Debates of March 12th, 1998

Supply

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I remind the member that we are debating the motion and I am going to take a minute to read it to her:

That this House censure any action by the federal government in the area of education, such as the introduction of the Millennium Scholarships program or national testing.

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Kenora—Rainy River, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

This is the second or third time that the Bloc has done this. I just want to make it very clear to the new member in the House that we cannot talk and say millennium every two seconds to make him feel happy. There are a number of issues within the education field that are part of this whole process.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Canadian opportunities strategy does provide a diverse and comprehensive set of tools.

This is a debate about education. It is a debate for all Canadians across Canada who have to understand the tools now available to them through the budget. There will be the millennium scholarship plan. There are also all the other measures in the budget. All of them are equally important and will provide access to education to those students in Quebec who maybe are not going to hear about it from their representatives sitting here who want to talk solely about what will happen in the year 2000 with our millennium scholarship.

I am here to say I am happy that students of Quebec and students across this nation, no matter who they are represented by, will have access to the scholarship fund and all the other tools.

[Stéphan Tremblay, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, it will be difficult to comment. I feel as though I have listened to a budget speech.

However, I am going to speak about all sorts of things. I have the impression that members speak but do not listen. I do not know. There is much talk, but it looks like people are trying to paint the members on this side of the House as the bad guys. They say: “Heavens, Bloc members do not seem to think education is important”.

There are some things we can talk about, but we must be specific. I want to emphasize that the Bloc Quebecois also thinks education is a key sector, one in which we must invest, and I cannot say so often enough. If we want a qualified workforce and people who are not ignorant, and so on, if we want a strong society, we have to start with access to education. That is the first step.

We agree on that. Yes, some good points have been made by the members across the way and we agree fully.

I am fed up. We have heard this all day; we have been accused of not thinking that student indebtedness is important. We have even been accused of not caring about the future of young people. If there is one person concerned about the future of young people, I think I qualify.

We covered a lot of things. What we want to say today is not that students should not receive assistance. It is the form the assistance takes. It is the relevancy of providing assistance and the best way of providing it.

I made the point again today: the taxpayers already pay enough taxes, and probably much more than enough. They hope that the best use possible will be made of every tax dollar. When the federal government cuts $10 billion with one hand and gives back 25% of this amount—they call this an investment, but one might call it spending—with the other hand, I cannot help but wonder where the other 75% of the money went and if it went into fighting the deficit. These are the type of questions I ask myself.

There are other aspects which I feel were only briefly touched on. My hon. colleague did not even address today's motion. Another important aspect is the fact that the scholarship will be handled by a private organization. What is the use of having elected members here if, when there are complaints about the work done by the administrators, we are going to be told “Look, we cannot do anything about it. This is a private organization”. Some democracy. Why bother electing members? Universities are in the process of being privatized.

These are immediate comments, but I will have more to make later. I could go on for an hour. However, at the request of our colleague across the way, I will give the hon. member opposite the opportunity to reply.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, he doth protest too much. Honestly, when hon. members on the other side of the House get to choose the subject and choose to talk about education and scholarships, I am going to canvass the subject.

We have just had an excellent budget. In that budget there were excellent avenues for people across this country to not only save for education for their children but to access it, and if they are a part time or full time student, to access finances and get relief. There was opportunity for lifelong learning through the registered education savings plan. There are going to be the biggest investments ever by a federal government in the post-secondary educational system. It is wonderful for Canadians.

I find it perplexing that anybody could be so upset when the students in their riding are going to have the benefits of this. I am very glad that we are here as a government to assist those students.

[Angela Vautour, NDP, Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NB]

Madam Speaker, I must unfortunately say that I cannot support the Bloc Quebecois' motion. I will explain why. For us, national programs are very important and we have our reasons to care about them.

We must think about the regions that need help. People pay taxes and the federal government must be there to help them when necessary. I believe it is important to maintain transfer payments. But the money must be put back in the education system, so that young people will not, as is often the case now in our country, stop their education because they cannot afford post-secondary studies.

Young people, the lucky ones who have the means to go to university, can do so, as well as those who can borrow money, but they end up $25,000 in debt. There are graduates in my riding who owe $31,000 and $51,000. How can we expect them to succeed on the job market? You have a hard time job-wise when you are saddled with a $51,000 debt.

National programs definitely need to be maintained. One should not assume they are there. These programs must be maintained. It is unfortunate that we have a government which, in recent years, decided that post-secondary education was not very important for low income Canadians.

And the war goes on. As regards social programs, there is a two-tier system not only in education but also in the health care sector. Already, there are many medical programs and services that used to be free, but for which we must now pay.

There are waiting lists for day surgery hospital beds, which are not really used for that purpose. People who can afford to pay to remain in hospital can stay, while those who cannot must leave. Often women must stay home to take care of those who were not ready to leave the hospital. That is why national programs are there, to provide the same opportunities to all Canadians.

I am very proud to be Canadian. Coming from a relatively poor family, I must say that I wonder sometimes if the poor are considered as Canadian as the wealthy in this country. Considering the direction in which the Liberal government is going, it is very clear that the less fortunate in this country do not have equal access to social programs and are not treated as they should be.

The same thing applies to those on welfare. We have national programs and we should keep them. We have people who have no job and are unable to find one. We have a government that is not interested in creating jobs, and now it is taking away the only thing these people have left, the social programs. This must stop.

