Veterans Affairs Committee on April 28th, 2015

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

It was a suggestion. It is not a motion yet. I am looking at my colleagues. Last time Mr. Valeriote asked to go in camera.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I don't know why we would.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

Very good. We are not in camera.

I noticed that Mr. Valeriote wanted to bend my ear regarding a discussion on the bill.

Be succinct, please.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Succinctly, I would propose that, as a result of this discussion, we report to the heritage committee that the committee could support the bill provided the bill is amended to read, “In no circumstance would the designation as a legal holiday be interpreted as direction to, or import the notion of, the day becoming a statutory holiday.”

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

Is there any comment on that?

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Can I just say why?

I think we all agree that this day should be of the same status as Victoria Day and Canada Day without it being a statutory holiday. I think we all agree that it ought not to be a statutory holiday. If that is a province's or a territory's choice, that's its choice. I think we all agree that there is some confusion, and I believe that the import of that language will take away the confusion and enable us as a committee to give to Remembrance Day, and everything that it represents, the status it deserves.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

Thank you, Mr. Valeriote.

Mr. Lizon.

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Chair, I don't know what Frank's suggestion will change, because as I said in my questions or remarks, it is already a statutory holiday, except in three provinces—or four, or whatever. If it were to be a statutory holiday, the federal government or federal Parliament cannot implement it or impose it on the provinces; they have to do it themselves. Other holidays are statutory holidays in some provinces and not in others. Victoria Day is one of them, and there are others.

Therefore, I'm not sure exactly...and on top of that, I have a question. How many Canadians actually know that in our act Remembrance Day is a “holiday” and doesn't have “legal” in front of it? I don't think there is a general knowledge. The general knowledge is that it's an important holiday, a day when we commemorate our fallen and give respect to those brave Canadians who went and fought in two wars and other wars, and that we owe them what we enjoy today—our freedoms we owe to those who have fallen. Therefore, I don't know exactly whether for the general Canadian public this word “legal”, or whatever we want to change it to, would have any impact.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

Mr. Lizon, I think I can fix that up right now.

Mr. Paré, would you like to respond to Mr. Lizon?

I think he will clear it up right now.

[Jean-Rodrigue Paré]

This would really just be an opinion; I'm not a federal judge or anything. If you have holiday, legal holiday, and statutory holiday, you might actually create confusion, because there is no clear, uniform definition of what a statutory holiday is. Each province can decide what it means and define it specifically in its own act, and the federal Parliament could decide to define statutory holiday as a holiday with no day off. It's up to the provinces and the federal Parliament to define what it means by that.

So it could actually create confusion.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

Mr. Lemieux, please.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I think we are fortunate to have Mr. Harris here with us today, so I thank him for being here.

I would like to ask him a question, if I may, through you, Chair.

What Mr. Lizon just pointed out was that Canadians don't really know the legal terminology of the act. Is it a “holiday”? Is it a “legal holiday”? As I mentioned, and as I think Mr. Valeriote said, there is confusion over whether that, therefore, makes it a statutory holiday or not. That's one comment.

The second comment is that the analyst has clarified that legally speaking there is no difference between the act's saying a “holiday” or saying a “legal holiday”.

So the question I want to ask to the proponent, to Mr. Harris, is this. Could you refresh our memories on the purpose of the bill, when we've just heard all of this discussion and I think that there is the risk of confusion? It's being clarified around this table, for example, but maybe not in the minds of Canadians who are not following every word that is being spoken here at the table.

If I may, I'd like to ask Mr. Harris that question.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

Mr. Harris.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

I think Mr. Lizon's point, that most Canadians don't know that there is a distinction in the Holidays Act, is certainly true. I would say that's true for about 99% of the laws that are passed. What the analyst said was exactly our interpretation in bringing this forward: there is no legal consequence; there is no legal change.

