Proceedings of the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs
Issue 4 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Wednesday, April 2, 2003
The Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, to which was referred Bill C-227, respecting a national day of remembrance of the Battle of Vimy Ridge, met this day at 12:00 p.m.
Senator Joseph A. Day (Deputy Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chairman: Honourable senators, today, we will hear evidence in respect of Bill C-227, respecting a national day of remembrance of the Battle of Vimy Ridge. I am pleased to welcome our witnesses today, Senator Poulin, the sponsor of the bill in the Senate; and Mr. Brent St. Denis, M.P., the sponsor of the bill in the House of Commons. We will also hear from officials at the Department of Canadian Heritage, Mr. Norman Moyer, Assistant Deputy Minister of Public Affairs and Communications, and Mr. Kevin MacLeod, Manager of State Ceremonial and Protocol. Senator Poulin, please proceed.
[Translation]
The Honourable Marie-P.Poulin, Sponsor of the Bill: First of all, I want to thank the Standing Committee on National Security and Defence as well as the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs for their interest in promoting this bill.
[English]
We appreciate the fact that both the subcommittee and the committee have taken the time to fast track this project. As you know, we have had a major challenge in the Senate in managing the enthusiasm of our colleagues in support of this bill. All honourable senators are extremely supportive of the fact that Canadians would be given the opportunity to remember, on April 9, the historic battle at Vimy Ridge. This battle was a major factor in the history of our country because we were given the opportunity not only to contribute to the history of the world but also to contribute as a nation, from coast to coast to coast.
Unfortunately, many students in primary and secondary schools have little opportunity to even hear about the Battle of Vimy Ridge.
[Translation]
These past few weeks have afforded us an opportunity not only to discuss our nation's history, along with its implications and the courage of Canadians, but also the true meaning of this battle and what it continues to mean to us day. If there was some public way of commemorating the battle of Vimy Ridge, we would be able to convey to primary and secondary school students the significance of this event.
I would like to pay tribute to my colleague from Northern Ontario, Brent St. Denis, the sponsor of the bill from the House of Commons. He understood the need for many people, whether a father, a grandfather, an uncle, an aunt or a sister, to commemorate this day. He understood our need to contribute to peace in the world. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to turn the floor over to Mr. St. Denis who will bring us up to speed on the status of this bill.
[English]
Mr. Brent St. Denis, Member of Parliament, Sponsor of the Bill: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and honourable senators for taking the time to hear us today. I thank my Northern Ontario colleague, Senator Poulin, for her remarks and her support, along with the support of those who have spoken in the Senate on Bill C-227. It is obvious from those speeches that I need to spend little time talking about the facts of Vimy Ridge. However, for the record, I would like to say a few things about that battle.
In so doing, I would like to emphasize that Bill C-227 would not, if passed, create a holiday. Rather, it would create a day of remembrance like other days on the calendar each year. It would call for the Peace Tower flag to be at half- mast on that day, April 9, each year, during the normal hours of sunrise to sunset. I underline that it does not call for all federal buildings across the country to lower their flags — only at the Peace Tower would the flag be flown at half- mast as a special symbol for that day.
The Battle of Vimy Ridge was one of many battles fought bravely by Canadian soldiers in World War I, World War II, Korea and elsewhere and as peacekeepers. In many ways, Vimy Ridge represents all of those battles. The battle at Vimy was the first for Canadians to fight under Canadian command. There has been a general acceptance by historians and others that the Battle of Vimy Ridge was the beginning of our march to nationhood. I do not want to appear too partisan but, if you were to read the Bloc leader's speech on this bill, you would hardly be able to discern his political agenda. I thank all members in the House and in the Senate for their speeches.
There were some 200,000 Allied Forces — French and British — who lost their lives in attempting to take Vimy Ridge prior to April 9, 1917. As a result of the tremendous preparation of the Canadian Forces of some 170,000 soldiers, they took the Ridge in a matter of hours. It took a few days following that to finalize the capture of the Ridge, necessarily, but it was truly a matter of hours that it took to complete that extremely important breach of the German front.
It was understood that the German front was very strong and that fact was critical to their defence. History will tell you that the Canadians, having breached the front at Vimy Ridge, allowed for the continued success of the Allies as the war wound down in the one and one-half year ahead.
I would like to quote from an essay written by a student at Lockerby Composite High School in Sudbury. The lines are from the last couple of paragraphs of his essay and they underline the point made by Senator Poulin that part of remembering the battles in the past and teaching the young people about the value of seeking peace in the world is to educate our young people. These lines clearly show that it is working. This initiative is, in part, to help support our Royal Canadian Legions who are supportive of this bill, including the Dominion Command of the Royal Canadian Legion. Part of this effort is to support the education of our young people and other citizens about the marvellous military history of Canadians, about our wonderful peacekeeping history and our important place in the world in that respect. I quote from Joel Ralph's essay when he was in Grade 11, some years ago:
Nevertheless, the attack proved the Canadians to be the best army in the world, and they accordingly would form the iron tip of the spearhead that would end the war in 1918. The day the Canadians attacked Vimy Ridge is the day Canada was born. For those troops who had taken part in the attack, some who had only been in Canada less than a month before signing up to fight, they were all Canadians. The name of Canada on their shoulders would be the knot that held them together. The troops came from Nova Scotia to Montreal, Ottawa to Winnipeg, Regina to Vancouver, even the North West and everywhere else in between. These were Canadians who bonded together and found a comradeship that could only be found in the deepest trench or the biggest crater. They would fight together and go home to Canada together. That morning when they set out to seize Vimy Ridge, they were Commonwealth soldiers but when they reached the summit, they were Canadians.
