HERI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CANADIAN HERITAGE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU PATRIMOINE CANADIEN

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, October 18, 2001

• 0908

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)): I hereby open the meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, which is meeting today to study Bill S-14, An Act respecting Sir John A. Macdonald Day and Sir Wilfrid Laurier Day.

[Translation]

The committee is examining Bill S-14, an Act respecting Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier Day.

[English]

This was referred to the committee by the House on September 28, 2001.

Before I give the floor to our two witnesses, the Hon. John Lynch-Staunton from the Senate and our colleague John Godfrey from Don Valley West, who sponsored the bill in the House, I'd like to mention that we received a notice of motion from Roger Gallaway that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, in response to the letter of September 7, 2001, under the signature of CRTC Chairman David Colville, in which he extends an offer to the standing committee and its members to appear before it this fall, reciprocated by inviting CRTC Chair Colville to discuss his understanding of the proper constitutional relationship between Parliament, these committees, and federal commissions and their respective roles.

I should mention to Mr. Gallaway and to members that I received a telephone call from Mr. Colville yesterday—I believe some members called—and he was extremely apologetic. He told me he was writing us a letter saying it was a total misunderstanding. He appreciates that, of course, the committee doesn't go to the CRTC, but the CRTC will be pleased to appear before the committee.

So knowing this, you will decide anyway. There's a notice of motion.

• 0910

The second thing I wanted to mention is that you have received copies of a letter written to us by several interveners regarding the cable fund, the Canadian Television Fund. It's written

[Translation]

in French and English,

[English]

dated October 16, 2001, and was sent in by a large number of different people from the broadcasting industry. I suggest that you look at it again, and maybe next Tuesday we can take a few minutes to discuss whether we can follow this up and how.

We are very pleased to see—

Mr. Dennis Mills (Toronto—Danforth, Lib.): Mr. Chairman—

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Dennis Mills: —if I may speak just before we begin with our witnesses, I'll be very short. I'd like to report to you on behalf of the committee. I know you made an intervention with the CBC for them to consider support for the Music Without Borders event that is taking place next week at the Air Canada Centre. You were going to get the CBC to cooperate in this international event. I must report to you that I heard last night that the CBC has decided not to collaborate. It's important that the committee know that because we've always been pretty passionate supporters of the CBC, yet here's a very important event for peace, one where all these Canadian artists have given of their time for nothing to raise money for our friends in New York and other places. I'll just leave that with you.

The Chair: I'll definitely get back to the CBC, and if members can do likewise, I think that would be a good idea.

Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Chairman, I had received communication directly from the Canadian Association of Broadcasters with respect to the letter you were just speaking about. It was my impression that what they were looking for was, whatever the proper procedure might be, agreement by the committee to suggest to the finance minister that the funding for the cable production fund remain in place since there is an outside possibility that the finance minister will choose to present a budget this fall. They were hoping this would occur fairly quickly.

I'm not prepared to make a motion. I don't know what the details would be. I'm just saying that I'm wondering if, once we've disposed of Bill S-14, we might want to consider how we could respond to that request. In particular, considering that the finance minister may indeed be looking at the possibility of doing a budget, this kind of information would be better made available sooner than later.

The Chair: The point is well taken, Mr. Abbott. That's why I referred to this letter today, just in case members haven't had a chance to make up their minds about this. It would have to come by way of a recommendation or a motion by the committee to ask that the cable television fund stay in place regardless of any budget that might come down. That's why I suggested that they might take the opportunity to look at it again, and we could address it briefly next Tuesday before we start on Bill C-10. If members could just look at these letters, then we'll make up our minds next week on how to approach it.

[Translation]

Today we are very pleased to welcome Senator John Lynch-Staunton, who initiated the bill before us today, and Mr. John Godfrey, the member for Don Valley West, who tabled the bill in the House of Commons.

[English]

The floor is yours, Senator Lynch-Staunton.

[Translation]

Senator John Lynch-Staunton (Grandville, PC): Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me to participate in this meeting in order to follow the progress of this bill before you. I really appreciate it.

[English]

I don't have any prepared statement since I followed the course very carefully for the three hours this bill was given in the House of Commons. The speakers, with no exceptions, spoke very eloquently about the bill and its purpose, so anything I would add would be superfluous.

Let me though insist again, because there seems to be still some confusion, that the bill does not provide for a paid holiday, that is, a statutory holiday as such. It provides for two days of recognition of two great prime ministers.