I wish I could talk to the original author of the Holidays Act in 1972, who actually put the distinction in there, to understand why they were listed differently. Most Canadians don't know, but for anybody who looks at our Holidays Act—because it will come up in random searches when people are looking for what the holidays are and when they might be—there can be confusion as to why Remembrance Day is listed as a national holiday and the other two are listed as national legal holidays.

My purpose was to get rid of that confusion in order to make sure that nobody could ever say that one is more important than the other, because if you see the word “legal” in front of it, certainly it looks as if it might be more important.

I certainly wouldn't want anyone to think of Remembrance Day as a lesser holiday. The generations of my family who served in the forces, from my great-grandfather who served in both World Wars, my grandmother and my great-uncle, and a continued level of service in peacetime and in every conflict that Canada has been a part of, right through to two cousins who served in Afghanistan.... Mr. Opitz said it. All of us around the table have a great respect, and we all want to see the tremendous sacrifices that have been made honoured.

That was why I brought it forward, to at least visually level the playing field within the Holidays Act, knowing full well that there was no legal consequence to it and that it wouldn't force schools to close. Now, I personally support its becoming a statutory holiday, but I was very clear from the beginning, including in my speech when I said that this power lies with the provinces and that it's not up to the federal Parliament to try to do it because that would be unconstitutional.

Maybe, there being no legal consequence, if we add the word “legal”, all three of them are the same. If we were to remove “legal” from all three of them, then they would all be the same as well. Maybe that's a way to also get away from the confusion.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

Ms. Ablonczy, please.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

I commend my colleague Mr. Harris for wanting to put extra respect and extra significance into Remembrance Day. I think that's what we all want.

My concern is that I don't think that's going to be the net effect of passing this bill. My friend Mr. Valeriote has just said that we want to give it equal status with Canada Day and Victoria Day, but clearly we're not giving it equal status, because those are stat holidays and we can't give this stat holiday status, so it can't be equal in status.

My concern is that we have to legislate for Canadians. I would think that 1% of Canadians, probably not even that many, would know the difference between Remembrance Day as a holiday and Remembrance Day as a legal holiday. I didn't know that difference, and it would make absolutely no difference to me if I had. I celebrate Remembrance Day because from my heart I honour those who have served our country and sacrificed for our country. We're not all fortunate enough to have a smart analyst at our elbow to give us this fine legal distinction, which actually isn't any distinction at all.

If we pass a bill that provides an expectation that somehow we're elevating this day when actually it doesn't elevate this day, I don't think that's good legislating.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

Let me just remind the committee once again that it is not up to this committee to amend, pass, or defeat the bill. The only aspect of this, from the letter we received and my consultation with Mr. Galipeau, is that we give reference back to the heritage committee to say that we have looked at this bill and we now throw it back to you. We can add our own comments to the letter we send back to them, but it is not for us to say yea or nay to the bill. There will be no vote or amendments in this committee. We can offer suggestions, if that's what the committee wishes to do, but it's up to the heritage committee to determine the final analysis of this bill, just to let you know.

Mr. Hawn, please.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I'll pass, because essentially they do the same thing as far as....

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

Thank you.

Mr. Lemieux, please.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Just to follow up on Ms. Ablonczy's comments, I understand the intent to clarify. I think that's a good intent but there can always be unintended consequences. My concern is that the unintended consequence is greater confusion even though the original intent was to clarify, which is kind of what Diane was saying. That's certainly my concern and I think the concern of some colleagues around the table.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

Mr. Harris, please.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Maybe one of the comments this committee could decide to add and send back to the heritage committee would be exactly what the analyst said in his remarks, because I think that was clear, concise, and very exact.

As to—

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

Hold that thought for a second.

Would it be advisable to add Mr. Paré's comments?

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

You'd have to summarize that into something we could digest.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

Yes, because they have analysts as well and maybe the heritage committee would want to look at it as well, similar to what Mr. Paré did.

I'll get back to you, Mr. Harris, but I would just ask the committee: would that be advisable to do?