OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates Volume 151 No. 262 1st SESSION 44th PARLIAMENT Tuesday, December 5, 2023 Speaker: The Honourable Greg Fergus HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES December 5, 2023 DEBATES No. 262 No. 262 N o 262 Volume 151 262 05 12 2023 2023/12/05 10:05:00 Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates House Of Commons 1 44

The House met at 10 a.m. Prayer

Routine Proceedings Routine Proceedings

(1005) [ English ] Government Response to Petitions

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to three petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.

[ Translation ] Committees of the House Official Languages

Mr. René Arseneault (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Official Languages entitled “Adaptation of CBC/Radio-Canada’s Audiovisual Content for the International Market”. This report is an opportunity for the Standing Committee on Official Languages to unanimously speak out against or condemn the CBC's use of a Paris-based recording studio rather than a Quebec-based studio to ensure that our friends in France do not have to listen to the Quebec accent. We think that is simply outrageous. I have here the copies of the report, ready to be tabled.

[ English ] Food and Drugs Act

Mr. Blaine Calkins (Red Deer—Lacombe, CPC)

Bill C-368. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-368,

An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (natural health products) . He said: Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce my private member's bill, which would amend the Food and Drugs Act. This bill would reverse the changes made by the NDP-Liberal government in its omnibus budget bill, Bill C-47 , earlier this year. It would return natural health products to the status quo, ensuring these products are not classified as therapeutic products, like synthetic drugs, and are therefore not subject to the same regulatory regime as other drugs.

Previously, natural health products were classified separately from pharmaceuticals due to the minimal risk they pose to their users. However, after the NDP-Liberal coalition passed Bill C-47 , bureaucrats in Health Canada can now implement their self-care scheme, which, according to the Natural Health Products Protection Association, will reduce choice, increase costs for consumers and drive businesses, investment and product development out of Canada. The existing regulations already keep Canadians safe.

As such, I urge all members in this House to listen to their constituents and the overwhelming amount of correspondence they receive and vote for this bill. After eight years, enough is enough. It is time to undo the damage done by Bill C-47 , kick out the gatekeepers and save our supplements and vitamins. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[ Translation ]

Christian Heritage Month Act

Ms. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC)

Bill C‑369. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-369,

An Act respecting Christian Heritage Month . She said: Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise to introduce this bill, which seeks to make December Christian heritage month. [ English ] Canada is a country that celebrates all faiths. We have Sikh Heritage Month, Hindu Heritage Month, Muslim history month, Jewish Heritage Month and so many more. It is only fair and right that we have a Christian heritage month, since there are 19.6 million Christians in Canada according to the last census. What better month to pick than December?

It starts with the season of Advent, the lighting of the hope candle, the lighting of the love candle and the lighting of the peace candle and joy candle, and culminates in the lighting of the Christ candle as we celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ at Christmas, the saviour of the world. We heard the Bloc speak last week about the importance of Christmas in Quebec. We heard the Prime Minister talk about the importance of Christmas to all Canadians. I hope all my colleagues will join me in supporting this private member's bill to make December Christian heritage month.

Merry Christmas. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[ Translation ] Committees of the House Veterans Affairs

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

Motion for concurrence Madam Speaker, I move that the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, presented on Thursday, November 9, be concurred in. I have been working on this file, the national monument to Canada's mission in Afghanistan, since September. I had the pleasure of asking my first question on the subject back in September, during our first week back in the House after Parliament resumed. Since then, a lot has happened, and there are new developments every week. I can assure members that the Bloc Québécois will not back down on this terrible injustice.

Today, I am here to try to shed some light on what really happened and demand that a terrible injustice be corrected. For those of you who have absolutely no idea what we are talking about here, I will give a brief overview. The government held a public art competition to select a design concept for the national monument to Canada’s mission in Afghanistan. There was a bidding process. The government put together a jury of experts to select the winning team.

The jury, composed of experts with international experience, spent hundreds of hours evaluating the proposals and unanimously decided that the winning team was the one made up of architectural firm Daoust Lestage Lizotte Stecker, artist Luca Fortin and strategic advisor Louise Arbour. Obviously, this team is from Quebec. To everyone's great surprise, the government ended up ignoring the jury's decision and giving the contract to a different team, one from Alberta and Ontario. This is a small $3‑million contract.

Let us travel back in time to take a close look at exactly what happened, when it happened and how it happened. Our combat mission in Afghanistan lasted from 2001 to 2014. It involved Canadian Armed Forces, obviously, as well as police, public servants and civilians. In August 2019, the Minister of Veterans Affairs and the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism launched the first step of a call for tenders. In August 2020, the five teams of finalists who would prepare design concepts for the monument were revealed. Now, let us skip forward a bit to late May, early June.

The government conducted an online survey, open to the public, to receive comments on the five projects, the five designs on the table. The government's news release said, “The jury will consider the survey responses in selecting the winning design. This winning design will be announced this autumn.” To this point, it appears everything was done by the book; nothing was amiss. The veterans, their families and Canadians were consulted before and during the competition. Veterans' wishes and concerns were included in the bidding rules so the jury would consider them in their free and informed decision.

It was clear: The expert jury would be the one to choose the best project, and they would also take into account the survey results and the comments of a technical committee. The weight of the jury would be 70% and that of the technical committee 30%. The survey consisted of a 90-second video with a number of images of each project. Again, to this point, nothing was amiss, and the government took steps in the survey design to ensure equality of voices.

An email from the Department of Veterans Affairs dated November 17, 2021, concerning the survey states as follows: From the outset, the consultations regarding the national monument to Canada's mission in Afghanistan were designed to be broad and not preferential. All voices and opinions are considered equal. It would be highly irregular for the survey process to give more weight to the voice of one group over another. Such preferential treatment was never discussed at any time while developing the project. Let us skip forward again, to November 2021.

(1010) The departments of Canadian Heritage and Veterans Affairs Canada were informed of the jury's unanimous decision. The jury of experts decided that the Daoust team had won the competition. There was no question that the jury had reached a decision and the Daoust team was the winner. Once again, the jury was made up of seven members from across Canada, including four people who were directly or indirectly involved in Afghanistan. The Daoust team and members of the jury were informed of the ultimate outcome just two hours before the press conference on June 19, 2023.

Two hours before the press conference, the winning team found out that it was not the winner after all and that the winning monument was one submitted by another of the five finalist teams. What happened between November 2021 and June 2023 to make the government decide to overturn the jury's decision? We know that in the winter of 2022, the Department of Canadian Heritage asked the Department of Justice for a legal opinion to assess the risks. The 400 pages of documents we have received in recent weeks do mention “risks”. In my view, that is the first admission of guilt.

We also know that the government offered to compensate the Daoust team for what it calls a loss of income. The understanding is that that team won but was stripped of the prize and the right to create the monument. Because the firm will lose money for this process, which will no longer take place, that has been deemed a loss of revenue and the firm has been offered a sum of money. This is the government's second admission of guilt. Would the government have asked for a legal opinion and offered money to a team if it had acted legitimately? I think the answer is quite simple.

The competition rules state that “the Minister of Canadian Heritage, as minister responsible for commemorative monuments on federal lands...and the Minister of Veterans Affairs...will be jointly responsible for endorsing the jury's selection of the winning design”. In the eyes of the law, they were responsible for endorsing the jury's selection, not changing it, let alone cancelling it. Doing so goes against the government's own process. How does the Minister of Veterans Affairs justify this? First they said they wanted to choose a design that better represented the views of veterans and their families.

The most popular design among veterans who responded to an online poll was selected. I commissioned a small analysis. Actually, it is not small. In any case, the bill was quite large. I commissioned an analysis by the polling firm that everyone knows, Léger, the biggest polling firm in Canada. I forwarded the poll that the government sent to roughly 10,000 people to the firm. It confirmed that all the results were compromised and that there was nothing usable in this pseudo-poll. There is no way to verify the identity of the people who responded to the poll.