That is the interpretation of a Grade 11 student from a few years ago. This is marvellous tribute to the work done by our legions and others to educate. I am hopeful that with your support we could add one more piece to that important effort.
I would like to speak specifically to some issues that you would want to ask about. First, are we setting a precedent in declaring April 9 of each year, Vimy Ridge Day? I say — with great respect — we are adding to the educational importance of this and all battles. It give us another occasion at the beginning of the remembrance season, which concludes with November 11, to let our young people and all citizens know the legacy of our military and the importance of Canada in the world in respect of peace.
These need to be remembered and we need to remind each other. Yes, there were many other great battles in which Canadians were involved with great success and with great loss. However, in my view, the Battle of Vimy Ridge represents all battles. Because it was the first battle conducted as Canadians, I think it is appropriate that it represent all battles. This will take nothing away from our Legions and others in our schools, learning more about our military history throughout the year. The fact that the Dominion Command of the Royal Canadian Legion and so many others support this is evidence that they, too, feel this way.
The other issue that you may want talk about is, why the flag symbol? To me, the flag belongs to the people. Lowering the Peace Tower flag from sunrise to sunset each year on April 9 is using the flag for a very good public purpose.
We do not idolize our flag, we use it. It is an important symbol. We use it in many ways — in fun, in play, to celebrate hockey matches. To me, it is very appropriate.
Even though we won at Vimy Ridge, we lost nearly 4,000 soldiers that day. There were also over 6,000 casualties and untold hundreds or thousands of others who came home with broken minds. You only need to speak to some of the families of those who had uncles or grandfathers at Vimy Ridge to know how many of them came home broken in spirit, if not in body.
By lowering the flag, we are honouring those who fell and who were injured. We are providing a public expression of our support for what they did and for what they represent. As we do with all remembrance, we honour the victories and remember those who were lost. There is a duality there that we cannot avoid. To me, having the day is a celebration. Having the flag at half-mast is honouring those who were lost.
Finally, if you have thoughts or questions about why there might be an apparent rush, next Wednesday is April 9. Certainly, there is another April 9 a year from now, and I grant you it would not be the end of the world if the bill failed to pass before this April 9. However, there are only about 15 World War I veterans left, and they are nearing the century mark. We lost the last Vimy Ridge veteran in Winnipeg a couple of months ago.
With great respect, I hope it is possible for you to deal with this by next Wednesday. It is not for me — I hope to be around next April 9 — but I am asking that you consider it for Canada's veterans.
I would add that, as you know, there is great competition for private members' bills in the House of Commons; they are drawn. I had second reading last June, and it was referred to committee. The Committee on Heritage had a very busy fall schedule, but they squeezed me in in November. After a delayed start to Parliament, it came back for third reading in February and then was sent to the Senate.
If you feel pressed, I apologize, but such are the vagaries of the institutions within which we work. Thank you for your indulgence.
Senator Atkins: Congratulations for taking this initiative. I obviously am biased because my father was at Vimy.
Was it unanimous in the House of Commons?
Mr. St. Denis: Yes, sir.
Senator Atkins: Have you had any negative response from any military organization?
Mr. St. Denis: I heard of only one comment. It was not directly to me, it was a report. the Dominion Institute was quoted in a National Post article as having a question about the flag, so I addressed that. I do not believe they had a hard position on that; it was more of a comment. However, other than people asking me about it, I have received no hard, firm negative views on this initiative.
I believe the witnesses from the Department of Canadian Heritage will talk about the flag. There are a couple of other days in the year that would not be unlike this initiative, where the flag would be at half-mast. In those instances, it would not be just the Peace Tower, but right across the country.
I also would like to mention, for the record, that this idea came from a constituent — Robert Manuel of Elliott Lake. Mr. Manuel approached me with the idea in 1999. He easily convinced me that this was an important initiative. He is a Legionnaire, a Korean War veteran and an historian who wanted to find another way to honour our veterans.
Senator Atkins: Does it concern you that, if we proceed with this, there will be a proliferation of other days in the year? For instance, there is a bill in the House of Commons now for having a Merchant Marines day. Are you concerned that this will start an avalanche of similar requests?
Mr. St. Denis: No. The House and the Senate will judge each one on its own merits. Based on the fact it has taken four years to get to here, it would take 50 years to get three or four of them through.
Inasmuch as we only have four other days on the calendar now where there is any reference to the flag, as I understand the policy, I do not see that as a concern. I believe that wisdom will prevail.
We cannot deny that there will be other initiatives. If anything, this should show that private members' legislation — whether it is the Senate or House of Commons — can be successful, if, indeed, this one is. It is rare when private member bills do get passed; frankly, I am glad to have gotten even this far.
Senator Atkins: Did you hear from the Legion?
Mr. St. Denis: Yes, I have a letter from the Dominion Command. I have a copy, which I can show you after or table with the Clerk.
Senator Atkins: I wondered whether they would have promoted November 11 over Vimy.
Mr. St. Denis: In terms of the flag, it is already lowered to half-mast on November 11.
Senator Atkins: Just at the Peace Tower?
Mr. St. Denis: No, across the country. However, this only calls for the Peace Tower flag. The Legion is four-square behind this. I have their letter to that effect, and many other letters as well.
Senator Forrestall: Why would not the government introduce this? I ask the question because you raised the matter of its importance. In fact, it is so important that it should not be a single Member of Parliament introducing it, although that does draw attention to it.