The new millennium fund outlined in the recent budget illustrates the federal government's failure to recognize the value of education and its failure to consult with student groups and the provinces to develop realistic, workable solutions to barriers in education.

Student debt has increased. Personal bankrupcies among students have increased by 700% between 1989 and 1997.

Twenty-five per cent of all bankruptcies were the result of student loans. As at the end of 1997 there were $37,000 bankrupt graduates. In the recent budget the number of bankruptcies of graduates are projected to be 216,000 students by the year 2003.

We see a lot of students who cannot repay their student loans. In my riding, I could have two full time employees just to deal with that. Students are being harrassed.

Students cannot find jobs. These people who can only find part time jobs or seasonal jobs in areas where such jobs exist are asked to make monthly payments of $200, $300 or $400, and some of them cannot find any job at all. They are getting telephone calls from financial institutions that want their money. These institutions show no mercy. And students are scared of personal bankrupcies.

We often hear people say that young people abuse the system, that they go to university and then declare personal bankruptcy. In any program, there will always be people who abuse. That has always been my position. But nobody should believe that most students who graduate intend to declare bankruptcy.

Young people come to my office. They may not be so young any more, because they have graduated five, six or seven years ago, and still do not have a job. The last thing you can tell them is that there are no jobs, that they must pay $400 a month, that there is no money coming in and that it is their option. They do not have any choice, really.

Instead of providing real assistance to reduce student debt and increase accessibility, the budget actually included measures to make things harder for students in debt. The Liberals have now extended the period for which student loans survive bankruptcy from two years to ten years. The budget included measures to deal with students with severe credit abuse.

We must ask who is going to benefit from this.

Two years after the Liberals announced their youth employment strategy, 48,000 fewer young people are working.

The youth unemployment rate stands at 16.5%. Tuition has gone up 41% since 1992.

When I graduated from college in 1980, my debt load was less than $3,000. I was able to pay it off and I even found a job. Right now, dome students end up with huge debt loads, no future, and no job in sight.

We should take a look at what is going on in education. A company in the Halifax area is paying a headhunter to find skilled workers, because it cannot find people with the proper training. This is a real problem, and we should be realist about it. There is no strategy.

Sometimes, when I meet with small business people, I ask them: “When you are looking to hire, is there some communication between departments to make sure that if job opportunities exist and if jobs are created locally, there will be properly trained people to take up these jobs?”

With millions of unemployed Canadians, how can it be that 20,000 vacant positions cannot be filled? Somebody is taking us for a ride. I think we should review the situation, and see what is going on.

Some people are not doing their job and I do not think it is the members on this side of the House. It may be the people who are running the country and not making job creation their number one priority.

Since unemployment insurance was reformed, 730,000 people were forced to go on welfare. We were told the reform was necessary, that the system was no longer meeting the needs of our society. I can tell the members that the 730,000 people who are now receiving welfare benefits because of this reform used to enjoy a program that did meet their needs. Nowadays, they have to do without such a program.

It is often said that the people who are on welfare are caught in a vicious circle and can no longer get back to the labour market. Just imagine the monster we have created.

What would the NDP do about this? I am sharing my time with my colleague, so I will leave it at that.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont, QC]

Madam Speaker, I must say that I am disappointed by the speech the hon. member made today. She just praised the national strategies where the federal government is meddling in provincial areas of jurisdiction and seems to approve the millennium scholarship fund announced recently.

I have a very simple question to put to her about the criteria on which the grants will be allocated, mainly income and merit. As a progressive member, who also believes in equal opportunity and access to university, does she think the merit principle will make university more accessible to all young Canadians and especially young Quebecers?

[Angela Vautour, NDP, Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NB]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague, scholarships should not be granted on the basis of excellence.

But I must add that the millennium scholarships are for the year 2000. If we admit that students have a problem today, these scholarships should be awarded right away. If a young student is having a hard time right now to finance his education or to access post-secondary education, this will not help him in any way. I have checked with young people, and they say this will be of no help whatsoever.

The reason I got scholarships back in 1978 is that I came from a poor family and I did not have any money. It is ridiculous even to think we should help students whose parents can pay for their post-secondary education. These scholarships should help reduce the gap between people in need, and people who need no help. I have to agree with my colleague's position.

[Stéphan Tremblay, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I sponsored the motion this morning. I will disagree slightly with what my colleague just said. He said that he disagreed with the NDP member.

One thing is certain, she spoke from the heart. I believe she made the kind of speech we do not hear enough of here. She lives in an area where there may well be more poverty than elsewhere in Canada, and perhaps she cannot accept it because she sees it so closely. I feel that there is a serious problem in this House, and when she talks about it, she speaks from the heart, with great feeling. I think we should hear more speeches like that in the House.

We seem to be accepting the fact that to be a productive society we also have to have a certain level of poverty, that to be a productive society we have to let our children live in poverty, that we have to let child poverty grow and that there is nothing we can do about it. I remind the House that four years ago, there were 1 million children living in poverty and that today there are 1,5 million of them.

I do not believe there is nothing we can do about it. I was going to say that we buried our heads in sand. like ostriches; that is sometimes the impression I get.