We do not even know if a single woman responded to the poll. As I was saying earlier, we received emails from the government over the past two weeks. The Department of Veterans Affairs knows full well that it cannot rely on online surveys. It said so itself in black and white. Here is an excerpt:

The survey was designed to collect aggregate data, not segmented results....The demographic data cannot be clearly broken down. Some respondents identified as belonging to several categories, for example, a soldier, a family member and a member of the public.

This clearly shows that the survey does not in any way represent what veterans really think. It does not represent much of anything really, contrary to what the current Minister of Veterans Affairs has said several times.

(1015) That is one of the many reasons why the Daoust team was chosen. “The Daoust team’s proposal best reflects...the fact that the sacrifices made by the Canadians…who participated in the mission were not in vain, especially [as concerns] the education of women and girls in Afghanistan.” For Canada, this was not a war mission, in principle. We went to support and help the Afghan people. The reasons given by the government to justify pushing the Daoust team aside and choosing the Stimson team just do not hold water. What is the reason behind it?

How come the government pulled out of a hat that the winner would not be the Daoust team but rather the Stimson team? I think we all agree; it is not hard to grasp that the decision came from high up and there was interference. At the moment, there is no other credible explanation. First, when I questioned the Minister of Veterans Affairs to find out if the decision had come from her department or from the Prime Minister’s Office, she replied, “The decision…comes from our government.” She was not sure whether the Prime Minister’s Office had intervened.

She told me she would ask the question, which is not very reassuring. Then, I asked her the question a second time at the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, and the answer had changed. She informed me that the recommendation to choose the Stimson team and push the Daoust team aside had come from the Department of Veterans Affairs. Deciding to take the blame was something she chose to do. Second, the Minister of Canadian Heritage , Ms. St-Onge, tried to downplay the role of her department, saying that it was the Department of Veterans Affairs that was in charge of the project.

We all know, however, that the project was jointly put together by the departments of Veterans Affairs and Canadian Heritage. Then we learned in a document obtained through the Access to Information Act that the Department of Veterans Affairs needed the Minister of Canadian Heritage ’s signature to be able to push the Daoust team aside. Both ministers have been passing the hot potato back and forth and continue to do so. This document signed by the Minister of Canadian Heritage is dated May 2023. This is a process that ran from November 2021 to May 2023.

Why were the jury and the Daoust team notified only two hours before the official announcement? Obviously, it was to ensure they could not react. They were faced with a fait accompli. It will come as no surprise that I do not have enough answers for my liking in this file. Because I did not have enough answers, I suggested that we invite witnesses who are all public art experts to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.

First, we heard from Jean-Pierre Chupin, a university architect and holder of the Canada Research Chair in Architecture, Competitions and Mediations of Excellence at the Université de Montréal. He confirmed that it would be a first in Canadian history to overturn the jury's choice and select another team. This has never happened before. Then he referred to 500 competitions he has documented. He said the following:

All the studies show that, in judging the complexity of...projects, such as public buildings and monuments, a popular vote will never be as reliable, fair or transparent a procedure as a well-organized competition procedure. A competition jury is analogous to a court jury. It represents the diverse range of public interests and works in a rigorous manner.

(1020) Let me quote another witness, François Le Moine, a lawyer specializing in art and heritage law and president of the Association littéraire et artistique internationale Canada. Mr. Le Moine is an authority on copyright and all things relating to art and heritage buildings. He said, “Under the rules of this competition, the government simply did not have the necessary leeway to award the contract to a team that had not been selected. It is the jury that makes the decision, not a minister”, and not a prime minister.

If the withdrawal from Afghanistan in the summer of 2021 did indeed change the equation, as the Minister of Veterans Affairs claimed, then there was only one option: cancel the competition. This is clear from the decision tree the government provided. It could either approve the jury's choice, or it could rerun the competition. In the documents issued to bidders, no third option is possible. The lawyer, Mr. Le Moine, continued, “the only solution available to the government was to cancel the competition and organize another”. The government should have cancelled and started over.

However, this was never discussed. At any rate, in the 400 pages of documents we received, there is no mention of cancelling the competition. According to Mr. Le Moine, “[w]hat is at stake is much more than just the matter of public art; rather, it is the integrity of [the public contracting process and the accountability of our leaders]. A political system based on the rule of law requires both the governed and the governing to follow the established rules”. Let me go over that again.

The government initially established perfectly credible and valid rules that complied with the appropriate procedure for a public call to create a work of art on this scale. After hearing these experts testify, I moved a motion at the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs asking that all documents exchanged between the departments and the Prime Minister 's Office be disclosed. We received the 400 pages I mentioned earlier. Surprise, surprise, dozens and dozens of pages were redacted. However, there is one interesting point they may have forgotten to redact.

The emails show that the Prime Minister's Office asked for a meeting between four parties about the Afghanistan monument, the four being the Privy Council Office, Veterans Affairs Canada, Canadian Heritage and the PMO. Then, in June 2022, after those four met, the PMO asked the public servants responsible if things were moving along. If anyone does not know what PMO means, it stands for Prime Minister's Office. Here is what the two ministers refused to tell us when we had them come to the committee. The Prime Minister's Office was involved. We have written proof in two of the documents we received.

The Prime Minister intervened in the process. He held a meeting about the monument and then pressured both departments for information about how things were progressing. Why did the ministers try to hide the PMO's interference? Was it because the decision to reject the Daoust team and give the contract to the Stimson team was made by the Prime Minister's Office? That is what the documents suggest, those that are not redacted, anyway. Many questions remain unanswered, but the big one for me is this: Why did the Prime Minister's Office decide to intervene in this competition?

Why did the government lie to us by saying that it chose to give more weight to the survey because of the situation in Afghanistan when—

(1025) The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

The member's time is up. I would also remind him that, in the House of Commons, he must not say that someone lied. I am sure the hon. member has a lot more to say. He may do so during questions and comments.

[ English ]

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

Madam Speaker, the most important thing to recognize right away is the sacrifice of many in support of our allied forces and having a monument. Could the member provide his thoughts and maybe comments in recognition of those lives that were lost and those people who actually served? If the member does not mind, could he also provide his thoughts on how the committee had the minister , I understand, attend the committee and the degree to which an explanation or answer to the member's question was provided?

(1030) [ Translation ]

Mr. Luc Desilets :

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.

[ English ]

Mr. Blake Richards (Banff—Airdrie, CPC) :

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?

[ Translation ]

Mr. Luc Desilets :

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.

[ English ]

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

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?

[ Translation ]

Mr. Luc Desilets :

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.

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

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.

Mr. Luc Desilets :

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.

(1035) [ English ]

Mrs. Cathay Wagantall (Yorkton—Melville, CPC) :

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.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Luc Desilets :

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.

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ) :

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?

Mr. Luc Desilets :

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.

[ English ]

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

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.

(1040) 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.

(1045) 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—

(1050) [ Translation ]

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

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

Mr. Luc Desilets :

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—

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

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.

[ English ]

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux :

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!

(1055) The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

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.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux :

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!

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

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.

Mr. Alex Ruff :

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.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

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

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux :

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!

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

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.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux :

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.

(1100) Mr. Alex Ruff (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC) :

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?

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux :

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.

[ Translation ]

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

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.

(1105) [ English ]

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux :

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.

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

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.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux :

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.

Mr. Blake Richards (Banff—Airdrie, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the member about two things. First, if the Liberal government truly believes the words that he is saying, that it cares so much about trying to ensure veterans are honoured and appreciated, why did it take it eight years just to announce a design of a monument? Most particularly, when the jury made a decision in November 2021, it took from then until June 2023 to announce it. In between, there is all sorts of evidence of the Prime Minister's office interfering in the process to change the decision. No one knows why the government wanted to change that decision.

Maybe the member could shed some light for us today on exactly why the government spent eight years on this, with a year and a half of the Prime Minister interfering and showing such disrespect for our veterans? Why did the PMO interfere and show so much disrespect for our veterans?

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux :

Madam Speaker, the member's colleague says that we should try to de-politicize this. I do not believe this being extended, or taking eight years as the member puts it, is the complete fact of the matter. At the end of the day, a great deal of discussion took place. It did not happen immediately afterward and then there was a consultation process. I could level some sort of criticism on many Canadian Armed Forces projects that Stephen Harper never got off the ground over 10 years. A classic one would be the F-35. It took the Liberal government to actually get that one off the ground.