You can take for granted that this issue has been around a long time — I copied it to somebody 38 years ago. The government has always quietly let it be known that they did not want to do it and wished that it would not be done. Now, obviously, there is a change, but the government does not seem to want to take the initiative itself. Is there a reason?
Mr. St. Denis: Senator Poulin may wish to add something, but I will comment as you are asking a House of Commons-related question, senator. When I first approached the relevant Ministers for Canadian Heritage, Veterans Affairs and National Defence, they were very supportive. Since the year 2000, by order of the Minister of Heritage, the flag has been put at half-mast on April 9 in recognition of Vimy Ridge. It was a ministerial decision.
This bill was working its way slowly through the system. It was stalled by elections and so forth.
The government has shown its support in the speech of the minister read by the parliamentary secretary at third reading of the bill. For the government to have taken the initiative from me, or any other member, would have taken away from the ability of a member to bring forward citizen initiatives or other ideas. The government support is reflected in their speeches and actions.
This fits nicely with the government's agenda, which is election-driven, by necessity. I would not take anything from the fact that the government did not make my bill a government bill. They respected that it was a private member's bill, and they would do what they could to support it.
Senator Forrestall: I commend you for succeeding where others have failed before you. However, you have not answered my question.
There must be a reason why the government has not done this. You are right that it was an early step in our nationhood.
Mr. St. Denis: Perhaps I cannot answer your question except to say that the government has supported this initiative. Rather than remove it as a member's and citizen's initiative, they approached from the point of view that the government did not need to take it from me for it to find support in the House of Commons and the Senate.
I really cannot answer that. I would have to ask the minister. I do know that they support it. The flag having been at half-mast for the last three years on the Peace Tower is a reflection of that. I would have liked that it be taken as a government bill, but I never asked.
I preferred to keep it at the grassroots level, and so far, so good. Perhaps, I have not answered your question, sir, but that is about the best I can do.
Senator Forrestall: Obviously, you cannot do any more than that. I wish that this had been a government action. I wish that it reflected that formality.
There is no question of there being support for it. It is a wonderful thing, and I commend you for it. I am tempted to put the question to the ADM, but perhaps he may not want to answer it.
[Translation]
Senator Prud'homme: First off, I would like to welcome my colleague from the House of Commons. He represents a riding that has great historical significance for me. He succeeded Mr. Pearson, who was my mentor in politics. I was elected under his leadership in 1964. I am familiar with the riding of Algoma, having campaigned for Mr. Pearson back then.
Initially, I was reluctant to attend this meeting. Some unfortunate events transpired at the Senate. After receiving assurances that I would be able to address these proceedings at some stage, someone did an about-face. I was graciously told not to worry, that I would be able to speak to the bill on third reading. Did they think I was a novice who was unfamiliar with the rules? I knew very well that I was entitled to speak at third reading stage. An agreement had been reached and I was slated to speak after Senator Atkins. He was scheduled to speak earlier, but his presentation was delayed. As Senator Atkins is a reasonable man, I wanted to listen to what he had to say. However, the proceedings were delayed and at the very last minute, we were told to hurry up because April 9 was fast approaching.
I do not appreciate such dealings. They remind me a little too much of how things unfolded in the House of Commons when the first honourary citizen of Canada was designated. The process was secretive and hypocritical, to say the least, and I still maintain that this individual is not an honourary Canadian citizen, since the document was never signed, unlike the case of Mr. Mandela. I do not like surprises. For the past 30 years, I have been asking that things be done in a logical, coherent manner.
[English]
I want a process. How do you come to suggest a good cause? Once it is on the table, how can you oppose it? I can imagine one or two members of the House of Commons opposing it. One young man was blasted to eternity, Mr. Anders, when he opposed Mr. Mandela. He opposed it to stand for his own view. If there had been a process, it could have been followed, as they do in the United States of America.
I have received letters from others from Newfoundland. People are extremely unhappy about big battle known as Beaumont-Hamel during the same time. Nine hundred Newfoundlanders fought and only 68 survived in one day. That battle was on July 1, 1916. They cannot commemorate the battle because the department says that you cannot commemorate something morbid on a day of celebration.
They have approached me with the cause. It is a beautiful cause. Newfoundland was then a colony so everybody forgets about it. However, the Newfoundlanders do not forget.
My difficulty, Mr. St. Denis and Senator Poulin, is the process. How many times do we lower the flag on the Peace Tower? Your initiative is excellent. I want to keep your friendship for life, because I have a good relationship with you.
If we could find a way to have a process. What process do we follow to suggest that the flag on the Peace Tower should be lowered?
It is a long-time tradition, British tradition — I am so taken by the British tradition. They do not lower the flag for every moment in Great Britain. This is the motherhouse of our institution. In Canada, someone makes a suggestion on any topic and the flag is lowered. It is lowered every year against violence to women.
A mother of these girls who died, approached me and said, ``Please, will you stop? You are reopening my wounds every year, by obliging through the Secretary of State, to go across Canada to remind people of what happened so years ago.'' If she does not go, she feels pain. If I say no to remembering these 15 women, we look bad.
I want you to know one thing. The Royal Canadian Legion will not attack me. I saved the War Museum. Some people wanted to make it into a holocaust museum without consultation with Parliament.
I am very at ease with the Royal Canadian Legion. I even became an honorary member in Saskatchewan. I am a French Canadian Catholic from Quebec, and am loved by the Canadian Legion in Saskatchewan because I helped to save their museum. That does not mean I was against the other idea.
I do not know how to proceed. I would say for these special occasions, we have two other flags on the Hill. We have the Peace Tower and two major flagpoles. I would have said, when we receive heads of state, that this might be the way to go.
