Debates of June 15th, 2017

Criminal Code

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to hear that the member is supportive of the measures that have been included in this bill to ensure that victims have a voice in sexual assault trials, which is squarely within the fundamental objectives of this bill. I also want to echo the member's concerns regarding access to justice. She will recall that last year, this government provided additional resources for legal aid in an effort to ensure that we enhanced access for those who are engaged in the criminal justice system.

We continue to have good, productive, constructive discussions with all of our provincial partners.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to get back to the point that the member for Calgary Shepard presented. There was some discussion about a bunch of other things, but there was no direct answer to the question about section 176, which was used earlier this month and is indeed not obsolete. I wonder if there is any evidence the member could show us or if the government was aware that this provision is being used.

If obsolescence is the rationale, then perhaps this section should be brought out of that.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, just to return to the fundamental principles that have informed the sections being targeted for removal, we have identified two principal categories: those that have already been found to be unconstitutional or are likely to be found unconstitutional, and those that are either redundant or obsolete. That is not to say that there could not be a scenario in which charges would be laid even though the provisions in question would fit into one of those two categories.

We are mindful of the questions that have been raised by our colleagues, but I return to the two principles that have informed those impugned provisions in the bill.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot in this omnibus justice bill that we agree with when it comes to sexual assault and other provisions, but what I found ironic was the member's comment about a “deep commitment” to victims and our criminal justice system.

Last week in this chamber, we highlighted the fact that the government is not funding a registry that would protect victims and families from some of the most dangerous criminal sexual offenders. The member's rhetoric is certainly not matched by the government's commitment. If they were being penny-pinchers, I might understand, but with $30-billion deficits and the registry costing a paltry sum, I would like the member, particularly given his experience as a crown attorney and his knowledge of how dangerous some of these offenders are, to explain why the government would not fund this registry.

Has he matched his rhetoric in the House with his rhetoric in caucus? Has he been pushing his minister and his government to fund this registry?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague knows that I hold him in high regard.

With regard to rhetoric, it was his government that introduced legislation for this registry but refused to fund it with a single penny. On this side of the House, when we introduce legislation, we put our money where our mouth is every single time.

With respect to the provisions to give victims a voice, he well knows that there is $28 million a year in base funding for victims. In addition to that, this government recently provided additional resources in budget 2017 to ensure that judges and members of the court are able to give voice to victims who are engaged in sexual assault trials.

In addition to that, we worked collaboratively with the former leader of the member's party to ensure that even more additional resources were given to judicial officers to ensure that everyone has a fair trial and that victims get the justice they deserve.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that the bill was introduced at the end of his government's 10-year mandate and the government did not provide funding for it, is the registry of which those members speak an aggregator of existing data?

Would he agree as well that when the police believe somebody is dangerous and release that information, there are real concerns? This is one of the reasons we have to be so careful. We must not just jump to rhetorical conclusions, but actually look at the evidence. Would he agree that a registry such as the one that they are proposing might actually make our communities more dangerous, because individuals will go underground and not say where they are or else move to jurisdictions that have no such registry, such as Quebec or New Brunswick?

Would he agree with me that what he is proposing in his rhetorical flourish would make our communities potentially more dangerous and that we should be careful?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by congratulating the parliamentary secretary and the Minister of Public Safety for their work on this issue.

We are an evidence, fact-based government. We will absolutely ensure that our law enforcement actors have the resources they need so that our communities and our families can be kept safe.

I also agree with my colleague's comments that it is very important that we place trust, faith, and confidence in our police officers to work with communities to ensure that when offenders are released back into the community, it is done in a completely safe manner.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to this latest bill introduced by the Minister of Justice, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Department of Justice Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act. Our colleagues are right when they call this the justice omnibus bill, and this is one of the discussions I have had with my colleague, the member for St. Albert—Edmonton, on all the different areas that are covered by this bill.

One of the things I have notice in question period is that any time Liberal cabinet ministers get up, they always thank the members of the Liberal Party for all their hard work and support. I wanted to use that precedent to thank the hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton for all the work he has done in the justice area.

He is correct, and my colleagues are correct when they call this an omnibus bill. I believe it was in March of this year, the government House leader introduced a paper on the whole subject of omnibus bills, and stated:

Omnibus bills can be defined as a bill that contains separate and unrelated themes packaged into one bill. Members are then forced to vote for or against a bill that could have elements that Members would support or oppose. The only recourse for Members has been to seek to divide omnibus bills in committee, but these motions rarely come to a vote or are agreed to by way of unanimous consent.

Bill C-51 fits that description, because rather than dealing with one issue, the bill proposes to tackle at least four different matters at once. First, the bill sets out to clarify and strengthen certain aspects of sexual assault, relating to consent, admissibility of evidence, and legal representation for the complainant; second, the bill repeals a number of provisions in the Criminal Code that have been found unconstitutional by appellate courts, and other provisions that, in their opinion, might likely be found unconstitutional; third, the bill repeals several obsolete or redundant criminal offences; and fourth, it introduces a requirement of a charter statement to go along with any new government bill proposed by the Minister of Justice in the future.

In addition, as the government House leader's paper reads, “Members are then forced to vote for or against a bill that could have elements that Members would support or oppose.”

The bill has elements that we support, but there are some elements that we oppose. First, let me be very clear. We strongly support what Bill C-51 does in terms of clarifying and strengthening the sexual assault provisions. I appreciate the comments from the parliamentary secretary when he said that Kim Campbell introduced these in the early nineties, when I had the privilege of being her parliamentary secretary. It was great to work with her. There were so many different elements that we had to move on in the Criminal Code, and of course, this had the support of the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney throughout, and our efforts to stand up for victims and to protect law-abiding Canadians.