• 0915

I only hope that once this bill is passed and given royal assent, Canadian Heritage in particular will take the lead in making the preparations and doing the necessary work in order that, when the first day approaches, Canadians will be made aware of it and likewise when the second day approaches for the first time. Then over the years more and more Canadians can get involved federally, provincially, and locally through rotary clubs and all sorts of organizations, for example historical associations, so over the years these two days will take on very special significance.

As so many speakers said in the House, not only will these days make us aware of two great Canadians, but they'll make us aware of the origins of our country through the key figure at Confederation and the key figure during the early years of Canada's evolution. As you all know, Sir Wilfrid faced crisis upon crisis and in most cases surmounted them with distinction and grace.

The last thing I'd like to say, Mr. Chairman and members, is that in doing research for this bill, my office found that there is really no rhyme or reason in the selection of days to be included or excluded from various calendars. I'll give you some examples. Canadian Heritage has information about the Workers Mourning Day Act, but it doesn't appear on its calendar. National Flag of Canada Day was declared by the prime minister, and one wonders under what authority the prime minister can unilaterally declare a day. A national heritage day is recognized by Heritage Canada but still lacks legislative underpinning.

Various departments declare days, weeks, and themes. It's just one on top of the other, and I think you will agree this takes away from the significance of declaring days, weeks, and themes because there's no coordinating mechanism to sort things out and give prominence to those that deserve prominence. I just bring that to your attention, Mr. Chairman and members, and if you want to look into it further, I'll be glad to forward the information I have here and take it from there.

Thank you again for allowing me to say these few words before you.

The Chair: Thank you, Senator.

Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It's certainly an odd experience for me being in this chair, having been in yours, having been over there, and indeed having started out over there with Roger Gallaway—

A voice: Do things come full circle?

Mr. John Godfrey: Mr. Abbott and I go back a ways as well.

I wonder if this allows me, because I'm also a member at the table, to ask myself questions and then to vigorously disagree with myself. I'll try to avoid that.

Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): It's the answers that will concern us.

Mr. John Godfrey: Mr. Chair, I was thinking of a friendly amendment. I haven't discussed this with my co-sponsor here, but we could just tack on a clause 4 for the mandatory labelling of genetically modified food. Perhaps I'd be pushing my luck after what happened last night. Anything is possible, of course, around this crazy place.

The point I'd like to make is that in a previous incarnation, when I served on this committee as parliamentary secretary to the Minister for Canadian Heritage, one of the projects I was tasked with at the time was to institute something called the Path of Heroes. The specific goals were of course to promote greater recognition of heroes in Canadian history within the capital and indeed across the country.

It was also understood that, apart from statues and other forms of recognition, there should also be a program in Canadian Heritage that was educational and that supported the concept of recognizing those great people from the past, people from all walks of life who have made a significant contribution to Canada. It's certainly astonishing that, when you look at our calendar of national days, we don't recognize our heroes, specifically our founders. It's interesting that the Americans seem to do this much better with things like Martin Luther King Jr. Day and that sort of thing.

I think it's also important that we not generalize as they have now done in the United States with Presidents' Day. We should recognize specific, heroic personalities, people whose lives changed the country irrevocably for the better, creating the country in the first instance and sustaining it in the second, in the case of Sir Wilfred Laurier.

• 0920

So it's with great pleasure that I associate myself with Senator Lynch-Staunton, whose project this is. I have to give absolute recognition that this initiative comes from him and from the Senate. As a member of the other party involved, I am pleased to support it, but I do want to recognize the primacy of this initiative coming from the Senate and from this specific senator.

I think I will stop there, and we will answer questions, if there are any.

The Chair: Thank you.

I will now open the meeting to questions.

Ms. Bulte—sorry, Mr. Abbott. I apologize.

Mr. Jim Abbott: No problem.

I think this is a very good bill. Certainly taking a look at the two people who are being honoured, I can find absolutely no question whatsoever.

Perhaps you could help me with this, because it actually tacks onto what Mr. Godfrey just said, but my concern is not about this bill—as a matter of fact, I'm very favourably inclined toward it—but what comes next. In other words, indeed, Mr. Godfrey, in the fact that there are many people in the history of Canada who have given us the great nation we have, where do we start and where do we stop?