The previous Conservative government spent over a decade trying to figure out that it needed to get a replacement.

(1110) The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

Members know full well that if they have had a chance to ask a question, they should listen to the answer. It may not be what they are looking for, however, if they have other follow-up questions or comments, they should wait until the appropriate time. There is time for a brief a question, the hon. member of Beauport—Limoilou.

[ Translation ]

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, at the beginning of his speech, my colleague spoke of the fact that the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles could have brought up the discussion on the report at another time to receive answers in another way. When I look at routine proceedings, however, there is a category for tabling reports from committees. Even here in the House, do we have to stop respecting the rules of the House because the government decides to do so? Do we need a survey on that as well?

[ English ]

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux :

Madam Speaker, the member has to answer to her constituents as to why the Bloc decides at times to coalesce with the Conservative Party in preventing government legislation from passing. We are supposed to be talking about the affordability legislation today. The Bloc wants to minimize the number of hours spent debating that issue. There are other ways this could have been brought up and addressed. We will have to agree to disagree. I am on the side of supporting the issues that Canadians want us to be talking about and the legislation they want to see us passing.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Blake Richards (Banff—Airdrie, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, first, let me inform you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles . [ English ] The current Prime Minister has infamously said “they're asking for more than we can give” when referring to our veterans. This has been a source of great consternation for veterans ever since that time. The government has shown that disrespect in so many other ways, but that comment sums up exactly how the Prime Minister feels about our veterans, their sacrifices and their service.

The issue we are talking about today is just another example of that absolute disrespect from the government and from the Prime Minister to our veterans and to the families of those who have served. Let us think about the delays with this monument. The government took eight years just to announce a design for a monument to those who served in Afghanistan. Not only did it take eight years to do that, but it bungled it so badly that now nobody knows when this thing will ever be built. A design firm was chosen to build this monument by the jury the government selected and with the process the government set-up.

That was decided in November of 2021. In the next year and a half, up to June of 2023, the government spent all of that time trying to figure out how to disregard the decision of that jury. No one knows why it wants to do that. Is this another typical act of the Liberals trying to find a way to award to their friends or is this something else? No one knows. What we do know is that the Prime Minister 's Office interfered in that process in that year and a half. There is all sorts of evidence that this occurred. Nobody in the government will answer to that. The Liberals will not explain the reasons for this.

They claim there was this survey and that they heard from veterans. It has been already indicated in the House that there is no way to verify it was actually veterans they were hearing from. Most important, in the original talking points of the government about this, when it was planning to announce it back in 2021, it said why it was important to follow the jury's decision above that of this survey. Now it is using this survey as the reason for it, so everyone knows that is not the truth. That is not reason it is not proceeding with the monument originally chosen by the jury.

No one knows why, but we do know the Prime Minister 's Office interfered and, therefore, has disrespected all those who served our country during the Afghanistan mission. The government has disrespected and dishonoured the memory of the 158 Canadians who laid down their lives. It has disrespected the families of the fallen and all those who serve our country by delaying this monument for that period of time, by putting this cloud over it and by leaving us in a situation where no one knows when the heck this thing will ever be built.

Those who served our country in Afghanistan deserve that monument, they deserve it now and they deserve better than what they are getting from the government. I will speak again to the timeline. The government spent the period of time from when it was elected in 2015 until November of 2021 to have this process it set-up arrive at a decision. That process arrived at a decision in November of 2021. In the next year and a half, with all sorts of interference from the Prime Minister 's Office, the government fumbled around and tripped over itself to try to figure out a way to change the decision of that jury.

(1115) As was mentioned by the Bloc member who brought forward the concurrence motion today, this is something that has never been done before. Not only has it never been done before in Canada, but there is no precedent anywhere in the world for this sort of thing, for when these types of jury processes are set up. This is the first time, that anyone can speak to, that this jury process has ever been disregarded like this, and nobody knows why, except for the Prime Minister and probably a few other people.

Obviously we cannot refer to the presence or absence of members in the House, but there is one person who could have stood up when the Liberal member got up to give a speech today, and that is the former minister of veterans affairs, the current Minister of Agriculture . I cannot refer to whether or not he was present, but he could have stood up and he could have clarified the situation. I am sure he was told what to do by the Prime Minister's Office.

He could have told us why the Prime Minister's Office told him that he needed to disregard the jury process and mire this project in such controversy that now no one knows when the heck it will ever be built. He could have stood up and clarified that for us, but, no; instead, the Liberal parliamentary secretary who always stands up stood up and spouted out a bunch of drivel. He did not speak to what happened and why it happened. He gave us the typical talking point that we have heard and the justification that we all know is false and we all know is not the truth. That is all we got from that member.

We could have had clarification on what exactly happened. Maybe there was a good reason, but if there were, we would think that in the last two years somebody from the government would have provided that justification. We can only assume that the Liberals' reasons are not something they want to divulge to Canadians, which would mean that there is something fishy going on here, and that is at the expense of our veterans. That is at the expense of the 158 Canadians who gave their lives in Afghanistan. That is at the expense of their families who mourn them and grieve.

Let us imagine what they must feel like to be witnessing what the government is doing. The least that anyone who serves this country could expect to have is a monument to the mission that they served in, a monument to the lives that were given in service to this country. That is the very least that anyone could expect, and the government is not even willing to provide that without involving some kind of political interference and delaying this project for who knows how long. The Liberals cannot even answer as to when the monument will be built because of the controversy that has now been created.

One would have hoped that today might be the day when the government realized the error of its ways. The government members were given the opportunity today, through this motion, to stand up and clarify the situation. The former minister of veterans affairs could have stood up in his place and told us what happened. Maybe even better, he have stood up and told us that the Liberals were wrong, that they will do better, that they will do right by our veterans, that they will do right by those 158 Canadians who gave their lives, that they will do right by their families who were left behind to mourn them.

Did we get any of that? No, we certainly did not, far from it, in fact. What we got instead was more disrespect for those veterans, more disrespect for the families and more disrespect for those who serve this country. It is shameful. It is absolutely shameful. This monument has been delayed now for eight years by the government, and who knows how much longer it will be delayed. All that is for what? No one knows, except for the Prime Minister's Office, why the Liberals interfered in this process. Why did they delay this? Why did they disrespect our veterans who served this country?

Why did they disrespect those who gave their lives for this country? Why did they disrespect the families of those who have fallen? No one knows, but I wish the Liberal government would just stand up and say, “We were wrong. We should not have disrespected our veterans in this way, and we are going to fix it.” I really hope that, maybe at some point in this debate, that will still happen, because that is what our veterans deserve, that and nothing less.

(1120) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, let me tell members something about disrespectful and shameful. In 2014, the Conservative Party of Canada, when in government, announced through a press release that there was a site for the monument. It came out in the form of a press release. The Conservatives did not consult one veteran. Contrast that to what we have done. Well over 10,000 people, most of them veterans or family members of veterans, were consulted, which ultimately led to the monument that has been selected. I will compare our record to Harper's record any time. The one party that consistently hits down our veterans is the party across the way. The member is the one who should be feeling ashamed of himself.

Mr. Blake Richards :

Madam Speaker, that member stands up and says he is proud of the Liberals' record. He is proud of a government that says to veterans, “You are asking for more than we can give.” He is proud of a government that spent eight years just to announce a design, and it bungled it so badly and there was so much interference from the PMO that now it is mired in controversy and will probably end up in court. Veterans in this country are left wondering when they will have the monument they deserve. The families of the 158 fallen are left wondering when they will have the monument that their loved ones deserve. The member is proud of that. I will tell him that he should be absolutely ashamed.

[ Translation ]

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

Madam Speaker, I still do not understand why the Liberal Party continues to employ this communication strategy. They are referring to a survey that is completely bogus. Are the Liberals telling us that Leger is not credible? I do not understand. I simply wanted to have my colleague's opinion on the following issue. We asked the former veterans affairs minister and the former heritage minister to appear. We learned at our last committee meeting that they refused to appear. How does my colleague react to that refusal?