However, we have a gun to our head for a magnificent cause. I do not know how I will finish with this debate; however, I really take objection. Not to your initiative, I want this to be clear. How we will arrive at a process so that, from now on, there will not be any surprises? If you are opposed or if you do not like the process, I suppose you keep silent by not having the guts to say publicly what I have just said. It is very difficult to speak like this for a good cause.
I have the same attitude for those who want a national bilingual anthem and for those who want to change O Canada. Now, we will have one line in English and one line in French. If you oppose that, you look bad. If you go along, when will it stop? Everyone will want to be part of it. The First Nations are just waiting for us to change the national anthem if the two other bills go forward.
I know that April 9 is next week. I have been told bluntly in the Senate. I was given the Whip's word of honour to adjourn in my name, but our colleague next to him told him caucus wanted it for April 9. I do not work like this. I never did. I will never work under pressure of that kind.
It is a good cause. However, this is not the year, between now and next year we should be able to find an appropriate process by which to honour this battle. I am very concerned with these sole 15 people. You may win me over because of that fact. I can see these people from Newfoundland saying, ``They made exceptions, but they never dared to have sensitivity for us over Beaumont-Hamel.''
I ask the chair, a fine gentlemen and a good chair, if he will allow me to distribute this document. I learned things from it that I could not believe. I have this beautiful document that was prepared for me on the outcome. I will not table the correspondence between a senator and the Minister of Veterans Affairs, because they are private in nature.
The Deputy Chairman: Absolutely, senator. If you would like to make any documents available, we can make copies of it.
Senator Prud'homme: I will do that after the meeting.
Mr. St. Denis, there will be others who will come forward, because now we are launching a good initiative.
Let us say we pass this. Do you not think we should have a process in place? I will not commit myself today as to what I would do, using the rule of the Senate. If the Rules of the Senate were used against me, I am not a vindictive man. I could use the rules myself and it would not pass, because I know how exactly it works.
I am not a vindictive man at all. Yesterday is yesterday. Today is today. I want to be positive; however, I know I am right when I say that is poses a difficulty for future initiatives, because there is no process. The flag should be the most sacred thing that is reserved for everyone on great occasions. This is one great occasion.
I received a letter from a woman. She said, ``I have a suggestion, Marcel.'' She saw me mad last week trying to be consoled by Senator Poulin and seven other senators who showed up in my office to calm me down.
I make everything public so that people know where I stand. I had the most decent conversation between two colleagues during the recess. Would you have a suggestion so that I can play along with the orchestra and not be the solo banjo player warming up the audience for the future?
Mr. St. Denis: I appreciate Senator Prud'homme's remarks. I would hope, senator, that if there is an issue over flag policy, the half-masting of the flag and perhaps a lack of an overarching policy with respect to special days, perhaps this could be seen as the ``trigger legislation'' for that without impairing the moving of this one.
It was because of a lack of policy. Had there been a policy, then this bill could have been drafted and we would have known going in what the policy would be. The bill could have been drafted in accordance with that. Absent a policy, it had to be in the legislation. Then, the Senate and the House of Commons would deal with it as a stand-alone piece and then develop a policy. I would certainly encourage the development of a policy. If this acts as a trigger for that, without being a victim of the lack of policy, I would encourage that.
I do support your comments. With regard to Beaumont-Hamel, I agree with you. I do not know if there was a bill for that. The other days, if I could add, were not a result of legislation. They were the result of whatever non-process there is. I will have the officials speak to that. This one, at the very least, has followed a process, which is through the House of Commons and, to this point, the Senate.
Having said that, I think an overarching policy would be of guidance to those who would bring forward initiatives such as this in the future.
[Translation]
Senator Poulin: I would like to begin by thanking Senator Prud'homme for coming. I know that he is a very busy man.
Senator Prud'homme: It is my duty to be here.
Senator Poulin: When the bill was initially tabled in the Senate for first reading, Senator Prud'homme expressed a keen interest in it and asked a number of questions. Certainly, the interest he showed caught the attention of other colleagues in the Senate. Earlier, I talked about the challenge that this bill represented in terms of generating the enthusiasm and support of our colleagues.
Furthermore, I consider the questions raised by our colleague to be legitimate and reasonable. Certain individuals seated at this table, including Senator Prud'homme, are well aware that shepherding a private member's bill through Parliament is a delicate, arduous process. When asked when he would like to speak to the bill, Senator Prud'homme replied that he wanted to see how procedural matters unfolded in the House. It is indeed difficult to anticipate how legislation will move through the House. This process is not always predictable, logical or straightforward.
One thing is certain. Canadians are committed to supporting Mr. St. Denis' efforts with a view to having April 9, 2003 declared the first official day on which the flag will be half-masted to commemorate this important battle, not only militarily, but culturally and socially as well. The year 2003 has major significance in light of international events. We need to take the time to acknowledge the courage of Canadians at the Battle of Vimy Ridge and the importance of world peace.
[English]
Senator Kenny: I had an opportunity to discuss this bill with the Chair of the subcommittee and my first reaction was similar to Senator Prud'homme's reaction. There is no form in place and there is no system. We all know what happens when someone dies, when there is an unusual state occasion, or if the Prime Minister phones up someone at Public Works and says, ``go to half-staff because a special event has happened.'' The flags go to half-staff.
However, there is not a framework. That troubled me and, during the course of our discussions with Senator Day and the Chair, we concluded that we needed to hear from more than just the sponsors, in fairness. The Senate would not be performing its role if were to leave this to the sponsors only. It was my understanding that Mr. St. Denis was the only witness in the other place to speak to Bill C-227.