I think it's appropriate that we should have this bill honouring these two men, but then, next year, do we come back and do we ultimately get to somebody who is Rick Hansen, or Terry Fox, or General McNaughton, or General Currie? I could go down the whole list of people who have made Canada, and continue to make Canada, the great nation it is. How do we start, and how do we stop? If someone were to ask, if we start here, are we going to be looking at more and more acts of this type, how do we answer that question?

Mr. John Godfrey: In the first instance, as regards a specific day that is being established by a votable bill, which is what this is, I suspect the difficulties of getting any such bill passed through two Houses suggests that there would be a somewhat self-limiting process. But beyond that, we have to remember that there are various ways in which we honour and recognize Canadians, and for each of those different ways there is a different mechanism of selection. I'll give you two examples.

One is the way in which we honour people through postage stamps. There, although I cannot recall the detail, there is a whole process of review to make sure we're not going to honour somebody who turns out to be embarrassing or there's something that will be such a controversy that it will detract from the purpose of honouring them.

Similarly, I mentioned earlier the Path of Heroes project. I don't know whether people know, but here in the capital the National Capital Commission has a whole process for reviewing ways in which we commemorate people, whether it's a statue, a plaque, or some other way. In fact, there's a rationale for the way in which they're doing it in the capital, so that down on Sussex Drive near the Pearson Building, for example, we tend to honour international figures. Obviously here on Parliament Hill we honour monarchs and past prime ministers.

My conclusions from that are, first of all, this bill and national days are not the only way in which we honour Canadians, and secondly, for those other ways, there are established processes.

I want to pick up on what my colleague said, though, because I think it might be an idea should the committee choose to pass this bill. Once the bill has gone through, it might be useful to write to the Department of Canadian Heritage and inquire as to the ways in which they intend to make sure there is an appropriate follow-up every year so that we just don't lose this by inattention. I think that's the point Senator Lynch-Staunton was making.

The Chair: Senator, would you like to address the same question?

Senator John Lynch-Staunton: Mr. Abbott's query has been brought up a number of times. Are we opening the floodgates here? I say no. I think common sense prevails.

The people he has mentioned, and others, are certainly deserving of honours. But this is the highest honour Parliament can give, and there are very few Canadians who are eligible for that kind of honour. There are also gradations in the Order of Canada, or postage stamps, or whatever.

• 0925

Mr. John Godfrey: Honorary citizenships, such as you were about to give to Nelson Mandela.

Senator John Lynch-Staunton: Yes, honorary citizenships.

So I think self-discipline is always at work here.

Mr. Jim Abbott: In conclusion, if I could bounce off what Mr. Godfrey just said, although Reform and now the Canadian Alliance have always been a party that has been noted for saying, let's not spend any money, I think spending a little bit on coming up with specific curriculum packages about these two men and making them available to our schools at a learning level that would introduce these great people to elementary, junior high, and high school at an appropriate teaching level would probably be useful.

The Chair: Thank you.

[Translation]

Do you have a question, Ms. Gagnon?

Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Quebec, BQ): No, but I do not believe that I'm going to be able to consent to such a bill. I feel that this is a willy-nilly celebration reflecting tensions that exist within the two founding peoples. Perhaps we do not read history the same way, nor do we share the same point of view with respect to the impact of their political action.

We are fully aware of the fact that these two individuals played a major role in the assimilation of francophones outside Quebec. We are fully cognizant of the fact that they could have been much more courageous in terms of the action they took with respect to francophone communities and the hanging of Louis Riel.

If they had truly been ardent advocates of the two founding peoples, perhaps I would change my position. In my opinion, this is akin to adding fuel to the fire. We are fully aware of the fact that there is a very strong sovereignist movement in Quebec, despite what polls may tell us at certain times. This will rekindle an interest in this page of history on both sides, which suits you, and I can respect that, but which does not suit those who view this page in history in a different light. Naturally, the ramifications were far more serious for Canada's francophones and their rights.

We know what kind of attitude these two persons, these two prime ministers, had with respect to the decentralization of powers and respect for the other provinces. We realize that we voted for Sir Wilfrid Laurier, but we did so thinking that he would proceed with some decentralization. We were taken in, to some extent, given the objective that he pursued right from the start. Once elected, he continued along the same path taken by John A. Macdonald, which was to create a highly centralized Canada. Even some federalists are now questioning this heavily centralized federalist system, where provinces are hampered in their efforts to administer and implement changes desired by their citizens.

We have made two statements in the House of Commons and we will stick by them.

The Chair: Thank you. Do you wish to make any comments?