[ English ]

Mr. Blake Richards :

Madam Speaker, the member is absolutely correct. We know that the minister of veterans affairs and the minister of Canadian heritage at the time would have some knowledge of what exactly occurred. Now, we know that the Prime Minister's Office interfered. The Prime Minister's Office likely directed them on what they were supposed to do, but they could have come to committee and clarified that for us.

If there was a good reason for why they needed to change the design of the monument, why that year and a half of extra delay needed to occur and why they needed to leave this mired in controversy, one would have thought that the ministers would have gladly come to committee and clarified what that good reason was. However, they will not even admit who made the decision, let alone come and clarify their reasons for it. Once again, it is more disrespect to our veterans, more disrespect to the 158 Canadians who gave their lives in Afghanistan and more disrespect to the families who mourn them. That is shameful.

(1125) Ms. Rachel Blaney (North Island—Powell River, NDP) :

Madam Speaker, I have some concerns about this. We know very clearly, based on the testimony from the minister herself, that this was never verified and that it was actually veterans answering those calls. I am wondering if the member could talk about how we need to talk to veterans a little more inclusively and maybe reflect on the fact that, during the Conservatives' time in government, we heard very similar concerns that veterans were being disrespected and were not being listened to. What does the member think should be different, and why should veterans believe the Conservatives when they have repeatedly betrayed veterans as well?

Mr. Blake Richards :

Madam Speaker, what we are talking about here today is a situation where a Prime Minister , who has told veterans that they were asking for more than the government can give, delayed a monument for eight years. I absolutely agree with the member that it is critically important that we listen to our veterans. I have served as our party's critic for veterans affairs, and that is exactly what I have done. I have listened to veterans, and I am hearing what they need, but they are not receiving it from this current Liberal government. A Conservative government will bring that home for our veterans.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, I rise once again this morning to speak to a situation that, sadly, happens all too often in this country. For the past eight years of this government, we have witnessed a total lack of respect for the institution of government in its broad sense, as represented by the House of Commons and the various departments of the Government of Canada. Today, we are referring more specifically to the case of the monument commemorating Canada's mission in Afghanistan.

Considering the purely political decision made in this matter, if it continues unchanged, we will end up with a monument built who knows when, to honour Canada's mission in Afghanistan, the 158 soldiers who lost their lives and the civilians who contributed to the war effort. It will be a monument to the decline of our nation's Canadian Forces, veterans and civil society. From the outset on this issue, everyone on the Liberal side has been referring to a so-called survey that has been completely debunked by Leger. I plan to share what those folks think a little later.

Veterans are being used to justify a purely political decision. The elephant in the room is why this decision was made in the first place, given that the process in place was truly professional. There were judges, a jury made up of professionals, who took the veterans' comments into consideration. Even though the survey was useless, they still took into account the information that was gathered by this bogus survey. Then, at the end of the process, a purely political decision was made. The government cannot justify its decision, except to keep referring to this bogus survey.

Something happened at the Prime Minister 's Office. Something happened with the former veterans affairs minister for the decision to be made to toss everything the jury did and to accept the other proposal by Stimson. What happened? Why was this decision made? This is the first time in the history of Canada that a professional process put in place by the government, with very specific rules, was rejected out of hand. Even more insulting, the very day the winner was to be unveiled, Daoust was informed that it had won, but the government decided to go with the other team. Is there anything more insulting than that?

What is more, the decision was made a year and a half earlier. Something happened at the Prime Minister's Office with Veterans Affairs. Today, we still do not know what happened. It gets even more shocking. The issue was raised by my Bloc colleague from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles , and I thank him for that. The winning team included a company from Quebec and artist Luca Fortin from the Quebec City area, my region. They are Quebeckers. The most insulting thing is that the former heritage minister , from Montreal, and the new Minister of Canadian Heritage , from Quebec, did not do their job. They passed the buck.

The former minister of Canadian heritage authorized the change without question. Apparently he thought it was okay. At the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, I myself put questions to the new Minister of Canadian Heritage. She was not familiar with the file and she denied all responsibility, even though the Department of Canadian Heritage is responsible for managing the heritage aspect of Canadian monuments. It is a complete breach of ministerial responsibility.

Two ministers completely ignored the professional process that was put in place to ensure that the choice would be based on the criteria of a jury fit to make that decision. Everyone knows former Supreme Court justice Louise Arbour. She herself was concerned. She even gave radio interviews to comment on this issue, saying that it made no sense, that this is just not how it is done and that it was purely political. As for us, we did everything we could, repeating it over and over again.

(1130) As I said at the outset, this is a purely political issue that proves yet again how little respect the Liberal government has for institutions. The Liberal government likes doing things its way and bending the rules. Bending the rules kind of comes naturally to the Liberals. They set up a process, then end up doing whatever they want. Using veterans to justify one's decision is insulting. I know for a fact that many people in both the veteran and enlisted communities are fed up with a government that does not respect institutions.

Respect is the number one thing people in the military and veterans want, and that starts with respect for the decisions that were made, which should not be based on frivolities. The worst thing one can do when it comes to our armed forces is show them that the higher-ups who make these decisions change their minds or base their decisions on who knows what, and then the repercussions are felt all the way down to the bottom. People lose faith. Soldiers and veterans have no faith whatsoever in this government.

If the government does not change its decision, then this monument will stand as a symbol of these eight years of Liberal governance. Rather than honouring our involvement in Afghanistan and being a source of pride for all those who participated in those missions, like my colleague who did one or two missions there and the other 40,000 Canadians who served, this monument will serve as a reminder of the Liberal government's approach over the past eight years. Unfortunately, that is what this monument is going to represent, and that should not be the case.

The battle that we are waging today is not necessarily about whether we personally prefer the Daoust team's monument, the Stimson team's monument or one of the other two monuments that were proposed. It is not about that. It is about respecting what was done as part of a clear government process, with specific rules. What we are seeing today is an insult to those government processes. When I talk about the concept of an institution, I am talking about an organization that has principles and rules that should be followed.

What we are seeing right now is a lack of respect for the institution, a lack of respect for the rules and a purely political decision based on who knows what, other than a pseudo-survey. Speaking of which, let me quote what Leger had to say about that survey:

All of these methodological errors show that this online consultation is unscientific and does not in any way represent the opinions of Canadian Armed Forces members, the families of Canadian Armed Forces members or the Canadian public. The results of this online consultation cannot be generalized to the Canadian population and should not be taken into account when objectively selecting a design for the national monument to Canada's mission in Afghanistan.

That was the analysis from Jean-Marc Léger of the Leger firm, Canada's best-known polling firm. If the government sticks to its position, and if this pseudo-survey that Leger completely demolished was really the key factor behind the political decision to set aside the jury's choice in favour of the Stimson proposal, we can really see how the government approaches all decisions affecting Canadians. We can also see that it has totally lost its way. The government has forgotten the most important thing, namely, respect for the institution, respect for our troops and respect for the Canadian Forces, and I mean real respect, not Liberal baloney.

(1135) [ English ]

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

Madam Speaker, in 2014, the Conservative Party demonstrated no respect for veterans when they, in a press release, made an announcement about the land allocation for the site. We are being criticized for the number of years. The Conservatives noted eight years. The Korean War monument took 40 years. That is four decades. The Liberals ultimately did get it put into place, but it took four decades. The Conservatives have no idea what they are talking about.

If we were to base this on their history, I would give them a raspberry when it comes to dealing with our veterans, because they clearly demonstrated, while they were in government, a true lack of respect for veterans. They say we are not doing the job when in fact we reopened the office and have invested hundreds of millions of additional dollars. We get the job done when it comes to war monuments. That has been clearly demonstrated in the past.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus :

Madam Speaker, I enjoy seeing my colleague try to shift the blame off the Liberals while painting the Conservatives as people who do not care about veterans. I would remind my colleague that a Conservative government was at the helm during the war effort in Afghanistan, ready to provide the equipment that our troops needed on the ground. We made sure that things changed, because the mission got off to a bad start.

Thanks to the efforts of the Conservative government of the day, we were able to make our soldiers on the ground proud and supply them with the equipment they needed in time to fulfill their combat role. Now, the Liberals are in power, and they are responsible for showing respect to these people who gave their all, with our support, during the war effort. Now it is the Liberals' turn to show them respect.

