SoVote

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

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

62 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

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

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

85 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

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

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

510 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

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

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

38 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

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

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

86 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

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

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

47 words

Mr. Alex Ruff

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

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

34 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

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

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

19 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

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

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

56 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

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

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

45 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

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

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

298 words

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

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

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

149 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

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

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

134 words

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

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

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

131 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

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

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

80 words

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

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

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

160 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

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

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

137 words

Mr. Blake Richards (Banff—Airdrie, CPC)

Dec/5/23 11:08:14 a.m.
Watch

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?

159 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Dec/5/23 11:09:19 a.m.
Watch

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.

128 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Dec/5/23 11:10:17 a.m.
Watch

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.

62 words

Ask
Brief

SoVote

House Hansard - 262