We support the provisions that the government has put in, among other things: to clarify that an unconscious person is incapable of consenting; to clarify that the defence of mistaken belief in consent is not available if the mistake is based on a mistake of law; to expand the rape shield provisions to include communications of a sexual nature or sexual purpose; to provide that a complainant has a right to legal representation in rape shield proceedings, that is an excellent idea; to ensure that an individual's previous sexual history has no bearing on questions of consent; and to create a regime to determine whether an accused can introduce a complainant's private records at trial that are in their possession. These are all very important. I believe they are all changes that we as Conservatives support.

In addition, we are supportive of Bill C-51 where it repeals and amends a number of provisions of the Criminal Code that have been found unconstitutional by appellate courts . We have seen before the risks and hurt that can be caused when sections of the Criminal Code have been ruled unconstitutional and are not removed.

One does not have to look any further than the Travis Vader murder in Alberta, during which the judge convicted the accused under an unconstitutional provision. Consequently, and unfortunately, the case had to be re-tried, causing difficult hardship, and unnecessary pain for the victims' families. Removing provisions that had been ruled unconstitutional by the courts is an important measure to take.

With that said, we take issue with some parts of this legislation. For one, we disagree the government needs to introduce a charter statement for every new piece of government legislation that is introduced by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. Although the required charter statement sounds like it might be a good idea, Canadians know that many safeguards already exist. First and foremost is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms itself. Coming into effect 35 years ago, the charter's objective is laid out in section 1:

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

The Canadian governments, both Liberal and Conservative, have been introducing justice legislation since 1982, after the charter came into effect. It has never been a requirement that the government create a charter statement for every justice legislation. It is simply not necessary.

Any legislation that is controversial can be challenged by citizens or groups in court. This will always happen regardless of this new charter statement. I have no problem with the idea of charter statements in general. In fact, if this minister so desires, I would welcome her attaching this to all the legislation that she puts forward. However, to require these as statements by law is another matter. I think it is unnecessary.

If she wants to put out a statement that she believes it complies with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, she should also include that it complies with the Canadian Bill of Rights that has been in place in this country since 1960, since John Diefenbaker was prime minister. She could do that, but it is unnecessary to bind all future governments and justice ministers by putting that in.

Lastly and most importantly, the Conservatives disagree with some of the sections that the government claims are obsolete. In particular, I want to bring to the attention of the House our opposition to clauses 1 and 14 in Bill C-51.

First of all, in clause 1 of Bill C-51, the government is proposing to repeal section 49 of the Criminal Code. This is what that section currently says:

Every one who wilfully, in the presence of Her Majesty,

(a) does an act with intent to alarm Her Majesty or to break the public peace, or

(b) does an act that is intended or is likely to cause bodily harm to Her Majesty, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

I do not really get why the Liberals are doing this. I was thinking about this on Sunday. I was in Niagara-on-the-Lake for the 225th anniversary of St. Mark's Church. The sermon was given by Bishop David Ralph Spence, who said there were three themes he wanted to talk about. One was the 225th anniversary of St. Mark's Church, and all the good that that church has done, and all the good that has come from the people who attend that church, and what an asset that has been. That church goes right back to when Governor Simcoe was the governor of Upper Canada, back in 1792. That was one of the themes he wanted to talk about.

Then he said he wanted to talk about the 150th anniversary of Canada, and what an asset our country has been since Confederation in 1867. Then he also made a very interesting point. He said that this year is also the 65th anniversary of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth's accession to the throne. He talked about, and I was thinking about it at the same time, what a wonderful individual she has been in terms of public service to this country as our head of state. Why would the Liberals decide in her 65th anniversary on the throne that it is a good idea to get rid of the section that specifically protects our head of state against anyone threatening or attacking her? It makes no sense to me.

I am also disappointed about the proposed clause 14 in Bill C-51, which would repeal a number of sections and replaces them with something entitled “Trespassing at night”. In short, that clause would get rid of section 176. One of my colleagues raised this matter with the parliamentary secretary.

This section does nothing other than protect the safety and well-being of religious clergy and ministers against dangers and threats. This section also deters someone from disturbing or interfering with a religious worship and ceremony. By repealing this section, the government would be removing the only provision in the Criminal Code that directly protects the rights of individuals to freely conduct the practice of their religion, whatever that religion may be. At a time when news stories are increasingly reporting attacks on religious communities, this concerns me. I have to stand up for the rights of my constituents and all Canadians to practise their religion without fear, recrimination, violence, or disturbance.

The irony of this is that we had a number of debates in the House when the Liberals were telling us how concerned they were about people's right to practise their religion without fear, intimidation, hatred, or prejudice. That is what they said. I did not get into the debate with the parliamentary secretary. This is not obsolete, it is not unconstitutional, it is very important. It is important enough, I can tell the House, that just this year a woman was charged under this offence for allegedly breaking the statue of Jesus at Saint Patrick's Basilica in downtown Ottawa. That section is being used right now, so I cannot imagine why the Liberals would want to repeal it.

I suggest to the Liberals that when they go home this summer, they should tell members of their clergy and people in their ridings that they are removing the section that protects people's right to conduct religious ceremonies, and getting rid of the section that specifically outlaws people who disrupt a religious service. I would be very interested in the feedback they will get on this.

I will be talking to my constituents about this, because they have a right to know that this is the proposal from the Liberal Party. In September, I am going to ask my colleagues what their constituents said and whether they thought it was something they have to get rid of, that anybody who causes a disturbance or threatens somebody is the same thing as a fight in a bar somewhere. I am willing to bet that their constituents will say that it is very serious for anybody to threaten a member of the religious community, or in any way disturb a religious service.

