Robert Bertrand

[Quebec Flag, March 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, fifty years ago, Quebec adopted the fleur-de-lis as our provincial flag. Two years later, on March 9, 1950, Quebec's legislative assembly passed a bill giving this decision the force of law. It is this anniversary that I wish to remember today.

Quebec has seen many changes in the last fifty years. It has moved ahead with great speed in all areas. Over the years, people from all four corners of the globe have come to Quebec and played a role in making our province what it is today.

It has become a modern, dynamic and outward-looking society. As the new millennium approaches, Quebec has everything it needs to continue on this course.

The fleur-de-lis is obviously a reminder of the francophone identity that runs through our province's history, but it is also a rallying symbol for all Quebeckers.

I look to it with pride in my beautiful riding, in my identity as a Quebecker and as a Canadian. It is my belief that, in the future, the fleur-de-lis and the maple leaf will continue to fly side by side.

[Corporations' Profits, February 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Statistics Canada announced yesterday that Canadian businesses continued to benefit from the 1997 economic expansion. The corporations' seasonally adjusted operating profits increased by 3.1% in the fourth quarter of that year.

According to Statistics Canada, it is the first year since 1994 that profits increased in each of the four quarters. As we can see, Canada's economic life is not as bad as sovereignists would have us believe. In fact, economic growth would be even greater if separatists stopped spreading myths about Quebec's separation from the rest of Canada.

Twice, in 1980 and in 1995, Quebeckers chose to remain part of Canada. If sovereignists stopped trying to make us believe that Quebec is always the big loser, it would only benefit our country, both from an economic and political point of view.

[Ice Storm, February 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada announced yesterday in Saint-Hyacinthe an additional $40 million for farmers particularly hard hit during the ice storm.

The sovereignists can say what they like. Our government did not act unilaterally, but only after consulting the Government of Quebec, which did not deign to respond to the invitations of the federal government.

The fact of the matter was that farmers and the heads of small and medium size businesses could not wait any longer for a quick and positive response from political leaders.

The fact of the matter is that the Government of Quebec decided to play petty politics with all these issues, blaming Ottawa for all the problems.

While Quebec might not appreciate the goodwill, and particularly the quick action and positive response of the Government of Canada in this matter, the people, SMBs and farmers will remember that the Canadian government did not drag its feet. It took action throughout the storm, from start to finish.

[Jacques Chirac's Statement, February 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the sovereignists are using every means possible to demonstrate that Canada is a divisible country. They often use the example of other countries to prove their point.

They must have been surprised yesterday to hear the Canadian Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs quote a statement by French President Jacques Chirac on this matter, as follows:

France is one country indivisible. It is indeed made up of regions and provinces, each different from the other, each with its own population, customs, history and sometimes language. This is especially true of Corsica, whose identity and uniqueness are recognized by all.

Under the circumstances, then, it is hard for the separatists to pester France to back them up, as they did in the last referendum.

[Ice Storm, February 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the people of Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle faced considerable hardship during the days of the ice storm. We also witnessed extraordinary generosity, and I would like to tell you today how great it was.

We will not soon forget the generosity of the municipal leaders and other representatives of social and economic groups. We will long remember the spontaneous acts of solidarity, not to mention everybody's incredible patience.

We have also realized that the spirit of self help is our community's greatest asset in a fight to ensure our survival—nothing less.

The Government of Canada will spend some $250 million to help the victims. We will remember that, at the height of the storm, over 15,000 regular and reserve military personnel were deployed to help local authorities in all the regions affected.

In short, while I hope that no one will ever have to face a catastrophe of such proportions again in the future, I want to thank everyone—

[Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion, December 11th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to debate this motion. I probably find myself in the position of many members of the House; that is to say I have mixed feelings about it. This is the type of initiative that many members, regardless of political persuasion, can have some sympathy with.

On the surface, Motion No. 75 would seem to have merit. After all, who cannot be sympathetic with the notion of offering some care and comfort to a small group of elderly Canadians who in their youth laid their lives on the line to fight fascism in Europe. It would surely be an act of generosity for caring Canadians. After all what harm could it do?

I wish life were as simple as that: make a decision to call these men veterans, put them on benefits, and that is the end of it. Of course that would not be the end of the issue. It would be the beginning.

The motion calls for the government to consider the advisability of giving these man, the Mac-Paps, veterans status. I assume it follows that the sponsoring member would wish this consideration to lead to such a designation. Unfortunately the motion and its implication is really a non-starter from the beginning.

The Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs studied the issue a decade ago and in its final report stated:

It is the committee's view that while the presentation may portray these issues in black and white, when all facts are looked at in perspective the situation is by no means as clear cut as those who appeared before us wished us to believe.

It is not a clear cut issue at all. My first difficulty is the tendency to revisit history and through today's sensibilities try to apply retroactive judgments about who fought on the right side and who fought on the wrong side.

Although the tide of history would not allow us to say that the Mac-Paps fought on the right side, the fact of the matter is that they took up arms on their own volition. Canada was not at war with Spain. We had laws on the books prohibiting our citizens from fighting in foreign wars.

The fact is that there were Canadians who fought on the other side. What about them? We had and continue to have no veterans benefits for those who volunteered to fight on foreign shores under a flag that was not their own. Yet the motion would have us consider that this group of fighting men, out of all other Canadians who have fought in wars under foreign flags, deserve the same status as veterans who fought under Canada's banner.

