What was supposed to be a unifying project, commemorating for the Armed Forces as well as the Canadian public the sacrifice in Afghanistan of 165 of their fellow citizens, instead turned out to be a resounding fiasco. At the dawn of Remembrance Day, dedicated to the memory of veterans, the Liberal government was still trying hard to justify its decision to manipulate the design competition for the Memorial to their mission in Afghanistan. His explanations are still not enough to counter the impression of an outrageous political intervention.
June 2023, the firm Daoust Lestage Lizotte Stecker and Quebec artist Luca Fortin learned that they had won the competition in question and the three million dollar contract from the Department of Veterans Affairs. But also that this decision, taken by a multidisciplinary jury at the end of a process launched four years earlier, would not be respected. Another project was instead chosen, conceptualized by artist Adrian Stimson, a veteran member of the Siksika nation in southern Alberta and having himself fought in Afghanistan, along with two Toronto firms.
Why did the government storm an independent call for tenders? To take into account the opinions of veterans. Canada owes them “a debt that we will never be able to repay,” Minister Ginette Petitpas Taylor (whose predecessor chaired the file) argued in a parliamentary committee, and “it is therefore the least we can do to choose the design which best corresponds to this [qu’ils] wish “.
However, this alleged favor to veterans is taken from a sham “survey” dismantled by the Léger firm. The sample is in no way representative — 12% of the 12,000 respondents were French-speaking, even though they make up 22% of the Canadian population; 35% were from Ontario and 15.5% from Alberta, much more than the proportion of the population of these two provinces associated with the project proclaimed the winner. Respondents self-identified with the categories proposed — so it is impossible to validate that more than 85% of them were actually veterans, members of the Armed Forces or relatives of victims who fell in combat in Afghanistan.
No matter, the liberal political class preferred this arbitrary consultation to the integrity of the democratic process of awarding public art contracts, which had until now always been respected. The duty of recognition, interpreted this time as the obligation to defer to those we wanted to honor, took precedence.
No one disputes that the opinions of veterans should be canvassed. But the jury had taken this public consultation into account in its weighted evaluation of the submissions. A jury of seven people who included in their own ranks, by the way, a veteran of the mission in Afghanistan, the mother of a captain who died there on mission as well as a former ambassador to Kabul.
This committee preferred the more abstract proposal of a refined monument, evoking the twin towers of New York, at the genesis of the conflict, and the fabric of the burqa of Afghan women abandoned to their fate after the departure of Western troops. The Liberal government decided in favor of four bulletproof vests and bronze helmets planted in the heart of a circular steel enclosure reminiscent of the refuge of a military base. A missed opportunity to demonstrate cultural vision. “Do we want to maintain consensus, which is generally less daring, or do we want to highlight what will distinguish us today, and what will still distinguish us tomorrow by its boldness? » asked filmmaker Charles Binamé in our pages.
In Washington too, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial attracted criticism from veterans during its construction. Forty years later, it is one of the most visited in the American capital.
Canadian Heritage seems to be washing its hands of this disavowal denounced by many stakeholders in the artistic and architectural community. At most, they simply endorsed the one handed down by the Department of Veterans Affairs, they claim. Do they not, however, have the mandate to protect and promote “Canadian identity and values”, but also “cultural development and heritage”?
Rather, they have just undermined the future of public art. Because who would want to be part of a jury whose decision could be overturned without notice? And who will want to design and submit a project likely to stand out only to be so rudely dismissed? It is the confidence of all these players which has just been shaken.
Renée Daoust and Luca Fortin still hope that the government will correct its mistake. It’s a safe bet that he won’t. But he should think twice, for the sake of artistic integrity and that of this future memorial.