I am hoping the Liberals will reconsider both of those provisions. They are both important to continue. In keeping with the comments I made earlier with respect to this omnibus legislation about how we support some sections and do not support others, I move that notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, when Bill C-51, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Department of Justice Act and to make consequential amendments to another act, is referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, it be an instruction to the committee that during its consideration of the bill, the committee be granted the power to divide the bill into three pieces of legislation, one bill containing clauses 1 and 14, one bill containing sexual assault provisions, and one bill containing the remaining provisions of Bill C-51.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this spring, we debated and voted in favour of a motion dealing with the issue of Islamophobia. The provision of the law to which the member draws attention, the disturbance of religious services, was designed at a time when Protestants and Catholics were bad neighbours and would disrupt each other. Is it not the case that today those groups that are perhaps newer to our society and perhaps not as accepted as they should be, for example Jews and Muslims, who want to practise their religion in peace, whether in a mosque, a synagogue, or in a public place, where the law of trespass does not provide additional protection, ought to have some form of legislative protection for their sacred rights, even when they occur in public places? For example, funerals can happen in a public place at memorials.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Of course they should have that, Mr. Speaker. This section of the Criminal Code does that. This section protects all individuals performing religious services. It makes a specific reference to anyone who might try to disrupt a religious service.

I have never heard of anyone ever having a problem with this section. If we sit down with people and talk to them about different possibilities of a disturbance or anything like that, many would agree on the seriousness of anybody disrupting a religious service or threatening somebody who practises his or her religion.

The member mentioned the motion. We heard again and again how concerned the Liberals were about people having the right to practise their religion without fear, without hate, without prejudice, without any disruption whatsoever. Therefore, I was surprised when I picked up the bill. After the Queen, this is one of the first things the Liberals wanted to get rid of. I do not get it, getting rid of the specific protection that our head of state has. What is the problem with that?

The timing of this is terrible in my opinion. It is the 65th anniversary of the Queen's reign, and now members decide to get rid of the specific protection that is accorded to her. However, the other section is the only area of the Criminal Code that specifically delineates religious services and those who perform those religious services. Why would they get rid of it? I wanted to have a motion here to have these separated. I hope the Liberals will reconsider this.

I think there is great consensus on a lot of the different sections in here. A lot of the sections make the Criminal Code gender neutral. A lot of the sections update the wording and get rid of sections that have long had no relevance. Most important, the area with respect to sexual consent and the other laws, like the rape shield laws, are extremely important. The Liberals should have had this as a separate bill rather than toss this all into it, but we on this side of the House do not run the show.

Again, I have invited my colleagues to mention it to their constituents and ask them how they feel about the the Liberal Party getting rid of the section that protects people in the practice of their religion. I am going to look forward to getting some feedback from them in the fall.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to a theme the member touched on earlier, the theme of anniversaries. This is the 30th anniversary of Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

One of the things our government has been practising, which I think he would admit in fairness, as a former minister of justice, his government did not do, is our Minister of Justice, since becoming the minister, has been tabling with every justice bill a statement of the bill's potential effects on the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This bill would codify it. It would formalize it. It would require, going forward, any government to provide that statement so we could get a better sense as Canadians, as legislators, to what extent the bill would or would not be at variance with the charter rights, which are guaranteed and have evolved through our court system.

Could he take a minute to explain what his party's position is with respect to this? In the past, the Conservative Party's position was not to do so. I remember asking the member, the former minister of justice, on repeated occasions why he would not give Canadians assurances that when justice matters came forward to the floor of the House, they would in fact be in compliance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a fair comment. We were very cognizant and compliant with all the laws, including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights. The minister of justice was always advised on these, and we certainly took that advice.

The details of it are solicitor-client privilege, and the parliamentary secretary to the justice minister mentioned that. I have said right here, if the minister wants to put out a charter statement, she should go right ahead and say it complies with the charter. I have no problem with that. Say it complies with the Canadian Bill of Rights as well. That is a wonderful thing. However, to make this a part of every piece of legislation is absolutely unnecessary.

Again, I do not see why the Liberals are doing this. There is some sort of statement or something. However, nonetheless, and I pointed this out, if people feel the bills are unconstitutional, for whatever reason, they have the ability to challenge that. This has been going on for the last 35 years, and John Diefenbaker's Bill of Rights has been here for almost 60 years now.

The rights of our country have been protected by every Conservative government. No one has a better record of standing up for rights and freedoms of Canadians than the Conservative Party.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is a matter that has troubled me deeply in the eight, almost nine years I have been elected. There was a concern in the last government, the Harper Conservative government, that they would come forward and say they had reviewed these bills for charter compliance. As I understand it, the policy put in place by the Liberals was that as long as it was thought there was a 2% chance of charter compliance, people could say it was charter compliant. If the intention of this provision is to make available the analysis by the Department of Justice on whether it is charter compliant, I am all for it.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that would be fascinating. I would like to hear from the Liberals if they will table the solicitor-client advice that is given to the justice minister.

Under the Conservative government, we were very consistent. We were very compliant with all the constitutional provisions. It is true, we were always worried about victims of crime and law-abiding citizens who had the right to live in the country and not be victimized. I am very proud of that record. Stephen Harper was always consistent. Anything that was brought before the House in the area of justice, he was interested in knowing whether victims were being protected and whether law-abiding Canadians and their interests were being heard. I am confident all our bills were legitimately compliant with the rules.