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

Madam Speaker, I sincerely congratulate my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles on his speech. He made some points I did not bring up in my speech. It was very interesting. I see the Liberals are still trying to defend the indefensible. I would like my colleague's thoughts on this. What we have here is a monumental gaffe, no pun intended. The Liberal government is turning this monument into a monument to shame, to controversy. I am not the one saying that. Would my colleague agree that it is not too late for the government to reverse course and give the Daoust team the contract?

Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus :

Madam Speaker, I do indeed believe that we are at a crucial point in the process. It is not too late. There is still time to change things. All the government has to do is swallow its pride and say it thought it was doing the right thing, but, as it turns out, the poll results were not really what it thought they were. There are so many ways the government could backtrack. I am pretty sure that has happened in politics before. This monument will be there for decades, for centuries. This is an extremely important decision. A mistake was made, but the government can reverse course and say it has changed its mind. If the government does that, we will support it.

(1140) Mr. Blake Richards (Banff—Airdrie, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague what he, as a veteran, thinks about the lack of respect the Liberal government showed when the Prime Minister's Office interfered in this matter.

Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus :

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question and I thank him for his work as our party's shadow minister for veterans affairs. The fact that the government used veterans is what bothers me the most in all this. By citing a bad survey, a pseudo-survey, to claim that this was the veterans' choice, it was using veterans for its own political ends. As my colleague who did a tour in Afghanistan mentioned earlier in the debate, this should not be a political issue. This mission is a mission that Canada engaged in.

We should all be proud to have a monument that represents Canada's war effort in Afghanistan, instead of getting caught up in a debate over purely political decisions and breaches of process. This is an insult to veterans.

[ English ]

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

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for London—Fanshawe . I feel it is absolutely critical to start this speech by recognizing Afghan veterans for their tremendous service. It is a very hard process to go through. I think it is also important to recognize their families, because the truth is that when it comes to the military, it is not only the members who serve but also their families. I just want to recognize them and thank them for their service today.

As the member of Parliament who represents the 19 Wing in Comox, I also want to take an opportunity to thank its members for their tremendous service. They have done a lot of incredible things for our region for many years. When they are needed, they show up to work. I remember spending time with some of the search and rescue service members, and I talked to one woman in particular about her ability to deal with situations like jumping into the water and how she does that when it seems so terrifying to me. She said they train so that when they are called, they just do the work that needs to be done.

That outlines the reality that people who serve this country work hard, practise hard and prepare themselves to do things that the majority of us could never imagine doing. Here we are having this discussion today about a monument and the process that unfolded to have that monument. I know that so many have been waiting for this monument. People want a place in this country where they can go to acknowledge history, acknowledge their service, acknowledge those who never came home and acknowledge the loved ones who were left behind. What is very clear is that the process has been unclear.

We heard from the minister that there was not a clear awareness or understanding of how to connect to veterans directly. Of all the situations, that is the one that concerns me the most. We need the voices of veterans who served in Afghanistan and their loved ones' voices to be clear. We keep hearing from the government that this is what it is doing and this is about focusing on the people who served. However, as we know, the process that unfolded was not clear. We know there was no verification process to ensure that the people who were giving their opinions were in fact veterans and their loved ones.

This provides the perception that it was not done correctly, and that is very concerning to me. I think when we look at how processes unfold, it is important that a connection is made with veterans. As we have heard again and again from veterans, this is something the department is not doing effectively. For example, when rehabilitation services for veterans moved to the PCVRS, many veterans did not know that was happening. They saw changes to their services and they did not understand why. The intake process was long and they were often retraumatized by having to share their stories again.

We heard from folks who were providing rehabilitation services, in some cases for 40 years, who were excluded from the process. Again, it was not clear, and part of the problem was that the method was not explained to service people, to veterans and to their families, which is very concerning. This is not how it should be for veterans. They should be getting the services they need. What I have talked about repeatedly at the veterans affairs committee is that we need to see veteran-centric services. We hear about things like sanctuary trauma, and I think that is something we need to be taking seriously.

The veterans who are trying to access supports and services from Veterans Affairs feel like they are being retraumatized instead of being provided with the services they desperately need. Those things need to be addressed, and a lot of the training that people are doing at Veterans Affairs, good people trying hard to do the work, is not as effective as it could be in making sure there is an understanding of what people need, what veterans need and what their families need when they call.

(1145) We talked to the minister several times in our committee, and one thing I brought up to the minister, over the last four years that I have served in that role, was that there was no direct contact with letters, phone calls and follow-ups. If this were a department that, I would hope, focused on service delivery, then those things would be happening. If that were the case, then we would not be having this debate right now.

There would be a clear process that would show that Afghan veterans and their loved ones had given the feedback and that a decision had been made that respected their rights, but we do not have that information. We know Leger came out, very clearly, and said this is not a method that is clear and that it is not consistent. It becomes this thing where we are going back and forth, and the ones who are really hurting through this process are the members who served and their loved ones. That concerns me greatly. Here we are, again, looking at this reality.

We know, in the last Conservative government, that veterans really struggled. They were really frustrated. Their offices were shut down, and access to services became a bigger and bigger concern. I heard, then, about sanctuary trauma. I heard from veterans that they were frustrated. They kept trying to get support, and they could not. It just seems that what we are hearing in the House today is the Liberals and Conservatives fighting about who was worse, and we are not talking about what needs to change for veterans so that debate does not continue to happen.

This brings me back to what I keep hearing in my office from survivors of veterans. They are mostly women who are mostly in their late seventies to early nineties. They are calling my office and talking to me about the survivors benefit. They are asking me about the announcement the Liberal government made in 2019 of $150 million that it would give out to those, mostly women, who were rejected for survivors benefits because they married their spouses after age 60. Even though they cared for them, in some cases for 20 to 30 years, they got absolutely nothing when their partners passed away.

That $150 million was allocated and was supposed to get out the door to start supporting those women in order to respect the veterans who served our country and to respect the women who cared for them as they aged. We still have not seen a single cent of that go out to those survivors. That was four years ago, and I am still getting phone calls from those ladies who are struggling every day to make ends meet. They are seniors. They are going to their MPs and asking for help. They are asking when that money is coming out the door, and they do not know. What do I hear from Veterans Affairs?

I hear that it has not figured out the process. Those women, who cared for senior veterans and helped them to the very end of their lives, are getting zero dollars, even though they sacrificed in support of the sacrifice their partners made. The challenge is that here we are again, and we see, again and again, the repeat of unclear process and not very good communication with veterans and their families. We see a department that may have good intentions but somehow is missing the mark, and we need to see better.

We see sanctuary trauma, where veterans are coming forward talking about being traumatized while trying to access a service they need. It also reminds me that, right now in committee, we are doing the largest study that committee has ever done, and it is the first study it has ever done on women veterans. What we are hearing from women veterans is horrifying, and it repeats this pattern of their being left out, of not being able to access the services they need and of not being acknowledged as having health and mental health challenges while they served.

When they get to Veterans Affairs, they have to prove the things they went through. There is no acceptance of the fact that when the military, the army, the air force and the navy, opened up, they did not have the processes in place to support women. We need to do better by veterans. They definitely deserve it because they served us so well.

(1150) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I appreciated the question of concern raised by the member when I gave my remarks. I am interested in her thoughts as to how one could do verification when the government, because it applies not only to Veterans Affairs but also to other areas of government, looks to get feedback from Canadians on a wide variety of topics. Here, we are talking about the important Afghanistan war monument. There was a survey, a questionnaire, that went out. Most of the 12,000 responses were from veterans and their families.

Does she have some thoughts as to how the government can validate those types of questionnaires or surveys that go out, not only for this department, but also for other departments?

Ms. Rachel Blaney :

Madam Speaker, the reality is that I am not a pollster, but I am pretty darn sure that people who do that work would know exactly how to do it. It is important, and it is respectful to veterans to make sure there is no perception that this might not be the case. That is my concern. I hope those 12,000 folks who came forward and shared their thoughts and opinions are veterans. The government keeps telling us they are veterans, but there is actually no way to measure whether they are veterans or not. That is what is leading us down this path. My advice would simply be this: Please be thoughtful in the process. Ask experts to help when needed, and let us respect veterans as decisions are made.