We asked, ``How do we square the circle?'' There is some pressure for time because the anniversary date will be soon. There is something nice about it. I could also say, from having had experience with private members bills, that it is difficult to get it through one House let alone through the next house. It does not take much to lose a bill. If the wind changes direction or someone blinks at the wrong time, you could lose the bill.
To come this close and to not have something move forward would be a huge disappointment to you, Mr. St. Denis. The disappointment is that there is a broader issue than your personal disappointment. However, as a person who has pursued the private members route both successfully and unsuccessfully, I can tell you that it is a problem.
The conclusion that I came to, together with Senator Day and Senator Meighen, was that Vimy is a singularity; it is above and beyond. Vimy now is, I think, well accepted as being where Canada became a nation spiritually — perhaps not legally — in many Canadians minds.
That does not denigrate the need for a proper policy and it does not diminish anything that Senator Prud'homme has said. In fact, my experience with Senator Prud'homme on committee matters is that he is usually right — he is usually the conscience of the committee and he usually speaks to an issue to create a better product. I had a productive 18 months when he was not a member of the Internal Economy Committee but he may as well have been because he participated more effectively than many regular members of the committee. I valued that participation and I am not surprised to see him here commenting on this bill; it is quite appropriate.
My sense is that the only way to square the circle is to support this initiative but to report that we would like a policy from the Department of Canadian Heritage to elaborate on the terms and conditions that the flag will be flown on other events. I am comfortable with this sort of approach because I do feel that Vimy stands head and shoulders above any other things that are likely to come forward. I do not think it will be difficult to have such a policy.
That is my position and that is how I will vote when this bill moves forward.
The Deputy Chairman: Perhaps we could hear from the two departmental representatives. You could make any comment that reflects any process or procedure that may be in the works or that exists because it would be helpful to our determinations in respect of Senator Prud'homme's and Senator Kenny's comments.
[Translation]
Mr. Norman Moyer, Assistant Deputy Minister, Public Affairs and Communications, Department of Canadian Heritage: Thank you for this opportunity to speak to you today about this bill. It is important to respond to some of the questions that you have raised. Right now, someone is handing out copies of the government's policy on half- masting. There appears to be some confusion. In a few moments, I will be asking my colleague Kevin MacLeod, the author of the policy, to go over it in greater detail.
I would, however, like to point out that the Government of Canada has had a policy on half-masting in place for nearly forty years, that is since 1966. This particular policy was revised last year.
[English]
Coming before you today to speak specifically to Bill C-227 and the way in which it fits into Canada's half-masting, I would hope that you would excuse me from opening a tiny —
The Deputy Chairman: Excuse me, Mr. Moyer, Senator Kenny has a point of order concerning a definition.
Senator Kenny: The term ``half-masting'' is a naval term. Half-staffing works well if you are on land and half- masting works well at sea. In English, we would say that it is a ``nice'' point. I would be happy if we could change the phraseology and be consistent, unless we are talking about ships at sea, I really think we are half-staffing the flag.
[Translation]
Mr. Moyer: The expression used in French is ``mise en berne''.
[English]
Senator Kenny: It is much simpler.
Mr. Moyer: It is a universal term in French.
[Translation]
Senator Poulin: For once, the French is simpler than the English.
[English]
Mr. Moyer: We certainly take your comment. I will ask Mr. MacLeod, in a moment, to explain the Canadian tradition of the use of the term. If we need to correct it, we will certainly look at what that would mean.
We examined the bill in the context of the current policy. We would be pleased to answer your questions about that.
I want to underline my personal sense of importance of Vimy. Like Senator Atkins, it was an important time in my family's life because my father's brother was killed at Vimy. My family has always referred to Vimy as the point at which a great change occurred in Canada's history and experience. When I was given the opportunity to appear before the committee today, I wanted to exercise my own option to follow —
[Translation]
— the motto coined by those who came later —
[English]
Lest we forget and make sure that I underline the contribution that Private J. Moyer had made at Vimy Ridge. We will deal with all of the issues, where possible, that have been raised.
There are a couple of contextual issues that go beyond half-masting. We are very aware in the department of the importance of Beaumont-Hamel. Five years ago, when Vimy Ridge was made a National Historic Site for Canada, at the same time, Beaumont-Hamel became a National Historic Site. Those are the only two First World War battles that have that status within the Canadian Memorial System. We undertake to support on every occasion that we can, through Parks Canada and National Historic Sites, the commemoration of Beaumont-Hamel.
The question that has been raised by members around the table is, ``Is this a precedent?'' I think the answer, honestly, is ``yes'' and ``no.'' Yes, in the sense that Parliament has never before legislated specifically the half-masting of the Canadian flag. Parliament has designated special days in the past, but without explicitly saying that the flag would be put at half-mast.
I say it is not a precedent in that you will see, in the context of the policy that you have before you, that on days like November 11 or December 8 — a day that Parliament has designated to commemorate violence committed against women — we have a half-masting of the Canadian flag. This is also the case on the day that Parliament has designated for workers killed in the workplace. The fair answer is ``yes'' and ``no.'' It is and it is not a precedent.
I hope that Mr. MacLeod's presentation will show that we do have a policy in place and that it will help in your deliberations.
Finally, someone asked the question, ``How often is the flag on the Peace Tower at half-mast?'' It varies each year. As you read the policy, you will see the reasons that we do it. The maximum that we have recorded in the last 10 years was 37 times in, I think, 1997; and the minimum was 14 times in 1993.
