Veterans Affairs Committee on May 1st, 2007

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Jack Frost]

Actually, this would include RCMP officers who have lost their lives in the line of duty, yes.

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

What about diplomatic people and civilians working for the Red Cross, or something like that, doing their job on that mission?

[Jack Frost]

I can only assume that a person's family could associate that. We've never tackled that specific issue as a veterans organization at the table. For me to sit here today and give you a definitive answer would be wrong because I would probably be crucified at the next meeting I'm going to. But you've brought up a good point, and I'll bring that forward to my people. I think probably the other veterans organizations will discuss that too. It's a good point. Thank you.

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Thank you, Jack.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

All right. I sense now that we've exhausted the questions that the committee members have for our witness panel today. We have 45 minutes left in committee, so I might suggest, if we have the time, to move to the consideration of the private member's bill. I think we can probably do that in 45 minutes.

I'd like to thank our witnesses very much for their presentations today.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

I'm going to allow for a five-minute break for people to make their transits out and hellos and goodbyes and all that type of stuff.

[Ron Griffis]

If I may take the liberty of speaking on behalf of my colleagues, I'd like to thank you for inviting us to speak today. Thank you very much for doing that. We appreciate it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

We're glad you showed up. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

We're back in session.

Mr. St. Denis.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

I wonder if I could attempt to outline a consensus on the bill, and then we can debate it from there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

That's fine.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

I would offer this as a possible consensus, subject to people disagreeing, and I'm going to use Betty's notes. I personally would rather we kept it as “peacekeeper” as opposed to “peacekeeping”, as was mentioned, to refer to the people rather than the missions.

As the sponsor, I'm okay with the idea of changing it from “peace support missions” to “peace support operations”. I don't have any problem with that. And to include “diplomats and civilians” after the words “Canadian police services”.

I'll do les Casques bleus at the end.

I will take as a friendly amendment the removal of clause 3 with respect to the flag at half-mast on the Peace Tower.

My sense is, on the notion of les Casques bleus, that we should use a technically correct encompassing definition. I understand the context in Quebec; it's a word in the vernacular. Everyone knows what les Casques bleus is, but in listening to the witnesses, I think nothing will be lost by making it technically correct.

I mean “peacekeepers”.

That's what I think the consensus is, and I don't know if I've missed anything.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

I think that's a pretty fair consensus. The only issue I am wondering about—and we have some other people who wish to speak—is what some people may feel with regard to “peacekeepers” or “peacekeeping”.

Monsieur Perron.

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

I want to talk about the French version, but I might also make some remarks on the English version.

I think we should use the term “peacekeepers”, gardiens de la paix in French. However, I think we should add the words “Blue Helmets”, in brackets, after “peacekeeper”, because in Quebec, people automatically think of peacekeepers when they hear the term blue helmets. We have to word the bill so that Quebeckers understand it and know what we are talking about.

I completely agree with what Brent said about not putting the flag at half-mast. With regard to the date, I am happy to respect what the witnesses said. August will be fine. Why not?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Mr. Stoffer.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

I support the efforts of Mr. St. Denis, and we thank the government and Betty very much for these recommendations; they're good.

I would maintain the use of “peacekeeper”, as that's what we've heard. I would also support “peace support operations”. I think that's a good term. Also, les Casques bleus, I like the idea of the “guardian of the peace” in the French translation. I think that is more encompassing.

The only one I had a concern with—but it's funny how your mind can change or soften—is the lowering of the flag. These folks were fairly unanimous that it didn't matter to them, but the reality is they would prefer to have it up instead of down on that day, and I would support the removal of that clause, as Mr. St. Denis' friendly amendment to keep the flag up, especially the one on the Peace Tower. What individual cities and provinces do is their own business, but in this case I would support the removal of that clause. Before I came here I was asking what's wrong with putting it down, but I've been convinced by these guys that it would be better if it stayed up.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Just before I recognize Mr. St. Denis and then see if there's any government reaction, I sense that what we've got now is a consensus to go with the word “peacekeeper” as opposed to “peacekeeping”.

I think Mr. Perron's suggestion to have les Casques bleus in brackets afterwards....

Mr. St. Denis.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

That's all I was going to say, that I supported Gilles' suggestion that we go with the technical words en français, and then in brackets or quotations, “les Casques bleus”, after that so that people understand what it means. I think that's a great idea.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

I think we do have a consensus.

Monsieur Gaudet, and then I just want to see if there is any government response to that.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

I want to go back to what I was saying earlier about May 29. I am going to be frank, that is the sort of person I am: I do not think that August 9 is a suitable date for commemorations. I do not know how many of us would remember it, except perhaps for those who live nearby. Everybody knows that November 11 is Armistice Day, but I am not sure about August 9... I am happy to go with the majority, but I think that May 29 would be better. What happens if the Prime Minister is travelling and other parliamentarians are on vacation on August 9... I respect the views of those who would prefer August 9, but I do not agree. That being said, I will go with the majority.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

I understand. I know that in Calgary I am always at the August 9 stuff. We always see these guys do a great job with regard to those activities in Calgary, so it's not to be missed.

I sense there is a consensus, probably, especially with all the municipalities and everything else, that we carry forward with August 9.

Is there any reaction from this side at all?

[Betty Hinton, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

I'd just like to comment on the willingness of Mr. St. Denis to make the changes. I think that shows a true spirit of cooperation. I don't think there's anyone in this room who doesn't agree with the idea behind this. There were just some problems, which we seem to have ironed out quite nicely. I still prefer “peacekeeping” because I feel it's more encompassing, but since you've agreed to the second recommendation that would include diplomats and civilians for their recognition, then I'm quite comfortable with that.

There was also some merit to the date change for the reasons that were outlined, because of the fact that it could actually happen on the Hill with all parties present. There's a positive to that, but there's also obviously some real significance to the August 9 date. So if there's no consensus to change the date, I'm quite happy with the August 9 date as well.

I'd just like to say this is the kind of spirit of cooperation that marks this particular committee. It's very nice to have a group of people who are dedicated to veterans, who do the right thing for veterans, whether it's a private member's bill or a piece of legislation. So thank you. It's a pleasure to be part of the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Mr. Sweet.