People can challenge these things if they like, but for the Minister of Justice to start putting this extra thing into every bill is not necessary. I am not quite sure why the Liberals are doing it. However, if the minister wants to put out a statement that she is confident that it complies with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights, go ahead. However, having this as part of every piece of justice legislation is completely unnecessary.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

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.

The House resumed from May 4 consideration of the motion that Bill C-311, an act to amend the Holidays Act (Remembrance Day), be read the third time and passed.

Holidays Act

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise to support the bill, although I have to admit I am deeply disappointed that the member has relented and reduced his bill substantially.

Initially, as I understand, Bill C-311 proposed that Remembrance Day be a statutory holiday. Remembrance Day is already a statutory holiday in my province of Alberta and in every province except Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, and Nova Scotia.

My experience is, and the experience of those in my city, that making this day of remembrance a statutory holiday enables and encourages families to participate in memorial services. Events are well-attended in Edmonton, at cenotaphs located across the city. Schools do host events and there is no conflict, as has been raised I think by some veterans. Most schools host their November 11 activities days before November 11. I have regularly participated in events in both McNally High School and Vimy Ridge Academy and they are a pleasure.

While the largest service held with the Lieutenant Governor is hosted at the University of Alberta in my riding, for the past few years, I have been honoured to be invited to join the premier and the South Alberta Light Horse regiment in a very special service at Holy Trinity Anglican Church. We then march with the soldiers to the cenotaph at the now renamed Light Horse Park.

I have also had the privilege of working with a committee of Edmontonians determined to refurbish the old Strathcona cenotaph, an effort led by the South Alberta Light Horse Regiment Foundation, nicknamed Sally Horse.

I am joined on this committee by our local MLA, the premier of Alberta, the rector for Holy Trinity Anglican Church, the Royal Canadian Legion, our city council, the Old Strathcona Foundation, the Strathcona Community League, Fringe Theatre Adventures, the Old Strathcona Business Association, and finally the Youth Empowerment and Support Services, or YESS.

YESS is an organization that supports youth who are homeless. It is located in the adjacent Connaught Armoury, the oldest in the province. Each Remembrance Day, they kindly host all who attend the ceremonies at our cenotaph.

This joint initiative to refurbish the cenotaph has been inspired by the growing interest in participating in this community-based ceremony and in recognizing the deep connection of the Light Horse to Old Strathcona.

The official birthdate of the SALHties was July 1905 and Old Strathcona was the regimental headquarters until 1964. Their flags still fly in Holy Trinity church.

The regiments were horse-mounted in the early days. Albertan regiments are famous for the horsemanship, going back to World War I, when Albertans were tasked with breaking in new mounts at Swaythling Remount Depot because of their natural horsemanship.

Members of the then-called Dragoons were dispatched from the Old Strathcona train station in 1914, during World War I, and also in 1939 during World War II. Their current Colonel-in-Chief is Her Royal Highness, the Countess of Wessex, who has attended some of the November 11 services and ceremonies. She honoured us at the groundbreaking of the new cenotaph park, Light Horse Park.

The 31st Battalion was one of the key Alberta battalions. It drew approximately 50% of the men from Edmonton and its surrounding area. It was active in all major campaigns throughout World War I and was awarded many battle honours, to name only a few: Ypres, Mount Sorrel, the Somme, Arras, Vimy, Hill 70, Passchendaele, and Flanders.

The 15th Light Horse continues to service Calgary on horseback and trains regularly as part of the Canadian Cavalry Brigade, 5th Cavalry Division, alongside the 19th Alberta Dragoons. In 1942, the unit was converted to a tank regiment re-designated as the 29th Armoured Recognizance Regiment, and fighting in France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and, finally, German, with continuous action from 1944 to 1945.

In 1954, the South Alberta Regiment merged with the 15th Alberta Light Horse to form the South Alberta Light Horse.

Planned additions to the memorial will commemorate the Alberta Light Horse history and its strong links to the community, creating a place of interest and gathering year-round. The changes will provide new educational materials for students, families, and community members helping bring the local military history alive. The Light Horse Park cenotaph rehabilitation project is an important legacy project, not just for November 11, but benefiting the community year-round, including for our famous Fringe Theatre festival and for the Strathcona Community League.

We are hopeful that it will soon be completed so that all may gather in a beautiful location in Edmonton Strathcona to observe Remembrance Day. Again, I am very grateful that everyone, every family in my city, has the opportunity to come and celebrate with us on Remembrance Day.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of Bill C-311, an act to amend the Holidays Act (Remembrance Day).

Before I begin, I would like to thank the member for Central Nova for bringing this forward. It is long overdue and is an issue that we need to discuss in the House today.

Growing up in Manitoba, Remembrance Day was always a holiday. I can still recall my confusion upon arriving in Ontario to find that it was not recognized as a holiday. This bill would ensure that from coast to coast to coast, Canadians would have the opportunity to reflect and remember the sacrifice of the fallen.

Remembrance Day holds special significance for all Canadians, whether they are serving members of the Canadian Armed Forces, relatives of those who have fought, or even new Canadians, because all Canadians enjoy the rights and freedoms fought for and preserved by those who fought and those who continue to fight.

Guelph knows the importance of remembrance because of our strong history and connection to Canada's military past. With the arrival of the First World War, 3,300 people enlisted in Guelph. Local union and business leaders spearheaded campaigns to raise money for war bonds and charity efforts.

Soldiers who enlisted would arrive at the freshly constructed armoury, completed in 1908, which is now almost 110 years old. The armoury is home to Guelph's 11th Field Artillery Regiment, RCA, affectionately known as the gunners, and is Canada's oldest artillery regiment. Thousands of troops were accommodated and trained at the armoury during the First World War. The local militia unit was renamed the 1st (Howitzer) Brigade, Canadian Forces Artillery. After their training, new recruits were sent east to Sydney or Halifax, Nova Scotia, on their way to France.

Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae, the celebrated war poet, was just one of the dedicated volunteers from Guelph and one of thousands of Canadians who shared the experience of war. His poem, In Flanders Fields, is inscribed in the memorial chamber of this place and has earned worldwide recognition as a symbol of the costs of war and the duty of those left behind to remember the fallen. His contribution was by no means the only one made by the people of Guelph in support of the war effort.

The University of Guelph, then known as the Ontario Agricultural College, was charged with doing what it could to offset food shortages. The war attracted many faculty, staff, and students as recruits. The War Memorial Hall was opened in 1924 in honour of the 109 who died. In total, Guelph lost 281 men and one nursing sister. The end of the war in 1918 brought peace, but it would not be long before Guelphites were called upon again to serve.

When war was declared in 1939, Guelphites once again answered the call. By the end of the Second World War, Guelph had lost 173 citizens. This included Isaiah Acker, who died while on duty serving with the RCAF. As a tribute to his service, the Jewish community in Guelph named their synagogue after him in 1949.

Guelph contributed to the war effort in many ways, whether it was manufacturing furnaces and fridges for the navy or women pitching in as constables due to labour shortages.

Today the spirit of remembrance is alive and well in Guelph. Every November 11, at the Guelph Cenotaph on Eramosa, the legion, the 11th Field Artillery Regiment, 121 Red Arrows Squadron, and community members gather to pay their respects.

However, remembrance in Guelph is by no means confined to just one day a year. Our local legion and regiment participate in charitable events, such as the United Way campaign kickoff barbecue for Guelph, and they also hold Decoration Day and many other events within the community. These events remind the community of the active role the military and the legion play.

This year, thanks to the MP for Scarborough—Guildwood and the Vimy Oaks Legacy Corporation, members were able to adopt oak saplings, descendants of the original oaks brought over from Vimy Ridge by Lieutenant Leslie Miller. Guelph was able to acquire two of these living memorials to the First World War. The first sapling was planted last week at the Guelph Legion, which will be celebrating its 85th anniversary next week. Fittingly, the second tree was planted at the home, now museum, of Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae, who also fought at Vimy.

Even foreign governments have seen fit to recognize the contributions and accomplishments of Guelphites during wartime. Earlier this year, the Government of France bestowed one of its highest honours on a pair of Guelph veterans, Frank Taylor and Donald Sutherland. In a ceremony with the French consul, they were both named Knights of the French National Order of the Legion of Honour for their contributions during World War Two in the liberation of France. I was deeply honoured to participate in this ceremony.

Guelph has always had a strong connection to Canada's military past and present. However, this connection is not unique. It is mirrored in communities from coast to coast to coast. It is for this reason that Remembrance Day should be listed as a national holiday under the Holidays Act. This will ensure that all Canadians are free to gather at local cenotaphs and participate in remembrance ceremonies.

I would once again like to offer my thanks to my colleague from Nova Scotia for bringing this important bill forward.

In closing, I encourage all my colleagues in this House to support this legislation as a means to further unite Canadians in the spirit of remembrance.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise on behalf of the great residents of Barrie—lnnisfil and as the opposition critic for veterans affairs. I am pleased again to speak to Bill C-311 at third reading.

Today we speak to address only one amendment to the Holidays Act for Remembrance Day, which is to add the word “legal”.

I want to commend the hon. member for West Nova for his inspiration for this bill and to recognize his work on behalf of the men and women of our armed forces, not only with respect to this bill but also for his work as a member of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. We have had some spirited discussions at that committee.

I would also like to state that the previous Conservative government, and the current government, continue to show the respect due to our veterans. The 100th anniversary of Vimy celebrations in France were outstanding. Thousands of Canadians stood with government and military representatives remembering and reliving the actions of the thousands who fought in those days of the Battle of Vimy Ridge. The commemoration services in Ottawa were just as moving, with a sunset candle-lighting ceremony, Saturday, April 8, and a touching passing of the torch to Canada's future military from our veterans. The Saturday evening service was followed by a full commemoration on Vimy Day, April 9, in full sun, weather conditions our soldiers in 1917 certainly would have preferred to the rain and mud they experienced on that April morning.

Services in Ottawa and across Canada were attended by Canadians of all ages from all communities. Canadians have shown that they have a birth-born respect for our current members of the Canadian Armed Forces and our veterans to whom we owe so much. These feelings of respect and long-standing admiration do not need to be legislated to Canadians.

From the earliest school day memories of services in our school auditoriums and cafeterias, presence on Remembrance Day was never a forced obligation. With Bill C-311, there would be a forced obligation on Canadians, a forced obligation that is, quite frankly, not needed.

Let me take a few minutes to provide a few examples for this House.

Each year the Canadian Legion launches its poppy campaign on the last Friday in October, and it runs until Remembrance Day. Of all money raised from the 20 million poppies distributed, 85% goes back to veterans and their families through services and programs.

When I think of all the military events in our nation's history we commemorate, I find it hard to believe that some people think we do not honour those who have fallen enough. Last week we remembered June 6, 1944, D-Day, the raid on Normandy. We have annual services at the National War Memorial and across Canada for the Battle of the Atlantic. On July 1, in Newfoundland and across Canada, we will remember the loss of a generation at the Battle of Beaumont-Hamel. Coming up, we will remember the 75th anniversary of Dieppe in August. National Peacekeepers' Day is August 8.