Senator Prud'homme: The first year was what?
Mr. Moyer: In 1997, the flag on the Peace Tower was at half-mast 37 times; and in 1993, it was 14 times. Half- masting occurs on the Peace Tower in response to a number of decisions that are implicit in that policy — Privy Councillors, important persons in the National Capital Region, former heads of state and government. We can never predict it in advance. There are only a few that are predictable.
If you would allow me, I would like to ask Mr. MacLeod to outline the nature of the policy, and then we will take some questions.
Mr. Kevin MacLeod, Manager, State Ceremonial and Protocol, Department of Canadian Heritage: I would like to address the specific issue of the half-masting policy and I will come to Senator Kenny's point at the end.
Following the introduction of the national flag by royal proclamation in 1965, the Pearson government, in 1966, introduced a series of general rules for flying and conducting business with the flag. Obviously, this constitutes the formal introduction of a half-masting policy.
Over the past four years, the profile of the flag has assumed a much larger importance in the minds and hearts of Canadians. As a result, there is growing interest in policy for half-masting our national flag. As the supreme demonstration of a collective sorrow, we often are contacted and inquiries are made with regard to exactly what the policy is and how it is implemented.
Canadians are showing greater interest in a half-masting policy. I cite the last example of the space shuttle disaster over the United States, where we received a number of calls about whether or not the national flag on the Peace Tower would be half-masted. In the context of this growing interest on the part of Canadians in general, a year and a half ago it was deemed timely to review the policy that had been instituted in 1966 and provide updating as appropriate.
In January of this year, the Prime Minister approved a new policy, which is primarily based on the 1966 policy. I believe the clerk has now distributed a copy of the new policy. It is also on our Web site, and we are making a determined effort to encourage Canadians to visit the Web site and to become more knowledgeable about the policy. Indeed, we will be promoting the half-masting policy in the context of our overall responsibility for the promotion of Canadian symbols, values and institutions.
By and large, the policy maintains the status quo from 1966 — the half-masting for death of the sovereign, MPs, senators, Privy Councillors, et cetera. The 1966 wording was fairly general. We have simply put it in more specific terms, so that when Canadians want to know where flags are half-masted, and for what duration, the terms are clearly set out. We are being much more specific in terms of the wording.
Having said that, there is the addition of four new days that are specifically referenced in the document. Mr. St. Denis has referred to at least two of them. In 1991, by act of Parliament, we created the National Day of Mourning for people killed or injured in the workplace. As Mr. Moyer indicated, those bills did not have a specific half-masting element to them when they passed Parliament. Prime Minister Brian Mulroney instructed the department to integrate this action into the existing policy, which is to say the flag was half-masted for that day. This applies both to April 28 and December 6, which is the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women. As a sidebar, in the year 2001, the half-masting regulation for these two days was extended beyond the Peace Tower to include all federal buildings and establishments across the country.
The next addition was the last Sunday in September, by proclamation of the Governor General in 1998, establishing Police and Police Officers National Memorial Day. As you know, it is held here on Parliament Hill. As a result of that royal proclamation, we were instructed by Prime Minister Chrétien to integrate it into the policy; and the flag on the Peace Tower is flown at half-mast from sunrise to sunset on that particular day.
As an addendum to the November 11 policy, up until 1991, the flag on the Peace Tower was flown at half-mast from 11 o'clock to the termination of the ceremonies at the National War Memorial. In 1991, Prime Minister Brian Mulroney asked that the flag remain at half-mast for the entire day. Following the lead of April 28 and December 6, in 2001, the directive was broadened and the flags across the country are flown at half-mast from sunrise to sunset on November 11.
There are now four specific days referenced in the half-masting directives. I had indicated that, by and large, the directives reflect the 1966 guidelines. There are some add-ons in terms of discretionary power. If, for example, a member of the Armed Forces or the Royal Canadian Mounted Police were to be killed in the line of duty, the RCMP or National Defence did not have discretionary power to half-mast their flags upon that death. The new policy contains several clauses relating to discretionary power. Heads of government, departments, agencies and Crown corporations now have the discretionary power to lower their flags to half-mast if an employee dies in the line of duty, with certain conditions provided.
The same discretionary power has now been extended to heads of missions abroad. For example, if a senior official in the government of France were to die, and the French government were to put its flags at half-mast, the Canadian ambassador in Paris has the ability to follow suit, again with certain conditions attached. There were some additions to the policy during the last three or four years.
The Prime Minister has the discretionary power in the exercising of half-masting policy. Anything outside the prescribed guidelines that are in front of you resides with the Prime Minister to determine whether flags will be half- mast.
You may want to know a few examples of the types of things that would fall outside the purview of the existing conditions. I will cite just a few.
Flags were put at half-mast, Senator Forrestall will remember, for the Westray mine disaster in Nova Scotia in 1992 and for the death of former President Nixon was in 1994. As Mr. Moyer noted, 1997 was a very busy year in the context of the deaths of the Princess of Wales and Mother Teresa. Those two events constituted half-masting for the better part of two weeks. In 1998, the flag was half-masted upon the death of Madam Léger, the wife of the former governor general, for the bus victims in Quebec and those of the Swissair crash off the coast of Nova Scotia, and the return of the Unknown Soldier. The flag was half-masted after the terrorist attacks in 2001, and for the four Canadians killed in Afghanistan in 2002.
These are the types of half-mastings directives that would come from the Prime Minister to us. While the policy rests with the Prime Minister, the execution rests with the Department of Canadian Heritage. Once the determination has been made, we spread the word across the country and ensure that the half-masting is carried out.