Senator John Lynch-Staunton: I read the two statements. I both heard and read them. Obviously, I do not agree. We have to be very careful when we assess and question action that was taken decades ago. We must try to put ourselves back in time and remember what the conditions people were working under were like and how society was back then.

It is unfair to evaluate measures taken 50, 60 or 80 years ago based on today's standards. We must not try to revise history too much. I do not want to get into this debate. Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the French-Canadian people at that time were completely different from Jean Chrétien and the French-Canadian people of today, and the same thing can be said about English Canada.

• 0930

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: But we should consider the observation made by the Commissioner of Official Languages with respect to the role of francophones. There is no political will as far as they are concerned. There have also been numerous recommendations and observations made with respect to the development of the francophone community outside of Quebec.

Senator John Lynch-Staunton: You are talking about today.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Yes, I am talking about today. The situation has not changed a great deal. While we might think that history has changed, it's the same battle and we see the same frustration amongst the francophone minority in Canada. Why, in Quebec, do we hold on so tightly to what we have acquired and why are we compelled to pass laws? It is because our situation is so fragile. Moreover, we have seen that this has not always been a priority for all of the francophone prime ministers who have been elected here, to the Canadian Parliament.

This is the reason that the Bloc Québécois was elected to this Parliament. Over the past eight years, I can tell you that we too have experienced a great deal of frustration. Through our daily presence, we want to show that there are two peoples here, in Canada, and that these two peoples do not have the same tools to be able to develop at the same pace. At any rate, let us say that I do not view history as you do.

The Chair: I think we will let the matter lie there. I do not think that we should get involved in a political debate today. The issues were well defined in the House. We will therefore leave the matter there because we have many questions.

We will now give the floor to Ms. Bulte and Mr. Harvard.

[English]

Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Lynch-Staunton, I was very interested in your comments about how to coordinate the days and the events. You spoke about Heritage Day. If you try to find information about Heritage Day, you actually go to Heritage Canada Foundation, which is separate and apart from Heritage Day, when Heritage Canada Foundation celebrates it, and it's actually quite confusing.

What are your recommendations in that regard? You spoke in your opening statement about the information. I think it's something we really need to look at as well. How do we coordinate these things? How do we ensure the days are present? How do we ensure that the information is distributed ahead of time and not lost in the mix of things? I would welcome your recommendations.

Senator John Lynch-Staunton: Well, I'm not an expert on how to follow up on this, except I'm sure that Canadian Heritage, historians, and others, have all the information available. It's a question of coordinating it, and as Mr. Abbott says, having the funds necessary to disseminate it, having follow-ups and speakers appear in front of Canadian clubs and rotary clubs, going to schools and universities, and over the years getting everybody involved.

But somebody has to take the lead on it, and I think the federal government, through Canadian Heritage, is the obvious one, because it is the one coordinating body that I believe has the most expertise in these sorts of manifestations.

The Chair: I think it would be a good idea to have the Hansard of this discussion sent through you as parliamentary secretary to Canadian Heritage to make sure there's a follow-up, that there's some thought given to coordination at the level of assistant deputy ministers, that this will be studied.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: I'd be delighted to do that, but I think we're provided a wonderful opportunity with this bill—

The Chair: I know.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: —not just for these new days, but for the previous days and how to indeed coordinate it, and not just get it to the public, but even to our own parliamentarians.

That's the first step. I definitely will do that.

The Chair: Sure.

Mr. Harvard.

Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't know whether I have a question; I think I'll probably come to one. But I want to make a couple of comments.

First of all, I fully support the bill. I'm happy to have the witnesses here. I don't think we should allow the politics of the day or the last few decades to get in the way, to enter into these discussions. I think the bill, rightly so, is a way of paying tribute and honouring very special Canadians at a particular time, special Canadians who provided great leadership for what now is one of the great countries in the world.

I do hope that out of this will come some kind of annual celebration. I think bills or honours of this kind can help Canadians learn more about their history and what has gone into making this country what it is. So I would hope that Heritage Canada and perhaps others will use this vehicle, this mechanism, to do just that.

• 0935

If I have a question, I suppose it relates perhaps to what Mr. Abbott has already raised. I certainly agree with the senator that discretion is the best way to go. Generations of Canadians can decide on their own how best to honour people of the past. I don't think we have to set down rules. Canadians are driven generally by common sense and practicality, and they're not going to rush out and offer these kinds of honours to perhaps people who are, say, still living, or people who might be considered marginal at best. So I think that's best left to the generations to come.