If this House and the government really want to recognize the sacrifices of our armed forces, there could be another way we could do this. In 2017, while Veterans' Week is taking place, from November 5 to 11, all MPs will be here in Ottawa and only able to return home on November 9 or 10 to attend services for Remembrance Day. Would it not make more sense to have our House leaders agree to permanently reschedule our November break to coincide with Veterans' Week so that all MPs can participate in their ridings? I do not speak for all members, but I know that I will miss several important Remembrance Day ceremonies in the communities of Barrie—lnnisfil while I am in Ottawa that week.

I applaud the effort and sincerity of the member for introducing Bill C-311. However, it would have made much more sense to introduce a bill or motion that would have made a permanent change that positively affects how we can be with our constituents for Veterans' Week, the whole week, not just November 11, as will be the case this year.

What this bill would do is only one thing, which is label Remembrance Day a “legal” holiday. I am not quite sure what impact that would have, because it is still up to the provinces to determine whether they will impose a statutory holiday.

I would like to restate to the House my comments at the heritage committee when the bill was debated, where, in committee, two of the three clauses were removed from the bill. When we pass pieces of legislation in the House of Commons, we do not do so because they feel good. We do so because they support the intent to make the lives of Canadians better. Understandably, there can be an argument that this will help elevate the status of Remembrance Day, but as we heard from Mr. White, with the Royal Canadian Legion's Dominion command, and from others, and as I can tell you anecdotally from being as involved in Remembrance Day week as I was, the status of Remembrance Day continues to grow in this country without the help or the need for legislation.

A significant number of Canadians participate in the remembrance of those who gave their lives in sacrifice for the freedoms that we enjoy. As I said when the bill was being dealt with in committee, there is not a day that goes by that I or any of us who have the privilege of sitting in the House of Commons do not realize that those sacrifices were real, that blood was spilled and that families were torn apart to allow each and every one of the 338 of us the privilege of sitting in our symbol of democracy: the House of Commons.

As I and others in committee mentioned to the member for West Nova, if the intent was to emphasize the importance of Remembrance Day to Canadians, we could have easily done that through a motion that would have reaffirmed Parliament's commitment to our veterans and to Remembrance Day. We did not necessarily need a piece of legislation to change an act of Parliament to do that.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to support Bill C-311, an act to amend the Holidays Act, regarding Remembrance Day. It is important to recognize that the bill will not make this a national holiday for all provinces such as my own, although Ontario will continue to have that as an option. It is still much a matter of debate as to the value of having that day as a national holiday or whether, as the Legion professes, it should not necessarily be so because honouring and respecting veterans takes place all the time. They argue school campaigns are just as effective and having the children in the school at that time is effective.

I personally will be supporting it as a national holiday for a number of different reasons because I believe that the work that is done and the argument that is made in the school is very profound and very proficient. I come from an area in Windsor in Essex County where many battles of the War of 1812 were fought. We had a number of different interventions with regard to wars, conflicts, and even peacekeepers over the years. It has not just been World War I and World War II. It is the Korean War, Afghanistan, peacekeeping missions, a series of encounters across the globe involving my constituents from the Essex and Kent Scottish Regiment, the HMCS Hunter, and as well the HMCS Windsor, which is now in the field, that have all been part of the national construct of why we pay tribute and honour them.

I support this as a day to reflect as some workers cannot have that opportunity to take a moment. I know that some establishments no longer even have the 11th hour of the 11th day and the minute of silence, which we are supposed to observe. I remember when I was in school that would take place in Ontario and it still does to this day, but I know it does not take place in other places of business and work. Having that day, we have done a lot in Windsor and Essex County over the years to heighten awareness. It is also important for a diverse culture and community to do so.

I have been fortunate to grow up in the shadow of different experiences, in particular, my biological grandfather John Clifford Addison perished in the fall of the Burma campaign on the HMS Scorpion. I do not know much about my grandfather. I have his medals and his war record. I have a photograph of the ship that he served on, but my grandmother remarried Fred Attwood when he came to Canada. He raised me as his own grandson, so I would go over every weekend and talk to my grandparents and he would share the stories. He served on the MacCallum and the HMS Ark Royal. He was a merchant marine as well as in the Royal Navy. He told stories of how he slept at night making sure to put sugar at the bottom of the grease tins so that the different insects would not get past it and the camaraderie he had as an electrician with some of the pilots on the aircraft carrier that he served.

We have those personal elements that we can share, but how do we transfer that? I would say that there has been a tremendous effort and I want to thank the Windsor Veterans Memorial Services Committee, as we recently had a ceremony. For over 100 years, it has provided services for the men and women of good service to Canada who have passed away and for those who came back from the field of combat to be part of our community. They have a number of different support mechanisms for our veterans, including an honour guard for funerals, and my grandfather was one of the recipients of that. We have a service every year especially for that. It is very unique in Windsor and Essex County. It is ongoing throughout the year. The services have reached into the hundreds in the last number of years because of the number of veterans we have lost most recently.

I am also very proud to represent a region where we already have a connection to Ottawa. When Korea was not recognized as a war, on our city council, I was proud with Charles Hotham to move a motion to put the only city funding and federal funding into the current memorial in Ottawa for South Korea. Losing our veteran, Henry Martinak , this year was very difficult as well as Larry Costello from the Windsor Veteran Memorial Services Committee who passed away.

The point I also want to make in relation to this is that the bill would just be adding a legal aspect to the current terminology, so nothing will really change.

The legislation has been diluted and I do not understand why. I do not sit on committee so I do not know why that was done, but I will support it because it is an improvement to what we presently have. However, questions will remain as to whether the remaining provinces should join the six provinces and three territories that currently observe Remembrance Day as a holiday. For example, banks and federal employees observe this as a day off.