In my opinion, speeches like this one are taken far too lightly. I cannot be unmoved. Yes, we have some differences of opinions on national standards and our views might be slightly different, but I cannot remain seated and claim that what she said did not make sense, because it made a lot of sense, I believe.

[Angela Vautour, NDP, Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Bloc for his kind words.

You might say he hit the nail on the head. It is true that I do not necessarily project the image of a politician. My background certainly did not prepare me to be one, but I must say I am certainly as well qualified as any to represent the people of my riding.

Those who elected me are people who have needs, who need national programs, who need help. They count on me to see to it that programs are maintained.

[Rick Laliberte, NDP, Churchill River, SK]

Madam Speaker, I concur with my colleague that the motion needs to be reconsidered. There is no national vision of education. The federal government has devolved its constitutional responsibilities to the provinces.

The province of Saskatchewan guarantees in the education act to teach our children until they are 21 years old. However, if they happen to graduate from high school at 17 or 18 years old, that funding or support stops. It should not stop when they receive their high school diplomas.

The guarantee to 21 years of age should be taken literally for all young Canadians. They should be guaranteed a state paid education until they are 21. If the provincial education jurisdictions receive funding through federal government transfers, it could be made available.

Let us look at the educational journey. At the secondary school level our children are just starting to be prepared in terms of their world view of their education and career journeys. We can look at an education in trades or in university. A bachelor degree is the result of a student being tested on what is being taught by the institution. At the masters and doctoral levels individuals begin to develop original thought. Journeymen, craftsmen and artists who study their trade or crafts can excel at higher levels.

After children leave high school they need guidance. I would like to share my vision of the guidance given by aboriginals to their children. It was a vision of sharing the land of Canada. They guaranteed the educational rights of their children. That is what we should do for all Canadians, guarantee the educational rights of all our children. This is a national vision.

The hon. member for Rosemont mentioned that the millennium fund could be a step toward privatization. It is unfortunate but true. We have local school boards and boards of governors representing the views of communities all over Canada, and they give the responsibility to a chief executive officer of Chrysler. That is not a vision of education. That is industrialization and privatization of education. It should be given to our communities.

There is also the French language. My cultural background is Metis. I speak Cree because that is what my parents spoke—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I must, unfortunately, interrupt the hon. member at this point.

Pursuant to the order made earlier today, every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply is deemed to have been put, and the recorded division is deemed to have been demanded and deferred until Tuesday, March 17, 1998, at the end of Government Orders.

It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Observance Of Two Minutes Of Silence On Remembrance Day Act

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

moved that Bill C-279, an act to promote the observance of two minutes of silence on Remembrance Day, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise to speak to Bill C-279, an act to promote the observance of two minutes of silence on Remembrance Day.

I rise to speak to this bill with a heavy heart. Many Canadians and parliamentarians will ask why it is necessary for this place to consider a bill to formalize what is regarded as a widespread and widely accepted custom, namely the observance of moments of silence on November 11, a custom which originated in the British empire and was then adopted by the Commonwealth since Armistice Day which marks the ending of the first and great war in 1918. The reason I bring forward this bill is precisely that custom, which is so deeply entrenched in our history, is increasingly falling out of practice.

It is not to exaggerate for one to say that many young Canadians have become disconnected from our history, from our traditions and, in particular, from a proper appreciation of the enormous sacrifices made by our war dead in the two great wars.

This is an observation that I draw not only from anecdotal evidence which I suppose any member of this place may be aware of. One might easily be aware of the growing degree to which people are not taught about the great military history of this country and of the enormity of the sacrifices made by our war generations. It is not simply an anecdotal observation, it is borne out by recent public opinion research.

In fact, what led me to consider introducing this bill was a recent public opinion survey conducted by a new research institute called the Dominion Institute. It recently asked young Canadians a number of questions about Canadian history. They were rather simple and straightforward questions. The questions were what we would assume would be absolutely essential to any kind of historic and cultural literacy about this country.

What the poll found, among other things, was that among young Canadians, teenagers and those in their early twenties, 64% did not know the name of our first prime minister. Only 15% knew when our Constitution was repatriated from Great Britain. When asked to name two countries which Canada fought against in the first world war, 39% guessed France and Britain. One in ten had no answer at all.

When they were asked questions about the interment of Japanese Canadians in the second world war, 68% had no knowledge of this.

The results were shocking. Sixty-five per cent did now know what D-Day stands for. Only 35% of young Canadians know that it stands for the invasion of Europe at the end of the second world war.

Sixty-nine per cent of young Canadians did not know that the battle of Vimy took place in the first world war. That was perhaps the most important battle in the great and glorious military history of this country.

Sixty-seven per cent of young Canadians surveyed by the Dominion Institute did not know which war Remembrance Day marks the end of.

In other words, we have allowed a creeping ignorance to develop not only in young Canadians but I would argue within our citizenry as a whole about the enormity of the sacrifices made and the central importance of our military history. It is for that reason that I have brought forward this bill.

The Dominion Institute suggested, among other things, that one of the remedies that could be found to increase an understanding and appreciation of our military history would be to formalize the increasingly disrespected custom of the solemn silence on Remembrance Day.

In many Canadian schools, in many Canadian workplaces, in many retail shopping malls, in many public spaces, in many public squares of Canada, one can pass by the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month with the normal hubbub of human activity with hardly a moment's notice.

