Veterans Affairs Committee on June 17th, 2024

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

This sounds like debate, Chair.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

—something totally different and irrelevant, and then afterwards say why this is not being studied, is very relevant to note.

I saw them come to the Hill and speak to us many times, and I think it's a disservice, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Mr. Sarai.

I'll go back to Mr. Richards. I understand that we have committee business and a lot of studies and motions to discuss, but for now, Mr. Richards has the floor to explain his motion and say a few words.

I have a list of members who'd like to intervene. I saw the light, so I know we're going to have a vote, but let's continue.

Please, Mr. Richards, go on.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

That was obviously not a point of order, but it is interesting to me to hear Liberal members say, after just voting down a motion to have more meetings over the summer, that we have all these things to discuss. If you really believe that, why didn't you support the motion to have meetings over the summer so we could discuss them? It sounds incredibly.... I don't think I'm allowed to use the word for what that is, but it's certainly a contradiction in statements. It once again speaks to the lengths the Liberals will go in order to avoid discussing this very important issue and a lot of other ones.

He even mentioned Persian Gulf veterans. I can tell you that the Persian Gulf veterans I'm speaking to are incredibly disappointed because they believe they're being used as pawns. This is what the Liberals always do. This is what this Prime Minister always does. They find a way to create division. They're trying to create division between Afghan veterans and Persian Gulf veterans, because they're not even studying what the Persian Gulf veterans asked to be studied.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Chair, on a point of order, the bells are ringing now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

I saw that. We can stay until 10 minutes before the vote, but I need unanimous consent to—

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

We give consent. Conservatives give consent.

[An hon. member]

The bells are not ringing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

There was a bell, so I don't know.

[An hon. member]

I think they're just testing them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Mr. Richards, I'm so sorry that I interrupted you. Please, go ahead.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

That's fine, Chair. I appreciate you have to keep on top of that. It's the first legitimate interruption I've had, so I acknowledge that you're on top of it.

Speaking again to the situation, over the course of a year and a half, some kind of interference took place. If was a good reason for it and a need to change the decision to honour veterans, one would assume that all members of this committee would simply support the motion so we can receive the documents and find out what this good reason was.

However, the fact is, they're unwilling to support the motion and have gone to incredible lengths over the course of more than seven months to try to avoid having a vote on it. They've adjourned debate, filibustered meetings and moved amendments that are intended to filibuster. All sorts of tactics have been used to try to avoid having to support that motion. They've tried to change the motion to the point that it's meaningless, because they want to hide most of the documents in question. Why would they do all of that unless their intention was to cover something up? If there was nothing to hide, they'd just support the motion. Then we would be able to find out what happened and would be able to see the monument, hopefully, finally get built.

I'll point out that the last time I visited the site—I don't know if it's changed since—it was an empty field. I don't think that's what the veterans who served in Afghanistan or the families of the 158 who gave their lives in that mission want to see. They don't want to see an empty field. They want to see something that recognizes their service.

If there was an intention to honour those veterans, it would be simple: Pass the motion, get the documents, find out what the reason was for the interference, hopefully get the monument built as quickly as possible and, at the same time, allow this committee to work on a number of other issues that are important to us and that we need to be dealing with. That's certainly my goal. It's the reason I moved the motion to have meetings over the summer. We've seen a lot of time wasted here by trying to avoid a vote. We could make up for that time. We could pass the motion and move to some of the other issues that are incredibly important as well.

Instead, what the government has done is tried to create division among veterans. It's tried to create division between Afghan veterans and Persian Gulf veterans, while doing nothing for either of them. That's the saddest part of this whole thing. It's doing nothing for either of them. It's fine to say, “Let's talk about the recognition of Persian Gulf veterans”, but we know what the real intentions are based on the fact that the study doesn't even recognize the important point of wartime service and that designation, which is exactly what Persian Gulf veterans are asking for. It's not even a—

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Excuse me, Mr. Richards. There's a point of order.

Mr. Desilets, the floor is yours.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Chair, I would like to challenge my Conservative Party colleague a bit about the fact that we have two witnesses here who took a plane yesterday and have to eat and sleep in Ottawa. That costs several thousand dollars. Since the Conservatives are so interested in cutting expenses, it would be a good opportunity to save money by hearing from these two witnesses.

I will close by saying that, if my Conservative colleague had not filibustered for so many meetings, it probably wouldn't have been necessary to ask us for five additional meetings this summer. That's all.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you for your comments, Mr. Desilets.

I understand, and I also want to personally thank the witnesses, because they agreed to come and testify today after a last-minute request from the committee.

However, according to the rules of procedure, Mr. Richards has the right to explain his motion. I'll turn it over to him again.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Yes, it wasn't a point of order.

To make it really clear, it's not the Conservatives who do not wish to see this motion pass. The Conservatives are the ones fighting to see exactly this happen. It's what I've been trying to do here today, even. Members of this committee, particularly the Liberal members and sometimes the NDP member, have tried to do everything they can to cover up for the Prime Minister. That is not what this committee is supposed to be for. The Conservative Party is the one party doing exactly what we're all supposed to be here to do, which is stand up for our veterans.

What I was speaking to was how the Liberal government, as it tends to do with everything, is trying to create division among Canadians. That is always what we see from the Prime Minister. Justin Trudeau is the master of creating division among Canadians. That's how he distracts from the terrible policies of his government and from the horrible effects they've had on our country and Canadians.

This is another example of that. It's an attempt to play Afghan veterans against Persian Gulf veterans without even addressing either of their issues. I spoke to how Afghanistan veterans want to see this monument built. They want to see recognition of the mission they served in. Persian Gulf veterans want to see recognition that what they fought in was a war. They want the designation of wartime service. It's been made quite clear to us, even in the name of this study, which doesn't acknowledge that that's what this is about, that Persian Gulf veterans immediately recognize they are being played and used. It's obvious to them, and we're standing up for them.

We heard from the minister previously at this committee. I asked her if the Persian Gulf War was in fact a war. Despite my several attempts to get an answer, she refused to answer—

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Excuse me, Mr. Richards. We have point of order.

Mr. Sarai.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

The member seems to be talking about the Persian Gulf. If he wants, he can probably revert back to that. We can ask our witnesses questions on that. If he's referring to his motion, that has nothing to do with the Persian Gulf.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

It does, in fact. Nice try, though.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

I'd like to figure out which one he's talking about.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

I will note, Chair, that the study of wartime service is in the motion.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Please keep it quiet. We have interpreters working with us. Do not talk at the same time.

Mr. Richards, you have your motion. Please stick to it, because we still have witnesses with us.

Thank you for staying with us, Madame Meunier and Monsieur Tessier.

Mr. Richards, the floor is yours.