What happened in Windsor and Essex County is really unique. New Canadians who have come from countries around the world and who have no personal connections, who do not have that gift as I and many others do, are able to attend our Remembrance Day ceremonies. This is an opportunity to further showcase that. It is also an opportunity to teach them about the real connections Canadians have.

It is not just about the fact that some people made the ultimate sacrifice. It is also about the fact that so many came back and they have contributed a lot to their communities and families. This is so critical to mention because many of those helped to establish unions, community groups, and many different organizations. They led to the many diverse ways that Canada has expressed itself and contributed so predominantly in the world.

I will be supporting the bill and I thank the member for bringing it forward. The reality is that at the end of the day, we will still be having the discussion in places like Ontario as to whether Remembrance Day will become a full holiday or not. Until that time and until that discussion, at least we in this place continue to recognize our veterans as well as their families for their continued contributions to our communities.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate. First, I want to acknowledge the incredible work that my colleague from West Nova did on drafting this private member's bill concerning Remembrance Day. I am encouraged to hear my colleagues across the way take part in this debate and those who say that they support the bill.

This bill is important because it gives Remembrance Day a federally legislated legal status that it did not have before. It will be given the same legal status as Canada Day and Victoria Day. We will be able to say that it is now a statutory holiday to commemorate the armistice that ended the Great War of 1914-18. There will be no exception under the legislation.

When I first looked at this file I thought perhaps that the fact that Remembrance Day had not been given the same legal status as other statutory holidays in Canada was just a fluke. Unfortunately, this exception lingered for quite some time. My colleague from West Nova, Nova Scotia, is to be commended for introducing a bill to right this wrong in Canadian law.

It is very important to understand what this private member's bill would contribute, in no longer allowing for this exception that we have of having two classes of holidays in Canada. We have one class, the legal holiday that is recognized within the Canadian legal parliamentary context, like Canada Day and Victoria Day. However, for some reason, we have taken one of our most sacred commemorations and put it at a lower level than the other two.

For me, that is not acceptable. I applaud my colleague, the member for West Nova, for taking the initiative to make sure we can do this. I would like to thank also other members from across the way for lending their support to this initiative. This is very important for us to do.

Let me also talk about what this private member's bill would not do. There is a sense sometimes; people feel that this would be creating another statutory holiday, a day when people all across Canada would have the day off. That actually is not the case. What we discovered, which is very interesting, is that holidays in this country, in terms of whether people have a paid day off, are determined by the provinces. When we have Canada Day or Victoria Day, or in my province la Fête de Dollard, it is determined by the provincial body whether people will have a paid holiday.

At the federal level, we determine whether this is being considered for bodies that are regulated by the federal government; for example, the federal public service. This would be considered a legal holiday when the federal government would not be at work. For all of us here in Parliament, it is a similar kind of thing. That is where we have that aspect of where it applies.

For other industries and employment situations that are regulated by the provinces, it is up to the provinces to determine whether they can take part in this holiday. That is what they do for Canada Day. I think it would be politically unwise and impossible to do, but a province theoretically could determine that Canada Day would not be considered a statutory holiday, a paid holiday, for the purposes of employment. People in that province would have to show up to work. That is beyond what would be reasonably acceptable, and we would not expect that to happen.

I think Bill C-311 has been warmly received by Canadians across the country. I find more and more in my riding of Hull—Aylmer that people recognize the importance of Remembrance Day, even though we move further away in time from World War I. There are no living survivors of World War I. As we move away from the wars in which Canadian troops have participated, I find it a funny thing that the younger generations in schools in our communities are participating more in Remembrance Day activities. Either people will cross the river to come to the national cenotaph here, or they will go to the cenotaph in the Aylmer sector of my riding.

Last year, we had close to a thousand people who celebrated on November 11. We had women and men taking part, of course, who were serving in our forces. We had veterans come out in uniform to participate. What was really encouraging was seeing regular folks from Hull—Aylmer take part in this, people who came out to recognize the importance and the service that the women and men in uniform have made over time and the sacrifices that they and their families have made. It was really touching to see.

I think we owe it to them, and to all Canadians, to make sure that Remembrance Day shares the same legal definition that other federally regulated holidays have, such as Canada Day and Victoria Day. That is why I feel it is important for us to recognize the sacrifice that our brave women and men have made, to bring it up to the same level, and to allow Remembrance Day to finally have the same legal status in the Holidays Act.

I also want to touch on some of the provisions in this bill. One of them addresses the fact that if November 11 falls on a Saturday or Sunday, the following Monday will be considered a statutory holiday and celebrated as Remembrance Day.

That is important. Through this bill we are making sure that Remembrance Day is treated the same as all the other statutory holidays under the Holidays Act.

Most importantly, not only does the main clause of the bill raise the legal status of this holiday, but the bill also provides that the Canadian flag on Parliament Hill will fly at half-mast on Remembrance Day in recognition of the sacrifice made by our troops and our veterans.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege for me to rise today and debate Bill C-311. It is an honour as a parliamentarian, but also as a veteran and as a former minister of veterans affairs. In many ways, this speech will have elements of my speech in this place in 2014 because this issue keeps coming back to the floor of the House of Commons. Any time we debate remembrance of those who have served our country, it is worthy of debate in this House, probably the most important debate we can have. Therefore, I thank the member for West Nova for bringing this modest contribution. His bill would add a word creating a legal holiday with respect to November 11, and it builds in part on the bill in the last Parliament, Bill C-597, which I spoke to, brought by MP Dan Harris from the New Democratic Party, then member for Scarborough Southwest, who had a slightly more substantive bill with respect to this, which was not successful. He also had provisions with respect to the flag.

