George Proud

[Prince Edward Island, April 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, each year I like to stand and invite all of my hon. colleagues and their constituents to my riding of Hillsborough, and Prince Edward Island in general.

P.E.I. has in the past few years really strived to enhance its tourism sector. We are graced with beautiful sandy beaches, gentle rolling hills and inviting warm weather. We also have our eternal tribute to Anne of Green Gables with the various tourist sites and the famous stage production at the Confederation Centre of the Arts.

Prince Edward Island is now more accessible since the opening of the Confederation bridge. In fact the bridge has become an attraction in itself. As proof, last year there were over one million visitors. That is up substantially from the year previous. But we are not yet satisfied. The industry this year is aiming for 1.4 million visitors.

I invite everyone from across the country to come and enjoy everything Prince Edward Island has to offer. I can assure them they will not be disappointed.

[Labelling Of Toys, April 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, two points need to be addressed. First, the 1992 legislation provided merchant navy veterans with the same access to all currently available veterans benefits as armed forces veterans enjoy. As the Minister of Veterans Affairs stated, not a few, not some, but all the benefits.

The hon. member for Edmonton East disputes this. I would ask him to name a current veterans benefit merchant navy veterans do not qualify for and I assure the House that I will show him the specific legal authority under which that benefit is provided to merchant navy veterans today.

The hon. member also suggests that merchant navy veterans have been denied access to benefits because of restrictive wording in the legislation. I invite him to provide the details of any case of a merchant navy veteran being denied a benefit because of such wording. The reality is that not one case has been produced in the almost six years the legislation has been in effect.

My second point is related to the commitment made in 1992 to monitor the implementation of the legislation and to correct any shortcomings which might arise. As mentioned earlier, no material shortcomings have arisen in the six years the legislation has been in force. The legislation has provided the access to veterans benefits it was intended to do.

Nevertheless, merchant navy representatives have identified a number of technical and legal points they would like to see addressed. The Minister of Veterans Affairs is prepared to act on those items. Presumably the minister can count on the full support of the official opposition for the quick passage of that legislation when it is brought forward.

[Veterans Affairs, April 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the legislation that gave the merchant seamen veteran status came into force in 1992. Therefore everything that was in place then they are eligible for. All of the members who were merchant seamen with high seas voyages qualify for every compensation that is available to every veteran in Canada.

[Veterans Affairs, April 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her question.

It was the present Minister of Veterans Affairs and other members of the Liberal Party along with Conservative members who brought legislation forward which gave the merchant seamen veteran status under the act. I say to her that they did receive that and they will continue to receive it. There will be further legislation coming later in the year and what that entails I do not know as yet.

[Norad, April 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the 1998 NORAD Top Scope air control competition was held on March 31 at Tyndell Air Force Base in Florida, involving American and Canadian personnel. I am proud to note the impressive performance of two Canadian members.

Corporal John Lynch of 22 Wing North Bay, a native of Dartmouth, won the title of Best Weapons Director Technician following six days of intense competition.

Captain John Woodbeck, a native of Peterborough, won the title of Best Airborne Warning and Control System Surveillance Officer following fierce competition from his Canadian and American peers.

NORAD is respected worldwide for its radar technology, but the utility and performance of this technology is only as good as the experts controlling it. That is why this biennial competition is so important.

Again I salute these two men on behalf of all Canadians and congratulate the armed forces for continuing to produce such high calibre personnel.

[Child Benefit, March 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased for the opportunity to speak about energy efficiency in federal government buildings.

We must rest assured that the FBI program will not be cancelled. It has met with such success that NRCan is working to expand it in co-operation with the provinces, municipalities and the private sector.

Earlier this week I participated in an FBI announcement in Place Vincent Massey in Hull, Quebec, with three of my colleagues. The federal government is committed to a 20% reduction from 1990 levels of greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2005 within its own facilities.

Federal departments are delivering on this commitment through a number of energy efficiency programs administered by the office of energy efficiency. The FBI program is one of these. The FBI is an initiative developed by NRCan to assist government departments and agencies to improve the energy efficiency of their facilities.

It is estimated that once fully implemented in all government facilities the FBI will result in the creation of 20,000 jobs, the reduction of energy costs by $160 million annually, investments in the order of $1 billion, and untold market opportunities and environmental benefits.

In short, we are hoping to use energy efficiency programs such as the FBI as catalysts for a more vibrant economy.

[Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion, March 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Motion No. 75 put forward by the hon. member for Kamloops.

Veterans status is a unique honour and it confers special privileges to those who have served Canada. In recognition of the sacrifices they made a grateful nation has provided benefits to help provide for their war related needs. I consider it an honour to play a role as parliamentary secretary in the government's approach on veterans issues.

This motion, as it is written now, would give veteran status and benefits only to those Canadians who fought for one side in the Spanish civil war. Let me remind my hon. colleague that Canadians fought on both sides in the civil war.

Canadians answered the call to serve their country during two world wars, the Korean War, and in several peacekeeping operations.

However, as the member mentioned, some Canadians served under different flags, during other conflicts, notably with the opposing factions during the Spanish civil war.

