44th Parl. 1st Sess.
December 5, 2023 10:00AM
- Dec/5/23 11:10:36 a.m.
- Watch
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?
91 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/23 11:11:17 a.m.
- Watch
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.
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/23 11:12:06 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, first, let me inform you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.
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.
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.
1449 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/23 11:22:09 a.m.
- Watch
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.
122 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/23 11:23:06 a.m.
- Watch
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.
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/23 11:24:02 a.m.
- Watch
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?
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/23 11:24:49 a.m.
- Watch
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.
180 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/23 11:26:02 a.m.
- Watch
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?
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/23 11:26:46 a.m.
- Watch
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.
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/23 11:27:29 a.m.
- Watch
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.
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.
1270 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/23 11:36:30 a.m.
- Watch
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.
159 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/23 11:37:48 a.m.
- Watch
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.
147 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/23 11:38:37 a.m.
- Watch
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?
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/23 11:39:28 a.m.
- Watch
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.
124 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/23 11:40:11 a.m.
- Watch
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.
34 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/23 11:40:42 a.m.
- Watch
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.
135 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/23 11:41:38 a.m.
- Watch
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.
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.
1464 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/23 11:51:15 a.m.
- Watch
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?
122 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/23 11:52:25 a.m.
- Watch
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.
132 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/23 11:53:14 a.m.
- Watch
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?
156 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