Mrs. Cathay Wagantall (Yorkton—Melville, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the conversation that we are having today in the House. We know our veterans want to be supported and want to be valued. They respect protocol and good governance. They respect order. Valour and honour are really important to them. Here we have a circumstance where the government has usurped the role of the existing procurement process and has used a survey or a questionnaire that, as has been mentioned, cannot be verified. It is deeply disturbing to our veterans to consider that there are, possibly, individuals who have responded as veterans and are not veterans.

That is very inappropriate in their world. Can the member confirm that these two things, usurping the role of that procurement process and using, as an excuse, a questionnaire that has no validity, are what undermines the trust and confidence in the government by our veterans on this case? Should the government reverse this poor decision?

Ms. Rachel Blaney :

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member. We have spent many years together on committee and have served veterans in our roles. I deeply respect her commitment to veterans. I cannot say what the outcome should be. What I do agree with is that it should be veteran-centric, so we need to go back. Obviously, this is unfortunate. Afghan veterans have been waiting for this to happen, and they have not seen it happen because of so many mistakes. I hope the government would roll back and do this right, and make sure veterans are acknowledged for the important work they have done on this monument.

(1155) [ Translation ]

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to listen to my colleague. I have a lot of respect for her. My question is quite simple. According to Leger's conclusions, there is nothing usable in the survey that the government conducted. It is nothing but hot air. Does my colleague believe those conclusions?

[ English ]

Ms. Rachel Blaney :

Madam Speaker, I have worked with the member for many years on the committee, and I respect him deeply. I think Leger was very clear. It is unfortunate that the government did not do its homework to make sure there was a verification process and to make sure the people who gave the input were serving members, veterans who served or their families. Here we are, in a place where there is more chaos when there should be something we are all proud of in this country.

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP) :

Madam Speaker, I too am honoured to stand in this place and represent the folks of London—Fanshawe and to talk about the 13th report of the veterans affairs committee. That committee denounced the government's about-face and lack of respect for the rules when it decided not to award the design of the commemorative monument to a team linking the artist Luca Fortin and the architectural firm Daoust Lestage Lizotte Stecker, which won a competition conducted by the team of experts set up by the Liberal government itself.

I find it not surprising, but certainly concerning, that something the government did to try to honour veterans of the Afghanistan war is now backfiring so much and doing so much damage. This process to build such an important monument that would honour the 40,000 members of the Canadian Armed Forces was so important. There were 158 Canadians who died while serving in Afghanistan. That was an important process that needed to be followed, and that process was ignored.

I simply do not understand why, after going through so much of that process over eight years and after having that jury determine the winner and artist of the monument design, the government would do such an about-face. Again, this is about honouring veterans and our communities. I said this before: The honour I have to serve people in London—Fanshawe is incredible. London, as a community, holds that commemoration and that honouring of what veterans have done for our communities so highly.

When we talk about these monuments, in London, we have the Holy Roller, which is an 80-year-old tank from the Second World War. It is a Sherman tank that actually needed a lot of repair. It took several years, and it took a lot of effort. The community came together and worked on that restoration. When it was revealed again, when they took it back to our downtown in Victoria Park, hundreds of people came out.

Hundreds of people see that monument constantly when they go through Victoria Park, and they have that connection to what that sacrifice means and to what soldiers throughout Canadians' war history have given and have fought for. That is really important. I think about all the incredible veterans I have come to know over my term of service, so far. They are truly remarkable. In London—Fanshawe, we have Parkwood Institute, which is a veterans hospital. Throughout COVID, I was not able to visit like I wanted to, but the doors finally reopened, and we were able to go back.

I actually got to go back for Remembrance Day this year. The ceremonies we partake in, where I have the honour to lay a wreath, are part of that commemoration. I think about incredible veterans I have met in my career, like Pete Schussler, whom I spoke about in the House. Pete died recently. Pete was a retired chief warrant officer. He served in World War II. He served in England, France, Belgium and Holland. He re-enlisted after 1948 and served again with the Corps of Royal Canadian Electrical and Mechanical Engineers. He served in Korea. He was a peacekeeper in the Middle East. He served with NATO in Germany.

He received 16 honours and awards. He received the Order of Military Merit. He was knighted with the National Order of the Legion of Honor because he helped liberate France. Another incredible veteran in my community is George Beardshaw. George actually just celebrated his 100th birthday. He was a member of the Queen's Own Rifles of Canada. He was a Second World War veteran. He was also awarded France's highest honour, the Legion of Honor. He was made a knight.

They are veterans in my community, whom I am so honoured to know, and they also need to be commemorated and need to be treated with the respect they ultimately deserve.

(1200) Speaking of respect, my colleague, the member for North Island—Powell River , went into a great deal of detail about the survivors benefit that the government was supposed to provide to honour the family members of veterans. I come from a long line of members of Parliament, and my mother introduced a similar bill to Bill C-221 , which the member for North Island—Powell River introduced, regarding the removal of the gold-digger clause. Right now, spouses who marry veterans of the Canadian Armed Forces or the RCMP who are over the age of 60 are ineligible to receive the survivor pension.

That leaves survivors with nothing; these are mainly women who have supported veterans for a huge part of their lives. They live in poverty. They struggle to get by. Do they not deserve the same respect that we are talking about here? I am proud to support Bill C-221 , and I cannot understand why numerous governments, both Conservative and Liberal, have denied survivors, who are mainly women, these benefits. However, they continue to do so. That again speaks to a disrespect for our veterans.

It is perplexing to me that the government would go out of its way to set up this competition, have a jury select a specific artist, then interfere in that process, do a complete 180° and choose somebody else. I have a quote by a Université de Montréal professor, Dr. Chupin, who is the Canada research chair in architecture, competitions and mediations of excellence.

He told the veterans committee that the uproar over the planned monument represents “a turning point in the history of competitions in Canada” and that there is no precedent for the government interference that took place to overrule the jury, when the government set up the process itself. It does not make any sense to me. I will also note that another person who is part of this outrage is former Supreme Court justice Louise Arbour. I had the incredible honour of working as the NDP's defence critic while Louise Arbour was ruling on sexual misconduct in the military.

She is probably very familiar with such disappointment, I guess one could say, in the government. At this time, we have a recruitment and retention crisis within our military; the incredible women and men who spend their entire lives and build careers defending our country see how we are now treating our veterans. With this breakdown in process, I can see why they continue to lose hope in wanting to volunteer and go into service in the first place, not to mention the sexual misconduct crisis that is raging.

This is an opportunity for the House and the government to change their minds, honour veterans and follow through on the commemoration through this memorial. I certainly hope the government does so.

(1205) Mr. Stephen Ellis (Cumberland—Colchester, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, I just want to highlight a project that happened in Nova Scotia in my riding of Cumberland—Colchester. Military veterans, with great input from those who served in Afghanistan, were able to construct a memorial that is very befitting to honour those 158 Canadians who died in service to our great country. It was constructed in one year, at a cost of over $37,000. There are three Silver Cross families in my riding: the Mellish family, the Reid family and the Tedford family. We see them often. It is incredible that their loved ones are honoured on this memorial.

I would also like to highlight, very sadly, that during the unveiling of this monument, there were no members from the Liberal Party there at all. This is an affront to veterans. That the current Liberal government messed up the process is also an affront to veterans, but projects such as this can get done with the will of great veterans who served this country.

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen :

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's trying to stand up for things that are happening in his community. I have certainly done that, and I have worked very hard to try to find supports for other institutions that are commemorating veterans in our community. I have the 427 Wing, which was actually just awarded the Veterans Ombudsman Commendation for service to its community. I have the Victory Legion in London; it and all legions across the country do incredible work. They need supports from the federal government in terms of their places and infrastructure. The government can do a lot to support the institutions that help veterans in our communities.