About 1,300 Canadians volunteered for the international brigade to fight against Franco. Incidentally, in the first hour of debate of this motion, the member for Chateauguay indicated that 52 countries participated in the civil war. I do not know where the member got that figure. But of the 1,300 Canadians who participated, some fought in the Mackenzie-Papineau battalion, the Mac-Paps, others in the Abraham Lincoln battalion, the British battalion and other units. They suffered heavy causalities. Only 646 returned to Canada.

Let me make it very clear about the government's view of their efforts. No one will deny that these Canadians fought bravely. No one will deny that they believed deeply in the cause for which they fought. They were not fighting for Canada. They were fighting in direct contravention of Canadian policy and Canadian law.

I remind this House that Canada had a policy of neutrality in the civil war that divided Spain. It was a sound policy. If the hon. member for Kamloops believes that Canada should have weighed in on one side or the other of the Spanish civil war, I ask him to look back to the political realities of those times.

In 1937 J.S. Woodsworth, one of the founders of the CCF, which we all know is the precursor of the New Democratic Party, presented a motion to this House advocating strict neutrality in all European conflicts. To enforce Canada's neutrality, this House passed the Foreign Enlistment Act in 1937. It continues in force to this day. It prohibits Canadians from joining the armed forces of, or otherwise supporting, a foreign state which is waging war against another foreign state which is on friendly terms with Canada.

The government has authority to make regulations to apply this act to civil war. That is what it did with respect to Spain in 1937. On July 31 of that year it became a crime to fight on either side of the Spanish civil war.

Although in previous speeches some members mentioned that these Canadians were subject to job discrimination and surveillance by the RCMP, to the best of my knowledge no veteran of the Spanish civil war has ever been prosecuted under this law.

It is important to remember that these men disregarded the law and by adopting this motion we would in effect reward them for doing so. I would ask hon. members to consider what kind of precedent this would set. What kind of example does it make for young people today? Are we saying that it is permissible to violate the law rather than work through democratic processes to change it?

Are we going to set a precedent granting the status of veteran not only to those who served Canada when their country called them, but also to those who served under a foreign flag in a conflict in which Canada had remained neutral? What message would we be sending to Canadian veterans? This would stain the honour granted those who answered their country's call and who fought for Canada.

Moreover, I wonder if the member for Kamloops has contacted the Royal Canadian Legion to obtain its views. I have a letter addressed to the Minister of Veterans Affairs from the president of the Royal Canadian Legion, Dominion Command:

Dear Minister:

[The member for Kamloops] recently presented a private member's motion recommending the government consider the advisability of giving the members of the MacKenzie-Papineau Battalion and other Canadians who fought with Spanish Republican forces in the Spanish civil war the status of veterans under federal legislation.

The Royal Canadian Legion does not support the granting of veterans status to those who fought in the Spanish civil war. It was an offence under Canadian law at the time to fight on any side during that war. The Legion supports the rule of law and does not view it as appropriate to advocate a position at this late date which would in effect legitimize that which was illegal at the time. This could set an untenable precedent.

Yours sincerely,

Joseph Kobolak

Dominion President.

In fact, adopting this motion would open the floodgates to other groups such as Canadian veterans of the Vietnam war who, contrary to what the member for Chateauguay said in his speech, do not qualify under our legislation for Canadian veteran status.

This is an emotional issue. It deals with elderly Canadians who in their youth were governed by their conscience to risk their lives in one of the most brutal conflicts of the century. They fought like heroes and left many of their comrades behind in the cemeteries of Spain.

As I said earlier, no one is denying their courage and their commitment to their cause. Although the motion does not specifically call for it, the member for Kamloops mentioned that we should look at the possibility of setting this issue before a committee. As the member for the Progressive Conservative Party said, this issue has been raised in this House many times, the most recent being in 1986-87 when the standing committee on veterans affairs, chaired by a former member from Malpeque in my home province, studied the issue in great detail. After very careful research, deliberation and consideration that committee decided against recommending veteran status to Spanish civil war veterans.

I do not think this House in responding today to the motion from the hon. member for Kamloops should overturn the considered judgment of the committee that took several months to look into the issue in great detail.

I ask my colleagues to vote against the motion. In so doing I remind the House of the words of the report that the committee tabled on the issue. I think those words speak eloquently of the Canadians who fought in the MacKenzie-Papineau Battalion. Many were killed, the report says. Many endured great hardship and displayed great courage. We mourn the loss and admire the qualities these men displayed. They acted out of conscience and this merits respect whether one agrees with them or not. May their twilight years be spent with the comfort of their own beliefs in the cause they served.

However, Canadian veteran status and veterans benefits are reserved for those who fought for Canada. That is how the law should remain. That is why I am voting against this motion and I urge my honourable colleagues to do the same.

[Observance Of Two Minutes Of Silence On Remembrance Day Act, March 12th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this bill this evening. I can say that it is not often that we get the chance to debate a matter over which, almost by definition, there will be a great deal of consensus. I suspect that no one in the House today would offer any objection to the principle of honouring our veterans with a two minute observation of silence on Remembrance Day.

