Roy H. Bailey

[Veterans Affairs, September 18th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, two veterans' widows living in the same town and on the same block both have lost their husbands; some 14 months difference in the deaths. One widow will receive benefits under the VIP for the rest of her life while the other widow has been cut off those benefits.

Could anyone on the other side explain this obvious injustice?

[Veterans Affairs, September 15th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, today I sent a letter to nearly 1,000 veterans' widows who say they cannot afford to live on their paltry pensions. They do not deserve being cut off the VIP. I have told them to write to the minister and to their MPs. They are responsible for explaining to these widows why some will get the pension benefits and others will not.

How can the minister stand by this decision to deny worthy veterans' widows the VI portion of their pensions?

[Veterans Affairs, September 15th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, over the summer the Minister of Veterans Affairs created two classes of veterans' widows: those who receive the veterans independence program and those who were cut off. Veterans' widows lobbied the minister that these benefits be ongoing, but instead of that, the only ones now receiving the veterans independence program as part of their pension are those whose husbands died in the last year. Why will the minister not treat these veterans' widows equally and give benefits to the past recipients of the VIP?

[Pension Act, June 3rd, 2003]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague has given an excellent summation of the bill. There are a few points I want to point out to those who may be listening in.

The bill is probably the most modern approach that we could have taken following the awful events of 9/11. It is designed to meet the needs of this decade. It is also designed to meet the needs of a different type of police force, both at home and abroad, so what used to take up to almost a year can now be accomplished with speedy resolution, and we might say within days. That is the way it would be under this bill.

I do not think anyone could raise opposition to the bill. It is modern, it has quick resolution and it deals with only three departments. Therefore, the bill is designed for today. No one in the House, I am sure, would oppose it. In discussions with my colleagues in the Canadian Alliance, we have supported the bill from the very beginning.

I hope the bill gets very quick passage. I do know that other groups of people in Canada have looked at the bill, and I think some of our larger police forces in the larger cities, and other groups such as the firemen, could well look at the bill and I expect they would have a reaction which would pattern after this bill. On behalf of the official opposition, I am very pleased to support the bill. We give it our full endorsement.

[Question No. 227, June 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to allow Bill C-411, an act to establish merchant navy veterans day, to pass in all stages so that we can announce it to the merchant marine before June 6.

[Juno Beach Centre, June 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps I will not include it as part of my remarks to the minister. Later on a point of order I will make a motion at that time.

[Juno Beach Centre, June 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, there is something unique about the event to which we will be travelling on Friday. It is unique in the way that the emphasis for this development came not from governments but from the veterans themselves.

The veterans saw that there was a compelling need to preserve the memory and to tell the story of Canada's military and civilian contributions during World War II. To date there has been no significant Canadian memorial anywhere that ranks these achievements, not until a select group of veterans got together and went ahead and built this fine facility, which will be officially opened Friday, June 6, one year ahead of the 60th anniversary of June 6. I am indeed very proud to recognize this 59th anniversary and I am indeed proud to be able to represent Her Majesty's loyal opposition.

This is a dream come true for thousands of veterans. We in the House of Commons have many people to thank. Mainly we thank the veterans of Canada, and we also say thanks for the provincial help, as the minister has mentioned, and the federal help. Let us also remember that there was one unarmed group of the military there and that was our Merchant Marines. We shall never forget that. Let us also pay tribute to the groups of individuals, the businesses and the corporations that also gave money for this event.

I knew some of the men who went on the Juno raid in 1944. One of the interesting things is that last year at this time we visited Dieppe and some of the returnees who were not slaughtered at Dieppe were also on this raid, as well as those from north Africa and the Italian campaign.

It is an honour and a dream come true and this monument will serve for many generations.

Already there and also on their way there are groups of Merchant Marines. The House on May 19 gave first reading to Bill C-411, which would enact a Merchant Marine Navy Day on September 3 every year. I would be grateful, and I think the Merchant Marines who were there would be grateful, if the House would have both second and third reading of the bill, and I would ask for unanimous consent. Then they could have their day recognized while they are there and by the time they return.

[Petitions, May 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am very pleased to present a number of petitioners from northern Saskatchewan and into Manitoba. The point of the petition is simply that under Bill C-250, the petitioners feel the rights of certain categories of people could be suppressed while elevating the rights of others. They pray that Parliament does not pass Bill C-250 into law.

[Supply, May 26th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, after listening to the debate today and the questions and answers from speakers on each side of the House, does the member not believe that a free vote should be held in the House on this private member's motion? There is no reason not to hold a free vote in the House. It seems to me that those who are opposing this are doing so because they do not want to lose a vote to a private member's motion and that is simply it. There is no other logical reason to vote against it.

[Petitions, May 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions from across Saskatchewan on pornography. The petitioners are ordering the government to re-examine this issue and to give priority to the protection of children and not the pedophiles.