Mr. Sean Casey (Charlottetown, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, this monument was the result of a process that involved a jury, which chose a monument design by Daoust. At the same time, the Department of Veterans Affairs launched a massive consultation that included numerous veterans groups; the overwhelming preference was for another project, put forward by Stimson. I really appreciated, during her speech, how the member cast light on the wonderful contributions of veterans in her community. What would those veterans say if the government had ignored their wishes and gone ahead with the jury selection?

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen :

Madam Speaker, I understand that this has been called into question. The department could not be sure of who was part of that survey or ensure that veterans' groups were in fact polled in the way the member is suggesting. The fact, again, that the government set up an expert jury who had done that consultation as well and rejected the findings of that expert jury is extremely questionable.

[ Translation ]

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

Madam Speaker, I have two quick questions for my colleague. First, does she believe that the Prime Minister's Office is in a better position to evaluate works of art? Second, is there not a very simple solution for getting out of the whole mess surrounding this monument that does not exist yet, but is already being called a monument to controversy? Could the government not simply respect the jury's choice? That is all.

(1210) [ English ]

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen :

Madam Speaker, again, I thank the hon. member for his work on this file. We had the opportunity to travel together to Dieppe, and that was a beautiful commemoration. Yes, for the government to set up an expert jury, for the expert jury to have done the work and then for the government to override it is beyond understanding. Ultimately, the government could go back to the findings of that expert jury and respect its wishes.

[ Translation ]

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) :

Is the House ready for the question?

Some hon. members: Question.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès): The question is on the motion. [ English ] If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux :

Madam Speaker, we would request a recorded vote, please.

[ Translation ]

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) :

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until later this day, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions. Division on motion deferred

Petitions Governor General

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, I rise today to present petition e‑4648, signed by 9,202 people from across Canada. This petition essentially calls for a reduction in the Governor General's expenses and salary and suggests various ways to accomplish that.

[ English ] Climate Change

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. The first is with respect to climate change. The most recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change indicates that we are feeling the impacts in Canada today with the increase in floods, wildfires and extreme temperatures. The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to move forward immediately with bold emissions caps for the oil and gas sector that are comprehensive in scope and realistic in achieving the necessary targets for Canada to reduce its emissions by 2030.

Food Security

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I have a petition that comes from community members in the Kingston, Frontenac, and Lennox and Addington region, in particular, Frontenac Secondary School. The petitioners are calling to the attention of the government that school food programs are recognized around the world as essential to the health, well-being and education of students. They note that data from Statistics Canada for 2022 indicates that one in four children in Canada lives in a food-insecure household and that Canada is the only G7 country that does not have a national school food program.

They are calling on the Government of Canada, the Minister of Finance , the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development to prioritize funding for a national school food program through budget 2024 and for its implementation in schools by the fall of 2024.

Questions on the Order Paper

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

Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1803, 1808, 1814 to 1820, 1823, 1828, 1829, 1832 to 1835, and 1842 to 1845.

[ Text ]

Question No. 1803—

Mr. Richard Cannings :

With regard to the Canadian Armed Forces' (CAF) ability to assist with wildfire and emergency response management: (

a) what evaluations and assessments of Canadian units and assets have been conducted to determine the CAF’s capability for wildfire and emergency response; (

b) what were the findings of any evaluations or assessments in (a); (

c) what are the details regarding assets and units that are currently able to respond to and assist with wildfire and emergency response, including the (

i) asset type, (ii) asset's use in wildfire management and emergency response, (iii) estimated life cycle of the asset; and (

d) what is the total number of CAF members currently trained to assist with wildfires, broken down by unit and training level as defined by the Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Centre?

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, Canada’s approach to emergency management is a whole-of-government effort. Provincial and territorial authorities, Indigenous governments, and municipalities are the first to respond when a major natural disaster occurs. They may submit a Request for Federal Assistance, or RFA, to Public Safety Canada, which can ultimately result in the employment of the Canadian Armed Forces, or CAF, when appropriate and as a force of last resort. With regard to (

a) and (b), to ensure readiness and seamless coordination with federal partners, the CAF as well as the broader Defence team, regularly participates in whole-of-government readiness exercises. As with any operation, domestic or international, the CAF also conducts their own lessons learned exercises to help inform their future planning. Further, and as part of the planning and force generation process, the CAF constantly assesses its assets, resources, and capabilities in order to remain flexible to respond to new priorities and emerging situations.

While the CAF have not conducted a specific assessment or evaluation of units and assets regarding wildfire and emergence response, the proposed resources and people allocated towards domestic response are factored into broader planning and examination of the CAF footprint in both a domestic and international context. With regard to (

c) and (d), CAF domestic response deployments fall under Operation Lentus. Operation Lentus follows an established plan of action and can be adapted to multiple situations, such as forest fires, floods, ice storms, or hurricanes. Based on the RFA, the CAF determines how many people to send, and assets to deploy. All CAF members can be deployed for domestic response under Operation Lentus; however, they must first achieve the requisite trade competencies.

Common tasks for members deployed on Operation Lentus include filling, distributing, and placing sandbags, mopping up fires, evacuating people, transporting people, delivering aid to remote communities, helping law enforcement and provincial authorities to get information to the public, checking on residents, and assessing infrastructure. While the CAF does not have dedicated firefighting assets, it can repurpose capabilities for domestic response. A historical overview of Operation Lentus, including assets deployed, can be found on the National Defence website.

In recent years, CAF deployments have ranged anywhere from 60 to 2,600 members, and included the use of military vehicles, aircraft, and a variety of other equipment and capabilities. For example, in August 2023, to help combat wildfires in Northwest Territories, CAF air assets were used for movement of personnel and equipment; evacuation and logistic support; and as firefighting resources. CAF air assets deployed included two CC-130J Hercules, one CC-138 Twin Otter and three CH-146 Griffon.

Ultimately, the CAF will continue to help provincial and local authorities when called upon to ensure the safety of Canadians.

Question No. 1808—

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie :

With regard to the initiative in Bill C-56,

An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition Act, that would implement a temporary enhancement to the GST New Residential Rental Property Rebate in respect of new purpose-built rental housing: (

a) what are the details of the opinions and studies, including the (

i) date, (ii)

summary of the studies, (iii) source of the documents (internal or external to the department), (iv) name of the department or organization that provided the opinion, that led the Minister of Finance and deputy ministers and assistant deputy ministers at the Department of Finance to say that removing the GST would lower the cost of housing; (

b) what are the details of the studies and opinions, including the (

i) date, (ii)

summary of the studies, (iii) source of the documents (internal or external to the department), (iv) name of the department or organization that provided the opinion, that were received by deputy ministers and assistant deputy ministers that support implementing the removal of GST for building rental housing; and (

c) what are the details of the opinions and studies in (

a) and (b), including the (

i) date, (ii)

summary of the studies, (iii) source of the documents (internal or external to the department), (iv) name of the department or organization that provided the opinion, that were sent to the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities and his office?

Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, Bill C 56, the Affordable Housing and Groceries Act, would enhance the goods and services tax, or GST, rental rebate on new rental housing, to incentivize the construction of more apartment buildings, student housing, and senior residences. This enhancement increases the GST rental rebate from 36% to 100% and removes the existing GST rental rebate phase out thresholds for new purpose built rental housing projects.

The measure also removes a restriction in the existing GST rules to ensure that public service bodies such as hospitals, charities, and qualifying nonprofit organizations that build or purchase purpose built rental housing are permitted to claim the 100% GST rental rebate. The enhanced GST rental rebate would apply to projects that begin construction on or after September 14, 2023, and on or before December 31, 2030, and complete construction by December 31, 2035.

In processing parliamentary returns, the Department of Finance applies the Privacy Act and the principles set out in the Access to Information Act, and certain information has been withheld on the grounds that the information constitutes cabinet confidence.

Question No. 1814—

Mr. Andrew Scheer :

With regard to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission’s (CRTC) new registration requirements for online streaming services and content creators: (

a) what is the purpose of the registry; (

b) for each type of service or creator required to register, what is the CRTC’s rationale for including it in the registry; (

c) how did the CRTC come up with the $10 million threshold amount; (

d) why did the CRTC create the registry; (

e) on what date did the CRTC first notify the Minister of Canadian Heritage that it was going to create the registry; (

f) what are the penalties for content creators who meet the threshold for mandatory registration, but do not register; (

g) how many entities does the CRTC project will register as part of the registry, broken down by type of entity; (

h) what guarantees, if any, will the CRTC provide to ensure that this registry will not expand or become more intrusive at any point in the future; and (

i) what privacy protections are in place to ensure that any information provided to the CRTC through the registry is not misused?

Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the Broadcasting Act requires the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, to regulate online broadcasting entities. As a first step, the CRTC created the registry to obtain some basic contact information about certain larger services operating in Canada, which will further the CRTC’s understanding of the Canadian online broadcasting landscape and will allow it to communicate with companies if necessary. For additional details, refer to paragraphs 24 and 25 of Broadcasting Regulatory Policy 2023-329.

With regard to (b), the registration requirement does not apply to creators. It applies only to large online services, like Netflix, Crave and Spotify, that earn more than $10 million per year in Canada. This excludes creators, including users who upload content on social media services. The rationale for including services in the registry is to provide the CRTC with basic information about these services and their broadcasting activities in Canada. For additional details, refer to Broadcasting Regulatory Policy 2023-329.

With regard to (c), the CRTC rendered its decision following a public consultation where stakeholders and Canadians at large participated. The CRTC considered the evidence and determined that a monetary threshold was the clearest way to establish which online undertakings should register. Online services earning less than $10 million per year in Canada will not have to register. For additional details, refer to paragraphs 46 to 115 of Broadcasting Regulatory Policy 2023-329. With regard to (d), the Broadcasting Act requires the CRTC to regulate online broadcasting entities.

As a first step, the CRTC created the registry to obtain some basic contact information about certain larger services operating in Canada, which will further the CRTC’s understanding of the Canadian online broadcasting landscape and will allow it to communicate with companies if necessary. For additional details, refer to paragraphs 24 and 25 of Broadcasting Regulatory Policy 2023-329. With regard to (e), the CRTC is a quasi-judicial tribunal that operates at arm’s length. The CRTC’s processes are entirely public.

The CRTC did not notify the Minister of Canadian Heritage that it was going to create the registry before the issuance of Broadcasting Regulatory Policy CRTC 2023-329. With regard to (f), content creators are not required to register. The CRTC is focused on developing a regulatory relationship with those entities that have to register. With regard to (g), large domestic and non-Canadian broadcasting entities will register their services. The CRTC estimates that approximately 50 to 100 services will need to register.

These entities will provide some basic information on the types of services offered upon registration. With regard to (h), registration is a basic information gathering step. Any changes to the registration requirements would be based on a public process in which Canadians and industry stakeholders would be able to participate to share their views. With regard to (i), the CRTC complies with the federal Privacy Act. Creators are not required to register or provide any information.

The public registry of online services would only show basic information concerning these services, such as the company’s name and mailing address.

Question No. 1815—

Mr. Andrew Scheer :

With regard to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission’s (CRTC) new registration requirements for online streaming services and content creators: (

a) what are the projected setup costs associated with the registry, in total, and broken down by item; (

b) what are the anticipated annual costs associated with operating the registry, in total, and broken down by type of expense; and (

c) what are the details of all contracts signed to date by the CRTC related to, or which provide any work associated with, the registry, including, for each, the (

i) date, (ii) vendor, (iii) amount, (iv) description of the goods or services, (

v) manner in which the contract was awarded (sole-sourced, competitive bid)?

Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, is a quasi-judicial tribunal that operates at arm’s length. It regulates the broadcasting and telecommunications industries in the public interest. The CRTC makes decisions after broad public consultations and a thorough analysis of the evidence on the public record. Its broadcasting operations are funded through fees collected from the industry. The CRTC is not registering content creators. Registering large online broadcasting services with revenues of at least $10 million per year will not require new staff or new systems.

With regard to (a), the CRTC has existing staff, processes, and systems in place for registering broadcasting and telecommunications services that will also be used to register online broadcasting undertakings. With regard to (b), there will be no incremental costs associated with operating the registry. With regard to (c), there are no contracts in place regarding registration, nor are any planned.

Question No. 1816—

Mr. Andrew Scheer :

With regard to the process for bonuses for executives at the Canada Mortgage and Housing Company (CMHC): (

a) what is the specific process for determining whether and at what level a bonus is awarded to (

i) the president and chief executive officer, (ii) other executives at CMHC; (

b) which executives, including the president, require that their bonuses be approved by the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities; (

c) what specific metrics were used to determine the level of the president of CMHC’s bonus in each of the last three years; (

d) for each metric in (c), what specific accomplishments were made by the president in order to justify each bonus; (

e) what metrics were used to determine the bonus levels of other CMHC executives in each of the last three years; and (

f) what specific accomplishments were made by CMHC executives to justify each bonus?

Mr. Chris Bittle (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the process for bonuses for executives at the Canada Mortgage and Housing Company, or CMHC, in answer to (a), (b), (c), and (e), the Guidelines of the Performance Management Program for Chief Executive Officers of Crown Corporations, which are available at https://www.canada.ca/en/privy-council/programs/appointments/governor-council-appointments/performance-management/crown-appointees.html, from the Privy Council Office, Senior Personnel Secretariat outlines the process for determining whether and at what level a performance-based compensation is payable.

In processing parliamentary returns, the government applies the Privacy Act and the principles set out in the Access to Information Act. Information with regard to (

d) and (

f) has been withheld on the grounds that the information constitutes personal information.

Question No. 1817—

Mr. Andrew Scheer :

With regard to the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and all departments and entities the minister is responsible for, broken down by year since January 1, 2016: (

a) what was the total amount spent on consulting contracts related to housing; (

b) what was the total amount spent on consulting contracts related to the (

i) Rapid Housing Initiative, (ii) Housing Accelerator Fund, including the development and implementation; (

c) what are the details of each contract in (b)(

i) and (b)(ii), including, for each, the (

i) date, (ii) vendor, (iii) value, (iv) description of the goods or services, (

v) manner in which the contract was awarded (sole-sourced, competitive bid); (

d) what are the details of all contracts in (

a) worth over $10,000, including, for each, the (

i) date, (ii) vendor, (iii) value, (iv) description of the goods or services, (

v) manner in which the contract was awarded, (vi) type of consultant; and (

e) did any of the consulting contracts in (

a) or (

b) result in the government receiving a report or recommendations, and, if so, what are the details of each, including the (

i) vendor, (ii) date the reports or recommendations were received, (iii) title, (iv)

summary of the contents, (

v) website where the report is available online?

Mr. Chris Bittle (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and all departments and entities the minister is responsible for, Infrastructure Canada has nothing to report, the Canada Infrastructure Bank has nothing to report, the Windsor-Detroit Bridge Authority has nothing to report, and Jacques Cartier and Champlain Bridges Incorporated has nothing to report.

The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, or CMHC, undertook an extensive preliminary search in order to determine the amount of information that would fall within the scope of the question and the amount of time that would be required to prepare a comprehensive response. CMHC concluded that producing and validating a comprehensive response to this question is not possible in the time allotted and could lead to the disclosure of incomplete and misleading information. For contracts over $10,000, CMHC complies with the Treasury Board’s proactive disclosure policy, publishing these contracts on its website.

They can be found at https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/about-cmhc/corporate-reporting/transparency/procurement.

Question No. 1818—

Ms. Melissa Lantsman :

With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) seeking sensitive information about Canadian businesses from independent online service providers without particular suspicion of non-compliance or confirmed tax obligations: (

a) did the CRA begin this practice following any directive from the Minister of National Revenue; (

b) if the answer to (

a) is affirmative, what was the directive and on what date was it issued; (

c) if the answer to (

a) is negative, why did the CRA decide to act in such a manner; (

d) what specific data protections, if any, beyond routine CRA practices, are in place for the CRA in their request to access sensitive information about Canadian businesses from independent online service providers, to ensure data is maintained and secured against breaches; (

e) how many privacy breaches occurred at the CRA during the last year in which statistics are available and how many (

i) individuals, (ii) businesses, had their information involved in those breaches; (

f) has the Minister of National Revenue provided any directives which permi