I will briefly address Senator Kenny's terms of ``half-mast'' and ``half-staff.'' The Oxford English Dictionary is ambiguous about making a distinction between the two. I have had a number of discussions over the past number of years with heritage and history representatives at National Defence. They have explained to me the origin of the term used by the Royal Navy until the 19th century of the term used in requesting foreign vessels to dip their flags and larger policy of half-masting a flag.
Since Confederation, the Canadian term has been ``half-masting.'' Even National Defence uses the term ``half- masting'' when lowering their flags on land. It is, I guess, 50/50 call. The United States policy is to use the term ``half- staff.'' For many years now, the Canadian tradition has been to use the term ``half-mast'' whether it is on water or on land.
Senator Kenny: Mr. McIntyre, you are begging for an amendment to the bill, which I am sure you do not want.
Mr. MacLeod: I am just responding to the issue raised.
The Deputy Chairman: Did you have anything further to add before we go to questions?
Mr. MacLeod: No, that is fine.
The Deputy Chairman: I am not certain from the explanation of the policy that you have given us whether there is any situation, other than Prime Minister's discretionary power, where the flag would be flown only on the Peace Tower at half-mast.
Senator Kenny: Items a, b, c, and d in section 10 are regarding only the Peace Tower. Is that not correct?
Mr. MacLeod: Yes.
The Deputy Chairman: Is that for special days? That applies to all federal buildings, does it not?
Mr. Moyer: For the death of a Privy Councillor, the flag is lowered only on the Peace Tower. There are several categories for lowering the flag only on the Peace Tower.
The Deputy Chairman: We are not creating a precedent by doing this?
Mr. Moyer: No.
Mr. MacLeod: Another example is that Police Day is the Peace Tower only.
The Deputy Chairman: Do you feel that the issue of half-mast, half-staff has been fully canvassed by you? Are you satisfied with the continuation of the term ``half-mast?''
Mr. Moyer: We believe that the term ``half-masting'' is the term generally used in Canada?
Senator Kenny: It is used incorrectly.
Mr. Moyer: Common usage creates a correct usage.
The Deputy Chairman: Can we all agree that either can be used?
Mr. Moyer: Certainly as the senator pointed out, on behalf of Mr. St. Denis, ``half-mast'' is a good term to use since it is the one in the bill.
Senator Kenny: I have certainly heard of staffing something, but I have never hard of masting something.
Senator Forrestall: If an initiative in this regard were to be undertaken for a provincial premier, what process would be followed to bring it your attention?
Mr. MacLeod: If a premier were a member of the Privy Council, the action would be in accordance with the guidelines as stipulated for a member of the Privy Council.
The normal procedure is that if a province or territory half-masts their flags, we are in contact with the chief of protocol. I cite, for example, the recent death of the Honourable Ted Hole, spouse of the Alberta Lieutenant-Governor who passed away last week. We consulted the Province of Alberta. They indicated what their half-masting policy was going to be to honour his death. We verified the situation, and the Government of Canada, out of respect to him, followed suit.
Mr. Moyer: However, you did that only in Alberta.
Mr. MacLeod: That is correct.
Senator Forrestall: Do the protocol officers in the various provinces have at hand the policy for their direction?
Mr. MacLeod: They all have the national policy and they receive updated copies.
Senator Forrestall: That includes the step-by-step process that they should follow?
Mr. MacLeod: That is correct. I am in contact with the chiefs of protocol on an almost daily basis on a varied number of issues.
[Translation]
Senator Prud'homme: I have served in Parliament for the past 40 years. I have always kept a close eye on matters of protocol. A country without protocol leaves much to be desired.
Would it be possible to provide the clerk with a list of all of the times from 1990 to 2003 when the flag was flown at half-mast? You indicated that the flag was half-masted 14 times in 1993 and 37 times in 1997.
Mr. Moyer: We could give you a list of all such occasions over the past ten years.
Senator Prud'homme: That would do. Undoubtedly we will be seeing each other again shortly. I will have a number of suggestions to put to the Secretary of State. Would it be possible to contact you to get more information so that I can be better prepared to deal with other questions that might arise?
The Chairman: In connection with this bill?
Senator Prud'homme: Indeed, questions relating to protocol, among other things. Would it be easy to arrange a meeting with you?
Mr. Moyer: We could arrange a briefing for a group of members.
Senator Prud'homme: Is it difficult to arrange a briefing for one person?
Mr. Moyer: Just come by my office.
Senator Prud'homme: Regarding the documents we received, I have some concerns about the flag remaining at the half-mast position. It used to be that when a senator, minister or MP died, the flag would remain at half-mast until the funeral. I think we need to be reasonable. Some parliamentarians die and their funeral is held only a full month and a half later. Take, for example, the case of Senator Molson, a great gentleman.
[English]
He had his memorial a long time after.
I am concerned that the flag is lowered too often, so I will have to have consistency in this. There are three poles on the hill. The top one is the major pole, but there are two lower poles that are reserved for any head of state that comes. They are lowered. Whose responsibility is that?
Mr. MacLeod: The two poles, senator, are called ``guest poles.'' The responsibility of raising and lowering of flags on those poles falls to Public Works and Government Services Canada's chief of protocol. You are quite right that there are guidelines. For example, the Royal Union flag is to be flown on certain occasions, such as Commonwealth Day, Statute of Westminster Day, and Victoria Day. When visiting heads of government or state visit the hill, it falls under Parliament Hill protocol and the chief of protocol here. The guest pole to the east of the Centre Block is where the guest flag would be flown.