At the end of the day we are left to conclude that acceptance of the motion implies and would require Canada to pay veterans benefits to any person who participates in any foreign conflict because he or she sincerely believes he or she is doing the right thing. Lest members think that I exaggerate the possibilities, I suggest that granting of veterans benefits to one group of men who fought for what they believed to be a just cause would open the floodgates for many other groups.

If the hon. member's motion did come to pass, are there other unintended consequences? What would it cost? I am sure there are less than 100 Mac-Paps left. Perhaps less. One might think the cost would be minimal.

I do not know what the exact figures are, but to grant them the same veterans benefits as their Canadian counterparts would not be cheap. They could be eligible for disability benefits, war veterans allowances, comprehensive medical care and a subsidized long term residential care. Would we make these benefits retroactive? If so, retroactive to when? Which dependants would be eligible for what benefits? I do not know what the final price tag would be but it could be a lot steeper than we would guess at first glance.

This does not even begin to touch the horrendous administrative implications. Since the Mac-Paps did not serve in Canadian forces there are no personnel or medical files for them. It would, therefore, be impossible to verify whether any disability claims were war service related. In fact, it would be practically impossible to verify whether any particular individual even served with the Mac-Paps, given that the Canadian government kept no registry of the volunteers. Nor would any of the unit's official records likely have survived the defeat in Spain.

If therefore the proposed motion were adopted and led to veteran status for the Mac-Paps, extremely generous presumptive rules would have to be included in the legislation to allow the Department of Veterans Affairs to accept the flimsiest of evidence in any claim.

Canada recognizes as its veterans those who served Canada or its allies in a war in which Canada was a combatant. That is how it has always been and that is how it should remain. To widen eligibility to those who fought for other nations, in other uniforms, would not be fair to those Canadian veterans who served their country and to those who continue to do so.

To open the benefits to special cases has terribly serious and detrimental consequences, not only at home but abroad where we portray ourselves as an independent and neutral nation. It would suggest that we are not neutral and that Canadians can fight for any nation and return home to receive Canadian benefits.

The case for voting in the affirmative on the motion does not hold up. As the standing committee stated 10 years ago:

It is without regard to the rights or wrongs of the action of those Canadians who are veterans of the Spanish Civil War. They cannot be considered in the same light as Canadians who served in the wars in which Canada was involved as a nation. Consequently, there can be no thought of treating them in the same manner by making them eligible for benefits under veterans legislation.

The standing committee's recognition of this fact remains no less true today than it did when it issued its report in 1987. Therefore the motion cannot pass reasonable scrutiny. It should not be passed.

[Quebec Government, December 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, we heard sad news this morning: the Quebec minister of labour, Louise Harel, hit the wall with her cabinet yesterday when she presented her social assistance reform proposal.

It was somewhat reminiscent of the last Parti Quebecois congress when those who were hoping for socio-economic improvements were disappointed by the PQ government.

The Parti Quebecois needs social agencies when it comes time to promote Quebec's separation from the rest of Canada, but when it comes time to give people real help, they are told the Quebec government has no money.

This attitude is called disdain. So when the sovereignists try to give us a lesson in social politics, we can send them out to pasture, because they are doing worse to the people of Quebec.

[Team Canada, December 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, we are delighted by the decision of the premier of Quebec, Lucien Bouchard, to join Team Canada on its trip to Latin America from January 10 to 28.

We will recall Mr. Bouchard's praises for the work done by the Canadian embassy in China during a similar trade mission.

We can assure the Quebec premier that the Government of Canada will do an equally effective job for the Latin American mission so that the members of the Canadian delegation may return home with maximum economic benefits for Canada and Quebec.

Obviously, Mr. Bouchard will not come home a federalist following a Team Canada trip. Let us hope that he will at least appreciate certain benefits of Canadian federalism when he sees that Canada's economic strength benefits Quebec in such circumstances.

Who knows, one day Mr. Bouchard may find some goal other than to break up Canada.

[Jacques Parizeau, December 1st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak once again about the statements made by the former Premier of Quebec, Jacques Parizeau, who said that the referendum defeat was attributable to ethnic groups.

Such a statement is unworthy of a former premier who claimed to work for every Quebecker. Therefore, I would hope, along with many of my colleagues, that every sovereignist will state loud and clear that he does not agree with such a statement, in the same way that, during the weekend, they condemned actions like those of Raymond Villeneuve, that are starting to become an embarrassment for the sovereignist cause.

I thought that the Parti Quebecois convention held last weekend would have provided them the opportunity to distance themselves from this statement. That was not the case, however, because they discussed instead the plan by militants to reinstate the sovereignty council to promote the independence of Quebec.

[Committees Of The House, November 24th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table the first report of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs.

May I take this opportunity to thank the members and staff of both committees, defence and foreign affairs, who travelled to Bosnia and saw firsthand what a great job our troops were doing not only in keeping peace but also helping so many citizens to pick up the pieces and to rebuild their lives. They have made a great impression on the international community and have made Canadians everywhere proud and happy to live in such a beautiful country.

I am pleased to table the report which was adopted unanimously by all parties that were in agreement that our presence in Bosnia should be continued until June 1998.

In closing, I also wish to extend an acknowledgement of extreme gratitude to the troops, embassy staff and Canadians who greeted us with open arms and made sure that our visit was complete and all inclusive.