I think it would be implicit, if not in the bill at least in these discussions, that these are posthumous honours and that these are honours that go to people who've been gone from the scene for a good many years. We always need the lessons of history to make these kinds of determinations. I don't think we should be rushing out two or three years after someone has passed on. It's best that we wait perhaps several decades. I'm not suggesting that we have rules of that kind, but again, I think this is where the common sense of Canadians and of our Parliament would come into play.

I don't think there's any doubt in my mind, given my limited understanding of Canadian history, that Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier certainly have stood the test of time and are deserving of this kind of recognition.

But maybe my question to John or to the senator is, if we are implicitly setting some kind of bar, where do we set that bar?

Maybe I've already answered my own question, that we really don't set the bar but just leave it to others to determine. I think the bar we have set in this bill, in that we're recognizing two very special people in Canadian history, is a pretty high one. It's not going to be easily matched, and it won't be matched very often.

If you have any comment, John, go ahead.

Mr. John Godfrey: I would agree with what you've just said. It seems to me, if I dare use the parallel of American history, that we're talking about our Washington and our Lincoln. I think the simple test is, if someone were to propose some other name, it has to run the gauntlet in two Houses. I trust the common sense of both our chamber and the one that is characterized by sober second thought—or in this case, sober first thought, because it started there. I don't know if we should be using that in terms of Sir John A. Macdonald, but anyway...

The Chair: I have Mr. McNally, and then Mr. Bonwick.

Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, PC/DR): Thanks, Mr. Chair. I'm not sure I have a question. I have just three brief comments.

First of all, I'd like to congratulate my colleague in the coalition and Senator Lynch-Staunton for this great idea, and Mr. Godfrey for bringing it forward.

As a former teacher, I appreciate Mr. Abbott's suggestion as well of coordinating some materials. Teachers are often inundated with information, just as we are as members, and so I would suggest that there be a way to coordinate that effectively so that the information gets to the right venue, that it can get to the teachers in a coordinated way so that it can be shared and not just sit around the staff room and gather dust, because it's very important to promote both of these individuals as great Canadians.

As another comment, quite surprisingly, I think January 11 is Prime Minister Chrétien's birthday as well. Did you guys know that?

Mr. John Godfrey: I wouldn't admit it if I knew it.

Mr. Grant McNally: Perhaps in 100 years from now there may be another committee discussing the same issue, adding another prime minister onto the list.

Senator John Lynch-Staunton: A double header.

Mr. Grant McNally: It's just an interesting note.

Thirdly, I had the opportunity to go to Province House in Charlottetown this past summer. Stepping out of my skin as a member of Parliament and just being an average Canadian with my family, being in that place was much more moving than I thought it would be—to be in the place where our country began, and to consider the incredible vision that was shown by Sir John A. Macdonald and the others around the Confederation table, and by Sir Wilfrid Laurier later on.

• 0940

I would hope that by establishing these days we can send a message of the importance of our country to our current citizens, and also to our youth, because we do really have a great country. Regardless of our political differences and concerns that come up between us, we've always found a way to work it out within a positive framework.

I want to commend both of you for your good work in this. I fully support your bill.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. McNally.

Mr. Bonwick.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: First, I say thanks through the chair to witnesses.

I can appreciate, perhaps more than others in some respects, the passion that goes into trying to enact a piece of law like this. I have one underway myself. My concerns are going to centre on those that Mr. Abbott brought forward as well.

I have a bill that has had its first reading in the House, and it's an act to establish September 3 as Merchant Navy Veterans Day, not only for the thousands and thousands of both anglophone and francophone Canadians who have served in the various conflicts in which Canada has been engaged, but the tens of thousands of lives that were lost, or that paid the ultimate price in order to ensure that we have a free and democratic country. That day has been established in other countries, Great Britain being one.

I don't know if at the end of the day, after the discussion in Parliament in both Houses, it will stand that test or not. It received unanimous consent at its first reading. I had to ask for this in order to bring it forward in the House, and it received it at that particular time.

Senator, you mentioned, in response to Mr. Abbott, that there are very few who actually will meet the test of the likes of Sir John A. or Sir Wilfrid Laurier, but there are a few. And how many is a few? I can think of three or four in my mind who would be comparable, or meet the test, or get to that height.