Among the most fortunate Canadians of this century are those who were born in its latter half. A good number of them represent a generation of citizens who have never known war, who have never known the threat of tyranny, who have never had to give up their youth and risk their lives on foreign soil. For the first 50 years of this century, Canadians citizens did not have such good fortune.

Those who were born at the turn of the last century would suddenly find themselves thrown on to the bloody battlefields of Europe. Tens of thousands perished in the trenches of France and Belgium and died in the hell of no man's land.

When bullet and bayonet did not get them, then cold, exposure, injury and disease did the job. Over 60,000 men would not come home. Mothers and fathers would see their beloved no more and a nation would lose the flower of its youth.

When the guns of this terrible war, which was to be the war to end all wars, were silenced at the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month, a tradition was born: to take a moment on the anniversary of the Armistice to remember those who gave their lives.

The poignancy and the need for that tradition will be reinforced again and again by the tragedy of another world war just two decades after the first, and with the Korea conflict a scant a few years later. So every year we are called on to remember, to attend Remembrance Day ceremonies on November 11, to pay tribute to the memory of more than 100,000 who gave their lives for this country.

For the generation of Canadians in the second half of this century, peace has been their good fortune. As the baby boomers grow up in a nation whose prosperity was guaranteed by those who came before, as has been said, it has become easy perhaps in the business of raising families and pursuing economic opportunities to push the thoughts of history, war and remembrance into the background. In the 1990s, as we approach the millennium, there has been a renewed interest in our history and in those who were willing to fight and to die for their country.

Perhaps the catalyst for this renewed interest was the 50th anniversary activities a few years ago commemorating the events that led to the end of the second world war. Canadians from coast to coast saw the blanket television coverage of their veterans, of their fathers, grandfathers, mothers and grandmothers who returned to the old battlegrounds and the old memories. They saw the incredible scenes of welcome in France and Belgium and especially The Netherlands where the Canadians were cheered on and thanked again and again for helping to liberate that small beleaguered nation. Those scenes touched the hearts of all of us.

Interest and attendance at our Remembrance Day ceremonies here at home have also been on the increase. More and more families in cities and towns all across Canada are taking the time to go the local cenotaphs, bow their heads and listen to the solemn ceremonies of remembrance. Particularly heartening is the appearance of young people, those who have never known war, but who now want to take time out to acknowledge the sacrifice of their parents and their grandparents.

I fully support the intent of this bill which promotes two minutes silence each Remembrance Day. I also like the notion of the collective time out where most of the people in the community can stop for a moment to remember. A period of quiet will ensue as neighbours think about the sacrifices of the veterans from their own town or village. Except for matters where safety and health may be involved, I foresee very few situations which would preclude such a unique possibility for community remembrance.

Imagine, all the people in grocery stores, shopping centres, schools, factories, recreation centres, stopping to observe two minutes' silence to reflect on the meaning of the sacrifice.

As the hon. member for Calgary Southeast has pointed out, this is not a new concept, just a reinforcement of a custom that has been on the wane in Canada for many years.

Actually we are not alone in this. As has been said, the British in recent years have made great efforts and with great success to encourage renewal of this practice. The British people have embraced the idea with great enthusiasm. So, too, have our Australian cousins. They recently revived and encouraged the continuation of the tradition whose origins date back to 1919.

This bill is also in keeping with the Royal Canadian Legion's proposal to the government to officially proclaim a national two minute silence each November 11 at 11 a.m. The move to have all Canadians stop what they are doing and remember the sacrifice of Canadian servicemen and women follows the incredible success of the Royal British Legion's campaign to promote remembrance among its citizens.

It is quite a delicate matter debating legislation requesting people to pay their respects. Quite appropriately, this bill does not try to force people into an act of silence but merely promotes the idea and suggests ways in which Canadians can stop and take time out.

It is an idea whose time has come and with proper nurturing and encouragement, I think the idea will catch on. Two minutes of silent observation is not asking very much of our citizens and our businesses. I believe it is a renewal of a tradition that is long overdue.

[The Budget, February 26th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I was going to rise on a point of order myself because I assumed this was put to bed 15 minutes ago, that we were through with this point of order. I hope there will not be any more points of order on this issue.

The education fund makes tremendous access to education possible for a lot of people who otherwise would not necessarily have the funds to attend a post-secondary institution. This will provide funding for an awful lot of Canadian students who otherwise would not have had that.

This budget has in general given Canadians something they have been waiting for for many years. We have not gone all the way. The Minister of Finance has said this many times. We have just opened the door. It will come. Things will get better as time goes on. Canadians will rejoice in that we have given them tax breaks, we have made access to education possible, we have put money into health care, we have done all the things Canadians have asked us to do with the number one and number two issues.

I say to all of my colleagues that this is a tremendous budget. I have been here for almost 10 years and this is one of the best budgets I have seen come down in that time and I will have no problem selling it in my constituency.

[The Budget, February 26th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his questions. I said earlier in the day in my speech with regard to this fund that this is a way for Canadians to put money into education for their children. It is money that the government will contribute 20% toward. This money will allow an awful lot of Canadians who would not normally have access to education to have that access. It is a tremendous way—