Many Canadians, many tens of thousands of Canadians, recognize Remembrance Day. They gather around the cenotaphs and memorials. They gather at the Legion halls in their communities across this country. They remember and they stop for a moment of silence to pay tribute to their war dead.

However, many millions more do not pay that tribute. If we owe one thing to those who died for this country and for our freedom, it is to remember them. It is to remember the struggles in which they fought.

I was also moved to bring this bill when thinking about a recent experience I had shortly before Remembrance Day last year. I was at the Lester Pearson airport in Toronto and observed at the entrance to the security area of the airport a elderly veteran with his Legion hat and poppy. He was trying to offer poppies to passers-by, to travellers entering the security area of the airport.

I watched this man who must have been in his early eighties who likely fought in the second world war. He stood there with a forlorn expression on his face for some time because traveller after traveller passed him by and did not even acknowledge this man, this hero of the second world war.

I stood and watched for several minutes. Not a single person approached him, regarded him, commended him or spoke to him. Not a single person bothered to stop and take a poppy from him.

It brought me great sadness to think about what must have passed through this man's mind as he saw these busy travellers, business people, Canadians all, none of whom seemed to even have a moment's notice for him and the sacrifice he and the poppy represented.

That is why I think we must make, in this country, a concerted effort to pay proper respect to our war dead, to revive the tradition of a fulsome national commemoration of Remembrance Day which was really a moment in years past.

Shortly after the second world war this entire country and every other country in the British empire, now the Commonwealth, would stop in their tracks at 11 o'clock on Remembrance Day. Every business place would shut down. Factories would stop their equipment. Cars would pull to the side of the road. Local and national broadcasters would cease broadcasting.

Every place one went there would be a remarkable national silence not just around the cenotaphs in the various communities but in every place where Canadians were; in private or in public this sacred moment of observance was respected.

With this bill, I hope this Parliament will begin to call on all Canadians to respect once more that tradition in a way that it deserves to be respected. I also bring forward this bill as part of a growing concern among not only Canadians but our friends in Great Britain.

Two years ago the British Westminster Parliament, our mother Parliament, passed a motion which was very similar to my private member's bill as part of a major national campaign launched by the Royal Legion to increase in a dramatic way the observance of what is known there as Armistice Day.

The Royal Canadian Legion has launched a similar campaign. It has called on the federal government to help sponsor a two minute wave of silence that will sweep across the country at 11 o'clock on November 11 beginning on Remembrance Day 1999.

The Royal Canadian Legion, on behalf of its 533,000 members, has therefore endorsed this bill and urged this House to pass it.

Recently the provincial legislature of Ontario passed a private member's bill sponsored by Mr. Morley Kells, MPP, bill 112, which is almost identical to the bill before us. This bill from the Ontario legislature received royal assent in October.

What this bill would seek to do is not require anything of Canadians, not coerce them or create a new government program or bureaucracy but simply to invite and encourage them on behalf of our war dead, in expressing our gratitude to the many dedicated men and women who bravely and unselfishly gave their lives for Canada, to stop for two minutes and observe the silence.

The bill provides a number of practical suggestions as to how this might be done, by participating in the traditional Remembrance Day commemoration at a memorial or cenotaph, by pulling to the side of the road if they are driving, by gathering in common areas in their workplaces to observe the silence, to stop assembly lines where possible, to shut down factories for two minutes.

We have recently read stories in the newspapers about how unions and employers have struck agreements to continue working through Remembrance Day and to no longer respect it as a statutory holiday let alone a moment of silence. It encourages schools, colleges, universities and other public institutions to observe the silence and it encourages Canadians to attend services held in places of worship.

The bill is a very simple one. Some might say it is merely a symbolic thing and that it is not our business to be involved in encouraging respect for symbols. However, in observing the current controversy we are experiencing with respect to the Canadian flag and its place in this House and in this country, we can see how enormously powerful symbols really are.

For that reason I call on all my colleagues and all Canadians not to be flippant about symbols such as this but to consider the need to increase and deepen the understanding of the sacrifice represented by Remembrance Day by taking every step we possibly can to invite all Canadians to do honour to the war dead such as Colonel McCrae whose words from In Flanders Fields are inscribed just outside the walls of this place and whose statue we pass every day on our way into this place.

Let us resolve, hopefully with the passage of this bill, to begin to do greater honour than we have in recent years to the sacred memory of our war dead.

[George Proud, Liberal, Hillsborough, PE]

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.

[Maurice Godin, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased, on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, to speak to Bill C-279, an act to promote the observance of two minutes of silence on Remembrance Day, a bill introduced by my colleague, the member for Calgary Southeast, Alberta.

We do not oppose the bill. I do not intend to speak at great length, however, because I have trouble understanding the need for such a bill, and particularly what purpose it serves. Why two minutes, and not three or four, since the point of such an observance is not the number of minutes spent, but the ongoing remembrance of an event, keeping alive the memory of those who sacrificed their lives for peace? One solid minute seems fine to me.

In fact, I even wonder if we will not achieve the opposite effect by prolonging the time spent in reflection. We all know that one minute of silence in a crowd including children and the elderly, in temperatures that are not always ideal, too hot or too cold, often seems to go on for a long time, and that, after 50 or 55 seconds, people start to fidget or whisper. What will happen if another minute is added?