So my question is, how do we engage that when we are talking, legitimately, about an additional four at least? Has there been any assessment done in other countries that have adopted a similar policy? For example, the United States, if you want to talk about Lincoln and Washington, or the U.K. Have there been any assessments done where this has become, for lack of a better description, somewhat of a feeding frenzy for those who wish to put forward Jane Smith or John Doe as the next day?

Senator John Lynch-Staunton: I'm not aware of the pattern in other countries.

In the United States, as you know, it's either the Congress or any of the states, because there are national holidays and there are state holidays.

As to the criteria, someone mentioned waiting a few decades, and there are other criteria we could establish. I think it's just common sense and case by case. I think instinctively you can say yes.

Mr. Abbott mentioned General McNaughton, General Currie, Terry Fox, and others who are deserving of recognition, but at this level? I'm not going to start that debate. All of them are extraordinary people, but they didn't click far enough, fast enough, or hard enough to say they deserve a special day of this nature.

Merchant Navy Day is interesting. If it gets to the Senate, I'm sure Elsie Wayne will be in my office until the day it's passed, so have no fear there.

The United States have highlighted two or three days, particularly for Jefferson and Washington. The others are known as Presidents' Day. Maybe we could think of having a Prime Ministers' Day as such, although Mr. Godfrey wasn't too in favour of that.

• 0945

I think in time, maybe 50 years from now, Mr. Trudeau will certainly have his day, but is it time today when he's such a controversial figure to get into that debate? I think time has to go by, emotions have to die off, and future generations can look at these people of today more dispassionately than we would look at Mr. Trudeau today. So I don't have a direct answer. I think it's case by case.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: It is of concern, and I say that simply because I recognize in some small way the contribution that these two individuals made to our country and I'm grateful for it. But I'm not talking about some generals who have made a huge contribution, or Terry Fox, who has raised the profile of a horrific disease and in turn lots of money. What I'm talking about is Pearson.

I think it could be argued that especially today, when we are experiencing the times we presently are, with the need for international cooperation and for the planet as a whole to come together, Pearson might very well be entitled to a day of recognition.

Mr. John Harvard: How about King?

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Just so you understand that I convey my thoughts and respect to... I think, legitimately, you can't name a dozen in Canadian history. I think, legitimately, you could likely name four beyond the two you've already identified, and that raises concern. It's not that it in any way diminishes what we're trying to accomplish in paying heed to these two individuals, but do we have six calendar days throughout the year within the next two years to give credit to those individuals? This is something that does concern me.

The Chair: Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey: I have a couple of points. The first is, of course, and I say this doffing my hat as a parliamentarian and putting on one of my previous career hats as a historian, that history is a dynamic process in two obvious ways. First of all, the notion that one could limit in a particular date the number of days to honour great people, men or women, would rather imply that there aren't going to be any after this date. At least we can hope this will not be the case, that we will have other people to think about.

Second, it is with the tincture of time that we come to appreciate people's true value historically, and that's why there are rules about putting up statues and all that sort of thing; it can't be done in your lifetime.

Third, we have lots of other ways of honouring people. We have named a major airport after Prime Minister Pearson. Even when those controversies take place as they did with Mount Logan, maybe that was a useful controversy, because it reminded us of who Sir William Logan was. All of this is to say that I think it's happily not the task or the concern of this committee to try to come up with some finite number of dates, because that would imply the end of history, and that book has already been written.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: I wasn't suggesting that.

Mr. John Godfrey: I think you have a—

Mr. Paul Bonwick: But it has to be part of your consideration in supporting the bill as to how many potential other days are going to be set aside and is that realistic in considering it. I know there are many ways, but this is the highest.

Mr. John Godfrey: I think there are all sorts of practical issues, but the one limiting factor is that there's only one first Prime Minister of Canada.

The Chair: Could we go on to the questions, Monsieur Duplain and Mr. Gallaway.

[Translation]

Mr. Duplain.

Mr. Claude Duplain (Portneuf, Lib.): I would like to say that I support the bill and congratulate all of those who wanted to take part in it. I believe that these two individuals were pioneers in the building of Canada, and this is what I am agreeing to. This is also what most Quebeckers understand today.

Earlier you said that we had to judge these individuals in accordance with the time during which they lived and not based on today's events. While my colleague opposite may have these reservations and view the Quebec people as a minority people, I can tell you that, when it comes to nation-building, most Quebeckers view themselves as a majority people.

