Louise Arbor strikes back. The former Supreme Court judge is asking Ottawa to reverse its decision by respecting the choice of the jury in the competition for a monument commemorating the Canadian intervention in Afghanistan.
Mme Arbor is, so to speak, judge and party in this matter. The former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights was strategic advisor to the winning team of the competition formed around the architectural firm Daoust Lestage Lizotte Stecker and the artist Luca Fortin. The Department of Veterans Affairs favored the second-place proposal after consulting with veterans and their families. The about-face was announced last June.
“We don’t have many means other than calling on the government to ask it to respect the process that it itself has put in place, that’s where we are,” said the Duty the lawyer Louise Arbour. It is not acceptable that in a question of call for tenders, for a monument or for anything relating to federal government procurement, the rules are not respected and applied. We are therefore calling on the government to ask it to follow up on the jury’s decision and grant us [le contrat]. »
The Daoust team launched a petition now with around 180 signatories from the world of arts and architecture. This support will be submitted in Ottawa in the coming days.
“The petition asks that the government award the contract to our team since our team won the competition conducted according to the rules,” adds Mr. Fortin. We also want this type of situation to never happen again. »
The designer of the winning proposal says the government’s credibility is at stake, including on the international artistic and architectural scene. Competitions for major works, monuments or buildings are often open to foreign competition.
Luca Fortin says that several requests for a meeting with the new Minister of Heritage, Pascale St-Onge, have gone unheeded. Interview requests from Duty addressed to the Department of Heritage and the National Capital Commission were referred to the Department of Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) which ultimately did not respond to questions concerning compliance with the rules of the competition or possible compensation offered to the flouted winner .
The short text provides the justification for the online consultation of some 10,000 people (including a majority of veterans and their families), 62% of whom preferred the Stimson team’s project ultimately chosen by the State.
“The way Canada recognizes military service must be meaningful for veterans,” writes Marc Lescoutre of VAC media relations. We prioritize veteran feedback on finalist monument design concepts. »
The ministers concerned, Ginette Petitpas Taylor (ACC) and Pascale St-Onge (Heritage) will have to explain themselves before the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs of the House of Commons, no later than October 19 according to a Bloc motion adopted at the beginning of the month . One thing is certain, Minister Pablo Rodriguez, who was still heading Canadian Heritage this summer, approved the annulment of the decision as requested by ACC.
When the minister flouts the rules
A memorandum obtained by the Access to Information Act shows that Mr. Rodriguez approved on May 11, 2023 the reversal of the decision desired by ACC. The Ministry of Heritage is responsible for the establishment of major monuments in the capital. Minister Rodriguez’s approval was necessary to move forward with the Stimson team, despite the jury’s choice.
The document obtained clearly explains that the minister is responsible for implementing the Policy on National Memorials on federal lands in Canada’s Capital Region. The memorandum specifies that ACC will assume the decision to cancel the choice of the competition jury. Which was done publicly.
According to the rules of the competition, the participating teams had ten days after the decision rendered on June 19, 2022 to appeal it to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal which receives procurement grievances. Mme Arbor is convinced that this body would have ruled in favor of its team but also that the possible decision would not have been binding or would have been accompanied by a proposal for minimal financial compensation based on the notion of loss of profit.
“It’s not a matter of profit,” said the former judge. It is a matter of prestige to erect a monument, not to build bridges and roads. […] What is important is that the government recognizes the need to respect the rules of the competition. I think it’s dangerous to set a precedent. This can lead to a lack of trust, not just in the field of public art, but anywhere it comes to procurement. This is also what is at stake with our case. »