I fear that the effort required on such an occasion would be too much for some people and that the dignity to which we are accustomed might turn to indifference. Moreover, this period of silence originally lasted for two minutes. Indeed, history tells us that the observance of a period of silence used to last two minutes. The custom originated from a recommendation made after the first world war by a South African statesman, Sir James Fitzpatrick.

Mr. Fitzpatrick, who was very fond of vast spaces, spent a great deal of time reflecting in the silence and solitude of the vast plains of his native land. It is there that, while thinking about the past, he came up with the idea that people should observe two minutes of silence to honour the memory of those who had given their lives for their country.

Today, during the traditional Remembrance Day ceremony, on November 11, one minute of silence is observed at 11 a.m., because a period of two minutes would have the drawbacks mentioned earlier. People stand in silence for one minute and think about all those who gave their lives in the fight against tyranny and oppression.

This minute meets the objective pursued, which is to remember those who paid the ultimate price for freedom and peace. Furthermore, there are so many veterans who are unhappy with the current program, which is so complex, that this House should really be concerned with the true daily issues confronting these people. I can assure you that having an additional minute of silence is not one of them.

We regularly receive complaints from veterans or their survivors, who are entitled to a pension and have to wait months to get it. The department should cut the red tape, as Bill C-67 on pension reform intended in 1995.

The department should be encouraged to provide programs with broader scope, which are more easily administered and more readily understood by their beneficiaries—programs that meet the needs of an aging population of veterans.

I am including the veterans of the merchant marine. They took part in world conflict and were not treated fairly from the start. There are obvious discrepancies in our system, and the government should acknowledge the efforts of the merchant marine and the vital role it played in the wars.

These sailors fought hard to receive the same treatment as the veterans. The government should recall the role they played in restoring peace in the world and given them equal access to benefits.

In December, I supported the motion by my colleague from Kamloops, Motion M-75, which proposed the government consider “giving to the members of the MacKenzie-Papineau Battalion and other Canadians who fought with Spanish Republican forces in the Spanish Civil War between 1936 and 1939, the status of veterans under the federal legislation and making them eligible for veterans' pensions and benefits”.

Despite their sacrifices and acts of individual heroism, Canadian veterans of the International Brigades are not yet recognized as war veterans. Therefore, they were never entitled to any veterans benefits and were never given any credit for having fought for the liberty and democracy we know and enjoy, here in Canada. It seems most appropriate to recognize these people who volunteered to fight for justice and democracy.

Another inequity of the system is that we recognize veterans from the war in Vietnam, but not those who fought in Spain. Did we have better reasons for getting involved in Vietnam?

I am thinking also of the soldiers who served in peacekeeping operations and whose status is not well defined. Over time, the most consistent element of our foreign policy and defense policy has been our commitment to peace and security in the world. The active participation of Canadians Forces in peacekeeping missions has directly contributed to ease tensions in hot spots around the world.

Canada sent troops to such remote areas as Kashmir, from 1949 to 1979, Western New Guinea in 1962-63, and Yemen in 1963-64. From 1960 to 1964, these troops were involved in such sensitive operations as expelling mercenaries from Katanga and preserving the territorial integrity of what was then the Belgium Congo and is now the Democratic Republic of Congo. I am thinking about those who fought in Cyprus in 1964 and witnessed the atrocities of the war between Turks and Greeks. There are many others such as Bosnia, Haiti, Iraq, Koweit, Yugoslavia, etc. I do not have enough time to name them all.

These soldiers have not had the same benefits as veterans of both world wars and the Korean war. Before trying to add one minute of silence, it would be preferable for the House to grant equal status to all veterans.

In conclusion, I believe there are many shortcomings in the Department of Veterans Affairs, a lot of work to do. As for Bill C-279, an act to promote the observance of two minutes of silence on Remembrance Day, I believe the tradition already in place meets our commitment to remember those who gave their lives in the name of peace and justice. Let us strive instead to correct the injustices of the current system.

[Rick Laliberte, NDP, Churchill River, SK]

Madam Speaker, I would like to speak on behalf of the veterans affairs critic who could not be here and also portray our party's favour in recognizing two minutes of silence. It is very crucial in the issue of remembrance of the sacrifices that were made by the young men and women who faced the atrocities of war to find peace. The two minutes of silence should end in a celebration of peace because peace is the essence of harmony and the fulfilment of a good life.

I would like to reflect on the land we presently occupy and the nations that occupied this land for generations. Along the Great Lakes there was a confederacy of united nations. A great law of peace guided their society, their government, their activities and their relations with other nations. The original five nations which are now called the Six Nations Confederacy lived under the law of peace. They held the might of their strength. The arrow was a symbolism of armaments. But those armaments and the military might were in the name of peace, not in the name of war.

In our history of the Canadian military and the Canadian government we have had glimpses that we are willing to sacrifice our might and our diplomacy for international peace. We have shown leadership and have been recognized as such.

Speaking on remembrance, let us also remember the many people who sacrificed themselves, left their families and the comfort of their homes to go to the front lines. Upon returning home, as the hon. member for Chateauguay mentioned, our veterans faced inequities and injustices.

One of the other groups of veterans I would like to bring forward is the aboriginal veterans, the First Nations, the Metis, the Inuit. Brothers in arms, sisters in arms took the risks and sacrificed, but on coming back the injustices started. The distribution of grants and allocation of land to these people were not fair. The access to pensions and recognition were not given to these men and women.

