Debates of May 17th, 2000

Criminal Code

[Murray Calder, Liberal, Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I too am very pleased to rise to speak to the bill. I join my colleagues on this side of the House in opposing Bill C-334, and oppose it we must.

I have no doubt about the sincere intentions of the sponsoring member across the way and his desire to meet his constituents' wishes to wear a deceased relative's medals. Quite frankly, the way he has explained it seems very reasonable. What could be the harm in that?

However, this is one of those cases where the countering argument is much stronger, not because we on this side say so but rather that the opposition comes from a very impeccable source, as my colleague has already indicated, and that is the legions and the individuals involved in these conflicts who have earned the right to wear medals.

If anyone has the right to have a significant say-so in this matter, surely no one could argue that it would be those who won the medals for the service they performed or for the acts of courage they displayed. I am talking about the veterans, the men and women who served with such distinction over 100 years in world wars and in Korea defending home shores, seas and skies, and in the peacekeeping hot spots all over the world. These medals and awards were not easily offered or won.

The legion recently shared those concerns in a letter to the sponsor of Bill C-334 in very precise terms. Some of these concerns were repeated in the recent edition of the Legion Magazine , quoting Dominion Secretary Duane Daly. I quote directly from the article in the magazine which stated that the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast:

—has ruffled a few feathers in the veterans community by introducing a private member's bill in the House of Commons that would change the rules about who is entitled to wear medals. Bill C-334 would amend the Criminal Code to allow relatives of a deceased veteran to wear that person's medals on the right side of a person's chest to show respect. Currently it is an offence under the Criminal Code for anyone to wear medals that have not been issued specifically to that person.

The law, as it is now, was the result of the lobbying by the Great War Veterans Association, the predecessor of the Royal Canadian Legion. We have in fact been working for years to destroy the myth that such wearing of medals is permissible, wrote Dominion Secretary Duane Secretary in a letter to (the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast). They are presented to a person to reflect the nation's gratitude for service and commitment, and are not to be worn as symbols of remembrance. We fear that the bill you are presenting will have the exact opposite effect because there will be no control on their comportment and thus the significance of the award will be compromised.

These are pretty strong words reflecting some very heartfelt sentiments. Given the status of the legion, being the largest veterans group in the country, I am a little surprised, given its views on the matter, that the hon. member has proceeded with the bill. It seems to me that it flies in the face of tradition and logic.

Why he would want to annoy such a representative group of veterans is beyond me. After all, the argument of those veterans has much merit. All they are saying is that those who did not do the service, those who did not perform the acts that merit the medals, cannot wear them. To do otherwise would diminish their significance.

I understand that a similar position is held by two other major veterans organizations, the National Council of Veteran Associations in Canada and the Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans in Canada. I dare say their views represent the vast majority of all veterans, ex-forces members and medal holders. I also understand that Veterans Affairs Canada feels similarly, as do other departments concerned.

For centuries countries have honoured and recognized military achievement of their soldiers by awarding a variety of decorations and medals. They announce for all to see that the individual has served his or her country with distinction.

To reiterate the legion's point, medals are presented to a person to reflect the nation's gratitude for service and commitment and are not to be worn as symbols of remembrance, which I believe the bill is mistakenly trying to do. Changing their significance from service and commitment to remembrance is just plain wrong. Bill C-334 is a well intentioned bill but quite frankly it is misguided. We oppose it for the right reasons.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being 7.15 p.m., the time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Rick Laliberte, NDP, Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I asked the Minister of Human Resources Development a question on budget day 2000. The question was: How can the government ask Canadians to save and pay for job training when the primary responsibilities for limited income families are food and shelter?

This was in response to a Liberal policy balloon, which at the time would have asked people to pay for their own job training. In high unemployment areas this issue was an immediate concern for us on this side of the House and an immediate concern for the region I represent.

I asked the minister why we could not place strategic investment in high unemployment regions with direct capital investment for public institutions such as community colleges and university access colleges. This would be a solid investment for Canadians to rely on for sustainable human and regional development.

The minister asked that I wait for the budget that was to be released that afternoon. We waited and we looked at the budget. Certainly there were resources allocated to all departments, but the disappointment still remained. There was still no strategic capital investment for education or higher learning.

I share Canada's shock and outrage as a result of this budget. For every tax dollar that was cut, only 2 cents went to health care, and this involves the major portion of the transfers to our provinces.

The Liberal government is too busy trying to help corporate fundraisers. Rather, it should be paying attention to the priorities of Canadians. I am talking about a health care system which is in dire need of repair. It is in a state of crisis.

Canadians found out that the government had no intention of improving the budget for health care, which was later clarified with bill 11 in Alberta to privatize hospitals. This reflects the Liberal support for the reform-alliance platform for a two tier American health care system.

I share Canada's outrage with student debt loads and rising tuition, which is another crisis that is being ignored in this country.

Ignoring the rising numbers of homeless people and the lack of affordable housing are also crises.

I could continue to list the bad policies of the government.

This is a wake up call. This is a time of surpluses in our treasury. The surpluses are mounting. It is time to have a vision, and certainly not the vision that is being created by the Harris government, the Klein government or this right wing government which creates policies for its corporate friends.

A strategic investment is needed for training and educational opportunities throughout this country. If we invested in our community colleges and university access colleges, which are very dear to neighbourhoods right across Canada, that would be a very sound investment.

I also want to raise the issue of the northern living allowance, particularly as it concerns my riding of Churchill River. The northern living allowance would offset the major costs of funding higher education and training opportunities and finding employment. There is a critical shortage of teachers and health professionals throughout the north. There is an opportunity to create institutions and to strategically invest government funds, especially federal funds.

Let us work together for a common future. I challenge the minister to make those investments properly.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, in the 1998 budget the $2.5 billion Canada millennium scholarship fund was introduced. The 1999 budget built on this by investing in the development of new knowledge and by focusing on job creation in new sectors. The 2000 budget provided a $2.5 billion increase in the CHST to help the provinces and territories fund post-secondary education and health care, the highest priorities of Canadians. This is the fourth consecutive federal enhancement to the CHST.

The 2000 budget also includes a tax exemption for income from scholarships, fellowships and bursaries, giving students additional financial assistance to pursue their studies.

Such measures demonstrate in concrete terms the federal government's commitment to post-secondary education.

One statistic alone proves the Government of Canada's commitment, and that is the fact that Canada spends a larger percentage of its GDP on post-secondary education than any of the other G-7 nations.

The Government of Canada recognizes that skills and training acquired through post-secondary education are vital to the development of Canada's human resources development capacity, and hence to national economic growth.

I might point out that other kinds of training to prepare people for the labour market have been devolved to the provinces under labour market development agreements, and the agreement with the province of Saskatchewan transfers $37 million to that province every year to be distributed and allocated as that government sees fit.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being 7.21 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7.21 p.m.)