Senator Prud'homme: I say this for historical purposes. As you know, Senator Forrestall and I are the only surviving members of the original flag committee. You know we have two flags: One is known as the Canadian flag and the other is known as the Royal Union flag. For those of you who would like to know, the only way to have a Canadian flag was to swallow a double version in the same motion, as with the national anthem. It is one motion where you have to vote. One Liberal voted against the flag because he was for the Union Jack. Another Liberal member voted against the Union Jack because the Canadian flag was in it.
I am still very concerned. I am not sure what we will do in the Senate. There is so little time left. I wish to have a process. I will make a suggestion, if you will allow, that may help you for the future, if not in the next few days.
I was very pleased to see what the Honourable Senator came up with and I was going to ask if he would add a phrase when he reports back as a wish expressed here. I will not put a condition of delaying the bill, because I know now time is going by quickly. Using the rules, we could stop this for this year. Later, when you come to the bill, I will ask just one more thing.
The Deputy Chairman: I will ask for your suggestion. It is our intention, after the questions are concluded, to look at the bill and do a clause-by-clause to see how that goes. At the end of the clause-by-clause consideration, I will ask if any observations should be attached. Perhaps you could add to our discussion. I am giving you a little warning ahead of the time. Is that the end of your questions?
Senator Prud'homme: Yes, I do not want to abuse.
The Deputy Chairman: I thank Mr. Moyer and Mr. MacLeod for coming.
Senator Kenny: If we are going to attach a message when we report the bill, perhaps we could have their comments on that message. Rather than excuse them now, we will ask them to stay.
The Deputy Chairman: We will be finished here within the next 15 minutes.
Senator Prud'homme: You expect to be finished. If you do not, you will have to adjourn to another day.
The Deputy Chairman: Perhaps Senator Prud'homme has some suggested wording that he might talk to you about while I begin the next phase, if that is convenient? Am I holding you up too much by asking you to stay on for another 10 minutes?
Mr. Moyer: I can stay until 1:30.
Senator Prud'homme: We can only stay until then, because the Senate sits then.
The Deputy Chairman: Is it agreed that the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs continue a clause-by-clause examination?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chairman: For the record, that is a clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-227.
Senator Prud'homme: Do you intend to add something? Either you add something and I do not talk, or, if you think it is too difficult to add a recommendation, then I would talk. You would not get the bill today.
The Deputy Chairman: The normal procedure would be to deal with that once I see whether the bill as it stands is acceptable to the subcommittee. If they believe it is, then the question is whether I report it back, with or without comment? At that time, I would ask for your intervention and those of my colleagues as to whether there should be a comment. I should hope that by that time, you will have some wording that would be acceptable. Is that acceptable to proceed?
Senator Prud'homme: You may proceed.
The Deputy Chairman: Shall the preamble stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chairman: In your blue binders, you have the proposed bill. Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chairman: Shall clause 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Prud'homme: I would like to express my view. I do not vote and I cannot make a motion.
The Deputy Chairman: We are pleased to accommodate you, sir.
Senator Prud'homme: I would have preferred that this start next year and I will tell you why. I was very much taken by what Senator Poulin said.
Senator Poulin says it will be great. The way it is going, it will be lowered on April 9, with no educational information. Suddenly, boom, the flag will be lowered next April 9, without having even begun to inform schools and everybody of the reason for the big day. That is why I always hate rushing. As I say in the Senate, this is an order excluded in haste and precipitation. It will be done, bang. People will awake to it one morning, if it goes ahead as it seems, with no preparation.
I would have preferred to wait a year until we have a process. I will agree for April 9, but I would much prefer a longer period of discussion. I cannot make a suggestion here. I will make them in the full house. Nonetheless, I would have preferred it to start next year, so that we would pursue what Senator Poulin has said. It is very important across Canada to know what is going to happen in April.
New Speaker: There is nothing in the bill that says a start day. Shall Clause 3 carry?
Senator Prud'homme: It could have been an amendment, but I do not make amendments.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chairman: Shall clause 4 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chairman: Going back to clause 1, which we postponed, shall that now carry? Agreed.
The Deputy Chairman: Shall the preamble carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chairman: Shall the bill carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chairman: Carried.
On the question of observations, first of all, the concern was that there was not a set of rules. We have since heard from Mr. MacLeod and Mr. Moyer that there is a protocol that has been in existence for almost 30 years. Are there any observations to attach that we deem necessary for the bill?
Senator Kenny: Mr. Chairman, I think there would be some merit. There are some automatics in the policy as it stands now. There is not, however, a mechanism to add or subtract from the automatics. There is prime ministerial discretion, but no criteria as to why an event, person or occasion would be considered appropriate in the document that we received.
It is my view that the Senate may observe, in respect of Bill C-227, that an appropriate department should be instructed to examine criteria to determine additions and deletions from the existing list, how one might go about that process, and what the mechanics may be to accomplish the additions and deletions.
I do have any urge to be specific about the criteria but I would ask that those criteria be returned to this committee for further examination at some time in the future.
Senator Prud'homme: It sounds reasonable, for the moment.
The Deputy Chairman: Do we have any proposed wording for the observations?
Senator Kenny: I just spoke to that.
The Deputy Chairman: Would the members of the subcommittee authorize the Chair to develop, in writing, proposed observations along the lines of Senator Kenny's comments?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chairman: With those observations attached, shall I report the bill to the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence with the recommendation that it report Bill C-227 to the Senate without amendment but with observations?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chairman: That concludes this matter. We have consensus. We thank all of our guests.
The committee adjourned.