Our languages were used in combat as well by the aboriginal code talkers. If a Cree person or a Dene person spoke to another on the other side of a radio line, people in the rest of the world could not figure out what they were talking about. This was done in the allied forces for the democratic freedom of all our people. Our languages are gifts of our Creator. We used those gifts to get a speedy recovery from the illness of war, to find peace. These are gifts that can be used to find a peaceful end.

In remembrance of the aboriginal veterans, I call on this country to recognize them. Let us give remembrance to them by giving them equal opportunity as all other veterans of this country.

In the two minutes of silence, as we challenge our children to remember, also celebrate peace. I challenge my colleagues to take up that message because once we have finished the remembrance we have to celebrate peace. This is it. We have it. Cherish it, nurture it and carry it on. We cannot take it for granted. Celebrate it.

In memory of all veterans and all people who gave their lives on the many battlefronts recognized and unrecognized, I give my support to Bill C-279. Hopefully as a nation we can rise above the ashes of war and keep peace into the new millennium and for thousands of years to come.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-279 which promotes the observance of two minutes of silence on Remembrance Day.

The bill is something which is not compelling on Canadians but it does seek to invite us to pause voluntarily for two minutes to remember those who fought so valiantly for the freedom we enjoy today. I commend my colleague from Calgary Southeast for bringing forward this initiative.

I had the opportunity to travel with the Minister of Veterans Affairs as part of a delegation to Dieppe, France last year. Veterans from across Canada were with us.

I had two brothers who were overseas and fought in the war. I had absolutely no idea what they had gone through until we came into the harbour of Dieppe, France. It was just like walls of cement that were almost as high as these walls here in the House. That was where the Germans were because they knew our troops were coming and as they got off the ships and approached the shore, the Germans picked them off one by one.

The people in Dieppe, France never forgot the sacrifices our people made. We had an opportunity to visit the French cemetery in Dieppe, France. It was the only night when there was any kind of mist and fog and it was going in and around the tombstones. All of a sudden this little lady arrived. It was almost as if she had come up from the grave. We all stood very stunned. She was Sister Valois.

An hon. member from the Liberal Party and I were helping some of the veterans. Some of them had to use wheelchairs after a few days because of the heat. I was pushing one of the wheelchairs when all of a sudden the gentleman said “It's Sister Valois, it's Sister Valois”. Then they all joined in.

She was a nun, a nurse. When our boys arrived in Dieppe and when they were hurt, she was the one who took care of them. Five of our men who were there fighting during the war died in her arms. Our men had great respect for her and it was really an honour and a privilege to meet her.

At our Canadian cemetery we also had a huge service. All the young people, like the pages here, and even little ones smaller than them and others bigger than them, came over to us. We had Canada pins on. They would say “Please, please” and point to the pins. When we gave them our lapel pins, they said “Merci, merci” and hugged us. It meant so much to them. All down the promenade, from the top of every building and the windows there were Canadian flags. It was absolutely marvellous to see.

I have great respect for our veterans and I am sure most people do. Remembrance of the 114,000 Canadians who gave their lives to fight for the rights and freedoms of our citizens and the 1.6 million who volunteered with them has become a very strong Canadian tradition. It has been encouraged by the veterans who steadfastly have performed and supported remembrance activities.

We mark Remembrance Day on the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month. It is the anniversary of the hour when guns fell silent in the year 1918, marking the end of World War I. Since then our veterans have faced World War II and the Korean war, and our peacekeepers have found themselves thrown into war zones where Canada is not a combatant.

On October 10, 1997 a private member's bill introduced in the Ontario legislature by Progressive Conservative MPP Morley Kells received royal assent. The bill is almost identical to the bill we are debating here tonight. Mr. Kells introduced his bill after he spent Remembrance Day in England one year.

Recently Great Britain restored the two minutes of silence to its Remembrance Day ceremonies. The two minutes of silence was once commonplace in England but had fallen into disuse. Mr. Kells witnessed the reinstitution of the two minutes of silence in England. He was so moved by the ceremony that he decided to introduce a bill in the Ontario legislature. The bill was passed. It calls on Ontarians to pause voluntarily for two minutes on Remembrance Day each year. I know of no one in this House of Commons who should be negative against our doing exactly the same here in Ottawa. It should be done here for our veterans right on Parliament Hill.

As time marches on our veterans are becoming less and less visible at Remembrance Day ceremonies across the country because of age, because of health, because of death. I as well as others are concerned that their legacy will fade.

I compliment the Royal Canadian Legion that goes into the schools to remind the children of November 11, Remembrance Day. The legion reminds the children of what it really means.

I was told that the Royal Canadian Legion asked the children of a little town to make wreathes and lay them down. The children did this. I was told that meant more to the veterans than if they had bought a wreath. The veterans saw that the children understood and cared enough for the veterans.

We must remember if it were not for our veterans, we would not be sitting here today in this Chamber. We would not be freely debating issues of policy and importance to our nation. It is up to our present generation and governments to take steps today to ensure our veterans' fight for our freedom is never forgotten. We must fuel the flame or the torch will never be passed on.

Fortunately recent generations have never been called upon to volunteer for the massive war efforts Canada mounted in World War I and World War II. We must continue to commemorate our veterans' legacy. Two minutes of silence is a small step toward ensuring the memory of their valiant fight.