• 0950

Francophones constitute the majority in Quebec, and in Canada, Quebec is the province where there are the most francophones. When I work with anglophones from the other provinces in building Canada, I do not feel whatsoever as though I'm in a minority situation.

Given the way that Canada has progressed, I would like to congratulate you for having presented Bill S-14, which honours these two individuals who built Canada.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Gallaway.

Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.): I too want to say that I'm certainly supportive of this.

Either to Mr. Lynch-Staunton or Mr. Godfrey, let me say there are, I think, 14 deceased prime ministers. One of them resides in Great Britain.

Mr. John Godfrey: So to speak.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: So to speak, yes.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Conrad Black.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Roger Gallaway: Excuse me, Mr. Abbott, that's “Lord” to you.

You may know that, up until three years ago, the Department of Canadian Heritage and the official—what is it?—monuments and historic sites—

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Historic Sites and Monuments.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: —Historic Sites and Monuments board—I ended up backwards—were opposed to naming any of them as national historic sites. In fact the only historic site was the burial place of Sir John A. MacDonald, which ironically was declared to be such because of Prime Minister Mackenzie King in the 1930s.

The story is that, at that time, there were a group of partisans of a particular political party who wanted to have a fund to preserve it in perpetuity. They couldn't raise the money because of the Depression, so Prime Minister King, who happened to be of the opposite political persuasion, went ahead and did it. It was viewed, in historical papers, as being an embarrassment to the Conservative Party.

Three years ago they all became national historic sites and are maintained by Parks Canada. There's a website. There are a number of publications around former prime ministers that are widely disseminated to schools.

I think this is a great idea. We have been reticent to even talk about our past, let alone about leaders in public life and politics in this country. I'm wondering if you can say anything about feedback from the Department of Canadian Heritage. It's a great Canadian way to honour all, as opposed to some. We are excluding 12. I certainly agree with what you've had to say. I'm not trying to be mischievous here.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Oh, yes, right.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: Be quiet, sir.

What do we do about the other 12? I know this question is an echo of what has already been said, but we have 12 others. Do you see this as a first step? Do you see this as a step-by-step program?

Senator John Lynch-Staunton: I limited my interest to the two in particular.

I must say, Mr. Gallaway, it's nice to hear you support a bill from the Senate.

Voices: Hear, hear!

Mr. Grant McNally: Touché.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: Believe me, it's an aberration.

Senator John Lynch-Staunton: If you have one on the way to us, it will receive more sympathy than in previous times.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: Thank you.

Senator John Lynch-Staunton: Again, this is a very informative and helpful discussion as to where we go from here.

As far as I'm concerned, I don't think we should go anywhere from here. I think we should digest this one, to put it in terms like that, although they're probably not very polite. We should work with what we have now—what we are going to approve, I hope—and see over the years whether some should be added on, or whether this is enough, or whether there should be a collective Prime Ministers' Day.

Certainly the burial sites constitute an excellent way of attracting attention, because Heritage Canada does a good job of drawing the public's attention...

I wrote a letter to the minister on this and have not received a reply. Maybe the parliamentary secretary has had information on how the department is reacting to this. I hope she can confirm that they will support this.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Is that the next question?

Senator John Lynch-Staunton: I'm not supposed to have a question, but since Mr. Gallaway opened the door, I had to step through it.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: The minister is fully supportive of this legislation and gives her unconditional support.

Senator John Lynch-Staunton: That's what I wanted to hear. Thank you.

• 0955

The Chair: I have three more questioners. With your consent, I think we should stop after this and go on to clause-by-clause.

I have Madame Gagnon, Mr. Tirabassi, and Mr. Abbott. Then we'll close the questioning and go on from there.

[Translation]

Ms. Gagnon.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: My question is of a technical, not a political nature.

You said that you had asked Heritage Canada to look after the management of these two days.

Senator John Lynch-Staunton: Not the management, but the co-ordination.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: The co-ordination will therefore be the responsibility of Heritage Canada.

Senator John Lynch-Staunton: I think that it would be natural to start there.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Will Heritage Canada have to look after the cost of these days?

Senator John Lynch-Staunton: At the start, yes, but I think that in time we will have to get local associations and other provinces involved. They may be interested, for educational purposes, in using these days as an opportunity to educate students about what these two famous individuals did and about the history at that time.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: You were the two sponsors of the bill. What would happen if other names were submitted? Do you have a committee which is more permanent or is this a personal initiative? If we were to decide to commemorate another great Canadian individual by establishing a specific day, who would initiate it? You have not foreseen just where this could go. You may have started something, here.

