices and opinions heard, but there is no way of knowing that. I think that is why this concern is here, and it is very real. I am wondering if he could respond to that, knowing that the minister said they did not have a process on whether people who answered the survey were veterans.

160 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Dec/5/23 11:06:47 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have confidence in Canada's civil servants to ensure that there is a process that is reflective of being fair and transparent. I believe the information that was gathered is in fact accurate. There has been no indication, whatsoever, from any political party, that there was some major fault in that consultation and the feedback received from Canadians. I suspect that what we will find, out of those thousands of people who participated, most of who were veterans or family members of veterans, is a true reflection of what we will see as a monument. Unless there is evidence to demonstrate that there was something wrong with what the civil servants or whoever conducted the questionnaire, or survey, did, I would suggest we accept it as we have done on many other policy points.

137 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 262