However, I can say that several Parliaments have had this debate. Several members have mentioned that really the statutory holiday elements of this are provincial. In 1982, former premier Bill Davis removed the statutory element for Remembrance Day in Ontario. I am an Ontario MP. I certainly know that schools and other organizations make an effort to remember. I served in Nova Scotia when I was in the RCAF, and certainly I saw the large cenotaph gatherings in that province because of the holiday, so it really is at the discretion of the provinces. Several members have mentioned that. I am going to bring a history of the day to our debate today because that is important. I hope some Canadians want to see how our country has evolved our remembrance.

Especially in our 150th year, we really have to thank the people who served and sacrificed for us. In our 150 years, 1.5 million Canadians have served our country throughout our history, so debates about Remembrance Day or Armistice Day are important. I would also like to say that nobody has fought for this issue to come to debate in the House of Commons more than Wilma McNeill from Sarnia. I have met Ms. McNeill, I have seen her letters, and I know her advocacy, so I thank her for that. She has been doing this for over 27 years, trying to have all provinces recognize it as a holiday, and I thank her for that advocacy. I certainly agree that more Canadians need to remember; it is how we remember that is important.

It was in this place in 1919, following the Great War, following the rebirth of this Parliament when the buildings were reconstructed and our Peace Tower was a reminder of the sacrifice of the Great War, that a motion was brought by MP Isaac Pedlow in 1919 to recognize Armistice Day. The Great War ended at the 11th hour on the 11th day of the 11th month, and November 11 became significant for the peace that was finally secured after the terrible horrors of the Great War. It was just a motion to acknowledge that, in 1919, and it was two years later that an act came before this House for the first time, the Armistice Day Act. It was still called Armistice Day at that time.

What is interesting is that our country's early marking of this remembrance, Armistice Day, was not on November 11 for pretty much the first decade. It was on the first Monday of the week of November 11. Because at that time Thanksgiving was at the discretion of the federal parliament, it was tied together in a holiday alongside Thanksgiving. However, in the years that followed that, a lot of Great War veterans did not like the fact that those holidays, Thanksgiving and the remembrance of Armistice Day, were attached to each other and there was a floating date. Increasingly, veterans, regardless of what day was recognized as the holiday, were gathering at cenotaphs across the country and gathering here in Parliament, and a decade later at the great War Memorial that was built, to recognize November 11 in moments of silence, on the 11th.

It is interesting that in the years after the Great War all of these veterans organizations, Great War empire veterans, finally gathered together into one national organization, the Royal Canadian Legion, in 1925.

I know many members on both sides of the House are members of that very important service organization. I thank all of the Legion members and the service officers for the critical work they do, and I saw that firsthand as veterans affairs minister. They are the front line serving our veterans, and they have been since 1925.

At their founding convention in Winnipeg, the Great War veterans addressed the issue of remembrance, and they did not want the Monday observation of Armistice Day alongside Thanksgiving to be maintained. The Great War veterans spoke and that led to change.

I want to take this opportunity to remind members of the House of the act to incorporate the Royal Canadian Legion. I would also remind the Minister of Veterans Affairs and his parliamentary secretary, who I know is very passionate about her role. She has children serving in uniform, and is very proud of them, and should be.

However, at that founding convention, veterans put themselves together to help one another and to mark remembrance. The next year, Parliament passed another act in 1926 to incorporate the Royal Canadian Legion. I would refer members to section 4, the purposes and objects of the Legion. I would note that no other service club has its mandate from an act of Parliament, but in section 4(f), Remembrance Day and remembrance was actually given to the Legion, and it reads:

(f) to promote and care for memorials to their valour and sacrifice, to provide suitable burial, to keep an annual memorial day...

There are a number of other purposes and objectives that Canadians and parliamentarians should get to know, because long before there was a Veterans Affairs Canada, there was the Royal Canadian Legion. It was empowered by Parliament to help care for our veterans, and to help preserve their service and sacrifice. Therefore, it was actually the Legion that wanted November 11, and not a floating holiday, to be significant in the history of our nation, and to have the moment of silence surrounding the Armistice at the 11th hour.

From the direction of the Great War veterans, the Royal Canadian Legion, there was finally another motion brought to this chamber by the MP for Comox—Alberni. The motion's intention was to fix November 11 as the permanent Armistice Day. The interesting part of that debate was that most members had heard the Legion loud and clear and said, “November 11 it will be”. However, another member from Vancouver Island, the MP for Nanaimo, added to the debate and to the motion, and said the day should no longer be called Armistice Day, because it is not just marking the Armistice agreement, but that it should be marked as Remembrance Day. The member, C.W. Dickie, at the time said, “We wish to remember and perpetuate” the Armistice, and the peace secured at tremendous sacrifice to Canada.

It was interesting that, in those same years, the formation of what we know as Remembrance Day was just being formed by our country. The Peace Tower and the Book of Remembrance was being put in place just above us on most hallowed ground in this building. Each day a page is turned for the thousands of Canadians who fell in service to our country.

The debate that comes before us today is significant. To echo my friend from Barrie who quoted the executive director of the Royal Canadian Legion, we must respect the Legion's opinion with respect to Remembrance Day, because a previous Parliament empowered the Royal Canadian Legion by an act in 1926 to maintain the memorial to our fallen. The motion in 1931 created that on November 11 and called it Remembrance Day. Therefore, I support Bill C-311 today, and we should adhere to what the Legion, the true guardians of this day, want with respect to how the provinces handle it.

I want to thank the member, I want to thank the Legion, I want to thank Wilma McNeill, and all those Canadians who make sure that we live up to the expression “Lest we Forget”.