Senator John Lynch-Staunton: I do not know if this is a beginning, or if this is a beginning and the end. As far as I am concerned, I think that we should acknowledge these two individuals. If other people want to add other names, they will do so. I am confining myself to these two individuals and this is where I stop.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Gagnon.

[English]

Mr. Tirabassi, and Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.): Thank you Mr. Chairman. I'd just like to offer my support for this bill, the first bill of this nature. The accomplishments of these two former great prime ministers aside, the fact that one was the first prime minister and the other the first prime minister of French ancestry would certainly make it appropriate to recognize those two first.

I had the same concerns that have been asked and addressed around the table. Where is the bar set from here? I really think what will happen—and that will be determined by how Canadians embrace these two days... Ten or fifteen or twenty years from now, providing Canada Heritage has done some promotion on this, whether through our schools and our communities, or, as I believe was mentioned, through service clubs, if that has properly been done and Canadians truly embrace these two holidays five or ten years from now—

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Not holidays.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Not holidays. I'm sorry, I didn't mean it—that will determine in the future how difficult it would be to get others on the list.

If, for instance, a national parade evolves on one of these two days or both of these days, if indeed they become part of the school curriculum, that in itself will raise the bar for future additions to this list.

However, if twenty to thirty years from now—and I hope this doesn't happen—they are just two days that are printed on some calendars and left off others, with little or no recognition, then I would imagine the bar has been set much lower. I think the future will tell.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Tirabassi.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: But I do support the bill.

The Chair: Mr. Abbott. Then we'll close, and the questioning will end.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Thank you Mr. Chairman.

I'm just going to make a general suggestion for our consideration. While I totally disagree with the position of Ms. Gagnon with respect to her concern about Sir Wilfrid Laurier and his position in history, nonetheless, I do respect her opinion—in other words, her right to have that opinion.

I think one of the interesting things we have here is that whereas Sir Wilfrid Laurier concluded his time as prime minister in 1911—that is, 90 years ago—it's interesting even 90 years later, with some of the issues remaining, that we still have a degree of controversy.

• 1000

I would suggest, in response to Mr. Gallaway's discussion about the fact that there are 14 more, or whatever the number was, that we have to have a lot of time between the demise of the individual and the termination of that individual's influence on Canadian history. We have to have a lot of time in this very, very young country before we can exercise some wisdom as to whether we should be recognizing them or not.

Right now, I suspect there wouldn't be an awful lot of enthusiasm, for example, for R.B. Bennett. That's our perspective right now, isn't it? There might even be people—and I say this with the greatest of respect, because I have such a high esteem not only for what Lester Pearson did in Canada but for what he did as a citizen of the world—and indeed there probably are people in Canada who might have some difficulty with Mr. Pearson, who perhaps were very staunch supporters of Mr. Diefenbaker. They would want, then, to put his name forward.

I think the conclusion we've arrived at as a committee is that while it's timely and probably there's going to be majority support for this bill from the committee, this, in terms of establishing days especially for prime ministers, would nonetheless be the end of the issue, at least for an extended period of time moving forward. That's just a suggestion I have for the committee, and for posterity when people are looking at whether committees would be favourably inclined to take a look at subsequent prime ministers.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Abbot.

This will conclude the questions and comments. I thank witnesses very much for appearing and for their initiative in regard to Bill S-14. You are most welcome to stay for the clause-by-clause. As you know, it's a very long process.

Mr. John Godfrey: Mr. Chairman, we were talking about the correct position.

The Chair: It's right there, Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey: Oh!

The Chair: Okay, we'll proceed with the clause-by-clause. It shouldn't be very long, as you can observe.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of the preamble and clause 1 is postponed. We will therefore start with clause 2.

(Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to on division)

(Clause 1 agreed to on division)

The Chair: Shall the preamble carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: On division.

[English]

The Chair: Shall the title carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: On division.

[English]

The Chair: Shall the bill carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: On division.

[English]

The Chair: Shall I report the bill to the House?

Mr. Roger Gallaway: You better believe it.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Without amendment?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Mr. John Harvard: Without any resistance.

The Chair: Shall the committee order a reprint for use at report stage?

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: We don't need one.

The Chair: No, we don't need one.

That's it. Thank you very much to all.

The meeting is adjourned to the call of the chair.