The Royal Canadian Legion has called on governments and Canadians to restore this two minutes of silence nationwide. It believes it will go a long way to enhance Remembrance Day among the new generation of Canadians, those who have not experienced the horror of war.

We have already seen the Department of Veterans Affairs support this initiative for which I thank it. It has published brochures outlining activities for schools during Veterans Week and suggesting that two minutes of silence be organized. I commend the DVA for this initiative.

Two years ago the present president of the Royal Canadian Legion, Mr. Joe Kobolak, wrote to the Globe and Mail on the subject of the two minutes of silence. I quote from his letter to the editor dated November 15:

There is nothing quite as expressive as silence. Britain discovered that on Monday when it stood still for two minutes to remember the war dead. Trains, buses and cars came to a stop. Children stood by their desks with heads bowed. Office workers took their phones off the hook. The floor of the stock exchange fell silent. TV networks turned off the sound.

In a hurry-up world that leaves little for contemplation, it was a magnificent gesture of national solidarity. Is there any reason that Canada should not follow the example? Canadians observe Remembrance Day in many ways—in schools, at Legion halls, on Parliament Hill. But remembering together, at the same moment, all across the country would lend the event a new force at a time when memories of war are fading. Let the Prime Minister declare that, beginning next year, Canadians from sea to sea shall observe two minutes of silence at the same time every November 11th. We owe it to the dead. We owe it to the yet unborn.

I agree with the president of the Royal Canadian Legion. I agree with the thrust of Mr. Kells' bill. I agree with my colleague's bill before us tonight. Simply put, the legislation is an act to provide for the observance of Remembrance Day in a way that it was initially meant to be. Two minutes is not a lot to ask for a lifetime of freedom.

[Peter Goldring, Reform, Edmonton East, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-279, an act to promote two minutes of silence on Remembrance Day. I will make a 10 minute speech in support of two minutes of silence: two very important minutes observed by many in November of each year, two very important minutes of silence that are frequently overlooked by many others, including those whose employers grant them a day off to observe Remembrance Day.

Since Remembrance Day is not a day accorded the same importance as New Year's Day among other statutory holidays, Remembrance Day is most frequently associated with the phrase “banks and government offices are closed”. For many who must work on Remembrance Day, any pause to remember our war dead is either overlooked or difficult. For those and far too many others the sacrifices of war are in a fog of memory at best.

I thank my colleague, the hon. member for Calgary Southeast, for his thoughtfulness in sponsoring this initiative. As the official opposition critic for veterans affairs, I assure the hon. member and the House that this initiative is greatly appreciated by Canadian veterans everywhere.

In life we value those who remember our sacrifices and our triumphs long after their occurrences. In death, those who take the time to remember the accomplishments of one who has passed on show respect for that person as well as acknowledging that person's contribution to the welfare of others.

With respect to our war dead, so many of whom died in their early twenties without marriage or children to pass on their legacy, remembrance of their sacrifices becomes all the more important.

The purpose of the bill, to be called the observance of two minutes of silence on Remembrance Day act, is invitational. There is no mandated requirement that two minutes of silence be observed throughout Canada on Remembrance Day. Perhaps there should be. Rather, it is stated in the bill that the people of Canada are invited to pause and observe two minutes of silence at 11 o'clock on each Remembrance Day to honour the men and women who died serving their country in wars and peacekeeping efforts.

I note this legislative initiative parallels a bill passed in the Ontario legislation in October 1997. That initiative was commenced by Mr. Morley Kells, by way of a private member's bill. It is of interest that the current initiative and that in Ontario are the result of the concerns of individual members rather than being an initiative of the government of the day. It is also regrettable that the bill in the House is not votable, given that comparable legislation was deemed to be of sufficient importance to have been voted on in the Ontario legislature.

I also wish the Hansard record to show that the current bill has been introduced by a member of the House who is not yet 30 years of age. Many of his peers do not have a precise appreciation of the sacrifices of war. It is refreshing to encounter an individual with such concern and appreciation at such a comparatively young age.

As witness to the recent Senate hearings on the Canadian war museum, I must say that the role of the museum in preserving the respect and memories of our soldiers is essential.

Many argue, as do I, that the museum should be under the control of veterans affairs to allow for better representation by those whose memories are preserved in the museum. It is the Canadian War Museum that allows our young a chance to touch the history that won them the freedom they enjoy today. It is the Canadian War Museum that remembers the veterans every minute of every day and so too it must too receive the same thanks that our veterans receive.

In the current bill suggestions are made as to ways in which the people of Canada could promote the pause and the observance of two minutes of silence. Some of the suggestions are traditional and some are novel. It is suggested that Canadians could participate in a traditional Remembrance Day service at a war memorial.

Consistent with practices at most primary and secondary schools, it is suggested that Remembrance Day assemblies be held. It is also suggested that similar assemblies be held at post-secondary institutions, colleges and universities, where to the best of my knowledge Remembrance Day practices are less common.

Consistent with practices in Europe but not common in Canada, it is suggested that driving Canadians could stop their vehicles along the side of the road and sit or, as I suggest, stand quietly for two minutes. It is also suggested that factory assembly lines may shut down and that at all workplaces persons observe two minutes of silence. The final suggestion is that Remembrance Day services be held in places of worship.

Silence is an important component to healthy reflection. Many scorn those who wish to reflect on the past. Somehow this perspective sees a lesson from the past as a hindrance to healthy living in the present. This same approach to life also denies that one's actions can have a positive or negative effect on others. Respect is often contagious.

When soldiers go to war they do not do so on the basis of “I am the only one who matters”. Instead, there is a collective sense of purpose, a sense of placing one's life at risk for the greater good of others, a willingness to sacrifice in the support of a higher purpose and an appreciation that personal sacrifice can and does have a profound effect on the direction of history.

There is also in the military a very keen sense of history and an appreciation that one must learn from the lessons of history in order to ensure that past mistakes are not repeated. To say to a military person that all that matters is to be here now is to invite a response combining amazement and pity.

The world in which we currently find ourselves is one in which instant gratification and self-interest are celebrated. There is no need to make a commitment to any person or ideal other than oneself. It seems there is no need to remember the sacrifices that others made for our future welfare.

If we are to progress as a nation and as individuals we must remember those who sacrificed their lives for us. In houses of worship we are often asked to sit silently, to contemplate how we can improve ourselves in our daily lives. In silent contemplation for but two minutes on Remembrance Day we are invited to contemplate how others have contributed to our ability to improve ourselves in our daily lives. A single soldier dead 50, 75 or 100 years has made such a contribution to our welfare that we must remember the sacrifice.

I applaud the hon. member for Calgary Southeast for this initiative. My colleague is truly representative of Lieutenant-Colonel McCrae's sentiments as he takes up the torch and holds it high “lest we forget”.

[Judi Longfield, Liberal, Whitby—Ajax, ON]

Madam Speaker, in the short minute available to me I want to say how proud I am to stand here and offer my support for the bill before us.

I certainly would take issue with some of the comments about reducing this to one minute. I believe two minutes is not a great deal of time to ask anyone to stand and pay tribute to those who have paid the supreme sacrifice on our behalf. It is the very least we can do.

I urge all members of the House to vigorously lend their support. It will take time and effort on the part of all of us. These are simply words on paper until such time as they take action. We need to lend our support to our legions, to make certain that each and every one of us do our part in making sure the very valuable initiative on the part of the member opposite comes to fruition.

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to conclude debate on the bill. At the outset I thank members of all parties for their words and I think their support.

I would however put to the hon. member of the Bloc Quebecois that the bill is not proposing two minutes frivolously. This is a tradition which is decades old. It is what the Royal Canadian Legion has recommended as an appropriate period of observance. It is what the mother parliament, Westminister, has enacted by way of a motion. It is what the Ontario legislature has passed through unanimous vote. I suggest that two minutes, as the previous member has suggested, is not too much to ask for what we are commemorating.

However, if amendments were permitted to the bill I would be happy to remove the specific reference to two minutes and to have it stated as a moment of silence. I am not particularly concerned about the precise wording. I am more concerned about the sentiment which the bill attempts to express.

I also agree with the comments of the previous speaker that this kind of honorific statute is of no effect if the spirit of it is not taken up by Canadians.

One of the roles of parliament is to exercise national leadership. Part of that leadership should be in demonstrating the importance of our national symbols, one of which is a moment of silence. That is why I bring forward the bill as an act on the part of all members to provide us with an opportunity to exercise leadership in this regard. It would be for all Canadians to observe it.

It has happened, as the hon. member for Saint John has so eloquently pointed out, in the United Kingdom where this practice fell out of use. It has now led to a remarkable moving silence in every corner of the United Kingdom. There is no reason why we could not replicate that experience here.

In closing I refer to a anecdote about a particular Canadian soldier which would bring to mind the need for this kind of commemoration and to take it so seriously. I refer to a story reported in a book on direct democracy by a former member of this place, Patrick Boyer. He dedicated the book to a man by the name Gib Boxall who died at age 24 on June 9, 1944.

Gib Boxall was involved in the D-Day landing. He was one of the more than 1,000 Canadians who were killed in that war. When Canadian Sergeant Alf Allen was asked about his experience in digging some of the graves for Canadian soldiers, he said that he came across the body of Gilbert Boxall and said:

He came from Canwood in northern Saskatchewan, grew up in the Depression and had very little of this world's goods. He'd never have had been the stick man in a British Guards parade but as a dedicated working man there was none better. He landed in the assault wave on, gave first aid on the beach and in the battle inland. On D-plus 3, running to a chap he heard calling for help, he was cut down and killed. On his body we latter found five dried shell dressings—he'd five wounds prior to being killed. He never said a word to anybody, just crawled away somewhere, put a dressing on and went back in.

That is the kind of heroism and courage which we can never do enough to recognize and commemorate. For that reason, I want to close by inviting all members to support this bill and to seek unanimous consent to make it a votable bill.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to make this bill a votable bill?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

No.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want it to be clear that, as you know and as members opposite know, this bill received great support from this side of the House.

Unanimous consent was not forthcoming, not for concerns about the content of the bill but because of the procedural matter. As members know, we have a committee that selects private members' legislation. It determines which shall be votable or not votable. We do not wish to circumvent our colleagues on that committee.

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think that was more a point of debate. I will simply say that that point of order points to the need for reform of the means by which we handle private members' business.